|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: Re: Since you asked... posted by Ted Smith on January 5, 2007 at 21:56:23:
OK. I'm confused. What specifically do you take issue with in my statement (that I slightly modified below). If I used the word "optimal" instead of "proper" would that do it?
Do you use your multi-channel system as the primary system for two-channel listening? It sounds like you have "tilted" your system toward multi-channel over two-channel listening. Would you characterize that as being a correct assumption on my part?
Are your 5 primary speakers equidistant from the listening position?
Does your system double as a Home theater system? (That is definitely *not* part of the equation I was illustrating).
Sorry about all the questions.
Well, I read a part of your statement (perhaps erroneously) as "If your system is setup properly for MC then it's properly setup up for two channel." I further inferred (once again perhaps erroneously) that you also meant to imply that a system that's optimized for MC is also optimized for two channel. That I couldn't agree with. Now that I re-read your post I possibly assumed to much.
Anyway to answer your questions:
I listen almost always to MC. I still enjoy my thousands of CDs, but more these days I listen to single tracks from them vs. whole MC SACDs.
I certainly have done almost everything I could to optimize for MC even if it meant that stereo had to suffer. Tho when I could make stereo better without compromising MC I did that. The biggest exception is that my front speakers cost at least twice as much as my rears or center :)
As I mentioned I do have a 20' ITU circle (including the sub) which implies that they are equal distant...
My system does include a 50" plasma which compromises my center speaker height, but I choose to live with that since we do enjoy Tivos and DVDs.
Here's a post with a summary of my room and a link to some (slightly out of date) pictures of my room: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/224992.html
My system description: http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/3367.html
Ted: I recently dropped a chunk of change on a new Krell EVO system (SACD player, preamp, stereo amp), Martin Logan Summits and some inexpensive Nordost Valhalla speaker cable. My partner thinks I'm crazy, but I keep telling her I'm a paradigm of restraint compared to many audiophiles. Would you mind if I show her your systems page to prove my point? TIA.
P.S. How can I incorporate my 20-year old 19" Toshiba TV into my audio system if it has no RCA jacks? My adamant refusal to mix audio and video may be an ideological anachronism, but I'm stickin' to it.
Don't forget about MikeL's system :) http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html
did you notice that Mike's system is 2-channel and he keeps his audio separate from video? Of course you did! :)
He's thinking about MC, but isn't fully decided at this point. His room was designed to support MC and he has the 6 channel DAC6... I don't think he's going to acquire 2 more Rockports tho :)
OK. I think I have a good picture now. Actually, at some point I think the topic of in depth look at multi-channel set-up is worthy of its own thread.
I took the approach that what's best for two-channel (mostly for depth of soundstage and imaging, etc.) is also best for multi-channel (if, of course, the center and rears are also set up in accordance to ITU requirements and not impeded by furniture or what not). There are specific requirements for front speaker placement (when used for stereo) that I was not going to mess with. (They work best 82" from the wall out on the floor). Fortunately, the room can accommodate both (optimum two-channel, given the specific placement requirements for the front speakers as well as all the other MC speakers). This was made unquestionably easier because I didn't have a TV between the speakers. (Believe me I had to fight hard to keep a monster TV out of the room). So, the two-channel speakers are absolutely optimized (with respect to placement). I did compromise a bit on placement of the rears but nothing to *materially* compromise the performance of the multi-channel sound and they still meet minimum ITU placement specs. All speakers are equidistant (9' 4") from the listening position. So even though the two-channel is performing at its absolute zenith the multi-channel whips it every time. And if I could improve the performance of the two-channel (there may be some crossover tweaks I can make) the multi-channel system would automatically also be improved.
Robert C. Lang
The size of my ITU circle was constrained primarily by the width of the room and secondarily by the position of the door just beyond the right rear speaker. After putting the center speaker as close to the front wall as possible I calculated the listening position from the rears and center then placed the front left and front right. Since it sounded great in MC I then left it alone :)
Even tho we took different routes for calculating speaker placement, my more point was that people claim to get value from other things (e.g. dipoles, rear firing tweeters, room lenses, ...) for stereo that I just don't believe in for MC. This was more where I was coming from when I was talking about optimizing for MC vs. stereo.
As I read your system description I chuckled: just today we were out looking for a place to get custom cut slabs of granite or marble :)
In any case as I've learned there are many ways to a great system. I know you enjoy yours like we enjoy ours.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: