D-Rex Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I have had this notion that if two speakers sound great and loud then playing my music through all five speakers will sound even greater and louder. What a misconception! I have been playing my music through 5 channel stereo for 8 months now, tried matrix, wide screen, rock arena, but never thought to really try plain ole 2 channel stereo! WOW, the fullness comes back to the music, the RF3 IIs with the RSW12 can really get you rocking! I just don't understand why they don't sound this rich and full when I change it to five channel. Shouldn't the mains be getting the same amount of power but now I have three more speakers pumping out the tunes?!? I really want to utilize the RB5 surrounds during music playback but not at the cost of sacrificing the great sound the RFs put out! Dang, I can't believe I haven't noticed this sooner... and now I know why there is a forum dedicated to two channel and not five (or seven) channel. D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 The rear channels are dedicated to surround information, not the main. The center is really a part of the main but is often used for the dialog part of movies. Unless the decoder removes a good portion of the L/R signals from the center and the center from the L/R, things just get muddier. In short, 2-channel and multi-channel are different beasts, neither of which is without problems. I believe the multi-channel signal really wants to be coded and recorded as multi from the source. I mean by that the forcing of two channels into 3 or 5 does not do justice to the original. The Home Theater section of this forum is dedicated to multi-channel issues. This is just my opinion. I used to love 2-channel. Now I love 3-channel. Never cared much for the surround effects. I also use a sub off the mains (L/R). Why should one assume that the jamming of multi-channel sound into just two is superior to the original? Of course, the recorded source must be constructed correctly or else your just doing the same type of injustice that the 2-channel introduced. I do not believe the industry in general has ever done well in recorded music. Having said that, I must add that some of my records sound just wonderful. Ditto on my CDs. For example, how can a violin sound as loud as a kettle drum. I have many albums were that situation actually exists. Remember what I said earlier. This is my opinion, which I do NOT expect everybody to accept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Rex Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 ---------------- On 5/13/2005 1:26:54 PM Klewless wrote: The rear channels are dedicated to surround information, not the main. The center is really a part of the main but is often used for the dialog part of movies. Unless the decoder removes a good portion of the L/R signals from the center and the center from the L/R, things just get muddier. In short, 2-channel and multi-channel are different beasts, neither of which is without problems. I believe the multi-channel signal really wants to be coded and recorded as multi from the source. I mean by that the forcing of two channels into 3 or 5 does not do justice to the original. The Home Theater section of this forum is dedicated to multi-channel issues. This is just my opinion. I used to love 2-channel. Now I love 3-channel. Never cared much for the surround effects. I also use a sub off the mains (L/R). Why should one assume that the jamming of multi-channel sound into just two is superior to the original? Of course, the recorded source must be constructed correctly or else your just doing the same type of injustice that the 2-channel introduced. I do not believe the industry in general has ever done well in recorded music. Having said that, I must add that some of my records sound just wonderful. Ditto on my CDs. For example, how can a violin sound as loud as a kettle drum. I have many albums were that situation actually exists. Remember what I said earlier. This is my opinion, which I do NOT expect everybody to accept. ---------------- I get what you are saying about the HT forum being the multi channel forum. I am not sure why I thought if 5 (6 or 7) channels worked great for HT that it would work equally great for music. Certainly a faulty assumption. Well, unless someone comes up with some better logic, I think your explanation makes perfect sense. However, I am still a little curious why selecting 5 channel stereo actually decreases the volume and impact (feel) of the music. It's like it sucks power away from the mains and diverts it to the surrounds. Is that how it works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 D-Rex, There are some folks on the forum who are completely delighted with their multi-channel setups. That's not only o.k. with me, I'm happy for these guys. I should offer the disclaimer that I've not done anything with multi channel audio, but did go to the trouble once to set up an all Heritage HT 5.1 system. Had family visiting and watched a bunch of movies over a weekend. It was o.k. However, I'm part of a small minority that never got used to having all the dialogue