Do you want surround-sound in your audio system?

Stereophile's picture
With the proposed DVD-Audio format comes the opportunity for multiple channels of high-quality sound. But would you even consider adding more speakers to your two-channel system?
Do you want surround-sound in your audio system?
I want it now!
12% (35 votes)
Sounds like a good idea
14% (40 votes)
I'll wait and see
30% (89 votes)
Not so interested
28% (84 votes)
Never!
16% (47 votes)
Total votes: 295
Share | |
Comments
Mark Mason's picture

I need to hear a surround system sound better than the two channed systems that have set the standard for me. I am still waiting

MR's picture

Good two-channel, listened to in the nearfield can be wonderful. No need for sound in back.

B.  Gibbes (bngibbes@juno.com)'s picture

If it's recorded in two channel, hear it in two channel. If the recipe says serves two, feeding to five will only result in disappointment. There's no room for compromise in quality audio unless you put effects before soundstage and high fidelity.

Kam Bhagia's picture

I've yet to hear a comparably priced multi-channel system sound as satisfying (overall) as a multi-channel system.

jeffc@uniserve.com's picture

If you have more than two (front-channel) speakers, forget about real stereo imaging. Beware the Bose 901 syndrome! For sonic excellence, try Duntech speakers such as the Statesman model, they are all I need for fantastic sound, whether audio or video applications.

rpbooth@compuserve.com's picture

It's hard enough getting room acoustics working well with just 2 speakers!

Dick Diablo's picture

I'm looking forward to DVD-Audio, but I hope it's primarily a two channel format.

YC's picture

I use my 2-channel system for home theatre as well, so the answer should be 'I already have added more speakers to my 2 channel system'. Of course, in 2-channel mode, the path is as straight as possible and doesn't pass through any home theatre processors.

Andrea Torri's picture

With more than two speakers the optimization of the interfacing of the sound radiators with the ambience becomes a very very complex problem

scott's picture

If you have more channels, and you still want good sound, not only do you have to buy more speakers, but they all have to be very nice, this could double the price of speakers while still giving you the same quality sound.

Curt Simon's picture

I'll wait and see. In the meantime,there are several questions to be answered. 1. How much would it cost? 2. How much rearrangement of my living room would be required? 3. How much more of a buzz will I get? Right now, the answers seem to be: (1) at least $3,000 for new source, amplification, and rear speakers; (2) Living room? You don't need a living room. (3) That much (said as if holding up a single strand of human hair).

Cary's picture

It's already done. Went "home theatre" earlier this year, and I've never been happier with the sound.

Louis Perlman's picture

As long as I can get two better channels for the price of five lesser ones, it is going to be hard to convince me. Not to mention all of the extra cables, etc.. If video is part of the deal, I am suprised that no one has pointed out that an A/V system can only be used for one at a time, and the entire family has to go along.

Ian D.  Struthers's picture

No matter how much money you have to spend, you almost always get better sound from one excellent pair of speakers then from multi speakers. You also will not have more wire to mess up the sound and more trouble with ideal placement all of the speakers when listening. Another problem is the inconsistancy of placement of the microphones when the record companies are recording. Studio recordings where the sound stage is artificial already sound bad with just two speakers. I expect some DVD recordings to sound great and others to sound bad just like CD's today. Multi speakers will just make bad sounding DVDs like mud.

John Boyle's picture

My source material is all two-channel classical recordings. Two speakers are quite adequate.

J.  Vlietstra's picture

I don't really see the point of surround sound for live recordings (classical, jazz, etc.). The sound is supposed to come from in front of you so surround speakers aren't necessary (would anyone want to listen to music from the perspective of the bassoonist?). I don't think they are really needed to add ambiance to the sound either (how many people actually use the artificial ambiance effects on their surround processors?). Granted surround speakers can help reproduce the few concerts that have instruments behind you (audience concerto?). So surround sound is going to be used for pop recordings and the evergrowing market for authentic carousel music. Given the recording quality of typical music with guitars spinning around the room, I don't expect it to crowd my CD rack in the near furure. But then again, since my music system doubles as a home theater, maybe I'll actually find a surround sound music recording worth buying.

Ed Stoller's picture

Two ears, two speakers. Makes perfect sense to me.

Jerry Flesher's picture

Six channels for TV/movies---Yes!!! But for my music system? NO WAY!!! Stereo music was meant to be listened to with two channels. Besides,as audiophiles, isn't our quest to get that perfect sound from two speakers? Think about it . . .

Jake Liebhaber's picture

Multichannel sound would have to be beyond belief {for me} to spend additional dollars on more amps, speakers, software, and other odds and ends. I will not say "never," but "extremely unlikely"!! Plus, the wife might have the family jewels pickled if I bought more equipment.

David Merrifield's picture

Unfortunately I'm not interested - my bank balance won't let me add more quality speaker, amplifiers etc. Also haven't got enough room. OK - I am interested! But can't yet!!!!!

Joel, Bellingham's picture

When 2 channel stereo is perfected at a reasonable price, then I'll think about 5 channel music.

Thomas Andrews's picture

Because audio history teaches us that some products will be successful and some will be DCC/MD, I must join the ranks of those who silently pray that the new format soon becomes affordable sonic nirvana, and let rich dudes first ride the crapshoot.

david's picture

I have more speakers! I have more amps! Bring it ON!!!!

Clay Spencer's picture

I would have to hear the difference.

J.P.  Wirick, Jr.'s picture

So maybe multichannel DVDs can sound good. Then maybe some folks buy them. Then prospective listeners will need multichannel DVD players and preamps, more amps, more speakers, and more kilo-to-mega-to-gigabuck interconnects and speaker wires. This multichannel DVD concept sounds like a sales gimmick for audio-gear manufacturers. (Can anybody still spell quadraphonic??)

Chris Adams's picture

The effort and expense to achieve good sound from two channels is enough. I don't even want to think about the problems more channels would create. I would rather hear better recordings, resolution- and soundstaging-wise.

Rich Meier's picture

I played with four-channel stereo 25 years ago and it sounded fake. Surround-sound is good for video applications, but has no place in high-end stereo unless you want to feel like a performer rather than a listener.

Ray Milks's picture

I am still trying to afford good amplification for two channels, let alone 5.1 channels.

Tom in Florida's picture

I'm moving to DTS as I type. Can't wait to see what the artists can do with it.

Lee pearson's picture

suround sound is excellent and worth the investment as long as you get good equipment but I would still prefer the normal stereo for playing music

Site Map / Direct Links