why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[Woochifer]

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

Pogue

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

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

[nightflier]

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

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

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

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

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

[DaHaq]

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

[Woochifer]

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

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

[thepogue]

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

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

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

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

now go pull that roachclip and let...boogie-nights...

Pogue

[shokhead]

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

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

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

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

The roach?

[dontbhatin01]

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

[Arturo7]

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

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

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

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

Art

[Feanor]

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

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[noddin0ff]

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

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

[shokhead]

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

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

[thepogue]

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

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

Peace, Pogue

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

[nightflier]

The roach?

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

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

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

[thepogue]

Of course, this was someone who was convinced that SACD's were the last nail in the coffin for LP's...

Please contact him....and please have him send all his vinyl to me @

thepogue
128 free vinyl dump Dr
LA LA Land Virginia


thanks and God Bless you one and all

Pogue

[topspeed]

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

Peace, Pogue

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

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

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

[thepogue]

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


Peace!!! Pogue

[markw]

...you like phonied up two channel recordings

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

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

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

[shokhead]

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

[thepogue]

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

keep and ole '65 bug indeed....


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...sPageName=WDVW

Peace, Punch Buggies and Pogue

[dontbhatin01]

...you like phonied up two channel recordings

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

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

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

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

[shokhead]

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

[Logan]

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

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

[Wireworm5]

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