do you folk use surround sound?

[DearS]

well I read over at Zaphs page how he doesnt use surround sound. and I was thinking perhaps with really good speakers, going surround wont add anything to the sound. perpahps even take away from the soundstage.

whats your take on surround.

[TacoD]

I prefer to look at the stage a I don't want to stand in the middle of it. So I prefer stereo for music. For movies I think those extra channels add an extra dimension. Like you said a good 2 channel setup will give a 3D stage.

[Adz]

I'm not sure why this thread, which is always a good topic to discuss, is in M.I.-DIY. It should be moved to another venue. And I pretty much agree with Taco. I have not been able to "get into" multi-channel music at all and much prefer two channel even for SACD and DVD-A. Having said that, clearly movies excel in 6 or 7 channel surround sound and it shouldn't even be a discussion. In the middle of all this is concert DVDs. If done right, it is pretty cool to listen to them in surround sound as it give you that "being there" feeling, but many times its not done right and you have instruments distinctly being played in speakers behind you and to the sides which doesn't make sense -- instead it should just be some echo (reverb) from the instruments and voices and the crowd itself.

[JoshK]

I don't even use surround for movies. Most movies I care to watch don't need it as I am not really a big blockbuster type movie fan, give me an independent anyday. To me surround sound just isn't worth it and it has no business anywhere near my music, unless it is ambiophonic "surround" which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[jim777]

Stereo only over here too. For the same budget I got much better sound quality IMO. With a good recording, I could put dummy speakers in back and in the center and people would really think that they are playing

[Booster]

I find multi-channel SACD or DVD-A to be much more engaging than stereo. It adds depth and breadth to the music. I've compared the same piece in both formats and usually favor multi-channel - even classical - try Rachel Podger, Vivaldi violin concertos - superb in stereo and even better in multi-channel. I agree that it is a bit of an acquired taste and can be overdone in some cases but with a well-engineered recording, I don't think multi-channel can be beaten.

[David Meek]

Stereo for me - with one caveat. If the music is written and performed for surround-sound then that's how I want to hear it. But, there is so little music (any?) that has been written for multi-channel other than soundtracks it's a non-issue IMO.

[aud19]

Depends on the mix but MC mixes done right are AMAZING compared to stereo mixes done right. On the flipside a well done stereo mix will outgun a crappy MC mix anyday For critical listening of stereo tracks it's always stereo passthrough, for casual listening (say when I'm vacuuming or in an adjacent room) I'll sometmes flip on the DPLII Music.

[Andrew Pratt]

It all depends on the mix being used. There are some very good multi channel tracks esp. for a live type venue where there's ambient noise around you that adds to the live feel but I dispise many sound engineers that feel the need to play around with putting drummers or trumpet players behind you...why you don't sit on the stage and listen...its even worse for concert DVD's as you can clearly see the guy standing in front of you :roll:

[jimmyp58]

...such as the Eagles Farewell Tour I....

[Andrew Pratt]

Exactly

[JoshK]

Yes, I've heard MCH music via SACD done right, hell it was a $150,000 system in a designed room, but I still preferred stereo on the same system. But I'd take ambiophonic sound over stereo anyday. MCH music, even Eagles, even Sting is quite artificial in spacial content in comparison.

Sorry, I just reread this and since I usually don't post over here it does seem or read kind of arogant. For that I apologize, but I really think if anyone is truely interested in what MCH music is *suppose* to add in addition to stereo music, they owe it to themselves to at least read ambiophonics.org's thesis.

I read it years ago and thought it was another hi-fi gimmic. But I have a friend who did a "proof of concept" system out of cheap mid-fi gear and it flipped my audiophile world on its head. I still don't have an ambio-system, it won't work in my room but I am salivating for the day I can do it. Unfortunately there is no off the shelf turn key solution that will do a decent job of ambiophonics.

[bigburner]

I'm into music, not HT, so for years I've listened to 2 speakers, "just like at a concert" I told myself. Then I added a sub and loved the improvement. Recently I connected my old system up to my new system - i.e. an extra power amp plus speakers - so I've now got 2 stereo pairs plus a sub. There's now a speaker in each corner of the room. I call it 4.1 which is probably quite inaccurate.

I love the 4.1 sound because it's actually much more like a live concert where the sound is everywhere in the hall.

So these days I tend to use the primary system for critical listening, and the two stereo pairs set-up when I want volume for the full concert hall blast.

[Stoney]

I will agree with "it depends on the mix" and the situation. 7.1 for movies, Direct for most CD's. There are a few CD's that I like to use the "Jazz Club" set up. At other times, I will use 7 channel stereo, because it sounds just like wearing a pair of headphones. It drowns out any outside distractions well and puts the sound stage in the middle of my head. I will also use the 7 channel stereo mode if I am moving around the room while listening.

[George Bellefontaine]

I don't really care about surround for music. Give me straight 2 ch stereo anyday. But when it comes to movies, you will miss a lot without surround. Fortunately my music room is not in the theater so the speaker arrangement is different for each.

[Shane Martin]

For Music, I avoid surround sound. 99% of the time it sounds hokey. For movies, I use it

[DearS]

thanks for the input.