Immersive Audio Is Just Better!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 19330 times.

HsvHeelFan

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 452
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #220 on: 14 Mar 2019, 03:03 am »
Hahhhahhha!   As soon as I saw this:

"Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio"

I just knew that the originator had to be involved.   

Trust your ears and listen to what you like, how you like!  If your system and the sound you get from it makes you happy, well then you're all set.

HsvHeelFan

ServerAdmin

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 378
  • I don't take messages.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #221 on: 14 Mar 2019, 04:29 am »
I don't need this kind of headline in front of me on AC.

Please click on the --Configure-- button at the bottom of the recent topics list, check the box next to Home Theater and Video, and click Save at the bottom right.

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 202
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #222 on: 14 Mar 2019, 01:03 pm »
Your observation that music is recorded in two channel is poignant, I must agree. I like to listen to two channel in a desktop system with JBL speakers that are patterned after the M2 monitor. I tried the Pro JBL monitors but prefer my class A amp. I like to try and replicate what the engineer heard in this setup using MQA files based on the master.
But for sheer scale and dynamics of a LIVE event immersive is untouchable IMO.

Evoke, it would be awesome if you could post some pics of your listening rooms, thanks!


I've read some of your comments about $100,000 speakers - I agree. While there are some good efforts I think the money is for the paint job - mostly kidding (so some degree). On the other end of the spectrum - your reference to 2 channel with a desk top system is just as far on the other end of the spectrum.


As for my work, I'd have to dig in my files to see what I can publish. Most are high profile clienst where I sign non-disclosures. By the way, the mains typically cost $20,000 a channel, they require 4 channels of amps each for the electronic crossovers etc. If using an available room, close to $100,000 is not unusual for acoustics. Add a nice video projector for about $50K and you have a great set-up.


Now, If you want something reasonable, 3 Eddies and 6 - 10 Rubys work quite well. I'd add 2 - 4 subwoofers, associated amps and a good surround pre-amp. Music and Film wise, it is quite spectacular.




OzarkTom

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #223 on: 14 Mar 2019, 01:49 pm »
I must be out of the loop. At work, 8-12 hours each day I listen to a $1.50 boom box I bought at a garage sale, too much dust here. Any system will sound better than this. I guess I am just a music lover more than an audiophile.

But I like great audiophile systems also. :thumb:

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #224 on: 14 Mar 2019, 02:21 pm »

I've read some of your comments about $100,000 speakers - I agree. While there are some good efforts I think the money is for the paint job - mostly kidding (so some degree). On the other end of the spectrum - your reference to 2 channel with a desk top system is just as far on the other end of the spectrum.


As for my work, I'd have to dig in my files to see what I can publish. Most are high profile clienst where I sign non-disclosures. By the way, the mains typically cost $20,000 a channel, they require 4 channels of amps each for the electronic crossovers etc. If using an available room, close to $100,000 is not unusual for acoustics. Add a nice video projector for about $50K and you have a great set-up.


Now, If you want something reasonable, 3 Eddies and 6 - 10 Rubys work quite well. I'd add 2 - 4 subwoofers, associated amps and a good surround pre-amp. Music and Film wise, it is quite spectacular.

What would be your preference in a good surround pre-amp? Have you checked out auromatic yet?

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #225 on: 14 Mar 2019, 02:24 pm »
I must be out of the loop. At work, 8-12 hours each day I listen to a $1.50 boom box I bought at a garage sale, too much dust here. Any system will sound better than this. I guess I am just a music lover more than an audiophile.

But I like great audiophile systems also. :thumb:

Dust? That can muck up electronics in no time. That boom box must be sturdy. At least you got music though.

Evoke

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 202
    • EVOKE Planar Loudspeakers
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #226 on: 14 Mar 2019, 02:37 pm »
What would be your preference in a good surround pre-amp? Have you checked out auromatic yet?


Good question. First the prices DISGUST me. Finding a good mid-range product is not easy. When you consider speakers, subs and electronics (and then the monthly bill for DirecTV or whatever), it's pricey for anyone. I recall taking my entire first paycheck and spending all of it on a phono cartridge. Mind you, people like me exist - but thankfully there are medications that help with that kind of thinking LOL


Odd to hear me say, but I think there are some really good surround receivers out there. Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer Ellite come to mind. I think around $1500 gets a great product. Yes there are receivers up to $6,000 - but at a certain point separates are called for. At that point a surround preamp gets way up there. I have a NuPrime that is no longer made. It listed for $3K. Quite a deal - but oddly, some receivers have more features. It's a really good preamp and meets 2 of my most important qualities (as do my speakers) - exceptional value for the money, and performance to match components MANY times the price.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #227 on: 14 Mar 2019, 02:53 pm »

Good question. First the prices DISGUST me. Finding a good mid-range product is not easy. When you consider speakers, subs and electronics (and then the monthly bill for DirecTV or whatever), it's pricey for anyone. I recall taking my entire first paycheck and spending all of it on a phono cartridge. Mind you, people like me exist - but thankfully there are medications that help with that kind of thinking LOL


Odd to hear me say, but I think there are some really good surround receivers out there. Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer Ellite come to mind. I think around $1500 gets a great product. Yes there are receivers up to $6,000 - but at a certain point separates are called for. At that point a surround preamp gets way up there. I have a NuPrime that is no longer made. It listed for $3K. Quite a deal - but oddly, some receivers have more features. It's a really good preamp and meets 2 of my most important qualities (as do my speakers) - exceptional value for the money, and performance to match components MANY times the price.

In the man cave I was running separates, a Carver 505 5 channel amp and a Sunfire TG3 with modest priced speakers. Sounded nice but lacked HDMI, I have upgraded to whole house audio using DTS Play-Fi and 3 brands of HT receivers play in that ecosystem, Integra, Pioneer, and Onkyo. I just pulled the trigger on an Onkyo RZ630. NINE channels for $350!! I am still dilaing it in so can't really comment on the final result yet but I am stunned to what I got for less than $500 (refurb- new units are $499)

https://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-RZ630-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B07CW3F37L/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=306RZ24RNC2WF&keywords=onkyo+rz630&qid=1552575085&s=gateway&sprefix=onkyo+rz%2Caps%2C204&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&smid=A2K7RN1DSQCI9O

Bsmooth

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Bruce or Bsmooth
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #228 on: 14 Mar 2019, 07:02 pm »
Interesting thread, and since everyone else has had a shot here's my two cents worth, even though that probably belongs to the Cheap and Cheerful thread.
 I have a Five channel Yamaha 757 receiver and its great driving my small Paradigm Atoms and rear Cambridge soundworks surrounds with a Dayton sub.
 After setting it up with the mike included with the receiver, it has a nice sweetspot right on the Sofa.
It sounds great for movies, but not so much for music. Its not that it sounds bad, I just prefer  listening to just the Atoms and the Sub, maybe thats because thats what I'm used to listening to. I have plenty of surround modes to try, but I always come back to Stereo.
 

Tyson

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #229 on: 14 Mar 2019, 07:59 pm »
I tend to agree - even with a purist setup, DSD 5.1 with excellent amps and speakers, I always come back to 2 channel.  I think part of it is the multi channel stuff is just too fussy. 

If you are exactly in the sweet spot, DSD 5.1 can do some cool stuff that 2 channel cannot.  But if you are NOT in the sweet spot, then 2 channel sounds much better.  Even in the sweet spot, there's something more 'right' sounding about 2 channel.  Especially if you run OB mains that give a greater sense of depth/space than box speakers can. 

budyog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 626
  • I don't listen to audio, I listen to music.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #230 on: 14 Mar 2019, 09:07 pm »
Not my 2 channel; my 2 channel is so unorthodox it is extremely immersive audio! 1st off my background, been into audio (2 channel) for 45 years, many systems, much more money invested and more equipment than I have now for example I had custom made ACI Panoramas with stereo ACI Maestro subs all have been sold along with other equipment and now down to some old local speakers I have modified with a mix of drivers, 12” woofer, 4” mid & soft dome tweeter and Parts Express crossovers, a Van Alstine amp, a new NAD c368 and a modified Velodyne 18” cabinet with a Dayton 18” driver and Dayton SA1000 amp along with a Richard Gray 400 and all 10 gauge silver wire.

This is hard to describe but my room is 18’ x 24’ x 9’ high. Well insulated with acoustical ceiling and concrete floor with ½ carpet, my Mancave. My speakers are on a shelf 8’ high and about 20’ apart towed in a bit and angled down a bit and my sub in on the floor in the middle BUT we stand or sit on bar stools (with backs) about 4 feet out into the room from the sound wall facing the opposite direction (speakers behind us) for DVD concerts because my new 65” TV is opposite the speakers and I tell you, when a concert is playing and the volume is up, the sound is all around! It’s like you are in the very first row and friends are wowed, and after like 10 years of this system I am still wowed! The sound is full and very immersive! And sometimes when I want to just listen, I will sit in front of the TV facing my system and the whole 24’ x 9’ wall is filled with sound and with wonderful imaging. It is the most fun and enjoyable system I’ve ever had, and I still look forward to my listening times, mostly Saturday nights.

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #231 on: 14 Mar 2019, 09:39 pm »
Not my 2 channel; my 2 channel is so unorthodox it is extremely immersive audio! 1st off my background, been into audio (2 channel) for 45 years, many systems, much more money invested and more equipment than I have now for example I had custom made ACI Panoramas with stereo ACI Maestro subs all have been sold along with other equipment and now down to some old local speakers I have modified with a mix of drivers, 12” woofer, 4” mid & soft dome tweeter and Parts Express crossovers, a Van Alstine amp, a new NAD c368 and a modified Velodyne 18” cabinet with a Dayton 18” driver and Dayton SA1000 amp along with a Richard Gray 400 and all 10 gauge silver wire.

