Does a surround sound receiver make sense for stereo content?

[juliangst]

After reading about the new Schiit Syn I asked myself again if surround sound processing for stereo content is worth it .
The Schiit is using one of the most simple ways to 'upmix' to surround by just playing the difference between L and R on the rear speakers to create a surround ambience.
Home theatre AVRs obviously are much more advanced and this topic got my attention again.

About 95% of the content I watch is stereo only, 4% is 5.1 and about 1% are movies with Dolby atmos. In theory, most of my music is also Dolby Atmos because Apple Music now has a lot of Atmos tracks.

Does it make sense to get a AVR in my scenario or should I stick to a simple stereo setup?
Will surround upmixing of a Marantz or Denon improve my 2 channel content or is it as gimmicky as this new Schiit preamp?
How do you feel about surround sound for music in general?

 

[abdo123]

I really dislike how finnicky the phantom center is, that and room correction is worth the investment in an AVR imo.

 

[juliangst]

I really dislike how finnicky the phantom center is, that and room correction is worth the investment in an AVR imo.

Well, even with an AVR I would probably run a 4.2 setup so no center channel. I really dislike the looks of a center channel and am completly okay with the center imaging of my LS50.

I also already have Dirac live room correction in my stereo setup and would also get the Dirac upgrade for a Denon or Marantz.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

After reading about the new Schiit Syn I asked myself again if surround sound processing for stereo content is worth it .
The Schiit is using one of the most simple ways to 'upmix' to surround by just playing the difference between L and R on the rear speakers to create a surround ambience.
Home theatre AVRs obviously are much more advanced and this topic got my attention again.

About 95% of the content I watch is stereo only, 4% is 5.1 and about 1% are movies with Dolby atmos. In theory, most of my music is also Dolby Atmos because Apple Music now has a lot of Atmos tracks.

Does it make sense to get a AVR in my scenario or should I stick to a simple stereo setup?
Will surround upmixing of a Marantz or Denon improve my 2 channel content or is it as gimmicky as this new Schiit preamp?
How do you feel about surround sound for music in general?

I mainly see the advantage in the built in RoomEQ. Here Schiit might not be the go to Brand, but rather some of the brands which offer Audyssey XT32 or Dirac.

 

[DVDdoug]

I use one of the Dolby Pro Logic "soundfield" settings to get delayed reverb in the rear speakers.

It's not for everybody... Especially for "purists" who want to hear the sound as-intended. ...I like to pretend I'm in a big music hall!

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Well, even with an AVR I would probably run a 4.2 setup so no center channel. I really dislike the looks of a center channel and am completly okay with the center imaging of my LS50.

I also already have Dirac live room correction in my stereo setup and would also get the Dirac upgrade for a Denon or Marantz.

Yes I recently put my quite expensive KEF Center into storage and only use my mains (Reference 3). In my room they give a very precise center image which I personally preferred over the Center speaker one.

 

[juliangst]

I mainly see the advantage in the built in RoomEQ. Here Schiit might not be the go to Brand, but rather some of the brands which offer Audyssey XT32 or Dirac.

Yeah, the Schiit is not worth it imho. I easily recreated this fake surround upmixing in my current stereo setup by connecting second amp to my preouts and connected a small speaker to both positive outputs for that surround effect.

It sounds okay but I wonder how much better good processing of an AVR could do.

The AVR I would probably get is the new Marantz Cinema 50 which is around 1900€ (plus the Dirac upgrade).

 

[ZolaIII]

Yes as long as AVR is reasonable priced and performs good and for a sake of DSP processing it carries. Unfortunately such AVR's are more of a thing of science fiction than reality. We did get there with now former uper mid range generation from Denon with uper range Audyssey processing until AKM (DAC) factory burned down. Hopefully we will get there again.

 

[juliangst]

Yes I recently put my quite expensive KEF Center into storage and only use my mains (Reference 3). In my room they give a very precise center image which I personally preferred over the Center speaker one.

I would only consider a center speaker if it was the same as my L+R speakers.
But because the L+C+R have to be on ear height I would have to use a acoustically transparent screen and I'm not planning to get a projector or home theatre.

 

[juliangst]

Yes as long as AVR is reasonable priced and performs good and for a sake of DSP processing it carries. Unfortunately such AVR's are more of a thing of science fiction than reality. We did get there with now former uper mid range generation from Denon with uper range Audyssey processing until AKM (DAC) factory burned down. Hopefully we will get there again.

I've seen measurements for the new Marantz cinema 50 and it looks fine. Not as good as chinese DACs but it should be audibly transparent

 

[juliangst]

Another option I'm considering is keeping my stereo stuff and watching surround TV shows, movies and Apple Music through MacOS.

I know that it can output Dolby Atmos to a normal multichannel DAC (or many stereo DACs configured as a single multichannel DAC) and doesn't require a certified AVR.

But I don't know if this only works with Dolby Atmos content on Apple Music and Apple TV. Most of the content I watch is 5.1 on Netflix or Disney+.

 

[MAB]

I would only consider a center speaker if it was the same as my L+R speakers.
But because the L+C+R have to be on ear height I would have to use a acoustically transparent screen and I'm not planning to get a projector or home theatre.

I could never get the center channel to sound right under my TV. It sounded better above the TV, but looked horrible. Add to that the inconsistencies in center mix. Good coaxial L/R is a better solution for me. Turning on subtitles on content that is just un-hearable is also better for me.
Perhaps if I had the CC behind a projection screen I would get a better result (or maybe if my Home Theater listening position was further).

 

[JRS]

When stereo was first proposed back in the 1950's there was some discussion of multiple channels, but ultimately a 2 or better yet 3 CH front was agreed upon. I believe over time people realized that 2 channels got you 80% of the goods--and remember neither speakers nor amps were cheap, and the purchase of such equivalent to spending 10 grand for a starter set. I bought a used Integra almost top of the line for a song on EBay and plan to get a second set of Elac Debut reference speakers to mess around some. LCR + one rear ambience channel to start. In a modest apt for now so no Aura 3d 11 channel setup in the near future.

 

[DVDdoug]

P.S.

An AVR is also the easiest solution if you want to add an active subwoofer (even for stereo). They have a built-in crossover called "bass management" that you can switch-in.

And if you are watching movies without a subwoofer (and without an AVR or some kind of surround decoder) you get the regular bass but the "point one" LFE channel only goes to the subwoofer so it will be lost.

 

[kemmler3D]

I am philosophically opposed to upmixing stereo to surround... it's replacing the artists / engineers' intentions with Schiit's or Denon's. It might sound cool, but IMO is opposed to the basic concept of fidelity.

 

[Marc v E]

Ime and imo an avr is way better than a stereo amp, if:

you include a sub
use eq

when used in stereo mode or mirror the back and front stereo speakers.

 

[LTig]

I use a rather good AV processor (which I got relatively cheap) for a 2.1 system, but in fact I don't use the sub output of the AVP but uee the crossover in the sub to feed the sats, so th3AVP runs in simple stereo mode. The room correction and the possibility to control audio and video with one device is the reason to do it this way.

 

[ZolaIII]

I've seen measurements for the new Marantz cinema 50 and it looks fine. Not as good as chinese DACs but it should be audibly transparent

That's pretty much the almost same as Denon's and yes but for a high range one so far and still worse than generation before with AKM DAC's.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/best-avr-home-theater-review-2023-png.270757/

 

[JRS]

I am philosophically opposed to upmixing stereo to surround... it's replacing the artists / engineers' intentions with Schiit's or Denon's. It might sound cool, but IMO is opposed to the basic concept of fidelity

Now I'm gonna play the devils advocate here--as Toole and many others have pointed out, unless its classical how the hell do we even know what the intent of the engineer was. Its also oft pointed out that many of the musicians--again with notable exceptions: here I think of Beatles, Beach Boys, GD, Procul Harum, King Crimson many more... had only a casual acquaintance with the finished product. So we can't presume to know their intentions either. Surround sound was a thing for a while that never got off the ground, but I suspect if access to multichannel playback was routine, there would have been a lot of interesting experimentation. Its sort of like saying that we shouldn't colorize GWTW as the directors intent was faithfully captured with B/W.

We simply dont know in so many cases, its a shame to not want to listen to what Apple Music can do for Pink Floyd or even the Who

 

[abdo123]

Well, even with an AVR I would probably run a 4.2 setup so no center channel. I really dislike the looks of a center channel and am completly okay with the center imaging of my LS50.

I also already have Dirac live room correction in my stereo setup and would also get the Dirac upgrade for a Denon or Marantz.

I'm planning to get the LS50 metas as LCRs. I can't even think how better the center would be with a dedicated uni-q