7 speakers by way of the Lexicon

[Born2RockU]

I am infactuated w/ my B+K Reference 50 Pre-amp / Processor !!!!

http://www.bkcomp.com/lifestyle_hometheater_S2.asp

I hail one vote for my SS pre/pro... ...anyone else using any B+K ?

[Erik Mandaville]

Craig! How can you say this!? Aren't you a professional musician, drum teacher, and recording engineer? You should know better than to use anything that remotely resembles a transistor in your equipment. Transistors are dangerous, bad things. They destroy the way music is SUPPOSED to sound.

But! I heartily agree. That B&K processor did sound really awesome, as did your entire system. Just as a reminder: Craig is using the Baldwin 6L6 tube amp I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. However, with as much experience he has with music, he of course should know better than to use an SS processor with tube amplifiers. His setup sounded phenomenal to me, despite the fact that it has been completely destroyed by pairing up SS sources with a vintage tube amp.

[sfogg]

"I have the feeling (and only a feeling) that the dramatic difference you and now Erik are experiencing is exactly because the Heritage speakers don't do depth well."

OK, then how does that explain when I noticed the exact same thing with my Dzurko Acoustics Jaguars? Or North Creek Music Systems Borealis Unlimiteds? Both of which are extremely good imaging speakers. Go to the Lexicon forum and read the impressions of those that listen in surround there as well. You will see almost the exact same comments that Erik has made from owners with a HUGE variety of speakers.

Part of why the K'Horns (and Las) may not do depth quite as well as whatever else you are listening to is because a recessed mid-range can give the artifical illusion of depth. A stock K'Horn or Las has anything but a recessed mid-range since the squawker is run hot.

Turn the level of the squawker down (with an ALK in my case originally) or with an L-Pad and that changes the very forward sound of the mids.

Also worth noting that my LaScala's are far far from stock at this point and image very well on their own.

"I would imagine that trying to setup a similar multichannel arrangement with panel speakers, for example, would be extremely difficult to do well as these fire out backwards and are already providing a form of surround sound by bouncing sound around the walls of the room in question."

I've done it with bi-polar speakers as well. Even direct radiators have sound bouncing around the room.

The big difference is simply our frame of reference. Some people are talking about good depth based on a 2 channel reference, the others are talking about it based on a surround reference point.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

Man....

I'm tired of having to defend my own personal choices and preferences in this place. It is so counterproductive, and just takes away from the enjoyment of the hobby.

Have fun, Happy Holidays...

Erik

[Born2RockU]

" His setup sounded phenomenal to me, despite the fact that it has been

completely destroyed by pairing up SS sources with a vintage tube amp."

ERIK, I love good humor.

Happy Holidays to everyone !

[sfogg]

Erik,

Sorry about that, I should have warned you about that before I sent you the Lex.

I have had this discussion so many times I could have written almost all the different responses out in advance. So far the non-surround guys have missed two common ones... "I only have 2 ears so I only need 2 speakers" and "that is changing the 'intent' of the musician."

So before someone jumps up with either of those reponses...

... in the real world does sound come from only two points in space at a concert in a hall. Does a person speaking to you speak from two points in space 8' apart?

... how do you know what the intent of the musician was? What if it was to listen nearfield at 99db average SPL, in a 1500 ft^3 room, with an RT60 of 0.1 seconds, through brand xyz speakers (and not through dreadfull horns), not using vacuum tube electronics, while wearing polka dotted boxer shorts and drinking a Blue Moon Pumpkin Ale. Arguing for intent is a very slipperly slope.

Some people are just afraid of new things that might challenge or change their existing line of thinking.

That was why I was willing to send you the Lexicon, you were open minded enough (from a SET user for goodness sake!!! How dare you...) to try it.

Shawn

P.S. The Lexicon forum is at:

http://www.smr-forums.com/

*Many* people there won't question your results... they have had the experience themselves.

[Erik Mandaville]

Shawn: " how do you know what the intent of the musician was? What if it was to listen nearfield at 99db average SPL, in a 1500 ft^3 room, with an RT60 of 0.1 seconds, through brand xyz speakers (and not through dreadfull horns), not using vacuum tube electronics, while wearing polka dotted boxer shorts and drinking a Blue Moon Pumpkin Ale."

LOL!

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to visit.

And absolutely no apology needed! The Lexicon has provided more listening enjoyment and plain, pure fun than I have ever had with this hobby.

[Deang]

Yes, I'm terrified of anything that challenges my thinking and views. I think that's a fair description of me.

[sfogg]

Mark,

"Now it seems any old speaker will do for the side and rear. If a Khorn is the best for 2-channel, shouldn't all the 7 speakers be Khorns?"

What the sides and rears reproduce is much much less demanding then what the front three channels reproduce.

If a person had room and budget for K'Horns all around then by all means go for it. But I'd argue smaller lesser speakers are still far better then not having speakers at all.

