Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 148
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    abington pa
    Posts
    23

    why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

    I dont get why people like 2.0 channel music so much. I think it sounds so boring. I personaly like multi channel,it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent effects that make it seem like the music is all around you.please someone tell me why 2.0 channel is so popular with so many people when 5.1 or even 6.1 is so much better.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular risabet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    177

    Better? I think not!

    5.1, 6.1, 7.1 are better for movies but not for audio (IMO). When was the last time you were at a symphony and heard "effects" from the orchestra or in a jazz club and heard the sax "ping-pong" around the club, not that good SS is that lame. The proper reproduction of 2-channel sound IMO, can recreate the acoustic envelope of a well recorded space, be it a symphony hall or a studio w/o the gimmicks of multi-channel sound.

    Linn LP-12 (Origin Live Advanced PS w/DC Motor) Benz "ACE" medium output*TAD-150*Tube Audio Design TAD-1000 monoblocs*Parasound CD-P 1000*NAD 4020A Tuner*Velodyne F-1000 Subwoofer*Toshiba SD-4700 DVD*Motorola DTP-5100 HD converter*Pioneer PDP-4300*Martin-Logan Clarity*Audioquest cables and interconnects* Panamax 5100 power conditioner

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    13
    I was told that its just better for your speakers basicly to lisen to them on 2 speakers. Keep the

  4. #4
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    There's been studies available for years that explained why 2-ch stereo setups are not as good as 3 or more speakers for creating more realistics soundstage, imaging, etc. The problem is that knowing something has more potential and meeting that potential are two different things.

    I think the reason we all listen to 2-ch stereo still is twofold:
    First we all have a whole bunch of music recorded in the 2-ch world, optimized for 2-channel playback. Fake processing on these recordings produces mixed results at best. Maybe it is possible to process these better, but I think most people just don't care to test every song or album out to verify this.

    Second, there aren't enough good multi-channel recordings readily available that aren't still cost prohibitive in some manner. New formats require new equipment, and generally add price premiums to album releases.
    And as was mentioned earlier, some surround recordings are doing the same thing stereo recordings did in their early going - showing off the surround capabilities without putting much thought into the overall execution of the album. It's great that drum beats can be pinpointed to 4 corners of the room, but how realistic is that?

    Have patience though. The DVD has already revolutionized many things, and surround sound is definitely here to stay. It's just a matter of time until DVD-A, DualDisc, SACD, or some new format finally get widely accepted into the mainstream and we see audio finally take that next leap into surround sound.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    A PROPERLY done 5.1 mix can be good. VERY good! See Floyd's Dark Side SACD for reference. Problem is, for every 1 properly done 5.1 mix there are 10 that are horribly done.

    However, I find taking a 2 channel source and playing it through '5 channel stereo' is just simply asanine and I want to beat people that think it sounds good

    So there is a difference.

  6. #6
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    2.0 is just to flat. I want all my speakers involved.
    Look & Listen

  7. #7
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    I think there is several reason why 2 channel advocates are so stuck in that format.

    1. They have typically spent more money on equipment than the 5.1 folks have. They have very large collections of LP's and CD"s for which they cannot part with, or see no justification to upgrade to 5.1. IMO they are probably more egocentric about their equipment, and in total denial about the drawback of 2 channel.

    2. Multichannel is a format still in its infancy. It has only been five years or less that multichannel AUDIO has been available, and audio engineers still have not quite gotten their hands around the format. They are alot of very mediocre titles, a few more very excellent titles, but in reality DVD-A and SACD are still born formats thanks to the heavy handed record companies that do not allow high resolution output via the digital connectors. This prevents the use of your receivers internal bass management and delay functions for proper alignment of these signals. This heavy handed protection measure has all but killed both formats before they were out of the gate. The next big hope for high resolution multichannel will come in the form of HD DVD(A) and BlueRay disc which offer 24/96khz resolution over 8 channels for HD DVD and 8 channels at 24/192khz for BlueRay

    Personally I think the book is being closed on both SACD and DVD-A as fewer and fewer titles are released, and even less stocked on the shelves of your local record store.

    I think it is pretty sad the the public finds MP3 more paitable than DVD-A and SACD. But then I am not always so surprised that people are so cheap and short sighted that they would pass up something that truely is an improvement over CD, but chase after something that is easily downloadable, but has the sound quality of the cassette tape.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    42
    In a perfect world, each instrument would have it's own speaker and the recorded media would have a separate track for each instrument.The listener would place the speakers around the room and the result would be like sitting on the stage with the band. Zappa recorded some of his pieces like this. Unfortunately, we'll never hear them.

    In the real world most everything is recorded, engineered, and mixed for left and right. If you want your music to sound "cool" spend you money on six speakers and six channels of amplification. If you what it to sound "real" spend your money on two.

  9. #9
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Wow,thats a dumb statement,imo of course.
    As for mp3's,its a world of quanity over quality as far as music.
    Look & Listen

  10. #10
    Sgt. At Arms Worf101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Troy, New York
    Posts
    4,288

    I've switched back and forth....

    I've played with the multiple channel formats and all the DSP's that Onkyo includes on my receivers and in the end, when I got superior speakers I decided to stay with 2.0 for most if not all of my musical playback. It just feels right and I love the soundstage. Now perhaps a 3.1 would be acceptable LCR and sub but right now. It's mains and subs only...

    Da Worfster

  11. #11
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Because it's real. It's kinda like a fine steak

    Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

    Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

    Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

  12. #12
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

    Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

    Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.
    Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

    Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  13. #13
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    I'm a stereo guy for a few reasons.

    First off, like mentioned I have tons of two channel recordings. I haven't the time, money or desire to replace a few thousand LPs and CDs with multichannel recordings.

    Secondly, while I'm fully ready to believe that multi channel can be better, I haven't really heard much evidence that most current multi-channel stuff is. I'm not willing to spend a bunch of money on a multi-channel system for a handful of recordings that are very well done for the format.

    Third is cost and practicality. I can afford to buy two decent speakers, but buying five good speakers and a sub, plus amplification for them all gets too rich for my blood. I could maybe sell my stereo and swing one of those home theater in a box systems, but those sound way worse than what I listen to now through two channels. Then you've got to fill your room with speakers, unless you wanna use the little cube things, and again then, the sound ends up being worse than what I've got.

    So, yeah I can understand how theoretically multi channel can be better. I'm just not convinced that from a practical standpoint it is better for me right now.

  14. #14
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    It's simple...

    ...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.

    Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!

    All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses...

    jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)

  15. #15
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Surround Sound quality

    I have a surround system consisting of a NAD receiver ($1,700 list) and 5 speakers ($4,100 list) so I'm hardly in the lowest cost club. I use this system for my home theater and it performs quite well. Like anyone would be, I was curious and played several 2 channel CDs both in stereo and in "simulated" suround. I also played one (count 'em one) DVD-A disk.

    My problem is that at least at the price point of my surround system, the sound quality is nowhere near my main stereo. Now I spent a little over double on my main system so the comparison is not exactly fair, but when I built my surround system I tried hard to find ways to upgrade my two channel to multi channel. I did this in an attempt to avoid duplication of money being spent.

    In spite of any appearances based on my system cost I am financially lower middle class. I have streched my budget over many years in order to own equipment as nice as I own. So the impetus to combine systems to save money was real. I was never able to find equipment that could cleanly combine my two and multichannel systems with same or simular sound quality (this was about 5 years ago, there seem to be somewhat more options today).

    As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    65
    Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information.
    So what? I listen to the music the way the recording engineer intended it to be listened to. Not some egghead at Yamaha using a cheap DSP processor to add sound delays and distortion to mimmick what my living room might sound like if it were Yankee Stadium.

    The majority of recording specific material, and that's like, 99.98% of the market, is two channel. The fancy surround modes in your $300 Sony Receiver do not extract magical sound channels that the engineer put there to hide from 2-channel audio enthusiast. It only makes up what it thinks might sound like multi channel recordings. If the engineer doesn't put that information there in the first place, I have no desire to listen to it, got it?

    Again, unless I'm watching an Eagles or Sting concert on DVD, and there's native 5/7.1 information I'l be happy to pipe it through my surrounds. I'm otherwise not having some mass produced IC board *invent* what's not there. Best analogy I can think of is taking your favorite family picture to the closest novelty store, and have them apply that plastic diffraction laminate used to make your Scooby Doo lunchbox look 3-dimensional. Cheesy and Fake? I feel the same way about pumping 2-channel music through something that invents sound delays and channels that weren't there in the first place.

    To be honest, the only really good high quality multi channel sound I've ever heard is from Delos Labs.

  17. #17
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Very true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

    Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.
    If and whan they come out with recorded music with a realistic front channel spread and only the intended ambiance clues from the rear, rthen I'll jump on the bandwagon. That's what will make multi channel a permanant resident in my house for music. I'm not one for having insturments and artifacts swirling around me, except for perhaps an intended evvent.

    But, If you are saying that I can use some sort of precessor the accurately recreate that ambiance from a two channel recording, well, I'll have to say that so far it ain't happenin'.

  18. #18
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.
    Look & Listen

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    Posts
    20
    Lets put this all in perspective. 1) Where do you think the most money is spent on sound equipment? 2) What is the most popular format? 3) Why is 2 channel so popular?

    2 Channel Stereo and Redbook CDs. Popular because it does a fantastic job. Not at all like multi channel. They play with the signal so much it just isn't believable.

    If you need to have a "guitar go through your head" as one so aptly put it, then fill you're boots. I for one enjoy the performance of the music so much I can't possibly listen to 5,6 or 7 channels at a time. How can anyone listen to music and really listen from 7 channels.

    The sound tracks on most DVDs are at best sub par with the Redbook CDs. This alone would indicate you need to listen to some other type of source material. If you don't enjoy 2 channel from CDs then maybe you have a hearing problem, an equipment problem or you are asking to have a guitar go through your head.

    I listen to multi channel but I have a system dedicated to that format. It is only used for DVD watching. Multi channel has it's purpose and basically it is best used in conjunction with a video presentation. When you listen to an audio track when watching a movie the main focus is on the video end of things. The sound track just helps reinforce what you are watching. If you turned the video feed off you would find the multi channel a little lacking in the sound quality end of things. Long live the best HI FI setup yet established, 2 channel.

  20. #20
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    So your head starts spinning when there's more then one instrument playing?
    Look & Listen

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by dontbhatin01
    I dont get why people like 2.0 channel music so much. I think it sounds so boring. I personaly like multi channel,it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent effects that make it seem like the music is all around you.please someone tell me why 2.0 channel is so popular with so many people when 5.1 or even 6.1 is so much better.
    If and when I ever hear a surround recording that sounds better than 2 channel, I'll be impressed. I would expect it to happen but so far I can only cringe at the crap that I've heard. When the producers and/or RE's stick to putting the spatial cues ONLY in the surround channels, I'll consider it. But I really can't tolerate having instruments playing behind me.

    We may not be far away and it may be happening already. But right now for me jumping into the 5.1 arena is too much of a chance. My experience so far is that 5.1 is great in theory and it stinks at execution.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    Posts
    20
    Shokhead said

    "I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

    Well the same thing happens to the sound that comes out of the stereo. It doesn't just hit you and stop either.

    I also have to say that you will never get any sound nearing what you get at the concert. First off I can still hear when I shut the stereo off but that doesn't happen at a concert. The SPL at a live concert is just too much without causing hearing loss. Yes thats right, maybe you have been to too many concerts. Try taking some ear plugs with you so you can save your hearing.. Loud doesn't mean good sound it just means loud.

    And no my head doesn't spin when I hear more than 2 speakers playing. Sounds to me like your equipment may not be the best if it sounds better processed by a micro chip than it does as recorded. Sorry to hear that.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    Posts
    20
    Oh ya bye the bye. Didn't they try Quadraphonic back in the seventies. That didn't go over too well and it hasn't gotten any better by adding another channel or three either. So who is really old fashioned?

    It may also be noted that the title of this discussion is "why do people like 2 channel so much" not "why do you not like 2 channel."
    Last edited by Dave Lindhorst; 05-16-2005 at 01:56 PM.

  24. #24
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lindhorst
    Shokhead said

    "I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

    Well the same thing happens to the sound that comes out of the stereo. It doesn't just hit you and stop either.

    I also have to say that you will never get any sound nearing what you get at the concert. First off I can still hear when I shut the stereo off but that doesn't happen at a concert. The SPL at a live concert is just too much without causing hearing loss. Yes thats right, maybe you have been to too many concerts. Try taking some ear plugs with you so you can save your hearing.. Loud doesn't mean good sound it just means loud.

    And no my head doesn't spin when I hear more than 2 speakers playing. Sounds to me like your equipment may not be the best if it sounds better processed by a micro chip than it does as recorded. Sorry to hear that.
    LMFAO
    Some like it 2 way and some like it more,thats ok. OBTW,read the spinning head post again. To me,its just sounds like flat syereo with 2 speakers but i understand old timers liking it that way.
    Look & Listen

  25. #25
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.
    Ummm, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases.It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases. In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers. Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds. Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds. Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears. Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge. Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you.

    Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!
    The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot. In the world of today, you can have practically noiseless stereo surrounds of ambience actually recorded from the hall, and not some mono extraction from the front channels. Rather than waxing nostalgic, you might want to take a more realistic analysis of just what the good ole days really offered. In every format introduction since the early 1900 sound designers have showed off the technology(ping pong panning, and balls bouncing around the room) rather than using it to offer more realstic playback. In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should.

    All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses..
    For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies. If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit. Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel. But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want.

    jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)[/QUOTE]

    Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. bi amping center channel using Y adaptor
    By lomarica in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2005, 07:31 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-22-2004, 09:54 AM
  3. Kex to further discuss adverts.
    By RGA in forum Speakers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 03:23 PM
  4. DVD Player question
    By Brian68 in forum General Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •