What hifi system type do you have set up ? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What hifi system type do you have set up ?



OzzieAudiophile
04-04-2008, 04:24 AM
Hello it will be interesting to find out just how popular (at least out of our bunch of Hifi gurus,
just how popular 5+ channel is, and how much have stayed faithful to the 2-channel.

There should be enough options for you to be in one of them.

5+ channel basically covers every combination "MORE" than 1x pair of speakers.
i.e. 1x pair of fronts plus centre speaker, 1x pair of fronts, plus subwoofer, 4.1 speakers
5.1 speakers, 6.1 speakers, 6.2 speakers, 7.1 speakers, 11.1. etc.

I have a personal interest to find out just how many of you have a "balanced" connection
of your components.

Addition : If you happen to have 3 or MORE systems, please vote in one of the Have both.
I cannot edit the choices anymore.

Feedback is of course welcome.

The poll threads do not allow me to add any more than 10 options. I'm sure this is one of the
fewer ones which give that many.

If you recall a character in one of the Black Adder series, it's just funny the way he says this...

Quote : "Please accept my apo-logies".

basite
04-04-2008, 04:43 AM
2 channel for my system only.

if I want to see a movie, I go upstairs and use dad's surround system :D

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

kexodusc
04-04-2008, 05:17 AM
I have both. My stereo system has speakers of significantly higher quality that cost about 3 times as much as the model used in my home theater. Yet I find multi-channel audio to offer a more realistic imaging and soundstage. It's enough that it overcomes the lesser quality gear in my 5.1 system, which sort of makes sense, the speakers in the 5.1 system aren't working as hard and not revealing as much of their limitations as a result. There's also something to be said for the increased resolution the channel separtion provides.

I prefer the 5.1 sound only if we compare mulit-channel audio like SACD to 2-channel audio. For 2 channel comparison only, the stereo wins straight up of course, hi-rez or otherwise.

Luvin Da Blues
04-04-2008, 05:23 AM
I recently sold off my 5.2 HT system for a balanced 2ch rig. To be honest, with the presentation and imaging that my stereo rig gives, I don't really miss it for movies or TV. Actually the sound and presentation is more natural for the most part considering that the screen is not 360 degrees. Just my thoughts.

I have my old 5.1 system (non digital) in my bedroom for the odd time I want MC.

E-Stat
04-04-2008, 07:23 AM
There should be enough options for you to be in one of them.
You missed one:

**Have both systems and find each does a better job for the specific task

For music, I prefer a well executed two channel system (at least for my budget). For movies, I prefer a multi channel system. I find the requirements for each are different.

rw

GMichael
04-04-2008, 07:55 AM
I have three systems.
System one is a 7.1 system. Multi-channel is great for music recorded that way and HT. Other than that it gets used in 2 channel mode. The two front speakers cost me more than the rest of the system put together.
System two is a 6.1 system and gets used the same as system one, although all the speakers are the same.
System three is a 2.0 system and leaves little room for anything else. No TV included. Just a pool table and a few chairs.

Feanor
04-04-2008, 08:15 AM
Hello it will be interesting to find out just how popular (at least out of our bunch of Hifi gurus,
just how popular 5+ channel is, and how much have stayed faithful to the 2-channel.

There should be enough options for you to be in one of them.

5+ channel basically covers every combination "MORE" than 1x pair of speakers.
i.e. 1x pair of fronts plus centre speaker, 1x pair of fronts, plus subwoofer, 4.1 speakers
5.1 speakers, 6.1 speakers, 6.2 speakers, 7.1 speakers, 11.1. etc.

I have a personal interest to find out just how many of you have a "balanced" connection
of your components.

Feedback is of course welcome

I'm not sure you ought to be so concerned about balanced vs. single-ended. Most people have both in their systems. For example, I used balance connections between my preamp and monoblock power amps and single-ended connections elsewhere. In my case this make sense because my preamp and amps are both fully balanced. Furthermore the amp manufacturer explicitly states that better performance will be achieved with balanced connections; (he explained why but the explanation is technically too complicated for me to accurately pass on).

In general, (and there might be exceptions), internally single-end components are best joined by single-ended connections. This makes sense because additional ciruitry is certainly necessary in the source to create the balanced output, then (possibly) more needed in the target (depending on its design) to recombined the balanced input. Between single-ended components the extra complexity is only justified in case of long cable runs or in environments with a lot of electrical noise, (because balanced connections have very high inherent external noise rejection).

I have both stereo (for music), and m/c (mostly for HT), systems. I "prefer" the stereo only because it has higher grade components: in a perfect world I would have a dedicated m/c system for music with high-grade components.

blackraven
04-04-2008, 08:49 AM
I have 3 2ch and a 5.1 minus the rear speaks.

OzzieAudiophile
04-04-2008, 09:10 AM
rw. I would of believed the one you recommended was the reason people put two
systems together in the first place.

I guess I should be a little more clear, of the two systems, one is not a new system,
one is an old, un-dissasembled one.

I didn't have enough space on the line to say, 2 seperate systems purchased on purpose
specifically for 2-channel, and 5+ channel.

I highly value your input Mr Stat.

Glen B
04-04-2008, 09:52 AM
I have a personal interest to find out just how many of you have a "balanced" connection of your components.

Feedback is of course welcome

You should have included "unbalanced" and "balanced" options for those with separate systems.

I have separate 5.1 and 2-channel systems and run the latter all-balanced, except for the connection between my turrntable and preamp which is single-ended. I prefer the sound of the system in balanced mode, with the added benefit of more secure XLR connections. I have a disdain for locking RCAs.

E-Stat
04-04-2008, 11:07 AM
rw. I would of believed the one you recommended was the reason people put two systems together in the first place.
Hmmm. I have the separate systems for two reasons:

1) Allows wife to watch her TV programs while I listen to music upstairs. She is the greater videophile.
2) I am far more interested in audio and the quality of the systems is vastly different.

I discussed this with Sir TtT a while back and we have different thoughts on this. It is my belief that for a given (non-astronomical budget) one must necessarily compromise the overall sonic quality of a MC system vs. an equivalently priced two channel one. He believes the benefits of MC alone counter the required choice of lower quality system components. To each his own.

BTW, I do not use balanced cabling. FWIW, Harry Pearson used to use balanced connections with his main music system in Room 3, but found no benefit with his environment and choice of components.

rw

OzzieAudiophile
04-04-2008, 11:14 AM
Hello E-Stat and Feanor, thanks again, as well as to the rest of you guys.

I have hit a bit of a crossroad myself in terms of upgrading my system.

Please view my thread in the amps section, E-Stat, I know you've been there before.

I'll add more comments in that thread regarding Balanced, and how that will either help,
or hinder my final decision in terms of what I will end up getting.

Cheers.

Ajani
04-04-2008, 12:06 PM
Hmmm. I have the separate systems for two reasons:

1) Allows wife to watch her TV programs while I listen to music upstairs. She is the greater videophile.
2) I am far more interested in audio and the quality of the systems is vastly different.

I'm likely to end up with 2 systems for those exact same reasons + an inexpensive bedroom system for a third reason...


I discussed this with Sir TtT a while back and we have different thoughts on this. It is my belief that for a given (non-astronomical budget) one must necessarily compromise the overall sonic quality of a MC system vs. an equivalently priced two channel one. He believes the benefits of MC alone counter the required choice of lower quality system components. To each his own.

For a given price point I'd much rather have a good two channel setup than a MC one, as I believe that the increase in quality of the speakers, amp and cd player will outweigh any advantages of MC using inferior quality components.... but clearly MC lovers will feel differently.... in my case, spending my budget on MC would make even less sense, as I own zero MC discs.... so I'm much better off trying to get the most benefit out of my existing CD collection, than building a setup to maximise the potential of SACDs/DVD-As that I don't have.

JohnMichael
04-04-2008, 02:26 PM
Two channel and I am a little unbalanced. I have listened to multi channel systems but I did not care for them for music. Since I rarely watch a TV of any size I do not spend money on video. I toyed with the idea of buying a dvd player but then the urge passes. If I am at home music is playing.

aevans
04-04-2008, 02:57 PM
I own lots of equipment, but 2 channel balanced is the only thing I have had hooked up in the past 2 years.. just can't do without it..