come over the center speaker. HT to my ears, doesn't sound like the sound in a theatre. Running the audio on my Khorns alone as L and R makes movies sound like what I hear when I go out for a movie. It's quite pleasing to my ears. Discovering what sounds good to one's own ears is what this hobby is all about, IMO. Some people may think I wear a tin foil liner under my cap, but it doesn't worry me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erukian Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 I was checking out the PC speakers at compusa. then a sales man walked up and asked if we (me and my buddy) wanted help. My buddy said sure and the salesman went on a rant about how 5.1 is so much better than 2.1 for music. like "it sourrounds you" and what really got me laughing was when he said "each speaker can focus on an instrument so it'll be so much cleaner!" Sigh, don't believe the hype. I'm at the point now where I believe that a pair of heresy's w/ a good sub and a tripath or HKx30 amp for the lower range bass is the best you can get for a system under $1000 when you want music. Hell it'll work fine for movies too if your in a small room. -Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 Have you tried listening in Dobly PL II? or in DTS? The 5 channel stereo and those other modes always sound like crap because having 5 diffent sources for the same material introduces all sorts of comb-filtering effects which just sucks up the quality and fullness. The dolby pro logic and dts modes run the signal through all sorts of algorithms based on phase differences between the two channels and even apply some phase processing to make the 5 channels sound good. Recently I've been having a real hard time choosing between direct stereo and dolby pl II because they both sound very good, but one of the two always sounds better for different songs. I must confess that the dolby and dts processing didn't sound near as good until I get my system dialed in and played around with the surround processing (your reciever should allow you to tweak some of the aspects of the the processing, like how wide the stereo image is an all that). It also helps to have a timbre matching center channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Rex Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 ---------------- On 5/13/2005 3:21:49 PM DrWho wrote: Have you tried listening in Dobly PL II? or in DTS? The 5 channel stereo and those other modes always sound like crap because having 5 diffent sources for the same material introduces all sorts of comb-filtering effects which just sucks up the quality and fullness. The dolby pro logic and dts modes run the signal through all sorts of algorithms based on phase differences between the two channels and even apply some phase processing to make the 5 channels sound good. Recently I've been having a real hard time choosing between direct stereo and dolby pl II because they both sound very good, but one of the two always sounds better for different songs. I must confess that the dolby and dts processing didn't sound near as good until I get my system dialed in and played around with the surround processing (your reciever should allow you to tweak some of the aspects of the the processing, like how wide the stereo image is an all that). It also helps to have a timbre matching center channel. ---------------- Yes, I have recently been experimenting with the PLII music mode and it was definitely preferred over the 5 channel I had been using. But, when I compared it to the normal stereo I found that the PLII still seemed to be under-utilizing the RF3II thus there was too much reliance on the RC3II. Now, I am working to get an RC-7 so that might make a difference when relying upon the center channel for music but, so far, nothing my system can do beats the 2.1 mode for music... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Rex Posted May 13, 2005 Author Share Posted May 13, 2005 ---------------- On 5/13/2005 3:12:35 PM Daddy Dee wrote: D-Rex, There are some folks on the forum who are completely delighted with their multi-channel setups. That's not only o.k. with me, I'm happy for these guys. I should offer the disclaimer that I've not done anything with multi channel audio, but did go to the trouble once to set up an all Heritage HT 5.1 system. Had family visiting and watched a bunch of movies over a weekend. It was o.k. However, I'm part of a small minority that never got used to having all the dialogue come over the center speaker. HT to my ears, doesn't sound like the sound in a theatre. Running the audio on my Khorns alone as L and R makes movies sound like what I hear when I go out for a movie. It's quite pleasing to my ears. Discovering what sounds good to one's own ears is what this hobby is all about, IMO. Some people may think I wear a tin foil liner under my cap, but it doesn't worry me. ---------------- I feel real comfortable with the volume coming from the center channel as far as movies is concerned. When I first began utilizing the PLII mode I thought it was breaking out the center channel out to the mains a bit too much. It worked better for music but it seemed to take away from my movies and TV. I have sense gotten used to it much more so I don't notice it as much. I am too used to having full surround for my movies I don't think I could go back to stereo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croc Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 ---------------- On 5/13/2005 12:33:40 PM D-Rex wrote: I just don't understand why they don't sound this rich and full when I change it to five channel. Shouldn't the mains be getting the same amount of power but now I have three more speakers pumping out the tunes?!?---------------- if the phase and time correction are not perfect between all 5 speakers than you will likely to get uneven/unpleasant result. usually in receivers there is not to much options to fine tune it - just speakers' distances. at least make sure that you got those right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjgeraci Posted May 13, 2005 Share Posted May 13, 2005 D-rex, you may be hearing a substantial difference with your 2.1 versus a matrixed five-channel for a couple of reasons. First, many receivers are configured to provide more power and current when you are using only two-channels as opposed to five (or more channels). Some manufacturer even provide different ratings (i.e. 100 X 2 or 85 X 5) unless the amps in your receiver are capable of driving five speakers just as easily as two. I do not recall how your Denon works. If applicable, that would contribute in part to the thinner sound. Next, as was pointed out, some matrixed modes provide additional layers of junk so that the nice, natural, original sound becomes mucked up, even for your mains. Better processor, better matrixed sound (in some instances). Done properly, matrixed five or six channel can sound as good (or almost as good) as two channel, but it comes at a price (wallet). Some choose certain multi-channel processors/preamps (separates) due to their better internal processors and the resulting ability to produce matrixed music well. Lexicon processors are often known for this. Also, as Croc pointed out, you often have additional features available with some multi-channel separates. I personally chose a Classe multi-channel pre-amp primarily because of its musicality in producing a nice matrixed sound from a two channel source. It helps to run different outboard amps that can each handle the load or a nice multi-channel amp that has a beefy-enough power supply to adequately feed all the amps inside (i.e. Sherbourn, etc.) I went the separate amp route and run different amps for my mains, my center, and my surrounds. My first musical preference remains 2.1 with my Belles and my SVS sub. However, I also listen matrixed music quite a bit, and my matrixed stuff sounds almost as good as my two-channel setup. Carl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 I almost always prefer some type of multi-channel processing for listening to two-channel music. With mono recordings I like 7-channel stereo with the surround effect turned down to 10%, which is the minimum. This seems to just pull the sound out of the front speakers enough to energize the room; make the room come alive. With stereo recordings I generally prefer NEO:6 processing. The effect will vary from recording to recording, but it never is excessive and is often magical at generating natural sounding reverb that makes the listening room walls melt away. Classic jazz sounds great with the "jazz" mode, especially when utilizing a center speaker. It gives an uncanny sense of depth and intimacy to the performance that is really addictive. More contemporary styles of jazz tend to sound best if treated just like good pop or rock -- NEO:6 is the ticket. Live rock recordings seem to actually sound more live through the "rock" mode; but ONLY live recordings. Studio recordings sound boomy, with too much reverb through it. Classical music always sounds more natural through the "classical" mode. It sounds much more like the acoustics of a typical hall where that music would be heard, which of course is the idea. I think the reason I like the surround processing so much is that most modes on my receiver leave the front stereo pair pretty much alone, as far as frequency response. It's pretty hard to get a really bad sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckears Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 My system never sounded better than when I was using a specifically 2-channel pre-amp + power amp (McCormack TLC1 and DNA-1 Deluxe), using the tape-out for my subwoofer-out. On better recordings, I was right there in the recording venue. After expanding to home theater, and using a home theater pre-pro (Anthem AVM20), my music cd's still have the most realistic sound when using the analog-direct mode. Sending the signal through the processor (DSP mode) mucks about with the signal just enough to remove that immediacy to the sound. Perhaps SACD or a multi-channel cd player would sound better, but I am not wanting to spend a bundle to find out. ...and I still miss the sound I was getting with the tried-and-true 2.1. 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.