Replaced my small wall mounted surrounds with large floor standing speakers.

I prefer to keep everything as straight 2-channel stereo source material. Even though I run it through two or three amplifiers (2 or 3 sets of speakers), plus the subs. I find tht it has a cleaner, more natural sound than running the stereo signal through the processor.

 

I really don't have that many CD's, somewhere over 100, I guess. IOne of the reasons that I don't play them is one at a time, through the Oppo. I was considering a Sony 400-disc CD changer with the digital output going into my Peachtree iNova, that I use for the DAC/Preamp/Input Switching (I use external power amps).

I figured, it I could select CD's without having to get each case and loading them and playing them one at a time, I would listen to more CD's and therefore purchase more CD's.

 

It is interesting, vintage speakers do some things well but most of the newer digital stuff, in particular, sound better with speakers of modern design.

I am going to get 2 second speaker A/B box, to switch between the W70's and the A7's, for that very reason.

 

I have been a total surround sound freak for a while
.
However, up until recently, I didnt feel that "faux" Dolby or DTS surround treatments of stereo sources sounded very good.


That was until I upgraded my mains to B&W CM-10's added a B&W center channel and all of which complimented my B&W surrounds, which are smaller bookshelfers. Note that I have a quality 400 watt sub as well.

When I put on a well mastered stereo recording now, I almost always try a Dolby or DTS processed surround and compare to the stereo playback. I think the common tonality of the B&W speakers supports the use of the "faux" surround sound and it simply sounds great.

Now, I have 2x Cambridge Soundworks Towers (which were replaced by my CM10's) and based on Bill Mac's experience, the next boring rainy day will be for experimentation with having 4 towers in my surround set up.
That being said, its going to take a big leap to beat what I have going now, but I have a very open mind.

 

It gets a bit tricky depending on your processor/reciever and bass management settings. If your forced to crossover your rears because you run your center channel on small setting, your not going to gain as much putting the floorstanders in for rears. They need the full rear signal, that is what makes the difference. Does that make sense? My processor didn't allow for that, if one speaker was small they all had to be crossed over and NONE could recieve the full "large" signal. Some will allow the fronts large but if center is small then the rears must be set to small...eventually I added a sub connected to only the center, which allows me to run all 5 speakers as large and no bass management is implemented.

 

For me it depends on the type of music. I listen to a lot of progressive rock bands and with this new upmix algorithm, they benefit. When I listen to something simple like James Taylor, I go two channel. This works for me. My upmix of Van Der Graaf Generator - Pawn Hearts from the SACD sounds amazing and I will never listen to it on my main system in two channel, 4.0 for that one.

 

I do listen to different music in different ways, with either 1,2 or three sets of speakers and amps I use a mix of tube and SS amps, vintage and modern, pre-sound and home stereo. I control the volume of each set to provide the best mix of sounds for that particular music source.

 

I think the lower end changes the most when processing a signal from two channels to more. That is where you have to weigh the plusses and minuses the most.

 

These are mine with the Mexican Cocobolo veneer. Sounds like the name of a drink with an umbrella in it . The picture doesn't really convey how nice the finish is. The best part is they sound better than they look !

 

These are the 1801-TL surrounds.

 

My 400 disc Sony changers play multiple formats. One plays DVD's and the other Blu-ray's. Both are filled with movie DVD's and Blu-rays but also have my music and concert DVD/Blu-ray's and SACD's. If I put all my CD's in 400 disc CD changers I'd need 7 or 8. Not practical.

 

Neat! I realize this would not be practical for someone with a large CD collection, but it would work for me and provide me with a growth path.

I didn't even think about the DVD and Blu-Ray movie aspects. I did not even stop to think that they had them also. I had only heard about 400-Disc CD changers. That would be great for movies!

I don't suppose that any of the manufacturer's gave any thought to having removable media carousels, like the old slide projectors did?



Just a thought...

 

Great idea! For some reason, Sony discontinued the video-capable 400 disc changers, which has driven the prices for NOS and used changers through the roof. I believe that the CD-only ones are still available in a couple of different capacities. Not a bad choice for a small, but growing CD collection. No shelf space needed for all those jewel cases. I placed all my DVD and Blu-ray boxes in file boxes and put them in storage. For palying CD's, the best and easiest to operate thing I've ever had are the Sony 5-disc changers. For either single play or random CD/track playing.
Years ago, Sony also had a multi-tape cassette changer and a huge(in dimensions) 60-CD changer which was the basis for the Seeburg CD jukeboxes, home stereo component and automated radio stations.

 

That is what computers are for. Home Theater Personal Computer (HTPC). My Oppo has been more of a dust collector than a disc player lately. Even SACDs can be ripped simply.

 

I just did an eBay search, seems to plenty of CD/DVD changers available between $100 and $200 dollars. That is not bad at all.

 

If you like your discs scratched and very limited capacity they are a great deal. Not sure why this is being discussed in this thread...

 

I'm not sure either?

 

Yes, could we please keep the discussion on the topic of speakers specifically going from small surrounds to large. Thanks !