[vegasdave]

Hi.
BINGO! Quality home stereo doen't NEED to be costly IF one knows the way.

I enjoy bigtime vinyl music over CD & DVD-audio music which I've owned for years.

My many hundreds of LPs are picked up from thrift stores for 75 cents a pop!
My TT is still the vintage Thorens 125II I bought 30 years back which I paid for peanut.

If one knows to play the audio game right, quality stereo should not be expensive at all.

c-J

Knows the way? Like what, or is it some well guarded secret?

Sometimes audio can be playing with madness. That's what I know.

We all want the truth, but I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you.

[tim92gts]

For us it all started as two channel audio only.
But then it seemed the obvious thing to do to put a screen between the speakers
for occasional films, initially with a GBP19 supermarket DVD player witha surprisingly good
digital out for sound.
Then i remembered the redundant satellite dish just above the roof, fortunately the wire reached
the preamp so i got an HD tuner for that.
Now we're all in there a lot of the time so in terms of pounds per hour of use the Bryston / PMC gear is looking good

[James Tanner]

I think one aspect of surround sound systems is the total cost required.

 I would rather listen and watch a movie through a quality stereo setup than a surround setup given the same expendature. In others words I would rather spend my budget on getting great stereo first and then adding the multi channel speakers as I go.

James

[rollo]

I think one aspect of surround sound systems is the total cost required.

 I would rather listen and watch a movie through a quality stereo setup than a surround setup given the same expendature. In others words I would rather spend my budget on getting great stereo first and then adding the multi channel speakers as I go.

James

   In total agreement with you James. My concern is the program material and how it is recorded. Some recording sound contrived and or mixed poorly.
   An old trick is to run another pair of small speakers behind you run out of phase to the mains. Speakers should be placed approx one foot apart set at ear level. Room fill with the sense of being surrounded with sound. Then adding a sub a minimum of 6' behind you.
   The result no music detected behind you, just fills the room. Works every time.
 

[Don_S]

I think one of the biggest problems with multichannel playback is getting truly "surrounded".  Many rooms create problems with placing just two speakers properly.  When it comes to multiple speakers they get shoved in wherever they fit. It is often impossible to get the rear speakers adequately behind the listening position.

I put all of my entertainment finances into my main stereo system.  There is no money or space left for more speakers. I am not the least bit sad about that. 

[launche]

I think one of the biggest problems with multichannel playback is getting truly "surrounded".  Many rooms create problems with placing just two speakers properly.  When it comes to multiple speakers they get shoved in wherever they fit. It is often impossible to get the rear speakers adequately behind the listening position.

I put all of my entertainment finances into my main stereo system.  There is no money or space left for more speakers. I am not the least bit sad about that. 

You could just do this then, no excuse.

[JLM]

So glad I have my own room when I want to aggressively listen at 5AM or when the teenagers have turned the living room into whatever/whenever and dad just needs to get away.

Note I "cheat" and also use the room as my office.

A luxury, yes (but not much of one if you have extra space in the basement). 

Something that fewer will have in the future, probably.

[Don_S]

That only works if you have one of these as well.

You could just do this then, no excuse.

[DaveNote]

That only works if you have one of these as well.

Where do I get me these things? 

Dave

[launche]

Any audiophile who needs help keeping his head in the necessary stereo position needs to go back to basic training and surely doesn't deserve a dedicated room.

[Mag]

I think one aspect of surround sound systems is the total cost required.

 I would rather listen and watch a movie through a quality stereo setup than a surround setup given the same expendature. In others words I would rather spend my budget on getting great stereo first and then adding the multi channel speakers as I go.

James

Sorry James, I don't agree with your reasoning.

I have spent approx. $28,000 on my multi-channel, HT. Based on having had an SP2 for a year, to achieve a equal level of sound quality I would need to spend approx. $18,000.

However the real difference is it would have taken me 10 years to acquire $18,000 to plop down on a quality stereo system. A rich man can do this but can he truly call himself an audiophile?

Instead I built progressively as I could afford, listening and learning where improvements in sound could be had and purchased accordingly. Every upgrade improved the sound.

Now that I have the SP2 I can make a fair comparison between 2 channel, multi-channel stereo and surround sound.
Not having an ideal room dimension wise, I can honestly say there is not much difference between quality 2 channel an quality multi-channel stereo. It really depends on the mix and is a preference thing as to which is better.

However, a good multi-channel sacd recording and mix trumps everything I've listened to in stereo.

Bottom line though is a quality recording. I'm shocked to learn lately listening mostly to 48k dvd's switching tracks, that quality recordings existed from way back in the 60's. But the formats, intentional or un-intentionly marketed inferior sound.

[FullRangeMan]

A short mind, IQ=90 article, specially made to do merchandise from Multi-channel systems.
The quantity of channels is not important to sound quality, even mono sound great in SACD format.
10 channels with bad recording are bad sound x 10.

[kingdeezie]

Sorry James, I don't agree with your reasoning.

I have spent approx. $28,000 on my multi-channel, HT. Based on having had an SP2 for a year, to achieve a equal level of sound quality I would need to spend approx. $18,000.

However the real difference is it would have taken me 10 years to acquire $18,000 to plop down on a quality stereo system. A rich man can do this but can he truly call himself an audiophile?

Instead I built progressively as I could afford, listening and learning where improvements in sound could be had and purchased accordingly. Every upgrade improved the sound.

Now that I have the SP2 I can make a fair comparison between 2 channel, multi-channel stereo and surround sound.
Not having an ideal room dimension wise, I can honestly say there is not much difference between quality 2 channel an quality multi-channel stereo. It really depends on the mix and is a preference thing as to which is better.

However, a good multi-channel sacd recording and mix trumps everything I've listened to in stereo.

Bottom line though is a quality recording. I'm shocked to learn lately listening mostly to 48k dvd's switching tracks, that quality recordings existed from way back in the 60's. But the formats, intentional or un-intentionly marketed inferior sound.

Your logic makes zero sense, either that or you are not accurately representing yourself. You said that you spent $ 28,000 dollars to get multichannel audio/HT, but would need $18,000 to equal it in stereo, which is significantly cheaper, and PROVES James' point. 

The bottom line is, James is fairly correct. IMHO, there is no processor on the planet that can equal a well designed, well built, vacuum tube preamplifier.

Not to mention that the DACs that are being run in these processors are not up to par either compared to a quality external DAC.

For the 7-12K these high end processors are selling for (which will also be obsolete shortly because the HDMI standard changes every year to generate mass market receiver sales), you could purchase a very nice tube preamp (the TRL Dude off the top of my head), plus a sweet DAC (PS Audio PWMK2, Lampizator, Etc, Etc), and kill the processor in terms of musical reproduction and realism and dimensionality in 2-channel.

Not to mention you could also, given the same budget, lets say 28K, buy significantly better main speakers, without having to sacrifice to include a center channel, and how many ridiculous channels they are advocating for now. 7.1? 9.1? 11.1? 13.2?

Not to say that multichannel can't be done right, its just a lot more expensive, hence James' point.

 

[Mag]

Your logic makes zero sense, either that or you are not accurately representing yourself. You said that you spent $ 28,000 dollars to get multichannel audio/HT, but would need $18,000 to equal it in stereo, which is significantly cheaper, and PROVES James' point. 

[/quote]

Okay, I'll try again.

 Let's say I start out with a boom box. If I have the cash I can plop down $18,000 tomorrow and have a top notch stereo. If I don't have the cash, I will have to listen to the boom box for 10 years until I save the cash. Not growing and learning how to listen or what constitutes good quality audio sound, content with crap during this time.

Not having $18,000 cash in hand, I can build a multi-channel surround system progressively as I can afford to budget, listening and learning improving on the crap boom box, not waiting 10 years. So I end up spending $28,000 to get the equivelent sound of $18,000 stereo, but I didn't wait 10 years.

Now a person can plop down $28,000 tomorrow and it may sound better than my multi-channel system in stereo. But I still maintain multi-channel sacd will trump the $28,000 stereo. Because the stereo format is limited in that it sounds two dimensional be it sacd, hi-rez, Blu-ray.

[DaveNote]

...the stereo format is limited in that it sounds two dimensional be it sacd, hi-rez, Blu-ray.

I don't have not dog in this fight, but this point caught my attention. The dimensionality of a medium seems to be irrelevant. The greatest paintings all have beeen two dimensional. Using the premise of this quote, one would have to conclude that Rembrandt was OK, but his work was limited because it was not in 3D.

[Jonathon Janusz]

Mag, just trying to follow your thoughts, for you was the HT and stereo question an either/or proposition?  Meaning, was the HT a given requirement for the home/family and the idea of a stereo set something that would have been your personal "toy"?  This would mean, sure, the HT/family room gets handled and one would be stuck with the "boom box" until $$$$$ fell from the sky.  Building up the HT into a nice stereo/multichannel audio rig over time means money invested where it would get the most use, and enjoyment along the way - no waiting until far later to build a "real stereo" for yourself.

I guess I had a hard time following the thought that it read as if you were suggesting that one couldn't start small and build up/upgrade a stereo in similar fashion over time, given that everyone in the household would be cool with "just a stereo" instead of a full multichannel HT.

For my lot, I got back into this hobby on the HT end, came a stones throw from what I would call the ground floor of a good multichannel setup, then a need/desire to simplify a bit pointed me in the direction of two channel stereo.  I'm currently more or less sitting on the fence trying to decide which direction (read: how much do I want to spend) I want to go in next.  There have been some great deals in the classifieds here on AC, but I've been really trying to stay strong until after I get a chance to check out a lot of things/do some learning at RMAF about what the deep end of the pool really looks like.

Cheers and congrats on the SP2.  Isolating audio processing from video signals is an easy way to get off the HDMI-standards merry-go-round.

[Mag]

I don't have not dog in this fight, but this point caught my attention. The dimensionality of a medium seems to be irrelevant. The greatest paintings all have beeen two dimensional. Using the premise of this quote, one would have to conclude that Rembrandt was OK, but his work was limited because it was not in 3D.

If artists of the past knew of 3D they would have used it!
 The Shroud of Turin for example with computer analysis is 3D yet experts say it is not a painting. So obviously nobody in the past knew how to do 3D.

[launche]

Time marches on and the world moves forward, even Rembrandt would be proud.









When the next generation is allowed to run free with audio reproduction then maybe we'll see some things that will be revolutionary, right now we are stagnant.  Stereo will be like a black and white TV and their reality may be dialing up a 3D holographic image  and sound of a concert hall against green screen like paint on their walls and they will really almost be there.  The kids are going to be alright if we just let them make progress.  There's no future in this version of stereo, it must evolve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGbrFmPBV0Y

[Mag]

>>Mag, just trying to follow your thoughts, for you was the HT and stereo question an either/or proposition? <<

Don't get me wrong, Two Channel audio is safe as long as sacd is poorly marketed or another multi-channel format comes along.

Two channel can sound pretty darn good!

I listened with quadrophonic headphones for many years when I was young. So I developed a liking for surround sound. I knew stereo could sound good as my friend had a good system from that time, from Radio Shack. But I could never get good stereo imaging in my home so I opted to go with surround sound again.

It was only after getting the SP2 that I finally got good stereo imaging comparable to what I was hearing in multi-channel surround sound.
So if I was to start over again knowing what I know now. I probably would not have gone the multi-channel HT route, as I'm not an avid movie buff.

[LA mitchell]

Sometimes I think it would be cool if I just had an old MONO (one channel) setup....
I could move around the apartment and not worry about missing some of the music just because I'm not in the sweet spot.