|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.171.148.63
In Reply to: Re: Yeah, but it still comes across as an overly expensive two-channel retro posted by Robert C. Lang on March 8, 2007 at 00:01:21:
When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?I ask because on a friend's MCh rig the two-channel results are significantly different when the MCh speakers and overall MCh alignment are left in place and when the center and rear speakers are removed (on well-recorded material, the two-channel presentation fares much better in the comparison). In my two-channel system I hear a significant difference in playback when: (1) my Maggies are toed-in per the MCh alignment of the month and when they're in their (optimized) straight-out position (and I have to adjust seating position and room treatment for the changed first/second reflection profiles of each speaker configuration); and (2) when I "salt" the front center and/or rear positions with the (mute) stand-mounted Paradigm Mini-Monitors I use in my separate video system. Even with their relatively small footprint they compromise phantom-center imaging and overall ambience, partly, I suspect, because of suckout issues and partly because of their absorption/reflection profiles in the MCh positions. Removing them from the room opens up the presentation sufficiently to make a perceptible difference.
From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. Doing it right may be a pain in the neck (or other part of the anatomy) because of all that has to be moved and rearranged, but it's more revealing of what each mode is actually capable of.
Follow Ups:
*******When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?*****
My front main speakers are optimized for two channel listening where they stand. Placement is for the best possible two-channel sound, both in accordance to the manufacturers detailed instructions and with my ears. I had my two channel rig before I added multi-channel. When I added the multi-channel speakers the two main speakers were not moved *one inch* from their previous/present position. In other words, there is no “MCh position for the main speakers. In fact, if I would have had to compromise two-channel speaker placement, in any way, I would have never taken the risk (and it is a risk because of the “room factor”) on multi-channel. I talk about this “Inmate Systems”. The two-channel sound today is as superb as I have ever experienced in my room.There is no evidence that in my room the other three speakers degrade the sound.
On the contrary, placement compromises, where they exist, are with the surround speakers. They are placed within ITU specifications, but are still not optimally placed. Nevertheless, with well recorded SACD multi-channel mixes (amazingly most are very well recorded), largely classical and jazz, the two-channel renditions almost always come up short in comparison multi-channel. The two channel is indeed very good, as good as ever. But the multi-channel, in direct, comparisons is even better.
The other issues you describe, I just don’t have perhaps because I am fortunate to have a large listening room. My front speaker are far from the walls (almost 6 feet from the side walls, more than 7 feet from rear wall). There is no furniture, audio gear, TVs, etc. between the speakers and the listening position. In the context of things the middle speaker is small with respect to cubic feet. But to be sure before I committed to multi-channel I placed a dummy speaker between my mains for listening tests. I was not about two screw up my two channel listening experience. There is no audible degradation caused by the middle speaker.
I should point out that before I opted for multi-channel I made the assumption, right or wrong, that what was good for two-channel was good for multi-channel (not necessarily the other way around), because most of what you directly hear comes from the front two channels. I truly believe that the best two-channel make for the best multi-channel, assuming, of course that the other speakers are placed correctly. Therefore, I was single minded in retaining superb two-channel sound without compromise before I added multi-channel.
*******From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. ****To your credit you recognize that a comparison between multi-channel and two-channel cannot be done fairly in your situation. I have seen many reckless comparisons described in this forum that are done without regard to any criterion. Most often this is to the detriment of multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
...to front main speaker placement for MCh. Our perceptions differ, however, on which way the reckless comparisons tilt--which you probably gathered from the content of my initial post. Different strokes, I guess.Thanks for the detailed response.
Yeah, my reckless tilt, if I were to have one, would be in favor of two-channel reproduction. But in spite of any handicap that may exist against multi-channel it, nonetheless, almost always prevails when directly compared to two-channel.But what is really interesting is Michael Bishop’s recommended multi-channel set up. See link below. You might recall when Mr. Bishop caused quite a stir in this forum 9 months to a year ago, with this recommendation that deviates quite a bit from ITU rear speaker placement guidelines.
My set-up follows the accompanying diagram (see link) for the front three speakers. My surround speakers are more on the “wings” of the circle while Mr. Bishop’s recommendation calls for more rear placement of the surrounds.
I plan to experiment with the Bishop approach since I can far more readily accommodate the rear channel set-up that his diagram shows. It was really difficult for me to accommodate the surrounds at the optimum 110 degrees. I am currently at about 120 degrees (still within the ITU recommendations).
Robert C. Lang
the "ITU is oh so ninety's" remark and commented on it here at the time.Have fun with your rear speaker placement experiment. Once you've tried it out, would be interested in your comments on what you hear with Telarcs made using the "new" configuration and recordings that assumed ITU placement.
The diagram is useful. I see how Lang has his set up. How is your surround set up differently? How do you move things around for stereo?
...if you're still interested in a diagram, here's mine. :-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: