Home Theater Tide Over

[Tiberium]

My speakers are, at least pretty close enough when listening to surround formats.

Odyssey, Theater i, Sequel II. Those are not close enough to be properly balanced for complete immersion during surround playback. Your theater i will throw off every aspect that you try and synch up with your fronts and rears because of the use of tweeters.

I'm sure you have recordings that you've listened to and been amazed at how much depth and ambience is in that recording? Now imagine hearing that same recording with the ambience opened up enough to hear all around you, the same sounds that you would hear in a large hall. Not just in front of you?

To bad they don't make any recordings (or VERY few) that are done properly, most of this surround crap is nothing more then an emulation just like switching to a pro logic or other multi channel function on a processor.

If 5.1 hadn't become so popular in the last few years 2 channel would be just about dead.

What? So we would go back to mono?

How many of your friends have a surround sound system that they watch movies on versus a dedicated 2 channel system?

That's the whole point of surround sound, it should be used for movies and nothing more and even at that 99% of movies are done so poorly that rears do not enter into the equation.

 

[Dominick22]

First, let me say the best 5.1 musical recording I have ever heard is Bryan Adams (Live at the Budakan-Japan).

That is 5.1 done right, although a unique setting, if anyone like his music. The audience fills most most of the surround/rear information that is processed and the front 3 speakers do all of the musical imaging "for the most part".

Second, I have the Ascent i's, Theater i, Clarity's, and Descent which I read somewhere in ML literature was the ML reference 5.1. Obviously this is not true anymore, but this is probably the best 5.1 balance offered by ML to date since there is not a new one completed yet, based on the summits (which I am assuming will take the position of reference for ML). Look in your owners manuals, all of the picture diagrams show this set up.

Anyway, I dont know about matching with Vista's, but many dealers are offering the Theater i now for $1500 give or take. I just cannot see, like others on this forum, the Stage being a better center channel anyway, so you might consider it.

Dominick

 

[JonFo]

If the 5.1 system is not balanced well enough, then I’d agree that 2ch reproduction of stereo sources is the better alternative.

However, A truly balanced 5.1 system, playing back either a SACD or DVD-A mix or a Stereo to 7.1 mix the Meridian Trifield mode delivers, is significantly better than plain stereo.

To a person, every listener in my HT has preferred a multilchannel reproduction. And this includes musicians who love classical. Actually for them, the most convincing demo was to play clips from Nimbus records recorded and decoded using Ambisonics surround. It truly places you in the venue. Too bad so few recordings used that technique and so few processors support that mode.

To really get the most of multichannel audio, the room needs to be set up for it. My room is designed specifically for 7.1 Martin Logan based reproduction.

The critical ingredient is the center channel. Even for just movies (maybe even more so for movies), the Center has to be balanced to the left and right not only in terms of frequency response, but just as important, its dynamics need to match as well. When playing certain SACD’s with strong use of the center, its clear that the engineers assumed a timber and dynamics matched center. Something very few setups have.

After building out the SL3XC center, I now know for a fact that it takes a very large center to have a balanced sound filed.

The other aspect I knew, but then proved to myself beyond a shadow of a doubt is that to obtain a very cohesive surround environment, you need to tune dealys, EQ and room acoustics to near perfection using measuring instruments. A Cohesive, enveloping sound field, where you hear the instruments in front of and way beyond the plane of the speakers is truly a revelation.

The problem is getting there is very difficult, so I’m not surprised to see some preferences for 2ch, as its simpler to get right. But once you’ve heard a well set up multichannel system playing some of the latest well recorded and mixed hi-def audio, there’s just no going back.

 

[Tiberium]

The critical ingredient is the center channel. Even for just movies (maybe even more so for movies), the Center has to be balanced to the left and right not only in terms of frequency response, but just as important, its dynamics need to match as well. When playing certain SACD’s with strong use of the center, its clear that the engineers assumed a timber and dynamics matched center. Something very few setups have.

Your setup and your center are a one off because ML does not make a center speakers that can be balanced with any of the electrostatic series.

 

[Genesis]

After reading all of this, I'd say the best solution is mine I just purchased the Pathos Cinema-X 5.1/2 channel integrated amp that contains a tubed preamp stage with a MOSFET power amp stage. Valves for warming the preamp signal to my Vantages (and more) and solid state to provide the power.

In HT mode, the Pathos delivers 110W per channel into 8 ohms. In 2 channel mode, the center channel gets dropped and the remaing channels are bridged....450W into 2 channels! It works beautifully.

For HT, I've connected a Denon 3910 directly to the Pathos via the analog outs using CrystalConnect Micro IC's. Digital processing is available in the 3910. All of my speakers (Vantage, Cinema i, Mosaic) are output from the Pathos with my Depth sub connected directly to the 3910.

For 2 channel music, my Ayre C-5xe universal player is connected to the Pathos using balanced terminals with the new MIT AVt MA IC's. The sub-out from the Pathos going into the Depth gives me low pass filter control and nicely complements the mains.

I looked at many 2 channel integrated amps with preamp bypass to connect to my Denon 3806 for HT, but the Pathos gives me complete 5.1 channel HT and balanced 2 channel as well....perfect for both HT and critical listening

 

[mrmike]

I have a pair of Mirage M90i as surrounds that seem to blend well with my Aeon i and cinema i. So much so that I have opted to forgo the scripts. Used pair go for about $100. I would look into their omni stats with a decent HK, Pioneer or Dennon avr.

The hardest part to match will be the center for music so why not a used cinema or logos?

As for the sub, anything less than a fast low distortion sub will probably be less desireable than what you have with no sub at all.

 

[amey01]

Hmm 'hi-fi surround processor' - Try looking at the Meridian 861. IMHO it's the best there is out there at the moment. Trouble is, it'll cost you more than a pair of Summits.

Cheers,

David

Yes, my point exactly. I haven't personally had much experience with the 861, but if that is the best out there in surround land, it dosen't really get me excited. Compare the 861 to the surplus of stereo preamps from Halcro, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Zanden, Gryphon, et al and I'm sure you'll come off second best.

 

[DavidG]

Yes, my point exactly. I haven't personally had much experience with the 861, but if that is the best out there in surround land, it dosen't really get me excited. Compare the 861 to the surplus of stereo preamps from Halcro, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Zanden, Gryphon, et al and I'm sure you'll come off second best.

Maybe, but I think that you may be surprised. Listening to stereo or multichannel through and 800 / 861 combination is impressive to say the least. I'll take Meridian kit over Krell or Mark Levinson any day. But then, I suspect that you're comparing Valve driven amps with SS, and they're so different I find it hard to draw a comparison.

I guess it all comes down to personal taste and what your ears say!

Cheers,

David

 

[jjqiv]

Maybe, but I think that you may be surprised. Listening to stereo or multichannel through and 800 / 861 combination is impressive to say the least. I'll take Meridian kit over Krell or Mark Levinson any day. But then, I suspect that you're comparing Valve driven amps with SS, and they're so different I find it hard to draw a comparison.

I guess it all comes down to personal taste and what your ears say!

Cheers,

David

The Meridian combo has not impressed me. Listen'ing back-to-back against all analog/valve 2 channel systems has left me shaking my head.

 

[DavidG]

Personal

The Meridian combo has not impressed me. Listen'ing back-to-back against all analog/valve 2 channel systems has left me shaking my head.

It's definately down to our ears. Personally I love the neutrality of the Meridian sound. Valves are just a little to warm sounding for me! Plus the Meridian system offers the trifield processing mode that puts much more solidity into the image even if you're running a phantom centre channel!

As I say, it's down to the likes and dislikes of our ears.

Cheers,

David

 

[JonFo]

It's definately down to our ears. Personally I love the neutrality of the Meridian sound. Valves are just a little to warm sounding for me! Plus the Meridian system offers the trifield processing mode that puts much more solidity into the image even if you're running a phantom centre channel!

As I say, it's down to the likes and dislikes of our ears.

Cheers,

David

Phantom center, heresy!

Trifield has to be heard to be belived. It is way, way betetter than just stereo. Plus, more people in the room can enjoy the performance, not just the person in the 'sweet spot'.

But it does require a well balanced system to deliver this. Now that I have that, Trifield is excellent. Not that it was bad before, it was used most of the time, but now it is peerless.

 

[jjqiv]

It's definately down to our ears. Personally I love the neutrality of the Meridian sound. Valves are just a little to warm sounding for me! Plus the Meridian system offers the trifield processing mode that puts much more solidity into the image even if you're running a phantom centre channel!

As I say, it's down to the likes and dislikes of our ears.

Cheers,

David

You always hear people talking about valve warm. Warm is not really my issue with many SS amps. It's the body, inner detail, and tonal color. Sort of like a black and white vs. color image.

At stereo shows, the instant you walk into most rooms, you can tell whether its valves vs. SS and digital vs. analog.

 

[kwr]

At stereo shows, the instant you walk into most rooms, you can tell whether its valves vs. SS and digital vs. analog.

Now that is worthy of a blind test.

Kevin

 

[jjqiv]

Phantom center, heresy!

Trifield has to be heard to be belived. It is way, way betetter than just stereo. Plus, more people in the room can enjoy the performance, not just the person in the 'sweet spot'.

But it does require a well balanced system to deliver this. Now that I have that, Trifield is excellent. Not that it was bad before, it was used most of the time, but now it is peerless.

I have heard it. Not extensively. It didn't do it for me to justify extended sessions. I drop by the local Meridian peddler from time-to-time. They usually have multichannel sources going. You really don't get that many people at the HT shop's that really seem very interested in music. What really doesn't work for me is when you get the sounds coming from behind you that make you turn around and look or just pull me out of the moment. During some movies, I will switch two channel, back the movie up a bit, and start enjoying the movie without the rear distraction.

Even in a multichannel set-up, if you are not in the sweet spot, you are still out of phase once you leave that small area. The only thing you gain is a more consistent center image.

If you want something that you have to hear to believe. Its a good mono recording with a good mono cartridge.

 

[jjqiv]

Now that is worthy of a blind test.

Kevin

Alot of them are initial blind tests. You don't see what's playing until you are around the people and well into the room.