• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Magico S3 NFS Spinorama and comparison to Revel F228Be

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,840
Likes
5,772
Reading your above comment gives me doubts having heard a good one. A good multichannel audio setup is not "to place you in the middle of the band" but like Toole writes to enhance envelopment and removing the cues from the small reproduction space and replacing them with ones of the original recording space.
I'm a two channel classical listener too.
I had the chance to listen to a complete good MC one in a dedicated space with all the bells and whistles and yes,it was good.
Really good.
So I ask my installers a rough price making one BUT to also please my aesthetics and the price tag they gave me is 75K euro for a decent start.
Not so good after all :p ,I forced forgot the experience.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
Reading your above comment gives me doubts having heard a good one. A good multichannel audio setup is not "to place you in the middle of the band" but like Toole writes to enhance envelopment and removing the cues from the small reproduction space and replacing them with ones of the original recording space.
"The original recording space"? How do you establish that? 95% of tracks these days are recorded with every contributor being recorded separately, and the whole thing is mixed to the whim of the recording engineer.
 
OP
richard12511

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
I have, and I am not a fan. Multichannel is wasted on me. Even for movies. I think it silly to look at a 2D screen in front of me and yet hear all those spatial FX.

And as a jazz and classical music lover, I have never ever, not once, sat in the *middle* of the band or orchestra. It is in front of me. Count me out on multi-channel. A 2 channel system (or 2.1) is hard enough to set up right.

Multi-channel classical doesn't automatically mean you are sitting in the middle of the band or orchestra, though there are recordings like that. Most multi-channel classical still puts you in the audience, and the surrounds are used strictly for reflected sound and ambiance, to make it sound like you're sitting in a symphony hall, instead of a living room. The overall result is actually much more convincing and much closer to what you'd hear in a real symphony hall, as the delays on the reflected sound can be closer to the real thing. With 2 channel, your reflected sound delays are limited by the size of your room, and thus can't really compete(at least in most normal room sizes).

That said, I've actually started to enjoy the "middle of the band/orchestra" experience as well. I hated it first too, but now I imagine myself as a king who's paying an orchestra to play just for me :D.
 

AudioJester

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
912
Likes
1,211
Reading your above comment gives me doubts having heard a good one. A good multichannel audio setup is not "to place you in the middle of the band" but like Toole writes to enhance envelopment and removing the cues from the small reproduction space and replacing them with ones of the original recording space.

I agree, a properly setup/measured multichannel system with quality source material for me, surpasses anything I can achieve with stereo. Actually I find its not even close. The bigger/more complex the music eg. symphonic the bigger the differences. Mind you, sometimes the only way to experience this is in proper demonstration rooms or at shows.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
"The original recording space"? How do you establish that? 95% of tracks these days are recorded with every contributor being recorded separately, and the whole thing is mixed to the whim of the recording engineer.
Recordings are usually an art product of their own, where the sound engineer tries to bring as much as possible of the intended experience through the limitations of the medium. Thus the binaural cues of large performance spaces can be added even if the event was virtual.
 

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
I haven’t seen any active speakers on Jay’s audio labs’ YouTube channel.
I'm sure one day he'll discover them and will sell all of his gigantic amps and Wilson speakers etc
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
Recordings are usually an art product of their own, where the sound engineer tries to bring as much as possible of the intended experience through the limitations of the medium. Thus the binaural cues of large performance spaces can be added even if the event was virtual.
Oh, so it is totally artificial and yet more real at the same time... :-D

I do get reverberation and a room experience from my humble 2.1 setup. Few of us live in an anechoic chamber. :-D Not sure this is selling me on the need for multi-channel. :)
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,741
Likes
16,174
Oh, so it is totally artificial and yet more real at the same time... :-D
Well that a recording is its own art product and has often not much to do with the original even is a truth that many audiophiles don't want to accept. ;)

I do get reverberation and a room experience from my humble 2.1 setup.
So do I but I know and have perceived its limitations compared to a similarly good multichannel setup.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
how many channels are necessary?

The topic shows lack of consensus on the matter. :)

That said, from an objectivist POV: No one that I know measures speakers in a 2.1 or even less multichannel setup. So basically, we are involved in a subjectivist discussion as we approach the topic. And I am in no way claiming my personal preference is measurably better, even though I am personally convinced a well set-up 2.1 system is easier to set up for balance in most real-world rooms, and it clearly allows good bookshelf speakers to shine by reducing distortion at higher SPL levels (if that's how you roll, I think measuring speaker performance at 95dB SPL is questionable stuff to begin with)... but no one measures any of it that I know of.
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
how many channels are necessary?

I vote 2, but, that isn't the question.

They're still trying to figure that out, from what I see.

"Atmos is capable of producing 128 channels of sound routed to 64 speakers, however, home theatre systems will largely contain 9 channels of Dolby Atmos, with a configuration of 5.1.4 (the simplest layout). This configuration contains the 5 regular sound channels (front, center, left & right) with a subwoofer and either two height channels (which bounce sound off the ceiling) or ceiling-mounted speakers.

High-end models will contain up to 11 channels of sound with a 7.1.2 configuration of front, center, right & left speakers, a subwoofer, two side speakers (left & right), two rear (left & right) and two ceiling-mounted speakers. There’s even a 7.1.4 configuration, with four speakers mounted on the ceiling. There is also a 9.1.2 configuration consisting of the 7.1.2 with a further six ceiling-mounted speakers (two front wide speakers, two side speakers and two rear."
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,318
Location
bay area, ca
I vote 2, but, that isn't the question.

They're still trying to figure that out, from what I see.

"Atmos is capable of producing 128 channels of sound routed to 64 speakers, however, home theatre systems will largely contain 9 channels of Dolby Atmos, with a configuration of 5.1.4 (the simplest layout). This configuration contains the 5 regular sound channels (front, center, left & right) with a subwoofer and either two height channels (which bounce sound off the ceiling) or ceiling-mounted speakers.

High-end models will contain up to 11 channels of sound with a 7.1.2 configuration of front, center, right & left speakers, a subwoofer, two side speakers (left & right), two rear (left & right) and two ceiling-mounted speakers. There’s even a 7.1.4 configuration, with four speakers mounted on the ceiling. There is also a 9.1.2 configuration consisting of the 7.1.2 with a further six ceiling-mounted speakers (two front wide speakers, two side speakers and two rear."

Great post as always. But let's also point out that the ideal audio source is a vanishing single point source, *if* it was possible to engineer it. *That* is the theoretical ideal.
 
OP
richard12511

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
The topic shows lack of consensus on the matter. :)

That said, from an objectivist POV: No one that I know measures speakers in a 2.1 or even less multichannel setup. So basically, we are involved in a subjectivist discussion as we approach the topic. And I am in no way claiming my personal preference is measurably better, even though I am personally convinced a well set-up 2.1 system is easier to set up for balance in most real-world rooms, and it clearly allows good bookshelf speakers to shine by reducing distortion at higher SPL levels (if that's how you roll, I think measuring speaker performance at 95dB SPL is questionable stuff to begin with)... but no one measures any of it that I know of.

A 2 channel system is definitely easier to setup. Multichannel is more cumbersome and inconvenient, but does give real sonic benefits if done correctly. Whether or not those audible improvements are worth the cost/hassle is the real question. For many, it's simply not worth it.
 

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,403
Likes
5,296
Location
Somerville, MA
Great post as always. But let's also point out that the ideal audio source is a vanishing single point source, *if* it was possible to engineer it. *That* is the theoretical ideal.
Why? According to what theory?
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,804
Likes
2,805
Location
Sydney
Great post as always. But let's also point out that the ideal audio source is a vanishing single point source, *if* it was possible to engineer it. *That* is the theoretical ideal.

So they say. But how many of them? And how distributed?

I like those crazy spherical frames with a gazillion Genelecs, but it might be weird to spend all my listening time inside one. And maybe hard to do with company.*

And an orchestra (for people into that sort of thing) is a large number of sound sources, but most don't radiate evenly.

*I should get my architect/acoustic team on it though. :)
 

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,403
Likes
5,296
Location
Somerville, MA
It is basic audio physics 101. A vanishing point is ideal for pretty much every reason.
So a source which radiates towards near walls and towards the listener equally?
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,804
Likes
2,805
Location
Sydney
So a source which radiates towards near walls and towards the listener equally?

I think the point source ideal is about phase/timing coherence/coincidence and lack of inter-driver lobing/interference for even radiation. Beam width of the point source (or any source) is a somewhat separate issue. A point source isn't necessarily omnidirectional.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom