why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[dontbhatin01]

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.

[risabet]

5.1, 6.1, 7.1 are better for movies but not for audio (IMO). When was the last time you were at a symphony and heard "effects" from the orchestra or in a jazz club and heard the sax "ping-pong" around the club, not that good SS is that lame. The proper reproduction of 2-channel sound IMO, can recreate the acoustic envelope of a well recorded space, be it a symphony hall or a studio w/o the gimmicks of multi-channel sound.

[macsound]

I was told that its just better for your speakers basicly to lisen to them on 2 speakers. Keep the

[kexodusc]

There's been studies available for years that explained why 2-ch stereo setups are not as good as 3 or more speakers for creating more realistics soundstage, imaging, etc. The problem is that knowing something has more potential and meeting that potential are two different things.

I think the reason we all listen to 2-ch stereo still is twofold:
First we all have a whole bunch of music recorded in the 2-ch world, optimized for 2-channel playback. Fake processing on these recordings produces mixed results at best. Maybe it is possible to process these better, but I think most people just don't care to test every song or album out to verify this.

Second, there aren't enough good multi-channel recordings readily available that aren't still cost prohibitive in some manner. New formats require new equipment, and generally add price premiums to album releases.
And as was mentioned earlier, some surround recordings are doing the same thing stereo recordings did in their early going - showing off the surround capabilities without putting much thought into the overall execution of the album. It's great that drum beats can be pinpointed to 4 corners of the room, but how realistic is that?

Have patience though. The DVD has already revolutionized many things, and surround sound is definitely here to stay. It's just a matter of time until DVD-A, DualDisc, SACD, or some new format finally get widely accepted into the mainstream and we see audio finally take that next leap into surround sound.

[N. Abstentia]

A PROPERLY done 5.1 mix can be good. VERY good! See Floyd's Dark Side SACD for reference. Problem is, for every 1 properly done 5.1 mix there are 10 that are horribly done.

However, I find taking a 2 channel source and playing it through '5 channel stereo' is just simply asanine and I want to beat people that think it sounds good

So there is a difference.

[shokhead]

2.0 is just to flat. I want all my speakers involved.

[Arturo7]

In a perfect world, each instrument would have it's own speaker and the recorded media would have a separate track for each instrument.The listener would place the speakers around the room and the result would be like sitting on the stage with the band. Zappa recorded some of his pieces like this. Unfortunately, we'll never hear them.

In the real world most everything is recorded, engineered, and mixed for left and right. If you want your music to sound "cool" spend you money on six speakers and six channels of amplification. If you what it to sound "real" spend your money on two.

[shokhead]

Wow,thats a dumb statement,imo of course.
As for mp3's,its a world of quanity over quality as far as music.

[Worf101]

I've played with the multiple channel formats and all the DSP's that Onkyo includes on my receivers and in the end, when I got superior speakers I decided to stay with 2.0 for most if not all of my musical playback. It just feels right and I love the soundstage. Now perhaps a 3.1 would be acceptable LCR and sub but right now. It's mains and subs only...

Da Worfster

[markw]

Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some people like steak sauce on their steak. That's fine. It doesn't so much add to the taste of the streak so much as hide it but, hey, that's your steak, not mine. It'll take just a little salt and pepper, just enough to bring out the natural flavor, thank you.

Virtually all my music was mixed down to two channels for the final product. Nothing, I repeat, nothing will be able to accurately separate it down into it's original element in the proper placement, assuming it had one to begin with.

Besides, in virtually every music event I've been to, the music eminated from in front to me. Now, I do pick up spatial clues from the sides and rear but, on the whole, the music is in the front.

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.

[nobody]

I'm a stereo guy for a few reasons.

First off, like mentioned I have tons of two channel recordings. I haven't the time, money or desire to replace a few thousand LPs and CDs with multichannel recordings.

Secondly, while I'm fully ready to believe that multi channel can be better, I haven't really heard much evidence that most current multi-channel stuff is. I'm not willing to spend a bunch of money on a multi-channel system for a handful of recordings that are very well done for the format.

Third is cost and practicality. I can afford to buy two decent speakers, but buying five good speakers and a sub, plus amplification for them all gets too rich for my blood. I could maybe sell my stereo and swing one of those home theater in a box systems, but those sound way worse than what I listen to now through two channels. Then you've got to fill your room with speakers, unless you wanna use the little cube things, and again then, the sound ends up being worse than what I've got.

So, yeah I can understand how theoretically multi channel can be better. I'm just not convinced that from a practical standpoint it is better for me right now.

[hermanv]

I have a surround system consisting of a NAD receiver ($1,700 list) and 5 speakers ($4,100 list) so I'm hardly in the lowest cost club. I use this system for my home theater and it performs quite well. Like anyone would be, I was curious and played several 2 channel CDs both in stereo and in "simulated" suround. I also played one (count 'em one) DVD-A disk.

My problem is that at least at the price point of my surround system, the sound quality is nowhere near my main stereo. Now I spent a little over double on my main system so the comparison is not exactly fair, but when I built my surround system I tried hard to find ways to upgrade my two channel to multi channel. I did this in an attempt to avoid duplication of money being spent.

In spite of any appearances based on my system cost I am financially lower middle class. I have streched my budget over many years in order to own equipment as nice as I own. So the impetus to combine systems to save money was real. I was never able to find equipment that could cleanly combine my two and multichannel systems with same or simular sound quality (this was about 5 years ago, there seem to be somewhat more options today).

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

[hermanv]

As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.

Neat eh? You can quote yourself, probably reduces disagreement.

We went all the way around and back to page 1.

In the end we talked about the quality of the musical experience and while multi-channel adds somthing two channel can not accomplish, for a given cost it seems many here would choose clean, good quality sound over more spatial information. I believe that reasonably answers the original posters question "Why do people like 2.0 channel so much???"

If and when the multi channel cost drops to allow equivalent quality vs two channel with the same total cost, many will switch. I might switch sooner if that lottery number comes in.

[abstracta]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information.

So what? I listen to the music the way the recording engineer intended it to be listened to. Not some egghead at Yamaha using a cheap DSP processor to add sound delays and distortion to mimmick what my living room might sound like if it were Yankee Stadium.

The majority of recording specific material, and that's like, 99.98% of the market, is two channel. The fancy surround modes in your $300 Sony Receiver do not extract magical sound channels that the engineer put there to hide from 2-channel audio enthusiast. It only makes up what it thinks might sound like multi channel recordings. If the engineer doesn't put that information there in the first place, I have no desire to listen to it, got it?

Again, unless I'm watching an Eagles or Sting concert on DVD, and there's native 5/7.1 information I'l be happy to pipe it through my surrounds. I'm otherwise not having some mass produced IC board *invent* what's not there. Best analogy I can think of is taking your favorite family picture to the closest novelty store, and have them apply that plastic diffraction laminate used to make your Scooby Doo lunchbox look 3-dimensional. Cheesy and Fake? I feel the same way about pumping 2-channel music through something that invents sound delays and channels that weren't there in the first place.

To be honest, the only really good high quality multi channel sound I've ever heard is from Delos Labs.

[markw]

Unfortunely 2 channel stereo cannot represent spaital cues from the side or rear, and these cues are as much apart of the "live" experience as the frontal information. In the absence of such cues, the live experience would sound dull, flat, and one deminsional just like two channel would in a completely damped room.

Now that we are CLOSER(not there yet) to being able to recreate the ambience of the hall in its right spatial place(which sounds closer to real life) the only arguement two channel supporters have is "I have a huge library of two channel media" which keeps them solidly in the two channel mode.

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.

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'.

[shokhead]

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.

[Dave Lindhorst]

Lets put this all in perspective. 1) Where do you think the most money is spent on sound equipment? 2) What is the most popular format? 3) Why is 2 channel so popular?

2 Channel Stereo and Redbook CDs. Popular because it does a fantastic job. Not at all like multi channel. They play with the signal so much it just isn't believable.

If you need to have a "guitar go through your head" as one so aptly put it, then fill you're boots. I for one enjoy the performance of the music so much I can't possibly listen to 5,6 or 7 channels at a time. How can anyone listen to music and really listen from 7 channels.

The sound tracks on most DVDs are at best sub par with the Redbook CDs. This alone would indicate you need to listen to some other type of source material. If you don't enjoy 2 channel from CDs then maybe you have a hearing problem, an equipment problem or you are asking to have a guitar go through your head.

I listen to multi channel but I have a system dedicated to that format. It is only used for DVD watching. Multi channel has it's purpose and basically it is best used in conjunction with a video presentation. When you listen to an audio track when watching a movie the main focus is on the video end of things. The sound track just helps reinforce what you are watching. If you turned the video feed off you would find the multi channel a little lacking in the sound quality end of things. Long live the best HI FI setup yet established, 2 channel.

[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.

[Resident Loser]

...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.

Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!

All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses...

jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you can either listen to and appreciate the music...in stereo or even, horrors...mono...or listen to the effects..." wow man!!!......the guitar just went through my head!!!"...multi-channel is great if you want performance art...or big noises with your mechanical lizards...but then again, with some of the cr@p I've been subjected to in the guise of "music", something needs to be provided since there is little or no substance.

Ummm, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases.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. In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers. Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds. Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds. 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. Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge. 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.

Back a-ways you could purchase ambience extractors which simply took out-of-phase info and supplied spatial cues...until the record schmucks realize that's all that's really needed, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear...to the early days of stereo when you could get locomotives, speeding cars and ping-pong games zipping between speakers...except now, in an effort to provide the ultimate in "you are there" realism, some pinhead's cell-phone will be heard somewhere just over your left shoulder!

The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot. In the world of today, you can have practically noiseless stereo surrounds of ambience actually recorded from the hall, and not some mono extraction from the front channels. Rather than waxing nostalgic, you might want to take a more realistic analysis of just what the good ole days really offered. In every format introduction since the early 1900 sound designers have showed off the technology(ping pong panning, and balls bouncing around the room) rather than using it to offer more realstic playback. In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should.

All the hoopla over multi-channel and HT and the like is just another example of the industry taking basically the same old catalog(bought and paid for hundreds of times over) and deriving new and higher profits from the SOS...enabling CEOs and other Eisner-types to get another few mil in perks and bonuses..

For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies. If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit. Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel. But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want.

jimHJJ(...you never really needed it 'til they toldya' that ya' did...)[/QUOTE]

Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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