why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[Logan]

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

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

[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...)

[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.

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

[grigore]

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

[musicoverall]

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

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

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

[Dave Lindhorst]

Shokhead said

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

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

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

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

[Dave Lindhorst]

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

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

[shokhead]

Shokhead said

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Feanor]

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

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

[shokhead]

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

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