AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

Are you factoring in the long term cost delta?

Sure.

A two channel system
using gear likely to hold its value is much easier to put together than
a similar five channel.

Granted. Certainly it is more difficult to wire five
speakers and a sub than it is to wire just two systems, and
we have to take the cost of the wire into consideration,
too. (Fortunately, the lamp cord needed for
just-fine-sounding speaker hookups is cheap.)

Actually, this may be why so many high enders have problems
coming to grips with surround-sound audio. They have
listening rooms that are fine when it comes to setting up a
pair of speakers up front. However, the need to have a
center speaker properly positioned, as well as a pair of
surround speakers (or even four or five or six, which is the
case with two of my three AV systems) properly located, may
make it difficult to set up all of the speakers in a way
that is conducive to proper surround propagation. In short,
the room works against them getting what 5.1 can offer. Note
that this hookup-complexity and speaker arrangement issue
was brought forth when stereo started to supplant mono.

Actually, I am assuming that our correspondent does have the
space and room shape to accommodate a 5.1 package.

In fact, using the confirmed fact that each
speaker and amplifier channel of a stereo system must be the equal of
the single amp and speaker of a mono system, which was widely conceded
when JFK was the driving force atop the Monroe Doctrine, each of the
five channels of the five channel system must be wholly equal to the
two of the stereo system to provide comparable quality.

I disagree. If one wants instrumentation from each of the
five channels with a discrete-channel surround system
(DVD-A, SACD, DD, DTS), then, yes, equal power and equal
speakers is a good idea. (I have maybe 100 SACD, DVD-A, DD,
and DTS music releases on hand and continue to review them
for The Sensible Sound.) However, if the listener is a
classical, baroque, and/or acoustic-jazz listener (as I am),
then the surround speakers need not be equal in quality and
stature to the three up front, nor do the two surround
channels need power equal to what is up front. This is
because the surround channels only will deal with recorded
ambiance most of the time. (Wide-dispersion surrounds are a
good idea, however, even if the L,C,R speakers are more
focussed in their dispersion patterns.)

And with DPL II decoding of stereo material (what our
correspondent is concerned with), the surrounds will mostly
be dealing with extracted hall ambiance. Half or even
one-fourth of the per-channel power is enough. Trust me on
this, because I have measured power outputs on a LOT or
recordings given DPL II treatment and the surround channels
are always just loafing along, even when the mains are quite
loud. Pumping up the surround levels a lot will result in a
sonic mess.

Five excellent
speakers are more expensive than two-I don't see any way around it.

I have reviewed quite a few small satellites, in combination
with decent subwoofers, for The Sensible Sound. In
combination with those subs, many of those satellite pairs
were competitive with some of the best full-range stereo
packages I have worked with. Actually, if you cut away the
woofer section from a typical floor-standing, full-range
system you will end up with a tweeter/midrange section that
is not much larger and sound potent than a typical
independent satellite speaker. Add a sub to a pair of the
latter and you have a three-way system.

You will have to trust me on this (having done a lot of
level-matched AB comparing between assorted speaker
combinations), but it is not unusual at all for a pair of
modestly priced satellites and a sub to sound as good as
some upscale floor-standing units. My current floor standers
(in three different AV systems) are Allison IC-20s, Dunlavy
Cantatas, and NHT ST4 units. (I also use subwoofers,
Velodyne, Hsu, and SVS units, with all of them, even though
they do not really need them desperately by any means.) Many
of the small sub-satellite packages I have checked out could
give those systems, particularly the Cantatas and ST4s,
stiff competition, in terms of clarity, soundstaging, focus,
and depth. (None quite equal the Allisons, however.) Note
that I have also compared upscale and midscale Polk,
Waveform, Coincident Technology, Atlantic Technology,
Ascend, B&W, Triad, AR, and Axiom sub-sat and floor-standing
stereo packages to those references (to name a few), and
have gained some real respect for budget-level sub/sat
systems. Note that budget level does not mean Best Buy
cheap.

Add in the spectre of correct room design for best five channel
presentation vis-a-vis two, and we are talking a daunting prospect.

Nobody said it would be easy. However, balancing five
speakers in a surround package is not the rocket science
project some people appear to believe. But, yes, it
certainly is more difficult to set up five speakers properly
than just two. Again, I am assuming that our correspondent
does have a room that will work decently for the project.
Indeed, four small satellites and a subwoofer might actually
be easier to set up than two largish floor-standing systems.
In addition, a good sub/sat arrangement will possibly allow
for smoother bass response than two floor-standing systems
set up for optimum imaging.

Nevertheless, some will demand five channels, then seven....so my
advice would be to buy a system of modularity where you merely add on.

Not a bad idea at all. I would do that myself if I were in
his position, but I was assuming that the correspondent was
determined to limit himself to a maximum of $2000.

This would also seemingly argue in favor of the monoblock amplifier, if
one wants the amplifier separate from the speaker, unless you buy three
stereo amps and leave one channel unused.

A good AV receiver will deliver the goods in most rooms as
well as any set of monoblock amps. Trust me on this. I have
compared some mid-level receivers and integrated amps to
some pretty good monoblocks (and also compared some cheap
and expensive speaker wire) and they all sounded the same,
even at fairly high levels. Note that the best way to
compare this way is to do it blind, but even more important
is to get the per-channel levels (left and left and then
right and right from each amp) all precisely matched.

Howard Ferstler