[Sander deWaal]

said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not?


Hold that thought, we have that in common..
I get that with tube amps.
Inaccurate, coloring, power-limited tube amps.

And vinyl, of course.


If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.


Yup.
And I specifically said "listening to MUSIC in the above.

I don't do movies, just Stargate episodes ;-)


As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.


Yup, ranging from Bach to breakbeat and inbetween.


Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.


Aye, here lies the rub.
And of the music I have heard that was in surround, it mostly was
either uninspiring effects music, or bad recording.

I don't know if you have any recording experience, but it can be hard
enough to make a fine *stereo* recording, let alone more channels.
Unless one just pans some mics to the rear etc......not my idea of a
good recording.

Most releaes are also film soundtracks, boombastic and unrealistic.
Example: pirates of the carribean..


I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.


Films again, just not my thing.
I was addressing good old music here.

Concert videos are even worse: the eye is kept busy, so they can wreck
the audio recording without too much protesting ;-)


Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.


That's a very likely possibility.

Let's keep it at that, then.


As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.


I found there's far more interesting and valuable material in old
fashioned 2 channel, even mono doesn't bother me much.
Listening to music in multi channel just doesn't do it for me.

Let alone have your decoder process a 2-channel signal to match all
speakers...........argh.

YMMV ;-)


A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.


Movies again..............my arguments are restricted to music only.

For movies, the effect is nice.
The eye is entertained, the ear doesn't protest.

Well, to each his own, I guess.
While I was working at this PC this night, the Maggies were playing
Bach's Brandenburg Concertoes by I Musici and Frans Bruggen.

The listening position is slightly out of the sweet spot when I'm at
the PC, but the enjoyment was there, nevertheless.
meanwhile, I finished a PCB for my new DAC project, and had some fun
reading forums.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:


snip



As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.

[Sander deWaal]

"Harry Lavo" said:


Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.


I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).

But it seems like a nice enough setup.

I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.

All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
Maggies).

Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
badass stereo tube amps.

I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
disappointing results.
I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" said:


Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.


I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).

But it seems like a nice enough setup.

I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.

All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
Maggies).

Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
badass stereo tube amps.

I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
disappointing results.
I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.

I don't know about a soundcard, but many SACD players and DVD-A players
allow you to configure with no center channel, keeping the virtual center
channel you currently have. Only problem I can see with that is that you
can't do it without switching into the PCM mode, which tends to choke off
the extremely fine ambience hearable in straight DSD decoding. But since
your soundcard would be PCM to begin with, if it allows you to configure
that way, you'd have a solution. 'Course, the used Sony C2000ES available
on Audiogon for $225 would do it a lot better.