edwinr Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I accept what you're saying Eric. Correctly setup, a multi channel music system SHOULD take us to another level in music appreciation. What the issue is with me, is that there is overkill with the use of the 'other' channels at the moment. Out of my SACD collection, maybe 10% make correct use of the centre and rear channels. Many producers seem to take the stand that "if we have extra channels" let's use them to the fullest extent - thus spoiling the effect. I have a quasi hafler decoder which I built a few years ago with a spare two channel power amp and rear speakers. Every so often I switch this system in for 2 channel CD music. And with my Klipschorns, I am rewarded with a fine rear acoustic which compliments the mains quite nicely. This is the sort of acoustic I expect out of discrete multi channel - in time I think I'll get it. I think you are doing the right thing by experimenting. I spent a few years and lots of money doing the multi channel thing before returning to two channel. I now know what I want from multi channel, and when the time is right... I'll head down that path again too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 "Your statement was rather global, IMO. Did you mean to say that 7 channels was 5 too many for YOU? If so, I must have missed that part..." Coulda been 5 too many for the forum may/haps.... Erik, What you are experiencing is obviously a revelation - it is bringing more joy to your music listening and that is what this whole hobby is all about. That fact oozes from every pore of each of your posts on this subject - it is quite infectious - even I am looking around for secondary amps and speakers to have a play. That your experience is contrary to the experiences of others on the forum is hardly a surprize, neither is it a surprize that some will produce knee-jerk responses along the lines of "You are mad..cant be...there must have been something very wrong with your 2 channel setup..etc. etc." Ultimately if we can live with some members of the forum prefering Cd over vinyl and vice versa I dont see why we cant all adapt to your multi-channel perferences - it just might take a while... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I thought about giving mono a try. I think those guys were on to something. So when you guys moving down to the HT forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 " What the issue is with me, is that there is overkill with the use of the 'other' channels at the moment." You are talking about the overkill in discrete multi-channel playback such as with DVD-A and SACD. That can be an issue but that doesn't mean all multi-channel is flawed. When 2 channel was in its infancy people complained about the gimmicky ping pong effects some producers used. Once that all settled down things got better. That is happening with discrete multi-channel now. However that is not what Erik is doing. The Lexicon is steering out the center, sides and rears from his existing 2 channel music. The Lexicon gives a great deal of control over how it does this so you really can tune it in to what you want it to sound like. You still very much have a music forward presentation, just you also now have a center channel and the halls influence being reproduced from the proper directions. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Shawn, I can't find the post where you described the difference between the Hafler circuit and the mini-box. Is there a "difference"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 "But I can see merits for a centre speaker when listening to home theatre. Off centre listeners tend to miss out on the action a bit when watching movies in two channel." A center channel has merits for on center music listeners as well. No comb filtering is a big one. Getting arrival times for a centrally located source correct is another. I've posted this before but I don't think many tried this. Play a mono (or heavily central) voice/vocal piece. Listen to it in 2 channel stereo from your normal listening position. Then set your balance all the way to one of your speakers (or unplug one if you don't have a balance control) and reposition yourself so you are in line with that speaker and replay that piece. You will most likely find the vocals have more 'body' to them, less phasey and quite simply sound more like they do in real life. That is what a center channel can do for a music listener in the sweet spot. The people that invented 'stereo' (working at Bell Labs) knew this back in the 30's. PWK knew this from about the 50's on. Others knew it as well but many forgot... Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I have been reading and absorbing the debate on PWK's centre channel option - particularly with the Klipschorns. I can see that properly executed, there would be some merit to this idea. That's part of the reason I'm looking for a pair of Belles with a view to future centre channel use. A pair of Heresys would be fine for rears. I have never heard the Lexicon processor. I know Lexicon's reputation though. And Dean, I haven't deserted the 2 channel ship yet. Just keeping abreast of of the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Mark: You are absolutely right. The logistical aspect of this can be a challenge. The speakers take up good deal of space, but especially in my case since all but two, the rear channels, consist of really big horn honkers -- I mean speakers. I think two channel done correctly MUST be better than surround sound done poorly, and my system still sounds good to me in 2-channel mode -- just very different and less to my liking than what I can get with the Lexicon. THIS IS NOT a situation with all 7 speakers blasting at one's head. It is much, much more subtle than that. My attention is drawn more forward to the frontal impage, and now that I have the parameters of the sides set correctly (I didn't the first time around), I'm not aware of the presence of individual loudspeakers until I turn them off -- which is not like a switch to any particular channel, but to the overall integrity of the music. Max: I'm not expecting nor do I wish this experiment to become part of the Brave New Way of Listening to Music. It's something I like, and people, as you mention should enjoy what they prefer. I'm just sharing my impression, nothing more. Below is a picture of the new networks I made -- 12db octave slope in tweeter circuit with phase reversal in the midrange. It's set up this way for an initial try, but made to be converted to a more standard 6db/octave network with bandpass. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 This was essentially a 'free' network, except for the L-pads very kindly provided by Craigborn2 -- thanks tons, Craig! Erik edit: The wood is a very rare and exotic type known as yellow pine. I couldn't believe that Home Depot had this in their scrap bin!!! It seems to provide an even wider soundstage, and I am aware of details I never heard before on familiar CDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 ---------------- On 12/22/2004 8:53:16 AM Erik Mandaville wrote: I think two channel done correctly MUST be better than surround sound done poorly, and my system still sounds good to me in 2-channel mode -- just very different and less to my liking than what I can get with the Lexicon. ---------------- Interesting comment, Eric. It's a scientific thing isn't it? You need a control. The control being a properly set-up two channel system. Only then can you accurately determine any improvements to soundstage width, spatial awareness vis-a-vis soundstage depth etc, once you introduce the Lexicon and additional channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Hi, Edwin: You are right. I think something like this, as in many comparative experiments, does need a control, and what is nice about the Lexicon is that one can revert back to 2-channel with the push of a single button. Two channel mode is still very large sounding, but to me is very much lacks image specificity. What I find with 2-channel-only is a big sound in terms of the way the Klipschorns can load the room, but it is comparatively flat. I can still get a decent center image with things like solo guitar or vocals, but the image is perhaps not unlike looking at one side of a coin. The image is clear and distinct, but lacks a sense of roundness and 3-dimensionality. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Mark, "wherein he is now involved in "simulation" vs. our hithertofore model of "reproduction."" No, the acoustic queues the Lexicon are using are in his music. It is reproduction... just in a different manor that many are acustomted to. The Lexicon *can* simulate entirely new acoustic environments (Lexicon studio reverb that does this is legendary) and they can be handy for mono music or very dry recordings but I don't think Erik is using those modes. It is the difference between ambiance extraction and ambiance generation. Read the 'Theory and Design' booklet at this link for more info. http://lexicon.com/products/downloads.asp?ID=12 "which would normally be an anathema to the 2-channel world, are now part and parcel of a different KIND of experience?" Every choice a person makes in their 2 channel system is 'processing' the signal to some extent. Speaker, amps, pre-amp, choice of tubes, source material, prefered format, speaker setup in the room, room treatment..etc..etc... Their choices "process" the music (flavor?) to their taste. Once a person realizes this the idea of using a great music processor isn't so left field. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Erik, "I think two channel done correctly MUST be better than surround sound done poorly, " It is, no doubt about it. Done badly surround sounds horrible.... done well is another story. Try it... when you are listening in Music Logic press the Dolby button on your remote. That will put you in Dolby Pro Logic mode and compare how that sounds against how Music Logic sounds. "THIS IS NOT a situation with all 7 speakers blasting at one's head." Not unless you put the Lexicon into 'Party' mode which is just channel duplication... what some other setups call 5 or 7 channel stereo and is basically what most car systems do with the additional of still bass management and time alignment being applied. " edit: The wood is a very rare and exotic type known as yellow pine. I couldn't believe that Home Depot had this in their scrap bin!!!" ROFL. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Dean, The 'Hafler matrix' typically talks about the difference between the two channels. Meaning the material that is common in both channels but 180 degrees out of phase. That is typically (but not always) more used for surrounds as you hear material that is out of phase between both channels as being diffuse in a two channel setup. The Hafler setup is a passive setup that can be done with most stereo amps if they have a common ground. The PWK mini-box is really nothing more then a passive mixer with level controls on it. All it really is doing is mixing the L and the R channels together into a third channel. And then it gives you volume controls so you can balance all three channels output levels. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2RockU Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 ERIK: You got those "Big-***" trucker knobs for the L-Pads, to match mine...didn't ya ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Mark, If you want to read more about this check out some of the papers from David Griesinger at: http://world.std.com/~griesngr/ Some are pretty indepth but there is a lot of very good information on that page. Dr. Griesinger is one of the worlds experts on hall sound and related fields like this and he is the one who designed the surround processing that Erik is enjoying so much. There is an interview with him at: http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Lexicon/dg_qa1.html "Just for my tastes, running through a billion push-button-scroll-arrow-select style menus on little cryptic text screens would not be my cup of tea. " The menus are actually pretty easy once you use them. Also after it is setup you really don't have to touch the menus if you don't want to. You can have a full on screen display with it if is connected to a TV but it isn't a drag and drop sort of UI. I think Erik was really worried about this aspect of the Lexicon but I think by now he has it down pretty well. "A nice computer tablet with a big graphic display capable of metaphoric drag and drop or point and shoot "configuration" capability would seem right to me." The later Lexicon's have RS-232 serial control so an interface could be built with something like: http://charmedquark.com/ But realistically the Lexicon's are very easy to use in everyday operation. My wife has no problem at all, she hits the proper input and adjusts the volume. She doesn't even need to turn anything on... selecting an input automatically turns the Lex. on and the Lex. in sequence turns on the amps. There is a bit of a learning curve to figure out what you can do with surround compared to 2 channel but you would get that in any product. There are some products out there with *horrible* UIs though. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Craig: LOL! What can I say -- these are much easier to turn. Those tiny little knobs I first put on yours were kind of a pain! BTW: I want to bring these new networks over some time for you to try. They are not bad at all, and much better than what I was using before. I have no way knowing how linear they are in a test situation, but they sound really good, I think. I like the bigger Knobs much better! Yeah, I followed your lead on that! Mark: You and I are very much on the same page concerning the many options and using the Lexicon remote. It was confusing as heck, at first. After a couple of hours just going through the menu trees (no music playing) it became surprisingly intuitive and easy. This was a pleasant surprise for me, because I am just very slow with stuff like this. It's so easy to use now, and I can make small changes much more quickly without getting lost in the forest of options. Shawn: Thanks for sharing your studied understanding of how the Lexicon works. The majority of the effort I have put into using it has been geared more to.....well....using it -- the best I can while it is here with us. Borrowing the La Scala was an important part of that. Once we get one for ourselves I think I'm going to want to build my own rear and side channel speakers. I think I can get by with something smaller than what I'm now using. I Have some decent spare drivers and silk dome tweeters from past projects that I could use, and would just need to build cabinets and crossovers for them -- which being two-way is much easier than designing a 3-way network. I have some plans (as in design plans) for small, T-line speakers that use decent mid-bass drivers and piezo tweeters that could be built and be room-friendly in appearance for not very much money at all. So. This time of year is one I always look forward to for music listening and audio work, and I am enjoying it all very much. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2RockU Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 ERIK: ...sure, I'd love to hear the new network w/ my LaScala center channel. {Would your new crossovers be a step up from the one you designed and installed here LAST weekend ? } BUT, first I feel we need to load up my RSW-15 SUB-Woofer and treat you to some true sub-sonic foundation , w/ your new set-up. {I can't wait to hear what DEAN has to say about this } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Erik, "I think I can get by with something smaller than what I'm now using." I'd think you could too. Only thing you might need is more power for the sides/rears depending upon what you ended up building. I'd just recommend an inexpensive used SS amp for them in that case. There are a lot of options you could use there. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2RockU Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 ERIK: I just got a Harmon Kardon Amp off EBay for $53 shipped, if ya need to borrow anything ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.