"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[shokhead]

I said the same thing about Sony somewhere else and got the crap kicked out of me because others said,its not Sony who should be blamed. BTW,mostly everything we like are niche,dont you think? DVD-A,SACD,Dualdisc,DTS,HD,BlueRay,all that good fun stuff.

[kexodusc]

Hi Kex,

I put the parts quality issue in as it was that mostly that got me started. I kept reading the glowing accounts of how much fellow AR Members enjoy their MC over the 2 channel set ups. And then I take a look at the equipment list used and it's nothing special and therefore I gather that no great parts are used.

Well, the level of their equipment really shouldn't be an issue...it's their point of reference that allows their points to remain valid. If they're giving their Paradigm bookshelf speaker/Denon receiver 5.1 setup a glowing review, and just came from a 2-channel system consisting of $150 Paradigm bookshelf speakers, and a $200 Denon stereo reciever, they've still experienced the benefits of going to multi-channel audio. It's all relative. Their point of reference might be lower than yours, but that doesn't invalidate their point that multichannel offers improvements over stereo.

I am talking about parts from Hovland,Black Gates, Jensen, Muhndorf, Clarity,etc.

Never used Mhndorf or Clarity, but in my experience Hovland, Jensen, Black Gates are decent enough. I think too expensive for what they offer but there's not exactly a lot of choice. I really can't say a $30 cap sounds 10 times better than a $3 cap...or that even sounds twice as good. Oh well, until Wal-Mart starts selling crossover parts I don't have much choice...I try to buy these parts when they go on sale if I can, but I like to use quality, but inexpensive generics like Solen or Dayton parts - usually they work just as well. The trick is to ensure the values are true and match what the design calls for. A good LCR multi-meter can do that. Inductors are usually fairly close, but I've had problems with inexpensive caps being far off spec. Hit and miss there. I avoid np electrolytic caps, they sound bad. I don't worry much about durability and longevity in speakers, they're cheap enough to refurbish every several years.
I try to match crossover parts cost with driver costs to a certain extent. $15 drivers found in $500 speakers don't benefit much from a $30 capacitor. $90 -$150 woofers found in $5000 speakers on the other hand probably do.

I really think companies use the higher grade crossover parts to save the time and worry about them being off spec more than sonic benefits, and also just to appease consumer demand and expectations....What? You used a $7 inductor in a $4000 speaker? Blashpehemy! I can't say a 4.7 uf film/foil cap sounds much different than a 4.7 uf metallized poly, but that's just me.

I can say I've heard a real difference in sound quality improving the quality of resistors. I like Mills resistors, but resistors are cheap anyway. I don't know what it is, the cheaper resistors measured to spec but the sound in the top octaves was noticeably better with the higher grade resistors - cleaner for lack of a better word. I've really rambled on too far off topic now.

For suggestions, well, you have a lot of options. Why not buy 5 Art stilettos and go from there? If you like the quasi wave-guide Peerless tweeter and coated paper Seas woofer, you might be a good candidate for a few Totem Acoustics models, the Rainmaker in particular. (I haven't heard the Stilettos, but I know the CA12RCY woofer well and use a very similar textile Peerless dome tweeter minus the horn face plate thing in my home theater speakers). Totem use a lot of Seas/Peerless drivers with solid grade crossovers, and excellent cabinetry (and actually veneer the interior of the cabinets because the designer believes it sounds better - go figure). If you're so inclined, there's some excellent speaker kits I could recommend that I think would approach your Art speakers in sound quality. Might make this project less of a burden financially.

An Arcam a/v receiver is a good starting point for power and processing. You could consider going with a mid-fi Denon/ Yamaha/Harman Kardon etc receiver and buy a decent multi-channel amp or a few stereo amps and probably save some money. Using the receiver as a pre-pro and maybe 2 surround channels lets you upgrade to better quality amplification in the more important channels (I do consider the front 3 much more important).

However, I would suggest rather than asking other people to recommend systems for you, why not give it the same honest effort all the multi-channel advocates gave. Only your ears know what speakers you find agreeable...give it a shot.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for SirTTs mention off my uneducated post. So be it. I also think very highly of your writings.

Thanks for the compliment. Now to be clear, I didn't say YOU were uneducated, I think your post was stated off the cuff, and does not represent what really happens audio wise at a live event.

Never been to a live event? Who me? I leave it at that.

Well if you have, you would never know it by your post

As for hall ambience I agree that certain places have been designed to sound great. But how many have speakers placed behind you? I have never seen one. And then again I couldn't have as I have never been to a live event.

I think you are missing the point here. Concert halls do not have speakers in the rear of the hall. But it does have discrete reflections that come not only from the sides, but the rear and from above as well. A multichannel recording that seeks to pick up the sound of these reflections, (or hall ambience) will placed these reflections to the sides and rear of your listening room. A 5.1 audio system can properly placed these side and rear reflections in your listening room, a two channel stereo system cannot no matter how much it cost.

In my experience the sound is reflected from the side and the back of the venue and that is exactly what my 2 channel set up does, helped by correct room treatments.

Sorry, but your system, and no two channel system can properly place ambient cues in the right position. Since you only have two speakers in front of you, it is impossible for any hall ambience to be placed behind you. The reflections within your room are not part of the recording location, so they cannot be associated with accurate playback of ambient cues that are recorded by microphones placed out in the hall.

The last thing I want is a direct source coming from the sides or from behind me.

You really do not understand the idea of recorded ambience do you? The object is not to have direct sources behind you, but the ambient or hall reflections associated with the direct sound. If a live recording is going to sound really live, those reflections must be recorded with mikes placed out in the hall, and reproduced by speakers located to the sides and rear of your listening room. Once again, this is impossible with two channel stereo.

But as I said all along if that what people like good on them, just not for me. More is not always better.I easy can hear ambient information where they are.

You can hear ambient information were your two speakers place it. Behind the speakers, not behind you!

And if you invest in really good equipment and two speakers in the first place you will not need half a dozen boxes. Also look at the cost issue in speaker cable. I happen to believe they make a difference.

This is a fallacy that you two channel folks expouse so frequently, but is not really accurate at all. If you are going to properly place ambience where it belongs in your listening room, you need a multichannel system to do so. You can spend a million dollars on two channel equipment, and still not be able to place ambient cues in the right place. If there are no speakers to the sides or behind the listening seat, then it is impossible for the ambient cues in a recording to be placed there.

So if I use the same quality all round it becomes very very expensive. So again not for me.
Whatever sounds right to you and gives you that tingling feeling is the right set up for you.
So where did I put my maiden concert ticket.............

Peace

Bernd

When you go to that concert, check to see if you hear everything that is happening in the venue is only coming from the front of the room. I seriously doubt it.

Yes, a very good multichannel speaker system can, but not always be expensive. However, the price that two channel guys spend on their equipment would could be a nice budget for a nice multichannel system. Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?

[Bernd]

Thanks for all the suggestions so far.
Kex made some good points but DIY is out of the question as I have two left hands. I am not going to select equipment on AR members glowing report alone. I would just like a consensus so I can compare a decent MC set up to my own 2 Channel. As for parts that is all subjective. Take my Speakers. The Signature model is £4K more expensive than the base model. I auditioned them both and prefered the Signature. What was changed was the Crossover and the wires inside the box. Was the difference worth 4K ? Who can say. It was to me.

Sir TT, thanks for your reply and I take what you said on board. The reason for me doing this is I would like to find out for myself what all the fuss is about. And yes I do believe that most off the time the more expensive equipment gives you better performance.I worded the concert hall reflection in my listening room wrong and have corrected that with my answer to Feanor. What you put is exactley what I want to find out. Up to now my limited experience with MC has been not good. I just don't like active noise coming from behind me. I didn't like it with Quadrophonie and I havn't liked it yet. I can not see how integration with so many different speakers etc. can work.
So I have some suggestions of gear so far and hopefully I will get some more and I can start this project.

Peace

Bernd

[Bernd]

For suggestions, well, you have a lot of options. Why not buy 5 Art stilettos and go from there? If you like the quasi wave-guide Peerless tweeter and coated paper Seas woofer, you might be a good candidate for a few Totem Acoustics models, the Rainmaker in particular. (I haven't heard the Stilettos, but I know the CA12RCY woofer well and use a very similar textile Peerless dome tweeter minus the horn face plate thing in my home theater speakers). Totem use a lot of Seas/Peerless drivers with solid grade crossovers, and excellent cabinetry (and actually veneer the interior of the cabinets because the designer believes it sounds better - go figure). If you're so inclined, there's some excellent speaker kits I could recommend that I think would approach your Art speakers in sound quality. Might make this project less of a burden financially.

An Arcam a/v receiver is a good starting point for power and processing. You could consider going with a mid-fi Denon/ Yamaha/Harman Kardon etc receiver and buy a decent multi-channel amp or a few stereo amps and probably save some money. Using the receiver as a pre-pro and maybe 2 surround channels lets you upgrade to better quality amplification in the more important channels (I do consider the front 3 much more important).

However, I would suggest rather than asking other people to recommend systems for you, why not give it the same honest effort all the multi-channel advocates gave. Only your ears know what speakers you find agreeable...give it a shot.

Thanks.
The only reason I have asked for recommendations is that users of MC appear to be convinced that it is better than 2CH and since I have no experience with MC I was asking for a starting point to equipment that will do that.

I was going to go the ART Stiletto route and order 5, but then I had some doubts. Firstly I am used to a certain quality of musical reproduction. So as good as the Stilettos are (and they are superb) they are not in the same Ballpark as the Emotion signature. You get my problem? If I go for the Stiletto I will without a doubt loose out on the magic of the Emotions. So if I trade that, what do I gain? That is a big problem that needs solving.
Second, I could buy 5 Emotions signature and when my wife finds out I will be homeless.
Or I could use the Emotions as front channel and the Stiletto as back. But I do not believe in mixing speakers up, not even from the same manufacturer as they are voiced differently and I would loose continuety. Something to think about.
Once we solve that we will tackle the amp issue. I think Unison Research do a 5 ch amp. Again I might go that way as I know the sound well.
Anyway Speakers first, and as I am on Virgin territory with MC I would welcome comments on how to solve the Speaker issue.

Peace

Bernd

[Florian]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......

I am on Virgin territory with MC I would welcome comments on how to solve the Speaker issue.

Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-)

[Bernd]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......


Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-)

[E-Stat]

Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?

If you are addicted to music, value high resolution and choose wisely, the answer is yes.

rw

[Bernd]

But Im up the creek without a paddle at moment.She paid all my credit cards,just brought in another pair of speakers in the house(freebee's)some Hungary Videoton Saphir 1?(never heard of them),bought a Sharp 20" LCD for Mother's Day for bedroom She said no more spending until I pay her what I owe her

I hear you. It's the same the world over I guess.

Peace

Bernd

[Jim Clark]

This has been an interesting thread and I'll be curious to see how it all ends up. I've been on record as being anti-multi channel in a similar thread in the HT forum. I'm a bit reluctant to take the exact same stance here since that was limited to multichannel playback of 2 channel sources and this seems to be focused on dedicated multichannel sources.

I would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

There are always going to be exceptions here and there but as a rule most recording sessions don't take place in a church, at least not the ones I spend the most time with. Classical music is also more than likely to be a big exception but since I don't listen to classical very often, it's yet another non-issue for me.

Since most of my purchases aren't available in SACD I have spent precious little time investigating it's potential. For that reason I've stayed out of the thread until now ( I can't help myself). What I do know is that the 2 SACD demos I've had contained a whole lot more than ambient cues in the rear channels. The sound was easily localized and nothing like any concert I've ever been too. "course I see mainly indie bands in small venues. Could be I'm entirely off base here, but regardless of the outcome my 2 purchases yesterday aren't available on SACD so I won't be jumping in anytime soon.

Regards,
jc

[Feanor]

...
I would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

There are always going to be exceptions here and there but as a rule most recording sessions don't take place in a church, at least not the ones I spend the most time with. Classical music is also more than likely to be a big exception but since I don't listen to classical very often, it's yet another non-issue for me.
...
jc

Jim, et al., my comments were certainly founded on my classical listening experience. In that case the benefits seem clear to me.

The I have a couple of jazz MCs were the effect is pleasant but non-essential; then again, these are remaster of very old material originally recorded with no thought to multichannel reproduction. I have exactly one rock SACD, (you guessed it, Dark Side of the Moon), and here the effect is novelty -- which you either accept on its own terms or dismiss as being unlike a live concert.

[GMichael]

Steps in..
Sees many audiophiles with much more experience than himself on both sides of the fence.
Wonders if his input is worth the time to type it.
Turns and leaves mumbling something about mud wrestling and beer.

[Feanor]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......


Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-)

Were I starting over with the HT set up or was wanting to experiment with MC music on a moderate budget, I would look at something like ...

• Outlaw 990 pre/pro
• 5 x Behringer B2030A or B2031A active monitor speakers
• Behringer B2092A subwoofer

References ...

• http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/990.html
• http://www.behringer.com/B2031P/index.cfm?lang=ENG

If I were a lot flusher I might upgrade to Genelec HT208B speakers.

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/l...onitors-4.html

[Bernd]

Steps in..

Wonders if his input is worth the time to type it.
Turns and leaves mumbling something about mud wrestling and beer.

Your input is always valid, but mud wrestling and beer? Can I tag along? This MC lark is wearing me out, I need a break.

Peace

Bernd

[bobsticks]

...and look what you've gotten yourself into Bernd, my journeyman friend, I gotta respect the attitude of inquiry you've taken on this and I'm excited for you. I think you've gotten some great advice from Kexo and Woochifer. Inkeeping with the points of discussion regarding MC playback (from true MC recordings NOT 2 channel matrixed or NEO:'d) I would humbly add a few observations:
1) I'm backing the guys on the "ambient cues" issue because I've been there and heard it with my system. Sample Jarvi/Cinn Symph~Symphonie Fantastique Mov.5. I can hear, from the rear, violins. Not direct source mic pointed at a violin, I'm talking about a mic pointed at a wall picking up the reflections of notes played by a violin. Throw in a few muffled sniffles, baton taps, etc. and I'm in the 10th row.
2) This on my system which is decidedly mid-fi, I guarantee that on the caliber of system you're putting together you will hear these types of nuances.
3) I like the idea of using the ARTs or Sigs or at least something you are familiar with and like the sound (I mean its not that different). As an aside, MC generally downplays "holographic imaging" in the front a bit, in turn favoring a more "coherent and seamless soundstage" across the board. Knowing your taste to some small extent, I believe you may want to look for a speaker with very forward imaging so as to retain some of that quality through the processing.
4) I didn't start to enjoy MC fully until I had floorstanders in back. Sorry to the bookshelf/surround crowd but IMO that is how it plays out.
5) Like any other audio situation, source material is crucial. Yeah you can load up on classical (at least one or two for reference) but that's not really your bag. I'm thinking you've got to get Dave Alvin~Blackjack Davidand some Keb Mo on SACD. You'll be able to A/B vinyl v. SACD if you so desire.
6) You'll want a good sub
7) How about a tube SACD?

You are in the business if teaching a dog some tricks Bernd. It could be that MC will never unseat your analog 2 from first love status, but I would be willing to wager heavily that if implemented properly you will walk away with a newfound respect for the MC format. And, of course, the journey and the discovery is half the fun...


As always cheers to ya,
M

[Resident Loser]

...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a relaistic experience in playback...maybe.

However even if you use older, absolutely pristine masters with which to work with, there are problems translating them into a you-are-there moment:

1. Close miking is just that, close...no one I know of listens to live music a few inches from the performer...not even the performer...his or her vantage point is skewed relative to the audience...

2. Add to the above, the signal is most likely mono...no directional cues, no depth to speak of...things of that nature...

3. No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

4. Fixing it in the mix, by panning the various performers into arbitrary positions in the soundstage further exacerbates everything I have mentioned...the individual tracks, which may have been recoreded at different times, possibly in different places, are just plopped in place and artificial reverberations are added to convey a sense of space that just simply doesn't exist...deep down inside the brain knows this...

5. Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

This opens another can of worms...No two recordings are exactly alike in how these things are implemented...Given the arbitrary artifice presented, I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say this wire or this component produces this result, when the source material is so far removed from an actual performance, particularly when it comes to soundstage or those ephemeral inner details we so often hear about...

Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

jimHJJ(...I've said it all before, and I'll most likely say it all again...)

[Bernd]

Thanks Mark. The Voice of reason, and you're right, a fine mess I got myself into. However since I think that this arguement is unwinable by word alone I had to grasp the stinging nettle.
It was only ever going to be Floor standing speakers anyway. To be honest I do look forward to it, as the money for this project comes from the fund for the Zanden CDP. I had another encounter with this machine recently and it is quiet boring on second hearing and too safe for me. Great player though. I just have to solve the quality issue. If I do something I want to do it well, and it needs to be of a certain standard to compete with the 2CH. Otherwise it would be a pointless exercise, which after all is what it is. This is not my journey into conversion to MC. I want to have proof that MC is better than 2CH. And reading Jims posts he makes a lot of sense and puts into words what my reservations are.
But if this will open the doors to my musical horizion being widened so much the better. I am not adversed to Classical just have never started down that road in any great steps. I own about 150 LPs of Classical recordings. So I'll have a starting point.
It's an interesting thread and I will see it through.

Peace

Bernd

[GMichael]

Your input is always valid, but mud wrestling and beer? Can I tag along? This MC lark is wearing me out, I need a break.

Peace

Bernd

Sure you can tag along. But before you do, I feel that I should warn you. Sometimes I listen to music in 7 channel mode. Also I will put a DVD recorded in 5.1 on the 5.1 setting. But I do like pure direct (2 channel) mode also. Will this bother you while we watch babes in mud, and drink?

[Bernd]

That sounds like the ticket. And free research for my MC project to boot. I am on my way.

Peace

Bernd

[kexodusc]

...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

Perhaps in your opinion this point is important. I'm not sure it really is. I'm not lying when I say multi-channel sounds closer to "real" than stereo to me. To many others. I'm not sure the recording/playback process has to be actually have a tremendous relationship with reality in order to paint a picture of reality. Two dimensional paintings might not have a strong relationship with reality either, yet some can be considered a more accurate, closer reproduction of reality. There are different techniques for creating the illusion of depth and dimension. They aren't real of course, but they fool us into thinking that it's closer to real...despite what the brain knows deep inside.

1. Close miking is just that, close...no one I know of listens to live music a few inches from the performer...not even the performer...his or her vantage point is skewed relative to the audience...

2. Add to the above, the signal is most likely mono...no directional cues, no depth to speak of...things of that nature...

3. No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

Would these not, then, also be problems in 2-channel reproduction? How do these points fit into the issue of 2-channel or multi-channel?

4. Fixing it in the mix, by panning the various performers into arbitrary positions in the soundstage further exacerbates everything I have mentioned...the individual tracks, which may have been recoreded at different times, possibly in different places, are just plopped in place and artificial reverberations are added to convey a sense of space that just simply doesn't exist...deep down inside the brain knows this...

Yes. And again, the 2-channel recordings receive the same treatment, except the medium is far more limited in it's ability to create a wide soundstage and solid imaging. Which are just as important as the degree "resolution" or "fidelity". Overcoming these limitations isn't a bad thing if it gets us closer to where we want to be.

5. Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

Agreed. I haven't heard any reproduction of music, 2-channel, mono, or multichannel that sounded like "the real thing". Now, I think the best systems I've heard only fall in the $200,000 to $300,000 price range, so maybe we just need to keep throwing money at it.
However, the reverb/delays/"ambient cues", whatever you want to call them - if it's the intention of the artist that we hear them behind us, or the goal of the recording is to capture the sound in a hall on a given night, then what's the problem?

This opens another can of worms...No two recordings are exactly alike in how these things are implemented...Given the arbitrary artifice presented, I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say this wire or this component produces this result, when the source material is so far removed from an actual performance, particularly when it comes to soundstage or those ephemeral inner details we so often hear about...

Okay.

Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

You bring up a good point. So far this thread has been making points to the effect that 2-channel or multi-channel is closer to some arbitrary definition of the "reality" of a live performance. Why are we limiting the discussion to this? Multi-channel audio in the hands of an artist is just another tool to use in the application of their trade. Why does everything have to be front and center on a stage? Some of the most unique musical performances I've been to had musicians scattered throughout the venue. I guess new thinking may frighten some people who are use to centuries old tradition. Recordings offer a whole new world of possibilities for delivering music. Not a tired, old, immitated tradition of grouping everyone in one spot, almost always in front of the listener.

Is this whole debate merely trying to answer "which medium reproduces live performances better?" Or which can offer a more satisfying experience?

[Bernd]

The more satisfying experience is what I am after, let's see if the MC thing delivers. And I am not against new ways to express on the contrary, the more the better. So if we take that sentiment on board, then one can't be meassured against the other as there are two different ways of expressions.
So where does that leave this project?

Peace

Bernd

[Resident Loser]

Would these not, then, also be problems in 2-channel reproduction? How do these points fit into the issue of 2-channel or multi-channel?

...just my point...since most of the catalog consists of either re-issues or newer recordings done with the tried-and-true methodology...MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud...Recall what I posted earlier:

If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a realistic experience in playback...maybe.

Re: the performance art aspect...I dunno' when or if being surrounded by the musicians will be OK...I see a live performance and I want to see the performers, I want to see the dancers, footfalls from behind tend to make me edgy...I want to see the magician otherwise it's "Presto! A rabbit...take my word on it"...I'm apt to crane my neck outa' joint, turning to see what's happnin' anywhere around me...as an audience member it's always been an A/V experience and I want to see and know what's going on...from a musicians' POV, I want eye-contact, I strive to make it an inter-personal experience, my performance feeds off of the response...

jimHJJ(...besides how would that translate into HT?...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

Jim,
When I speak of "ambient" cues, I am talking strictly about live recordings done in conert halls, or live recording of events of every music genre in general. (jazz, gospel etc). Studio recordings are all artistic in nature, and have no acoustical nature whatsoever. However, with that said, there are creative ways that a studio recording can be made to sound natural in a multichannel setup.

You could choose a large studio and record the group live with diffusors on the opposite end of the studio from the players. Pick up the diffusion in microphones mixed to the surrounds and add a little delay if you choose. This is all natural with nothing added to the mix.

The non natural way invollves using soundfield generators which have become quite good a simulating thousands of different environments. In the hands of a very competent engineer, you will not be able to tell if it is artifical or not. In the hands of a incompetent engineer will guarantee garbage. I have gotten so good at it, that I have even fooled the musicians I am mixing for into thinking they recorded a song in a live event.

A "concept" 5.1 channel mix has no retraints on where anything can be positioned. It is just what it is.

The point I am trying to make is that even studio recordings can use the natural ambience of the studio if one chooses. Tracks laid down at different times in the studio can also be made to sound natural with some use of ambience or evironmental generators, and consistant production practices. These take more care than the average bear, but are often done in a very schlocky manner in most cases.

I know panning of instruments is a issue for some "purist", but in many cases it is totally necessary. Just because an signal is going through a pan pot doesn't mean the integrity of that signal has been compromised. A good engineer will place the instrument in the mix just as it was on the stage. No loss, no fuss.

Multimiking is also a necessary thing. Signal bleeding can make mixing (and mastering) a tough job. A good engineer can make a multimiked setup sound as natural as decca tree setup and a pair of spaced omni by just augementing the mix with ambience capture mikes. I do this all the time when recording film scores, live concerts, and live gospel and jazz. A good example of that is to use spot mikes on specific solo instruments, and spaced omni's for the entire ensemble. You can pan the solo instruments into place within the soundfield, or keep it up front and center.

Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

Jim(RL), this is not always the case. Lexicon makes a wonderful sounding ambience generators that sound so natural I have fooled quite a few folks with it. A lot of work has gone into producing much better sound than those old bucket brigade delays, and ambience generators of old. If you delay the sides and rear, it actually makes the front sound a little clearer by means of the precedence effect. As long as the delay isn't so long that it creates another "event" to the ears, it will sound perfectly natural in most cases. Sometimes there is no need for delay at all. Delay is only necessary when the fronts and rears are playing pretty much the same signals. That has never happen in any of the multichannel mixes I have produced or heard. If the ambience is recorded naturally, there is no need for any delay or reverb, its already in the mix.

No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

While I admit that engineers have done a poor job on this, its not always the case. One thing that has been overlooked is the skill of the musician. It used to be early in my audio engineering career that musicians balanced themselves by ear, and by cues from the conductor. These days multimking is necessary because the skill of balancing by ear is a completely lost art. Without some sort of mixing (i.e balancing) in post production, most recordings would not sound very good. Bleeding makes it almost impossible to correctly balance parts against parts, that it why it is isolation is necessary. By using individual delays from each mike to the mixer, you can preserve all of the timing issues that preserve depth in a mix. I learned this from Shawn Murphy who is by far one of the best scoring engineers I have ever heard.

While I agree that quite a few 5.1 music mixes haven't sounded very good, I also know that many are repurposed from stereo masters rather than being recorded with 5.1 in mind. The recordings that have been specifically recorded, and mixed for multichannel sound a whole lot better. There are alot of bad audio engineers as well as mediocre singers and musicians. Alot of the most hated recording practices were born out of dealing with mediocre singers and musicians who skills do not allow for unedited mixer to SACD or DVD-A recordings. Some engineers use great tools poorly. Almost all of the record companies refuse to spend the money on quality product which makes some of these "evils" necessary.

Multichannel recording is stil a very young practice for many audio only engineers. I started my engineering career in multichannel so the transition from film mixes, to sound recording in 5.1 was nothing for me. Many audio engineers are stereo guys learning how to do multichannel, so there is going to be a learning curve that has to take place. It really hasn't help that the record companies have not so far supported the format with quality product. I am hoping that Bluray or HD DVD will change that.

Some of the concerns and opinions stated here have already been addressed, and some other will never be because of listener preference. Multichannel well done sound far better than stereo well done, at least in my experience, with my ears, and on my system. Once you hear really good multichannel, stereo just doesn't cut it anymore.

Lastly, unlike stereo recordings, multichannel has standards for room acoustics (PM3 developed by THX) and multichannel surround systems and operation (AES TD 1001) which covers the whole gammit from recording to mixing, mixing room acoustics, speaker dispersion, frequency response etc. in great depth. This is unprecedented in recording history.

[Woochifer]

And those stores were...?

As a fellow SF Bay Arean 2-channel lover, I'd be interested in checking them out.

Those would be Music Lovers Audio over in Berkeley, and a store along the Peninsula that went out of business a few years ago.

A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

As Kex pointed out, you're making a leap of logic here by automatically associating multichannel with mass produced. Plenty of specialty companies out there make both two-channel and multichannel separates, just as there are mass market companies that make both two-channel and multichannel products.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.

"Out perform" is a relative and highly subjective criteria. Like I said, there are things that multichannel can do that two-channel simply cannot. Those facets to my ears are important if the criteria relates to recreating a live event. All you have to do is compare the two-channel and multichannel layers on a decent SACD to hear how much more immersive the multichannel mix can sound.

If you prefer a tube-based sound, then all you have to do is add five channels of tube amplification to a tube-based multichannel passive preamp (I know that Conrad-Johnson makes one), and hook it directly to a multichannel SACD player.

No reason to come to a "consensus" or sell your two-channel system. Just give multichannel a fair listen before you deride it conceptually as "stupid and a great marketing ploy." Keep in mind that at one point stereo was considered by many mono purists as a gimmick as well, and that two-channel has reflected the limitations of the playback formats more so than any inherent technical advantage with that type of alignment (the early Bell Labs research concluded that three speakers were needed to accurately reproduce the front soundstage, and many classical recordings were recorded directly to three channels and unable to be played back as originally intended outside of a studio setting until SACD came along).

Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

What multichannel music recordings have you actually heard that do this? You're talking a lot about multichannel, but I just wonder how much actual listening and/or hands-on experience with setting up multichannel systems went into forming these observations.

Among the better 5.1 studio recordings that I own or have heard in demos, the surround channels are there to render more precise depth perception and more solidified imaging to what you hear up front. The 5.1 mixes done by Eliot Scheiner (Eagles, Steely Dan, REM) are a good place to start.

[superpanavision70mm]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! 2-channel is great and so is 5.1. It's purely up to the listener as to which one he/she likes. If you want to invest money in 2 channel than so be it, if you feel that surround information adds to the experience than go that route. However, here is the bigger question....which one allows you to do both? Ahhhh, now that's where it gets interesting.

I can play things back in 2 channel and 5.1/6.1, but someone who has a dedicated 2 channel setup...they are not able to go to 5.1 with a flick of a button. So I play stereo when I want the pure 2 channel sound of CD's or even some 2.0 SACDs. I then swith over to 5.1 when playing content with that information on it.

Ok, let's see if this debate still goes on and on........