While researching products to buy for a new home threatre system I have come across some conflicting reports about how best to listen to music with a 5.1 system. Specifically, I'd be interested in finding out if you use your center, surrounds, and/or subwoofer when listening to music. Thanks.

i usualy listen to regular stereo with or without subs depending on what type of music i am listening to..ron

I listen to music recorded in two channel as two channel with a sub (2.1), and let my receiver handle the bass management.

I have also been getting into SACD and DVD-A hi-res/multi-channel formats. For SACD, if it was recorded as 2.1....that is how I listen to it.

Essentially, I do not like using surround modes for music.

Jopster;

I have an Onkyo TX-SR 800, which has a "Pure Mode" that bypasses all signal processing circuitry (i.e. tone controls), and shuts off all video circuits that could interfere with the stereo signal. It also bypasses the subwoofer. For most music, I prefer this mode, as it sounds noticably better than stereo mode with the sub. If I really want to hear the bass, I listen in DTS:neo mode, which also sounds very good.

Basically, depending on your receiver, you will have many choices on how you can listen to music with a HT system, experiment with them and find the one you like best!

Like most people here, 2 channel for music, and sometimes I add the sub in.

For music, I use my M60's and Hsu (2.1). Unless I'm listening to a DVD-A, in that case I'll use 5.1, but that's not all that often.

I have an aging Onkyo TX-DS575 5.1 receiver. No Dolby ProLogic II, or anything, but it has some surround modes for music. I only use two of them:

5-Channel Stereo mode is great for parties because it uses all 5 speakers and distributes the sound better at lower volumes.

Studio Mix mode adds depth to the soundstage by making light use of the surround channels and adding abiance to the material.

I rarely use either mode, though. When I'm listening to a CD, it's almost always is regular stereo mode. However, I always have by sub (SVS PB1-ISD) enabled, since my mains are M22s and I'd be missing on on the lower octaves of music without it.

When I listen to SACDs, I listen in their native format. If given the choice of 2-channel or surround mix, I'll usually pick surround. I find that a wellp-mastered surround mix really adds to the enjoyment of the material.

I find myself really starting to enjoy DPLII, and DTS Neo6 over stereo. I listen to alot of electronic, ambient, techno music though, and through an all ML system. I think it really depends on what type of music you listen to, and when it comes down to it, it's whatever you prefer, and what sounds good to your ears.

It depends.

Sitting in "listening position": as originally mastered, whether stereo (with sub always on) or 5.1.

Doing dishes or dancing about the room (or both at once): I often switch stereo signals to 5 channel stereo. My mains and center are at the far end of a "great room" (i.e., kitchen/breakfast counter/family room), with my surrounds at about the middle of the room, so this really opens the sound up in the larger space.

depends on the music and mood i'm in. or is it the music and the libation.. yup that's it. 2 channel with beer, dts with wine, and can't even see the receiver with scotch. just kidding. i usually let the volume determine the choice, bocellie (can't spell his name so i just call him blind man which drives my wife crazy) is usually cranked in 6 channel.
dan

For me, too, it depends on the recordings and occasions. But in general, I love the way the DPL II Music mode presents the 5.1 sound in our room. I did tweak its parameters a bit, though -- e.g., increased the "Center Width" a bit which lowered the center channel level. When I don't use the DPL II Music mode, I listen in the straight 2.1 configuration with the receiver doing the bass-management -- 80Hz crossover; front speakers set to "small," although they are full-range floorstanders.

Jobster,

In my books, the best way to enjoy music is 2 channels, 2.1 if you prefer a heavier sound to come through. Sit yourself in a sweet spot of your room, play your favourite cd and close your eyes. A good system should project the image as if the band is playing right in front of you with distinct separation of the instruments. If your system is able to do that, it is very likely that you'll be over the moon with the sound when you switch to 5.1 for your movies.

Enjoy!!

Pinenuts

A properly calibrated 2.1 system won't sound heavier than a pure 2 channel system, but fuller.

In case anybody is wondering about the difference between heavy and full, here is the official Stereophile glossary for descriptors of sound quality.

nice link! But there is no "full" definition.

Oh, really??? Obviously, I didn't double-check before I posted it... LOL

Here are several entries relevant to Axiomites:

bright, brilliant The most often misused terms in audio, these describe the degree to which reproduced sound has a hard, crisp edge to it. Brightness relates to the energy content in the 4kHz-8kHz band. It is not related to output in the extreme-high-frequency range. All live sound has brightness; it is a problem only when it is excessive.

detail The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components. See "low-level detail." Compare "haze," "smearing," "veiling."


Hmm... metallic is not listed, either.

I also noted that under laid-back it said "see Rocket".

Thanks for the link. I learned a new word from there:auronihilist (pronounced "auro-nigh-illist") A person who believes that all components that measure the same, sound the same. A meter man.

Do we have any "meter men" here?

I could name a few of those.

But why would I...we are just a warm and friendly family here. We stand up for fellow Axiom-ites clearly seen in you know...cough..cough

... heretofore known as the P.C. thread.

HERE!!!

But only with regard to the electronics portion of audio chains. My view has been stated several times in this forum, including this recent post. My belief is, when you are given two clearly different-sounding amplifiers, you will also detect some measurement differences if you try hard enough with the methods available today. In other words, measurements on the electronics (even tube amps) are "clean" enough so that it is relatively easy to ascribe even subtle differences in measured values to sonic differences.

I don't think I qualify as an auronihilist when it comes to loudspeakers. But there is a big caveat here -- the simple fact that different speaker designs ALWAYS measure differently. And the measurement differences are in fact quite large. Essentially, there is no way to test the hypothesis: all components that measure the same, sound the same when it comes to speakers. But I do believe that there still are lots of aspects in loudspeaker sound quality that cannot be readily measured and quantitatively expressed even by today's cutting-edge techniques.

Definitely not with loudspeakers....but how about with poweramps?

Yes, as I said above, I do believe that two different-sounding power amps will measure differently, if you try hard enough in measurements.

I agree with sushi that for the electronics segment of the audio reproduction system, there is always a quantifiable measurable difference, but with loudspeakers, as sushi said, it's much harder, if not impossible.

I was replying to Sushi in jest and was not contradicting what he was saying. Sushi knows many a times people have gone down this path saying power is power on here. It will not make a speaker better sounding. Based on my experience it does but I remember once he did say his receiver does not sound any different than this Adcom power amp. Again this was just a jest. I do not want to go down this path again.

Peace brother