[guest41324]

Someone made a serious mistake in the 1960's. The concept of stereo sound, or as you may recall, multichannel reproduction, was seriously compromised when some idiot decided to stuff the two channels directly in front of us.
The ambience and localization is better realised with each speaker front and back and recording and reproduction techniques should have been optimised for this locale.
If this were the norm none of the requirement for additional channels above the two would have been necessary. And no reproduction "bubble" (4 ch, 5 ch, 6 ch, etc.) would come about.
Those with a hobbyist mentality have probably realised this to some extent and neglected to inform the masses because of the stigma attached to alternative opinions about the status quo reproduction methods or the state of debate in general.
I'm listening to the live version of No woman, No cry right now and never really heard Marley sound as good, Buckcherry sounds pretty good, too. maybe a little bright, though, the Vibrators are perfect. With a decent integrated amp and mp3 source material carefully manipulated you can't beat it.
The subjective of component attributes is non-exsistent. This is the holy grail of sound reproduction on a budget. As an aside, mono recordings don't work at all
Any relevant opinions welcome. Try it you'll like it.


Serendipity

[WGH]

Someone made a serious mistake in the 1960's. The concept of stereo sound, or as you may recall, multichannel reproduction, was seriously compromised when some idiot decided to stuff the two channels directly in front of us.

Maybe stereo sound blossomed because the development of quadraphonic records wasn't perfected until 1971 and by then there was a huge catalog of excellent stereo recordings going back to 1955. The first Quadraphonic LP was The Sound of Music in 1971.

Also around 1970 Dynaco introduced a system whereby 4-channel sound could be easily derived from stereo material by using a rear channel speaker matrix. This "Dynaco patent" required a single resistor and a threeway potentiometer for the two rear speakers for generating sufficient phase difference signals for a feeling of ambience. The system worked best when the stereo sound had been recorded via two bidirectional microphones on the same spot. When microphone set-up changed to the use of multiple directional microphones and multitrack tape recording and postprocessing (i.c. in the CD era), the Dynaco patent lost its market value.*

I played around with the Dynaco setup but preferred stereo. I seriously got into 4 channel sound with the introduction of stereo hi-fi VCR's. The surround decoders at that time decoded the ambience of movies and it was the beginning of my mini-home theater 4 channel surround sound system.

I still prefer stereo for music, though some AC members prefer music your way.

Viva la Difference!

Wayne



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaco

[rydenfan]

With the right system and right recording you can create a true wrap around sound field and have 2 channels sound like a multi-channel recording.

[guest41324]

With the right system and right recording you can create a true wrap around sound field and have 2 channels sound like a multi-channel recording.

It's easier and a more realistic representation my way.
the Dyna Quad4 system  necessitates more than 2 speakers.

[opnly bafld]

I have never heard live music and thought to myself, I need rear speakers at home.

Tom Holman (THX developer) did a demonstration several years ago with 7 front speakers and 3 rear speakers, the vast majority preferred having 7 fronts and no surrounds to fewer front speakers with surrounds. (I read about it in a stereo mag don't remember which one; the fronts were- wide L&R- narrow L&R- center- high/wide L&R, the surrounds- LCR)

Lin

[guest41324]

I have never heard live music and thought to myself, I need rear speakers at home.

Tom Holman (THX developer) did a demonstration several years ago with 7 front speakers and 3 rear speakers, the vast majority preferred having 7 fronts and no surrounds to fewer front speakers with surrounds. (I read about it in a stereo mag don't remember which one; the fronts were- wide L&R- narrow L&R- center- high/wide L&R, the surrounds- LCR)

Lin

Is it imperative to specifically misinterpret the OPs question?
Two speakers with a different configuration from what's normal.
One is in the front and one is in the back. As opposed to one left of you and one right of you.
Have you tried it? Do you want us to comment on the obviously obscured opinion about these 7 speakers that sound somehow different from what I'm talking about. Is this complicated? I am not interested in  reproduction for anything above 2 loudspeakers.

Please don't  hijack or obscure the text of the original post.

[WGH]

OK, I get it now.

You prefer 2 channel surround (1 front, 1 rear). Check out the Rolling Stones - Got Live If you Want It. The band is on the left, audience is on the right. "I've Been Loving You Too Long" is a good demo track. You are right, not many recordings are made this way (and I can see why).

Some of my friends have each stereo speaker on opposite walls pointing (sort of) toward the center of the room. They don't listen to music the same way most AC members or I do but they are still nice people.

[opnly bafld]

Is it imperative to specifically misinterpret the OPs question?
Two speakers with a different configuration from what's normal.
One is in the front and one is in the back. As opposed to one left of you and one right of you.
Have you tried it? Do you want us to comment on the obviously obscured opinion about these 7 speakers that sound somehow different from what I'm talking about. Is this complicated? I am not interested in  reproduction for anything above 2 loudspeakers.

Please don't  hijack or obscure the text of the original post.

I understood your OP, but others were commenting on surround sound which is the title of your thread and you used the term multichannel which normally means more than 2 channels.
I still think 99% of listeners would rather have a left to right stage in front of them instead of some sounds coming from a single source in front and other sounds coming from a single source in back.
One speaker in front and one speaker in back doesn't really make me think of surround sound.

In car stereo many people run front and rear R and L, but I always recommend running the rear speakers mono at a lower volume to add some spaciousness without detracting from the front soundstage. A person could try something like this with a home stereo if they have a Dolby Pro Logic receiver or a THX pre/receiver to use in conjunction with their normal setup, this would allow running a mono rear speaker summed from the front R/L to get some of what you like with a rear speaker but still have a front stage as intended in the recording.

IMO YMMV etc.
Lin

[JLM]

Wouldn't this be primarily a function of the miking/mixing methods used?  Assuming the recording studio knew what they were doing and had a free hand in the process, shouldn't the recording be played back as the engineer heard it?

Secondly, your room/set-up/speakers would also play a significant factor.

And of course personal taste must be accounted for.  I for one, don't want to hear the symphony from the middle of the symphony.

[rydenfan]

I have never heard live music and thought to myself, I need rear speakers at home.

Tom Holman (THX developer) did a demonstration several years ago with 7 front speakers and 3 rear speakers, the vast majority preferred having 7 fronts and no surrounds to fewer front speakers with surrounds. (I read about it in a stereo mag don't remember which one; the fronts were- wide L&R- narrow L&R- center- high/wide L&R, the surrounds- LCR)

Lin

Is it imperative to specifically misinterpret the OPs question?
Two speakers with a different configuration from what's normal.
One is in the front and one is in the back. As opposed to one left of you and one right of you.
Have you tried it? Do you want us to comment on the obviously obscured opinion about these 7 speakers that sound somehow different from what I'm talking about. Is this complicated? I am not interested in  reproduction for anything above 2 loudspeakers.

Please don't  hijack or obscure the text of the original post.

geez, calm down. someone got up on the wrong side of the bed...

[Marbles]

If the question is do you prefer (with only 2 speakers) front and back, or the two in front, then I have no preference as I haven't tried front and back.

As for myself, the standard configuration is easier to set up in most of my audio rooms, and in the few rooms where I can set up front and rear I find it just as easy (but more expensive) to set up a full surround system.

To each their own though.

[ted_b]

I prefer to set up my speakers to recreate what the artist and mixing engineer had in mind.  In 99.99% of the cases for stereo programs (I'm giving the .01% the benefit of the doubt) it's front left and right.  I have huge $$ invested in multichannel (i.e more than 2, that's stereo) and prefer many recordings in multichannel (assuming the recording, mastering and mixing was done for that purpose).  The OP is right, ambiance and other cues are very seductive and real when coming from somewhere else other than in front of you.  The point I am making is that those cues need to be placed correctly IMHO.  My $.02

[hifitommy]

if used subtly, the dynaquad system is very effective and in my room, not noticed until turned off.  the rears need be barlely audible on conventional stereo, then when a LIVE recording comes on, the rears deliver the ambient cues quite nicely.

its ALWAYS on and at the same setting  here and very satisfying in ALL source configs, tuner, cd, dvd, LP, cassette, etc.