# What is your favorite sound mode when listening to music?



## erazz (Oct 12, 2012)

I have a receiver with several different listening options for music and I prefer studio-mix if i want all speakers driven...or stereo (my mains are too small to work well without subs IMO).

What is your favorite sound mode for listening to music?


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

I hit the wrong circle--should be stereo and I hit Direct.

Dan


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Most of the time I listen using stereo but I also use Direct as well. I do prefer to have the sub working with my mains


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Looking at your equipment list it appears you also have an 809. Have you tried all channel stereo? I use that often and find it quite enjoyable for music.


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

I tend to listen to music in stereo, and to concert BDs in the best multi-channel format available on the disc.

My AVR has several Audyssey settings: Audyssey (a.k.a. "full on"), Flat, Front, Custom and Off. For music, I use "Off" or, if the recording is a little anemic-sounding, "Front". For concert BDs, I like "full on" Audyssey.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

DanTheMan said:


> I hit the wrong circle--should be stereo and I hit Direct.
> 
> Dan


I fixed it for you.

In most cases for CD's and Vinyl I listen in stereo, but if I am watching a DVD or Blu-ray that offers 5.1... then I listen in 5.1.


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

As a recording guy, I wish everyone would listen to whatever format is on the disc--the one that it is intended to be heard in. I get bummed finding out that people listen to something I did in a way that it was not mixed for. All the work that went into the image is just utterly destroyed. 

Still, listening in a discombobulated fashion is better than not listening.

Dan


----------



## informel (Jun 21, 2011)

I listen to music in stereo, but when people come to my home and want some background music, I will use all channel stereo to create a nice ambiance


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

I chose direct because, although I listen to stereo sources in stereo, I listen to MCH in the native format.


----------



## erazz (Oct 12, 2012)

JBrax said:


> Looking at your equipment list it appears you also have an 809. Have you tried all channel stereo? I use that often and find it quite enjoyable for music.


I have, but if i want to listen to multi ch i prefer the studio mix. However i do use all ch stereo if i am say doing housework where i am moving around alot.


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

I am always moving about when I listen to music. On occasion the wife and I have "concert night" and when we do I leave the sound in the native multi channel mix.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

I use surround processing, similar to PIIx, when listening to 2-channel music. Centre mixed sounds, like vocals and instrument solos, maintain imaging stability at the middle of the soundstage (no matter where I'm sitting). Mono sounds, like the human voice, sound more like what I hear in real life (compared to a dual-mono phantom image). Stereo information spreads across the soundstage and recorded ambience comes from around me (like I'm used to at live events) rather than in front of me.


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

Sanjay, what you bring up makes me wish that stereo wasn't the de facto standard. Paul W. had it so right so long ago. Maybe better yet would be the Ambiophonics folks. That way a 2 channel media could be used.

Dan


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

For Cds I generally prefer stereo (I augment stereo input with a 2-channel tube buffer) . For SACDs and DVD-As I generally use 7 channel direct.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

DanTheMan said:


> Sanjay, what you bring up makes me wish that stereo wasn't the de facto standard. Paul W. had it so right so long ago. Maybe better yet would be the Ambiophonics folks. That way a 2 channel media could be used.


Dan, keep in mind that "stereo" (from the Greek 'sterios') means solid, as in three dimensional (as in a stereo microscope, which allows you to see in 3D). It has nothing to do with 2 channels, 2 speakers or 2 of anything. When Bell Labs was inventing stereo in the early 1930s, they found that a minimum of 3 channels/speakers were needed up front to create a realistic and stable soundstage. And indeed, lots of early stereo recordings were done in 3 channels. The problem was that there was no way to deliver 3-channel content to consumers, since the popular delivery media of the time (vinyl records) could barely separate 2 channels, let alone 3. Which is why "stereo" has come to mean "2-channel" over the decades since. 

Surround processing can be divided into a couple of categories. Those that generate ambience (Concert Hall, Jazz Club, Audyssey DSX, Yamaha DSP modes, etc) and those that extract ambience (Dolby PLII/x/z, DTS Neo, etc). The former generates early reflections and reverb (that weren't in the original recording) in order to do room simulation (make it sound like you're listening in a larger space), whereas the latter relies 100% on information in the recording itself and steers content based on intensity & phase. 

If you make a 2-channel recording where you've mixed certain sounds equally in both channels so that those sounds image at the centre of the soundstage, then am I deviating from your intent if I extract that dual-mono content and send it to a speaker at the centre of the soundstage? It's still coming from the intended direction, just made more stable so that listeners outside the sweet spot still hear those sounds as coming from the centre of the soundstage. Unless it is the intent of recording engineers that the soundstage collapse to the nearest speaker for listeners outside the sweet spot? 

Same with recorded ambience in 2-channel music. If I have a choice of hearing those sounds from in front of me vs hearing that same ambience from my four surround speakers, then I will always choose the latter. Having said that, no surround processing is perfect, so I can understand if some listeners don't like the results. For me personally, it just sounds more natural than having everything come from a pair of speakers in front of me, which doesn't resemble the way I hear things in real life.


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

You get my drift as far as the media goes. You elaborated on it nicely although I wasn't trying to use any accurate historical definition that next to no one would use today. 

If the image was just made more stable I'd be all for it. The center by default made smaller. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, but the important thing to me is that people listen to music. to listen as intended would be the icing on the cake. I love multichannel(meaning more than 2 here), but most people are listening through a stereo(well, iPod ear buds now)--not your historical reference "stereo". 

Dan


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

Oh, it's not intended to be real life most if not all the time. Recordings are generally modified.

Dan


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

Sanjay, sorry I wrote that first reply while at lunch and it is not very clear. If you take two channels and cut them down to one, you'll make the source appear smaller. Some of the imbedded ambiance will also become distorted--not as in Harmonic Distortion. 

Technically, off axis listeners could still get a center image with the right speakers, but no one is producing commercial loudspeakers capable of it. That work was done a long time ago--like 20 or 30 years. So it is possible.

The beauty of a crosstalk cancellation has been realized by some locals here in Sunnyvale. Check out jawbone's Jambox. There are several ways to do this sort of thing. Ambiophonics was on to it b4 I was born.

Dan


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I listen to whatever format the source puts out...although I voted for "STEREO" since that is 99% of my recordings.

If it is 2-channel, my AVR automatically goes to "STEREO." With multi-channel recordings, my AVR automatically switches to "PLIIx."
In any listening mode my sub is still used with my mains (even for stereo).


----------



## MagnusAtom (Oct 23, 2012)

Stereo when alone with cd. For the appreciation of recordings as it was meant to be. 

Prologic when wife / family / friends are around. 

PLIIx movies for Movies other than concerts. 
PLIIx music for concerts and musicals. 

Direct/auto when I know the recording is native 7.1ch. 

Upgrading center speaker to a 'better' / newer with updated drivers than my LR. Anticipating that I'll be using multichannel a lot more.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Stereo.

For me, music listening is pretty much a private thing. That means in the comfy chair, near-field monitors, right in the middle of the sweet spot, so imaging and sound stage variations with position are not an issue. My personal preference is toward no added or modified ambience, although I haven't played with higher quality versions. No doubt they sound more realistic than typical PC sound card enhancement effects, which strike me as rather barbaric. Personal opinion, of course.

Symphonic music or opera with the right kind of high-quality added ambience could very well be a real treat, just haven't gotten around to trying it yet. At the same time, I haven't felt anything horribly missing with my stereo setup.


----------



## damain56 (Nov 22, 2012)

My Mirage OM-5 have extraordinary sound-staging,especially when used in pure audio.Bass is more precise with greater texture and speed. You just cant beat pure audio for music.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Obviously experiences vary, but for me I always skip Pure Audio because I do like having Audyssey engaged. I am a huge fan of sound/room correction but not of sound embellishment.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Most of the time for music I'll either use stereo or all-ch stereo (for parties, background music while cooking, cleaning, etc.). If I sat down to do some dedicated listening, which is as rare as the Dodo, I'd experiment a bit, but probably stick to the original intended mix format.


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

I use "STRAIGHT" (the Yamaha setting for getting the same number of channels as are available, while engaging the subwoofer and YPAO) for MCH SACD/DVD-A/DVD-V/BD music discs. I always privilege the MCH mix for any of those, if available (with one exception--Santana Shaman on DVD-A has, to me, a bad MCH mix).

For 90% of my 2 CH material, I use Dolby Pro-Logic II Music (tweaked to my tastes) as it does the best, among the options on my AVR, job of approximating a discrete MCH mix (well enough, in many cases, to temper my desire to "upgrade"). On the other 10% or so, DPLII is not satisfactory to me and in those cases, I use STRAIGHT (which gives me 2.1).

For mono recordings, I usually use STRAIGHT (I find DPLII Music is not very good with mono sources).

In my second system in the living room, everything is 2CH, so I don't have to think about it all that much.


----------



## The_Beerswine (Apr 23, 2012)

Myself I've been a fan of 2.1. 
I have this ol' DBX Sub Synth unit from way back the late 70's which i still use today. My Yamaha that's about 10yrs old now gives me the option to run direct or 2.1 or in a 7.1 mix mode which is cool but if I'm gonna go to louder than live listning levels then I'll switch it into 2.1 mode and power up my made in China 1kw magnetic field amps and drive the ol' Peavey SP-1's with extra tweeters on top. For the Bass end I have 2 of them Velodyne 15" subs and the DBX drives 4 Buttkickers with 2 of there amps off the same sub output.
The DBX subsynth unit will give me the signal below the 20hz range for the buttkickers which is quite stimulating then the Velodynes take it up to 80hz and from there the Peaveys take over.
With hearing protection administerd there's no noticable breakdown in sound untill the 120db level is breached.
Thats measured on the couch about 12' away from each side.
Mind you I don't go there often but when the party's going on I can go there.
I've been doing the 2.1 thing since the 70's before all this surround stuff made the scene along with bi -tri amping. 
It works for me. :hsd:


----------



## damain56 (Nov 22, 2012)

Please,modern matrixes and soundscaping is far superior to anything from the 70s


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

I prefer Pure Direct for music it seems to sound the best with my system also I do not much care for added tuning some of the other options throw into the sound.:T


----------



## RTS100x5 (Sep 12, 2009)

FIOS cable gets NEURAL SURROUND + THX .... All files from my HTPC are upsampled to analog 5.1 192khz @ 24bit and I sometimes use the VIRTUAL surround mixer to enhance center or rear channels. All HD DTS and DD soundtracks retain that format throughout....:T


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Wheen listening to two channel sources, I prefer direct running my PSBs in pure direct mode bypassing all DSP . I love the sound of my PSBs .... very versatile speaker with great detail, imaging, exceelent mids and decent tight bass.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Beerswine said:


> Myself I've been a fan of 2.1.
> I have this ol' DBX Sub Synth unit from way back the late 70's which i still use today. My Yamaha that's about 10yrs old now gives me the option to run direct or 2.1 or in a 7.1 mix mode which is cool but if I'm gonna go to louder than live listning levels then I'll switch it into 2.1 mode and power up my made in China 1kw magnetic field amps and drive the ol' Peavey SP-1's with extra tweeters on top. For the Bass end I have 2 of them Velodyne 15" subs and the DBX drives 4 Buttkickers with 2 of there amps off the same sub output.
> The DBX subsynth unit will give me the signal below the 20hz range for the buttkickers which is quite stimulating then the Velodynes take it up to 80hz and from there the Peaveys take over.
> With hearing protection administerd there's no noticable breakdown in sound untill the 120db level is breached.
> ...


Just read this inspirational oldish post. What fun! I remember hearing some early Peavey SP-1's at an AES show way back, they sounded so good. I uttered that they were the best sounding speakers at the show, and the Peavey rep handed me a dollar bill, said he had promised to give a dollar to everyone who said that, and was going broke. Sounds like a rocking system!


----------



## fookoo_2011 (Dec 8, 2010)

PLII-Z, a choice not offered in the poll. Stretches the sound stage to the width of the room (if the heights are mounted on a side wall) and the sound stage is totally front loaded in a 9.2 system. There is an audible difference between PLII-Z and PLII-X (music mode). The worse sound, for me, is probably Direct mode because there is no room correction.


----------



## The_Beerswine (Apr 23, 2012)

Here's some pictures...


----------



## HIFIbeginnin (Jan 30, 2013)

according with the content

if is music i prefer stereo even in some BD with DTS MA i just set up for downmix into stereo 

if is movies or TV shows with a lot of sounds effects or previously recorded in Dolby or DTS use the original mode dolby or DTS 

if is an dolby 2.0 select the mode of pro logic 2 according with the content , if music music and cinema for movies and TV shows , i find useless the game modes


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

The_Beerswine:

Reminds me of the days when the PA for a rock concert was stacks of speaker cabinets on each end of the stage. I saw Joe Walsh when the James Gang was at their peak, the PA looked like a giant garage sale of beat-up odd-ball speaker cabs, horns of all kinds, stacks and stacks of them, some huge folded horns, the ugliest PA of all time, but SO LOUD, and SO CLEAN that you didn't mind it a bit. Lost a few hearing sensors that night for sure.:hsd:

Fun stuff. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## DanTheMan (Oct 12, 2009)

+1 for AudiocRaver!

Game on,

Dan


----------



## BruceW (Feb 5, 2013)

I prefer THX music mode which is my favorite sound mode. Its quite loud and gives feel of surround sound with high quality music.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

I like stereo or neo 6 music


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

ProLogic IIx Music with Audessy DSX (9.2 channels with wides)


----------



## jmschnur (May 31, 2011)

Stereo for most classical. Then neo audyssey dsx for blues etc.


----------