This is hard to describe but my room is 18’ x 24’ x 9’ high. Well insulated with acoustical ceiling and concrete floor with ½ carpet, my Mancave. My speakers are on a shelf 8’ high and about 20’ apart towed in a bit and angled down a bit and my sub in on the floor in the middle BUT we stand or sit on bar stools (with backs) about 4 feet out into the room from the sound wall facing the opposite direction (speakers behind us) for DVD concerts because my new 65” TV is opposite the speakers and I tell you, when a concert is playing and the volume is up, the sound is all around! It’s like you are in the very first row and friends are wowed, and after like 10 years of this system I am still wowed! The sound is full and very immersive! And sometimes when I want to just listen, I will sit in front of the TV facing my system and the whole 24’ x 9’ wall is filled with sound and with wonderful imaging. It is the most fun and enjoyable system I’ve ever had, and I still look forward to my listening times, mostly Saturday nights.

Congratulations, it looks like we agree on immersive audio but you created your own, very interesting. Speakers elevated in the rear of the room firing forward. A 24" wall/screen is pretty big.

Bsmooth

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Bruce or Bsmooth
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #232 on: 15 Mar 2019, 01:42 pm »
I should have mentioned size as well, my room is all of probably 8 x 11, so its a fairly small space, much different probably than most listening areas. Circa 1800 houses tend to have pretty smallish living areas, because thats all they were ever meant for.
 Sounds like a pretty cool mancave!

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #233 on: 15 Mar 2019, 01:58 pm »
I should have mentioned size as well, my room is all of probably 8 x 11, so its a fairly small space, much different probably than most listening areas. Circa 1800 houses tend to have pretty smallish living areas, because thats all they were ever meant for.
 Sounds like a pretty cool mancave!

I can't believe you can get a NINE channel receiver with all the 4K bells and whistles for less than $500. It lacks auro 3D but includes atmos, DTS-X, and DTS Play-Fi! :thumb:

witchdoctor

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #234 on: 15 Mar 2019, 06:29 pm »
I was going to post asking we not feed the troll, alas I am 14 pages too late. It is a shame witchdoctor started this topic and continues with such a caustic tone. There is a valid discussion to be had around the tradeoffs of 2-channel vs multi-channel but thoughtful discussions are hard to have when they are started with a flame thrower.

I do find this quote from witchdoctors first post quite amusing “Do me a favor, buy 10 decent book shelf speakers and a sub and get yourself a Marantz or Denon receiver, get the Auro 3D upgrade and just leave it on. You can thank me later…” When I sold and installed stereo and multi-channel HiFi at the retail level the #1 concern of typical clients was the visibility of speakers in their living spaces. As a result a system with 10 speakers is what I call “bachelorhood enforcers”. Any potential mate will take one look at a 10 speaker array filling every wall, corner, and ceiling spot of a room then turn and run.

BTW, I noticed some of the more "discrete" two channel systems in your gallery,...NOT:

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;image=169416

I stand by my first post and we can use Legacy Speakers as an example from your gallery. 10 of their home theater speakers would be both more discrete, have higher WAF and sound better than stereo in an auro 3d setup than those two towers. Pick any 10 that suits your decor:

https://legacyaudio.com/products/sides-and-rears/


budyog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 626
  • I don't listen to audio, I listen to music.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #235 on: 15 Mar 2019, 06:53 pm »
I should have mentioned size as well, my room is all of probably 8 x 11, so its a fairly small space, much different probably than most listening areas. Circa 1800 houses tend to have pretty smallish living areas, because thats all they were ever meant for.
 Sounds like a pretty cool mancave!

Yes it is, my home could burn down but I'd be devastated if my Mancave did!  :)

fredgarvin

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1241
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #236 on: 15 Mar 2019, 07:15 pm »
Yes it is, my home could burn down but I'd be devastated if my Mancave did!  :)

One thing though, you gotta replace the barstools with loungers.  :D

budyog

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 626
  • I don't listen to audio, I listen to music.
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #237 on: 15 Mar 2019, 07:54 pm »
One thing though, you gotta replace the barstools with loungers.  :D

Been there done that with my past systems and if I did now no matter the volume or artist, good chance my friends and possibly me would nod-off.  :) The stools are only for my friends, I like to stand and move to the music!  :D

Bendingwave

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 315
Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #238 on: 15 Mar 2019, 10:13 pm »
Although the title is a little forward in your face, I don't see anything wrong with this thread....its like me saying paradigm sucks compared to DML panels when it comes to imaging, its just ones opinion. LOL

charmerci

Re: Two Channels Sucks Compared to Immersive Audio
« Reply #239 on: 15 Mar 2019, 11:29 pm »
Although the title is a little forward in your face,


I have to disagree.

Your car sucks compared to my BMW, Lexus, etc.  :roll: