Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw"

Just read it in the news forum.

I find stereo the easiest path to improving sound via better components without punishing my wallet. Better sound in two speakers is better than worse sound in five.

Do you agree that Axiom has an obvious motivation for pushing five channel music? When asked, why does Axiom push the A/V receivers, such as Denon, etc.?

A stereo forum does exist here. I give Axiom credit and praise for this.

I still listen to my music, and movies in "stereo".....and it is my main interest here as well. ( most of my posts are stereo, sound, and cd related).

In my opinion, without "home theater".......the "stereo" business would be in trouble. I see MOST companies "gear" leaning in that direction, plus when one looks in MANY high end stores....their "stock" reflects this.
I think the denon leanings here, may be due to the M80's 4 ohm design, and power requirements.

I see your point and it sounds like we agree that stereo seems to be dying at least at the mass market level. I have been looking for stereo intergrated amps and what I have found out is that they aren't as prevalent. The two shops where I live very little in stereo equipment. One only had the little Rotel.

well, i think you guys need to also look at market trends. i mean, 5 years ago, the HT market was fairly small, and unknown.. but now, it is possibly the hottest thing in home entertainment. i think the manufacters push toward 5-channel receivers is because thats simply what the consumers want. and with that receiver , you can still just use it for 2-ch, but you have the option and versatility to set-up a 5-ch system also.

i dont necessarily think there is any "flaw" in the system, i just think consumer expectations have changed. and technology has changed.. i look at it almost like records to cd players.. or TV antenna reception to cable reception.. i dont think the former will EVER go away, but the latter is definitely what most or more people will desire. so, they are just giving us what we want. just my opinion..

bigjohn

"Do you agree that Axiom has an obvious motivation for pushing five channel music?"

Yes. And I agree that it is the home theater possibility that got me (and presumably many other consumers) to look into the audio market. But I basically see it as the industry giving the consumer what they want. That's what businesses do.


"When asked, why does Axiom push the A/V receivers, such as Denon, etc.?"

I don't think they do per se. Denon and HK also make two channel stereo receivers that meet the needs of most consumers that are interested in "just" stereo. I have not heard (read) any pushing of AVRs over 2 channel receivers if it was clear that someone wanted stereo. I just think that home theater is what is bringing most of the consumers to the marketplace so that is the "default" mode, if you will, of most of the people in the industry.


"I find stereo the easiest path to improving sound via better components without punishing my wallet. Better sound in two speakers is better than worse sound in five."

I totally agree, but unless I was REALLY sure that I would not want to ever upgrade to more channels I would start with an AVR and two good front speakers. There is no downside to an AVR and I'm convinced (based on no scientific data) that my cheap CD player sounds better when hooked to an AVR via optical (Toslink) connection (not available on a 2 channel receiver) than it does when connected by analog connections to any receiver.

Bigjohn beat me to it while I was typing....

Big John, people don't really want a buggy windows based pc that you need to spend time cleaning all the junk and spyware pushed on it because of its crappy security but...they buy it over the much more secure and easy to administer Apple PCs anyway.

They buy it because they are told to buy it because of mass marketing. There's a reason why companies spend billions of dollars on advertising. And all of the advertising is going into home theatre.

Oh but they do. OK, maybe they don't. Today, I just read that Alan has said all receivers are the same. I also remember reading about Alan's recommendations here for the Denon A/V. Trust me, I'm not being critical or think this is necessarily a bad thing. Some things just don't square up.

agreed.. we could spend lots of time trying to argue both sides of the fence.. bottomline, i think there is a fair amount of weight to each side of the argument. are the consumers buying more HT cause thats what we want...? YES. are the HT companies packaging and marketing the products to us in a way that make us want to buy...? YES.

i think in your comparison between the windows and the apple, there are other factors. the biggest(in my opinion), being that most people are simply used to windows.. its what most of us first learned on. its what they are using in most schools, and it is what most of us know.. so, in that example, it seems that people continue to buy windows cause thay are comfortable with it, and they know how to use. apple might have less problems, but trying to learn how to use it represents a whole new set of problems. make sense?

i think we both have valid points.. trust me, i aint trying to argue that. i am just offering my opinions.

bigjohn

Part of what I'm getting at is the marketing efforts obviously aimed at removing the level of interest in stereo. Labelling an article "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw" sounds like marketing and an agenda to me when it comes from a speaker manufacturer. Don't get me wrong, a company that makes 2 channel amps is going to tell you the exact opposite. Its business.

Then, what you have is someone who has a limited amount of money to spend who is waffling over home theater or stereo and decides to get more speakers and lesser quality components in order to have home theater.

