Prior to 1992, like most everyone else, I did all my listening on a 2
channel stereo system. Though I enjoyed music, it wasn't until I bought
my first home-theater receiver that I became ecstatic about music
listening.

Though my surround sound system didn't even have Pro-Logic, it did
include adjustable digital delay. Adding some rear speakers really
opened up my musical experience. Suddenly I found myself there, in the
concert hall. (I often listen to original motion picture scores and
other orchestral and symphonic works.)

I loved surroud sound. In fact I set up my own web page about it. You
can still view my old pages at: http://kantack.com/surround/

Not only did surround sound move me into the acoustical space of the
recordings, it seemed to reinforce my front speaker sound. The music
emanating from the front speakers was warmer and lusher when the
surrounds were set just right.

However, about 7 years ago I moved into a new home. Somehow the
surround magic just didn't seem to be as prominent in my new living
space. So I started to use my surround speakers a bit less.

Later, I replaced my 25 year old front speakers. I noticed the new
speakers already sounded warm and lush without any surround sound
speaker enforcement. So I began using my surround speakers even less.

Finally, this year my 1992 home theater receiver's amplifier bit the
dust. Despite replacing it with a state-of-the-art 6.1 channel receiver,
with all kinds of settings and other goodies, I still find myself
listening to more and more music in 2 channel again.

It is now apparent to me that the surround sound vs. 2 channel listening
debates will never end. We all have different experiences. Our
speakers, home acoustics, tastes in music, and probably our age
(hearing) all play a big role in our perception of surround sound.

I still enjoy music as much as ever. It's just that, in my current
circumstances, surround sound doesn't do anything for me anymore.

Thanks,

Chris Kantack
Bellingham, WA

Chris Kantack wrote:

It is now apparent to me that the surround sound vs. 2 channel listening
debates will never end. We all have different experiences. Our
speakers, home acoustics, tastes in music, and probably our age
(hearing) all play a big role in our perception of surround sound.

I still enjoy music as much as ever. It's just that, in my current
circumstances, surround sound doesn't do anything for me anymore.

I don't think there is a debate for most audiophiles. Two-channel
sources should be played back on a two-channel system (or two channels
of a multi-channel system); multiple channels should be reserved for
multi-channel sources (SACD/DVD-A/dts CD/DVD etc).

The only time I use matrixed, "artificial" surround is with DPL II when
watching television.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

Chris,
Interesting post. This mirrors my experience, though I've experimented off
and on with "surround" for music since the days of quad in the 70's, and
along the way have owned some expensive processors (anyone remember the
Yamaha DSP-1?). I've now reached a point that I can afford both a high-end
2-channel system for music, and a surround system for home theater, and
that's what I've got. Someday, I think the technology - including,
especially, *routinely* good surround recordings and a sufficiently open
system to allow us to insert things like digital equalizers in the signal
path - will reach the point that makes multichannel sound the clear way to
go. Until then, I think I'm a two-channel guy for music ...
Rich

"Chris Kantack" wrote in message
...
Prior to 1992, like most everyone else, I did all my listening on a 2
channel stereo system. Though I enjoyed music, it wasn't until I bought
my first home-theater receiver that I became ecstatic about music
listening.

.... cut ..

Finally, this year my 1992 home theater receiver's amplifier bit the
dust. Despite replacing it with a state-of-the-art 6.1 channel receiver,
with all kinds of settings and other goodies, I still find myself
listening to more and more music in 2 channel again.

It is now apparent to me that the surround sound vs. 2 channel listening
debates will never end. We all have different experiences. Our
speakers, home acoustics, tastes in music, and probably our age
(hearing) all play a big role in our perception of surround sound.

I still enjoy music as much as ever. It's just that, in my current
circumstances, surround sound doesn't do anything for me anymore.

Thanks,

Chris Kantack
Bellingham, WA

In article ,
says...

I don't think there is a debate for most audiophiles. Two-channel
sources should be played back on a two-channel system (or two channels
of a multi-channel system); multiple channels should be reserved for
multi-channel sources (SACD/DVD-A/dts CD/DVD etc).

The only time I use matrixed, "artificial" surround is with DPL II when
watching television.


Well I couldn't disagree more. In the right environment with the right
speakers, matrix surround can sound absolutely wonderful when playing
back two channel material.

Though I never had much luck with studio-produced pop music, the very
best "surround recordings" I've ever heard were simply very good two-
channel recordings of live music. In fact, this was one of my favorite
aspects of surround sound. It does not require any special media.
Existing two channel recordings be they LP, CD, or even cassette often
work very well. (Though cassette perhaps a bit less so.)

Of course, as I mentioned in my last posting, that is not the case
today. Perhaps it is because my new living room is "too live". My
theory is that surround sound benefits the most from rooms that lean
toward the "dead" side. Thus allowing the surround speakers to provide
the ambiance of the original recording. Surround sound also probably
benefits from speakers that are more neutral in their sound. Speakers
that have been equalized to sound a bit more warm probably don't fit
well in most surround sound systems.

Thanks,
Chris

"Rich Carlson" wrote:
Chris,
Interesting post. This mirrors my experience, though I've experimented off
and on with "surround" for music since the days of quad in the 70's, and
along the way have owned some expensive processors (anyone remember the
Yamaha DSP-1?). I've now reached a point that I can afford both a high-end
2-channel system for music, and a surround system for home theater, and
that's what I've got. Someday, I think the technology - including,
especially, *routinely* good surround recordings and a sufficiently open
system to allow us to insert things like digital equalizers in the signal
path - will reach the point that makes multichannel sound the clear way to
go. Until then, I think I'm a two-channel guy for music ...
Rich

"Chris Kantack" wrote in message
...
Prior to 1992, like most everyone else, I did all my listening on a 2
channel stereo system. Though I enjoyed music, it wasn't until I bought
my first home-theater receiver that I became ecstatic about music
listening.

... cut ..

Finally, this year my 1992 home theater receiver's amplifier bit the
dust. Despite replacing it with a state-of-the-art 6.1 channel receiver,
with all kinds of settings and other goodies, I still find myself
listening to more and more music in 2 channel again.

It is now apparent to me that the surround sound vs. 2 channel listening
debates will never end. We all have different experiences. Our
speakers, home acoustics, tastes in music, and probably our age
(hearing) all play a big role in our perception of surround sound.

I still enjoy music as much as ever. It's just that, in my current
circumstances, surround sound doesn't do anything for me anymore.

Thanks,

Chris Kantack
Bellingham, WA

I have a completely different experience if you count the whole experiment. I,
too, tried the Hafler rear-speaker technique. Also gave Dolby Surround and
Pro-Logic systems with music and was never completely happy with either.

And then a miracle happened. It was called Lexicon surround processing. It
started with a CP-3 circa 1991 followed by a CP-3+ and now includes a DC-1,
MC-1 and MC-12 in various applications. The miracle was that it transformed my
2-channel library and was fully capable of enhancing advanced formats such as
the Shure analog format (forgot about that one didn't you?),Dolby Digital, DTS
and Circle Surround.

The advantages of up-mixed surround in Lexicon format were so strong; full
envelopment, no required sweet spot, sound that stayed spatially put when I
moved around, sound that was spatially realistic from several different
listenig positions.... that I was never able to return to 2-channel listening.

For the record I NEVER listen to straight 2-channel (sweet spot or no) for
entertainment. I do often use a 2-channel/center line reference for evaluative
calibration when I evaluate car audio systems (560 OEM systems over the past 6
years; and a couple hundred IASCA-level aftermarket systems) but in general I
find that encoded systems such as Dolby Digital Plus and up-mix systems like
Lexicon Logic-7 Music Surround to be far superior to straight 2-channel
playback in any, especially high-performance, listening environments.