2ch is dead, dead, dead

James Romeyn · « **on:** 7 Jan 2004, 12:42 am »

My Philips SACD1000 multi-channel, Stan Warren recipe cables, McCormack MAP-1 multi-channel preamp & the room & treatments were constant during the changes below. The cables have beat $800 Analysis Plus & another $600 interconnect. The preamp was preferred to several much more expensive including a $12k Audio Note & a $7500 Jadis. The preamp has an AMR (ambience recovery mode) that converts 2ch into 5.1 multi-channel, purely in the analog domain, with better audible results than any DSP technology I know of. The preamp improves by about 20-30% with shorting RCA plugs inserted into every unused jack (FYI the shorting plugs allow a little sound to pass through when the preamp is muted). All gear must be burned in fully.

The 2ch system had a $5800pr of VMPS RM40s including the $1200 TRT capacitor upgrade, powered by a $5500pr of Ampzilla 2000 mono blocs.

The 3.1 system (to be 5.1) included: VMPS 626R (L-R front) & VMPS LRC (center) powered by McCormack 3ch DNA-HT3, VMPS Larger Sub w/upgrades powered by the Parts Express 1000W Subwoofer Amp/xo/eq.

Whether listening to multi-channel SACD or 2ch converted in the analog domain into 3.1, the MC system produced a huge increase in enjoyment. An added bonus is the huge improvement in sound for video viewing. The kicker is about $5000 MSRP saved & much shorter speakers.

If you have discounted multi-channel, I recommend auditioning a properly burned in MAP-1 system, preferably with a matching McCormack amp (their appears to be an incredible synergy between the two). I intend to get the 5ch McCormack amp & a pair of surrounds to finish the system.

IMO 2ch is dead, dead, dead, & I’ll personally never consider it for music enjoyment again. If you audition a properly tuned system with the MAP-1, & switch its ARM in & out with your best 2ch sources, you might agree.

It's only my opinion, but that's my story & I'm sticking to it.

Zero · « **Reply #1 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 01:05 am »

Congrats on your find and thorough enjoyment of hard work.

I am but a humble enthusiast. My pockets are not deep, and my room is not large. Two Channel is what I can do for now, and it is something I am quite comfortable with. It may be dead with some folks, but there are many in my boat. Some use two channel because its all they can afford, or all their space can allow. Some like the feel and sound of a good two channel system. Then again, some do not.

So long as there are people who enjoy listening to music and watching movies with two speakers, two channel will be there. It will be for me.

Someday, I may be able to enjoy the endeavors you have now. I am enjoyin my two channel rig quite well. Enjoy your rig. Its what this hobby is all about.

Tuckers · « **Reply #2 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 01:15 am »

It was one of the best surround music setups I have heard. I think they used the preamp and his new but unreleased universal player. They were playing 5.1 channel music (possibly SACD?). I didn't hear any simulated surround sources.

I am still not that personally interested in surround though, even though I do design and install HT systems on the side.

Just not the kind of material available that I am interested in, and probably never will be. I will look into what Jim is cooking up at CES this year though.

Ravi · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 01:17 am »

Two channel is definately NOT dead. Maybe to you it is.

I don't like a center channel for music, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real issue is that the RM40s are not the equals of 626 plus sub.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #4 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 01:36 am »

Quote

IMO 2ch is dead, dead, dead, & I’ll personally never consider it for music enjoyment again

Well Jim, that should elicit a couple of strong responses from the field....

I should visit you one day (I'm in Marin Co.) and see if it is indeed dead, dead, dead. I so don't hope you're right as I don't look forward to dropping another $7,000 into the system.

JLM · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 03:10 am »

Us poor folk just don't have a huge dedicated room thats needed to allow RM40's, 626's, and a VMPS sub to sound good (from the middle of the room). Heck us poor folk don't have the extra $$$ for equipment even if we own a 5.1 player.

You're knocking on the $100,000.00 door to build such a room (roughly 600 s.f. @ $100+ per s.f.), furnish it (acoustical treatments, seating, wiring, etc.), and add the playback equipment ($12,000.00 specified in speakers alone).

Wifey and I will start building a house this fall with a dedicated 250 s.f. sound room in the basement, but 2 channel only as it'll only be 12.5 ft by 20.3 ft.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #6 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 03:27 am »

Jim just confirmed what I've thought for quite awhile, and also describes my dream system!

The MAP-1 is definately the piece I'd try if I had the $. Use one set of MC inputs for an SACD/DVD-A player & the other set for a TriP. Bet that would rock with 5 X RM30's, or at least 3 X RM30's with 626R's for the rear (for use w/5.1 and the ARM).

I've wondered for a long time how well the ARM works for music- always heard it rocks w/live albums, so I wonder if you might expound a bit on how it works with regular CDs, Jim.

michael w · « **Reply #7 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 04:03 am »

ekovalsky · « **Reply #8 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 04:21 am »

How did the multi-channel McCormack system compare with Trinaural for music?

I've been thinking about adding the MAP-1 & DNA-HT3 & RM30's in triplet when I add HT to my room, my next step now that the two channel setup is complete.

60" plasma of course too

MaxCast · « **Reply #9 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 12:24 pm »

The MAP is what I would like to have as well. But, well, you know....$$$
Has anyone heard the ARS with a DPL source like TV? When I went with my Audio Refinement Pre-5 I lost surround from TV. Now I watch in just 2.1

IRD should be able to widdle out one of those for half the price

add in 5.1 stereo too please

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #10 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 01:06 pm »

I agree, Max. I've been hounding Curt for a 5.1 Sabai for almost a year. He's probably getting pretty tired of hearing from me!

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #11 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 05:13 pm »

Rob,

Curt told me in an email not long ago that the outboard 2 and 3 way crossovers were next on his list.....tho that (timeline) changes from time to time, I'm sure.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #12 on:** 7 Jan 2004, 09:31 pm »

Since I think Curt does all (or at least most) of the design work, I'm afraid that if he ever does tackle a 5.1 preamp it may be too late for me. Depends on how soon I can afford to buy one. There isn't a lot out there now, and the prices are high. The longer I can wait the more products I expect will be out there.

witchdoctor · « **Reply #13 on:** 11 Jan 2004, 04:29 am »

Ravi, You are right , center channel speakers suck, period! Get IDENTICAL speakers for the front 3 channels and you will be ready to rock!
JLM. big rooms are not necessary for surround enjoyment. My tiny NYC apt. has 3 front channels, 2 monopole side axis speakers, 2 dipole suround speakers, and a sub. It works great providing you get speakers suitable for the room, put them on great stands ( I ue Mapleshade )
and then use good room treatment ( I use 8th Nerve). I have had many guests say , "This Room Should NOT sound this good!" Yet it does.
The materials available to create great sound are simple, available, and not very expensive.

petermwilson · « **Reply #14 on:** 11 Jan 2004, 04:28 pm »

Hi,
I had to check to subject title to make sure we're still on the same concept.

In the last 12 months I've jumped into HIREZ and mltich big time. I've invested in a great processor and excellent speakers and over 300 dvd-a/sacd discs.

I feel the 2ch is dead only if you want it to be. I have some Oscar Peterson piano in stereo which is excellent as are many other of my 2ch discs.

There's just some music that really wouldn't benefit from 5.1.

My Mantra remains the same "Its all about the music"

Peter m.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 Jan 2004, 05:47 am »

Quote from: Ravi

Two channel is definately NOT dead. Maybe to you it is.

I don't like a center channel for music, plain and simple.

Perhaps the real issue is that the RM40s are not the equals of 626 plus sub.

I am not saying that the McCormack preamp is unequalled anywhere, just that I have heard at least one $12k processor & other lesser, & the McCormack kills them when converting 2 ch to 5.1.

Plus, as has been written, all that matters is what the user thinks, not me or anyone else. The volume of the center ch is quite critical. Even most of the price no object processors allow only 1dB steps vs. the MAPs 1/2dB. My personal belief is that DSP designers are deaf anyway, or engineering exclusively for non-audiophiles, based on their singularly amusical music performance, but that is only my opinion. Is there any other explanation for their insanely horrible & useless "music" modes? Meridian might be a rare exception, but their gear is so limited in US distribution, almost non-existent. DSP generally does not work for music becaue music lovers are so much better listeners than exclusively HT lovers. An aquantaince had 3 Academy Awards for music sound on his TV. He now has at least 5 of the same awards. Even the movie sound at his place was, well, I'll be polite & say it might have been better.

I think most 2ch fanatics have not heard a properly setup MAP system, but are basing their preference on DSP. Plus, as Bongiorno explains in detail at his website, sound does not occur in nature in 2chs, & audiophiles are like all other humans, resistant to change & more comfortable with what they are used to. So be it.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 Jan 2004, 06:05 am »

Quote from: ekovalsky

How did the multi-channel McCormack system compare with Trinaural for music?

I've been thinking about adding the MAP-1 & DNA-HT3 & RM30's in triplet when I add HT to my room, my next step now that the two channel setup is complete.

60" plasma of course too

Well, my longest audition of the Trin was at CES last year on 3x of your ultra fine & almost as rare as hen's teeth RMX. I liked that better, but the spkrs are so disparate. I will bring the preamp to Brian's next time he has 3 speakers setup for Trinn. My guess is the MAP works in a similar fashion, but that possibly the TRin may be more sophisticated. But no rear surround outputs with TRin, plus so much more money. It's funny, but my original goal in getting the 3ch system setup was to enable the Trin to be inserted, but I quickly lost interest.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 Jan 2004, 06:15 am »

Hmmm...interesting. I sorta figured a MC pre with 2 inputs would let a guy turn 'boring old stereo' into a bit more involving (albeit faux) multichannel sound via the TriP. But if the ARM is as good/better, the McCormack MAP becomes a hell of a deal.

JohnR · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 Jan 2004, 06:15 am »

Quote from: RibbonSpeakers.net

sound does not occur in nature in 2chs

It doesn't occur in three either....

I've thought for a while it would be interesting to record instruments on individual channels and have a single speaker reproduce each instrument.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Jan 2004, 06:19 am »

Why stop at 3 JohnR? I think it'd be cool to have dozens, maybe a hundred! I'm not kidding- I know this wouldn't be practical or affordable, but as an experiment it would be cool to have a fairly large space (or small concert hall) in which there was a speaker for each instrument of a small chamber group, orchestra, or even a large jazz band. You could choose a different brand/type of speaker and amp to best reproduce the sound of each instrument. And subs, I suppose, for some of 'em (eg no small speaker would do justice to a piano or pipe organ!

).