I've recently had the opportunity to do something that I've wanted to do for years, which is to set up a music listening room. This will be in addition to our very decent home theater, and in a completely different room, so I want to optimize it for the enjoyment of music. I have very eclectic tastes, but listen to probably 75% classical and jazz, and my tastes also range from 80's alternative (like the Smiths ), to world music, Celtic, Blue grass/ country- In fact, there are few types I don't enjoy to some extent.

The room is a step down family room which measures about 21 X 29, but is the same width as the kitchen, so the actual room length is more like 50'. I have an understanding wife who will let me do just about anything in terms of acoustic treatments and speaker positioning.

My initial question is this, currently I own over 200 CD's and they are what I critically listen to at the moment. It looks to me like SACD and DVD-A are coming up, but at the moment I'm not considering exploring this option, though in several years that could change. The 'windfall' that is funding this would allow me to consider something like a pair of Von Schweikert VR 3.5's for a stereo system, or something like 4 M80Ti's and a matching Center should I decide to go the 5.1 Music route. Due to the 'once in a lifetime' nature of this situation, if I should get the Von Schweikert's, I won't be upgrading to a matched surround system any time soon, so it'd be great stereo for the foreseeable future! These are only some initial ideas for speakers, and I'm open to any suggestions.

Thus, I'm weighing in my mind the pros and cons of getting best possible stereo system I can afford, or going with less expensive, though still very good speakers for the 5.1 option.

While this is the speaker area, the electronics I'm considering are the forthcoming Outlaw RR2150 stereo receiver, and the forthcoming Arcam AVR 300 which would support either option, though I'm exploring other ideas. As my home theater is also more than decent for music, I'm in no hurry and want to take my time and do my homework to get it right.

Thanks for any feedback

Sounds like an awesome project!

While I don't currently own a DVD-A/SACD player or listen to 5-channel music regularly, I can say from limited experience that I would definitely put together a multi-channel system using identical speakers. My M60s and VP-150 center are quite well timbre-matched, but I can pick out the inconsistencies across the front soundstage if I try to listen to multi-channel music critically. You just can't expect speakers of two different sizes, shapes and port configurations to sound exactly the same. I always revert back to 2-channel for music.

Since you are setting this system up for music only, you don't have to buy a special center channel to fit on top of the TV, or otherwise compromise the ideal placement of the center. Therefore, I'd definitely recommend picking up five matching speakers placed just where they should be, and a nice sub.

Just my $.02. Good luck!

I agree with badger here. If you can afford it (and it seems your 'windfall' can handle it ), then by all means get identical speakers all around. You're here at the Axiom site, so I'm going to recommend the M80s. Your room is pretty large, but they'll fill it with more sound than you can handle. (Plus, I have a feeling that 5 Von Schweikerts might break the bank.)

Hi,

Thanks for the replies. I forgot to mention that the one limitation is that the speakers will be bracketing a fireplace, hence the Center Channel thought, as I could place it on the mantel. Five identicals, and moving one in front when I want the 5 channel might be an option, though as I'm going for the best sound possible (within my budget) that seems inelegant. Also, spending some long winter nights with the fire and really great music sounds like a long step up from 'Fear Factor' et. al.

And Yeah! getting 5! Von Schweikert's isn't an option. Thus, the choice I'm mulling is two semi-exotic audiophile speakers and living with killer stereo, or 5 excellent speakers and having the 5 channel upgrade path.

The M80s are the only Axioms I'm considering for mains- I already have a nice pair of (another brand) towers and like them and towers in general a lot.

So I guess my question is, great as the M80's are, what might I gain by dropping 4-5 grand on a pair of semi-exotics, given that this is the one time that I could even contemplate such a thing, and might it be worth it? Given that it would mean stereo always in the music room. I do, of course, full surround in the HT, and thus haven't locked myself off from the surround music formats there.

What kind of towers do you have now in the HT room? That may influence some of the suggestions you get here, since as you mention there's the opportunity to listen and experiment with 5-ch and 6-ch audio options there.

Birdman

You have a point there. There's something to be said for an unadulterated stereo-only setup. With all the hype surrounding (pun-intended) 5.1 and greater setups, it's hard to resist. But stereo-only can still provide you with the most natural musical experience.

OK- I have Cambridge Soundworks Classic Towers- the original bi-polar Henry Kloss design. About six years ago, I spent an interesting day shuttling between a CSW showroom and a high end audiophile store comparing them with Paradigm Reference 80's (no longer made). Given that the CSWs were being driven from a mid-fi receiver, through a switching matrix, and in a room that wasn't acousticly treated in any way, while the Paradigms were directly connected to a highend separates stack in a room that was set up by people who really knew what they were doing, the Tower's compared rather well. In other words, they do deserve to be taken seriously, assuming one understands that bi-polars need some care in the setup.

I also have the matching CenterStage, and a pair of the Newton S300 tri-poles for left and right surrounds, as well as a pair of Newton MC200's for the center rears for 7.1, as well as a Paradigm PW2200 sub.

I just ordered the Yamaha RX V2400. My home theater is in a tough room- a loft with a solid wall on one side and a two story open drop on the other, so I think the YPAO auto eq will be a big help.


As you can see, I'm not hurting in the 'decent' music department (and why I'm not in a big hurry), and want to set up the best that I can in the Music room. Not much point,if I can't do significantly better than what I've got upstairs.

Even though I love SACD and was the one who turned Peter on to it, if I were in your position I would go for the Von Schweikerts stereo setup. I think a convincing stereo presentation is a lot easier to pull off, whereas a convincing multichannel presentation is much, much more difficult. With a few exceptions, most multichannel SACDs I've heard use surround channels for exaggerated effect rather than increasing realism, pleasing though it may be (though the exceptions do sound quite impressive). Plus the selection is rather limited and who knows how long it will take before it really catches on, if at all. Who knows, maybe by the time it does you'll have another 'windfall' that will allow the addition of more Von Schweikerts! On the plus side for SACD, you could get an SACD player now and still keep a stereo-only setup - all SACDS have a stereo layer (many are stereo only), so you could enjoy the benefits of DSD now and decide later if you'd like to create a full multichannel setup.

I say go with stereo. You've already got multichannel in your HT, and with the opportunity you have to really dedicate a room and fine tune a setup, I'm sure you could create something really special.

Thanks,

If I understand the point you're making, most of the music that I really want to critically listen to will be available only on CD for the foreseeable future. Given the costs of producing the surround audio discs, I would imagine that only albums that are expected to have mass market appeal will get 'the treatment' for quite a while. As it is about the music for me, no matter what, my serious listening will probably always be 90+% CD regardless- so why compromise that 90 for a 10 that would be a bit better.

Sound like good advice. Any suggestions for other speakers that I might wish to audition? Also, if I'm after the best possible sound for the money, would I be better served by considering a pair of reference monitors and a really tight sub over towers?

Hi EAR,

At the risk of playing the devil's advocate, first read my feature "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw," here: http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/stereo.html

Here is part of that article to bolster my position:

Big Two-Channel Flaw
"The other flaw--and it’s huge--which intrinsically limits stereo’s ability to create the sense that we’re in the same acoustic space as the musicians is that all the reverberant information contained on a stereo recording is fired back at us from two speakers at the front of the room. If you think about it for a moment, it never happens that way live in a concert hall, studio, club, or arena. Yes, sound comes from the on-stage musicians directly to our ears (and to the two stereo microphones), BUT it’s also reflected from the side walls, the ceiling and the back wall, and reaches our ears from those directions a few milliseconds later. That tells our ears and brain the size of the acoustic space, the position of the musicians within that space, and our location relative to the musicians. And it’s the directions and delays of those reflected sounds that must be preserved intact--and replayed in your listening room from the same direction. That is what convincingly recreates the illusion of the hall and space. To be fair, two stereo channels will also register those reflected sounds, but they reproduce them from the front of the room, and that’s where the stereo illusion falters."

Because your listening is going to be mainly from 2-channel stereo sources for the forseeable future, I'd suggest you consider using the Axiom Quadpolar QS8 surround speakers rather than direct radiators at the sides/rear. When you use DPLII or Logic 7 to decode many classical, jazz, and live recordings the increase in realism can be spectacular, and you are not limited in your listening position to a fixed sweet spot as you are using direct radiators.

Dry studio recordings that are pan-potted and that have little or no out of phase or reverberant information will seldom benefit from 5.1-channel decoding.

DVD-Audio will likely survive as a niche format. I'm not at all persuaded that SACD will survive, as it requires huge investment in studio gear on the part of recording studios to enable Sony's Bitstream process. At the moment, the sales of vinyl (!) far outstrip those of DVD-A and SACD combined.

I've not heard Von Schweikert speakers, but so far as I'm aware, I doubt the company has the design acumen acquired from several decades at an acoustic facility like the National Research Council in Ottawa, where the Axiom prototypes are measured and tested using rigorous blind and double-blind techniques.

Incidentally, bipolar speakers used for 2-channel stereo produce a very flattering effect but for home theater aren't advisable, as they tend to deliver a somewhat murky and less precise soundstage. Besides, bipolar speakers in the front channels are not used to mix movie soundtracks.

Regards,

I say purchase the best possible two channel setup you can afford. If/when you want to hear the occasional surround format disc, listen to it in your HT.

Snell Acoustics is a pretty good company to listen to as well. I've never heard their high end stuff, but I've owned a pair of their Type K/II bookshelfs for over a decade, and they're still sweet sounding. They may have a dealer near you.

Have you heard Axiom's M80ti?

Hi Alan,

As a matter of fact, I'd previously read your article, and in fact it was that article that got me thinking and led to the posting. I'm very impressed by what I'm seeing here on the axiom site, and regret a bit that I had missed Axiom before purchasing my CSW Towers, as the M80's and the matching surround system might have been even better in my HT.

But, to get back to the subject at hand. While I agree with you that stereo has an intrinsic flaw, it does seem, for the majority of music out there, what we have, unless we DSP the signal- which could be the subject of yet another posting (grin). In my case, I wish to listen to the music I like, by the artists I'm interested in, and in most cases, they wouldn't be the people who are having the gold record levels of sales. Also, I understand that, at the moment many of the SACD and DVD-A discs are remixed from two channel masters, which, I think you'd agree likewise has flaws.

Thus, the majority of my critical listening will be to sources that are inherently stereo, and, as I mentioned, given the greater production costs, for the foreseeable future, most of the music (classical, jazz, world music, reggae, celtic, and so forth) will only be available in CD format, and thus I'd only get surround via DSP like Pro Logic II.

So to bedevil your devil's advocate position, given a choice of flaws.... would I be better served by getting the best possible translation of the 2 channels inherent in the CD to the speakers, or go to the surround option for the best musical listening experience?

"most of the music that I really want to critically listen to will be available only on CD for the foreseeable future."

Ear:

Will you be considering playing vinyl as opposed to CDs? I listen mostly to "classical" music and have never seriously considered a multichannel setup (do not have the real estate to do so anyways) but getting into vinyl opened a whole new world of music for me -- most LPs can be had for peanuts even compared to budget priced CDs. I think a decent TT/stereo setup maybe a better investment in the long run. Not to mention beter sound

Not swaying you either way, just giving you ideas

Good luck!

EL

Actually, when I recently moved from California to Michigan, I gave my vinyl collection away- in a way, I regret it. While there are many arguements about vinyl vs. CD's, I happen to believe that CD's have the potential to offer every bit as good sound, and unlike vinyl, they don't wear, I also admit to not missing the pops and hiss.

In demos in Audiophile shops, I've heard truly stunning soundstages and details off CD's, as well as intensely musical experiences.... more than enough to satisfy me, so I know it's possible. So while I'd never 'dis' vinyl, and in fact listened to it for years, I'm not planning on going back.

Hi,

I'd advocate going to the surrounds for the best and most realistic musical listening experience. Isn't realism the goal? Of course we are still in our living rooms or music rooms, but if you can close your eyes and be transported, even for a few minutes, to what I experience hearing a piano and cello recital in a well designed hall, then the illusion works.

There are a lot of misconceptions about DPLII. It does not digitally "manipulate" the signal a la Yamaha's "Digital Soundfield Processing". DPLII is a restorative process.

Dolby Surround was originally an analog matrix that subtracted L - R information from a 2-channel stereo recording and routed it, correctly, to the surround speakers at the sides, where the signals belonged in the first place. When digital processing enabled multiple channels and greatly improved separation, it became possible to extract ambient information and reproduce it very convincingly via 5.1 channels.

Think of using DPLII or Logic7 (or the dts version) as a restoration or correction of flaws inherent to 2-channel recording. This isn't to say that two channel stereo can't be very convincing at times, with a fine recording and very good speakers. But on lots of musical material that I prefer (large orchestral, choral, and operatic works; chamber music; and yes, bluegrass) the increased realism is astonishing when the ambience present in the 2-channel recording is restored via 5.1-channel playback.

You can always switch off the surrounds and listen in 2 channels. I often compare the two, and sometimes go with two channels.

Regards,

EAR,
I'd have to echo Spiffnme's sentiments. Buy the best 2 channel system you can afford (definitely give the M80s a listen, as Alan said there aren't many speakers as accurate as them). If you decide you want to listen to multichannel music, do it on your ht. If you come in to more money down the road, you could always expand you're 2 channel system to 5 speakers. To me, that seems the most logical way to proceed.

EAR, I have an RX-V1400 (almost identical to the RX-V2400), Axiom M60/VP150/QS8 and Hsu VTF-3R. I mainly like 70s and 80s popular music.

My summary of surround (paraphrased from the Longfellow poem): When it's good, it's very good indeed, but when it's bad it's horrid.

The few well-engineered, well-mixed multichannel DVD-A and SACD albums are very, very good. They open up an entirely new dimension of acoustic experience, yet aren't artificial or contrived. The problem is there aren't many of these, and I'd be concerned your favorite material wouldn't be available in multichannel surround for a long time, if ever.

That leaves Dolby PLII or HK Logic 7 to convert stereo to multichannel. My experience is with PLII; I've heard Logic 7 is somewhat better. PLII works well on some material, not so well on others. But it's rarely fake or artificial sounding like some DSP surround systems. Dolby was very conservative and it either works well or just doesn't work, rather than artificially forcing certain voices and instruments to the surrounds.

When playing surround from stereo material via PLII, many times I press the "direct stereo" to momentarily deactivate PLII and see which I prefer -- stereo or surround via PLII. Almost always (to my ear) I like the surround version.

Good stereo is better than mediocre surround, and there's lots of good stereo material. OTOH, if you go with a 5.1 config of M80/VP150/QS8, you'll have a good stereo config but also get surround as a bonus (for less than a semi-exotic stereo config).

There's a tendency to over-emphasize the delivery technology and under-emphasize room acoustics. I've reconfigured my system several times to different walls, positions, etc, and the difference is huge. That's with the same source material, amplifier, etc. I'd definitely recommend a professional acoustic analysis and room treatment. I'd submit a properly treated room with Axiom speakers will sound better than an untreated room with hypothetically perfect speakers.

YPAO is a nice feature, but the EQ part has significant limitations -- it's only 7 bands, and has often made mistakes on my room. E.g, selecting a 200Hz bass crossover, boosting one speaker by 6db and cutting it by 4db at the same frequency (??!). It's not a magic solution for poor room acoustics. The wiring, distance, and level checks are great.

In general my recommendation would be go with an Axiom M80/VP150/QS8 config and get a HK receiver with Logic 7 to maximize the stereo->surround experience. Combine this with a professional acoustic treatment of your listening room. Eventually when your favorite material is available in multichannel SACD or DVD-A, try that and see if you like it -- players are quite cheap in the context of your overall investment.

If you're uncertain about this, check the Axiom boards if there's a nearby Axiom owner offering auditions, who has a surround system with PLII or L7. Try out some of your stereo material and switch between stereo and surround modes on the amplifier. If none are nearby, you could still afford to travel a ways to hear it, considering the magnitude of investment you're considering.

Alan,

Thank you, this is helpful. My Yamaha RX-V2400 should be here next week for the HT- so I'll be able to play with the surround options and see. The upcoming Arcam AVR 300 would be a significant step up for the music room, should I want to go that route, and it will allow bi-amping the mains with two of the seven 100watt/ch amps built into it.

I hadn't realized that PL II was in essence a restorative process, that is good to know.

joema makes some good points. The success of a particular surround mix depends on both the material and the recording engineer's disgression.

Take the classic example of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. This SACD is mixed so the images are far out into the room and fly all over the place -- but it works marvelously. A similar mix of almost any other source would fail miserably.

Most multi-channel mixes that I enjoy use the surrounds only to carry an ambiance effect, similar to what PLII does. These albums come across very naturally and I never really notice the surrounds competing for attention with the mains.

I've have several opportunities to hear PLII at work with 2-channel sources. When you first engage PLII, it takes a little getting used to, but when you switch it off again, the entire soundstage seems to collapse in on itself. Also, in my brief tests I preferred PLII to Logic7.

Thanks, Joema

As I mentioned in my reply to Alan, my Yamaha RX V2400 should be here next week, and I've got a 7 speaker system upstairs that it's going into for the HT, so I'll be able to play with the surround options and see. Obviously, for a dedicated music room to make sense, it's have to be enough better than that to justify the expense. I'd probably go with 4 M80's plus the center, if I went with Axiom and the surround route. I'd like 5 M80's, but there is a fireplace in the way......well, not actually in the way, as I'm looking forward to 'dreaming the fire' with great music... but a center over it will be the only option.

All,

Any comments on using matched speakers for 5.1 channel music vs. a typical HT setup (e.g. M60s/VP150/QS8s)? I have been underwhelmed listening to 2-channel music through my HT. Admittedly, my receiver doesn't have PLII and I haven't tried any DVD-A's (even in bitstream mode). My experimentation is purely 2-channel music in "normal surround" mode on my receiver.

I just haven't found the front soundstage produced by the VP150 and M60s to be as convincing as the 2-channel. Thoughts?

Whenever I am listening to a CD and switch from stereo to surround, I find that the surround modes wash the sound out and it doesn't sound as full as when in stereo. This is a function of the sound processing as a opposed to the speaker combo.

Using matched speakers is the easiest way to get a good sound from your HT system but using a combination of different brands will work as long as they are matched in sound level, power and frequency response. Personally I like the matched set.

Choosing a Subs would be the exception to this since their frequency range is outside of the rest of the system.

If you truly listen primarily to 5.1 channel music (not HT), and can afford the space and cost, in theory identical speakers are better. BTW that means your material would mainly be multichannel SACD, DVD-A, Digital Dolby & DTS 5.1 music.

However most people want a mix of HT and music, plus don't have a huge collection of discrete multichannel material. Also space, aesthetics and cost make QS8s better than matched M60s for surrounds.

Re soundstage of M60s/VP150 to be less convincing than 2-channel (I assume you also have QS8s in a 5.1 config), if you don't have discrete multichannel material or Dolby PLII or HK Logic 7 to reconstruct surround, you haven't yet had a valid stereo vs surround comparison.

The "surround" modes (not PLII or L7) of many receivers can sound fake and strange, and I see how stereo would sound better. In my experience using PLII to reconstruct surround from stereo is usually natural sounding and generally (but not always) contributes to the experience.

If you have a regular DVD player the best way to evaluate surround vs stereo is get a quality DVD-A music disc with a Digital Dolby 5.1 soundtrack (assuming your receiver does Digital Dolby 5.1 decoding). That way you don't have to buy a special player.

Note there are lots of poorly-mixed surround releases. There are also quality surround relases that just don't use much surround -- that's the decision of the recording engineer and artist. Popular DVD-A albums that makes good use of surround are The Eagles Hotel California, and Fleetwood Mac Rumours.

joema,

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't have PLII or Logic 7, so I have no doubt you're right that I haven't given 5.1 channel music a fair shake on my system. I think I will give a couple DVD-A's a try using the 5.1 soundtrack. I've heard that the pcm 5.1 soundtracks are often almost indistinguishable from the "real" DVD-A soundtracks. Have you found this to be the case? I don't think I'll be jumping on the SACD/DVD-A bandwagon until discrete digital connections are the norm.

Hotel California and Rumours are two of my all-time favorite albums, so I think I'll start there. Thanks!

I don't have a true DVD-A player, so haven't compared DVD-A vs the DD 5.1 compatibility track included on DVD-As.

However I do have SACD, and in general the DD 5.1 track on quality re-mixed DVD-As sound just as good (to my ears) as a true multichannel SACD. I'd assume it'd be similar with a DVD-A.

With a quality Axiom surround system, the difference in engineering and mixing quality between various albums becomes huge.

The Rumours and Hotel California DVD-As are two of the best, in terms of engineering and mixing (and I've only heard the DD 5.1 version). I strongly recommend them. They are real masterpieces -- the surround isn't artificial or contrived, yet greatly contributes to the experience. Even if you don't like the music itself, it's impressive.

By contrast I have DVD-As of Neil Young - Harvest and REM - Greatest Hits, and the DD 5.1 multichannel mix isn't that good -- it's flat and lifeless.

Although the lack of player/receiver digital connections is a little hassle, it's not that bad. Newer players have some form of bass management. I wouldn't let that put me off. The real issue is whether there's enough quality multichannel material to make it worthwhile. In my case the answer is yes.

If you have good 5.1 speaker system, a big stereo collection, and no PLII or Logic 7, getting a receiver with PLII or L7 would be a good step.

my 2 cents.
If you already have a 5.1 system, spend your windfall on the best 2 channel system you can afford. Don't water down your money on 5 channels. Personally, I'm always more entertained by a great 2 channel recording on a great 2 channel system than 5.1 on an average system.

EAR,

I just came across this article and thought I'd share it with everyone. It gives a bit of history as to why 2-channel is predominant now and also talks about why it can be inadequate.

A good read.

Thanks, good article, and a nice compliment to Alan's earlier in this thread. That site looks interesting too.

I was stuck on the assumption that real stereo was pure only when played on two channels. I bought my center and surrounds for home theater use. But Alan's advice has opened my ears, and I now use the H/K Logic 7 as my default setting for stereo music.

I don't think I will go back to "pure," two-channel stereo. The sophisticated soundstage produced by Logic 7 -- as well as Dolby PLII, but I prefer Harman Kardon's method -- is actually a more "pure" reproduction of orchestral performances.