I can speak for the balanced hook up as having something a little better(different) with my setup.

My equipment is all kinergetics, and they were known for doing some strange things with balanced connections, tossing caps into the lines, little pieces of wire, etc and then using that to filter out those types of sound paterns via the balanced connection.. They even had something similar built into their CD players.. two completely seperate dac's and opamp paths, one running in reverse polarity and then amplifying the differance in the signals in a final opamp.

For the Kinergetics brand balanced mode has huge gains.. I just wish the amps were not so friggin hot.

OzzieAudiophile
04-04-2008, 05:37 PM
JohnMichael, it just sounds a bit funny

You said "Two channel and I am a little unbalanced." - they have some pills for that lol.
(just kidding) :D

I'll add the necessary point in the thread, I thank you all for making additional
recommendations for this poll, however if you have put a poll up on this site, you are
permitted to no more than 10 choices.

JohnMichael
04-04-2008, 05:59 PM
JohnMichael, it just sounds a bit funny

You said "Two channel and I am a little unbalanced." - they have some pills for that lol.
(just kidding) :D





It was meant to be funny and I hope you enjoyed it as I enjoyed your response. Welcome to AudioReview.:thumbsup:

Good thread and poll.

thekid
04-04-2008, 08:08 PM
Good question.

Thankfully with the help of this community I am a little better off than I was a couple of years ago system wise.

Initially I got into the whole HT 5:1 due to the allure of surround sound/DVD experience. Thought my Bose 201/161 set-up worked just fine for movies and music. Added 2 more HT systems to the house (MB and son's room) and thought I was set.

Bought some vintage speakers that changed my mind about listening to HT for music. Got into vintage 2-channel about 6-months ago and have not looked back. Still listen to music on the 5:1 set-ups when listening for short periods of time because the integrated amps have sleep timers.

OzzieAudiophile
04-05-2008, 04:38 AM
Here's lookin at ya kid ? ;) (Boghart).

I have been told that some models of Bose speaker system permits you to set up 3
"sweet spots" in a room. Can your Bose system do that ?

Thanks for Welcoming me aboard JohnMichael. I feel like part of a fine soldier of
Caesar's Elite Legion.

JohnMicael... sounds like a figure that was pulled from the Gods above.

aevans - sounds like a nice setup. I'm curious are any of your components balanced
to balanced cables are over 1 metre ? Or are they all 1 metre or less ?

aevans
04-05-2008, 09:26 AM
All less than 1 meter, it's more a function of the equipment than your regular noise reduction stuff.

Pat D
04-05-2008, 12:51 PM
Our main music system is 2.1 with excellent monitor speakers and a quite capable subwoofer.

Our HT system is also 2.1 with some very good monitor speakers and a small subwoofer. We use an A-V receiver so we could do surround sound. Whether we prefer 2 channels is an open question.

thekid
04-05-2008, 03:24 PM
[QUOTE=OzzieAudiophile]Here's lookin at ya kid ? ;) (Boghart).

I have been told that some models of Bose speaker system permits you to set up 3
"sweet spots" in a room. Can your Bose system do that ?

Oz

Thanks for asking but no, when I mention my Bose set-up I am referencing that I have 201's for my fronts and 161's for the rear and a VCS-10 center channel. That set-up has now been relegated to my MB HT. It is fairly decent for 5:1 but musically I have moved past Bose.

My current main HT is actually a mismash of some of the vintage speakers I have been picking up in the past year. My mains are a pair of RtR Series IV's a Sony center channel and a pair of Infinity RS.4's for the rears. The RtR's image amazing well and they provide a large sweet spot for the viewing area. I am not sure if it is dumb luck or a testament to the Auto Set-up feature in my Pioneer but this diverse group of speakers sounds very very good for HT.

OzzieAudiophile
04-05-2008, 05:15 PM
Well from the votes so far, it appears we have peeps that have a preference more for
2-channel than for 5+ channel.

Please if you read this read, do vote. Take pride in your babies, tell me about your system
as well. So far I've heard some nice setups. 30+ years ago, a good proportion of us would
of shared the same systems. Now it's most likely no one would have the same setup.

Pity we all live so far away from each other, we could bring some components over to
each other's houses, hookem up and compare/find out how it's like. Some components
brands go very well with others.

A lot of us you will know you want/need to change/upgrade your system. The USA and
Europe peeps have been blessed to have more choice of brands/components. The bad
part is that even though there's more cream, there's also more rubbish. In my part of
Australia, we have much less of both.

I've seen/heard lots of appealing features in one brand or another, it's nearly never the case
where most of these nice features all exist within the same component.

aevans
04-05-2008, 05:58 PM
If you are from australia check out these guys: http://www.bursonaudio.com/
I have the buffer that they sell, makes cheap sources sound like 5k setups. The cost to ship and the current exchange rate make them cost prohibative for me, but I plan on using the preamp that they offer once the american dollar gets back on it's feet. Even with the shipping cost it's one of the best deals I ever got based on price performance.

OzzieAudiophile
04-09-2008, 06:19 AM
Cheers aevans.

I'll check it out, added it to my favourites.

filecat13
04-09-2008, 09:06 AM
I've got a pair of speakers that almost put you in the room in an intimate musical setting. Most people wouldn't want to (or be able to) spend the kind of money it takes to do this. IMO, if you want "live" music, then go to a concert, music hall, or other venue. That's the only place you'll find it.

When it comes to an immersive musical experience in the home, IMO 5.1 (or 7.1) beats two channel in a couple of important ways. One, it is more capable of recreating the space of the original recording, be it studio, concert hall, or church. Two, it is far more capable of presenting a musician's/producer's internal vision of how the music should sound in a tightly controlled presentation.

Both of these points go directly to the second-most important element in home listening: the room. Since so many folks pay little or no attention to the room, it has the greatest overall effect on what we hear, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Rather than spend $10k on a super two-channel system that must overcome the faults of the room that it's in, I believe it's more prudent to spend $7k on a two-channel system and $3k on room treatments, or even better to spend $9k on a 5.1 system and $1k on the most serious room flaws.

And yes, this does require the availability of sufficiently well-mastered source material and/or a sophisticated encoding/decoding system. Two channel or multichannel, it's still subject to the "crap in, crap out" rule.

E-Stat
04-09-2008, 10:44 AM
I've got a pair of speakers that almost put you in the room in an intimate musical setting.
That's why I prefer what good dipolars can do.


When it comes to an immersive musical experience in the home, IMO 5.1 (or 7.1) beats two channel in a couple of important ways.
The challenge for me is that none of the music I accumulated in the first thirty years of my hobby fall into that category. I don't have a MC system for that reason.


...or even better to spend $9k on a 5.1 system and $1k on the most serious room flaws.
Agreed on investing in room treatments, Using a dozen bass traps completely eliminated the room nodes in my room without resorting to EQ.

rw

Ajani
04-09-2008, 11:02 AM
The challenge for me is that none of the music I accumulated in the first thirty years of my hobby fall into that category. I don't have a MC system for that reason.

Yep, I'm in a similar situation.... I've been collecting music for 15 years and none of it is MC. Worse yet, very little music that I regularly listen to is available in MC. So I'd have to not only buy all new music to take advantage of a MC setup, but also develop new preferences in music.

OzzieAudiophile
04-09-2008, 03:52 PM
Ajani.

Take a look at the official sa-cd website, where it has the full list of what you can get
on sa-cd, new releases, and upcoming ones. You can search, their database is also
be trimmed by genre. It also gives you direct links to plenty of shops that stock it too.

I was fortunate enough that they released these on SACD -

Jeff Wayne's The War of the Worlds,
The Best of the Carpenters
Andrea Bocelli - Andrea
Dire Straits Brothers in Arms - 20th Anniversary Edition - remixed in 5.1 surround by
Mark Knopfler himself

All of the above sound absolutely incredible, and that is just accessing the CD layer.
Each also have the other two layers of SACD 2-channel, and SACD 5.1 surround.

If you never had the chance to listen to SACDs, take the time to do so.
Perhaps the official websites have some that you at least reckonise.