Like I said before, my belief is that, for music, higher quality stereo is preferable to more speakers. With limited budgets, people make the sacrifice and mid to hifi suffers. I simply wonder how much of this is because these people really wanted to do this - just so they can watch a few movies.

I look at it this way. People wanted to bring the movie theatre experience into their homes. To accomplish this, you need more than two speakers. 5.1, and 7.1 systems began popping up to fill this consumer demand. Music wasn't really what brought about 5.1 systems. It was movies.

But now people have 5 speakers in their living rooms and wonder why they heck when listening to music are three of them sitting unused. So then we were brought SACD and DVD-A. Surround sound music! It sounds great (when done properly) and uses our systems to their fullest capacity.

There are plenty of us on these boards that have both 5.1 and 2 channel systems. I have 5.1 in my living room and a 2 channel setup in my bedroom.

I think the reason AV recievers are "pushed" is that like was stated before...with an AV reciever you get the option of both 5.1 movies AND 2 channel music if you desire. With a simple 2 channel integrated amp...you'll never be able to experience a movie soundtrack in 5.1.

In reply to:

---

Do you agree that Axiom has an obvious motivation for pushing five channel music? When asked, why does Axiom push the A/V receivers, such as Denon, etc.?

---

I agree with BigJohn in that I don't think Axiom purposely pushes 5 channel setups. I'm sure Alan recommends 5 channel receivers because that is what people on the board have asked about. As I see it, it makes sense to buy a 5 channel receiver vs. a 2 channel because the extra 3 channels doesn't result in a price that is more than double. You can generally get a 5 channel receiver for little more than a 2 channel one, so why not future proof yourself? Just the way I see it.

Alan (and others) have said that all receivers "sound" the same - assuming they are all within their power limits, etc. However, he has advocated Denon and HK because they handle the M80s (and possibily QS8s?) better than many other receivers will handle the low resistance of a pair of 4 Ohm (and 6 Ohm?) speakers.

Your point about the computer industry is a valid one (meaning that it applies to audio and many industries). There is a fine line between "consumer demand" being met and "consumer susceptibility" being exploited - and the truth is "all of the above" is what is really going on. That's why we all strive to be intelligent consumers - that's how most of us found Axiom in the first place. For contrast, a friend of mine and his wife decided to get a home theater system for Christmas and went to the Bose factory outlet and got a "great deal" - and are probably happier with their system than I am with mine because (although I love my system and think it is perfect for my room, taste, and budget) they think they have the best home theater system on the planet... and I'm not about to tell them otherwise. So, is Bose using mass marketing/advertising to take a disproportionate share of the marketplace with an inferior product? Most of us here think so. But, the other legitimate question is "Does Bose have a bunch of very satisfied customers that grin, sit around and play with their systems the way most of us grin, sit around and play with ours?" I think the answer to that is "yes" also. So, the bottom line is that while finding the best system for you can be fun and then having it to enjoy can be even more fun, it's not exactly life and death stuff and, in fact, as you can see from all the varied opinions floating around here, there is very little science behind it (in terms of allowing the consumer to compare products).

I'm merely talking about the people who are on the fence. They have to trade off perhaps higher quality components for the price of more speakers. I suspect the fence sitters are the people that the marketers would like to bring in. Hence, an article titled "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw".

Bigjohn - you gotta cut out that "put in a post while Foghorn is typing - and address most of what he is going to say more eloquently than he will" thing you do. It's getting very annoying. :-)

" So then we were brought SACD and DVD-A. Surround sound music! It sounds great (when done properly) and uses our systems to their fullest capacity."

That makes me wonder why they havent marketed these formats better.
I've introduced these formats to several friends, and they absolutely love them.
If the industry is pushing 5.1/7.1 why arent they pushing these formats?

Foghorn, the latter part of what you just said is exactly why I don't necessarily thing this is a bad thing. But on the other hand, lack of education brings complacency (only for the fence sitter, perhaps). To give you another example, I was recently in Paris. Every place you go to eat lunch or dinner, you get a basket of really good bread. Its just not the same in the US. Somewhere along the line, our desire and forthright demand for high quality bread has diminished. Although people are happy with it, its because precisely that people don't even know what good bread is anymore (I cite Subway as an example).

Riffman, there are so many ways I could go with your comments (and most of them would involve thread hijacking) it makes my mind spin. Some thoughts are:

The French haven't discovered the low-carb diet because most of them just know to eat less.

Americans just want what is fast and easy and don't know food the way the French do.

Getting back to audio - if you hang out here long enough you'll realize that different people have different thresholds for making the purchase. Some of us do weeks of research and go to the same 3 audio stores 5 times each and then get online and call and talk to Alan and then get in touch with our brother-in-law the music PhD and sound engineer (at least that is what I did), etc. before we ultimately are willing to part with the cash. My friend went to one store one time and got his Bose system. The way I see it, we can't all be totally educated on every purchase (including restaurants) that we make - and that tells me two things:

1) For major purchases I should use resources like Consumer Reports and other product review references like this site.

2) We will always be susceptible to some level of marketing - but in general I think that for a company/product to thrive in the marketplace they must be providing a decent product at a decent price before the marketing/advertising stuff will really work.

foghorn- sorry man, not intentional. and i sure wouldnt say that i am more "eloquent".. this is west texas hog slang over here..

riffman- interesting idea with the bread.. heres an example, with a different angle. here in texas, when you go to a mexican restaurant, they automatically bring you a bowl of chips, and some salsa before you order a thing. and its free, just for sitting down. now, most of us will choose what restaurant we go to on how good the salsa is. granted, there are other factors, but i have discussed this with many friends, and most go to the one that has the salsa that they like the best. so, in this example, you are gonna get the chips and salsa FREE, no matter where you go, but the decision is made by which one tastes better to you. i know i started this post with a point, but it got lost somewhere.. basically, i think its human nature to try and get MORE.. whatever it is, MORE.. and if everyone is gonna give me more, then which is gonna give me BETTER.. make sense?

bigjohn

Riffman,

I'll make myself clear on several of these points. I recommend Denon and H/K brands simply because they will drive 4-ohm loads without shutting down, imposing current limiting, or going into a protection mode. That is based on customer experience with various brands of receivers and the 4-ohm M80 tower speakers. H/K also tends to rate the output power of their receivers more honestly and conservatively than many other brands. And the fact that Denon and H/K do not shut down driving 4-ohm loads when operated within reasonable limits (not in giant rooms at extremely loud playback levels or in clipping modes) speaks to somewhat beefier power supplies in the receivers.

I also have some insider info on quality control troubles with some brands, which may or may not apply to current models. Since I edited audio/video magazines for 19 years, and, prior to that, actually did lab tests of equipment for AudioScene Canada, I'm aware of what equipment tends to be reliable and meet their specifications and what brands do not meet their specifications, including some high-priced and overrated darlings of the high-end magazines.

As to "Stereo's Intrinsic Flaw," there is no particular agenda on my part to promote multi-channel home theater systems per se. The limitations of 2-channel sound have been known and documented ever since the 1930s, when Bell Telephone engineers did tests of multichannel sound and concluded that at least 3 channels were necessary to effectively convey the sound of the Philadelphia Orchestra to a hall in a distant location (they used discrete telephone lines and a live orchestra).

As we know, recording technology up until the mid 1950s could only encode one channel--mono. The advent of 2-channel stereo was a huge leap in realism, and adding more channels to better mimic the way our hearing system detects and processes sounds from every direction, simply advances the state of reproduced sound. As I pointed out in the article, the flaw of 2-channel stereo is that it encodes and reproduces all the reflected and ambient sounds from two speakers at the front of the room, a totally unnatural presentation.

We hear sounds, in a concert hall, club, or outside, from every direction. Using multiple discrete channels to record and preserve those directional cues, with ambient sounds reproduced from the sides the way they happen in real life (as well as from the rear and even above), simply increases the level of realism. (By the way, various acoustical studies have shown that our ears/brain are most responsive to sounds from the sides of a hall or space. The time delays of lateral reflected sounds instantly tell our brain the "size" of a space that we are in. We are not nearly as sensitive to reflected sounds from above or to the rear, nor are we as precise in locating sounds from above or to the rear. This is why side-mounted surround speakers are preferable to those directly behind us).

Regards,

Demand for bread? Here, people wolf down millions of subway sandiches using that crappy bread they make. There, they wolf down pre-made baguette sandwiches using good bread. I wonder why. I'm obviously straying a bit far with the analogies. My comments in this thread are mainly regarding the fence sitter - the person who's debating high quality stereo vs lower quality surround. There will always be the mid to hi fi stereo market but its diminishing. Just as there will always be a bose market. One thing I don't see is marketing of the mid to hifi stereo equipment and I'm told things were different 20-30 years ago.

Alan,

Having my Epic 60 system, I fully realize how nice it is to have five speakers. Especially when I'm playing a SACD such as 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road'. I like it better than two channel. Would you agree though, that the fencesitting consumer, who always has a budget limit, must make a choice between allocating that budget to three more speakers and a sub versus a better amp or a better player? By fencesitting, I mean a person who's always loved sweet sounding music but never had five channels but is intrigued by five channels.

Oh, and I concede the issue about recommending components. As you have mentioned, I'm pretty sure your advice comes with information and experience that I do not have.

thanks for your comments

riffman,
Incidentally, I would agree with you that high-quality 2-channel stereo is preferable to crummy multi-channel surround from tiny satellites and a lousy sub. Provided, of course, that the 2-channel stereo is truly accurate, neutral and transparent, not just expensive (the two do not necessarily correlate).

And 20 to 30 years ago, disc recording and playback technology only permitted quality 2-channel reproduction. The 4-channel attempts with Quad were very compromised. Disc technology at the time could not encode undistorted reproduction of 4 channels. It simply didn't work very well. And music producers in the pop/rock arena didn't know how to utilize the extra channels effectively. (That dilemma still exists for many producers of DVD-A and SACD recordings. Do we really want to feel immersed in the middle of a band? )

Regards,

Riffman,

I fear that those of us who want really sweet sounding music are comparatively in the minority. I think that a lot of the mass market, once they combine even a crummy Home Theater in a Box system with an adequate DVD player and a larger screen TV, will opt for the cheap HTIB surround system, because the directional realism plus the video image is very seductive. Even crummy speakers plus Dolby Digital will supply the surround and directional effects. I also believe that when they hear better systems, and their budgets increase, they will eventually upgrade. . .

Regards,

I think I can agree with this - that the seductiveness of directional sound with moving images wins out over better fidelity most of the time.

But sometimes I being thinking about that Apple example. PCs are dominant and many cite "ease of use/windows" but if you're surfing the internet everyday, I believe an Apple is clearly the easier PC to maintain and use. Its much easier to keep the speed up of an Apple.

Having only read some of the posts, I apologize if this has been said above.

But, Isn't stereo's intrinsic flaw that if you move from the sweet spot, the illusion of imaging disappears. Therefore, having a firmly roots center channel for voice and to complement the front section allows the listener more flexibility when it comes to reproducing a believable soundstage.

A purist may claim that the other speakers get in the way. I think that some purists are a little hung up on the "magic" of the stereo image illusion (I admit that I am hung up on this) kind of as a party trick. It's neat to "hear" a voice coming from in between my speakers, even though I nkow that no soudn is actually "coming" from there.

Also, I believe in the 5.1 and 7.1 for movies idea 100%. There's only so much that 2 speakers can do to "fake" an "illusion" of an enveloping surround experience. And again, the tricks fades quite quickly if you move around or are not in the prime spot. 5.1 and 7.1 are really neat "tricks" in themselves, but they hold up better than stereo.

Lastly, I rarely am able to sit and listen to music critically. More often than not, I move around and listen to music whiel cleaning, cooking, talking with friends, etc. I enjoy the 7 channel stereo mode during these times because the sound really fills the room. Any effect caused by a perfectly reproduced stereo sound is lost on me durign those times.

In reply to:

---

I move around and listen to music whiel cleaning, cooking

---

hey, hey.. i could use a good dinner and a clean house.. come on over, i will play whatever you want..

i am with you.. when sitting directly in front of the speakers for music, i use 2.1. but, when roaming(which is 90% of the time), i use 'all channel stereo', and it fills the room, and even the house, with plenty of sound.

bigjohn

In reply to:

---

I find stereo the easiest...without punishing my wallet....Do you agree that Axiom has an obvious motivation for pushing five channel music?...why does Axiom push the A/V receivers, such as Denon, etc.?

---

There's no question stereo amps are inexpensive. In fact Denon and HK make stereo amps, so by mentioning those brands Axiom is by no means precluding stereo.

However if you go into most A/V stores, it's often hard to FIND a stereo amp. It's not Axiom -- the multichannel transition is already under way, driven primarily by Home Theater. Multichannel music is also ramping up.

Most people can't afford a dedicated audio-only room. They have a TV area, hence their highest audio upgrade priority is typically multichannel HT, not stereo. Again, not Axiom causing this. It's a natural transition, promoted by many different forces.

I agree it can be quite frustrating at most A/V stores to find stereo equipment. It seems like it's non-existant or stuffed into a dust-covered corner.

Whether stereo is better than multichannel depends on the customer's priorities, tastes and preferences.

Consider two M80s vs a 5.1 config of M3/QS4/VP100 and a Hsu STF-1 (sorry, Axiom, no $300 sub).

The two are EXACTLY the same price. For stereo music, most would agree the M80s are superior.

However most customers aren't music only or stereo only. They want "surround sound" and their priorities tilt heavily in favor of HT vs music.

The above multichannel config well satisfies HT, yet is no slouch at music. True the M80s are better at stereo-vs-stereo, but most customers don't want that. Every friend I've spoken to asks about HT, not stereo. If a friend inquired about upgrading an audio-only, stereo-only config, and he wanted to stick with stereo, I'd (a) be shocked, and (b) direct him to stick with stereo and buy a stereo amp, M60s, M80s, etc.

If multichannel music is a factor, I'd argue that Dark Side of the Moon on the above multichannel config would rival downmixed stereo on the M80s in overall acoustic experience.

I forget the exact percentages, but a high end audio dealer I spoke with last year said that well over 80% of their sales were for home theater systems, maybe 10% for traditional stereo sales.

I think more people watch TV than listen to music ;(

Everyone on the board probably has the same bias to good sound or we wouldn't be here -- add another vote for "stay with stereo until you can afford a decent system and only then start adding speakers".

Having said that, listening to stereo material with a good AV receiver and well matched 5.1 speakers is remarkable -- and generally more enjoyable than the same music on a 2.0 or 2.1 configuration.

Certainly we should be wary of the charlatans in the audio world who try to prey on the gullible, but their favorites are players, receivers and even wires which somehow will mysteriously provide better sound. The "flaw" discussed in Alan's article is simple acoustical fact which has been well-known for decades. All listening in the home has to be flawed as compared with experiencing the live performance, but multi-channel reproduction can bring us a little closer to reality as compared with stereo using otherwise similar equipment. In the concert hall the great majority of sound reaches the listeners from various directions as reflected ambience from walls, floor and ceiling rather than as direct sound from the front. I've previously cited this article, especially fig.10.4.1, which illustrates how quickly indirect sound becomes predominant. For example, the "critical distance" in listening rooms can be as short as about 4' and even in large halls is only about 20'. Surround speakers can reproduce this sound in a way that's a little closer to reality as compared to being launched from in front of us.

So again, the bottom line is that there are many claims in audio which have no factual basis and are marketing-driven, but the superiority of multi-channel reproduction isn't one of them.

All I can tell you is that some of the most poorly recorded CDs in my collection can be "rescued" by playing them in DTS:neo6, Logic 7, or Dolby Pro Logic.

These modes can make some good recordings sound "funky" at times, though.

In reply to:

---

...Do we really want to feel immersed in the middle of a band?

---

In many cases I must answer yes.

A common argument against multichannel sound is that it's unnatural -- that the ultimate goal is to reproduce the live audience experience.

I would argue the ultimate goal is obtaining the most satisfaction possible from the reproduced music, regardless of how closely that mimics the original acoustic experience.

In some cases the experience is richer and more vivid if the acoustic pallet is spread around you. Heavily layered instrumental music may be in this category. A perfect example is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. However unnatural to have sounds all around you, it sure sounds great.

Other more simple arrangements place the performers up front and use surround for ambiance, not placing instruments or performers beside you. That's a different but equally valid use of surround.

I personally like heavily instrumental multitracked music, so the "immersed in the band" paradigm is fine with me.

In fact it's really little different from headphones, which some people find very satisfying.

There's no question the mixing engineer must exercise skill and discretion, and it's easy for a multichannel mix to become contrived, artificial, and gimmicky.

But the best multichannel mixes show "how it's done". It need not be artificial and hokey.

The only times I feel immersed in the music is in a church listening an organ or in a symphonic concert hall. With most rock shows, it seems as though the sound is coming from in front of me (it is).

John, sometimes I'm convinced that you enjoy the science behind all this as much or more likely even more than the music. True?

As much as you would like to quote measurements, blind testing, etc.., I'm one who thinks we still have a way to go with the science behind all this.

I'm also sorry that you cannot hear the difference between a good player and a bad player. Its awfully pretentious of you to run around here all the time and imply that people are gullible and are easy targets. Its bullshit.

Wow. Riffman. Settle down, tiger. We're all just expressing our points of view. Please try to do it in a constructive way (without stooping to name calling and use of profanity). Nobody's shunning your point of view. We're just trying to hash out the subject so that we all might have a better understanding of both the nature of stereo vs. multi-channel surround and maybe get a grasp of where the market is heading (as per your original, and interesting, thread topic.)

Take a deep breath, dude.

YES, deep breath........n thn hold 't....

bigjohn

I think I understand the topics here. Until JohnK jumped in, there was no talk of "gullible people" or of "simple facts known for decades". I call that pretentious because it is.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I never said multi channel music wasn't superior. I said I would prefer two channel music on really good equipmnet over multi channel music on poor equipment. And, I have also implied a slight disappointment that a certain consumer segment will chooses poor equipment and more speakers over better equipment and less speakers. Then JohnK had to step in with his usual straw man bit regarding scientific proof, gullible people, simple facts, etc.. Pretentious indeed. I never argued that multi channel music on the *same great equipment* is worse than two channel stereo. I don't think anyone here said that. geezus.

I could play the same stupid game and talk about how some people have wooden ears but I won't.

Gotta agree with Riff here. While his post did seem sort of defensive, I can see why John's post would offend him. Now, I respect John's opinions and he has helped me many a time with tips and some facts (the ones that I actually believe in any way) but we must all admit that sometimes he can comeoff as Riff put it, "pretentious."

If reflected sound was key, we would all be listening to Bose...

How could one take offense at what John said, but not at what a previous poster said regarding audio, Apple v PC, the bread at Subway, etc...?

(BTW, I like the rolls at Subway - baguettes are too hard and crusty. You have to use too much force to break through the crust, causing all the sandwich fillers to squirt out the sides. Then you wear out your jaw muscles working on that crusty old bread. You can keep that fancy bread. )

I agree with the Subway bread comment Will, I'm not one for fancy bread, cheese, meats, or anything else that makes foreign cuisine so much better than my macaroni and cheese or ham sandwiches on Holsum Bread.

Well, touche then I guess, if you two think so? But, I happen to know a bit about the history of bread and it wasn't always this soft stuff that we've seen arise in the latter half of the 20th century. The demand for the kind of bread I like and served in good restaurants has diminished during our century. This is a fact. Did I say people are stupid or "gullible" for demanding subway bread? No, I did not. Did I say breadmakers or subway prey on people? I don't think so.

But, 9 out of 10 posts from JohnK will tell you what he thinks of people. He and Alan completely missed the point. Again, I never argued stereo was better. I'll take some of the blame for that for poor communication, I guess. You've got to really spell it out for the straw men.

And, I still have a hard time believing that a speaker company doesn't find it in their best interest to promote 5 speakers over two. Just as Linn will tell you that the source is the most important piece of a system. And if anyone thinks I'm being judgemental, I'm not. That's how business works.

player8, one more thing:

gullible: Easily deceived or duped.

I said "people don't know what good bread is anymore". That implies nothing about how *easy* it was for them to get to the point of not knowing what good bread is anymore. Neither does it imply how willfully ignorant they are.

I do know that 100 years ago, if you put Subway bread on the table, 99 out of 100 people would think it was crap. Today, people obviously have a right to their tastes.

What the hell you singling me out for? I didn't find what you said in your original post offensive, but I do find you trying to further push a point that I had no response to annoying and offensive. I just stated that I don't like that fancy, schmancy bread crap. I like plain simple bread. I'm a simple guy with simple tastes who happens to be in the search for higher fidelity music reproduction. Nothing more, nothing less. So just drop your beef with me.

BigWill asked how could anyone not find my comments offensive in comparison to what JohnK said and you agreed. I responded. I think my comments were a little different (as I believe I've shown). I don't want to get in a stupid argument here and I'm sorry if I've offended you. All that was primarily for Big Will anyways although I made the mistake of directing it at you.

My god people. RELAX. You've reached the point now that you're arguing about BREAD!

Please, please, please, try to calm down.

Anyone that can come up with the line: "You've reached the point now, that you're arguing about BREAD"!.....GET'S my vote for moderator!

Larry, you're a riot!

Good bread, clear channels -
sensing many is joyful.
Some like only one.

In reply to:

---

A common argument against multichannel sound is that it's unnatural -- that the ultimate goal is to reproduce the live audience experience.

I would argue the ultimate goal is obtaining the most satisfaction possible from the reproduced music, regardless of how closely that mimics the original acoustic experience.

---

I like that a lot. Thanks, joema.

ah, haiku!!

poetic break......

beans, beans, good for the heart.. the more you eat, the more....

forget it..

bigjohn

I had hopèd that
these arguments would not come
up again so soon.

Ken,
shut
up and
eat
some bread.

Ray, sadly that is
not a haiku and so I
will not eat that bread.

All future quarrels
must be resolved in Haiku.
Composing adds peace.

Ken - tom is almost right. I'm thinking a couple of cases of beer and some bread wrapped around some hot dogs!

This is a sad case of a thread gone wrong; people taking offense from what was communicated was not what was intended.

