Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:05 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:10 pm 
Online

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 1980
Location: Caledonia, ON, CA
I usually advise my friends to spend almost all their money on the 2.0 setup. Kick ass pair of main speakers and integrated or pre/power. Then just keep their old crappy surround receiver to run the center and rears/sides spks.
Obviously ime a 2 channel kind of guy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:01 pm
Posts: 668
Location: Winnipeg, MB, CA
I used to get so frustrated trying to hear the dialogue in movies until I got a center channel speaker. This made all difference. Is this still considered 2 channel ?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:03 am
Posts: 1015
Location: Georgetown, ON, CA
I dismantled my 5.1 system 5 years ago and focused on upgrading my 2 channel system and switched to tube gear. Have never looked back and am extremely satisfied with my decision. I don't miss it at all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:07 am
Posts: 877
Location: London, ON, CA
soundfreak wrote:
I would be selling my current studio 100 v.3 and studio cc690 centre for a pair of Signature s6 v.3.

Any opinions or first hand knowledge of this change?

I'm thinking even though it is going down to 2.1 that the sound quality would be better?


Sell the 100s and get the S6. I made a very similar move within the Paradigm lineup (100 v.4 to Tributes). Well worth the investment, the Tributes are much closer to the Signature in quality, but a lot more musical than the 100s. The 100s actually sound a bit better for movies (because they sound brighter and more "etched"), but for music/stereo listening, the Tributes are far better in every respect. The tributes look like a Studio 100 v.5 as far as cabinet and driver configuration, but made of mostly Signature v.3 drivers and parts.

Keep the center channel for movies. Use a good processor (like Anthem) and a 3 or 5 channel amp. This would be similar to my setup, and you would have a very capable system for music or movies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:12 pm
Posts: 607
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
switched back to a 2 channel system 10 years ago...never looked back

My mains are JBL 4344's
They fill a room both in mass and music, movies etc !!!!

If you have a good sized floor stander all you'll need is a 2 channel system, in my opinion. Some may not have the room for that size speaker but the maybe the next option would a 2.1 system. That may be another thread altogether.

cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:02 am
Posts: 303
Location: Milton, ON, CA
newmusic wrote:
I usually advise my friends to spend almost all their money on the 2.0 setup. Kick ass pair of main speakers and integrated or pre/power. Then just keep their old crappy surround receiver to run the center and rears/sides spks.
Obviously ime a 2 channel kind of guy.

How many do this very thing?

It's an idea as the surround speakers that match your fronts become very expensive especially if you want to run a 7.1 or larger system.

Audiois1st

_________________
Check me out: http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/userprofile.php?user_id=39933


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 147
Location: Montréal, QC, CA
Good article on why a center channel is not needed. I tested it when I had a center VS just the 2 fronts. The 2 fronts produced the voices in the center just as good as with the center speaker on. I ditched the center. Later on I went 2 channel and haven't looked back.

https://www.cnet.com/news/attention-hom ... l-speaker/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:07 am
Posts: 877
Location: London, ON, CA
Scudder wrote:
Good article on why a center channel is not needed. I tested it when I had a center VS just the 2 fronts. The 2 fronts produced the voices in the center just as good as with the center speaker on. I ditched the center. Later on I went 2 channel and haven't looked back.

https://www.cnet.com/news/attention-hom ... l-speaker/


Setup is key here. I have a 100" front projection screen, flanked by 2 tower speakers spaced 9 feet apart, in a room that is 18 feet wide, and I often have a dozen people people in the room watching a movie at the same time. In my case, the center channel is a huge plus; it is a well designed 3-way with a vertical tweeter and mid. It has excellent dispersion, does not sound boxy, and room correction software smooths some of the "character" of the speaker (exaggerated bass output at around 80 Hz) and a few other anomalies for a seamless experience.

If you have a 40" TV with the speakers 5' apart in a small room and just a couple people watching, that is going to be entirely different.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:45 pm
Posts: 147
Location: Montréal, QC, CA
L-Man wrote:
Scudder wrote:
Good article on why a center channel is not needed. I tested it when I had a center VS just the 2 fronts. The 2 fronts produced the voices in the center just as good as with the center speaker on. I ditched the center. Later on I went 2 channel and haven't looked back.

https://www.cnet.com/news/attention-hom ... l-speaker/


Setup is key here. I have a 100" front projection screen, flanked by 2 tower speakers spaced 9 feet apart, in a room that is 18 feet wide, and I often have a dozen people people in the room watching a movie at the same time. In my case, the center channel is a huge plus; it is a well designed 3-way with a vertical tweeter and mid. It has excellent dispersion, does not sound boxy, and room correction software smooths some of the "character" of the speaker (exaggerated bass output at around 80 Hz) and a few other anomalies for a seamless experience.

If you have a 40" TV with the speakers 5' apart in a small room and just a couple people watching, that is going to be entirely different.


Agreed. Your room is closer to being a theater than a typical living room. I believe a center makes sense in your setup. I have a 65 inch screen, speakers 7 feet apart, and usually 3 people watching. In my setup, 2 channel works just fine at creating the voices in the center.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:29 am 
Online

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 1980
Location: Caledonia, ON, CA
Audiois1st wrote:
newmusic wrote:
I usually advise my friends to spend almost all their money on the 2.0 setup. Kick ass pair of main speakers and integrated or pre/power. Then just keep their old crappy surround receiver to run the center and rears/sides spks.
Obviously ime a 2 channel kind of guy.

How many do this very thing?

It's an idea as the surround speakers that match your fronts become very expensive especially if you want to run a 7.1 or larger system.

Audiois1st


The people I know who have an interest in home theatre usually have no interest whatsoever in quality 2 channel audio. But the few I know that do, have been very appreciative of my advice. They are now the proud owners of some great sounding mains and a high end two channel integrated. The home theatre receiver they first asked me to help upgrade is now just a toy used only for certain action movie sound effects. They have absolutely no interest in matching the quality of the rears to the expensive mains. The rears/sides are for sound effects only. I know no one who is listening to multichannel audio for example. There is such a very limited selection of audio software in surround, why waste money matching the rears to the fronts?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:02 am
Posts: 303
Location: Milton, ON, CA
newmusic wrote:
Audiois1st wrote:
newmusic wrote:
I usually advise my friends to spend almost all their money on the 2.0 setup. Kick ass pair of main speakers and integrated or pre/power. Then just keep their old crappy surround receiver to run the center and rears/sides spks.
Obviously ime a 2 channel kind of guy.

How many do this very thing?

It's an idea as the surround speakers that match your fronts become very expensive especially if you want to run a 7.1 or larger system.

Audiois1st


The people I know who have an interest in home theatre usually have no interest whatsoever in quality 2 channel audio. But the few I know that do, have been very appreciative of my advice. They are now the proud owners of some great sounding mains and a high end two channel integrated. The home theatre receiver they first asked me to help upgrade is now just a toy used only for certain action movie sound effects. They have absolutely no interest in matching the quality of the rears to the expensive mains. The rears/sides are for sound effects only. I know no one who is listening to multichannel audio for example. There is such a very limited selection of audio software in surround, why waste money matching the rears to the fronts?

I happened to be one that has invested in listening to multichannel audio and in quality 2 channel audio, however unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that my listening room is simply not big enough to accommodate both unless I combine them. I can't afford to upgrade the surrounds at the present time so I'm thinking of keeping the less expensive surrounds up while I enjoy my 2 channel audio.

Audiois1st

_________________
Check me out: http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/userprofile.php?user_id=39933


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:20 pm
Posts: 456
Location: Delta, BC, CA
Dolby or DTS movies, of any type, are programmed to have a large percentage of the sound sent to the center channel, if you are using the fronts to fake a center channel, you are robbing yourself of a good 40% of the sound quality.. 2 channel is the absolute best for listening to tunes, but is woefully inadequate to experience a movie the way the movie sound people intended.

A few members have pointed out they have the best of both worlds, and I totally agree with them. The ones that went back to 2 channel only are limiting themselves in so many ways it is sad.. wonder if they are the ones that killed Quad many years ago, and than had it resurface in a huge way with a another channel or two added, and called it Dolby surround.... can't put a really good idea down can ya!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group