I am not necessarily saying you should go out and complete your 5.1 system for the
sake of SACD, unless 1, you have plenty of spare money, and 2, intend to have
a SACD and/or DVD collection.

If you have only a 2-channel system, either go to a mate's house, or go to a shop
which has a 5+ channel setup and has some SACDs to play for you.

pixelthis
04-10-2008, 12:48 AM
Well from the votes so far, it appears we have peeps that have a preference more for
2-channel than for 5+ channel.

Please if you read this read, do vote. Take pride in your babies, tell me about your system
as well. So far I've heard some nice setups. 30+ years ago, a good proportion of us would
of shared the same systems. Now it's most likely no one would have the same setup.

Pity we all live so far away from each other, we could bring some components over to
each other's houses, hookem up and compare/find out how it's like. Some components
brands go very well with others.

A lot of us you will know you want/need to change/upgrade your system. The USA and
Europe peeps have been blessed to have more choice of brands/components. The bad
part is that even though there's more cream, there's also more rubbish. In my part of
Australia, we have much less of both.

I've seen/heard lots of appealing features in one brand or another, it's nearly never the case
where most of these nice features all exist within the same component.


Sounds like you really love this stuff, good for you.
I fell in love with "surround" sound when it was still pro-logic, thought a prologic system
was a decent compromise.
But came to the realization a short while ago that none of my HT systems gave me even near
the sastifaction of my simplest two channel rig.
A movie is nice but fake, an amalgam put together by many. Some have as many as six writers.
Sure theres a lot of "engineering" going on with music, but what you wind up with is inherently a single statement,
and seems more "real".
I get more out of just sitting and listening to a jazz guitar on a quality system than any movie ever made.
One is escapism, one is life itself.
So my 602s2's will be the "start" of a new 2 channel system.
Looking foward to building it, if I EVER GET THE CASH TOGETHER :1:

OzzieAudiophile
04-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Pixelthis, due to your dialemma between 2-channell superior sound to 5-channel,
along with many other follks on here. I'm going to write a new post, open for
discussion regarding how to address that.

EG.

pixelthis
04-10-2008, 03:41 PM
Pixelthis, due to your dialemma between 2-channell superior sound to 5-channel,
along with many other follks on here. I'm going to write a new post, open for
discussion regarding how to address that.

EG.


Great idea because its a fundamental problem.
It would be great if you could have both (and some can) but for most its just not practical.
I wouldnt be happy with an inexpensive system , why bother? My current HT rig would probably outgun it anyway.
But a really nice 2 channel system would mean a HTIB for HT, if that.
My last 2 channel system was around three grand, todays dollars thats nine grand, for a receiver system.
Has to be one or the other:1:

O'Shag
04-10-2008, 04:22 PM
For the best of all worlds, its necessary to have both. Multi-channel music can sound fantastic. To realize the full impact of movies the way the director intended, a multi-channel system is necessary. Watching HD sports in multi-channel is da bomb.

But, the right two-channel system can bring music to life in way that can make listening to a performance an captivating and emotional experience. The right setup can do this with alarming regularity. From my perspective, this will be accomplished to maximum effect only with tube amps (Hybrid Triode works really well) driven from a tube preamp, and for the ultimate - by a vinyl/analogue front end (although digital can sound awesome too through tubes).

OzzieAudiophile
04-11-2008, 08:28 AM
Hi, well I finally got a practical lesson in HD world !!.

As I write this at home, I am sitting in front of a LCD 40 inch screen. My eyes are going to pop out of my head soon, but it will be worth it haha. Sounds wrong, but it definately beats
my 19 inch crt screen. My old crt television just coincidenally was exactly 19 inches also.
In case you're wondering, yes I hooked up my PC to my brand new Samsung LCD tv.

I found out a real difference between 480p, 576p and 720. That's what you get for not having a HD set top box, satellite is HD incapable in my country (until end of this year).
Also I do not own a DVD upscaler. DVD seems to be not as blocky as everything else.
I found out that recording in long-play on my DVR is definately no longer worth it, not on
a 40 inch 1080p capable LCD. So it's standard recording from now on.

Also now I have found just how crap my roof tv aerial really is haha, well I shouldn't be
laughing because it really is crap. A old coathanger could of done the same job.
I'll have to get that addressed, but I do not watch free tv much anyway.

I have no HD player yet anyway, so I'll wait 2 years before a blu-ray recorder with a
1 TB hard drive comes out. I have only 2 movies (1 including Dragon's Lair), on blu-ray,
and from the limited selection that I'd be seen dead buying, I think I would personally
find it worth my money in 2 years time anyway.

When I'm sitting 10 feet away from my screen, the dvd and tv playback is pretty good.
The maximum resolution the programs on tv/satellite are 576p. The blocks are not so
obvious from that distance. 1 foot away, I need a bucket haha.

pixelthis : I have written a new post about comparing pre-power vs integrated vs
receiver, and one set of recommendations as such as to how to achieve the best
of both 2-channe/5-channel worlds.

Only food for thought. Let me know if you find the info useful.

pixelthis
04-11-2008, 12:36 PM
Hi, well I finally got a practical lesson in HD world !!.

As I write this at home, I am sitting in front of a LCD 40 inch screen. My eyes are going to pop out of my head soon, but it will be worth it haha. Sounds wrong, but it definately beats
my 19 inch crt screen. My old crt television just coincidenally was exactly 19 inches also.
In case you're wondering, yes I hooked up my PC to my brand new Samsung LCD tv.

I found out a real difference between 480p, 576p and 720. That's what you get for not having a HD set top box, satellite is HD incapable in my country (until end of this year).
Also I do not own a DVD upscaler. DVD seems to be not as blocky as everything else.
I found out that recording in long-play on my DVR is definately no longer worth it, not on
a 40 inch 1080p capable LCD. So it's standard recording from now on.

Also now I have found just how crap my roof tv aerial really is haha, well I shouldn't be
laughing because it really is crap. A old coathanger could of done the same job.
I'll have to get that addressed, but I do not watch free tv much anyway.

I have no HD player yet anyway, so I'll wait 2 years before a blu-ray recorder with a
1 TB hard drive comes out. I have only 2 movies (1 including Dragon's Lair), on blu-ray,
and from the limited selection that I'd be seen dead buying, I think I would personally
find it worth my money in 2 years time anyway.

When I'm sitting 10 feet away from my screen, the dvd and tv playback is pretty good.
The maximum resolution the programs on tv/satellite are 576p. The blocks are not so
obvious from that distance. 1 foot away, I need a bucket haha.

pixelthis : I have written a new post about comparing pre-power vs integrated vs
receiver, and one set of recommendations as such as to how to achieve the best
of both 2-channe/5-channel worlds.

Only food for thought. Let me know if you find the info useful.


It was stuff I was quite familar with, but thanks anyway.
That info can be quite helpfull to those getting into this

pixelthis
04-11-2008, 12:45 PM
YOU ALSO seem to be taking the same hd path I did.
When I got my panny 47 I justified it was to watch DVD.
DVD looked so good on it and letterboxing was reduced.
THEN ONE LOST WEEKEND I put a 30 ft mast up and got a HD tuner box.
It was the only option really
The very first HD I watched was the CBS tv show about a crime fighting taxi driver,
My antenna wasnt up yet, I ran a coax out to my car throught the door, set a inside UHF antenna up on the car.
In the rain. Kept running in and out adjusting it
BUT I was hooked, and XENA, even in SD on a HD channel, didn't help any
Now DVD still looks quite good, but they no longer
look as good on an HD set as they did.
"Upconverting" wont give you any extra res, but it gives you all of the res you have
After watching everything from "NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN" to trashy UFO
shows on history HD, DVD has become very pedestrian.
I honestly can't envision collecting any more movies in that format.
And standard def looks like a ratty old VCR :1:

OzzieAudiophile
04-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Hey pixelthis.

Looks like you went into a lot of effort, I commend you.

I perhaps should of said "upscale" as some Universal disc players claim they can upscale
DVDs up to 768p, 1080i and/or 1080p.

One highly respected reviewer stated for the NAD M55, that the best feature of it was
the DVD upscaling.

I would like to see this with my own eyes to find out if the upscaling is true, or porky-pies.

I certainly have no doubt that my blu-ray discs will impress me on my lcd.

OzzieAudiophile
01-07-2009, 11:48 PM
I got the original PS3 and started off a Blu-Ray collection. I watched Heroes, The Dark
Knight, absolutely incredible.

Despite what reviewers have said about the 'poor' playback for music PS3 do, well I would
guess if you had to compare PS3 CD playback to some of the best sources money can
buy, then I'd be forced to agree.

However PS3 does a pretty good job with CD playback for me, but my DynAudio
Contours are my strongest component. The SACD playback expectedly is much
better than CD.

I've conntected the audio using a Monster mid-range Optic cable. I intend to upgrade
that cable. I'm trying to upgrade my cables right now to reduce the number of
weak links of the signal.

Worf101
01-08-2009, 07:13 AM
I guess I don't fit in this post.

1. I have a new HT system downstairs in the living room.
2. HT system in the bedroom (overkill and unnecessary but it's there now).
3. Multichannel in my computer room for full gaming.

Now, I listen to music mainly on my Main HT rig in stereo the Platinum Audio Studio 3's mate quite well with my Onkyo 905 and I'm happy. I'd LOVE to have a dedicated 2 channel room with monoblocs and all that jazz but, I've not the room physically for it. I also listen to music on my puter rig either through my Logik nearfield monitors or my Sennheiser head phones. However I think that I listen to most of my music in my car, like everyone else here.

Da Worfster

Doc Sage
01-08-2009, 05:35 PM
Had the 7.1 surround gig for over 3 years yet did most of my listening in 2 channel stereo. The few times that I got to see a video, the benefit of surround was lost to me.

A year ago, I came into possession of a 2 channel integrated amp (Sudgen) and fell in love with the quality of the sound. Being that my pad is small, I sold my side, back & centre speakers and have not looked back since.

It's above the music.

Doc Sage

Luvin Da Blues
01-08-2009, 06:04 PM
Had the 7.1 surround gig for over 3 years yet did most of my listening in 2 channel stereo. The few times that I got to see a video, the benefit of surround was lost to me.

A year ago, I came into possession of a 2 channel integrated amp (Sudgen) and fell in love with the quality of the sound. Being that my pad is small, I sold my side, back & centre speakers and have not looked back since.

It's above the music.

Doc Sage

Your singing my song, 'cept I only had a 5.1 system (I still have a MC system in my bedroom). I find my speakers image so well that with all the post production spatial tricks used today that even with only 2 speakers the ambient sounds and spatial cues are still very good. Don't miss MC at all.

filecat13
01-09-2009, 07:10 AM
Seriously, men, if you had a MC system for a while, then switched "back" to two channel, I have to wonder what was wrong with your MC system.

Luvin Da Blues
01-09-2009, 07:15 AM
Seriously, men, if you had a MC system for a while, then switched "back" to two channel, I have to wonder what was wrong with your MC system.

Nothing wrong with my old MC system. It's about getting better equipment for the same cost plus, the fact that music playback is a greater concern for me that having bullets buzz around my head.

Cheerz,

LDB

E-Stat
01-09-2009, 07:19 PM
It's about getting better equipment for the same cost plus, the fact that music playback is a greater concern for me that having bullets buzz around my head.
I had this same debate with TtT some time back. I can neither afford creating a MC version of my two channel system or am willing to lose its capabilities just to get the other channels. The very best system I've heard was a two channel system. On the other hand, if your budget allows, then perhaps Ray Kimber's rather nifty MC system would likely do the trick. Look here (http://blog.stereophile.com/rmaf2008/101108kimber/). :)

rw

Deadeye
02-17-2009, 06:17 PM
I only have one system. The one in my bedroom doesn't count. I use only the front 2 channels through my preamp for music. I only have a half dozen or so CD's mixed for surround. They are mostly underwhelming.

IBSTORMIN
02-20-2009, 05:50 PM
I have three systems and the stereo system and one 5.1 is balanced.
I am not balanced.