why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[dontbhatin01]

I dont get why people like 2.0 channel music so much. I think it sounds so boring. I personaly like multi channel,it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent effects that make it seem like the music is all around you.please someone tell me why 2.0 channel is so popular with so many people when 5.1 or even 6.1 is so much better.

[risabet]

5.1, 6.1, 7.1 are better for movies but not for audio (IMO). When was the last time you were at a symphony and heard "effects" from the orchestra or in a jazz club and heard the sax "ping-pong" around the club, not that good SS is that lame. The proper reproduction of 2-channel sound IMO, can recreate the acoustic envelope of a well recorded space, be it a symphony hall or a studio w/o the gimmicks of multi-channel sound.

[macsound]

I was told that its just better for your speakers basicly to lisen to them on 2 speakers. Keep the

[kexodusc]

There's been studies available for years that explained why 2-ch stereo setups are not as good as 3 or more speakers for creating more realistics soundstage, imaging, etc. The problem is that knowing something has more potential and meeting that potential are two different things.

I think the reason we all listen to 2-ch stereo still is twofold:
First we all have a whole bunch of music recorded in the 2-ch world, optimized for 2-channel playback. Fake processing on these recordings produces mixed results at best. Maybe it is possible to process these better, but I think most people just don't care to test every song or album out to verify this.

Second, there aren't enough good multi-channel recordings readily available that aren't still cost prohibitive in some manner. New formats require new equipment, and generally add price premiums to album releases.
And as was mentioned earlier, some surround recordings are doing the same thing stereo recordings did in their early going - showing off the surround capabilities without putting much thought into the overall execution of the album. It's great that drum beats can be pinpointed to 4 corners of the room, but how realistic is that?

Have patience though. The DVD has already revolutionized many things, and surround sound is definitely here to stay. It's just a matter of time until DVD-A, DualDisc, SACD, or some new format finally get widely accepted into the mainstream and we see audio finally take that next leap into surround sound.

[N. Abstentia]

A PROPERLY done 5.1 mix can be good. VERY good! See Floyd's Dark Side SACD for reference. Problem is, for every 1 properly done 5.1 mix there are 10 that are horribly done.

However, I find taking a 2 channel source and playing it through '5 channel stereo' is just simply asanine and I want to beat people that think it sounds good :)

So there is a difference.

[shokhead]

2.0 is just to flat. I want all my speakers involved.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think there is several reason why 2 channel advocates are so stuck in that format.

1. They have typically spent more money on equipment than the 5.1 folks have. They have very large collections of LP's and CD"s for which they cannot part with, or see no justification to upgrade to 5.1. IMO they are probably more egocentric about their equipment, and in total denial about the drawback of 2 channel.

2. Multichannel is a format still in its infancy. It has only been five years or less that multichannel AUDIO has been available, and audio engineers still have not quite gotten their hands around the format. They are alot of very mediocre titles, a few more very excellent titles, but in reality DVD-A and SACD are still born formats thanks to the heavy handed record companies that do not allow high resolution output via the digital connectors. This prevents the use of your receivers internal bass management and delay functions for proper alignment of these signals. This heavy handed protection measure has all but killed both formats before they were out of the gate. The next big hope for high resolution multichannel will come in the form of HD DVD(A) and BlueRay disc which offer 24/96khz resolution over 8 channels for HD DVD and 8 channels at 24/192khz for BlueRay

Personally I think the book is being closed on both SACD and DVD-A as fewer and fewer titles are released, and even less stocked on the shelves of your local record store.

I think it is pretty sad the the public finds MP3 more paitable than DVD-A and SACD. But then I am not always so surprised that people are so cheap and short sighted that they would pass up something that truely is an improvement over CD, but chase after something that is easily downloadable, but has the sound quality of the cassette tape.

[Arturo7]

In a perfect world, each instrument would have it's own speaker and the recorded media would have a separate track for each instrument.The listener would place the speakers around the room and the result would be like sitting on the stage with the band. Zappa recorded some of his pieces like this. Unfortunately, we'll never hear them.

In the real world most everything is recorded, engineered, and mixed for left and right. If you want your music to sound "cool" spend you money on six speakers and six channels of amplification. If you what it to sound "real" spend your money on two.

[shokhead]

Wow,thats a dumb statement,imo of course.
As for mp3's,its a world of quanity over quality as far as music.

[Worf101]

I've played with the multiple channel formats and all the DSP's that Onkyo includes on my receivers and in the end, when I got superior speakers I decided to stay with 2.0 for most if not all of my musical playback. It just feels right and I love the soundstage. Now perhaps a 3.1 would be acceptable LCR and sub but right now. It's mains and subs only...

Da Worfster

[markw]

Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.

[nobody]

I'm a stereo guy for a few reasons.

First off, like mentioned I have tons of two channel recordings. I haven't the time, money or desire to replace a few thousand LPs and CDs with multichannel recordings.

Secondly, while I'm fully ready to believe that multi channel can be better, I haven't really heard much evidence that most current multi-channel stuff is. I'm not willing to spend a bunch of money on a multi-channel system for a handful of recordings that are very well done for the format.

Third is cost and practicality. I can afford to buy two decent speakers, but buying five good speakers and a sub, plus amplification for them all gets too rich for my blood. I could maybe sell my stereo and swing one of those home theater in a box systems, but those sound way worse than what I listen to now through two channels. Then you've got to fill your room with speakers, unless you wanna use the little cube things, and again then, the sound ends up being worse than what I've got.

So, yeah I can understand how theoretically multi channel can be better. I'm just not convinced that from a practical standpoint it is better for me right now.

[Resident Loser]

...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.

Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!

All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses...

jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)

[hermanv]

I have a surround system consisting of a NAD receiver ($1,700 list) and 5 speakers ($4,100 list) so I'm hardly in the lowest cost club. I use this system for my home theater and it performs quite well. Like anyone would be, I was curious and played several 2 channel CDs both in stereo and in "simulated" suround. I also played one (count 'em one) DVD-A disk.

My problem is that at least at the price point of my surround system, the sound quality is nowhere near my main stereo. Now I spent a little over double on my main system so the comparison is not exactly fair, but when I built my surround system I tried hard to find ways to upgrade my two channel to multi channel. I did this in an attempt to avoid duplication of money being spent.

In spite of any appearances based on my system cost I am financially lower middle class. I have streched my budget over many years in order to own equipment as nice as I own. So the impetus to combine systems to save money was real. I was never able to find equipment that could cleanly combine my two and multichannel systems with same or simular sound quality (this was about 5 years ago, there seem to be somewhat more options today).

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

[abstracta]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information.

So what? I listen to the music the way the recording engineer intended it to be listened to. Not some egghead at Yamaha using a cheap DSP processor to add sound delays and distortion to mimmick what my living room might sound like if it were Yankee Stadium.

The majority of recording specific material, and that's like, 99.98% of the market, is two channel. The fancy surround modes in your $300 Sony Receiver do not extract magical sound channels that the engineer put there to hide from 2-channel audio enthusiast. It only makes up what it thinks might sound like multi channel recordings. If the engineer doesn't put that information there in the first place, I have no desire to listen to it, got it?

Again, unless I'm watching an Eagles or Sting concert on DVD, and there's native 5/7.1 information I'l be happy to pipe it through my surrounds. I'm otherwise not having some mass produced IC board *invent* what's not there. Best analogy I can think of is taking your favorite family picture to the closest novelty store, and have them apply that plastic diffraction laminate used to make your Scooby Doo lunchbox look 3-dimensional. Cheesy and Fake? I feel the same way about pumping 2-channel music through something that invents sound delays and channels that weren't there in the first place.

To be honest, the only really good high quality multi channel sound I've ever heard is from Delos Labs.

[markw]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.If and whan they come out with recorded music with a realistic front channel spread and only the intended ambiance clues from the rear, rthen I'll jump on the bandwagon. That's what will make multi channel a permanant resident in my house for music. I'm not one for having insturments and artifacts swirling around me, except for perhaps an intended evvent.

But, If you are saying that I can use some sort of precessor the accurately recreate that ambiance from a two channel recording, well, I'll have to say that so far it ain't happenin'.

[shokhead]

I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

[Dave Lindhorst]

Lets put this all in perspective. 1) Where do you think the most money is spent on sound equipment? 2) What is the most popular format? 3) Why is 2 channel so popular?

2 Channel Stereo and Redbook CDs. Popular because it does a fantastic job. Not at all like multi channel. They play with the signal so much it just isn't believable.

If you need to have a "guitar go through your head" as one so aptly put it, then fill you're boots. I for one enjoy the performance of the music so much I can't possibly listen to 5,6 or 7 channels at a time. How can anyone listen to music and really listen from 7 channels.

The sound tracks on most DVDs are at best sub par with the Redbook CDs. This alone would indicate you need to listen to some other type of source material. If you don't enjoy 2 channel from CDs then maybe you have a hearing problem, an equipment problem or you are asking to have a guitar go through your head.

I listen to multi channel but I have a system dedicated to that format. It is only used for DVD watching. Multi channel has it's purpose and basically it is best used in conjunction with a video presentation. When you listen to an audio track when watching a movie the main focus is on the video end of things. The sound track just helps reinforce what you are watching. If you turned the video feed off you would find the multi channel a little lacking in the sound quality end of things. Long live the best HI FI setup yet established, 2 channel.

[shokhead]

So your head starts spinning when there's more then one instrument playing?

[musicoverall]

I dont get why people like 2.0 channel music so much. I think it sounds so boring. I personaly like multi channel,it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent effects that make it seem like the music is all around you.please someone tell me why 2.0 channel is so popular with so many people when 5.1 or even 6.1 is so much better.

If and when I ever hear a surround recording that sounds better than 2 channel, I'll be impressed. I would expect it to happen but so far I can only cringe at the crap that I've heard. When the producers and/or RE's stick to putting the spatial cues ONLY in the surround channels, I'll consider it. But I really can't tolerate having instruments playing behind me.

We may not be far away and it may be happening already. But right now for me jumping into the 5.1 arena is too much of a chance. My experience so far is that 5.1 is great in theory and it stinks at execution.

[Dave Lindhorst]

Shokhead said

"I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

Well the same thing happens to the sound that comes out of the stereo. It doesn't just hit you and stop either.

I also have to say that you will never get any sound nearing what you get at the concert. First off I can still hear when I shut the stereo off but that doesn't happen at a concert. The SPL at a live concert is just too much without causing hearing loss. Yes thats right, maybe you have been to too many concerts. Try taking some ear plugs with you so you can save your hearing.. Loud doesn't mean good sound it just means loud.

And no my head doesn't spin when I hear more than 2 speakers playing. Sounds to me like your equipment may not be the best if it sounds better processed by a micro chip than it does as recorded. Sorry to hear that.

[Dave Lindhorst]

Oh ya bye the bye. Didn't they try Quadraphonic back in the seventies. That didn't go over too well and it hasn't gotten any better by adding another channel or three either. So who is really old fashioned?

It may also be noted that the title of this discussion is "why do people like 2 channel so much" not "why do you not like 2 channel."

[shokhead]

Shokhead said

"I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

Well the same thing happens to the sound that comes out of the stereo. It doesn't just hit you and stop either.

I also have to say that you will never get any sound nearing what you get at the concert. First off I can still hear when I shut the stereo off but that doesn't happen at a concert. The SPL at a live concert is just too much without causing hearing loss. Yes thats right, maybe you have been to too many concerts. Try taking some ear plugs with you so you can save your hearing.. Loud doesn't mean good sound it just means loud.

And no my head doesn't spin when I hear more than 2 speakers playing. Sounds to me like your equipment may not be the best if it sounds better processed by a micro chip than it does as recorded. Sorry to hear that.

LMFAO
Some like it 2 way and some like it more,thats ok. OBTW,read the spinning head post again. To me,its just sounds like flat syereo with 2 speakers but i understand old timers liking it that way. :D :D

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.

Ummm, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases.It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases. In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers. Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds. Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds. Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears. Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge. Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you.


Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!

The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot. In the world of today, you can have practically noiseless stereo surrounds of ambience actually recorded from the hall, and not some mono extraction from the front channels. Rather than waxing nostalgic, you might want to take a more realistic analysis of just what the good ole days really offered. In every format introduction since the early 1900 sound designers have showed off the technology(ping pong panning, and balls bouncing around the room) rather than using it to offer more realstic playback. In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should.


All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses..

For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies. If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit. Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel. But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want.

jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)[/QUOTE]

Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple

[nightflier]

I got 5 speakers and dam gumit,i'm listening to all of them. I wonder what happens to the sound at a concert after it passes by you? Are you 2 channel old fashion guys pissed when you go to a concert and the have a stack of speakers set up in the back? Ever wonder why at a concert hall the guys playing are spread out across the stage and not long ways more in the middle? I kinda always felt music doesnt hit you in the face and disappear,it surrounds you.

First of all there is a substantial difference between a "chip-produced" 5.1 channel mix and a recording that was designed for 5.1 analog from the start. Take for example Blue-Man's DVD. It was designed from the outset to be a surround sound experience that would give the closest possible impression of their concert experience. While Yes and Pink Floyd really embraced the surround formats and did a phenominal job with their surround disks, the truth is these recordings have been re-engineered to support a surround format, while they were originally written for stereo (some even mono).

The same can be said for most classical music since it was not written for "recording" at all, just for live presentation. So the struggle has been to try and reproduce the live experience as best as possible by the many surround disks made in the last two years. One company (forgot who) even pushed a 3 front channel mix to give the expereince a more realistic feel compared to what someone would have heard at a live concert.

Speaking of concerts, Shock & Dave, there are other concerts besides loud and overbearing pop concerts. If you've ever sat in the front rows of the orchestra section in a well designed concert hall, you'd experience something entirely different from a "rock concert" setting." Personally I don't believe (despite a second mortgage on my house) that I have ever experienced that in my living room. And even pop concerts don't need to be ear-bleeding loud to be enjoyable. I have very fond memories of hearing Fleetwood Mac, Kool & the Gang, The Marsalis bros., the Stones, and Roger Waters live; I just chose to sit a little further back, and as long as I was in the center, the experience was just as powerful. Albeit there is somomething to be said about a quieter audience, typical at a classical concert, IMO.

But there is a place for everything. I do like my movies to sound like they surround me, but for a musical piece, I prefer - and this is just my preference - that the music is well presented in front of me, in a way that most resembles the concert experience. For a musical component to try and immerse me in the middle of the band or orchestra, would seem a little artificial. If Blue Man wants me there, that's great, but I doubt Beethoven did; and while the Stones may try to put me there now, they have not yet succeeded in making me like it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If and whan they come out with recorded music with a realistic front channel spread and only the intended ambiance clues from the rear, rthen I'll jump on the bandwagon. That's what will make multi channel a permanant resident in my house for music. I'm not one for having insturments and artifacts swirling around me, except for perhaps an intended evvent.

Mark, you obviously haven't really listened to alot of SACD. I own over 200 classical music titles, and they all have naturally recorded ambience in the rear channels in stereo(like we hear) to boot. There are alot of negative claims being mentioned about multichannel in this thread without much in depth listening being done. I call that a ignorant evaluation which serves no one.


But, If you are saying that I can use some sort of precessor the accurately recreate that ambiance from a two channel recording, well, I'll have to say that so far it ain't happenin'.

Aaaa noope, I didn't say or even imply that.

[vr6ofpain]

well I personally love the sound of my jazz and some of my rock over my Grado SR-80's. So much more balanced than the vast majority of speaker setups I have heard. It is so wonderful being able to hear small ques at such an audiable level, and having the bass strong but not overwhelming like many multi-channel setups I have heard. Plus you can turn them up to the point where your ears are getting upset, and the sound is spot on clean, no obvious distortion. All of this from an $80 set of cans and a decent CD player with a headphone out (or a the headphone out on a preamp).

Obviously though, with movies, multi-channel hands down destroys both the headphones and a two channel system. That is why I have a multi-channel receiver and 5.1 speakers setup with my TV. ehh my two cents.

[Woochifer]

In response to the original question, the answer is pretty simple. The vast majority of music out there is recorded and optimized for two-channel playback. When you say that 5.1 and 6.1 is "so much better" that ignores that the CD is a two-channel format, and remains the dominant format for new music releases.

Personally, I listen to my music in two-channel, but not because I like two-channel so much. It's more because the original recording was intended for two-channel playback, and therefore sounds best in that configuration in most cases.

If you want to judge by merit, I think that two-channel is full of deficiencies. As far back as Bell Labs' pioneering research into psychoacoustics during the late-30s, the need for more than two channels to adequately reproduce the front soundstage for music playback has been well documented. The only reason why the music world converged around two-channel playback was due to the technical limitations of the playback formats available to consumers. It has NOTHING to do with the technical superiority of two-channel playback.

A multitude of classical and jazz recordings have been recorded live-to-three-track as originally recommended in Bell Labs' research, but never released with the integrity of the original recording intact because no consumer formats could support that playback. Only now with multichannel SACD are these vintage recordings starting to get released in their original form. Even when quadraphonic came and went in the early-70s, it was not a true representation of multichannel audio because it lacked a discrete center channel and the surround channels had bandwidth limitations.

The criticisms of surround music that I've read so far on this thread IMO reflect a general ignorance of the 5.1 material that's already on the market, and the steps needed to properly configure a 5.1 setup for multichannel music. My system is hardly reference quality, but with several of the multichannel soundtracks I've tried out so far, I've already picked up on the clearcut advantages that 5.1 can convey over two-channel. The key is simply that I timbre matched the speakers all the way around, and followed the proper guidelines for placing them (the ITU multichannel reference placement, and Dolby's multichannel guidelines for starters), level matching them, and making sure that the delay timing was done correctly. No fancy equipment, just figuring out how to properly set it up and make use of it.

When people say that two-channels are more real or convincing, I simply don't think they've heard a proper demonstration of 5.1 music (or configured their multichannel system properly). For all the comments about how people like to hear their music in front of them, or how multichannel's ridiculous because it places instruments "behind" the listener, it completely misses the point on what multichannel music actually brings to the table.

On properly matched and configured 5.1 system, a well recorded 5.1 soundtrack will convey an uncanny sense of spatiality, provide a three-dimensional depth perception from the front of the room all the way to just slightly behind the head, and anchor the side imaging better than any two-channel setup I've ever heard. With 5.1, it's about how solid and stable the imaging seems. With certain recordings, the recording is deliberately done with spatial cues that alternately widen and confine the soundstage. With other recordings, the mic placement is designed to create a truer "in the audience" perspective of a live performance because it accounts for the room acoustics and can use the surround tracks to anchor the location of the instrumentalists on stage, not just R-to-L, but with a front-to-back perspective as well.

The two-channel versions of these albums cannot even come close to providing that kind of stability and control over the depth perception and imaging that the multichannel version provides in abundance. As with the early days of stereo, there are numerous 5.1 music discs that are not done properly, but for anyone who values recreating a true "live" musical event, two channels is more of a limiting factor than anything that expands upon the experience.

[shokhead]

First of all there is a substantial difference between a "chip-produced" 5.1 channel mix and a recording that was designed for 5.1 analog from the start. Take for example Blue-Man's DVD. It was designed from the outset to be a surround sound experience that would give the closest possible impression of their concert experience. While Yes and Pink Floyd really embraced the surround formats and did a phenominal job with their surround disks, the truth is these recordings have been re-engineered to support a surround format, while they were originally written for stereo (some even mono).

The same can be said for most classical music since it was not written for "recording" at all, just for live presentation. So the struggle has been to try and reproduce the live experience as best as possible by the many surround disks made in the last two years. One company (forgot who) even pushed a 3 front channel mix to give the expereince a more realistic feel compared to what someone would have heard at a live concert.

Speaking of concerts, Shock & Dave, there are other concerts besides loud and overbearing pop concerts. If you've ever sat in the front rows of the orchestra section in a well designed concert hall, you'd experience something entirely different from a "rock concert" setting." Personally I don't believe (despite a second mortgage on my house) that I have ever experienced that in my living room. And even pop concerts don't need to be ear-bleeding loud to be enjoyable. I have very fond memories of hearing Fleetwood Mac, Kool & the Gang, The Marsalis bros., the Stones, and Roger Waters live; I just chose to sit a little further back, and as long as I was in the center, the experience was just as powerful. Albeit there is somomething to be said about a quieter audience, typical at a classical concert, IMO.

But there is a place for everything. I do like my movies to sound like they surround me, but for a musical piece, I prefer - and this is just my preference - that the music is well presented in front of me, in a way that most resembles the concert experience. For a musical component to try and immerse me in the middle of the band or orchestra, would seem a little artificial. If Blue Man wants me there, that's great, but I doubt Beethoven did; and while the Stones may try to put me there now, they have not yet succeeded in making me like it.
Did i say someplace about loud and overbearing concerts? I say enough dumb things without any help,thank you?LOL :D Cat Stevens and James Taylor were two of the better concerts i went to around 69/70.

Kool and the Gang?LMFAO. Did you have a fro and bellbottoms? :eek:

[DaHaq]

For me, at least, the preference for 2 channel music is all about cost and space constraints. Surround sound gives you more options to work with, and I don't see how anyone could say that's a bad thing. Whether you would rather double or triple your costs to get a surround receiver and extra speakers or instead use the money for a better sounding 2 channel source/amp/speakers depends on what element of the sound is most important to you:
(A) the dynamics and tonal quality, or (B) where the sounds are coming from. For music, I would rather put my money toward the former, for movies it would be the latter. I'm a poor college student at the moment though, and i'm sure at a certain income level these reasonings cease to be relevant.

[Logan]

I'll change from 2-channel to 5.1 when any or all of the following come to pass:

(i) Instrumentalists and singers in an all-acoustic concert environment start performing from behind me in the hall

(ii) The performance of my stereo deteriorates to the extent that the excellent center image from my 2 speakers is lost

(iii) The amount of bass generated in a typical classical concert in particular is equal to or greater than the volume of moans and groans emenating from your typical bloated subwoofer

(iv) The audio industry convinces me that 5 lousy speakers are better than 2 good ones well set up, and are no more expensive

(v) Pigs fly past my listening room.

The key words for me are all-acoustic concert environment. I don't attend any other sort of concert so I don't expect my system to play any other sort of sound.

[markw]

Mark, you obviously haven't really listened to alot of SACD. I own over 200 classical music titles, and they all have naturally recorded ambience in the rear channels in stereo(like we hear) to boot. There are alot of negative claims being mentioned about multichannel in this thread without much in depth listening being done. I call that a ignorant evaluation which serves no one.These are far and above not the norm. They do exist but are not common yet.

I am very aware of the RCA Living Stereo reissues that utilize the original front three channels and this is a VERY good step in the right direction. I've heard rumors of a few others also, which you've just confirmed. But, then again, the number of these pale in comparison to the other "multi-channel" reissues that simply play mix n' match with what were originaly two channel recordings.

What, with the market's current chilly reception to SACD/DVD-A I hope they last long enough to help cast a positive spin on this before the manufacturer's decide to pull the life support.


Aaaa noope, I didn't say or even imply that.From the wording of the original, and a few other's posts, I think this was what was originaly refering to as opposesd to what was discussed above. That's where most of my, and probably most peoples, current music lies. Two channel redbook CD's and vinyl.

Remember, the hardware isn't the issue here. It's the need to repopulate my collection with much of what I already have in one version or another. I've got a tremendous amount of plain ole two channel versions of a lot of stuff I like and and not ready to go out and repurchase simply for the gimmick of a few additional channels.

When one format or the other wins out and becomes an accepted industry standard such as LP records, redboook CD, and such, I'll reconsider but until then, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Any idea how many PF DSOTM two channel versions, not counting 8 track, there have been since it first hit the streets? ;)

[Mark of Cenla]

I have a 2.0 system (I used to call it stereo) that I am very happy with. I see no reason to change it. When I hear surround sound at movie theaters, it bugs me. As metionned earlier, the ideal would be a speaker for each instrument. I am not old fasionned or stuck in my ways; I just know what I like. If you like more speakers, go for it. As for me, I prefer to have the best two speakers I can afford. Peace.

[Resident Loser]

...you really should read my response in the context of the original post. Also, you might wanna' ignore the fact that I am author of the response...particularly since that fact seems to color(or invite) your further participation...looks like markw and me are on your personna non grata list...

Quoting the original poster: "...it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent(sic) effects that make it seem like the music is all around you..."

First, I am not damning the technology and I have made that quite clear...when they finally get it right, I may change my opinion. After all, I experimented with the "Hafler hookup" when "Quad" was in it's infancy...some time later purchased a Sound Concepts ambiance restoration unit, a second amp and loudpeakers, much to the dismay of my SO.

Quad died, not only because of the competing formats, but also because they didn't know what to do with it...you had instruments originating in all four corners as discrete sources or some overblown swirly-swirly, panning effects. I get the impression, that our neophyte is as impressed with that type of arrangement as were some of the folks back then. If I'm wrong in my estimation, sue me.

"...it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases..."

CO-RECTUM-UNDO!!! Give dat man a big seegar! Why should I? I've been going back in time, educating myself in stuff I missed whilst enamored of rock...supplementing my classical collection and listening to Coltrane, Davis, Gillespie, Brubeck, Hampton et al, listening to their music(mono in some cases) for the music, not the format and certainly NOT the gear...good stuff is good stuff, even if it comes from a transistor radio!

"...It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases..."

It's not a sign of intelligence to characterize anyone's intelligence based on what YOU THINK is being said. Insult #1...

"...In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers..."

And I said this when? When did I use the word "instruments"? I wrote "...listen to the effects...", "...performance art...", "...big noises...". Nary a word re: one single kazoo or anything else bowed, blowed, plucked or struck...BTW, insult #2 didn't escape me.

"...Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds..."

When it becomes de rigeur, let me know.

"...Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds..."

Been there, done that...not looking for artificiality, whether it's mono re-processed into psuedo-stereo or some sort "enhanced" stereo/digital "quad'...it'll need to be miked in a real space, in real time and not a product of engineering "art'...

"...Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears..."

I think I covered "performance art" previously.

"...Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge..."

I seek knowledge...that's why I listen to everything from native American flute music to Hawaiian slack-key and zydeco, it's also why I listen forty-year-old performances by dead men and not the gear . Was that supposed to be number three?

"...Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you..."

Please stop mentioning "...performance art..." Numero quatro?

"...The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot..."

As I recall, Dyna-quad was dead silent...perhaps nostalgia colors my memory...maybe it's just that "wax" yellowing...

"...In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should..."

Except, of course, "performance art"...you'll let me know when that happens in this go-round, eh?

"...For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies..."

I'm sure the boss loves it when his underlings defend his honor, but have you taken a look at the corporate structure or the 2004 Annual Report?...Does the Buena Vista Music Group ring a bell? No matter how you slice it , dice it or compartmentalize it, regardless of how many paper "walls" are put up, the buck stops at the top...sooo, yes he do do music! It might even be doo-doo music! Mickey, whack him on the pee-pee!

Besides, I said "Eisner-types"...like referring to all cotton swabs as Q-tips...he's just an entertainment-related name that seems to be an emblematic purveyor of the type of insidious, all-pervasive pablum being distributed by corporate swine.

"...If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit..."

That's a matter of opinion.

"...Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel..."

I don't.

"...But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want..."

Well la-dee-dah and sakes alive I believe I dectect number 5...

"...Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple..."

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public...

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

[thepogue]

So your head starts spinning when there's more then one instrument playing?


only when the band is all around me...then I get dizzy...and puke...:rolleyes:


Puke'n Pogue

[risabet]

both appear to be dying a quick and painful death. Whether one prefers 2 channel or the multichannel formats may not matter much if and until the industry agrees on a single format for multi. Two formats with very few releases is NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.

Personally, I prefer vinyl to any other format, be it 2.0 (how modern) or 1.0, for a more believable recreation of an acoustical event.

[Feanor]

I dont get why people like 2.0 channel music so much. I think it sounds so boring. I personaly like multi channel,it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent effects that make it seem like the music is all around you.please someone tell me why 2.0 channel is so popular with so many people when 5.1 or even 6.1 is so much better.
First is cost pure & simple. I can't afford new, full surround system of the same quality as my stereo system, and I'm not about to compromise on that quality for surround advantages which are real enough; (refer to Sir T).

Second is set up. I don't have a room where it is pratical to install center and back speakers in a configuration that is correct for hi-rez SACD and DVD-A.

I'd love to hear Sir T or anybody else refute these factors.

[shokhead]

To bad your missing some great audio sound in DVD movies.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll change from 2-channel to 5.1 when any or all of the following come to pass:

(i) Instrumentalists and singers in an all-acoustic concert environment start performing from behind me in the hall

That is already happening, as I have stated. I have over two hundred classical and Jazz titles on SACD and not one of them has any instruments panned into the rears. The one case that horns are in the surrounds is because the composer(Berlioz) requires that they be there. What troubles me so much is that many of you are basing your opinions about the format based on one genre of music coming from a Dts, not SACD or DVD-A. You are taking a small percentage of releases mixed in a more art like fashion, and spreading it to every multichannel SACD and DVD-A released. More artistic mixes are not the norm in multichannel, but a option for a particular genre of music.


(ii) The performance of my stereo deteriorates to the extent that the excellent center image from my 2 speakers is lost

Move four inches to the left or right, and your beloved center image disappears. That doesn't happen with multichannel. The strength of your beloved center image is maintained only if you keep your head between the two speakers, outside of that area and the image pulls to the closest speaker. A major drawback of two channel stereo, not a plus at all.




(iii) The amount of bass generated in a typical classical concert in particular is equal to or greater than the volume of moans and groans emenating from your typical bloated subwoofer

I am not sure I understand this statement, but the LFE channel is sparing used in most SACD that I have that are acoustic in nature. It is basically used to enhance very large drums or instruments that require large movements of air. Most of the acoustical bass is in the main channels and not the LFE.




(iv) The audio industry convinces me that 5 lousy speakers are better than 2 good ones well set up, and are no more expensive

That is a pretty unreasonable request, and a bit overboard. It is not impossible to find 5 speakers that are of very good quality, won't break the bank, and sound VERY good. I personally would rather have 5 very good speakers that are capable of the correct spatial presentation rather than 2 expensive speakers on a format riddled with spatial distortions.


(v) Pigs fly past my listening room.

If you believe you are getting a accurate representation of a live recorded event through 2 channels, then they already have flown past your listening room.


The key words for me are all-acoustic concert environment. I don't attend any other sort of concert so I don't expect my system to play any other sort of sound.

If you think you are getting the proper representation of a live all acoustic concert through your current two channel setup, you are only fooling yourself. You are getting just a small portion of a live event, multichannel gives your more, and more accurately.

[Woochifer]

both appear to be dying a quick and painful death. Whether one prefers 2 channel or the multichannel formats may not matter much if and until the industry agrees on a single format for multi. Two formats with very few releases is NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.

As mainstream formats designed to succeed the CD, I agree that SACD and DVD-A are now dead in that endeavor. The format war, and the copy protected forced analog output for both formats have severely hampered their chances in the market. But, I also believe that at least one of those formats will continue (most likely SACD) as a niche format because all of the audiophile labels have adopted SACD and/or DVD-A for their releases. SACD alone now has over 3,000 titles available. SACD had a window of opportunity to take over because of its hybrid disc format, but Sony botched the launch badly when it couldn't decide if it wanted to market SACD as a two-channel audiophile format or as a mainstream multichannel add-on to the CD.

With DualDisc, it looks like multichannel will catch on because the DualDisc is a single inventory format. Recording engineers have been mixing music in 5.1 for years (the CDs get downmixed from the 5.1 master), and waiting for an appropriate delivery format. While it's great that these multichannel mixes will finally get to market, the drawback is that most of the DualDiscs are providing multichannel in DD, which unfortunately provides no sound quality improvement over the CD.


First is cost pure & simple. I can't afford new, full surround system of the same quality as my stereo system, and I'm not about to compromise on that quality for surround advantages which are real enough; (refer to Sir T).

One of the advantages of multichannel is that you don't have to buy the whole thing at the same time. It's easy enough to start with the basics and add on as budget allows. If you already have two-channel separates, just hook up the two-channel amp to a home theater receiver, and all you have to do is add the surrounds, the subwoofer, and if you prefer, another outboard amplifier.

When I decided to upgrade my two-channel system a few years ago, I set my budget and that was enough for a multichannel receiver and a pair of speakers. It's pretty much the same budget that I would have stuck with had I chosen to buy a two-channel system. The difference is that I took my time and saved up at future junctures to add the other components to complete the system. It ended up taking me two years to complete my setup, but it was rewarding because I enjoyed my system in the meantime while gaining significant upgrades every time I added a new component.


Second is set up. I don't have a room where it is pratical to install center and back speakers in a configuration that is correct for hi-rez SACD and DVD-A.

I'd love to hear Sir T or anybody else refute these factors.

You won't hear me refuting the importance of the room factors. If the room is really that problematic for multichannel, then it's simply not worth going thru the trouble. But, IMO most rooms will work fine with multichannel with some simple rearranging. The surround speakers only have to be slightly behind the listening position (the 110 degree offset specified in the ITU reference configuration for most rooms requires less than one foot of clearance behind the listening position), and IMO the center channel is the easiest speaker to do without in a multichannel configuration. I don't think it's a huge obstacle to accommodate a 5.1 system in most rooms. 6.1 and "7.1" are a different story because so many people have their sofas up against the backwall. 5.1 is doable in most cases, maybe not in your situation, but definitely in most of the ones I've seen.

[thepogue]

"Move four inches to the left or right, and your beloved center image disappears. That doesn't happen with multichannel. The strength of your beloved center image is maintained only if you keep your head between the two speakers, outside of that area and the image pulls to the closest speaker. A major drawback of two channel stereo, not a plus at all. "


And to be honest that's not very much...postioning is even more a factor when more speakers are used...I enjoyed listening to Steely Dan's Asia on 5.1 and one song the female backing vocials we much much stronger in the rears...now move 4 or 5 inches left, right, forward or rear and your subject to have some (ill)effect on the overall sound....so adding channels wouldn't negate that..would it? Just one ohter point...if your two channel speaker placement is correct and your source and equipment is up to par...you shouldn't have such a narrow image field...if you do...time for some tweakin' I'd say...

Peace, Pogue

[Woochifer]

And to be honest that's not very much...postioning is even more a factor when more speakers are used...I enjoyed listening to Steely Dan's Asia on 5.1 and one song the female backing vocials we much much stronger in the rears...now move 4 or 5 inches left, right, forward or rear and your subject to have some (ill)effect on the overall sound....so adding channels wouldn't negate that..would it? Just one ohter point...if your two channel speaker placement is correct and your source and equipment is up to par...you shouldn't have such a narrow image field...if you do...time for some tweakin' I'd say...

Peace, Pogue

Actually, Steely Dan's Aja album has yet to come out in 5.1, and at the moment, it cannot be released in 5.1 because the original multitrack masters for two of the songs on that album are missing, so you must be thinking of something else.

If you're thinking of Gaucho, that's actually a poorly done surround mix precisely because it was mixed with the vocalists and instruments emanating out of each channel like point sources. It was the first 5.1 project that Eliot Scheiner ever mixed, and he's improved a lot since then. The 5.1 mixes that he did for Steely Dan's Two Against Nature and Everything Must Go albums are much better examples of surround music that more appropriately use the surround and center channels to solidify the side imaging (impossible for two-channel to do this) and render consistent and more deliberate depth and spatiality to the overall sound.

[kexodusc]

Hmm, some good points for and against continue.

I have a far superior 2-ch system than my very enjoyable HT system, but I have to admit, the benefits of multi-channel audio outweigh the benefits the superior equipment give me. My stereo system cost double my HT, but the HT playing a DVD-A or SACD will sound better than overall than the stereo system playing 2-channel. I recommend Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon for anyone to test this out!!! To each their own, but I can't wait until we finally move up from 2-channel.

Pogue: I have to agree with Sir T and gang on the imaging/soundstage advantages of multi-channel over stereo...Even the best, wide-dispersion speakers with superior off axis response will tend to result in a collapsed/skewed image as a result of the precedence effect. This is just physics. With a fixed dedicated center channel, you are allowed much more flexibility in listening location. Much like being off axis at a performance.

As for the added costs - that's misleading...setup difficulty increases, but extra speakers of a lower level of performance can actually acheive greater synergy and acheive superior in room performance IMO. You're often paying huge premiums in 2-ch equipment to improve on the flaws that exist in the 2-channel format...not so in multichannel.

[thepogue]

the song was "Babylon Sister" durning the "you got to shake it-you got to shake it-you got to shake it baby" and I was near the back of the room...and I was very much shakin'...but had to move away from the rears so as not to miss what ole Donald was saying up front...so my experience is that postioning is still very much a factor in 5.1 as well as 2 channel.

Pogue

[thepogue]

Pogue: I have to agree with Sir T and gang on the imaging/soundstage advantages of multi-channel over stereo...Even the best, wide-dispersion speakers (http:///#) with superior off axis response will tend to result in a collapsed/skewed image as a result of the precedence effect. This is just physics. With a fixed dedicated center channel (http:///#), you are allowed much more flexibility in listening location. Much like being off axis at a performance. can you buy a 5.1 for a quarter??...thats what I thought...(heads to the thrift shop hitch hiking of course).....


;) Pogue

[hermanv]

For your information, Eisner doesn't do music,

Now who's old fashioned? In case you haven't noticed, all those 14 year olds, in skimpy crop tops with skin tight jeans, on the covers of Pop CDs got Disney stickers on their ass.

Although on second thought, it really isn't music is it?

[thepogue]

[QUOTE=hermanv] In case you haven't noticed, all those 14 year olds, in skimpy crop tops with skin tight jeans, QUOTE]

well...maybe I did notice...just a lil


Pogue

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you really should read my response in the context of the original post. Also, you might wanna' ignore the fact that I am author of the response...particularly since that fact seems to color(or invite) your further participation...looks like markw and me are on your personna non grata list.

Perhaps you should spend less time telling me what to do, cut the bravato, and spare me the hot air. Actually Mark is not on any list I have, but you are definately on my "will make assumptions", and "love to see his own typing list".


Quoting the original poster: "...it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent(sic) effects that make it seem like the music is all around you..."

First, I am not damning the technology and I have made that quite clear...when they finally get it right, I may change my opinion. After all, I experimented with the "Hafler hookup" when "Quad" was in it's infancy...some time later purchased a Sound Concepts ambiance restoration unit, a second amp and loudpeakers, much to the dismay of my SO.

You are only assuming they haven't got it right. And that assumption is spread over multichannel as a whole, and not a specific genre of music. What if it is the artist intent that HIS music be mixed with instruments behind you? Is that wrong to you? Why is your opinion greater than the artists intent?


Quad died, not only because of the competing formats, but also because they didn't know what to do with it...you had instruments originating in all four corners as discrete sources or some overblown swirly-swirly, panning effects. I get the impression, that our neophyte is as impressed with that type of arrangement as were some of the folks back then. If I'm wrong in my estimation, sue me.

Not only are you wrong in your estimation of my mixing taste, but you are also wrong about engineers not knowing what to do with quad. They knew exactly what they were doing, they in the beginning were demonstrating the capabilities of the format. What killed quad was that it did not work well with the ear/brain function(the setup was wrong), there were no standards, there were four or five different incompatible formats, and equipment used to playback quad was unreliable and noisey. None of this had anything to do with the mixing engineer.


"...it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases..."

CO-RECTUM-UNDO!!! Give dat man a big seegar! Why should I? I've been going back in time, educating myself in stuff I missed whilst enamored of rock...supplementing my classical collection and listening to Coltrane, Davis, Gillespie, Brubeck, Hampton et al, listening to their music(mono in some cases) for the music, not the format and certainly NOT the gear...good stuff is good stuff, even if it comes from a transistor radio!

Stuff that eminates from a transitor radio may be good, but it doesn't sound very good. If you haven't been keeping up with new releases, then valid and educated is your opinion as illustrated here?


"...It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases..."

It's not a sign of intelligence to characterize anyone's intelligence based on what YOU THINK is being said. Insult #1...

If you are insulted by this, then perhaps you should spend more time at Disneyland and less time here. You are too easily insulted.


"...In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers..."

And I said this when? When did I use the word "instruments"? I wrote "...listen to the effects...", "...performance art...", "...big noises...". Nary a word re: one single kazoo or anything else bowed, blowed, plucked or struck...BTW, insult #2 didn't escape me.

Effects and big noises belong on movie soundtracks, not music. Since I do not hear anyone talking about Dolby Stereo, Dts or Dolby Digital, how in the hell did effects and big noises enter into this argument? I believe we are talking about two channel stereo music here. You are creating confusion when the topic is pretty clear.




"...Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds..."

When it becomes de rigeur, let me know.

Its been de riguer in classical music since SACD and DVD-A were released. Where have you been? You are falling behind here, catch up with the rest of us.


"...Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds..."

Been there, done that...not looking for artificiality, whether it's mono re-processed into psuedo-stereo or some sort "enhanced" stereo/digital "quad'...it'll need to be miked in a real space, in real time and not a product of engineering "art'...


Ummm, the whole process of recording in the studio is artificial, so what's your point? I did mention STUDIO didn't I? Instruments in the studio are miked in a real space(STUDIO) and a reverb trail can be nothing more than a delay of elements of the frontal mix steered to the rear. Nothing fake about that. Positioning things in a mix goes on all the time, especially if its a studio project. Sometimes it is not practical to do things in real time because of scheduling and space constraints, that is why they make multitrack recorders and hard drives.


"...Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears..."

I think I covered "performance art" previously.

Just because you don't care for "performance art" doesn't mean it has to die. Remember, you are only one person of millions. Other folks may like it alot.

"
...Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge..."

I seek knowledge...that's why I listen to everything from native American flute music to Hawaiian slack-key and zydeco, it's also why I listen forty-year-old performances by dead men and not the gear . Was that supposed to be number three?

Can really listen to anything without the gear, right? Do you think everything you listen to has been recorded in a real space(as you put it) and in real time? I don't think so.


"...Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you..."

Please stop mentioning "...performance art..." Numero quatro?

Is perfomance art to you like salt on a snail? All studio recording are performance art based on your beliefs. Mixing in general is performance art, nothing wrong with that.


"...The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot..."

As I recall, Dyna-quad was dead silent...perhaps nostalgia colors my memory...maybe it's just that "wax" yellowing...

It may have been dead silent with the power switch off, but not while in operation. It had poor front to back seperation(less than 3db), results varied considerably from recording to recording, it localized poorly, and if phase wasn't perfect imaging jumped all over the place. This would be a piss poor processor when judged by today's standards.




"...In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should..."

Except, of course, "performance art"...you'll let me know when that happens in this go-round, eh?

It has already happened, you just need to catch up. I am sorry that you don't like performance art, many do though.


"...For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies..."

I'm sure the boss loves it when his underlings defend his honor, but have you taken a look at the corporate structure or the 2004 Annual Report?...Does the Buena Vista Music Group ring a bell? No matter how you slice it , dice it or compartmentalize it, regardless of how many paper "walls" are put up, the buck stops at the top...sooo, yes he do do music! It might even be doo-doo music! Mickey, whack him on the pee-pee!

I am sure my boss does enjoy it. Buena vista music group?? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........your killing me, are you serious?? Buena vista music has exactly four artist on the label. They perform at Disneyland and Disney World. Walt Disney records releases Disney soundtracks, Mammoth Records has 8 artists on its label, Hollywood records has 20 artist of which none has gone platinum, gold, or even won a grammy under this label. None of these labels has released a single multichannel project EVER. Now how do you expect me to take you seriously when you can even make an example thats credible. Next time try Universal, Warner, BMG, or Capitol I understand your point even if I don't really agree with it.


Besides, I said "Eisner-types"...like referring to all cotton swabs as Q-tips...he's just an entertainment-related name that seems to be an emblematic purveyor of the type of insidious, all-pervasive pablum being distributed by corporate swine.

If you mean greedy corporate types this I can understand. Eisner types, well there is only one Eisner let me tell ya.


"...If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit..."

That's a matter of opinion.

This is a dumb response(note, I didn't say you were dumb), or you are just being contrary just for contrary sake. Come on get serious man.




"...Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel..."

I don't.

Yes and that is why your comments on multichannel are dated, and not very educated.(no that is not an insult, its a fact)


"...But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want..."

Well la-dee-dah and sakes alive I believe I dectect number 5...

"...Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple..."

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public...

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

Actually the number is 5.1. Maybe nobody went broke underestimated the American PUBLIC, but they will go broke trying to do that with me.

[squeegy200]

I have the equipment and a dedicated listening room to do both 5.1 and 2.0 setups. I've always seemed to gravitate towards the two channel setup because I like listening to music sources and its more than adequate for movies. However, I could not do the same with the 5.1 setup.

My two channel setup seems to create the same holographic space equivalent to wearing a good pair of headphones. Therefore, the 5.1 gear does not have that advantage in my listening room. Guests have sworn they heard percussion instruments eminating from behind them and asked where the rear speakers were located. They were skeptical when I revealed to them that they were listening to two channel stereo.

[Woochifer]

the song was "Babylon Sister" durning the "you got to shake it-you got to shake it-you got to shake it baby" and I was near the back of the room...and I was very much shakin'...but had to move away from the rears so as not to miss what ole Donald was saying up front...so my experience is that postioning is still very much a factor in 5.1 as well as 2 channel.

Pogue

Yup, that would be from Gaucho. Even with a channel balanced system and a seat in the sweet spot, that mix has flaws aplenty -- the loud vocalists in the back being only one of them. It reminds me more of an early stereo recording where the instruments would get segregated into one channel or the other, rather than specifically mixed to create a more uniform front image. Surround music has come a long way from that initial effort, which now dates back 8 years.

IMO, the front soundstage is a lot more stable and consistent in a 5.1 setup, particularly in an off-axis position. With the surround effect, it will shift the same way that a phantom center effect with two-channel will. But, with the front soundstage anchored by a center speaker, you got a lot more maneuvering room in the 5.1 setup.

[nightflier]

...Kool and the Gang?LMFAO. Did you have a fro and bellbottoms? :eek:


:cool:
Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.
:p

[DaHaq]

Who needs 5.1 surround when two Bose 901s will immaculately reproduce the concert hall environment? :D

[Woochifer]

Who needs 5.1 surround when two Bose 901s will immaculately reproduce the concert hall environment? :D

No thanks, I'd rather do without the "Mono Everywhere" sound!

[thepogue]

:cool:
Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound (#)...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC (#) player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps (#) to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.
:p
now go pull that roachclip and let...boogie-nights...

Pogue

[shokhead]

:cool:
Kool in the Gang was pretty awsome in concert, and so was Zapp, Grandmaster Flash, and the elements known as Earth Wind and Fire (to borrow from a movie that really does need to be heard in surround sound...). I think I'm going to pull out my old LP's tonight and see if this 2.0 vs. 5.1 debate is really all that meaningful. I can tell you this, and maybe it's just pure psychology, but I enjoyed my crappy LP's and my Cassettes on a $50 JVC player so much more than I now enjoy my current all-digital-gazillion-buttons-hi-res system. Perhaps I'm just trying to capture that feeling again...

I think we're all loosing sight of the fact that to make a true comparison on the musical qualities of each format, we would have to spend about 2-5 times as much as we spent on the 2.0 system. The fact is that most of us might just barely be able to afford a pair $3K mono amps to squeeze just the right amount of performance out of our self-titled hi-fi stereo rigs, but if you were to ask us to do the same for a 5.1 or even 7.1 system, we'd balk at the extra cash outlay. For most of us, we're just no going to be able to compare a quality seperates stereo setup with a receiver-based 7.1 configuration, never mind all the painstaking setup and fine tuning required along with it.

Also, if we're still talking about music and not movies, we should differentiate between concert recordings and studio recordings. Of course, there is extra value in the "concert experience" but is there the same value in a studio recording in 5.1 surround? This is not to say the studio recording can't be a phenominal recording, but we have to ask ourselves why a studio recording has to have ambiant or even full sound behind us. Maybe it should, I don't know, but we still have to ask ourselves that very question.

Now off to find my old LP player. Last I remember, the tonearm was held in place with a roachclip... 'hope it's still attached.
:p

The roach? :cool:

[dontbhatin01]

I agree with just about everything sir terrance has said throughout this tread.With that being said, I think if everyone listened to a well mixed 5.1 album, then they would all think what the hell have I been waisting my time on this 2 channel borefest for.I dont care weather it's clasical, jazz, performance art , pop,rock what ever else there is. Multi channel has more potental, and is a hell of alot better in my book.

[Arturo7]

I saw Kool & the Gang this past August, they kicked butt! I was blown away.

Some pretty good arguments here for "state-of-the-art" 5.1. The center channel has merit. I'd love to hear some of the RCA stuff that was mentioned. I'm not sold on the rears, even if they are just putting out ambient, or "room sounds." I think my living room is going to sound like my living room no matter how many speakers are in it. Plus, I'm a bit of a less is more type.

So, as 2 channel fan am I, "stuck in the past?" Maybe. There was a helluva lot of great music recorded in the past. My very modest collection of LPs and CDs barely scratches the surface. I think I'd rather spend my money on building my catalog of these mostly 2 channel recordings than on extra speakers and amps for a very limited number of high quality 5.1.

Plus, what could 5.1 possibly offer for Glenn Gould's Bach recordings?

Art

[Feanor]

To bad your missing some great audio sound in DVD movies.
I do have an HT set-up that's OK for movies; it's well below the quality of my stereo system, though.

[Resident Loser]

...you never make ANY assumptions...the only assuption I made, was with regard to the poster, whom I have pegged as a recently post-pubescent innocent, wildly enthusiastic about everything new and dead set against his father's Oldsmobile...Guilty as charged...Again, sue me! If there are issues, they are between me and him.

"bravato" and "hot air" Nice way of keeping it non-personal...

"love to see his own typing list"... I'd say that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"What if it is the artist intent that HIS music be mixed with instruments behind you? Is that wrong to you?"

All along you have been championing the "closer-to-reality" position...As soon as it becomes economically feasible to have an audience of maybe one to four members sitting in the "sweet spot" of a live performance and then mimicking that experience in the average living room it will remain, in my considered opinion, performance art of one sort or another. While I detest restaurant reviews that concentrate more on the "ambience" of an eatery, the live presentation of a musical piece is replete with all sorts of physical and acoustic cues and clues. I, for one, like to see the performers. I watch them apply their craft. It's part of the experience. Having the viola over my right shoulder is a gimmick IMO.

"Not only are you wrong in your estimation of my mixing taste"

I mentioned "mixing"? Kindly refresh my memory...must be one of dem "senior moments"...

"Stuff that eminates from a transitor radio may be good, but it doesn't sound very good."

All I know is, I can take my old BSR/Heathkit changer with a ceramic, mono cart...plug it into the "aux" of my 30yr. old SONY mono, AM/FM/WB portable radio...carefully place one of my 78s on the TT and voila!! Music!!! and music that transcends the medium...no "sweet spot", no levels to check, just the wonder of the performance...period. And speaking of 78s, what do you think I'd rather own...my SUN 78 of Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes" b/w "Honey Don't" or some little silver disc with "music" commited to a medium and format that will be forgotten in about 15 minutes.

"If you haven't been keeping up with new releases, then valid and educated is your opinion as illustrated here?......that is why your comments on multichannel are dated, and not very educated...'

That's an assumption on your part...ooops! forgot I'M the only one who assumes...Just because I have an unfavorable opinion doesn't indicate ignorance of the format...quite the contrary...I don't particulary care to get involved with it BECAUSE of what I have been exposed to; it's "flyin' guitars" and the like that suckers most into it in the first place. It's what they like to demo and subtle it's not.

"Effects and big noises belong on movie soundtracks, not music. Since I do not hear anyone talking about Dolby Stereo, Dts or Dolby Digital, how in the hell did effects and big noises enter into this argument? I believe we are talking about two channel stereo music here. You are creating confusion when the topic is pretty clear."

Multi-channel is basically an outgrowth of HT...ergo...besides, it was you who remarked about "instruments". In an effort for correction, I recapped what I'd originally said...just exactly WHO is confused?

Its been de riguer in classical music since SACD and DVD-A were released. Where have you been? You are falling behind here, catch up with the rest of us.

Why, so I can be another slave of planned obsolescence?

"Ummm, the whole process of recording in the studio is artificial, so what's your point?"

That IS my point...in order to "capture" a live performance with the required spatial cues, it will have to be done in a venue typical of the particular genre, with a complete re-think of miking, etc. Hence, "real space...real time"...current miking techniques and use of post production manipulation IS artifice and the multi-channel presentation, as currently exemplified and in my experience, only underscores that fact.

"Instruments in the studio are miked in a real space(STUDIO) and a reverb trail can be nothing more than a delay of elements of the frontal mix steered to the rear. Nothing fake about that. Positioning things in a mix goes on all the time, especially if its a studio project. Sometimes it is not practical to do things in real time because of scheduling and space constraints, that is why they make multitrack recorders and hard drives"

"Can really listen to anything without the gear, right? Do you think everything you listen to has been recorded in a real space(as you put it) and in real time? I don't think so."

Again, you are the one carping about multi-channel being "closer-to-reality"...All of what you have said, now seems to fly in the face of your basic premise...reality-lite(via studio-based, psycho-acoustic trickery) as presented by 5.1, 6.1 or 48.1 is not reality, it simply is what it is.

"All studio recording are performance art based on your beliefs. Mixing in general is performance art, nothing wrong with that."

Hardly. I go into it as being a presentation of a "facsimile" of a "live" event...the performer in their space and the audience in theirs, an attempt to mimic reality...so far, so good. I fully accept the limitations...pop/rock operate within their own specific parameters, quite unlike classical or jazz as you well know...however, while mixing/engineering may be an "art" or a "craft" it doesn't fit the definition of "performance art"...particularly if such "art" is exemplified by someone naked, bathed by a spot, sitting in a chair chewing Bazooka and blowing bubbles or someone urinating on a lamb chop...

"It may have been dead silent with the power switch off, but not while in operation. It had poor front to back seperation(less than 3db), results varied considerably from recording to recording, it localized poorly, and if phase wasn't perfect imaging jumped all over the place. This would be a piss poor processor when judged by today's standards."

Never said it was perfect...results vary from recording to recording even today...that's why most of your "high-end"-types restrict their demos, for the most part, to only the "best"(whatever that means) recordings. "processor"? I'm sorry I'm not sure tying the output "hots" together with an L-pad in series with a speaker or two qualifies as a "processor"...and as I recall the more "out-of-phase" info contained in the program material, the more pronounced was the effect.

"I am sure my boss does enjoy it. Buena vista music group?? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........your killing me, are you serious?? Buena vista music has exactly four artist on the label. They perform at Disneyland and Disney World. Walt Disney records releases Disney soundtracks, Mammoth Records has 8 artists on its label, Hollywood records has 20 artist of which none has gone platinum, gold, or even won a grammy under this label. None of these labels has released a single multichannel project EVER. Now how do you expect me to take you seriously when you can even make an example thats credible. Next time try Universal, Warner, BMG, or Capitol I understand your point even if I don't really agree with it"

You said your boss didn't do music...all I said was he did...pure and simple...black and white...zero or one...case closed...mono, stereo, multichannel, whatever...it's not format dependent...context, context, context...

"If you mean greedy corporate types this I can understand. Eisner types, well there is only one Eisner let me tell ya."

Does he enjoy company-provided perks? Use of a limo or two or three? Corporate jet? How many stock options can he exercise? A couple of apartments or houses part of his "renumeration" as they like to put it? What about his severance package? How big a bonus will he make on the backs of the employees...oops, I'm sorry...what's the term they use? Oh yeah, "cast members" all one big, happy family...scared sh!tless to even seem to be disgruntled, for fear you're a company spy...is it an assumption on my part...sorry, it's not...but don't worry I won't tell the queso magnifico...

Yeah, and I have heard quite a few digital remixes that aren't up to the sound quality of the analog sources...so it IS highly opinionated...

jimHJJ(...and if you aren't a "sheeple" congratulations...but you are in a minority...)

[noddin0ff]

And speaking of 78s, what do you think I'd rather own...my SUN 78 of Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes" b/w "Honey Don't" or some little silver disc with "music" commited to a medium and format that will be forgotten in about 15 minutes.

What's a 78? ...and who's Carl Perkins, is he that 'Cake & Steak' magnate?
:D

[shokhead]

I do have an HT set-up that's OK for movies; it's well below the quality of my stereo system, though.

Gee,you could have had a nice HT that would do 2 channel for what you paid for both. A seperate system for 2 channel is so limited.

[thepogue]

I agree with just about everything sir terrance has said throughout this tread.With that being said, I think if everyone listened to a well mixed 5.1 album, then they would all think what the hell have I been waisting my time on this 2 channel borefest for.I dont care weather it's clasical, jazz, performance art , pop,rock what ever else there is. Multi channel has more potental, and is a hell of alot better in my book.The flip side of the coin...
I'd say that if someone listened to a correctly set-up two channel system (room treatments, synergy bla bla bla) of mid to higher end and used a MoFi Vinyl disk...you'd know why it's not at all a "waste of time" or a "borefest"...but an enjoyable art form worth pursuing!

Peace, Pogue

[Resident Loser]

...and who's Carl Perkins, is he that 'Cake & Steak' magnate?
:D

...you know...Elvis(NOT Costello) and "The Beatles" covered a couple of his tunes..."The Beatles"? Oh, they were Paul McCartney's band before "Wings"...

jimHJJ(...gee, I wonder what's in the ice-box...)

[nightflier]

The roach? :cool:

I found the record player in the garage. Still looks good, but the plastic tone-arm is busted. And the roach clip is nowhere to be found.

Back to 2.0 vs. 5.1, here's something that will bake your noodles. A couple of years ago I helped a guy in South county set up a (what I would consider) pretty expensive hi-fi setup. I hardly knew what SACD was back then and was still using ProLogic II in my TV room. But he was convinced SACD was "the future." But get this, folks, he only set up three speakers across the front; three identical Vandersteen speakers on their own monoblock amps. We also set up two subwoofers (some off-brand I don't remember) but I remember distinctly wondering why anyone would need two subs. And after it was all set up he was raving about the fact that you could be sitting anywhere in front of the speaker "array," as he liked to call it, and you would hardly notice the difference (kind of what Wooch was describing). He also tried to point out the sound-quality differences between his SACD's (he only had a few) and his older CD's, but I couldn't really tell, probably because I didn't know what to listen for.

I haven't talked to him since, so I'm sure he's added rear speakers by now (he had plenty of $ to burn), but the whole setup certainly seemed weird to me. Of course, this was someone who was convinced that SACD's were the last nail in the coffin for LP's...

[thepogue]

Of course, this was someone who was convinced that SACD's were the last nail in the coffin for LP's...
Please contact him....and please have him send all his vinyl to me @

thepogue
128 free vinyl dump Dr
LA LA Land Virginia


thanks and God Bless you one and all :)

Pogue

[topspeed]

The flip side of the coin...
I'd say that if someone listened to a correctly set-up two channel system (room treatments, synergy bla bla bla) of mid to higher end and used a MoFi Vinyl disk...you'd know why it's not at all a "waste of time" or a "borefest"...but an enjoyable art form worth pursuing!

Peace, Pogue

I have every intention of building a music room in my next house. This will be for a dedicated two channel system and drum sets for myself and the boys (or whatever instrument they want to play). I'm looking forward to building the system and have already started imagining what pieces I'd like. Hmmmm...ARC?...no, maybe BAT...no, no GCA250 w/ a BAT pre...YEAH, that's more like it!

Maybe building a two channel rig is like restoring an old car; it's simpler, there are less computers involved, and you go with what you know...you know? I can state uniquivocally that the finest rig I've heard was two channel, not multi. This is not to say multi won't be the future, it's just that the vast majority of software available isn't close to good yet. Eventually, the engineers will come to grips with it, just give 'em time.

BTW, Pogue:
Are you still collecting vinyl? An associate of mine is looking to unload about 1000lps he's collected. No, I don't know what they are but there's likely a helluva lotta jazz in there. PM if you're interested.

[thepogue]

Let me end by saying...I'm sure that all in all I'm holding on to the enjoyment of vinyl and two channel more for the joy then the thought of getting the best sound. Please don't hear me saying I think it's NOT the best...but dollar for dollar the furture is something other then simple stereo...but until then...you've got a PM!!!


Peace!!! Pogue

[markw]

...you like phonied up two channel recordings

Well, uhhhh , gee guy. Just what do you suggest I do with 800+ records and 700+ 2 channel CDs?

Listen to them in some kinda phony matrix mode? No thanks. Two channel recordings sound just fine in two channel mode.

If that's your suggestion, then, in my book, you've pretty much invalidated anything else you might have to say.

[shokhead]

What do you suggest i do with 500 mono 78's? Use some phony stereo sound? Suck it up and advance. Keep what you got but move into the 21st century. Still wont let go of that 65 vw bug? :confused:

[thepogue]

What do you suggest i do with 500 mono 78's? Use some phony stereo sound? Suck it up and advance. Keep what you got but move into the 21st century. Still wont let go of that 65 vw bug? :confused:

keep and ole '65 bug indeed....


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6019&item=4550859134&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Peace, Punch Buggies and Pogue

[dontbhatin01]

...you like phonied up two channel recordings

Well, uhhhh , gee guy. Just what do you suggest I do with 800+ records and 700+ 2 channel CDs?

Listen to them in some kinda phony matrix mode? No thanks. Two channel recordings sound just fine in two channel mode.

If that's your suggestion, then, in my book, you've pretty much invalidated anything else you might have to say.


I never said anything about using a matrixed 5.1. I think I said a well mixed 5.1 album I.E. dvd-a or sacd. I have plenty of cd's but after listning to some good 5.1 titles I think it's safe to say that I will always buy 5.1 titles from now on. I'm not trying to tell any one what to do with there cd's. If you read the origonal question then you would know that I asked why people like 2.0 so much. my second post was simply an opinion.Yes I think 2.0 is a waste of time because it is boring.I like the fact that multi channel audio can make it feel like I'm in a concert hall,or make it feel like there's a band in my listning space that I'm in the middle of, It's like my own private concert.If you have herd a good multi channel title then you will know it because every hair on your body will stand on end, and that's what I love.So I recomend to any one who has a half diecent HT. go buy a 5.1 title listen and see what's better. Someone else mentioned blue man group dvd, that one is pretty good it has dvd-a dolby digital and dts for those without dvd-a. Trust me you wont be disapointed

[shokhead]

Well all this got me to thinking{no,i didnt hurt myself,much}so i put on one of my fav EJ tunes,someone saved my life tonight. Played it in 2 channel. Then i played it in PL2x. I have to say,it was just much more fuller sounding in PL2. For me,2 channel just sounded old and didnt make me feel satisfied.

[Logan]

I appreciate Sir Terrence the Terrible telling me what I am hearing. Or what I am supposed to be hearing. I have tried moving 4 feet to left and right and the center image of my stereo speakers remains firm, so I guess I must be careful not to move the 4 inches he prescribes. I must remember not to listen to the one Berlioz recording out of thousands in the catalogs that has an instrumentalist behind the audience. And I must advise the local symphony orchestra to augment their concert performances with a subwoofer, because they don't sound anything like the output of the "quality" model I trialled.

Perhaps he could condescend to advise me how to appreciate my music now that my 2-channel output is subject to interference from the rustling of wings. Pigs have indeed commenced to fly by as we speak. Ordered up by the worthy knight?

[Wireworm5]

Can someone please tell me which side of the fence I'm on. I have like 9 speakers fronts,rears, center and a sub but I listen to music in multi-channel stereo. So I don't know who I should be siding with.:)

[shokhead]

The modern smart side. :D :D

[thepogue]

fences are made fer jumpin'

lol

Pogue

[shokhead]

And i'm a fence rider from way back. My balls are sore. LOL

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I appreciate Sir Terrence the Terrible telling me what I am hearing. Or what I am supposed to be hearing. I have tried moving 4 feet to left and right and the center image of my stereo speakers remains firm, so I guess I must be careful not to move the 4 inches he prescribes.

If you move 4 feet to left and right and still get a stable center image, then you are defying everything taught regarding the ear/brain interaction, time arrival, and how the ears interpret direction. I order for a stable center image to exist, the signals leaving both speakers must arrive simultaneously, and with equal intensity. If you are sitting off center, that is not possible because of a couple of things. As you move closer to any speaker, you change the arrival time of the signals to the ears, and it's amplitude(phase and amplitude). The change in timing will also change the amplitude to the ears, as the closest speakers signal will arrive first, and sound the loudest(precedent effect) Based on this known acoustical science can you tell how you can defy two principles(phase and amplitude) and come up with a stable center image sitting well off axis?



I must remember not to listen to the one Berlioz recording out of thousands in the catalogs that has an instrumentalist behind the audience.

Your loss, there is plenty of classical music written with antiphonal brass and chorus parts.

http://world.std.com/~burley/music/antiphonal.html


And I must advise the local symphony orchestra to augment their concert performances with a subwoofer, because they don't sound anything like the output of the "quality" model I trialled.

This whole sentence defies logic. Subwoofers are used to reproduce instruments that move alot of air(large bass drums, organ pedals, tympani, double bass etc) Since all of these instruments have no problem sounding like themselves when heard live, why would you need a sub? A sub is used in home reproduction to augment the frequency response of the typical main speaker(which in all likelyhood cannot reproduce very deep bass without alot of distortion). If you want to hear those instruments that move alot of air CLEANLY, then you need a subwoofer. I am sorry that you didn't like the sub YOU heard. My subs do just fine reproducing instruments deep bass found in music


Perhaps he could condescend to advise me how to appreciate my music now that my 2-channel output is subject to interference from the rustling of wings. Pigs have indeed commenced to fly by as we speak. Ordered up by the worthy knight?

No need to condescend, but you'll have to figure out yourself how to deal with extraneous noises that can interfere with you listening pleasure.

[Resident Loser]

http://world.std.com/~burley/music/antiphonal.html.

And this definition has what to to with multi-channel? They make reference to spliting up a chorus in STEREO...side to side...not a ricochet orbiting your dome...

But you are right re: subs...they must be set-up properly so that they augment the sound rather than becoming an apparent sound source themselves...come to think of it, that's just what the extraneous multi-channels should be; conspicuous by their absence as opposed to being overbearingly obvious...

And actually, thay's pretty much what I have been saying all along.

Thank you for finally seeing my point and agreeing with me.

jimHJJ(...a bien tot...)

[shokhead]

I think thats where some screw up and not like it,the surrounds up to much where you notice them to much instead of blending them like the sub.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you never make ANY assumptions...the only assuption I made, was with regard to the poster, whom I have pegged as a recently post-pubescent innocent, wildly enthusiastic about everything new and dead set against his father's Oldsmobile...Guilty as charged...Again, sue me! If there are issues, they are between me and him.

You don't know anything about the original poster personally, so why would you make ANY assumptions? You also don't listen to multichannel music so how can you make any assumptions on it? Worse, you assumptions are not only inaccurate, but they only cover a small slice of multichannel recordings released.


"bravato" and "hot air" Nice way of keeping it non-personal...

The lack of "bravato and "hot air" keeps the thread relevant, something that is very difficult each time you engage in the topic.


"love to see his own typing list"... I'd say that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Nobody really cares what you'd say except you. We are talking audio here, not kitchenware.


"What if it is the artist intent that HIS music be mixed with instruments behind you? Is that wrong to you?"

All along you have been championing the "closer-to-reality" position.

Well if the artist and producer want a instrument or a voice to come from the rear, then that is THEIR artistic liscence that represents "closer to reality" to them. When you are listening to a artists music, you are listening to their vision, not yours. What is reality is the artists vision, your opinion of that reality is yours.



..As soon as it becomes economically feasible to have an audience of maybe one to four members sitting in the "sweet spot" of a live performance and then mimicking that experience in the average living room it will remain, in my considered opinion, performance art of one sort or another.

So all studio recordings are in your opinion performance art right? Well, mixing is a performance art, and so is mastering for that matter. Both require that you manipulate the signals in some form to acheive a good sound. So you believe that there should be no mixing or panning whatsoever?(trying to keep from assuming anything)



While I detest restaurant reviews that concentrate more on the "ambience" of an eatery, the live presentation of a musical piece is replete with all sorts of physical and acoustic cues and clues. I, for one, like to see the performers. I watch them apply their craft. It's part of the experience. Having the viola over my right shoulder is a gimmick IMO.

Then I would suggest that you only attend live unmiked live performances and never listen to recordings. How you define performance art would keep you from listening to anything that has a mixer in the chain. Oh, and only listen to unmixed mono recordings because all studio recordings use mixers and panning techniques to position and level instruments.




"Not only are you wrong in your estimation of my mixing taste"

I mentioned "mixing"? Kindly refresh my memory...must be one of dem "senior moments"...

Not quite old enough for senior moments. You did allude to the fact that I might enjoy ping pong mixing techniques, which is very far from the truth.


"Stuff that eminates from a transitor radio may be good, but it doesn't sound very good."

All I know is, I can take my old BSR/Heathkit changer with a ceramic, mono cart...plug it into the "aux" of my 30yr. old SONY mono, AM/FM/WB portable radio...carefully place one of my 78s on the TT and voila!! Music!!! and music that transcends the medium...no "sweet spot", no levels to check, just the wonder of the performance...period. And speaking of 78s, what do you think I'd rather own...my SUN 78 of Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes" b/w "Honey Don't" or some little silver disc with "music" commited to a medium and format that will be forgotten in about 15 minutes.

So things become much more clear now. If you listen to music in this fashion, then you should have no opinion about stereo or multichannel. You don't care about a single attribute of both formats. I am not knocking how or what you listen to music on, but your comments in this debate seem strangely out of place, short sighted, and not well educated(I am speaking of your opinions, and not you personally)


"If you haven't been keeping up with new releases, then valid and educated is your opinion as illustrated here?......that is why your comments on multichannel are dated, and not very educated...'

That's an assumption on your part...ooops! forgot I'M the only one who assumes...Just because I have an unfavorable opinion doesn't indicate ignorance of the format...quite the contrary...I don't particulary care to get involved with it BECAUSE of what I have been exposed to; it's "flyin' guitars" and the like that suckers most into it in the first place. It's what they like to demo and subtle it's not.

Its not a assumption at all, you even admitted it yourself. How can you listen to multichannel(or stereo for that matter) on a mono speaker? How can you have ANY opinion about either format since you listen via a mono speaker? What you have been exposes to is just a very small fraction of the multichannel releases. That is not enough exposure to come to any educated conclusion. Since you listen via a mono speaker, then how do YOU know what "suckers" anyone into a recording?


"Effects and big noises belong on movie soundtracks, not music. Since I do not hear anyone talking about Dolby Stereo, Dts or Dolby Digital, how in the hell did effects and big noises enter into this argument? I believe we are talking about two channel stereo music here. You are creating confusion when the topic is pretty clear."

Multi-channel is basically an outgrowth of HT...ergo...besides, it was you who remarked about "instruments". In an effort for correction, I recapped what I'd originally said...just exactly WHO is confused?

Resident loser=spin doctor. Too much recapping, not enough educated support for your conclusions. Multichannel maybe an outgrowth of HT, but they are not the same product.


Its been de riguer in classical music since SACD and DVD-A were released. Where have you been? You are falling behind here, catch up with the rest of us.

Why, so I can be another slave of planned obsolescence?

So your fear of planned obsolenscence is what keeps you in the dark ages huh? Fear is what drives your conclusions on multichannel? Interesting......


"Ummm, the whole process of recording in the studio is artificial, so what's your point?"

That IS my point...in order to "capture" a live performance with the required spatial cues, it will have to be done in a venue typical of the particular genre, with a complete re-think of miking, etc. Hence, "real space...real time"...current miking techniques and use of post production manipulation IS artifice and the multi-channel presentation, as currently exemplified and in my experience, only underscores that fact.

If you had any first hand knowledge of recording you would understand that you cannot always record something live. Budgets, time constraints, schedules, control over the recording process and various other things conspire to keep everything from being recorded live in some cases. Live recordings are expensive and time consuming undertaking. If you had your way(according to what you have written) there can be no retakes, no mixers(you would have to go direct to disc straight from the microphone pre-amp no balancing). I do not think any artist would go for such a thing, let alone the producer. I have seen very few perfect live performances.

Post production is a must whether you like it or not. Your experience with multichannel is too limited to make a credible conclusion,



"Instruments in the studio are miked in a real space(STUDIO) and a reverb trail can be nothing more than a delay of elements of the frontal mix steered to the rear. Nothing fake about that. Positioning things in a mix goes on all the time, especially if its a studio project. Sometimes it is not practical to do things in real time because of scheduling and space constraints, that is why they make multitrack recorders and hard drives"

"Can really listen to anything without the gear, right? Do you think everything you listen to has been recorded in a real space(as you put it) and in real time? I don't think so."

Again, you are the one carping about multi-channel being "closer-to-reality"...All of what you have said, now seems to fly in the face of your basic premise...reality-lite(via studio-based, psycho-acoustic trickery) as presented by 5.1, 6.1 or 48.1 is not reality, it simply is what it is.

Like many of your rather short sighted conclusions, I don't agree with this one. I think you just take an oppositional stand just because you can, not because you are armed with real facts that effectively rebutt my points.


"All studio recording are performance art based on your beliefs. Mixing in general is performance art, nothing wrong with that."

Hardly. I go into it as being a presentation of a "facsimile" of a "live" event...the performer in their space and the audience in theirs, an attempt to mimic reality...so far, so good.

A facsimile of a live event? Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh!!! All recording is a facsimile of a live event. Do you have any real information to contribute to the thread?





I fully accept the limitations...pop/rock operate within their own specific parameters, quite unlike classical or jazz as you well know...however, while mixing/engineering may be an "art" or a "craft" it doesn't fit the definition of "performance art"...particularly if such "art" is exemplified by someone naked, bathed by a spot, sitting in a chair chewing Bazooka and blowing bubbles or someone urinating on a lamb chop...

Since we are talking audio, and not visual, your examples don't fit the topic. However, you called multichannel music that has "effects" in the surrounds performance art, so this new interpretation doesn't quite square with your previous one.



"It may have been dead silent with the power switch off, but not while in operation. It had poor front to back seperation(less than 3db), results varied considerably from recording to recording, it localized poorly, and if phase wasn't perfect imaging jumped all over the place. This would be a piss poor processor when judged by today's standards."

Never said it was perfect...results vary from recording to recording even today...that's why most of your "high-end"-types restrict their demos, for the most part, to only the "best"(whatever that means) recordings. "processor"? I'm sorry I'm not sure tying the output "hots" together with an L-pad in series with a speaker or two qualifies as a "processor"...and as I recall the more "out-of-phase" info contained in the program material, the more pronounced was the effect.

If the box is extracting the out of phase signal, and leaving the in phase signals untouched, it is "processing" the out of phase signal. The act of extracting the out of phase signal is a process, hince processor.


"I am sure my boss does enjoy it. Buena vista music group?? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........your killing me, are you serious?? Buena vista music has exactly four artist on the label. They perform at Disneyland and Disney World. Walt Disney records releases Disney soundtracks, Mammoth Records has 8 artists on its label, Hollywood records has 20 artist of which none has gone platinum, gold, or even won a grammy under this label. None of these labels has released a single multichannel project EVER. Now how do you expect me to take you seriously when you can even make an example thats credible. Next time try Universal, Warner, BMG, or Capitol I understand your point even if I don't really agree with it"

You said your boss didn't do music...all I said was he did...pure and simple...black and white...zero or one...case closed...mono, stereo, multichannel, whatever...it's not format dependent...context, context, context...

Neat magic trick. You have managed to turn fresh water brown. You could make cotton candy with all the spinning you are doing here. Speaking of context, you are totally out of it at this point. Disney doesn't do multichannel, we are talking multichannel here. Not mono, and not stereo. Since this conversation has turn to 2.0 vs multichannel, it is format driven in spite of the fact that you can't see that.


"If you mean greedy corporate types this I can understand. Eisner types, well there is only one Eisner let me tell ya."

Does he enjoy company-provided perks? Use of a limo or two or three? Corporate jet? How many stock options can he exercise? A couple of apartments or houses part of his "renumeration" as they like to put it? What about his severance package? How big a bonus will he make on the backs of the employees...oops, I'm sorry...what's the term they use? Oh yeah, "cast members" all one big, happy family...scared sh!tless to even seem to be disgruntled, for fear you're a company spy...is it an assumption on my part...sorry, it's not...but don't worry I won't tell the queso magnifico...

You are speaking of any CEO of any major corporation. Not about Eisners specifically. Now can we get back on topic, or have you run out of things to be contrary about.


Yeah, and I have heard quite a few digital remixes that aren't up to the sound quality of the analog sources...so it IS highly opinionated...

jimHJJ(...and if you aren't a "sheeple" congratulations...but you are in a minority...)

There is something called personal opinion, and there is the opinion of the masses. I don't really pay much attention to a single opinion, what catches my attention is the opinion of the masses. When alot of folks agree on something(it sounds good), that is more important to me than the opinion of one person who is not really well schooled on the issue. I hardly call someone that listen to 78's on a TT through a mono speaker someone worth listening to in terms of either stereo or multichannel. Sorry, but that is my opinion. You can call me alot of things, but not a sheeple.

[Resident Loser]

...as simple as possible, lest we relaese a host of Whirling Dervishes to continue your "spin" cycle...

"All I know is, I can take my old BSR/Heathkit changer with a ceramic, mono cart...plug it into the "aux" of my 30yr. old SONY mono, AM/FM/WB portable radio...carefully place one of my 78s on the TT and voila!! Music!!! and music that transcends the medium...no "sweet spot", no levels to check, just the wonder of the performance...period. And speaking of 78s, what do you think I'd rather own...my SUN 78 of Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes" b/w "Honey Don't" or some little silver disc with "music" commited to a medium and format that will be forgotten in about 15 minutes."

Do take note of the operative words "I can"...also note that this phrase does not mean "I do"...now it may be difficult to appreciate the abstract but, and follow me here, the previous quote was simply an indication of what CAN BE done using near-antique gear and an archaic technology as opposed to an algorithim-based, digital format which will require a room full of equipment(or at very least, five speakers)...why, heck I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...as simple as possible, lest we relaese a host of Whirling Dervishes to continue your "spin" cycle...

"All I know is, I can take my old BSR/Heathkit changer with a ceramic, mono cart...plug it into the "aux" of my 30yr. old SONY mono, AM/FM/WB portable radio...carefully place one of my 78s on the TT and voila!! Music!!! and music that transcends the medium...no "sweet spot", no levels to check, just the wonder of the performance...period. And speaking of 78s, what do you think I'd rather own...my SUN 78 of Carl Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes" b/w "Honey Don't" or some little silver disc with "music" commited to a medium and format that will be forgotten in about 15 minutes."

Do take note of the operative words "I can"...also note that this phrase does not mean "I do"...now it may be difficult to appreciate the abstract but, and follow me here, the previous quote was simply an indication of what CAN BE done using near-antique gear and an archaic technology as opposed to an algorithim-based, digital format which will require a room full of equipment(or at very least, five speakers)...why, heck I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

I can see by this post that you have no additional information support you conclusion. This is nothing more here except more blather and hot air that is used to muddy the waters and spin the topic.

I would rather discuss this topic with somebody that has actually listens to multichannel, not somebody who listens to mono, and talks about stereo and multichannel. Uneducated and inexperienced opinions are worthless. I don't have time to dissect the words of somebody who thinks they are deep.

[Diego]

Uneducated and inexperienced opinions are worthless. I don't have time to dissect the words of somebody who thinks they are deep.

From the Terms of Use on this forum- "A healthy community asks for and encourages participation from everyone, regardless of their age, background, or level of expertise"

[noddin0ff]

I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

RL- I'm getting lost as to what your point is. TT may be strong (or perhaps wrong) in his assertion that you're talking about things you have no experience in but his arguments about music RE-production are spot on. You seem to be talking about music production, which can be a 'musical' experience without the high tech. TT is talking about accurately RE-producing music. If you want to recreate the experience of an event where sound (whether brass choirs, or room echos, or artists intentions) come from the rear, why is it so hard to accept that 5.1 adds to the realism of that re-produced experience by supplying sources for those sounds to emanate from the rear? And that a proper 5.1 setup will recreate that experience better than two channel?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From the Terms of Use on this forum- "A healthy community asks for and encourages participation from everyone, regardless of their age, background, or level of expertise"

If you carefully read what I posted as carefully as you quoted the terms of use, you would have understood that I didn't say he couldn't participate. I said his lack of education and experience made his strong opinions worthless. Logic would dictate that you would have experience with something before you can have an opinion. Can you imagine a plumber talking about rocket engine technology?

[kexodusc]

I think noddin0ff said it best...for whatever reason some 2-channel advocates have taken a horribly false position that multichannel audio cannot outperform stereo. This is just a lie supported by nothing but heresay based on the poorest listening (and possibly) recording experiences of people who haven't embraced the superiority of multi-channel audio.

I don't know about all of you, but I have rarely seen a musical performance where sounds were emitted from two small localized points in space, 10 feet or less apart, on essentially the same plane. This setup is physically limited. That is fact. Sure it can sound good. But, under many, many, many circumstances, it sounds better with more channels. There is no reason to argue this point, nor has there been any intelligent arguments presented thus far contradicting this point.

There's also no reason to insult the stereo fans who decide that, or choose not to believe, their systems can be improved with more channels added.
This thread has subsequently turned into a rather heated flame war of sorts. Not sure why...nobody is making one side or the other choose to adopt stereo or multichannel.

Wish I was around during the transition from mono to stereo...I bet there were many similar arguments being made....

kexodusc (and those who may have been there should know better...)

[shokhead]

I only remember people being excited about stereo although i think it started around the mid 50's,it really took off in the early 60's if my memory serves me and its not dependable.The beatles kinda push strated it even more then it had been.

[thepogue]

I don't know about all of you, but I have rarely seen a musical performance where sounds were emitted from two small localized points in space, 10 feet or less apart, on essentially the same plane. This setup is physically limited. That is fact. Sure it can sound good. But, under many, many, many circumstances, it sounds better with more channels. There is no reason to argue this point, nor has there been any intelligent arguments presented thus far contradicting this point.

kexodusc (and those who may have been there should know better...)
But I can tell you my set-up does not sound at all like you discribe above...in fact most 2 channel systems worth there weight dont at all sound like you suggest. No "same plane"...not "10 feet apart"...and not at all localized...in fact with a good recording I can close my eyes and "be there"....and although this sounds silly...I'd invite anyone at anytime to come to my listening room and I'm 100% confident that the two channel stereo you describe wouldn't be heard here...and I dont at all think thats because of any magic dust nor big bucks spent (anyone who knows me knows better) but I think that two channel is like a lemon...the more ya squeese outta it the more you get...now I'm not at all suggesting that it's not costly..in fact I think more costly than a 5.1 set to get the desired results...but as I stated beofre with the time, tools and equipment and your eyes closed....you'll never feel physically limited...in fact I suggest youd be shocked and how "wide open' a sound you would hear....

One last point I'll make...I dont think this whole subject is as black and white as this thread is turning out to be...to be honest I'd love to hear a "skys the limit" two channel vs multi format...my gut tells me the multi would win the day (but I dont think it would be a wash like some would suggest)...and I think that if we could do a cheapie contest say under a grand the multi system would also win the day (I think the effects in the 5.1 realm could do more for less here)....but I have no question that in between the lines one can put together an awesome 2 channel that is anything but boring and dull...and in fact under the right condtioning can be out and out brilliant! I would like to have the original poster come listen to me set-up...then ask him if he still believes all two channel is boring...
Peace, Pogue

[Wireworm5]

Okay I still don't know what side of the fence I belong but here's my take on stereo. In my home and rooms that I have used for audio. I have never heard just two speakers in stereo sound better than a multiple speaker configuration stereo or surround sound fields. That's not to say that just two speakers in an appropriate room wouldn't sound better than what I've experienced. I say this because I heard some Klispch speaker briefly one time at a store. And it sounded quite good, but I don't know if it was the speakers or the two channel and room interaction that gave it the pleasing sound, perhaps both. So I'm open to the possibilty that 2 channel stereo with the right speakers and equipment in the right size room can sound better than multi-channel.
As for multi-channel stereo vs multi-channel surround I prefer a stereo configuration to surround sound field. Modified by an instrument sounfield.

[nightflier]

If you move 4 feet to left and right and still get a stable center image, then you are defying everything taught regarding the ear/brain interaction, time arrival, and how the ears interpret direction. I order for a stable center image to exist, the signals leaving both speakers must arrive simultaneously, and with equal intensity. If you are sitting off center, that is not possible because of a couple of things. As you move closer to any speaker, you change the arrival time of the signals to the ears, and it's amplitude(phase and amplitude). The change in timing will also change the amplitude to the ears, as the closest speakers signal will arrive first, and sound the loudest(precedent effect) Based on this known acoustical science can you tell how you can defy two principles(phase and amplitude) and come up with a stable center image sitting well off axis?

I tried several different speakers last night because I believe that how far one can move to the left & right w/o noticeable audible effects is largely a funtion of the speaker, more specifically the dispersion of the speaker. To a lesser extent, the size of the room and the sound treatments will also affect this.

My Klipsch RB5's for example did sound different when I moved just a little to the left or right on my couch. On the other hand, my Polk RT600i's, which are an entirely different type of speaker, required about 3 feet before it became noticeable to my ears. My bass-thin MB Quarts where somewhere in between. Now I know this is not very scientific and the speakers are all very different, but I think there is some wiggle room in the above argument. I also tested my tv room with a 7.1 Axiom setup that includes a large center channel. Now maybe my hearing is way off, but as long as I was facing toward the front three speakers, there was no audible difference when I moved to the L&R (well only if I moved further out than the L/R speakers).

Then again, I may be a lot more deaf than the rest of you...

One more thing: I also tried several SACD's and I can say that the quality of the audio is noticeably better, but that was not a function of the number of speakers as much as a function of the higher resolution, I think. Nobody has mentioned this little detail. Comparing SACD's with RBCD's should take this into consideration; after all, we were arguing about what sounds better. Although I don't think that was the original poster's argument. The only thing he said whas that multi-channel was better because it was multi-channel, not because it is most often on a higher resolution format. I guess to be fair we should only be comparing 2 channel stereo with PLII and other matrixed formats, not SACD/DVD-A.

[kexodusc]

I tried several different speakers last night because I believe that how far one can move to the left & right w/o noticeable audible effects is largely a funtion of the speaker, more specifically the dispersion of the speaker. To a lesser extent, the size of the room and the sound treatments will also affect this.

My Klipsch RB5's for example did sound different when I moved just a little to the left or right on my couch. On the other hand, my Polk RT600i's, which are an entirely different type of speaker, required about 3 feet before it became noticeable to my ears.

I have to ask, nightflier, how large is your room, how far are you from the speakers, and how far apart are they spaced. 3 feet isn't impossible, but necessitates such a large room, or a lot of imagination to work right. My experiences with the RT600i's haven't been nearly as favorable as this. Even speakers with the widest dispersion would suffer a tremendous shift in center image 3 feet off the center...there's one sound arriving far faster to your ears than the other, 3 ms is a long time in the audio realm....the precedence effect kicks in...you either get an echoey effect or massive tilt towards one speaker.

[kexodusc]

But I can tell you my set-up does not sound at all like you discribe above...in fact most 2 channel systems worth there weight dont at all sound like you suggest. No "same plane"...not "10 feet apart"...and not at all localized...in fact with a good recording I can close my eyes and "be there"....and although this sounds silly...I'd invite anyone at anytime to come to my listening room and I'm 100% confident that the two channel stereo you describe wouldn't be heard here...
Peace, Pogue

Hey Pogue,

My stereo doesn't sound like that either. I think maybe you've misread my post...I wasn't describing 2-channel sound characteristics, just their physical setup. Let me explain.
Stereo speakers are 2 fixed points in space along the same plane (ie: equal distance from the listener in an ideal setup, equal height too, so fixed points along the same 2 planes).
How many live musical performances have you seen where instruments or artists are located along the same 2 planes in 2 fixed points in space, 8" or less in diameter? Not many I think. This is a sever limitation in both 2-channel and multi-channel music reproduction, but you can easily see why multi-channel has an advantage here..

Stereo sounds great, don't get me wrong, but physics is physics, and 2-channel is limited. Soundstages are wider, imaging stronger in multi-channel audio because of the exact SAME characteristics that make stereo listening so enjoyable. However I'm with you when you say that stereo is NOT boring and dull...and I don't think multi channel is 3 times better despite having 3 times as many speakers (or even 4 times as many speakers in 7.1 systems).

I'm honestly baffled when people say they've heard multi-channel audio and didn't find it superior, though. They've either heard poor setups or poor recordings (which exist as much, or moreso in the stereo camp as well). The difference is night and day to me...a much better experience can be obtained with 5.1 setups.

The argument against 5.1 music at this point, which I sympathize with, is the limited selection for certain musical genres, poor execution of the potential in the studio, or just a bad artistic vision (guitars flying at you from behind). The last point is subjective, maybe the artist intended that, in which case 2-channel could never deliver...And of course higher cost. For these reasons, I still have a dedicated 2-channel system that is more refined and of higher quality than the components in my multi-channel system. I suspect someday this will change though, and I'll incorporate the two together.

Give it time, multi-channel audio has only been around, what, 3 years, as opposed to 60 for stereo....we're comparing a format in infancy to an evolved and mastered format. And in the opinions of many, the newer format has already surpassed it.

Perhaps the value isn't there for you yet. It is expensive and a bit harder to get a great multichannel system up and running, and the lack of available titles makes it discouraging to try, but don't limit yourself in the future.

One last point...I don't think stereo will ever disappear...too many excellent stereo recording that simply can't or won't be remastered to multi-channel formats.

[markw]

Good idea, but time does seem to be running out for mainstream SACD/DVD-A. It may wind up as a niche market but, on the whole, that generally limits the selection and/or raises the prices.

On the whole, system quality aside, a recording should be played back in the format in which it was intended. I'e, 2 channels sound most likethgey should be played back in two channels, multi channels should be played back in multi channels.

Of course, some people prefer to hide the taste of a fine steak under mounds of steak sauce simply because it's on the table, but that's a personal preference.

As always, preferences for or against the abilities/tastes of the mixmaster rule here.

[shokhead]

I've never been to a concert and they played 2 channel. They have the bass over there,lead over there,some horns there,drums back over there,here,there,everywhere,not split down the middle. I think when they record,its everything done sperate. Isnt it mixed to 2 channal so they decide where what is?

[kexodusc]

Good idea, but time does seem to be running out for mainstream SACD/DVD-A. It may wind up as a niche market but, on the whole, that generally limits the selection and/or raises the prices.

On the whole, system quality aside, a recording should be played back in the format in which it was intended. I'e, 2 channels sound most likethgey should be played back in two channels, multi channels should be played back in multi channels.

Of course, some people prefer to hide the taste of a fine steak under mounds of steak sauce simply because it's on the table, but that's a personal preference.

As always, preferences for or against the abilities/tastes of the mixmaster rule here.

I think the idea that multi-channels future is dependant on the success of either SACD or DVD-A is a very wrong and short-sighted argument too many people make. Home theater never took off with Pro-Logic...it took the DVD and Dolby Digital to make that boom happen.

With HD-DVD and BluRay on the horizon, it's safe to say the 5.1 boom is only going to continue, and new multi-channel formats with far more capability than anything in production today lies ahead in the future.

While SACD and DVD-A might not emerge dominant now, I don't see any reason why one of these, or a third, newer technology might not come through in the future. The hybrid/dual-disc idea is an excellent idea that would be even better with BluRay or HD-DVD's storage capacity...more than enough storage space for all the hi-rez anyone wants, and enough for whatever Dolby Digital Plus or DTS Hi-Rez multi-channel format awaits. All it would take is for one camp to decide they will only release "hybrid discs" from now on. I suspect the likes of Toshiba, and Sony, with vested interests in the multi-channel/home theater industry (by virtue of their other product lines) won't take too much time to realize this is in their best interest. Than multi-channel will exist whether the consumers like it or not, enjoying all the economies of scale it could ever ask for.

Just a matter of time before the inevitable.

[Arturo7]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]
"How many live musical performances have you seen where instruments or artists are located along the same 2 planes in 2 fixed points in space, "


At any medium to large venue this is exactly what you are hearing. Unless you are up front you do not hear the gear from stage. You're hearing it mic'd and amplified through the PA system. The result is the artists and instruments a definitely located on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.

At a smaller club venue this is not the case, typically only the vocals and sometimes horns or piano/keyboards are going through the PA. There are of course exceptions, but this means the vocals are presented on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.



"...8" or less in diameter?"

This is a function of how much sound reinforcement is needed and a different subject worthy of it's own thread.

Art.

[Arturo7]

I've never been to a concert and they played 2 channel. They have the bass over there,lead over there,some horns there,drums back over there,here,there,everywhere,not split down the middle. I think when they record,its everything done sperate. Isnt it mixed to 2 channal so they decide where what is?


Probably every concert you've ever been to has been 2 channel. See the above thread. If you want proof, wander into a music store that specializes in sound reinforcement (PA) equipment. Without exception, every mixing board, from the cheapest to the finest, is based on L/R.

Art

[noddin0ff]

At any medium to large venue this is exactly what you are hearing. Unless you are up front you do not hear the gear from stage. You're hearing it mic'd and amplified through the PA system. The result is the artists and instruments a definitely located on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.

Well, you just discounted a whole swath of classical music from large syphonic and opera to small chamber music and solo performance, as well as a fair amount of acoustic venues. But I see the point, especially in the larger amplified Jazz venues.

[E-Stat]

Well, you just discounted a whole swath of classical music from large syphonic and opera to small chamber music and solo performance, as well as a fair amount of acoustic venues.
As far as I'm concerned, that is the ONLY reference. While I agree that multi-channel is theoretically superior if done correctly (and that is not often the case), there is always a tradeoff for a given investment of a five or seven channel system vs. a higher resolution two channel system.

For me, MC works great in cars and in HT systems. If I were to sink another mid five figures in my music system (not likely!), I would more quickly buy higher power tube amplifiers, better source(s), and/or an electrostatic subwoofer system.

rw

[Arturo7]

Well, you just discounted a whole swath of classical music from large syphonic and opera to small chamber music and solo performance, as well as a fair amount of acoustic venues. But I see the point, especially in the larger amplified Jazz venues.

Thanks for pointing that out. I neglected to add that qualifyer to my post.

[kexodusc]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]
"How many live musical performances have you seen where instruments or artists are located along the same 2 planes in 2 fixed points in space, "

At any medium to large venue this is exactly what you are hearing. Unless you are up front you do not hear the gear from stage. You're hearing it mic'd and amplified through the PA system. The result is the artists and instruments a definitely located on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.


Whoah..that's a poor comparison...PA gear is not setup to reproduce a "stereo" image in the same fashion. Nor is usually always limited to 2 speakers. In fact, I'd argue most are multi-channel, Too often there are other sound sources at work....in ...completely different animal altogether.

Even if it WAS, this still doesn't capture the ambient information that mult-channel does, nor does it address the fact that imaging and soundstage have more potential in a multi-channel system.



8" or less in diameter?" This is a function of how much sound reinforcement is needed and a different subject worthy of it's own thread

Reinforcement? I can assure you if you play an instrument, sound emanates from more than a fixed location in space like a woofer or tweeter resonating. While similar frequencies may be reproduced, a lot of musical information, especially information relating the location in space of the source(s), is lost.. You really can't compare the two. Even multi-channel audio is only a minor improvment in this regard.

[Arturo7]

Whoah..that's a poor comparison...PA gear is not setup to reproduce a "stereo" image in the same fashion. Nor is usually always limited to 2 speakers. In fact, I'd argue most are multi-channel, Too often there are other sound sources at work....in ...completely different animal altogether.

Even if it WAS, this still doesn't capture the ambient information that mult-channel does, nor does it address the fact that imaging and soundstage have more potential in a multi-channel system.



Reinforcement? I can assure you if you play an instrument, sound emanates from more than a fixed location in space like a woofer or tweeter resonating. While similar frequencies may be reproduced, a lot of musical information, especially information relating the location in space of the source(s), is lost.. You really can't compare the two. Even multi-channel audio is only a minor improvment in this regard.


The live music comparison was yours. I just wanted to point out that PA systems are all L/R and at a larger venue everything you hear is coming from the PA. There may be stacks/walls of speakers at bigger concerts, and they may be bi-amped or tri-amped, but it's still just L/R. Granted, the PA may occasionally dedicate amp/speaker groups to within the stack to a single source, but again, it's still L/R.

This isn't so much an argument for 2.0 vs 5.1. I just wanted to point something out.

In all honesty, I must confess that my attitude toward multi-channel has been challenged by this thread. My only experience with 5.1 audio was the afore mentioned Gaucho and a couple other recordings that sounded hokey. I'd like the opportunity to listen to a "state-of-the-art" multi-channel recording. If what is posted hear is true I'd definitely re-evaluate my thinking. Maybe we'll all need to have two systems; one for existing 2 channel recordings and one for the new multi-channel stuff.

[kexodusc]

Arturo7:

I see where you're coming from, but there's not really the same "stereo" sound being produced by the L/R setup at shows as a stereo system IMO...not nearly as well anyway. There isn't a refined, or engineered "downmixing" stage into 2-channel to preserve (or create) the stereo image/soundstage, at least not at the same level as recordings. And like someone earlier mentioned, a large portion of, if not most musical performances (classical, small club jazz, blues, even rock) aren't presented in a 2-channel PA manner anyway.

I think you just touched on the biggest problem for people on the fence right now...do they buy 4 more speakers (3 surrounds and sub) of the same level of performance (and probably cost) as their stereo speakers, only to be used some of the time, or do they invest in the best 2-channel system they can afford. I'm struggling with that right now too.

I turned 1/2 my basement into a studio for practice/rehersal for my band, but I also have the stereo down there along the narrow wall (16 feet or so). Because of the, well, uninviting furniture in the rest of the room, not to mention all the patch cables, amps, etc, it's not the most comfortable and space isn't at a premium, so I find my self listening to 2-channel on my recently upgradedhome theater system more and more...this where I listen to all my multi-channel SACD/DVD-A stuff at too. This despite my stereo completely outclassing the equipment in my home theater rig.

Ideally I'd build a one-size-fits-all system, but time and money are an obstacle and I like the separate stereo rig for learning songs by ear. But as a stand-alone separate stereo it's a bit inconvenient, and I suspect impractical for many.

I imagine there'll be a transition period. Many younger music lovers are buying their first systems as 5.1 setups, never really owning dedicated stereo systems. It could very well be that 5.1 is slowly replacing stereo, largely because home theater is driving audio gear sales these days.

Who knows.

[shokhead]

The live music comparison was yours. I just wanted to point out that PA systems are all L/R and at a larger venue everything you hear is coming from the PA. There may be stacks/walls of speakers at bigger concerts, and they may be bi-amped or tri-amped, but it's still just L/R. Granted, the PA may occasionally dedicate amp/speaker groups to within the stack to a single source, but again, it's still L/R.

This isn't so much an argument for 2.0 vs 5.1. I just wanted to point something out.

In all honesty, I must confess that my attitude toward multi-channel has been challenged by this thread. My only experience with 5.1 audio was the afore mentioned Gaucho and a couple other recordings that sounded hokey. I'd like the opportunity to listen to a "state-of-the-art" multi-channel recording. If what is posted hear is true I'd definitely re-evaluate my thinking. Maybe we'll all need to have two systems; one for existing 2 channel recordings and one for the new multi-channel stuff.

I never even considered a live concert L&R,never. Every instrument has its own speaker, 3 guitars,keyboards,drums and a small horn section,theres 6 different speakers spread across the stage. That doesnt seem L&R to me.

[nightflier]

I have to ask, nightflier, how large is your room, how far are you from the speakers, and how far apart are they spaced. 3 feet isn't impossible, but necessitates such a large room, or a lot of imagination to work right. My experiences with the RT600i's haven't been nearly as favorable as this. Even speakers with the widest dispersion would suffer a tremendous shift in center image 3 feet off the center...there's one sound arriving far faster to your ears than the other, 3 ms is a long time in the audio realm....the precedence effect kicks in...you either get an echoey effect or massive tilt towards one speaker.

Well I didn't say this was scientific. I haven't measured the room, but I guestimate it is 20' wide (along the wall that the speakers are on) and I am sitting about the same distance from the wall on a loveseat that is centered between the speakers facing them. I have quite a bit of furniture in the room, so it isn't ideally set up and the speakers are in the far corners (which I know is not ideal for the Polks). They are, however, toed in about 30 degrees which is quite a bit, I know. The couch is small, and moving from the center of it to the edges, I estimate that to be about three feet. Again, I have not done any measurements, so I may be off 1/2 a foot here or there.

While this may not be scientific, there is a marked difference between each of the speakers I tried; the Klipschs having very a very noticeable change, the Quarts a little less and the Polks the least. While I'm not trying to compare them, I am merely making the point that sound dispersion abilities between different speakers will increase or decrease the sweet spot accordingly.

It certainly will not compare to adding a center channel to the mix, of course, but then a center channel is a whole different type of speaker than a L/R one. One could even argue that a center channel duplicates the sweet spot for the person sitting in the center of the couch. This would over-emphasize the center as compared to a live or studio recording, which makes calibrating a 5-channel system correctly very difficult, I'm sure. In fact, a correct surround sound setup for movies would be incompatible with one for music specifically because of the center channel. This requires readjusting speaker levels everytime one switches between the two, or put up with a mediocre setup for one of the two. All I'm saying is that the sweet spot is the most problematic in a debate between 2.0 and 5.1.

And with all the different surround formats, and speaker types that people have, there are just too many factors at play between systems to make blanket statements that one is better than the other, like the original poster did.

[Arturo7]

I never even considered a live concert L&R,never. Every instrument has its own speaker, 3 guitars,keyboards,drums and a small horn section,theres 6 different speakers spread across the stage. That doesnt seem L&R to me.


Of course every instrument has it's own stage volume. The point being at a larger venue most of the audience does not hear the stage volume, just the mains (PA). The vocals at almost any venue, even some operas, are amplified, and thus through the PA, hence L/R.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I tried several different speakers last night because I believe that how far one can move to the left & right w/o noticeable audible effects is largely a funtion of the speaker, more specifically the dispersion of the speaker. To a lesser extent, the size of the room and the sound treatments will also affect this.

It really has nothing to do with the dispersion at all, it has more to do with the arrival time of the signals to the ear. Sound treatments deal with the amplitude of the signal after it is reflected, not the phase relationships between the speakers. The size of the room is not the issue since we are talking about the first arrival signals direct from the speakers. My point to you is that listening in stereo is a single seat experience if imaging and soundstaging are important to you. Multichannel is not.



My Klipsch RB5's for example did sound different when I moved just a little to the left or right on my couch. On the other hand, my Polk RT600i's, which are an entirely different type of speaker, required about 3 feet before it became noticeable to my ears. My bass-thin MB Quarts where somewhere in between.

Sorry, but no matter what speaker you are listening to a move of 4 inches changes the arrival time of one speaker over another. This is why it is recommended that you sit exactly in between the speakers. If the arrival time of the signals is not simultaneous, then it is impossible to develope stable imaging, and a stable and coherent soundfield.




Now I know this is not very scientific and the speakers are all very different, but I think there is some wiggle room in the above argument. I also tested my tv room with a 7.1 Axiom setup that includes a large center channel. Now maybe my hearing is way off, but as long as I was facing toward the front three speakers, there was no audible difference when I moved to the L&R (well only if I moved further out than the L/R speakers).

Thank you for making my point. Stereo is a format for one, multichannel is a format for one or more. Having a discrete hard center speaker(as opposed to phantom imaging) keeps whatever signals emanating from this position locked in.

Stereo is a limited format, with limited spatial capabilities. Left, right, and deep are its only spatial attributes. Multichannel has the potential to place everything in the right place. The audience behind and to the sides of you, precise left, center and right position, forward or backward in the soundstage. Stereo only images for one, multichannel does for at least three. The benefits of multichannel are pretty obvious.

Then again, I may be a lot more deaf than the rest of you...


One more thing: I also tried several SACD's and I can say that the quality of the audio is noticeably better, but that was not a function of the number of speakers as much as a function of the higher resolution, I think. Nobody has mentioned this little detail. Comparing SACD's with RBCD's should take this into consideration; after all, we were arguing about what sounds better. Although I don't think that was the original poster's argument. The only thing he said whas that multi-channel was better because it was multi-channel, not because it is most often on a higher resolution format. I guess to be fair we should only be comparing 2 channel stereo with PLII and other matrixed formats, not SACD/DVD-A.

Unfortunately stereo is not a matrixed format. Stereo has no sister format like SACD and DVD-A are to Dts and DD. (all 5.1 formats) Comparing stereo to PLII and matrixed stereo still lands you with the same problem as comparing it to 5.1. There are still more channels than stereo has, and still not a fair competition if we used your logic.

[kexodusc]

It certainly will not compare to adding a center channel to the mix, of course, but then a center channel is a whole different type of speaker than a L/R one. One could even argue that a center channel duplicates the sweet spot for the person sitting in the center of the couch. This would over-emphasize the center as compared to a live or studio recording, which makes calibrating a 5-channel system correctly very difficult, I'm sure. In fact, a correct surround sound setup for movies would be incompatible with one for music specifically because of the center channel. This requires readjusting speaker levels everytime one switches between the two, or put up with a mediocre setup for one of the two. All I'm saying is that the sweet spot is the most problematic in a debate between 2.0 and 5.1.

Ideally, a Center Channel speaker should be identical to the L/R speakers...if not, then voice matched to it. The Center Channel DOES NOT duplicate the center image...information that would otherwise be sent at equal levels to the L/R channels to create an image is instead fed the center channel...no duplication at all. Just the purest, most honest, and technically correct center image possible. A 5.1 system set up properly is fine for 5.1 audio...no incompatibility issues at all, the disc that the music is recorded on is encoded specially for 2 or 5 channels, the processor then receives the instructions and sends tells the amps what signals to send to what speakers. So if your system was calibrated for 5.1, it would simultaneously be calibrated for 2-channel stereo. The exception to this is IF a person by choice preferred to listen to one format in a less than ideal setup. The most common example of this is exaggerated LFE from a sub..but just as many do that for music too.

It seems there's some bad information or wrong assumptions being made in the market today about 5.1. Like any new technology, the challenge is proper education. When stereo first hit the scene many people only used 1 speaker or set the speakers up in the worst possible places, uneven distances, etc, so there was no chance for proper stereo imaging/soundstage...history repeats itself.



And with all the different surround formats, and speaker types that people have, there are just too many factors at play between systems to make blanket statements that one is better than the other, like the original poster did.

I think the poster implied that one format was superior, all things equal...as in if the all the gear in both systems is of AAA quality and performance, the 5.1 should be better. I tend to agree. But nobody will argue that a Home Theater In a Box setup for $49 from Walmart isn't going to top a $4900 Bryston/PMC setup.

[Woochifer]

I think noddin0ff said it best...for whatever reason some 2-channel advocates have taken a horribly false position that multichannel audio cannot outperform stereo. This is just a lie supported by nothing but heresay based on the poorest listening (and possibly) recording experiences of people who haven't embraced the superiority of multi-channel audio.

I don't know about all of you, but I have rarely seen a musical performance where sounds were emitted from two small localized points in space, 10 feet or less apart, on essentially the same plane. This setup is physically limited. That is fact. Sure it can sound good. But, under many, many, many circumstances, it sounds better with more channels. There is no reason to argue this point, nor has there been any intelligent arguments presented thus far contradicting this point.

Wow! That's quite a statement, and for the most part, you pretty much nailed it. In my listenings, multichannel is simply capable of rendering a much more complete range of imaging cues and providing much more realistic depth than any two-channel system I've ever heard. And I've heard plenty of them, using some of the best analog and digital stereo recordings around. All of the subjective superlatives that audiophiles like to throw around to describe such as airiness, "musical" sound, imaging, realism, soundstaging, etc., the best multichannel recordings can deliver all of that, and do so more convincingly than when you listen to those same recordings in the two-channel versions.

Philosophically, I think that the main purpose of an audio system is to accurately render the original source signal. I don't agree with the notion of the audio system intentionally creating its own definition of "musicality" by altering the source signal into something that might be subjectively interpreted as better approximating a "live" event for a select cross-section of recordings. And IMO, much of the two-channel audio trade has been about selling listeners on specific definitions of "musicality," sometimes at the expense of accuracy. With a good multichannel recording, you can actually obtain the elusive qualities of a "live" performance without having to go the extra mile with tube electronics, or bipolar/dipolar configurations, or other commonly prescribed high end approaches for attaining that type of sound.

What you observed in your own multichannel system mirrors what I have noticed with the multichannel listenings on my own system. If I can obtain the kinds of results that I already get using a less than reference quality system, then I can only imagine what multichannel music can sound like with higher quality components.


There's also no reason to insult the stereo fans who decide that, or choose not to believe, their systems can be improved with more channels added.
This thread has subsequently turned into a rather heated flame war of sorts. Not sure why...nobody is making one side or the other choose to adopt stereo or multichannel.

Excellent point. I think you and I both agree that two-channel music is best enjoyed on a good two-channel system. But, at the same time, multichannel sources are best served on a multichannel system, and it's pointless to argue the relative merit of multichannel versus two-channel, unless you're directly comparing a 5.1 and stereo version of the same recording. And even there, the quality of the 5.1 mix depends greatly on the content available on the original multitrack masters. I've made note of how mediocre the Steely Dan Gaucho 5.1 mix sounds. But, that very well could simply be a consequence of there not being enough material on the master tapes to create more fully realized 5.1 mixes like their Two Against Nature and Everything Must Go albums, which were originally conceived and recorded as 5.1 mixes with the stereo versions downmixed from the multichannel version.


Wish I was around during the transition from mono to stereo...I bet there were many similar arguments being made....

Oh you bet there were! I remember that our old (hopefully just on temporary hiatus) buddy Woodman has posted on that subject before, noting that during the mono to stereo transition, there was plenty of vitriol hurled in the direction of two-channel playback. But, like the situation we're in right now with multichannel music in its infancy, plenty of early stereo recordings sounded less than stellar, and a lot of listeners hadn't quite figured out how to properly position two speakers (in fact, quite a few listeners TODAY still can't position speakers for an optimal stereo effect). Remember the infamous "reprocessed for stereo" headline that you see on a lot of older LPs? If that's how people got exposed to stereo for the first time, is it any wonder they were yearning for mono?

Multichannel music is only at the beginning, and there are plenty of mixes that have already been done over the past few years and simply waiting for the appropriate format to come along for its introduction (DualDisc very well might be the medium that opens up the market for multichannel music, even if much of it ends up getting encoded in Dolby Digital). And considering how recording engineers are just beginning to figure out how to use multichannel, we've only scratched the surface so far. (I mean, just compare some of the Beatles' early stereo recordings where everything got segregated into one channel or the other, with the elaborate imaging cues and full width soundstage effect that got mixed into Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon less than 10 years later)

[nightflier]

I think the poster implied that one format was superior, all things equal...as in if the all the gear in both systems is of AAA quality and performance, the 5.1 should be better. I tend to agree. But nobody will argue that a Home Theater In a Box setup for $49 from Walmart isn't going to top a $4900 Bryston/PMC setup.

But that is just the point: the reality is that there is almost no one out there who has a 5.1 system that is of the same caliber as their 2.0 system or vise-versa. "All things being equal" is just not realistic, and many of the posts above don't take this into account.

Also, SACD/DVD-A are higher resolution formats and should not be compared with RBCDs for the purposes of this argument, or else all things are no longer equal. So what we are really comparing is matrixed surround sound formats with a 2.0 format. With this comparison, the center channel speaker often is problematic in calibrating a system, because it will overlap with the sweet spot created by the L/R speakers. I can hear this when I set my receiver to 5-channel stereo, for example.

[kexodusc]

But that is just the point: the reality is that there is almost no one out there who has a 5.1 system that is of the same caliber as their 2.0 system or vise-versa. "All things being equal" is just not realistic, and many of the posts above don't take this into account.
nightflier, think about your statement for a second...how many people do you suppose use their 5.1 systems as a stereo as well? I bet a large portion invest a bit more money into the stereo speakers and buy matching surround channels to enjoy the best of both worlds. So yeah, there's more than a few people who have 5.1 systems of the same caliber as their stereos and vice-versa, in fact I'm confident there are tens of thousands.


Also, SACD/DVD-A are higher resolution formats and should not be compared with RBCDs for the purposes of this argument, or else all things are no longer equal. So what we are really comparing is matrixed surround sound formats with a 2.0 format.
I don't think you've thought this out very well...how much do you really know about these two formats? Both SACD and DVD-A offer hi-rez in 2.0 channel format. And guess what - it's available at an even higher maximum resolution than in 5.1!!!! But ya know what, there's a whole slew of us folk out there who've done our in-home a/b tests and come to the conclusion that 5.1 at the lower resolution is far superior to the 2.0 track of highest resolution.


With this comparison, the center channel speaker often is problematic in calibrating a system, because it will overlap with the sweet spot created by the L/R speakers. I can hear this when I set my receiver to 5-channel stereo, for example.
Nightflier, 5-channel stereo is a goofy DSP made by the receiver manufacturers to send 2.0 signals to 5.1 channels. It is NOT the same as "multi-channel audio", a discrete 5.1 channel format. And on my receiver the center image does not receive a gain in SPL, You keep coming back to this "overlap with the sweet spot" bit...that is just not true...ask around...I'm sure a few others here will chime in to help convince you of this.. In a proper 5.1 audio mix, the information that would be sent to the L/R to produce a center image is instead sent to the center channel. The relative gain sent speakers is mixed in such a way that there is no overlap. No more than the main speakers produce main dialogue at the same time the center channel does (ambient effects at reduced levels notwithstanding).

Here's another point - are you even aware that a huge portion of today's recordings are actually recorded in 5.1 and DOWNMIXED into 2.0 for stereo releases? There's no way a competent mixer is going to overlook a +3 to +6dB "overlap" of the center image. This problem is non-existant for all intents and purposes.!

[thepogue]

Probably every concert you've ever been to has been 2 channel. See the above thread. If you want proof, wander into a music store that specializes in sound reinforcement (PA) equipment. Without exception, every mixing board, from the cheapest to the finest, is based on L/R.

Art
I guess all those little knobs confused "shok"....but in the end it's all mixed down X2..good post laddy....


Pogue

[thepogue]

Give it time, multi-channel audio has only been around, what, 3 years, as opposed to 60 for stereo....we're comparing a format in infancy to an evolved and mastered format.



I think the future is very bright and will sound better than ever!!!!





Perhaps the value isn't there for you yet. It is expensive and a bit harder to get a great multichannel system up and running, and the lack of available titles makes it discouraging to try, but don't limit yourself in the future.
As far as value...as I stated I think great two channel reporduction will cost you MORE then 5.1...but as stated the lack of (and more import for me) the price of new 5.1's is a killer...(for me at this point)...but wise words brudda...I never close the doors to the future...but I'm still holdin' on to me 8-tracks just in case!..:)

Pogue

[shokhead]

[QUOTE=thepogue]I guess all those little knobs confused "shok"....but in the end it's all mixed down X2..good post laddy....


Pogue[/QUOTE

Thats funny because 2 channal is about as old as those little knobs that nobody touches anymore. These new things like multi-channel audio and REMOTES. Man,you got to get into the 21st. :D

[thepogue]

I never even considered a live concert L&R,never. Every instrument has its own speaker, 3 guitars,keyboards,drums and a small horn section,theres 6 different speakers (#) spread across the stage. That doesnt seem L&R to me.
or an acoustic session...all those guitars, keys, horns and vocals (including back up V's) get mixed down to left and right for the most part the stage geag is just that..for the band to use as monitors...many of those wall high stacks upon stack of Marshalls you see are more for looks than sound...I do some stage work and normally a smallish amp (maybe a 2x12" cab) get miked and then blown through the PA...into...you guessed it stereo! in fact if your playing say....stage left...the only way you can hear what up on stage right is through your monitor (which sits on the floor facing the band...even with stack and stacks...you slap a kit center stage and you can forget it!!! (those silly drumers!!) ..so not to sound like a putts..but it don't really matter what you consider it...it is what it is...but to be honest.....this is really not an major factor as far as this thread goes..


Peace, Pogue

[thepogue]

[QUOTE=thepogue]I guess all those little knobs confused "shok"....but in the end it's all mixed down X2..good post laddy....


Pogue[/QUOTE

Thats funny because 2 channal is about as old as those little knobs that nobody touches anymore. These new things like multi-channel audio and REMOTES. Man,you got to get into the 21st. :Dcuz your next 5.1 disk would sound pretty quite without them!!!

[gonefishin]

Well, I certainly didn't read all of the above comments. But...Why two channel?

Because I've got two fairly decent performing speakers and I can't afford the money for three additional speakers of this quality nor the room.

dan

[grigore]

Because we have two ears and because to any concert the sound it's comeing from the front , from the stage. The multichanel solusions are not naturly . It's just a matter of industial revitalization.

[Resident Loser]

RL- I'm getting lost as to what your point is. TT may be strong (or perhaps wrong) in his assertion that you're talking about things you have no experience in but his arguments about music RE-production are spot on. You seem to be talking about music production, which can be a 'musical' experience without the high tech. TT is talking about accurately RE-producing music. If you want to recreate the experience of an event where sound (whether brass choirs, or room echos, or artists intentions) come from the rear, why is it so hard to accept that 5.1 adds to the realism of that re-produced experience by supplying sources for those sounds to emanate from the rear? And that a proper 5.1 setup will recreate that experience better than two channel?

...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...and I don't really have all that much of a problem even with THAT application...Zep, Kraftwerk, Floyd, etc. all have used it in stereo to provide the desired effect...the genres that use such devices, pop/rock or experimental/performance art, seem to rely more on production values than on quality of composition and are more of style than substance IMHO...These affectations(including any deliberately "misplaced" musicians) are done for effect and are, in general practice, the exception rather than the rule...particularly in a live venue.

Classical music and classic jazz do not require such manipulation. The quality of the MUSIC and performance transcends the medium, be it stereo, mono or my little finger-spinning execise. I defy anyone, anywhere to "improve"(and to whom it may concern, you know perfectly well what I mean, so let's not go off on some insipid tangent) on something like Miles Davis' "Birth Of The Cool"...originally twelve sides, released in mono...as 78s and re-mastered from the original studio sources(as opposed to the second or third generation disks used in other releases of this material) fairly recently by Rudy Van Gelder for release as a CD...It has depth and presence and it's still in mono...fancy that! Pool players have a saying "class beats @$$"

BTW, my experience as a performer, later as a field recordist and more currently as an educated and opinionated consumer, negates TtTs demeaning and highly insulting statements re: my "qualifications" to post on this or any other topic within my field of endeavor. It is misleading AND irrelevant to the issue and simply an example of a continuing "smokescreen". Should one chose to review the "to and fro" that has transpired within this thread, it should be painfully obvious who is actually the "spinmeister".

And to those who think we don't hear in "stereo", at least in the "audiophile" sense of the word...you are right, we hear binaurally...Our two(count 'em) ears have more acuity to determining sources and reflections than any system or format could ever possibly hope to represent in a sound reproduction situation. HOWEVER...the end mix pretty much consists of L&R...anything beyond that basic representation, any discrete sound sources we may hear at the live event, is due to bleeding of these sources...In the finished product, they would require a specific assignment in the "stereo" soundstage, via panning, to approximate what we hear binaurally.

jimHJJ(...I hope that clarifies things a bit...)

[shokhead]

I grew up on the Monkeys and Beatles playing on a record player you snap the lid closed and carry. Advanced to 4 track and a highschool loudspeaker on my garage roof hooked up to a 50's jukebox type radio. Then the endall,8 tracks. Opps,cassettes which i held onto well into cd's. I could record my cassettes to sound as good. Gave in to cd's and now multi-channel. I'm in my 50's but i'm trying not to get to audio stale. It was really more fun and simple in the beginning. :D

[noddin0ff]

My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...and I don't really have all that much of a problem even with THAT application
One man's 'Wow!' is another man's 'Far-out, solid, and right on!' There's no misuse, just subjective appreciation. 2-channel headphones put the music right in your head...Does that creep you out also? Both 2 channel, and 5.1 channel can place sounds in weird places, that's not the fault of the format. 5.1 would be better at placing sounds realistically where they should go...


The quality of the MUSIC and performance transcends the medium
I'd have to disaggree with the hyperbole here. I see your point, a good listener can hear and be moved by the artistry of the creation. But the medium most certainly contributes to the transcendence of the experience.


Our two(count 'em) ears have more acuity to determining sources and reflections than any system or format could ever possibly hope to represent in a sound reproduction situation.
I think this is flat out wrong, but I'll accept it as a matter of opinion.


HOWEVER...the end mix pretty much consists of L&R...anything beyond that basic representation, any discrete sound sources we may hear at the live event, is due to bleeding of these sources...In the finished product, they would require a specific assignment in the "stereo" soundstage, via panning, to approximate what we hear binaurally.
I guess this must be the point of confusion for me at least. Either I don't understand what you're saying, or this is just flat out incorrect. If you can record sound eminating from the front and rear of a venue and then reproduce those sounds from the front and rear of a 5.1 setup, then it stands to logical reason that the end mix doesn't consist of L/R.

[Resident Loser]

...One man's 'Wow!' is another man's 'Far-out, solid, and right on!'.

I fail to see any difference...That's exactly what I meant...in addition, it simply impresses the easily impressed IMO...


...2-channel headphones put the music right in your head...Does that creep you out also?

I accept that the image presented by most 'phones is entirely different than that produced by a pair of loudspeakers and as such produces an acceptible(but different) aural experience.


...Both 2 channel, and 5.1 channel can place sounds in weird places, that's not the fault of the format. 5.1 would be better at placing sounds realistically where they should go...

Re: the first, someone deliberately places the sounds, neither format does it of it's own volition...re: the second, that is what I have been saying.


...I'd have to disaggree with the hyperbole here. I see your point, a good listener can hear and be moved by the artistry of the creation. But the medium most certainly contributes to the transcendence of the experience....

Hype? If the medium is required to convey the message, the message is questionable.


...I think this is flat out wrong, but I'll accept it as a matter of opinion.

So you think any representation of an event in format "X" will be able to mimic and present 100% of what our two omnidirectional receptors(ears) and processing device(brain) can perceive...I don't...except for binaural recordings, it will probably require something on a par with multiple devices such as that Yamaha YSP-1(I think that's what it is) to rival the abilities of the poor old biomechanical devices in our heads.


...I guess this must be the point of confusion for me at least. Either I don't understand what you're saying, or this is just flat out incorrect. If you can record sound eminating from the front and rear of a venue and then reproduce those sounds from the front and rear of a 5.1 setup, then it stands to logical reason that the end mix doesn't consist of L/R

Context, context, context...the entire paragraph please...this was stated in reference to inquiries/statements re: the "mix" of the front hemisphere (i.e. the sources) at a live performance. The rear field or ambient domain in that context was not part of the equation.

jimHJJ(...gotta' go...)

[hermanv]

I think it was back in the late sixties, maybe the seventies that Binaural recordings held a resurgance. I have no idea how old the basic concept is, but it's very straight forward. You put two microphones as far apart as human ears, record the music and play it back through headphones. Some companies made artificial human heads with the microphones embedded inside correctly shaped ears.

The spatial realism was extraordinary, talk about sound stage! Room effects including signals of the back wall were clearly audible. The whole thing was quite a gimmic and I use the term intentionally. It's all but gone, other than the initial wow it died pretty quickly.

I have absolutely nothing against multi channel, but I think the musical listening experience has little to do with placement accuracy. For those of us with a finite budget, I believe today you get more musical enjoyment per dollar with stereo.

I accept that this can change. There does seem to be more sound quality per dollar than there was 10 or 15 years ago. But, the very best systems I've heard still command extraordinary prices and as far as I've heard, can simply not be duplicated for one tenth their cost.

[nightflier]

I don't think you've thought this out very well...how much do you really know about these two formats? Both SACD and DVD-A offer hi-rez in 2.0 channel format. And guess what - it's available at an even higher maximum resolution than in 5.1!!!! But ya know what, there's a whole slew of us folk out there who've done our in-home a/b tests and come to the conclusion that 5.1 at the lower resolution is far superior to the 2.0 track of highest resolution.

I guess I have some more listening to do then. My 5.1/7.1 setup is just via an average receiver, but my 2.0 setup is a whole lot more capable and getting even better (I'm still building it up). That said, I do think that we should narrow all the options down a little because there's a lot of questions here, folks.

First of all, we need to throw out all comparisons between consumer grade 5.1 receivers and multi-thousand dollar 2.0 systems, because that comparison just isn't fair. So the comparison has to be on our surround systems, only, and using these to switch between the two formats. I know that won't please many, including me, because I consider my Cambridge CD player in my stereo system pretty good compared to my DVD player in my 5.1 system.

The other painful thing about this is that we have to throw out vinyl and even RBCD's right away, because they are not available in multi-channel formats, and thus not available for comparison. Essentially we need hardware and software that is available (in resonably identical forms) on both formats only. So hybrid SACD/DVD-A disks are the only option.

Hardware:

On the 5.1 side, it should be an SACD/DVD-A player with discreet 5.1 analog outputs. No processing should be used so all the matrixed formats (PLII, Stereo-5, etc.) are out. Also, an effort needs to be made to simplify the system as much as possible, too, so any unused components should be removed from the systems.

For 2.0, we'll also use the SACD/DVD-A player connected to 2-speakers with absolutely no software processing. Before we go on, we should determine if we include 2.1 in this comparison since we are using a sub on the 5.1 side, or would that constitute too much processing?

I realize that much of the comparison will depend on the quality of DAC's both internal ones and seperate ones, but to keep the comparison reasonably manageable, we'll ignore these.

Software:

The next thing we need to hammer out is the music. We've been throwing all kinds of types into this debate. Live? Studio? Recorded for 5.1 and downmixed to 2.0 or visa-versa? So let's agree on several well regarded and representative recordings that are available on a hybrid multi-channel disk and that most of us are likely to own. It should be a good selection of music tracks with good representation in bass, mid's and highs. It should also cover several music genres such as classical, jazz, etc. as well as a good selection of instruments and voices.

So there you have it.

I propose we all decide on a these criteria for a fair comparison. Then we come back here and see what we have found. Our systems vary greatly, I know, but this way we'll get somewhat of a concensus. I think this would be a very interesting experiment. While many will immediately conclude that the multi-channel camp will win this (I can already see the vinylophiles boycotting everything from here on out), we need to keep in mind that most of the music we select here was written for 2.0 and re-engineered for 5.1 once multi-channel became popular enough. Ultimately, the crux of this debate is whether multichannel stays truer to the original music than stereo, or whether it is merely psychologically more pleasing on whatever level.

One more thing, this forum is already 7 pages, maybe we should move it to a new discussion, too.

[E-Stat]

...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...
I'm with you. I don't doubt the multi-channel theory - just am not impressed by and large by the execution for musical presentations. My reference is live unamplified music, most often symphony orchestras. Other than room ambience, I just didn't hear anything Friday night at the ASO from the musicians emerge from the balcony or the side walls. Regarding ambience and center fill, good mic-ing technique goes a long way, IMHO whether it's fifty year old Living Presence RCAs or more current Telarc stuff.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm with you. I don't doubt the multi-channel theory - just am not impressed by and large by the execution for musical presentations. My reference is live unamplified music, most often symphony orchestras. Other than room ambience, I just didn't hear anything Friday night at the ASO from the musicians emerge from the balcony or the side walls. Regarding ambience and center fill, good mic-ing technique goes a long way, IMHO whether it's fifty year old Living Presence RCAs or more current Telarc stuff.

rw

How do you think your reference stands up to studio projects? It can't really because studio recordings have no reference. Live recording do. You were listening to a live concert in a live venue and that is the reference for that set. Studio recording are not live events, do not normally have all of the musician in the studio at the same time, and tracks are not laid in the same day. Trying to compare this to a live situation in real time is impossible.

Some classical music score use antiphonal brass parts positioned in the rear or sides of the venue. If they are not recorded or panned into the rears or sides are we being true to the music? Too many folks use "stereo" as a reference for multichannel. That is a mistake of epic proportions. Multichannel wasn't concieved out of the limitations of the playback technology of this time, stereo was.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...and I don't really have all that much of a problem even with THAT application...Zep, Kraftwerk, Floyd, etc. all have used it in stereo to provide the desired effect...the genres that use such devices, pop/rock or experimental/performance art, seem to rely more on production values than on quality of composition and are more of style than substance IMHO...These affectations(including any deliberately "misplaced" musicians) are done for effect and are, in general practice, the exception rather than the rule...particularly in a live venue.

There is no such thing as traditional presentation techniques. It only exist if you compare multichannel to what has been done in stereo. Stereo by nature is a front loaded system. Everything is placed in front of you because the delivery mechanism is there. Our hearing system is not a front loaded system or our ears would be on our forehead. We hear naturally in 360 degrees. You are(as I have said constantly) thinking one dimensionally in a three dimensional process. There are live recordings, studio recordings, conceptual recording and mixing processes. Each requires a different principle when approaching mixing. No one size fits all.

Over and over I have read you rather uneducacted musing regarding the "misplacement" of instruments and vocals. If you are creating a concept album, anything goes. You can place instruments and vocals anywhere in the soundfield if that is you concept. It is not wrong as you so often contend, but just another approach to recording and a different conceptual idea. The problem is you are stuck in old school, with an old mind, with a old concept of how mixing should be done. This is a new world with more channels and with more than one way to mix an album. Live recordings should paint an accurate representation of the performance done. But studio recordings are not the same as a live recording. There is no actual soundstaging in studio recordings, so you have to create it. Panning instruments into the rear speakers is not wrong, flashy, or done to create a (in a negative tone you take)wow effect, it is nothing more than another way of accomplishing a artist vision of what the desire. If you don't like it, that is one thing. To call it wrong just shows that you are stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward.


Classical music and classic jazz do not require such manipulation.

If the jazz is a studio recording, then it does require a different mixing technique. However the concept of recreating and event, and creating one is quite different from each other. Manipulation is aVERY poor choice of wording though.




The quality of the MUSIC and performance transcends the medium, be it stereo, mono or my little finger-spinning execise. I defy anyone, anywhere to "improve"(and to whom it may concern, you know perfectly well what I mean, so let's not go off on some insipid tangent) on something like Miles Davis' "Birth Of The Cool"...originally twelve sides, released in mono...as 78s and re-mastered from the original studio sources(as opposed to the second or third generation disks used in other releases of this material) fairly recently by Rudy Van Gelder for release as a CD...It has depth and presence and it's still in mono...fancy that! Pool players have a saying "class beats @$$"

While the quality of the music and performance is extremely important, the medium is also equally important. A good performance of good music can be botched up with a poor recording and mixing job. If you have the orginal tapes, anything can be improved. You can even convert a mono recording to VERY good stereo. Chace Studios does it all the time. Whether YOU like it or not is immaterial. Fans of Miles will judge the quality of the performance, music, and the recording based on how well something like this would sell. That opinion doesn't not rest on the shoulders of a person unwilling, and unable to move into the future.



BTW, my experience as a performer, later as a field recordist and more currently as an educated and opinionated consumer, negates TtTs demeaning and highly insulting statements re: my "qualifications" to post on this or any other topic within my field of endeavor. It is misleading AND irrelevant to the issue and simply an example of a continuing "smokescreen". Should one chose to review the "to and fro" that has transpired within this thread, it should be painfully obvious who is actually the "spinmeister".

Being a performer or a field recordist is quite different from being a studio engineer. Especially if you did both a hundred years ago. Times, formats, recording practices, mixing and mastering equipment, and how they are used have all changed, or is changing as we speak. It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today.

If you felt demeaned or insulted by my comments, that simply means that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You just don't like you antiquated ideas regarding recording and mixing challenged. Well, its a new world RL, either you join us, or get left behind. As far as your feelings getting hurt, put a band aid on them and get over it.



And to those who think we don't hear in "stereo", at least in the "audiophile" sense of the word...you are right, we hear binaurally...Our two(count 'em) ears have more acuity to determining sources and reflections than any system or format could ever possibly hope to represent in a sound reproduction situation. HOWEVER...the end mix pretty much consists of L&R...anything beyond that basic representation, any discrete sound sources we may hear at the live event, is due to bleeding of these sources...In the finished product, they would require a specific assignment in the "stereo" soundstage, via panning, to approximate what we hear binaurally.
jimHJJ(...I hope that clarifies things a bit...)

The end mix can be more than just L&R, it could just as easily be 5.1. Stereo is a format created out of limitation, it is not and never has been a reference format. The limitations of the equipment gave bith to stereo. To use it as the epitomy of sound reproduction is a huge mistake, and just plain rediculous.

[E-Stat]

How do you think your reference stands up to studio projects? It can't really because studio recordings have no reference.
Agreed. For qualitative determinations, I avoid studio recordings for that very reason. Having said that, I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.


Some classical music score use antiphonal brass parts positioned in the rear or sides of the venue. If they are not recorded or panned into the rears or sides are we being true to the music?
If the live venue has such an arrangement, then I would agree you would need a multi-channel system in order to accurately reproduce it. I have yet to encounter such, however, in thirty years of concert attendance. I'll go with the 95% solution.


Multichannel wasn't concieved out of the limitations of the playback technology of this time, stereo was.
Independent of technology or preconceived notions, there are unavoidable economic concerns that come into play when you compare two channel to multi-channel. I have heard very good MC and it does some things very well. For a given (non-astronomical) budget, you must necessarily compromise the quality of the individual components in a MC based system. The question then boils down to performance compromises and individual preferences.

I do enjoy my 5.1 HT system, but not for music.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agreed. For qualitative determinations, I avoid studio recordings for that very reason. Having said that, I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.

Man!! Your sure are missing alot of music. Just because we have to pan instruments into position doesn't mean its bad! LOL



If the live venue has such an arrangement, then I would agree you would need a multi-channel system in order to accurately reproduce it. I have yet to encounter such, however, in thirty years of concert attendance. I'll go with the 95% solution.

I guess you don't listen to many requiems. Almost all of them require antiphonal parts whether in the brass or chorus. The last two concerts I attended freatured the Berlioz and Mozart requiem complete with perfect placed antiphonal parts. I guess I have had more opportunities to hear these kinds of things than you have.



Independent of technology or preconceived notions, there are unavoidable economic concerns that come into play when you compare two channel to multi-channel. I have heard very good MC and it does some things very well. For a given (non-astronomical) budget, you must necessarily compromise the quality of the individual components in a MC based system. The question then boils down to performance compromises and individual preferences.

I do enjoy my 5.1 HT system, but not for music.

rw

My system does well on both. I planned it that way. I do not believe you have to make a compromise on either music or movies just to put together a system that does both well. And it doesn't have to be as expensive as many of you seem to think.

[hermanv]

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.
Neat eh? You can quote yourself, probably reduces disagreement.

We went all the way around and back to page 1.

In the end we talked about the quality of the musical experience and while multi-channel adds somthing two channel can not accomplish, for a given cost it seems many here would choose clean, good quality sound over more spatial information. I believe that reasonably answers the original posters question "Why do people like 2.0 channel so much???"

If and when the multi channel cost drops to allow equivalent quality vs two channel with the same total cost, many will switch. I might switch sooner if that lottery number comes in.

[shokhead]

I dont belive anyone would say,lets see,2.0 is cheaper so thats it for me. Sir T has it right,most HT does 2.0 just fine and just as good as a seperate 2.0 system.

[hermanv]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

I don't think you have heard enough receivers nor are all good stand alone process all that expensive. You guys look at your 2.0 systems as investments, why wouldn't you look at a 5.1 system the same way. I did, and the cost of my system didn't break the bank either. If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

[E-Stat]

Man!! Your sure are missing alot of music. Just because we have to pan instruments into position doesn't mean its bad! LOL
I'm confused TT. Here is what I said: I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.

Your point would be...what?


I guess you don't listen to many requiems.
That would be correct - not into requiems. Not ready for the heavy death thing yet. I'm more into Copland, Holst, Prokofiev, Ravel, etc.


I do not believe you have to make a compromise on either music or movies just to put together a system that does both well. And it doesn't have to be as expensive as many of you seem to think.
I guess we will just disagree here as we have different points of reference.

rw

[Arturo7]

If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.

Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

[kexodusc]

Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

The idea that a good multi-channel system would cost more than a stereo system to acheive the same level of "performance" ignores two "truths" in audio, and is very incorrect.
My stereo would cost about double the 5.1 system in my living room. Yet the multi-channel performance offers more enjoyment, a better experience despite it's relative difficiencies. There is a tradeoff, the highs and midrange are slightly less refined, but the added benefits of a more realistic 3-d soundstage, superior imaging, and much bigger and more dynamic sound, outweigh this IMO. It's more fun to listen to. I suspect if I was to invest the same amount into my 5.1 the overall results would be even more favorable.

First, I have yet to meet an audiophile who disagrees with the notion of diminishing returns on "investment" in audio equipement. $10,000 speakers sound fabulous, but they certainly don't sound 5 times better than $2000 speakers...not even close. I'd argue thhey don't sound two times better than $2000 speakers...I know, it's difficult to put a number on it specifically, but I'm sure we can all agree that with each successive upgrade we're squeezing yet a few more percentage points out of our systems, not exponential improvements, but relatively minor leaps. Diminishing returns and all. It stands to reason you are more effectively allocating your resources buying "lower-end" gear for a 5.1 system.

Second, after establishing the differences in performance aren't aren't directly proportional to the differences in price, it's important to understand that in a multi-channel system you DON'T NEED speakers of such high quality to achieve the same leval of performance in your 2-channel system.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few reasons why. This is going to require rethinking the way you build your system however. Fortunately, many manufacturers have already begun to change the way they build speakers.

In any speaker worth having, the drivers represent the largest cost of material - if they don't then this speaker wasn't built effectively. (notwithstanding the inevitable exception to this rule, but show me a speaker with $5000 invested in high grade electronic components and $1000 worth of drivers and I'll find you a much better one for $4000 in drivers and $1000 in higher grade electonic components) Most often, higher priced woofers AND tweeters cost more money to produce only to achieve a lower frequency of resonance. Lower response, but not <i>better</i> in the common ranges.
The 0.1 channel of the multi-channel system allows a whole new and better topology for reproducing the audio spectrum. (not to mention providing superior flexibility in placing the bass reproducing speakers in the best location in the room, which is rarely where you'd place your main speakers). By dedicating a woofer (or two) to the lowest octave and incorporating a high-pass filter somewhere in the 1st or second octave, you either dramatically mitigate the loss of linear control in the remaining drivers by relieving them of the low frequencies at their limits of response (where they perform poorest), or you decrease the need for higher priced drivers that are required to overcome the dilemma of choosing between more low frequency response or superior performance in the remaining regions..

This doesn't even take into consideration that a 5.1 system will not need the same level of refinement to reproduce the equivalent soundstage and imaging as a stereo system, just by virtue of having more speakers.

It's not much of a stretch to see why a 5.1 system, with a more effective allocation of resources, could offer more satisfaction and performance than a 2.0 system. Furthermore by incorporating the cost of 2 separate systems (ie: E-stat/Kex's separate 2.0 stereo and 5.1 systems) into one system, you can have your cake and eat it too.

To me the cost of the equipment is not a good argument at all. The remaining hurdles in the transtion to multi-channel audio instead remain with the continued struggle to find a universal mainstream medium to deliver the format. I also believe that for many people space and complexity might be a bit of a deterrent. Let's face it - 5 speakers in very small rooms is going to be tough. But if multi-channel fails it certainly shouldn't because of cost, or inferior performance.

[kexodusc]

Hardware:

On the 5.1 side, it should be an SACD/DVD-A player with discreet 5.1 analog outputs. No processing should be used so all the matrixed formats (PLII, Stereo-5, etc.) are out. Also, an effort needs to be made to simplify the system as much as possible, too, so any unused components should be removed from the systems.

For 2.0, we'll also use the SACD/DVD-A player connected to 2-speakers with absolutely no software processing. Before we go on, we should determine if we include 2.1 in this comparison since we are using a sub on the 5.1 side, or would that constitute too much processing?

I realize that much of the comparison will depend on the quality of DAC's both internal ones and seperate ones, but to keep the comparison reasonably manageable, we'll ignore these.

Software:

The next thing we need to hammer out is the music. We've been throwing all kinds of types into this debate. Live? Studio? Recorded for 5.1 and downmixed to 2.0 or visa-versa? So let's agree on several well regarded and representative recordings that are available on a hybrid multi-channel disk and that most of us are likely to own. It should be a good selection of music tracks with good representation in bass, mid's and highs. It should also cover several music genres such as classical, jazz, etc. as well as a good selection of instruments and voices.

So there you have it.

I propose we all decide on a these criteria for a fair comparison. Then we come back here and see what we have found. Our systems vary greatly, I know, but this way we'll get somewhat of a concensus. I think this would be a very interesting experiment. While many will immediately conclude that the multi-channel camp will win this (I can already see the vinylophiles boycotting everything from here on out), we need to keep in mind that most of the music we select here was written for 2.0 and re-engineered for 5.1 once multi-channel became popular enough. Ultimately, the crux of this debate is whether multichannel stays truer to the original music than stereo, or whether it is merely psychologically more pleasing on whatever level.

One more thing, this forum is already 7 pages, maybe we should move it to a new discussion, too.

I agree, all processing would have to be "off"...the .1 channel I would suggest be left at the discretion of the individual for 2.0 music. Using a sub isn't really processing anymore than a 3-way crossover in a 3-way speaker is, but it's an integral componenent of DVD-A and SACD tracks. No processing at all, just a dedicated audio channel.

I think this would be worth pursuing here, and if nothing else would at the very least expose people to multi-channel audio. Hopefully if we could get enough people on this site onboard, we could combine the knowledge and present "guidelines" for setup, etc, so the inexperience with multi-channel isn't a factor.

PM me if you want to follow up on this...we could probably start a new thread to enlist some more volunteers, then formulate a strategy or rules for approaching this.

Now you're thinking! Good job!

[Resident Loser]

There is no such thing as traditional presentation techniques.It only exist if you compare multichannel to what has been done in stereo. Stereo by nature is a front loaded system. Everything is placed in front of you because the delivery mechanism is there. Our hearing system is not a front loaded system or our ears would be on our forehead. We hear naturally in 360 degrees. You are(as I have said constantly) thinking one dimensionally in a three dimensional process. There are live recordings, studio recordings, conceptual recording and mixing processes. Each requires a different principle when approaching mixing. No one size fits all.


When I go to a live presentation, the performers are in front of me...unless of course I'm facing the bar...As to the rest of your paragraph...again, I have no problem with trying to provide a "you-are-there" simulation. Why do you keep arguing against an non-argument?


Over and over I have read you rather uneducacted musing regarding the "misplacement" of instruments and vocals. If you are creating a concept album, anything goes. You can place instruments and vocals anywhere in the soundfield if that is you concept. It is not wrong as you so often contend, but just another approach to recording and a different conceptual idea. The problem is you are stuck in old school, with an old mind, with a old concept of how mixing should be done. This is a new world with more channels and with more than one way to mix an album. Live recordings should paint an accurate representation of the performance done. But studio recordings are not the same as a live recording. There is no actual soundstaging in studio recordings, so you have to create it. Panning instruments into the rear speakers is not wrong, flashy, or done to create a (in a negative tone you take)wow effect, it is nothing more than another way of accomplishing a artist vision of what the desire. If you don't like it, that is one thing. To call it wrong just shows that you are stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward.

QUOTE]

Oh, puh-leese...give it a rest...my opinion is just as valid as yours...you keep repeating things about my "...uneducted musing..." or being of "... old school, with an old mind..." or that I am somehow "...stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward..." why is that? Feel threatened? Haven't any facts to back up any of your feeble arguments? Does your own sense of worth require that you to resort to some asinine assassination attempt in order to somehow "discredit" my opinion?


Manipulation is aVERY poor choice of wording though.

I'm sorry, are you familiar with the definition of the word "manipulation"? You could look it up...and BTW, when your spelling and grammar improve, you may have cause to comment on MY choice of words...until then, kindly keep your comments to yourself.


That opinion doesn't not rest on the shoulders of a person unwilling, and unable to move into the future.It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today

Being a performer or a field recordist is quite different from being a studio engineer. Especially if you did both a hundred years ago. Times, formats, recording practices, mixing and mastering equipment, and how they are used have all changed, or is changing as we speak. It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today.

If you felt demeaned or insulted by my comments, that simply means that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You just don't like you antiquated ideas regarding recording and mixing challenged. Well, its a new world RL, either you join us, or get left behind. As far as your feelings getting hurt, put a band aid on them and get over it..

Well, there you go again...and while you're at it, tell us all about those Niagra recorders...

jimHJJ(...do tell...)

[Arturo7]

You make a very good point on the subwoofer covering the lower frequencies so the drivers don't have to. The same can be done with stereo and you've still got 3 more channels of value.

The law of diminishing returns certainly applies to speakers. However, you still get higher quality at $5,000 per amp/speaker than $1,666 per amp/speaker. 3 times the quality? Probably not. 50% more? Probably, if not more. This is of course, highly subjective.

Soundstage is only one aspect of a sound system's performance. Accuracy is another. I would rather have a violin sound like a violin than my room sound like a concert hall. Perhaps this preference is at the core of this thread's disagreement.

So yes, cost is very much a part of this discussion.

Then there's the issue of 60 years worth of recordings vs only a few.

[shokhead]

So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?

[kexodusc]

Arturo7: Adding a subwoofer to a stereo isn't the same as using it in a 5.1 system. The information the sub receives from 5.1 is discrete, and mastered with the subwoofer in mind. A stereo requires digital processing, or a filter with a few more crossover and connection difficulties. While I agree a 2-channels system is improved with a sub as well, I believe the 5.1 system (or even a 2.1 system if it exists) uses it much better.

Wow! 50% improvement from $1666 to $5000 ? In my honest opinion I've always reduced felt it to be more in the area of 15-25%, if that. Maybe a few years back, but $1000 speakers are sounding better and better these days, I haven't heard the same leaps and bounds in the more expensive models (yet). But I understand and can appreciate the subjective "values" we place on that last 10%. But I definitely do not hear 50% more music, 50% more frequencies, 50% more instruments etc, between a $1000 speaker and $5000 speaker. I'll respect your opinion though, I'm sure to some other people the difference is even greater (or less). Whatever subjective values you wish to place on it the point remains that 2 speakers are being fed a workload that 5 speakers of lower "performance" could handle at a comparable level once relieved of the burden. Perhaps not as "accurately" as you had said, but close. I'm quite sure I can listen to almost any $1,666 speaker and identify a violin sounds like a violin 100% as much as on a $5000 or $10000 speaker. Does the $5000 speaker sound better? Yes, at least to me, but the improvements become increasingly marginal. Enough that I believe the value gap can be easily overcome by amalgamating 2 separate systems into 1. Though, for those with no interest in home theater, I'll admit there would be less value in it. I concede, I spend no less than 1 hour a day (when I'm not on the road at work) listening to music on my system, often more. I spend at least 10 hours a week watching movies, or HDTV, (and even the odd video game) where the home theater side is important, so I'm probably in the 60/40 camp in favour of music. That makes it easier for me to value the multi-channel investment.

I suspect if we were to define "accuracy" I suspect we'd get a number of criteria, "resolution and finer detail" as you seem to imply being one, 3-d soundstaging and imaging being another. What draws you in more? Which is more important? That's subjective, to me they're about equal I think - lack of imaging and staging sounds anything BUT real. A violin doesn't sound like a violin when it sounds like Cello, a cymbal, and a horn all at the same time. And I wouldn't care where a dull sounding harp was emitting sounds from if it was lifeless and flat. I don't think I could determine that one of these aspects draws me in more than the other. But we can both admit that some speakers are far better at one of these than the other...in a 5.1 system, with the imaging and soundstage by design being far superior (adding a great element of detail and resolution in itself), I would probably focus on a speaker that invested more design into the "accuracy" element than the soundstaging element to achieve similar results - back to the efficient resource allocation notion.

I'm struggling with this decision now...tempted to move my main speakers and amp into my HT and slowly match the surround channels to it. But as I mentioned before, the space limitations (well, spousal-acceptance-factor) are interfering with this idea. And as good as my speakers in my 5.1 system are, I don't enjoy them nearly as much in 2.0 as my stereo speakers, so I'd hate to "downgrade" all the 2.0 music I have.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

When I go to a live presentation, the performers are in front of me...unless of course I'm facing the bar...As to the rest of your paragraph...again, I have no problem with trying to provide a "you-are-there" simulation. Why do you keep arguing against an non-argument?

The argument boils down to your rather narrow view of what constitutes a mix. You think there is only one way to do it, my experience teaches me that you are plain wrong. Simple as that. Your perspective is based only on live events, but recording audio extends well beyond that.




Oh, puh-leese...give it a rest...my opinion is just as valid as yours...you keep repeating things about my "...uneducted musing..." or being of "... old school, with an old mind..." or that I am somehow "...stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward..." why is that? Feel threatened? Haven't any facts to back up any of your feeble arguments? Does your own sense of worth require that you to resort to some asinine assassination attempt in order to somehow "discredit" my opinion?

Why should I feel threatened by somebody who listens to music on a mono system? Or a person who has very limited multichannel listening experience(and doesn't even have a multichannel system) talking multichannel as if he were an expert on the subject. Mono is not even yesterday, it was last century. As far as facts go, I have presented enough just in this thread alone to write a book, just adjust those bi-focals and read.

I don't have to discredit your opinion, you did a great job of that all by yourself. My sense of self worth is not apart of this topic. Your continued spinning is making me dizzy.


I'm sorry, are you familiar with the definition of the word "manipulation"? You could look it up...and BTW, when your spelling and grammar improve, you may have cause to comment on MY choice of words...until then, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

VERY familar online trick. When you have no facts to present, you attack grammar and spelling. This isn't about grammar or spelling. Stick to the topic and give the spin a rest.

No need to look it up manipulation, I know exactly what it means. It doesn't apply to this topic at all, because that is not what audio engineers do. This word may work to forward your "record company trying to fool the consumers" theory, but in reality(where you have a problem living) it doesn't apply to mixing at all




Well, there you go again...and while you're at it, tell us all about those Niagra recorders...

jimHJJ(...do tell...)

I would prefer that you talk about your great mono audio system. Must be state of the art!

[Resident Loser]

So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?

...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...

Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

jimHJJ(...good listening...)

[ericl]

Yo, Guys,

CHILL OUT!!!!!

alright? you're getting mighty personal in here, and its embarassing.

don't make me shut this thread down!!

your pal,

Eric

[shokhead]

...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

I just asked.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

I dont own a SUV. Never been to Starbucks. Jeans and t-shirts for me. Never owned or even used a cell-phone. Shoots all that down the drain.

All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...
My sneakers are always on sale,hopefully under 70 bucks.

Never,ever had a CC debt

Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

jimHJJ(...good listening...)

In the end,its ok that you listen to 2ch and its ok someothers use HT for both. Some of your thoughts are quite a loud of crap,imo of course. I could easily figure all 2ch users are fat,short slobs that wearout there chairs within 6 months but i dont think that at all.

[Resident Loser]

The argument boils down to your rather narrow view of what constitutes a mix. You think there is only one way to do it, my experience teaches me that you are plain wrong. Simple as that. Your perspective is based only on live events, but recording audio extends well beyond that.

Still beating the dead horse argument-wise, eh?


Why should I feel threatened by somebody who listens to music on a mono system? Or a person who has very limited multichannel listening experience(and doesn't even have a multichannel system) talking multichannel as if he were an expert on the subject. Mono is not even yesterday, it was last century. As far as facts go, I have presented enough just in this thread alone to write a book, just adjust those bi-focals and read.

Did I say I listen to a mono system? A little reading comprhension seems in order here...I said "I can" drop a 78 on my Heathkit/BSR changer with a crystal cart and feed it through my old SONY AM/FM/WB portable...the gist being the performance transcends the medium...still don't get it? That poor horse...a book...A BOOK...sorry books require many pages and paper a bit larger than the fortune in a cookie.


I don't have to discredit your opinion

And yet to seem to relish the attempt at doing so...


My sense of self worth is not apart of this topic

Oh, but it is...


Your continued spinning is making me dizzy

It's your own pirouette that's responsible for that...


VERY familar online trick. When you have no facts to present, you attack grammar and spelling. This isn't about grammar or spelling.

Nor is it about my poor choice of words...is it now? just a little tit-for-tat TtT...I seem to recall something earlier about dishing things out...


No need to look it up manipulation, I know exactly what it means. It doesn't apply to this topic at all, because that is not what audio engineers do. This word may work to forward your "record company trying to fool the consumers" theory, but in reality(where you have a problem living) it doesn't apply to mixing at all

And just what do engineers do? Run a locomotive? Sit behind stacks of papers with a slide-rule...err, scientific calculator? Take some entity and change it to somehow fit a prescribed requirement? May not be using ones hands to beat a piece of iron into shape, but it's still "manipulation" in every sense of the word.


I would prefer that you talk about your great mono audio system. Must be state of the art!

Wish I actually had one, a nice Rek-O-Kut with a Pickering cart and some 16" transcriptions, a Wollensak or Ampex deck, a Fisher, EICO or Marantz front-end and a MAC or Scott amp powering a built-in infinite baffle with some E-V drivers...maybe wire in the old DuMont...but alas, I don't...so drag that horse back to the stable and let's concentrate on those Niagra recorders, shall we?

jimHJJ(...slowly I turned...)