HT vs Home Audio System

[Sean]

Great-looking setup. Thanks for sharing, Tom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Phishphan]

I have the SP3 digital preamp also. But it has become primarily a switching board. I use different DACs for 2-ch audio and multichannel, and also an Oppo 205 to handle 4K video since the SP3 cannot decode 4K.
I also use the SP3 to manage time delays between speakers and subs.

There's an upgrade to the SP3 to allow it to pass through 4K. It's ~$1000 or so.

Mine is really just volume control for 2 channel. I use it in bypass mode and rely on my EMM gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nicoff]

There's an upgrade to the SP3 to allow it to pass through 4K. It's ~$1000 or so.

Mine is really just volume control for 2 channel. I use it in bypass mode and rely on my EMM gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, sorry I was not clear. I am familiar with the upgrade. I actually had it done to my unit. But the board upgrade, as you well pointed out, only allows the SP3 to pass 4k (it does not decode it). So I still use the Oppo 205 for that purpose. Thanks!

 

[Calvin]

Do most here keep their home theater and home audio systems separate (I do), or do you integrate them? For me, listening to music and listening to/watching HT are two very different things. Also, the cost of a top notch HT system with high quality components is often significantly higher (i.e. the need for subs, a lot more cables, etc.).

And, as a musician, I want my music and system two channel and at the highest quality I can afford. With all the components of a multi, multi, multi-channel system there is more chance for introducing noise to the system and for degradation of the signal. However, I will admit there is a good bit of speculation in this assessment. My two cents.

IMO, keeping a two-channel system separate from a home audio system is similar to keeping a Bentley separate from a BMW motorcycle. Both get you someplace, but in different ways and with a different quality of luxury ...

We may watch 8-10 hours of TV per week. So, for us a small 75" TV and a Martin Logan Sound-bar is more than sufficient. While we could build a much better TV system, there is just no reason too.

On the other hand, a two-channel audio system is what we enjoy the most. So, it's where we place our priorities.

Our new audio system will be delivered soon - thanks Mike. But along the way I researched some other systems. It is unfortunate, but one dealer tried to sell us on a very nice multi-channel system in lieu of a two-channel system, stating it would better serve our needs/purposes overall. Why not have one system that does both types of sound [fairly] well? I listened, but no sale. IMO, this dealer didn't understand the differences between two-channel and surround sound, etc. This seems to be an unfortunate trend away from two-channel audio ... (has been for years).

IMO, while there are some absolutely wonderful multi-channels systems that can deliver most of what a two-channel system can, it's still not the same experience or quality, etc. Perhaps this has to do with being raised on two-channel systems, but to me in a two-channel system the sound is different, more involving, precise, better sound-stage, imaging, and the way the music I listen to (jazz, soft rock) is meant to be heard. Of course, I'm assuming one has a good two-channel system that can deliver this ongoing experience ...

This is not to say or imply that a multi-channel system isn't any good and can't be better in some ways on some recordings meant for a multi-channel system, etc. They are just different - esp. for someone like me raised on two-channel audio.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

This is not to say or imply that a multi-channel system isn't any good and can't be better in some ways on some recordings meant for a multi-channel system, etc. They are just different - esp. for someone like me raised on two-channel audio.

The MCH systems I describe are no different from 2ch systems. The LR front channels are exactly like you will have, no different. Same sound. Same room. That's why I said 2ch +.
Unfortunately, 99.999999% of audiophiles have never heard a 2ch+ surround system (at least knowingly ) , just the whiz bang stuff they have at B&M stores . The center channel isn't on during 2ch. In my system there isn't one. Only surrounds. Those can be on, which is precisely why it sounds better than any 2ch system possibly can (physically). Read the links in my previous post.

 

[Marslo]

My main audio rig is in a living room, in a TV room we have a 7.1 HT based on Kuro 5090 tv and Pioneer SC LX 82 and my first really audiophile spekers - PS 5.1 as fronts .
The main HT system is relativaly inexpensive but in a dedicated room , Sony HW 50 together with Yamaha Aventage 3010 and 9.1 B&W speakers setup, 120 inches white matt screen.

 

[Marslo]

PS Sorry , I can’t cancel this post, just wanted to add the picture from the main HT system to the previous post , „Irishman” from Netflix, last weekend, the movie is a masterpiece imho.

 

[Calvin]

Right, only one has video. But the physics of sound is exactly the same for both. Really comes down to what one's demands for "reproduction" are.
Most "audiophiles" are actually "stereophiles". Their demands begin and end with stereo constructs. Others, like myself, are after something else, based on these objective facts of physical reality , nothing subjective there at all. That comes afterwards.
Subjectively, stereophiles are satisfied with frontal stereo constructs, others want something akin to this which is physically impossible without at least (2) rear channels. 4 is the minimum. I consider this as stereo + 2, since all mains are capable of pure stereo, the other channels can suffice for both MCH music and movies as needed. Such systems can produced enhanced stereo as well. That's what I do with 99% of music, which is stereo. There is an "off" button if/when the effect is undesired.
Good speakers won't have any issues with reproducing whatever signals they are sent. Sad ones will.
If HT is involved, having a retractable screen is nice to keep the space between mains open for non movie listening. A wall mounted TV can accomplish the same. Or both, one for movies, the other for daily casual viewing, etc.
As with all discussions here and elsewhere, it will come down to preferences and electro-acoustic/perceptual subject knowledge. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ

AJ,

I appreciate your post and links. The links were an interesting read. However, as I previously stated, the music I listen to was / is recorded for two-channel. So, for me it seems unnatural hearing it on 4, 6, or 8 speakers, etc. I'm not sure how else to state this, but I enjoy hearing the detail from only two speakers - more speakers just seems to hide, muffle, confuse some of the detail for me. I guess my brain is accustomed to processing it one way (two-channels).

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ,

I appreciate your post and links. The links were an interesting read. However, as I previously stated, the music I listen to was / is recorded for two-channel. So, for me it seems unnatural hearing it on 4, 6, or 8 speakers, etc.

Hi Calvin,
The last link was about 2ch music. That's my source as well. However, as I noted, you've most likely never heard such a music specific enhanced stereo system, only the HT type stuff. Only 4 speakers are required, 2 stereo fronts just like yours... and 2 surrounds. They can't be "heard" if setup properly.
I have done innumerable demos where folks had no idea it was enhanced. Again, this is not like an HT system where surround "effects" are intentionally audible. They sat within 1' of the "surrounds"...and could not hear them due to the decorrelation, which strips the human hearing system of any ability to localize the sound.
The effect is difficult to describe to those who have not experienced, or have experienced primarily HT. For acoustic music like jazz and classical, especially classical, there is a sense of "realism" impossible with stereo. For electronic rock, etc, not so much. There it sounds unnatural as you note. Hence there is also an "off" button.

I guess my brain is accustomed to processing it one way (two-channels).

Most likely .
The systems I describe are your exact new stereo in room, with 2 additions, a processor and 2 surrounds. Technically, its then a "MCH" system. But when listening to pure stereo as you do now, without the processor/surrounds, its exactly the same.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Mike]

Mine at home is a blended system. I have a 100 inch Stewart screen which is built up into the ceiling and comes down when I flick a switch and a Sony SXRD projector (VERY old!). My home theater processor from the 90’s stopped working in May. I just now purchased a B stock Integra something or another. My Hegel rep also sells Integra. I waited for my wife to give me shit for not having our home theater working (she wanted to watch movies during Thanksgiving) before getting one. I use an old Bryston 9BSST2 amp for 5 of the 7 channels and some crappy Marantz amp for the height speakers. I don’t have a center channel, but may get an MBL 126C or 120C. I’m just not into TV/Movies as you can tell. I would much rather spin a record or listen to an album. I have it to appease Management.

 

[bluegrassphile]

Mine at home is a blended system. I have a 100 inch Stewart screen which is built up into the ceiling and comes down when I flick a switch and a Sony SXRD projector (VERY old!). My home theater processor from the 90’s stopped working in May. I just now purchased a B stock Integra something or another. My Hegel rep also sells Integra. I waited for my wife to give me shit for not having our home theater working (she wanted to watch movies during Thanksgiving) before getting one. I use an old Bryston 9BSST2 amp for 5 of the 7 channels and some crappy Marantz amp for the height speakers. I don’t have a center channel, but may get an MBL 126C or 120C. I’m just not into TV/Movies as you can tell. I would much rather spin a record or listen to an album. I have it to appease Management.

That sounds like our house. We watch very, very, few movies. My wife likes to watch "The Voice" on our HT systems, so sometimes we use the HT systems for music oriented TV shows.

We have an SVS 5.1 system in our downstairs listening room. That's where our new 2 channel system will reside. We also have an SVS 7.1 system in our upstairs living room. The HT electronic components are all Yamaha. I've had these HT systems about 10 years. They're virtually brand new. They get little use. They will get even less use once my new 2 channel system is set up.

Nothing wrong with the SVS systems at all. They're very high quality as HT systems go and their customer service is outstanding. We just much prefer listening to high end 2 channel music. I wish I had the money I initially put into the HT systems so I could invest it in high end 2 channel audio. We thought we would be using the HT systems much more than we do.

 

[Mr Peabody]

check this out: Dynavector's Conclusion

For true hi-fi music reproduction, traditional hi-fi technology which pursues only accurate signal and replay by means of advanced digital techniques is far from the truth. The recovery of the dispersive elements contained in the original sound in a listening room is now recognised as the important factor. Conventional 2 speakers stereo does not allow for this, neither do the multi-channel systems on offer.

Dynavector has concluded that the existing 2 speaker's stereo needs at least one more pair of speakers to develop the required dispersive conditions in the listening room. After ten years of research work, we have succeeded in producing the answer to this problem by developing a SuperStereo system.

SuperStereo System

As previously mentioned, a loudspeaker radiates sounds which are non-dispersive propagation waves. It is not possible for the loudspeaker itself to discriminate between non-dispersive or dispersive sound. To discriminate between the non-dispersive and dispersive components in sound directly radiated from the diaphragm of a speaker, the environment surrounding the speaker needs to be identical to the original environment. Perfect simulation of the original recording environment is theoretically not possible. But in our many trials over several years, we have found that even an approximate simulation can produce a life-like reality from the playback of recordings much closer to the original sound.

After much research, Dynavector has now perfected a SuperStereo processor which produces numerous group delays throughout the entire frequency range. The sound so produced is played through additional speakers. The additional speakers are located so as to face the main, front speakers. The interaction of the sound between the front and rear speakers produces significant group delays in the listening room. While the group delays are not identical to those in the original listening or recording environment, the feeling of life-like reality is greatly enhanced by the use of such a system for the playback of CD's, cassettes and LP's. Even by applying the SuperStereo technique to a limited frequency range, the improvement is striking, but there are several grades of SuperStereo processors to cater for all users from the basic music lover to the most enthusiastic audiophile.

Outstanding Features of SuperStereo

1. Any normal stereo system, whether modest or top end, can be used with a Dynavector SuperStereo processor without any change of equipment or speaker setting, and connection is straightforward.

2. Normal, compact speakers are recommended for the rear pair.

3. SuperStereo works very well in any environment. Room size and acoustics are unimportant and room-tuning devices are not needed. So SuperStereo does not interfere with room decor.

4. The listening point is not limited to a centre "hot spot". Almost any position, except near to any speaker, is enjoyable.

5. The playback of music can be enjoyed with a lifelike reality not achievable with a conventional stereo system, however expensive.

6. Poorly recorded material sounds much better with SuperStereo and monaural LP's can sound even better than modern stereo recordings. Many historic recordings by great masters of the past are revived to sound like the original concert performances.

7. Even with very small systems, by using a SuperStero processor, deep bass can easily be reproduced and dynamic range, smoothness and detailed resolution are much higher than in conventional stereo systems. The purchase of expensive equipment is not necessary to enjoy the real sound of music. And there is no need to worry about obsolescence from new digital "high tech" which constantly appears on the market.

8. The ultimate SuperStereo can be achieved by a step by step add on of further processors without great expense. Expensive speakers and amplifiers are not needed.

9. SuperStereo has many applications in audio including PC music, in car entertainment systems, home theatre, professional sound systems for theatres, PA systems, synthesisers and electronic instruments, the tailoring of studio acoustics and medical therapy systems. Patents have been granted world-wide.

For all the tech stuff, https://www.dynavector.com/essp/hi_fidelity.html


I first saw this several years ago, always wanted to hear it to see whether it lives up to what it says.

Right, only one has video. But the physics of sound is exactly the same for both. Really comes down to what one's demands for "reproduction" are.
Most "audiophiles" are actually "stereophiles". Their demands begin and end with stereo constructs. Others, like myself, are after something else, based on these objective facts of physical reality , nothing subjective there at all. That comes afterwards.
Subjectively, stereophiles are satisfied with frontal stereo constructs, others want something akin to this which is physically impossible without at least (2) rear channels. 4 is the minimum. I consider this as stereo + 2, since all mains are capable of pure stereo, the other channels can suffice for both MCH music and movies as needed. Such systems can produced enhanced stereo as well. That's what I do with 99% of music, which is stereo. There is an "off" button if/when the effect is undesired.
Good speakers won't have any issues with reproducing whatever signals they are sent. Sad ones will.
If HT is involved, having a retractable screen is nice to keep the space between mains open for non movie listening. A wall mounted TV can accomplish the same. Or both, one for movies, the other for daily casual viewing, etc.
As with all discussions here and elsewhere, it will come down to preferences and electro-acoustic/perceptual subject knowledge. Or lack thereof.

cheers,

AJ

 

[nicoff]

That Dynavector article is nearly 20 years old. And the processor is no longer made. Interesting approach nonetheless.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I'm not surprised, back when I read it I think the rep is the only one in the U.S. to have one set up. It's tough swimming against the tide and hoping for a product to be successful.

That Dynavector article is nearly 20 years old. And the processor is no longer made. Interesting approach nonetheless.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

I first saw this several years ago, always wanted to hear it to see whether it lives up to what it says.

It's a mixture of science terms and science fiction, mostly the latter, with a lot of unscientific word salad nonsense in between. That's why there is no science/paper to review, nothing published on science journal sites, etc.
About the only fact they got correct is that 4 minimum speakers (2 rear) are needed for real life envelopment.
The part about it's impossible for the same speaker drivers to simultaneously produce plane waves and diffuse (leading edge free waves) is sorta correct...but they are using all wrong terms.
Unsurprising it faded. Glad they stuck to making cartridges.

cheer,

AJ

 

[Calvin]

I'm not surprised, back when I read it I think the rep is the only one in the U.S. to have one set up. It's tough swimming against the tide and hoping for a product to be successful.

One of the things that stood out to me was the confessional statement, "While the group delays are not identical to those in the original listening or recording environment" accenting my earlier point that the reproduction wouldn't be the same as the original. It's no wonder it's no longer around ...

Some of the newer music that is coming out though may make use of such-type newer technology that AJ and others enjoy and promote and thus the listener would probably find something like this both practical and enjoyable. But, while I've heard many other type systems, I know that nothing of the four-speaker variety is for me. I enjoy my music on an audiophile two-channel system. For me personally that ship has sailed ...

Great thing about audio though, you may normally have it your way ...

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Some of the newer music that is coming out though may make use of such-type newer technology that AJ and others enjoy and promote

Calvin, I listen to classical composers who have been dead for a couple hundred years, using stereo media, which has been around for nearly a hundred years. What newer??

I know that nothing of the four-speaker variety is for me.

Including a very specific type you have never heard and are conflating with maybe Quadraphonic, Dynavector and HT, etc. whiz bang special effects, apparently.
I do agree with you that this type reproduction experience is the opposite of what stereophiles seek and yes, unfortunately, while it is zero like Dynavector, Quad, HT etc, it does require 2 rear speakers.
To each their own.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Calvin]

Calvin, I listen to classical composers who have been dead for a couple hundred years, using stereo media, which has been around for nearly a hundred years. What newer??


