Stereo Vs. 5.1?

If you haven't listened to Relayer, The Yes Album and Close to the Edge in 5.1 then absolutely YES, you are missing something.

 

5.1. mixes of King Crimson albums are awesome too.

 

I prefer Stereo almost all of the time (I'm not set-up for 5.1, but have heard it a few times).


However, I visited a Forum friend who played the (2012 or so?) "Wish You Were Here" SACD in Surround and it was amazing!

.

 

I had the prejudice that 5.1 was just a gimmick until I listened to the Dark Side of the Moon SACD and started to take it seriously. I don't have that many 5.1 releases, but Floyd's Dark Side and Wish You Were Here, King Crimson's 40th Anniversary series, and Grateful Dead's Sunshine Daydream bluray are among my favorite surround mixes.

 

It was the Alan Parsons quadraphonic mix DSOTM that sold me on multichannel music, first the "internet version" leaked DVDA and then the bluray from the box set.

 

And the Jethro Tull's, mainly the Aqualung 5.1 bluray...

 

If 2 ears equates to 2 speakers, does that mean since I have 2 eyes I should have 2 TVs in my family room? I've got 10 fingers - if I have more than 10 buttons on my remote are they useless? Maybe I should get rid of one of the 6 strings on my guitar too.

 

http://www.discogs.com/Marcel-Marceao-The-Best-Of-Marcel-Marceao/release/2049955

 

It means exactly that.

WHEN they were recording on cylinders, that would've been the purpose. There wasn't any other known experience. "Well, the musicians stand over there, and the audience sits in front of them. Let's replicate that."

But since then, both art and technology have expanded the palette greatly. Increasing wizardry in the studio. Sophisticated playback at home. Musicians freed up to think beyond the restrictive stage/audience space. From a creative's perspective, why would you not venture forth and exploit a possibility? The whole point of art is to question and step outside the mainstream, even if it winds up a failed experiment.

I'm sure some portion of the population think the Beatles should have remained Happy Moptops, but even if it took a little getting used to, far more will concede it's a better world with Strawberry Fields in it.

So while the stage/audience factor is always viable in sound reproduction, there are other vistas to explore.

 

Not if you calibrate your surround processor correctly.

 

I like both stereo and surround music. Both when done right (the music) are well worth the price of admission .

Bill

 

So far there's not much music I'd like to listen to that's available in 5.1.

I briefly setup a quad system to hear how some of my quad recordings sounded in that format.

But I had the same issue. There's less then a handful of recordings in quad I want to hear in the first place.

 

Bingo! That is why some probably don't like surround as they haven't heard it on a properly calibrated system. By that I mean all speaker volume, distances and crossovers set correctly as well as the sub(s) calibrated properly. It makes a huge difference IMO.

Bill

 

If it does, something's wrong.

 

I saw Marcel Marceau perform a number of years ago, and while my memory is a bit vague, I'm remembering that at the very end he did say something.

Trivia in my brain that I'd never thought I would ever use...

 

You don't understand, there's two different amps, one doesn't have the option of a delay. The old Kenwood KR 9600 has the Phono preamp, if I run the phono to the Onkyo receiver, the Onkyo will delay in all modes except "Direct". Not a dealbreaker but sometimes an irritant.

 

Myself I just spent $6500 on a kick butt 5.1 system for the only reason I have a 5.1 collection of 700 and by next year I'll Double that. Nothing in this world compares to 5.1 and the only reason people put down 5.1 is because there to scared to put out the cash and the effort to start a 5.1 collection

 

Problem with people getting tuned off on 5.1 is problibly because they never had a chance to hear a system that works properly. When a 5.1 system is set up properly anything kind of music sound good. One big mistake that people make is when they use there computer to play surround sound and they use there onboard sound on there motherboard and this is what I call snap crackle pop 5.1

 

Maybe what you should try instead of using a SACD player as your source to your reciever try using your desk top with a good dedicated Soundcard and convert all your discs to Flac there are advantages like you now can use foobar2000 as your play media and you can make up a play list of different bands pose to listening to a hole disc and you can put all the music you have on a harddrive and go as far as to sell all your discs to recoup all tha cash you spent

 

What does your system comprise of? Thanks for your help on a previous post.

 

That's all great but do you need to tell everybody what you spent to explain 5.1? I don't think you do it's just name dropping now! " wow look what I spent man." I have serious credibility issues
when someone throws how much they spent on a system when it is not necessary to explain 5.1!

 

I just bought 2 months ago the Gtc77 from Adam audio the reciever is a cheap Yamaha but ill be looking around for something better. My music source is my new gaming computer with the Asus Xonar essense STX soundcard via opticial to my reciever. What I do is I buy dvd audio, DTS and SACD and I extract the music and store it in a Hard-drive last year I was lucky to find a old PS3 so I'm able to ripp SACD discs and I have dvd audio extractor and foobar2000 for the DTS discs so I'm pretty well covered. I do it this way because I just can't listen to a hole disc I have to mix up my music, I have a great collection around 600 5.1 album titles it's been a real expensive ride in the past year but it's well worth it.

 

Ok I see what you mean sorry it just I worked my butt off to get this system and I'm pretty proud of it I'll keep the i have to a low..

 

Maybe some people don't like surround music because they just prefer listening to two channel music. Have you ever considered that? Not to be rude but some of your posts come across as a bit condescending. I like listening to music in both surround and stereo. If I had to choose between one of the other I would choose two channel music without hesitation. So it's great that you like surround music but not everyone likes it. Your assumption that many members here on SH don't like surround music due to not listening to a system that "works properly" is more than likely false.

Bill

 

And some of us have two channel systems not capable of being duplicated in 5.1 without obscene expenditures too. And after listening to such, comparable budget 5.1 would be a huge letdown sonically speaking. For me, I'd rather have 2 great channels to hear, than lesser 5.1 for the same money and space considerations. Over 95% of my musical tastes aren't offered in surround either. I enjoy well done 5.1 but those are a small percentage of my music listening. Bill Mac has very salient points to make. I stand with him on it. If you like 5.1 fine. However, please respect us who prefer our 2 channel equally.