|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.137.241.221
In Reply to: RE: ****no home system sounds like the live event***.. Very true...but posted by Robert C. Lang on June 25, 2012 at 17:58:34
>>But the gap reduction is graphically illustrated in a way I have never heard with a two channel rig of any price. There are, simply, so fewer dots to connect. It is so much more than just 3 additional speakers, just as the synergy of stereo over mono is tough to compute.<<
Actually, there are more "dots" to connect with MC, more to go wrong, more to get right, far more to spend, more to refine, more trouble than it's worth(?) ... MC remains a far cry from what I hear at most live events (including Roger Waters this last weekend) ... where my 2 channel system comes much closer to THAT reality than any MC system I've encountered.
When it comes to HT however, MC offers distinct advantages.
tb1
Follow Ups:
***there are more "dots" to connect with MC, more to go wrong, more to get right, far more to spend, more to refine, more trouble than it's worth(?)***
Ha! I’m tempted to say touché. But more relevant you aptly used a description most often applied by audiophiles for *decades* to describe an audiophile level vinyl rig (smile). Just substitute audiophile level rig for “MC”.But to your specific points:
“More to go wrong”: Like what? Since set up my SACD player needed repair. But that was not a multi-channel problem. Nothing else has gone wrong.
“More to get right”: In my experience the most difficult variable to get “right” is your two-channel performance. Multi-channel required that I used, for the first time (shame on me) audio tools such as a microphone and pink noise. The process resulted in my two channel sounding better than ever! For me because I have the space the other three speakers were pitifully easy to set up, just a few minutes. But no question you need to spend a few hours in set up. Then leave it alone!“Far more to spend” Agreed! But no way does the surround part of your system has to match the price/quality of your two-channel system.
“More to refine”: See “More to get right”
“More trouble than it worth (?)” Are you kidding?
Multi-channel in the same system trounces two-channel in that same system (see below). It is without question the most profound improvement I have ever made as an audiophile.Artfully disguised among your words is a grudging admission that there is at least the potential for improved performance with correctly implemented multi-channel over two-channel if only you had the resources, patience, and perhaps space to make it work optimally. Anything man made can be improved upon and that includes two-channel audio, even well done two-channel audio.
You should understand that before I improved my system to include multi-channel audio that I had, indeed *have*, a completely full range high-end two channel system with high quality vinyl playback. My system is both two-channel and multi-channel audio. I made no compromises to two-channel playback when I incorporated multi-channel playback. My two-channel system is the foundation for my multi-channel playback. It is fairly easy for me to directly compare the two systems. And my system run in two-channel (SACD or vinyl) simply falls far short of multi-channel playback in almost all areas. It is impossible to quantify but the two-channel set up of my multi-channel system probably contributes to 90% of the overall “sound.
For sure there are many (I am sure most) high-end two-channel systems that exceed the quality of most multi-channel (audio only), for some of the reasons (not all) you mentioned in your “dots” analogy. As you point out you have not encountered any that improves on your two-channel system. That is not at all surprising given the quality of your system.
But that is comparing apples and oranges! How about this? If you could somehow manage to incorporate three more of your Energy Connoisseur speakers placed optimally with appropriate hardware you will have an apples to apples comparison. I would wager that, given the attention to detail you have given your current system, you would be stunned by the improvement with respect to realism. It will not be subtle as when one fiddles with most stuff in audio; the improvement will be profound and faithfully palpable in a way you have never experienced in your system. In many ways your two-channel Energy Connoisseurs will be rendered inadequate by the 5 channel Energy Connoisseurs counterpart. This would be the case if you, like me, allocated less expensive gear to drive your additional speakers.
I see that you listen primarily to rock. I do agree with you that there is no serious correlation between a multi-tracked heavily compressed and processed rock studio recordings and a live rock performance unless the multi-channel recording was, in fact, of a live performance.
Robert C. Lang
Edits: 06/29/12
> > If you could somehow manage to incorporate three more of your Energy Connoisseur speakers placed optimally with appropriate hardware you will have an apples to apples comparison. I would wager that, given the attention to detail you have given your current system, you would be stunned by the improvement with respect to realism. It will not be subtle as when one fiddles with most stuff in audio; the improvement will be profound and faithfully palpable in a way you have never experienced in your system. In many ways your two-channel Energy Connoisseurs will be rendered inadequate by the 5 channel Energy Connoisseurs counterpart. This would be the case if you, like me, allocated less expensive gear to drive your additional speakers. < <
Well, lets consider that ...
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.
Then, system consistency requires that I'd require amplification worthy of my mono DR3s to run 'em. That would cost me plenty, even if I compromised. 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. Never mind all the isolation issues, both vibrational and electrical, which I employ that would cost a pretty penny also. Lets not forget about wiring, and all the "little" things I've done to get my system to perform currently which would need to be adapted accordingly.
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.
Therefore, for me to go MC, and to do it in a way consistent to my own requirements for "proper hi-end audio reproduction", it would certainly not be a simple or inexpensive undertaking.
And certainly, although you might consider that route potentially superior based on 3 additional channels of information, I'd consider it a risk based on nothing more than hearsay, especially considering that I'm no rookie when it comes to MC sound.
No ... if I went the MC route, I'd build an entirely new system, and it would be HT based ... which would GUARANTEE that it would not achieve the sonic superiority of my current 2 channel system. I know that as fact, because I've heard my fair share of expensive HT/MC system fail (not all) in comparison, even though I was led to believe otherwise.
tb1
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
> > I agree with 87% < <
LOL ... not bad ...
> > 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. < <
They'd remain cons, and have identical tonal characteristics, but they wouldn't sound as clear, dynamic, responsive, tight & quick ... especially during difficult passages.
> > In a perfect world, may be. But this is simply *not* necessary. In fact, it may be inaudible overkill for the surrounds. < <
You're probably right, but never-the-less the Cons would require good amplification.
Like I stated, if I went MC, I'd go a completely different route, and a different system altogether. My current system was built to maximize the quality of my 2ch source components, which it does particularly well. I've been hesitant to make any changes to it even on a 2ch basis, so taking it into the MC world is simply an unrealistic "risky" consideration.
Good discussion ...
tb1
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: