2 channel vs. multi-channel

This thread is not meant to stir up another fight between the 2 channel and multi-channel fans. I'm just looking to find out how many of each we have here. Do you strictly listen to 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1? Do you do some of each? Are you just a music person or do you HT as well. Maybe you only use your system for HT and never listen to music. Step up and be counted.

I find multi-channel far superior to stereo, so much to the point that MC can sound better and more real to me on lower grade equipment than a good stereo mix.

Problem is, there's just not enough of it, and a great sounding stereo can be purchased for a lot less than a great sounding multi-channel rig, IMO. There's more stereo music out there, and it's still "pretty darn good".

I would have thought with the HT boom that MC audio would really make more noise than it has but I guess maybe it's just too much effort for today's "I want it now" society. Seems there's less focus on a good stereo sound and more on convenience, portability, etc. MC audio is going well against that trend by adding complexity and cost instead of reducing it.

Oh well...I can get into good music listening to it on my $20 clock radio - MY 5 DIY speakers and sub, and decent entry level A/V receiver and SACD/DVD-A player would run you well over $2000. MC really allow me to enjoy it 100 times more? Probably not.

all my music is played in stereo, 2 channels 4 speakers baby :)

for movies (on the HT system upstairs) It's 5.1, for games (on the pc, here in my room) it's also 5.1

but stereo music in 5.1? no way.

who were the others who voted?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

This thread is not meant to stir up another fight between the 2 channel and multi-channel fans. I'm just looking to find out how many of each we have here. Do you strictly listen to 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1? Do you do some of each? Are you just a music person or do you HT as well. Maybe you only use your system for HT and never listen to music. Step up and be counted.

---

GM,

I voted 2.0 for music, multi for HT because that's the way my actual listening works out. However I am an advocate of mult-channel for music: a good M/C recording can produce a level of reality that 2C just can't challenge.

I listen to 2C for music almost exclusively because (a) the HT set is very often being used by other family members for TV viewing, and (b) the quality of my HT set up is much inferior to my stereo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

I find multi-channel far superior to stereo, so much to the point that MC can sound better and more real to me on lower grade equipment than a good stereo mix.

Problem is, there's just not enough of it, and a great sounding stereo can be purchased for a lot less than a great sounding multi-channel rig, IMO. There's more stereo music out there, and it's still "pretty darn good".
....

---

I agree here, Kex.

For the same buck spent on either, M/C is the way to go, though of course the 2C will be inferior channel-for-channel basis. Then again there aren't enough good M/C recordings for me seriously want to equal my stereo investment on the M/C side.

Nevertheless when buying new recordings, I strongly favor the SACD version, not so much for the hi-rez sound as for M/C. As classical listener, this is especially true for large-scale orchestral and choral works.

:biggrin5:

BTW, you speeled leave wrong.

Seriously though, I'm purchasing more and more DVD-A's these days, any movie I rent/buy has a multi-channel mix, and since I want to hear all of my speakers all of the time, multi-channel gets the nod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basite

who were the others who voted?


Bert.

---

6 replies (2 from Tex), 5 votes.
Not sure if I can figure that out.

...no mono? The Rudy Van Gelder re-issues I have are all mono...as is my vintage copy of Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday...I mean unless it's recorded as binaural or some X-Y/Blumlein variant in real time, it's all just multiple mono recordings anyway...simply processed for effect...Stereo/schmereo...

jimHJJ(...how's that for dissent among the ranks?...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...no mono? The Rudy Van Gelder re-issues I have are all mono...as is my vintage copy of Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday...I mean unless it's recorded as binaural or some X-Y/Blumlein variant in real time, it's all just multiple mono recordings anyway...simply processed for effect...Stereo/schmereo...

jimHJJ(...how's that for dissent among the ranks?...)

---

That would fall into "Did I leeve an option out? " Yeah yeah, it's leave. Just a typo.
Hope you voted that way.

I have a 2 channel stereo.

I have a television.

Uh, what was the question?

When receivers/AV rigs started looking like life support systems, that's when I tucked tail and ran.

2 channels only but my tv is mono.

My vote is for .1 LFE. I am surprised no one else said this yet, but I prefer to listen to all my music and movies with no speakers involved except the .1 LFE sub channel. It get's a little hard to hear what they are saying in movies at times, but some guys with deep voices sound pretty sweet coming through the sub.

The guy behind the board is calling the shots.

I use two channel stereo for now, but someday I would like to go surround.

The problem is that great two channel is hard to come by and can get very expensive. Sometimes it takes years of equipment matching and tweaking to get it tight, but when you do, the results are outstanding, far better than any surround system that I've personnally heard. This of course applies to music.

However, when it comes to movies, there is a certain amount of magic to be had from surround sound that a two channel system cannot match. You can use much lower quality speakers and still get a thrill.

My thoughts are that if you design a great two channel, you can duplicate what you have to the other channels and that would result in the ultimate system. I really don't know if this is the right path, but it seems like it should work.

The problem I have with surround music is that sometimes they put instruments and singers behind you. This goes against the being there experiance and is distracting. If the surround channels are only used for ambiance, I might change my mind on multi channel music. Take this paragraph with a grain of salt. I have very little experiance with multi channel music.

Another thing I've learned is that all of us think our system is very good. I can't tell you how many times I've thought this and then after changing something in the system realize how bad it sounded before. It's all a matter of reference and preference.

So for now, it's two channel all the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

That would fall into "Did I leeve an option out? " Yeah yeah, it's leave. Just a typo.
Hope you voted that way.

---

...now that you have clarified things I have (voted, that is)...

I do have a stereo tee-vee, but it's a 20in. Philips/Magnavox and the speakers are roughly a foot apart...So much for any sort of soundstage, may as well be mono...Maybe I should replace the internal wiring with some directional, PTFE-insulated, silver stuff and see if it improves anything...Although, once in a blue moon (program dependent) some vestige of a noise or effect comes from somewhere "over there" where it has no business to be...Very disconcerting...

And to confound popular opinion, I bought a Samsung 19in. LCD job for my wife's b'day, but it didn't work out...It sounded like absolute cr@p and the digital hash it spawned cause havoc with my new Panny VHS/DVD recorder (part of the b'day gift)...so it's analog CRTs in the meanwhile...

BTW, the Panasonic is pretty cool...Analog/digital tuner so newly available HD channels provide a great picture. It records in almost any mode including DVD-RAM, which seems to have many of the functions of a hard-disc recorder...And third time's a charm...the first two (gotten at el Waldo) cr@pped out within days and hours respectively...The third (from Target) seems to be so-far-so-good, but my fingers are crossed...Panasonic CSR support thinks it was a bad batch and suggested a different retailer...Hmmmmm...

If I ever wind up with a flat-screen of some sort, and if they all sound so chitty, maybe I'll get one of those Bose 1-2-3s...

jimHJJ(......that should suffice...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...now that you have clarified things I have (voted, that is)...

I do have a stereo tee-vee, but it's a 20in. Philips/Magnavox and the speakers are roughly a foot apart...So much for any sort of soundstage, may as well be mono...Maybe I should replace the internal wiring with some directional, PTFE-insulated, silver stuff and see if it improves anything...Although, once in a blue moon (program dependent) some vestige of a noise or effect comes from somewhere "over there" where it has no business to be...Very disconcerting...

And to confound popular opinion, I bought a Samsung 19in. LCD job for my wife's b'day, but it didn't work out...It sounded like absolute cr@p and the digital hash it spawned cause havoc with my new Panny VHS/DVD recorder (part of the b'day gift)...so it's analog CRTs in the meanwhile...

BTW, the Panasonic is pretty cool...Analog/digital tuner so newly available HD channels provide a great picture. It records in almost any mode including DVD-RAM, which seems to have many of the functions of a hard-disc recorder...And third time's a charm...the first two (gotten at el Waldo) cr@pped out within days and hours respectively...The third (from Target) seems to be so-far-so-good, but my fingers are crossed...Panasonic CSR support thinks it was a bad batch and suggested a different retailer...Hmmmmm...

If I ever wind up with a flat-screen of some sort, and if they all sound so chitty, maybe I'll get one of those Bose 1-2-3s...

jimHJJ(......that should suffice...)

---

I do so love reading your posts. Even when I have to re-read them several times to figure out WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. But fun anyhow.
Bose 1-2-3 huh? Bet ya can't eat just one.

....for me. Having dipped my ear into the MC thingy last year, and even though I heard some great sounds from a MC rig, I am sticking by choice with 2 Channel. A large Vinyl collection does not really lent itself to MC and I am a very simple signal path kind of guy.

Peace

:16:

Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music setting can be very affective in creating a 5.1 surround sound effect. Most think that there is some magical audio mumbo-jumbo going on. Far from it. Once you are dealing with a 2.0 stereo track, the potential for multi-channel sound exists if a circuit can recover spatial ques that are imbedded in that stereo track whether deliberately put there or not. That is what Dynaquad did and that is what DPL-2 music does. Your source material must be 2 channel which encompasses all 2.0 stereo recordings meaning tape, VINYL, etc... Intentional multi-channel sound would be found on quadraphonic recordings. In one case, on the stereo vinyl album, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF(the play), the stage was right in front of my eyes sounding quite weird and better left listening in stereo. I had a vinyl direct to disc from Radio Shack years back that had stereo but absolutely no surround information to be reproduced. In another case of vinyl, the first LP that I ever bought in 1962 (IMPACT by Woody Herman) had the most stunning unintentional multichannel sound one could possibly hear, such that I think whoever mixed this disc must have been aware of what he or she was doing. If you are using DPL-2 music, try the circuit on your 2 channel recordings and judge for yourself. If you use DPL-2 music, be sure to tweak the dimension and width and leave panorama off. If you shoot stereo sound with a camcorder, try the DPL-2 music mode on that as well. You may be surprised what you hear.

Quad, Dolby Pro-Logic, Dolby Digital yet I always seem to come back to 2ch. I find with decent components and speakers with good presence and soundstage, TV and movies are to me still quite enjoyable in 2.0. Besides I'm more likely to have music on. Gee for some of us it probably doesn't seem that long ago buying that Y cable to hook the VCR into the stereo (stereo VCR's were expensive when introduced). I was the odd one out though, had a laser disc player. No worries about the rewind thing on rentals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelsci

Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music setting can be very affective in creating a 5.1 surround sound effect.

---

I somehow have a hard time believing this, and for that matter why let Pro-Logic do all the work, rather than make a proper 5.1 setup and listen to discrete 5.1 material. Or, for that matter listen to 2-channel music w/ a properly setup 2-channel system.

Hi Peruvian; OH I do listen to discrete dvd 5.1. Oh Yes. Pro-Logic 2 music is used to bring out those ques in a 2 channel track that are really there whether they were deliberately put there or not. In the era of quad, they were delibertely put there, but what quad needed in the era of quad was the type of surround systems we are using today with the DPL-2 music decoding. The good thing is that your current discrete 5.1 set-up can work well with DPL-2 music but it is necessary to do some tweaking on the dimension and width adjustments to get it to sound right. DPL-2 movie does not have those adjustments and just makes it "worthless" to use. I use the DPL-2 music mode to listen to two channel Dolby Surround movies that I still have on stereo tape. Many movies take on a rather awsome surround sound quality using this mode sounding "similar" to in some cases a D.D. 5.1 discrete EX sound track. Discrete gives a cleaner sound, but this matrix fig-a-ma-jig is not bad at all.

Whatever it was recorded in.

My music listening is done mostly on my stereo, which is a much better system than my home theater anyway. I would like to get a DVD-A/SACD player for my stereo though, most of the listening I do with those discs is done on my home theater.

I've done the Pro Logic II music mode thing, it's interesting but far from ideal for a lot of music. It depends on what you're listening to, some of the definition and separation gets lost but for some music that doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. (calling it music might be a stretch since I find DPLII works best for modern/electronic technoish stuff). If you've got a good pair of stereo speakers the DPLII doesn't really add anything but if you listen to the right stuff and your speakers aren't that great, I can imagine it might be mistaken for a better more spatially "detailed" image.

dts neo 6 music sounds great im some instances, but it depends on what speakers are being used and how they are laid out. i used to scoff at surround sound at music but id say thats the only surround sound music mode i dont mind. but yea, 2 channel all the way. hell, simulated dolby digital (forgot what its called, EX?) even sounds good with 2 nice fronts when playing dvds, but id do 3.1 at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

6 replies (2 from Tex), 5 votes.
Not sure if I can figure that out.

---

I only voted once, which was an attempt at humor (which obviously I failed at), but I'd vote for multi-channel, hands down, if I could do a do-over.