why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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 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?

[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...


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 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.

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.