I want to listen to MUSIC only and would like to ask:

Is it better to buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)
if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend?

Andrew wrote:
> I want to listen to MUSIC only and would like to ask:
>
> Is it better to buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)
> if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend?
How often have you gone to see one of your favorite groups in concert
and find they are using surround sound? I like my music up front and in
my face. I can help you spend that money.Lol. I am selling a high end
Luxman m-03 poweramp and c-03 preamp. Been sitting in the closet for 7
years.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:31:12 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I want to listen to MUSIC only and would like to ask:
>
>Is it better to buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)
>if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend?

For that money, stereo. DTS/DPL are OK but you should realize that
most music is available only in stereo (although that's changing) and
that comparable quality in multichannel will, of necessity, cost more.

Kal (who is commited to MCH anyway)

"Kalman Rubinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:31:12 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>I want to listen to MUSIC only and would like to ask:
>>
>>Is it better to buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)
>>if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend?
>
> For that money, stereo. DTS/DPL are OK but you should realize that
> most music is available only in stereo (although that's changing) and
> that comparable quality in multichannel will, of necessity, cost more.

...but DPL works on all stereo CDs, too (see their website:
http://www.dolby.com/resources/tech_library/index.cfm)
the question is - do I get a better (more space, more natural, better
soundstage) music buying stereo or surround for this price.
Why must surround cost more? Newer technology? More speakers?

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:39:38 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Kalman Rubinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:31:12 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I want to listen to MUSIC only and would like to ask:
>>>
>>>Is it better to buy a stereo or surround (DTS or Dolby Pro Logic II?)
>>>if I have $1500-$2000 (or £1000-£1250)) to spend?
>>
>> For that money, stereo. DTS/DPL are OK but you should realize that
>> most music is available only in stereo (although that's changing) and
>> that comparable quality in multichannel will, of necessity, cost more.
>
>..but DPL works on all stereo CDs, too (see their website:
>http://www.dolby.com/resources/tech_library/index.cfm)
>the question is - do I get a better (more space, more natural, better
>soundstage) music buying stereo or surround for this price.
>Why must surround cost more? Newer technology? More speakers?

Surround costs more because you need more amps and more speakers. DPL
is, imho, useless for music. While it gets you more spaciousness, the
price paid (in addition to $$) is loss of specificity in instrumental
location and timbre. DPL is NOT true and discrete multichannel but
a matrixing/dematrixing of multichannel. Thus, except for those very
few discs (I have 3 in my multithousand disc collection), it is simply
giving you a surround effect which veils the music.

If you are truly interested in music (as opposed to home cinema or
special effects), stick with stereo at that budget; you can always
expand to true multichannel in the future if the mood and the budget
permits.

If you want to see what I really think about MCH for music, see my
columns on it here: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:39:38 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> Surround costs more because you need more amps and more speakers. DPL
> is, imho, useless for music. While it gets you more spaciousness, the
> price paid (in addition to $$) is loss of specificity in instrumental
> location and timbre. DPL is NOT true and discrete multichannel but
> a matrixing/dematrixing of multichannel. Thus, except for those very
> few discs (I have 3 in my multithousand disc collection), it is simply
> giving you a surround effect which veils the music.
>
> If you are truly interested in music (as opposed to home cinema or
> special effects), stick with stereo at that budget; you can always
> expand to true multichannel in the future if the mood and the budget
> permits.
>
> If you want to see what I really think about MCH for music, see my
> columns on it here: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/

Thank you very much Kal for your answer. You seem to be a person that really
knows the topic.
Can I ask you to advice me how to buy this stereo in the way to be able to
upgrade it to surround in the future. As I understand I should buy Cd player
and amplifier with DPL option and regular stereo speakers. Can you advise me
on a specific make and model for the price that I can spend ($1500-$2000)?
Thank you very much!

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:29:27 -0000, "Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Can I ask you to advice me how to buy this stereo in the way to be able to
>upgrade it to surround in the future. As I understand I should buy Cd player
>and amplifier with DPL option and regular stereo speakers. Can you advise me
>on a specific make and model for the price that I can spend ($1500-$2000)?
>Thank you very much!

I am afraid that I am not 'up' on such products but I am sure that
others will chime in with suggestions. My feeling is that you should
buy a DVD player or, better yet, a universal player (CD, DVD, DVD-A,
SACD), a good MCH receiver (will have DPL although I think you
overrate its importance) and a good pair of speakers. Expanding to
MCH would only entail adding the necessary center, sub and surrounds.
You might try looking at:
www.stereophile.com (for speakers/players)
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/
http://www.hometheatermag.com/
or enquiring for help at:
www.avsforum.com

Kal


>

Eh?Bay <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:LLKRd.433738$8l.11844@pd7tw1no:

> How often have you gone to see one of your favorite groups in concert
> and find they are using surround sound?

Every single time. It's called "ambience."

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.

"Andrew" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:cv9icc$ap4$(E-Mail Removed):

> Why must surround cost more? Newer technology? More speakers?

At least 4 of everything that's costly (final amplifier, speakers,
connectors, etc.) vs. 2 for stereo.

It always costs more to buy twice as much of anything.

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.

The Open Sourceror's Apprentice wrote:
> Eh?Bay <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:LLKRd.433738$8l.11844@pd7tw1no:
>
>
>>How often have you gone to see one of your favorite groups in concert
>>and find they are using surround sound?
>
>
> Every single time. It's called "ambience."
>
That's an entirely different thing than having speakers mounted behind
you, which is what I presume he his talking about.