Including a very specific type you have never heard and are conflating with maybe Quadraphonic, Dynavector and HT, etc. whiz bang special effects, apparently.
I do agree with you that this type reproduction experience is the opposite of what stereophiles seek and yes, unfortunately, while it is zero like Dynavector, Quad, HT etc, it does require 2 rear speakers.
To each their own.

cheers,

AJ

AJ, I sincerely apologize that I didn’t make myself clearer. As to part one of your post, I don’t see the need to fix what isn’t broken on older music, so I see no need for such a four speaker type system. However, other newer genre music may benefit from such - I don’t know. However, this doesn’t concern me as I don’t listen to it.

As to point two, I agree that it isn’t what I and other audiophiles like me are seeking. But I’m not conflating anything. It’s just that two-channel works magnificently for us. It delivers fantastic high-fidelity sound reproduction, sound staging, imaging, and detail etc. Of course, I’m speaking of my older system, as Mike hasn’t delivered the new one yet. That one will even be better.

It’s great that you and others are pleased with your specific system sound. That’s the way it should be. I just don’t personally see a need for a change in my own system.

I hope that helps clarifies what I meant.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ, I sincerely apologize that I didn’t make myself clearer. As to part one of your post, I don’t see the need to fix what isn’t broken on older music, so I see no need for such a four speaker type system.

No need to apologize. I presume you are not talking about classical, jazz and other forms of acoustic music. Those can be old and new. Modern recordings of course, tend to have much better fidelity to live/noise free vs old recordings.
Yes, there is no benefit to a 2ch + stereo system with non acoustic (rock, electronic, etc) music, which is why there is an "off" button, turning it into a stereo exactly like yours.

As to point two, I agree that it isn’t what I and other audiophiles like me are seeking. But I’m not conflating anything.

Well then I guess I owe you an apology. When did you hear a 2ch + system with decorrelated, inaudible even 1' away, rear channels?
They are absolutely nothing like the Dynavector, Quad and HT etc systems, which I incorrectly thought you had conflated them with. Any details?
The ultimate expression of that type system was the one JA and Wes of Stereophile experienced. Obviously those used to hearing the very best stereos were quite taken aback at how much better and more real ("scary" to a stereophile ) it sounded, but as we agree, that kind of fidelity to real isn't what most are chasing.
Even Stereophiles founder admitted this. I do like rock, etc myself...and listen mainly in stereo, no rears active. Stereo is just fine there for me too.

cheers,

AJ

 

[Calvin]

No need to apologize. I presume you are not talking about classical, jazz and other forms of acoustic music. Those can be old and new. Modern recordings of course, tend to have much better fidelity to live/noise free vs old recordings.
Yes, there is no benefit to a 2ch + stereo system with non acoustic (rock, electronic, etc) music, which is why there is an "off" button, turning it into a stereo exactly like yours.


Well then I guess I owe you an apology. When did you hear a 2ch + system with decorrelated, inaudible even 1' away, rear channels?
They are absolutely nothing like the Dynavector, Quad and HT etc systems, which I incorrectly thought you had conflated them with. Any details?
The ultimate expression of that type system was the one JA and Wes of Stereophile experienced. Obviously those used to hearing the very best stereos were quite taken aback at how much better and more real ("scary" to a stereophile ) it sounded, but as we agree, that kind of fidelity to real isn't what most are chasing.
Even Stereophiles founder admitted this. I do like rock, etc myself...and listen mainly in stereo, no rears active. Stereo is just fine there for me too.

cheers,

AJ

AJ, when I moved to Naples, I initially moved to my friend’s home to babysit it for 2 years while he was in Europe, etc. He has three audio systems, one like you describe (but 6, not 4 speakers and no center). While he doesn’t like his equipment described on the WWW I will merely say that each of his systems is exceptional. I used all of them. And of course you already know that I like his two-channel the best.

My favorite genre of music has changed thru the years. If you would have asked me 10 years ago what my absolute favorite was I would have said classic rock music. I still have a lot of rock albums. Then when I moved to Naples I began listening to my friend’s jazz collections. My music tastes gradually changed. Now I enjoy jazz - esp female vocals the best. So, with my former Krell/B&W 802 system now gone (great for rock, but lacking IMO on jazz), I’m purchasing the new system from Mike. I feel it will excel at what I’m seeking, esp. on female vocals. But even it may be updated sometime next year if I can convince the boss of it. If the Magicos I receive work out hopefully the Magico M3s next year ...