|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: RE: dots ... posted by TBone on June 30, 2012 at 07:45:34:
First to be clear, I agree with 87% (smile) of what you have said and only “mildly disagree” with the other 13%. Being an audio addict who had crafted a stellar sounding (and expensive) two-channel system.....long before multi-channel, I sympathetically understand your wariness. Indeed, if you read my Inmate Systems write up I describe in detail how I decided to adopt multi-channel if, and only if, it did not compromise my two channel system *in any way*. In fact, I made a vow...that I would not gunk up my two-channel system.
Like you I was concerned about the “risk” (good word).. This was a complete paradigm shift and I was scared like heck that I might end up with some discombobulated mess. And you are right (again) there is no promise or assurance that your goals would be obtained. And while this is also very true with a high-end two channel system the stakes are higher with a high-end multi-channel system. My solace would have been my resolve not to mess up my two-channel system so at worse I could return to what I had started with.. As it happened I achieved exponential improvement far more than with any audio component(s) than I have come across.
In order for my multi-channel to unquestionably surpass my two-channel counterpart I employed, quality gear, to be sure, but in no way did I attempt to match the expense level of my two-channel mains (which will continue to do most of the work anyway). It is a fundamental misunderstanding rooted in the two-channel paradigm to think you must go dollar for dollar for each channel. Might it be *audibly* better if you did. May be. May be not. And talk about diminishing returns! Simply put it ain’t needed for every part of the chain.
****My Cons have been highly refined over the years, and certainly in terms of
performance, do not represent the same speakers as the stock model.
Therefore, all three additional speakers would require additional
refinement. ***
Not true, not true at all, *unless* the three additional Cons had very different *tonal* characteristics from your current Cons....but then they would not be Cons; they would be something else. I do agree that if they do have different tonal characteristics then any approach to use them (in the analog domain) would be fraught with the danger of incompatibility and I would not move forward. My surrounds are a third of the costs (and size) of my two-channel mains and while the mains are certainly more “refined” all the speakers in my system share the same identical tonal characteristics.
***Then, system consistency requires that I'd require amplification worthy of
my mono DR3s to run 'em.***
In a perfect world, may be. But this is simply *not* necessary. In fact, it may be inaudible overkill for the surrounds.
***I'd then need to consider the pre-amp, and trust me, in order to guarantee
sonic consistency (a near impossibility in this case considering the
"family" union of my system) I'd need to spend considerable time & funds to
find a pre-amp that would achieve similar sonic success. **
OK, I agree with you...strongly. Although some here will differ with me on this one because there are so many more multi-channel pre amp options than there were even 3-4 years ago. But if you went the analog route like me (as opposed to HDMI route which can be just as satisfying...may be more so) I would recommend a line stage that is equal to or better to what you presently have and one that does not give short shrift to any channel. I felt so strongly about this that I had a 6 channel line stage custom built to optimize performance with my amps.
****Then, most important, I'd need an appropriate MC source. Considering my
current system sound quality is based on the its signal/source, it would
need to be very good, and it would certainly cost plenty.****
Yes and no. Actually, I think the line stage is a more difficult problem to solve. But no doubt an excellent multi-channel source is a must and a few years ago an excellent analog solution could have been a bank buster. But in 2012 that is no longer the case.
***although you might consider that route potentially superior
based on 3 additional channels of information, I'd consider it a risk**
As I said above I shared your skepticism. And while my concerns turned out to be unwarranted there is no guarantee that you would be so fortunate.
This brings me to a “component” that we have overlooked. I consider it more important to my system than any of the “gear” we have discussed. The elephant in the room *is* the room. Of course, the room is a key variable for any high-end system, but the ante is upped considerably for a multi-channel system, especially for an analog solution, (An HDMI solution can address a host of room and speaker placement issues that cannot be addressed with an analog based solution such as mine). The room is an important factor for reasons apparent and not so apparent. Your Inmate Description says surprisingly little about your room. Obviously, it is well suited to superb two channel reproduction. But what about multi-channel? Even if you were able to satisfactorily address all the issues discussed above it wouldn’t mean a thing if the room couldn’t handle the extra workload.
One obvious question is can the room comfortably support 5 equidistant speakers without causing the listener to compromise current two channel placement? That was a litmus test for me and is often a tough nut to crack. One of the most audible benefits of multi-channel (when compared within the context of the same two-channel system) is the not to subtle increase in lower octave slam and and broad frequency dynamic range. That is to be expected with the dramatic increase in “real estate” that comes with 3 additional speakers. Can the room handle that cleanly without overload? My system includes 14 bass drivers and the system slam is almost unmitigated but I am lucky enough to have a room that supports it with no audible overhang.
So for sure, there are significant roadblocks to overcome and paradigms to shift. But the rewards of success are immense.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- To make things even more daunting there is a varible we overlooked - Robert C. Lang 01:53:20 07/01/12 (1)
- RE: To make things even more daunting there is a varible we overlooked - TBone 16:23:42 07/03/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
