Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers!


Did your two speakers take it to the next level? No, they never have and they never will, my friends.

Buy more speakers.

You will be happy because you will be placed in a cocoon of sonic nirvana, taken to the next level.

Sales guy will be happy because he will sell more speakers.

Everyone will be happy, it’s a win-win.

 

 

deep_333

@deep_333

First you say “it’s the same” then later admitted “it can be better - if spend more”.

And your title “Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers” implies improvement for surround speakers vs 2 channel.

Surround “envelopement” and “fidelity” are two different objectives- one is NOT objectively (factually) better, but you may have personal preferences favoring one

@kennyc

Stereo and multichannel have the same sonic goals, in essence, w.r.t how a soundfield, spatial cues and detail are offered to a listener in a room... except stereo gets there half baked, multichannel optimized for music gets a whole lot further. It is not really a preference thing.

You see these manufacturers trying different tricks... putting additional tweeters behind their cost no object speakers, etc? (except speaker shall only be a measly 100k now)...Or that fpga code magic in some 70k dac to unlayer, unfold, create spatial cues, better detail, etc better than ever? Why do you think that is? If the number of speakers remains restricted to 2, well, it is only able to get so far. Even a mediocre horse could pull a carriage further than a super cadillac dog...

I said my multichannel rig can run circles around my own stereo rig (which costs magnitudes more) and beats out any cost no object stereo rig i’ve ever heard. In other words, i didn’t even spend that much on my multichannel rig and it is able to do so. Could it get beat by some guy’s cost no object multichannel rig? Maybe, it could.. I did hear a very expensive multichannel rig set up by Anthony Grimani/Grimani systems once in a huge room that blew everybody’s socks off. Maybe...his multichannel setup did a li’l better than my multichannel setup in that large room....But, the case remains that i’ve always been let down by all kinds of cost no object stereo rigs i’ve heard.

For example, let us suppose that a guy already has a pair of Mofi sourcpoint 8s or Borresen X1’s and 2 subs...These are high value, but, not very expensive speakers. All he would need is three more sourcepoint 8s or three more Borresen X1s, 3 additional channels of amplification and a processor worth its salt. I would prophesize that such an exploration could provide a much better outcome at a lower cost..... than the guy ditching his Borresen X1s altogether and buying a pair of Borresen M1s for a 100k instead (i.e., sticking with some stereo only upgradititis).

@deep_333 --

Interesting topic. Never heard a well set-up multi channel system to convince me of its sonic/musical merits (which is also saying, implicitly, that I’ve heard a range of bland ones), not to say there aren’t good ones out there.

As it is though to me the quality of reproduction doesn’t fall back on an added number of channels to aid the immersive experience (which can indeed sound distracting to my ears with music), but rather the core nature and quality of the two main channels + subs. Not because I’m an analogue "purist" - I use a digital source only in addition to a DSP-based fully active setup - but simply because the sound coming from 2 channels, and what has been invested into and "perfected" around them, is the more natural and "right" sounding to me.

A typical scenario implies that I would listen to a multi-channel system quite different from my own with regard to the specific components used (not least the speakers), with the more interesting and relevant experiment being the one that was made around a component-similar expansion of my existing setup and seeing how that would turn out. With a given budget though I’d still max out the potential of what I have (or would upgrade to) from a 2-channel approach rather throwing the same coins at a channel expansion, not to mention if it involves reshuffling the cards entirely with the choice of main speakers and subs into a more size friendly package (it’s a slippery slope, mon frère).

I have experimented with a stash of crossover components from GR research. 400 to 600 dollars at most (or say under a 1000 dollars) in crossover component upgrades gets the fidelity close to max (ime) and diminishing returns hit like a wall thereafter, as you go up in price. But, a crappy driver from a manufacturer is a crappy driver and there’s no fixing that...

Manufacturers have cheaped out on crossover components so badly that the illusion of crossover component quality being the main culprit exists.

Agreed on the importance of the quality of the drivers, keeping in mind first and foremost their proper design implementation and what this means in singling out a range of fitting items that aren’t necessarily the more expensive or "exotic" ones.

Coming down to it though you only get so far with the quality of the drivers and crossover parts when the latter is placed between the amp and drivers. Even the best passive crossover components can’t escape the fact that they’re impeding with the amp to driver interface, potentially much more so the more complex they are, and it also means only taking partial advantage of your amp’s performance envelope instead of having it looking into a purer load actively.

What some may feel is gained from a "purist," analogue approach with quality component passive crossovers to others is missing the bigger picture in not taking into account its negative effect with regard to amp to driver interfacing. The quality of a DSP acting as a digital crossover actively is not irrelevant, but from my chair its overall sonic impact is of a significantly more "benign" nature as a line level, prior-to-amplification measure compared to a passive configuration on the output side of the amp, which affects both amp and driver performance more severely.

@deep_333

Sorry to hear of your 2 channel struggles- you want a complete system with high sonics but are severely limited my your budget.

High End Audio is an expensive hobby because to bring sonics significantly above box store offerings, custom/expensive parts (Mundolf, Vishay, transformers, etc) , material advancements, vibration mitigation, custom casework, plus a small niche market drives the cost of doing business way up. This is a hardware based hobby so the latest tech is going to be costly. Trying to accomplish high level sonics by using lower cost alternatives is nearly impossible- no short cuts, although we wish there were.

It’s good that you at least take a break from high-end audio as it was causing you much grief- hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable. Desktop audio might be a budget friendly option - there’s a significant market size. Or maybe you can build your budget through additional income to fund your hobby.

Anyway, glad you landed in a good place.

@deep_333 --

Interesting topic. Never heard a well set-up multi channel system to convince me of its sonic/musical merits (which is also saying, implicitly, that I’ve heard a range of bland ones), not to say there aren’t good ones out there.

@phusis Many of these HT guys set up their gear optimizing for multiple sweet spots (including the mother-in-law seat), a.k.a. every sweet spot got compromised...not to mention some chair with a huge backrest covering the guy’s entire head! These are very straightforward observations one can make. There’s also a trend there which goes, "I paid for all these extra speakers, so i better hear them discreetly". The seamless soundfield went downhill that day and every speaker screeched on its own. It’s a bit too much of the quantity over quality with those guys, etc, etc. Hence, running into a setup that sounds good for music can be rare with that crew (Many of these guys are not audiophiles to begin with).

 

A typical scenario implies that I would listen to a multi-channel system quite different from my own with regard to the specific components used (not least the speakers), with the more interesting and relevant experiment being the one that was made around a component-similar expansion of my existing setup and seeing how that would turn out.

You would indeed fine tune the existing stereo setup for music before you added anything to it for multichannel.

What’s the worst thing that could happen? Maybe, you ended up with a killer rig for all the movies, tv, games, etc (but got a bit lackluster for music) and dropped it back to 2 channel for music, i.e. a 2 channel/multi-channel hybrid system.

What’s the best thing that could happen? Maybe, the multichannel add on did indeed blow the socks off your 2 channel and you stuck with it for all your content (music, movies, etc),

Even the best passive crossover components can’t escape the fact that they’re impeding with the amp to driver interface, potentially much more so the more complex they are, and it also means only taking partial advantage of your amp’s performance envelope instead of having it looking into a purer load actively.

What some may feel is gained from a "purist," analogue approach with quality component passive crossovers to others is missing the bigger picture in not taking into account its negative effect with regard to amp to driver interfacing. The quality of a DSP acting as a digital crossover actively is not irrelevant, but from my chair its overall sonic impact is of a significantly more "benign" nature as a line level, prior-to-amplification measure compared to a passive configuration on the output side of the amp, which affects both amp and driver performance more severely.

I tried the active route with a GR speaker kit and minidsp’s stuff. It is easier with a diy kit, you simply set the passive crosssover aside and interface with the minidsp kit. I didn’t get the best sound there and i almost felt like the minidsp unit was borderline faulty.

Storm Audio (not cheap) lets one go active with any number of speakers on their multichannel processors. When i did have that processor, i wasn’t thinking about the active route too much, i.e., was already invested in passive configurations and ended up selling it.

@deep_333

Sorry to hear of your 2 channel struggles- you want a complete system with high sonics but are severely limited my your budget.

High End Audio is an expensive hobby because to bring sonics significantly above box store offerings, custom/expensive parts (Mundolf, Vishay, transformers, etc) , material advancements, vibration mitigation, custom casework, plus a small niche market drives the cost of doing business way up. This is a hardware based hobby so the latest tech is going to be costly. Trying to accomplish high level sonics by using lower cost alternatives is nearly impossible- no short cuts, although we wish there were.

It’s good that you at least take a break from high-end audio as it was causing you much grief- hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable. Desktop audio might be a budget friendly option - there’s a significant market size. Or maybe you can build your budget through additional income to fund your hobby.

Anyway, glad you landed in a good place.

@kennyc Awww, Lol, .aren’t you the guy with a Salon2 and that blew your mind or something some time ago? Go ahead and raise the bar for everyone first, i.e. put the money where the mouth is. 4 million is what you need to spend to be a niche trendsetter perhaps (worthy of the enlightening speech you gave above). Work 6 jobs if it came down to it and show everyone what you’re made of.

Here, this is waiting for you...no shortcuts indeed.

$4,000,000 Horn System

After that, we could find out if i could beat the snot out of a ’no short-cuts’ rig with whatever i’ve got.