"-If folks were convinced that huge and expensive speaker wire was good for 2-channel, should all the speakers be wired with it? And, crossover caps, patchcords and so on."

You would have to ask those that believe in that sort of thing. I just ran generic 10 or 12 gauge wire (bought at Markertek for around $0.12 a foot) for all my channels in my system.

"- If room placement (even in 1/4" increments) was crucial in 2-channel, isn't it the same for 7 channel? "

Not to that extent. Part of the placement of a 2 channel system involves balancing the phantom center image with having a wide soundstage. When you have three speakers up front you can have both a wide soundstage and a great center image.

There is also placement of the front channels for balancing bass which would still apply for L/R if you are running them full range. Many surround systems also use subwoofers which let you dial in the relative bass level of the system easier then with full range speakers.

Surrounds placement is basically trying to get something that gives you a very good ambiance without being distracting... and that physically fits of course.

" if 2 speakers make ugly interactions with room boundaries, won't 7 speakers make even more? "

When you have ambient queues being reproduced from side and rear speakers you don't need the rooms influence to try to add 'life' to two channel playback. You can treat the room more and still get great sound without having to worry about making it too dead. Even in an untreated room the side and rears speakers have more of an influence on the acoustic space that you hear then the acoustic space your room is imparting.

Hope this helps,

Shawn

[Marvel]

Admittedly, most studios use solid state gear. At least the majority of gear is, unless you have very deep pockets.

But check out this mix console -- all tube:

http://www.tlaudio.co.uk/tlaudio/docs/products/vtc.shtml

Most of us don't have a clue as to the intent of the musician, engineer, producer, mastering engineer, etc. We either like what we hear or we don't.

Marvel

Marvel

[Born2RockU]

" Yes, I'm terrified of anything that challenges my thinking and views."

MY favorite French quote from Neil Peart...Rush's drummer.

"Plus ca change

Plus c'est la meme chose"

defined: "The more things change,...then more they stay the same !"

[sfogg]

Erik,

" The Lexicon has provided more listening enjoyment and plain, pure fun than I have ever had with this hobby."

Ditto.

Shawn

[yaffstone]

I've got a 7 channel system using Belles for front left and right, a Forte for center, La Scallas for rear left and right and Fortes for the surrounds. The sound in 7 channel stereo is increadibly full with respect to just the Belles in two channel mode. Imaging can be tweaked by adjusting the gain on the various channels.

As to the car analogies, road noise and attention to driving tend to distract from full attention to the music and the music tends to distract from full attention to driving.

[Shade]

I'm glad to see others here enjoying 7 channel music as well. About 3 or 4 years ago I ended up with a *very* outdated Lexicon CP3. Didn't compare to the later models but was enough to get my interest. A short time later I bought a Lex MC-1.

The Lex is great at both HT & surround music. I love the Music Logic mode w/ bass enhance, really pulls you in. But I still very much enjoy 2 channel on a Scott tube amp. Granted I'm not using tubes on my 7 channel setup, so the solid state vs tube issue comes into play.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that 2ch & 7ch are both different experiences. Each very good, but each offering something different.

Isn't there room for both?

[jdm56]

Shawn & Erik,

Don't despair or take offense if you receive rebuttals to your multi-channel gospel! We are all striving for the same thing here, whether with one SET driven klipschorn or a room full of satellites and subs being fed by a state-of-the-art digital processor and multi-channel digital amps.

This has been one of the more interesting threads here in a while, for me at least. And I can certainly find common ground on both sides of the sonic divide (2-channel/multi-channel). My opinions on this seem to evolve, just as the technology evolves and my experience with it grows. I think the ultimate answer will continue to be as varied as the people searching for it.

[edwinr]

Not quite 'off thread' but have any of you guys heard of the Dynavector Super Stereo surround sound adapter? I believe it's just been upgraded. By some form of electrical trickery it extracts two channels from normal stereo and sends the reults to two rear speakers. I don't think there's a centre channel option though.

[sfogg]

I haven't heard of the Dynavector product before.

SuperStereo is the name of a mode developed by Michael Gerzon and was based on his Ambisonics processing but meant to work on non-Ambisonic encoded material. Meridians have this mode but I wasn't a big fan of it as it just makes everything sound very distant.

The Dynavector site doesn't mention Ambisonics or Michael Gerzon so I think they just happened to name their process the same. Their web site doesn't really explain what their product does.

I looked up the patents they mention and it gives more details about what they are actually doing. It sounds like their box is a reverb generator... that is it is generating an artificial surround channel(s) and putting that to the rear channels. I'm not sure if the reverb is stereo or mono based on those patents. Mono reverb is bad as that is very artificial sounding since you physically can't get correlated reverb in a hall.

If you read the Lexicon theory book I linked to earlier this would fall under the ambiance generation effects in the Lexicon. As far as reverb goes Lexicon studio equipment is extremely well know for their reverb products. Something like 80% of all CDs produced have gone through Lexicon studio equipment at some point of its production.

Hope this helps,

Shawn