Does anyone really know what was accomplished from this thread? Apparently not much. Although, perhaps the following:

1. Listening to music (and movies) is all about personal preference and personal finance. What floats your boat is what you should put your money to—if you can afford it.

2. Because of #2 above, manufactures and vendors are now focusing on 5.1 and 7.1 because of the demand. Its simple supply and demand economics. If the demand for 5.1 and 7.1 was not there, the supply would not follow. BTW, I don’t believe in supply-side economics for consumer goods at the electronics level, so don't bother....

3. Subway bread has always been bad bread when compared to healthy, homemade bread; Jared is a rich man who once was a fat loser!

but would the bread taste better if you upgraded the power cable on your toaster? lol

I like Subway Bread.
Its flavor's like no other.
I like music too.

Baguettes were created in France many, many years ago because people decided that they liked the crust more than the fluffy soft stuff inside. Before that time, I reckon folks were, like us, partial to crappy bread. Only the modern Frenck folks (and other Franco-philes) know what is truly good?

I find it amazing that so many people in movies carry baguettes sticking out of paper bags in the rain. Why is that? Haven't the French ever heard of umbrellas or (gasp) putting their baguettes in plastic bags until they get home? Who wants soggy, crusty old bread anyway?

I'm pretty sure that's why the English invented cricket. They had to do something with all that stale bread that the French threw out because it got rained on... All you have to do is run it over with a trolley before the match to flatten it out...

All my Big Mac sandwiches have been on white bread with the little seeds on top. One time in Iowa I was served a Big Mac on bread that was yellow colored....strange, probably just the bread from that region I suppose or maybe it was intrinsically flawed. I also started a home theatre but realized it was much cheaper to do two channel (with the same brand of speakers). I sure as heck would not refer to stereo as intrinsically flawed. Title of this thread is sure a conversation starter though. It also amazes me a small store that sells only bread can stay in business.

Ned, I'm not the one who says its intrinsically flawed (just in case you're thinking that). This was the title of newsletter piece by Alan. Don't get me wrong though, I thank Alan for those pieces. I've read every one and have learned a great deal. Its a nice service provided by a great company. The title just...stood out. Particularly in light of the declining demand for stereo music. Again, my main offering was the I'd rather hear 2 channel music on a great system over 5 channel on a so so system.

In my book and price range I agree with you whole heartedly about great 2 channel versus so so multi channel. From his replies at this forum I really like what Alan has to say. For declining 2 channel....it seems as though it is going all home theatre / multi channel which I'm sure is very good with a nice set up. Our local "high end" store has recently set up some really nice displays all over their store. Sad to see the two channel room sort of bare, empty and not much equipment or anything going on in there.

I have yet to see acceptable pre/pros for 5 channels that were as inexpensive as acceptable 2 channels pre/pros. Or, integrateds as well.

I can attest to the brilliance of Dark Side of the Moon or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road in 5 channel.

While I agree for the same dollars you can likely put together a better sounding 2 channel setup than 5.1 channel, I have to say that done right, dollars be damned, the best 5.1 sounds leaps and bounds better than the best 2 channel. I think that is the point of Alan's original article.

Done properly 5.1 is better than 2.

I don't see the controversey in that.

I dont want to sound like an old fart- but I guess I am. I listen to Bluenote Jazz and Classical music and two channel is just fine for me. I do not want "special effects" or sounds floating from the rear or bass that shakes the wall. I seldom watch television ( much rather read a book). I have tried a dsp but the sound was "phony" to me. My system of Rotel 972 amp, Cambridge Audio 640c dedicated cd player and Axiom m60's sounds great!!

I understand the appeal of the surround/theater sound for those who want that sort of thing- and realize I am in the minority, but there is room for all types of music and listening environments.

I understand also about the benefits of ambient noise, but doesnt my listening room provide ambient qualities from the reflected sound?

I just hope everyone is as pleased with their system, regardless of the number of speakers, as I am with mine.
Chuck

Spiff, does a speaker company want to sell 5 speakers or 2? Hence, the piece, under the guise of customer education, perhaps is partly marketing. The name helped. First impression right off the bat is "stereo is lesser". This is not always so in the real world with limited dollars to spend.

I don't criticize all of this. I'm just throwing it out there.

I don't think "speaker companies" started multi-channel, or H/T, but are "riding the wave".
Axiom, I noticed have changed their header from Axiom loudspeakers, to: Axiom home theaters, and they list H/T first on this forum, BUT...if there is any "push", so to speak..it's (IMO) from the receiver folks,... you know 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, can 12.1 be far behind?

Then again Spiff, I do see your point. Alan was probably limited his piece to just the science. Which, is his right. I have no complaints.

My wife is gonna love (and I mean love!) 12.1...

I think I am going to upgrade to 28.4!

too late.. joninflorida has already done that!!



bigjohn

In reply to:

---

This is not always so in the real world with limited dollars to spend.

---

Actually with a fixed audio budget, HT HURTS Axiom, not helps them.

Why? Because HT receivers are more expensive than stereo. With a fixed budget the customer must spend more on the receiver, leaving less money for speakers. Axiom makes less.

If you exclude the receiver and say fixed budget for speakers only, then Axiom again makes the same or less money. If you spend $x on Axiom stereo speakers, Axiom gets ALL that. If you spend $x on HT, this exposes Axiom to 3rd party subwoofer purchases, not a factor for 2-ch stereo.

Even if they buy 100% Axiom for both stereo and HT speaker configs, with a fixed budget Axiom gets the SAME $, not less.

What about being pressured to upgrade to better speakers? Same pressure exists for both stereo and HT speakers.

Embracing HT helps Axiom only in that it's a major trend and otherwise the customer base wanting HT (which is a big %) would go elsewhere.

joema, i made the assumption that if you've made the choice for home theater, you have made the choice for 5 speakers. its safe to say that I'm talking out of my ass here. i haven't analyzed the market, customer segments, etc.. so, in many respects, you are correct. But, in other respects, I think what I said can be true.

Well whoever is first to get something more than 10.1 gets a double smiley from me....

Riff-"I'm talking out of my ass here"
but if you were wearing monster brand underwear would it sound better?

Well, I have no choice. I NEED monster underwear.

>>Actually with a fixed audio budget, HT HURTS Axiom, not helps them. Why? Because HT receivers are more expensive than stereo. With a fixed budget the customer must spend more on the receiver, leaving less money for speakers. Axiom makes less. If you exclude the receiver and say fixed budget for speakers only, then Axiom again makes the same or less money. If you spend $x on Axiom stereo speakers, Axiom gets ALL that. If you spend $x on HT, this exposes Axiom to 3rd party subwoofer purchases, not a factor for 2-ch stereo.

Interesting point. Good speaker mfg's also tend to lose some business because buying 5 or 6 speakers means you have to spend less on each speaker and that pushes a lot of people into those cheap awful HTIB things. $500 buys you a nice pair of M22s but someone looking for a 5 speaker system for $500 isn't going to be buying from Axiom or any of their peers.

I sometimes wonder if Axiom should do someting vaguely Ventriloquist-like, leveraging a couple of good speakers with cheaper center and surrounds (or they could just leverage the center like Hsu does).

Hey, that might be enough to finally push Axiom over the edge and port the center channel speakers so we don't keep getting posts asking "so, like, where should I drill the hole to port my VP150 ? Through the crossover ?".

>>I noticed have changed their header from Axiom loudspeakers, to: Axiom home theaters

Hmmm. Maybe the 25th anniversary surprise is an Axiom receiver or a 5/7 channel integrated amp ?

good catch, hmmm........i wonder?

I have 2 stereo systems (2.1, 2 speakers and a sub) and 2 HT systems, a 5.2 and a 7.2. I actually prefer the 2 channel systems for listening to music.

"I have 2 stereo systems (2.1, 2 speakers and a sub) and 2 HT systems, a 5.2 and a 7.2. I actually prefer the 2 channel systems for listening to music."

Clearly your ears are flawed. We will be forced to disregard all furthers comments/opinions. :-)

In my current system I prefer listening to music in 2-channel as well. Of course, my opinion might change after I replace my Cambridge Soundworks surrounds with QS4s.

Preference has a lot to do with experience. I've spent most of my life listening to music from 2 speakers, so I expect music to sound a certain way. I have a few surround SACDs, and some do a better job of being transparent in the use of the surrounds than others. The ones that sound best to me (besides DSoTM, of course!) are the ones that use the surrounds sparingly, and solely for ambiance or helping define the space of the recording location.

I prefer my music in 2.1, although 4.1 via DTS:Neo 6 is growing on me. I did listen in 2.0 for a little while, but getting that ol' sub back in the mix was a really nice thing.

I meant 2.1, as well. My M22s really need the assistance of the sub. And my old Onkyo doesn't do any of those fancy-schmancy surround modes.

I mostly listen in 7 channel surround mode, but when I sit in front of my M60s, I usually change the receiver to "Pure direct" and only listen to the mains, no sub. I find that the bass is tighter and the imaging is better that way. I find that when listening in 2.1, the image collapses a bit... I don't know why. But, then again, I rarely get involved in critical listening sessions.