Do you use upmixing for stereo music or are you strictly a “2ch purist”?

[KenM10759]

Technically, I suppose I'm upmixing. I send a 2-channel analog signal to my AVR and output 2.1, so I know it's going through the DSP to extract the ".1" to send to the sub. It works great apparently because three guests out of 4 who have been seated in the sweet spot have gotten up and walked over to verify sound isn't coming from the center speaker. It works off-axis too, just not as convincingly.

On those days I'm listening to music that doesn't employ frequencies low enough to activate the sub, I switch to analog bypass mode. Truthfully the stereo effect of creating the central soundstage is the same. It can be a little cleaner but that's probably all in my head.

Upmixing with output to 5.1? I've tried it a few times but it really doesn't do anything for me.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Don’t have any problems off axis, but in any system if one sits closer to the left or right speaker the image will shift towards the closer speaker, there’s no way around it.



I’ve found I prefer a 22 degree angle vs 30 degree. I sit 10.5’ away and have my speakers about 7.5’ apart, toed in at a 22 degree angle. I can get a phantom center, but it never sounds quite as solid as a real center channel, this has been my experience regardless of the speakers used or the room. Not saying stereo doesn’t work, just that the illusion of perfect imaging falls apart off axis.

Unfortunately proper placement of my speakers requires them being 2’ from the side walls, which probably doesn’t help. Treating some of the reflections in my room helped bring it into focus more, but it’s still not a replacement for a real center.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

" ... Don’t have any problems off axis, but in any system if one sits closer to the left or right speaker the image will shift towards the closer speaker, there’s no way around it. ..."

Absolutely disagree, and have experienced many systems whereby you can sit or stand in many off-centre locations and still observe proper imaging, and one speaker does not seem to dominate the sound field versus the other in a 2-channel system.

The "image" is not located at the speaker ... if someone can locate a speaker when in "the sweet spot" with their eyes closed, the speaker position is wrong, or they chose speakers that simply don't image, period. There are plenty of those in the market, and they do sell, so it's illogical to assume no-one owns them, just as there are speakers that image very well.

The knock against speakers that image almost without regard to the listening position is they create an "artificial" image; the locations of players and instruments seems in contradiction to other speakers with precise L to R imaging.

It's not a presentation that I prefer, but you can have it if you want it.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I should mention, my surround channels are way down (-7 on right, -5 on left). And, center channel is NOT destroying the image. Enjoying some live Marley right now.

p.s. Optimum Surround: Memory 1 for movies, Memory 2 for music.

Curious. If your speakers are set that low, can you even hear them?

 

[Dale Doback]

Curious. If your speakers are set that low, can you even hear them?

Just barely. lol Yeah, I don't care for 5 channel upmix like you guys, however, I've been experimenting with using the extra channels for 'ambience', for lack of a better word. I also have been using the center channel as well. I really need to get some 5.1 SACDs and see how I like them. I have heard the Steely Dan 'Babylon Sister' multichannel SACD at a buddy's and quite liked it.

Well, I found out why I can't post a signature; you have to have a minimum of 30 posts. I'm halfway there. lol

 

[lovinthehd]

Just barely. lol Yeah, I don't care for 5 channel upmix like you guys, however, I've been experimenting with using the extra channels for 'ambience', for lack of a better word. I also have been using the center channel as well. I really need to get some 5.1 SACDs and see how I like them. I have heard the Steely Dan 'Babylon Sister' multichannel SACD at a buddy's and quite liked it.

Well, I found out why I can't post a signature; you have to have a minimum of 30 posts. I'm halfway there. lol

I also recommend the Pink Floyd DSotM multi-ch SACD, very nice; also the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms. I recently expanded my collection of multi-ch SACDs and while not a lot out there that I want, I do like them.

 

[Dale Doback]

I also recommend the Pink Floyd DSotM multi-ch SACD, very nice; also the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms. I recently expanded my collection of multi-ch SACDs and while not a lot out there that I want, I do like them.

Oh, I certainly shall. On a side note; I spent a good part of the day tidying things up finally (cutting speakers cables to exact length, terminating with some nice right angle banana plugs I got from Monoprice, and then, laying out everything nice and neat and covering/taping them all down with color matching duct tape). Anyway, when I finished, I put some tunes on......yikes, extreme preponderance of bass. WTH? After over an hour of checking this and that, I checked the back of the subs, sure enough, I must have bumped the volume knob on the top sub on the right (it was almost all the way up). UGH! lol

 

[lovinthehd]

Oh, I certainly shall. On a side note; I spent a good part of the day tidying things up finally (cutting speakers cables to exact length, terminating with some nice right angle banana plugs I got from Monoprice, and then, laying out everything nice and neat and covering/taping them all down with color matching duct tape). Anyway, when I finished, I put some tunes on......yikes, extreme preponderance of bass. WTH? After over an hour of checking this and that, I checked the back of the subs, sure enough, I must have bumped the volume knob on the top sub on the right (it was almost all the way up). UGH! lol

LOL I hate when that happens. After checking out your avatar now I'm imagining everything you write in Reilly's voice....

 

[Dale Doback]

LOL I hate when that happens. After checking out your avatar now I'm imagining everything you write in Reilly's voice....

lol, yeah, those two are magic together. I wish they would do another movie together. Anyway, these AVRs are great, but, the checklists are getting longer and longer if you ever have a problem. Sure wish I had checked the subs first.

 

[Andrein]

Does anyone know how to enable 2.0 to 5.2 upmixing in yamaha avr?

 

[lovinthehd]

Does anyone know how to enable 2.0 to 5.2 upmixing in yamaha avr?

How about 5.1? Don't know any that would upmix with two different sub/lfe channels.

The Yamaha doesn't have a Dolby or a DTS mode?

 

[Andrein]

It has but i didnt pay that much attention. Was more focused on ypao. Will need to look more carefully. Even if 5.1 upmixing work good enough it will be great)))

 

[yepimonfire]

" ... Don’t have any problems off axis, but in any system if one sits closer to the left or right speaker the image will shift towards the closer speaker, there’s no way around it. ..."

Absolutely disagree, and have experienced many systems whereby you can sit or stand in many off-centre locations and still observe proper imaging, and one speaker does not seem to dominate the sound field versus the other in a 2-channel system.

The "image" is not located at the speaker ... if someone can locate a speaker when in "the sweet spot" with their eyes closed, the speaker position is wrong, or they chose speakers that simply don't image, period. There are plenty of those in the market, and they do sell, so it's illogical to assume no-one owns them, just as there are speakers that image very well.

The knock against speakers that image almost without regard to the listening position is they create an "artificial" image; the locations of players and instruments seems in contradiction to other speakers with precise L to R imaging.

It's not a presentation that I prefer, but you can have it if you want it.

I can’t locate speakers in the sweet spot. Sitting within a few feet in the middle of them the “stereo magic” works just fine, but move too far outside of it and it no longer works perfectly. Sure, you can still have a nice expansive sound stage that extends beyond the speakers, but it’s not the same as sitting in the sweet spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny2Bad]

I can’t locate speakers in the sweet spot. Sitting within a few feet in the middle of them the “stereo magic” works just fine, but move too far outside of it and it no longer works perfectly. Sure, you can still have a nice expansive sound stage that extends beyond the speakers, but it’s not the same as sitting in the sweet spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, well I wasn't referring to your system specifically (I don't know enough about it for that). I was just stating my opinion ("I disagree") based on my experience. The DCM Time Window, a speaker released in the late 1970's, for example, could provide an image that wasn't listener position dependent. Others since also manage the feat. I don't think the DCM TW was a great speaker, but it's primary selling point was that image, and it worked.

The Yarra 3DX (Sound Projector) sound bar, which will enter the market soon, is described by those that have heard it to manage a similar experience, although it's a DSP-driven setup, it's also primarily a frontal system, not relying on rear channels to provide a sound space that isn't dependent on sitting in one particular "sweet spot".

There is also the Linkwitz LSmini's that have been around for a while, conventional 2-channel speakers. There are other, similar models by Stanley Linkwitz (yes, THAT Stanley Linkwitz), and some other vendors. I guess my point was you can have it if you want it.

 

[yepimonfire]

Yes, well I wasn't referring to your system specifically (I don't know enough about it for that). I was just stating my opinion ("I disagree") based on my experience. The DCM Time Window, a speaker released in the late 1970's, for example, could provide an image that wasn't listener position dependent. Others since also manage the feat. I don't think the DCM TW was a great speaker, but it's primary selling point was that image, and it worked.

The Yarra 3DX (Sound Projector) sound bar, which will enter the market soon, is described by those that have heard it to manage a similar experience, although it's a DSP-driven setup, it's also primarily a frontal system, not relying on rear channels to provide a sound space that isn't dependent on sitting in one particular "sweet spot".

There is also the Linkwitz LSmini's that have been around for a while, conventional 2-channel speakers. There are other, similar models by Stanley Linkwitz (yes, THAT Stanley Linkwitz), and some other vendors. I guess my point was you can have it if you want it.

I was mainly referring to conventional speakers, the speakers mentioned still involve psychoacoustic trickery. convincing 3D sound can be achieved with object based formats such as atmos, and with enough channels, the soundstage can accommodate 5, 10, or 200 listeners in the case of an atmos theater. I can see a place for stuff like the yarra3dx, but IMO it just makes more sense to actually have sound coming from the direction intended.

In the case of two channel stereo listening, a 5.1.2 or greater upmix maintains the integrity of the soundstage that would normally be experienced in the sweet spot through the entire room, and it sounds much more convincing to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Auditor55]

The new Dolby surround gives me even more reason to not use native 2ch playback with music. I’ve always felt 2ch stereo was flawed for multiple reasons, the biggest one being the lack of a discrete center channel, causing a collapse of the stereo image for anyone off center, and the inability to properly convey the depth and height of the acoustic space in classical recordings.

Dolby surround, being a much more advanced, scalable multi band processor operating in the digital domain, solves the issues with PLII, namely channel bleed due to using wide band steering, and the inability to extract height data. With movies and tv, my experience with it has been nearly as good as discrete multichannel.

Anyways, how many of you take advantage of upmixing for music? How many of you who don’t have taken the time to experiment with it, and why don’t you like it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your speakers image well you shouldn't have to use a dsp on two channel stereo recordings.

 

[KenM10759]

If your speakers image well you shouldn't have to use a dsp on two channel stereo recordings.

Mine do, and it's incredible. I often demo the system for friends and family and when I do I just set it up in "analog bypass" with them seated in the sweet spot. Ten minutes into it I'll ask them how they like the center speaker. Invarialbly they love it and then I tell them it isn't playing. Most get up from their seat to check. LOL

 

[everettT]

Mine do, and it's incredible. I often demo the system for friends and family and when I do I just set it up in "analog bypass" with them seated in the sweet spot. Ten minutes into it I'll ask them how they like the center speaker. Invarialbly they love it and then I tell them it isn't playing. Most get up from their seat to check. LOL

I ran my current system for about year with a phantom center (until I could get the right vertical center) with a typical MTM center disconnected. No one could tell the center wasn't working. That's was with my mains 12' apart and mlp 15'. Did the same as you did after watching a movie, asked about the center and it would get rave reviews lol.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Oh yeah, I've tried MCH Stereo and PLII for music.

I have 5 identical towers in my HT room.

In the end, 2.1 Stereo music sounds so much more sweet, airy, spacious, chocolaty, deep, impactful, fast, and accurate than all the other stuffs which sounds very clinical, bright, forward, and slow.

 

[Bucknekked]

Myself, there's nothing "pure" about 2ch so hard to be a purist of such. Some content does sound better in 2ch, some music sounds better in multi-ch (mixed for it usually but sometimes just matrixed). As mentioned, type of music can make a difference.

lovinthehd
"there's nothing pure about 2 channel stereo" is a very correct statement. I set my dedicated listening room up for 2 channel listening, plus a subwoofer. That's not "pure", but to tell the truth, like you said, there is no "pure". I still prefer my 2 channel experience for music over 5.1 multichannel and other variations.

What I learned from Floyd Toole's book (I'm still reading, still digesting all those wonderful nuggets) is that stereo listening is a very clever artifice: we deceive our brains with something that really isn't there at all. Its a clever deception and I'll wager most folks (me included until reading Floyd's explanation) don't understand what happens to achieve it. It's easier to achieve it once you understand the science of it.

I suppose one of the reasons I prefer the 2 channel stereo setup over the more immersive 5.1 channel setups and other complex multichannel setups is that its what I grew up with and its what most of the music I listened to was recorded and mixed and produced for. That's about as non-scientific and subjective a reason as I can think of. But, it's true: I prefer it because its a very comfortable sound to me.

Someone who started out with discrete channels for everything may feel quite differently. For someone just starting out, discrete channels may sound better and be easier to achieve an immersive sound field. "Pure" 2 channel isn't superior, or inferior, to any other format. It's just the one I prefer.

 

[MrBoat]

I suppose one of the reasons I prefer the 2 channel stereo setup over the more immersive 5.1 channel setups and other complex multichannel setups is that its what I grew up with and its what most of the music I listened to was recorded and mixed and produced for. That's about as non-scientific and subjective a reason as I can think of. But, it's true: I prefer it because its a very comfortable sound to me.

Someone who started out with discrete channels for everything may feel quite differently. For someone just starting out, discrete channels may sound better and be easier to achieve an immersive sound field. "Pure" 2 channel isn't superior, or inferior, to any other format. It's just the one I prefer.

I think about this often. Having moved from what once was predominantly AM radio to FM, transistor radios with a mono earbud, 78 rpm records still around, 45's on a mono record player and then somewhat rather suddenly graduating to CD's and all the worst of the audible noise just. . . . gone.

As a DIY'r, my next logical step should be surround sound. More reason to build on to my system. But I stop at 2 channel and instead, focus on other small 2 channel, near field novelties. I have access to multichannel. That's what most of my friends have. Still it's always great to get back home to my own style of listening.