why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[shokhead]

The modern smart side.

[thepogue]

fences are made fer jumpin'

lol

Pogue

[shokhead]

And i'm a fence rider from way back. My balls are sore. LOL

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

If you move 4 feet to left and right and still get a stable center image, then you are defying everything taught regarding the ear/brain interaction, time arrival, and how the ears interpret direction. I order for a stable center image to exist, the signals leaving both speakers must arrive simultaneously, and with equal intensity. If you are sitting off center, that is not possible because of a couple of things. As you move closer to any speaker, you change the arrival time of the signals to the ears, and it's amplitude(phase and amplitude). The change in timing will also change the amplitude to the ears, as the closest speakers signal will arrive first, and sound the loudest(precedent effect) Based on this known acoustical science can you tell how you can defy two principles(phase and amplitude) and come up with a stable center image sitting well off axis?

I must remember not to listen to the one Berlioz recording out of thousands in the catalogs that has an instrumentalist behind the audience.

Your loss, there is plenty of classical music written with antiphonal brass and chorus parts.

http://world.std.com/~burley/music/antiphonal.html

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.

This whole sentence defies logic. Subwoofers are used to reproduce instruments that move alot of air(large bass drums, organ pedals, tympani, double bass etc) Since all of these instruments have no problem sounding like themselves when heard live, why would you need a sub? A sub is used in home reproduction to augment the frequency response of the typical main speaker(which in all likelyhood cannot reproduce very deep bass without alot of distortion). If you want to hear those instruments that move alot of air CLEANLY, then you need a subwoofer. I am sorry that you didn't like the sub YOU heard. My subs do just fine reproducing instruments deep bass found in music

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?

No need to condescend, but you'll have to figure out yourself how to deal with extraneous noises that can interfere with you listening pleasure.

[Resident Loser]

http://world.std.com/~burley/music/antiphonal.html.

And this definition has what to to with multi-channel? They make reference to spliting up a chorus in STEREO...side to side...not a ricochet orbiting your dome...

But you are right re: subs...they must be set-up properly so that they augment the sound rather than becoming an apparent sound source themselves...come to think of it, that's just what the extraneous multi-channels should be; conspicuous by their absence as opposed to being overbearingly obvious...

And actually, thay's pretty much what I have been saying all along.

Thank you for finally seeing my point and agreeing with me.

jimHJJ(...a bien tot...)

[shokhead]

I think thats where some screw up and not like it,the surrounds up to much where you notice them to much instead of blending them like the sub.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...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.

You don't know anything about the original poster personally, so why would you make ANY assumptions? You also don't listen to multichannel music so how can you make any assumptions on it? Worse, you assumptions are not only inaccurate, but they only cover a small slice of multichannel recordings released.

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

The lack of "bravato and "hot air" keeps the thread relevant, something that is very difficult each time you engage in the topic.

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

Nobody really cares what you'd say except you. We are talking audio here, not kitchenware.

"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.

Well if the artist and producer want a instrument or a voice to come from the rear, then that is THEIR artistic liscence that represents "closer to reality" to them. When you are listening to a artists music, you are listening to their vision, not yours. What is reality is the artists vision, your opinion of that reality is yours.

..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.

So all studio recordings are in your opinion performance art right? Well, mixing is a performance art, and so is mastering for that matter. Both require that you manipulate the signals in some form to acheive a good sound. So you believe that there should be no mixing or panning whatsoever?(trying to keep from assuming anything)

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.

Then I would suggest that you only attend live unmiked live performances and never listen to recordings. How you define performance art would keep you from listening to anything that has a mixer in the chain. Oh, and only listen to unmixed mono recordings because all studio recordings use mixers and panning techniques to position and level instruments.

"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"...

Not quite old enough for senior moments. You did allude to the fact that I might enjoy ping pong mixing techniques, which is very far from the truth.

"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.

So things become much more clear now. If you listen to music in this fashion, then you should have no opinion about stereo or multichannel. You don't care about a single attribute of both formats. I am not knocking how or what you listen to music on, but your comments in this debate seem strangely out of place, short sighted, and not well educated(I am speaking of your opinions, and not you personally)

"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.

Its not a assumption at all, you even admitted it yourself. How can you listen to multichannel(or stereo for that matter) on a mono speaker? How can you have ANY opinion about either format since you listen via a mono speaker? What you have been exposes to is just a very small fraction of the multichannel releases. That is not enough exposure to come to any educated conclusion. Since you listen via a mono speaker, then how do YOU know what "suckers" anyone into a recording?

"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?

Resident loser=spin doctor. Too much recapping, not enough educated support for your conclusions. Multichannel maybe an outgrowth of HT, but they are not the same product.

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?

So your fear of planned obsolenscence is what keeps you in the dark ages huh? Fear is what drives your conclusions on multichannel? Interesting......

"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.

If you had any first hand knowledge of recording you would understand that you cannot always record something live. Budgets, time constraints, schedules, control over the recording process and various other things conspire to keep everything from being recorded live in some cases. Live recordings are expensive and time consuming undertaking. If you had your way(according to what you have written) there can be no retakes, no mixers(you would have to go direct to disc straight from the microphone pre-amp no balancing). I do not think any artist would go for such a thing, let alone the producer. I have seen very few perfect live performances.

Post production is a must whether you like it or not. Your experience with multichannel is too limited to make a credible conclusion,

"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.

Like many of your rather short sighted conclusions, I don't agree with this one. I think you just take an oppositional stand just because you can, not because you are armed with real facts that effectively rebutt my points.

"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.

A facsimile of a live event? Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh!!! All recording is a facsimile of a live event. Do you have any real information to contribute to the thread?

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...

Since we are talking audio, and not visual, your examples don't fit the topic. However, you called multichannel music that has "effects" in the surrounds performance art, so this new interpretation doesn't quite square with your previous one.

"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.

If the box is extracting the out of phase signal, and leaving the in phase signals untouched, it is "processing" the out of phase signal. The act of extracting the out of phase signal is a process, hince processor.

"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...

Neat magic trick. You have managed to turn fresh water brown. You could make cotton candy with all the spinning you are doing here. Speaking of context, you are totally out of it at this point. Disney doesn't do multichannel, we are talking multichannel here. Not mono, and not stereo. Since this conversation has turn to 2.0 vs multichannel, it is format driven in spite of the fact that you can't see that.

"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...

You are speaking of any CEO of any major corporation. Not about Eisners specifically. Now can we get back on topic, or have you run out of things to be contrary about.

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...)

There is something called personal opinion, and there is the opinion of the masses. I don't really pay much attention to a single opinion, what catches my attention is the opinion of the masses. When alot of folks agree on something(it sounds good), that is more important to me than the opinion of one person who is not really well schooled on the issue. I hardly call someone that listen to 78's on a TT through a mono speaker someone worth listening to in terms of either stereo or multichannel. Sorry, but that is my opinion. You can call me alot of things, but not a sheeple.

[Resident Loser]

...as simple as possible, lest we relaese a host of Whirling Dervishes to continue your "spin" cycle...

"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."

Do take note of the operative words "I can"...also note that this phrase does not mean "I do"...now it may be difficult to appreciate the abstract but, and follow me here, the previous quote was simply an indication of what CAN BE done using near-antique gear and an archaic technology as opposed to an algorithim-based, digital format which will require a room full of equipment(or at very least, five speakers)...why, heck I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...as simple as possible, lest we relaese a host of Whirling Dervishes to continue your "spin" cycle...

"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."

Do take note of the operative words "I can"...also note that this phrase does not mean "I do"...now it may be difficult to appreciate the abstract but, and follow me here, the previous quote was simply an indication of what CAN BE done using near-antique gear and an archaic technology as opposed to an algorithim-based, digital format which will require a room full of equipment(or at very least, five speakers)...why, heck I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

I can see by this post that you have no additional information support you conclusion. This is nothing more here except more blather and hot air that is used to muddy the waters and spin the topic.

I would rather discuss this topic with somebody that has actually listens to multichannel, not somebody who listens to mono, and talks about stereo and multichannel. Uneducated and inexperienced opinions are worthless. I don't have time to dissect the words of somebody who thinks they are deep.

[Diego]

Uneducated and inexperienced opinions are worthless. I don't have time to dissect the words of somebody who thinks they are deep.

From the Terms of Use on this forum- "A healthy community asks for and encourages participation from everyone, regardless of their age, background, or level of expertise"

[noddin0ff]

I can manually spin a disk on a spindle of sorts, stick a sewing needle through the apex of a newspaper cone, apply needle to groove and voila!!!...Caruso or the Mills Brothers or whoever...look ma! no batteries...of course wow & flutter will be dreadful and there's always that tracking angle error to contend with but, it will produce music and that's what it's all about, eh?

And kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, I have no Idea where youre hands have been...but based on empirical evidence, provided by the easily observable "masses" one can assume...

jimHJJ(...can't one...)

RL- I'm getting lost as to what your point is. TT may be strong (or perhaps wrong) in his assertion that you're talking about things you have no experience in but his arguments about music RE-production are spot on. You seem to be talking about music production, which can be a 'musical' experience without the high tech. TT is talking about accurately RE-producing music. If you want to recreate the experience of an event where sound (whether brass choirs, or room echos, or artists intentions) come from the rear, why is it so hard to accept that 5.1 adds to the realism of that re-produced experience by supplying sources for those sounds to emanate from the rear? And that a proper 5.1 setup will recreate that experience better than two channel?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From the Terms of Use on this forum- "A healthy community asks for and encourages participation from everyone, regardless of their age, background, or level of expertise"

If you carefully read what I posted as carefully as you quoted the terms of use, you would have understood that I didn't say he couldn't participate. I said his lack of education and experience made his strong opinions worthless. Logic would dictate that you would have experience with something before you can have an opinion. Can you imagine a plumber talking about rocket engine technology?

[kexodusc]

I think noddin0ff said it best...for whatever reason some 2-channel advocates have taken a horribly false position that multichannel audio cannot outperform stereo. This is just a lie supported by nothing but heresay based on the poorest listening (and possibly) recording experiences of people who haven't embraced the superiority of multi-channel audio.

I don't know about all of you, but I have rarely seen a musical performance where sounds were emitted from two small localized points in space, 10 feet or less apart, on essentially the same plane. This setup is physically limited. That is fact. Sure it can sound good. But, under many, many, many circumstances, it sounds better with more channels. There is no reason to argue this point, nor has there been any intelligent arguments presented thus far contradicting this point.

There's also no reason to insult the stereo fans who decide that, or choose not to believe, their systems can be improved with more channels added.
This thread has subsequently turned into a rather heated flame war of sorts. Not sure why...nobody is making one side or the other choose to adopt stereo or multichannel.

Wish I was around during the transition from mono to stereo...I bet there were many similar arguments being made....

kexodusc (and those who may have been there should know better...)

[shokhead]

I only remember people being excited about stereo although i think it started around the mid 50's,it really took off in the early 60's if my memory serves me and its not dependable.The beatles kinda push strated it even more then it had been.

[thepogue]

I don't know about all of you, but I have rarely seen a musical performance where sounds were emitted from two small localized points in space, 10 feet or less apart, on essentially the same plane. This setup is physically limited. That is fact. Sure it can sound good. But, under many, many, many circumstances, it sounds better with more channels. There is no reason to argue this point, nor has there been any intelligent arguments presented thus far contradicting this point.

kexodusc (and those who may have been there should know better...)

But I can tell you my set-up does not sound at all like you discribe above...in fact most 2 channel systems worth there weight dont at all sound like you suggest. No "same plane"...not "10 feet apart"...and not at all localized...in fact with a good recording I can close my eyes and "be there"....and although this sounds silly...I'd invite anyone at anytime to come to my listening room and I'm 100% confident that the two channel stereo you describe wouldn't be heard here...and I dont at all think thats because of any magic dust nor big bucks spent (anyone who knows me knows better) but I think that two channel is like a lemon...the more ya squeese outta it the more you get...now I'm not at all suggesting that it's not costly..in fact I think more costly than a 5.1 set to get the desired results...but as I stated beofre with the time, tools and equipment and your eyes closed....you'll never feel physically limited...in fact I suggest youd be shocked and how "wide open' a sound you would hear....

One last point I'll make...I dont think this whole subject is as black and white as this thread is turning out to be...to be honest I'd love to hear a "skys the limit" two channel vs multi format...my gut tells me the multi would win the day (but I dont think it would be a wash like some would suggest)...and I think that if we could do a cheapie contest say under a grand the multi system would also win the day (I think the effects in the 5.1 realm could do more for less here)....but I have no question that in between the lines one can put together an awesome 2 channel that is anything but boring and dull...and in fact under the right condtioning can be out and out brilliant! I would like to have the original poster come listen to me set-up...then ask him if he still believes all two channel is boring...
Peace, Pogue

[Wireworm5]

Okay I still don't know what side of the fence I belong but here's my take on stereo. In my home and rooms that I have used for audio. I have never heard just two speakers in stereo sound better than a multiple speaker configuration stereo or surround sound fields. That's not to say that just two speakers in an appropriate room wouldn't sound better than what I've experienced. I say this because I heard some Klispch speaker briefly one time at a store. And it sounded quite good, but I don't know if it was the speakers or the two channel and room interaction that gave it the pleasing sound, perhaps both. So I'm open to the possibilty that 2 channel stereo with the right speakers and equipment in the right size room can sound better than multi-channel.
As for multi-channel stereo vs multi-channel surround I prefer a stereo configuration to surround sound field. Modified by an instrument sounfield.

[nightflier]

If you move 4 feet to left and right and still get a stable center image, then you are defying everything taught regarding the ear/brain interaction, time arrival, and how the ears interpret direction. I order for a stable center image to exist, the signals leaving both speakers must arrive simultaneously, and with equal intensity. If you are sitting off center, that is not possible because of a couple of things. As you move closer to any speaker, you change the arrival time of the signals to the ears, and it's amplitude(phase and amplitude). The change in timing will also change the amplitude to the ears, as the closest speakers signal will arrive first, and sound the loudest(precedent effect) Based on this known acoustical science can you tell how you can defy two principles(phase and amplitude) and come up with a stable center image sitting well off axis?

I tried several different speakers last night because I believe that how far one can move to the left & right w/o noticeable audible effects is largely a funtion of the speaker, more specifically the dispersion of the speaker. To a lesser extent, the size of the room and the sound treatments will also affect this.

My Klipsch RB5's for example did sound different when I moved just a little to the left or right on my couch. On the other hand, my Polk RT600i's, which are an entirely different type of speaker, required about 3 feet before it became noticeable to my ears. My bass-thin MB Quarts where somewhere in between. Now I know this is not very scientific and the speakers are all very different, but I think there is some wiggle room in the above argument. I also tested my tv room with a 7.1 Axiom setup that includes a large center channel. Now maybe my hearing is way off, but as long as I was facing toward the front three speakers, there was no audible difference when I moved to the L&R (well only if I moved further out than the L/R speakers).

Then again, I may be a lot more deaf than the rest of you...

One more thing: I also tried several SACD's and I can say that the quality of the audio is noticeably better, but that was not a function of the number of speakers as much as a function of the higher resolution, I think. Nobody has mentioned this little detail. Comparing SACD's with RBCD's should take this into consideration; after all, we were arguing about what sounds better. Although I don't think that was the original poster's argument. The only thing he said whas that multi-channel was better because it was multi-channel, not because it is most often on a higher resolution format. I guess to be fair we should only be comparing 2 channel stereo with PLII and other matrixed formats, not SACD/DVD-A.

[kexodusc]

I tried several different speakers last night because I believe that how far one can move to the left & right w/o noticeable audible effects is largely a funtion of the speaker, more specifically the dispersion of the speaker. To a lesser extent, the size of the room and the sound treatments will also affect this.

My Klipsch RB5's for example did sound different when I moved just a little to the left or right on my couch. On the other hand, my Polk RT600i's, which are an entirely different type of speaker, required about 3 feet before it became noticeable to my ears.

I have to ask, nightflier, how large is your room, how far are you from the speakers, and how far apart are they spaced. 3 feet isn't impossible, but necessitates such a large room, or a lot of imagination to work right. My experiences with the RT600i's haven't been nearly as favorable as this. Even speakers with the widest dispersion would suffer a tremendous shift in center image 3 feet off the center...there's one sound arriving far faster to your ears than the other, 3 ms is a long time in the audio realm....the precedence effect kicks in...you either get an echoey effect or massive tilt towards one speaker.

[kexodusc]

But I can tell you my set-up does not sound at all like you discribe above...in fact most 2 channel systems worth there weight dont at all sound like you suggest. No "same plane"...not "10 feet apart"...and not at all localized...in fact with a good recording I can close my eyes and "be there"....and although this sounds silly...I'd invite anyone at anytime to come to my listening room and I'm 100% confident that the two channel stereo you describe wouldn't be heard here...
Peace, Pogue

Hey Pogue,

My stereo doesn't sound like that either. I think maybe you've misread my post...I wasn't describing 2-channel sound characteristics, just their physical setup. Let me explain.
Stereo speakers are 2 fixed points in space along the same plane (ie: equal distance from the listener in an ideal setup, equal height too, so fixed points along the same 2 planes).
How many live musical performances have you seen where instruments or artists are located along the same 2 planes in 2 fixed points in space, 8" or less in diameter? Not many I think. This is a sever limitation in both 2-channel and multi-channel music reproduction, but you can easily see why multi-channel has an advantage here..

Stereo sounds great, don't get me wrong, but physics is physics, and 2-channel is limited. Soundstages are wider, imaging stronger in multi-channel audio because of the exact SAME characteristics that make stereo listening so enjoyable. However I'm with you when you say that stereo is NOT boring and dull...and I don't think multi channel is 3 times better despite having 3 times as many speakers (or even 4 times as many speakers in 7.1 systems).

I'm honestly baffled when people say they've heard multi-channel audio and didn't find it superior, though. They've either heard poor setups or poor recordings (which exist as much, or moreso in the stereo camp as well). The difference is night and day to me...a much better experience can be obtained with 5.1 setups.

The argument against 5.1 music at this point, which I sympathize with, is the limited selection for certain musical genres, poor execution of the potential in the studio, or just a bad artistic vision (guitars flying at you from behind). The last point is subjective, maybe the artist intended that, in which case 2-channel could never deliver...And of course higher cost. For these reasons, I still have a dedicated 2-channel system that is more refined and of higher quality than the components in my multi-channel system. I suspect someday this will change though, and I'll incorporate the two together.

Give it time, multi-channel audio has only been around, what, 3 years, as opposed to 60 for stereo....we're comparing a format in infancy to an evolved and mastered format. And in the opinions of many, the newer format has already surpassed it.

Perhaps the value isn't there for you yet. It is expensive and a bit harder to get a great multichannel system up and running, and the lack of available titles makes it discouraging to try, but don't limit yourself in the future.

One last point...I don't think stereo will ever disappear...too many excellent stereo recording that simply can't or won't be remastered to multi-channel formats.

[markw]

Good idea, but time does seem to be running out for mainstream SACD/DVD-A. It may wind up as a niche market but, on the whole, that generally limits the selection and/or raises the prices.

On the whole, system quality aside, a recording should be played back in the format in which it was intended. I'e, 2 channels sound most likethgey should be played back in two channels, multi channels should be played back in multi channels.

Of course, some people prefer to hide the taste of a fine steak under mounds of steak sauce simply because it's on the table, but that's a personal preference.

As always, preferences for or against the abilities/tastes of the mixmaster rule here.

[shokhead]

I've never been to a concert and they played 2 channel. They have the bass over there,lead over there,some horns there,drums back over there,here,there,everywhere,not split down the middle. I think when they record,its everything done sperate. Isnt it mixed to 2 channal so they decide where what is?

[kexodusc]

Good idea, but time does seem to be running out for mainstream SACD/DVD-A. It may wind up as a niche market but, on the whole, that generally limits the selection and/or raises the prices.

On the whole, system quality aside, a recording should be played back in the format in which it was intended. I'e, 2 channels sound most likethgey should be played back in two channels, multi channels should be played back in multi channels.

Of course, some people prefer to hide the taste of a fine steak under mounds of steak sauce simply because it's on the table, but that's a personal preference.

As always, preferences for or against the abilities/tastes of the mixmaster rule here.

I think the idea that multi-channels future is dependant on the success of either SACD or DVD-A is a very wrong and short-sighted argument too many people make. Home theater never took off with Pro-Logic...it took the DVD and Dolby Digital to make that boom happen.

With HD-DVD and BluRay on the horizon, it's safe to say the 5.1 boom is only going to continue, and new multi-channel formats with far more capability than anything in production today lies ahead in the future.

While SACD and DVD-A might not emerge dominant now, I don't see any reason why one of these, or a third, newer technology might not come through in the future. The hybrid/dual-disc idea is an excellent idea that would be even better with BluRay or HD-DVD's storage capacity...more than enough storage space for all the hi-rez anyone wants, and enough for whatever Dolby Digital Plus or DTS Hi-Rez multi-channel format awaits. All it would take is for one camp to decide they will only release "hybrid discs" from now on. I suspect the likes of Toshiba, and Sony, with vested interests in the multi-channel/home theater industry (by virtue of their other product lines) won't take too much time to realize this is in their best interest. Than multi-channel will exist whether the consumers like it or not, enjoying all the economies of scale it could ever ask for.

Just a matter of time before the inevitable.

[Arturo7]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]
"How many live musical performances have you seen where instruments or artists are located along the same 2 planes in 2 fixed points in space, "


At any medium to large venue this is exactly what you are hearing. Unless you are up front you do not hear the gear from stage. You're hearing it mic'd and amplified through the PA system. The result is the artists and instruments a definitely located on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.

At a smaller club venue this is not the case, typically only the vocals and sometimes horns or piano/keyboards are going through the PA. There are of course exceptions, but this means the vocals are presented on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.



"...8" or less in diameter?"

This is a function of how much sound reinforcement is needed and a different subject worthy of it's own thread.

Art.

[Arturo7]

I've never been to a concert and they played 2 channel. They have the bass over there,lead over there,some horns there,drums back over there,here,there,everywhere,not split down the middle. I think when they record,its everything done sperate. Isnt it mixed to 2 channal so they decide where what is?

Probably every concert you've ever been to has been 2 channel. See the above thread. If you want proof, wander into a music store that specializes in sound reinforcement (PA) equipment. Without exception, every mixing board, from the cheapest to the finest, is based on L/R.

Art

[noddin0ff]

At any medium to large venue this is exactly what you are hearing. Unless you are up front you do not hear the gear from stage. You're hearing it mic'd and amplified through the PA system. The result is the artists and instruments a definitely located on the same 2 planes and 2 fixed points in space.

Well, you just discounted a whole swath of classical music from large syphonic and opera to small chamber music and solo performance, as well as a fair amount of acoustic venues. But I see the point, especially in the larger amplified Jazz venues.