why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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

[Woochifer]

And to be honest that's not very much...postioning is even more a factor when more speakers are used...I enjoyed listening to Steely Dan's Asia on 5.1 and one song the female backing vocials we much much stronger in the rears...now move 4 or 5 inches left, right, forward or rear and your subject to have some (ill)effect on the overall sound....so adding channels wouldn't negate that..would it? Just one ohter point...if your two channel speaker placement is correct and your source and equipment is up to par...you shouldn't have such a narrow image field...if you do...time for some tweakin' I'd say...

Peace, Pogue

Actually, Steely Dan's Aja album has yet to come out in 5.1, and at the moment, it cannot be released in 5.1 because the original multitrack masters for two of the songs on that album are missing, so you must be thinking of something else.

If you're thinking of Gaucho, that's actually a poorly done surround mix precisely because it was mixed with the vocalists and instruments emanating out of each channel like point sources. It was the first 5.1 project that Eliot Scheiner ever mixed, and he's improved a lot since then. The 5.1 mixes that he did for Steely Dan's Two Against Nature and Everything Must Go albums are much better examples of surround music that more appropriately use the surround and center channels to solidify the side imaging (impossible for two-channel to do this) and render consistent and more deliberate depth and spatiality to the overall sound.

[thepogue]

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

Pogue

[kexodusc]

Hmm, some good points for and against continue.

I have a far superior 2-ch system than my very enjoyable HT system, but I have to admit, the benefits of multi-channel audio outweigh the benefits the superior equipment give me. My stereo system cost double my HT, but the HT playing a DVD-A or SACD will sound better than overall than the stereo system playing 2-channel. I recommend Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon for anyone to test this out!!! To each their own, but I can't wait until we finally move up from 2-channel.

Pogue: I have to agree with Sir T and gang on the imaging/soundstage advantages of multi-channel over stereo...Even the best, wide-dispersion speakers with superior off axis response will tend to result in a collapsed/skewed image as a result of the precedence effect. This is just physics. With a fixed dedicated center channel, you are allowed much more flexibility in listening location. Much like being off axis at a performance.

As for the added costs - that's misleading...setup difficulty increases, but extra speakers of a lower level of performance can actually acheive greater synergy and acheive superior in room performance IMO. You're often paying huge premiums in 2-ch equipment to improve on the flaws that exist in the 2-channel format...not so in multichannel.

[thepogue]

Pogue: I have to agree with Sir T and gang on the imaging/soundstage advantages of multi-channel over stereo...Even the best, wide-dispersion speakers with superior off axis response will tend to result in a collapsed/skewed image as a result of the precedence effect. This is just physics. With a fixed dedicated center channel, you are allowed much more flexibility in listening location. Much like being off axis at a performance.

can you buy a 5.1 for a quarter??...thats what I thought...(heads to the thrift shop hitch hiking of course).....


Pogue

[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.

[shokhead]

The modern smart side.

[thepogue]

fences are made fer jumpin'

lol

Pogue

[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...)

[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.

[Resident Loser]

...you really should read my response in the context of the original post. Also, you might wanna' ignore the fact that I am author of the response...particularly since that fact seems to color(or invite) your further participation...looks like markw and me are on your personna non grata list...

Quoting the original poster: "...it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent(sic) effects that make it seem like the music is all around you..."

First, I am not damning the technology and I have made that quite clear...when they finally get it right, I may change my opinion. After all, I experimented with the "Hafler hookup" when "Quad" was in it's infancy...some time later purchased a Sound Concepts ambiance restoration unit, a second amp and loudpeakers, much to the dismay of my SO.

Quad died, not only because of the competing formats, but also because they didn't know what to do with it...you had instruments originating in all four corners as discrete sources or some overblown swirly-swirly, panning effects. I get the impression, that our neophyte is as impressed with that type of arrangement as were some of the folks back then. If I'm wrong in my estimation, sue me.

"...it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases..."

CO-RECTUM-UNDO!!! Give dat man a big seegar! Why should I? I've been going back in time, educating myself in stuff I missed whilst enamored of rock...supplementing my classical collection and listening to Coltrane, Davis, Gillespie, Brubeck, Hampton et al, listening to their music(mono in some cases) for the music, not the format and certainly NOT the gear...good stuff is good stuff, even if it comes from a transistor radio!

"...It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases..."

It's not a sign of intelligence to characterize anyone's intelligence based on what YOU THINK is being said. Insult #1...

"...In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers..."

And I said this when? When did I use the word "instruments"? I wrote "...listen to the effects...", "...performance art...", "...big noises...". Nary a word re: one single kazoo or anything else bowed, blowed, plucked or struck...BTW, insult #2 didn't escape me.

"...Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds..."

When it becomes de rigeur, let me know.

"...Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds..."

Been there, done that...not looking for artificiality, whether it's mono re-processed into psuedo-stereo or some sort "enhanced" stereo/digital "quad'...it'll need to be miked in a real space, in real time and not a product of engineering "art'...

"...Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears..."

I think I covered "performance art" previously.

"...Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge..."

I seek knowledge...that's why I listen to everything from native American flute music to Hawaiian slack-key and zydeco, it's also why I listen forty-year-old performances by dead men and not the gear . Was that supposed to be number three?

"...Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you..."

Please stop mentioning "...performance art..." Numero quatro?

"...The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot..."

As I recall, Dyna-quad was dead silent...perhaps nostalgia colors my memory...maybe it's just that "wax" yellowing...

"...In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should..."

Except, of course, "performance art"...you'll let me know when that happens in this go-round, eh?

"...For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies..."

I'm sure the boss loves it when his underlings defend his honor, but have you taken a look at the corporate structure or the 2004 Annual Report?...Does the Buena Vista Music Group ring a bell? No matter how you slice it , dice it or compartmentalize it, regardless of how many paper "walls" are put up, the buck stops at the top...sooo, yes he do do music! It might even be doo-doo music! Mickey, whack him on the pee-pee!

Besides, I said "Eisner-types"...like referring to all cotton swabs as Q-tips...he's just an entertainment-related name that seems to be an emblematic purveyor of the type of insidious, all-pervasive pablum being distributed by corporate swine.

"...If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit..."

That's a matter of opinion.

"...Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel..."

I don't.

"...But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want..."

Well la-dee-dah and sakes alive I believe I dectect number 5...

"...Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple..."

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public...

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you really should read my response in the context of the original post. Also, you might wanna' ignore the fact that I am author of the response...particularly since that fact seems to color(or invite) your further participation...looks like markw and me are on your personna non grata list.

Perhaps you should spend less time telling me what to do, cut the bravato, and spare me the hot air. Actually Mark is not on any list I have, but you are definately on my "will make assumptions", and "love to see his own typing list".

Quoting the original poster: "...it just sounds so cool when you can hear the diffrent(sic) effects that make it seem like the music is all around you..."

First, I am not damning the technology and I have made that quite clear...when they finally get it right, I may change my opinion. After all, I experimented with the "Hafler hookup" when "Quad" was in it's infancy...some time later purchased a Sound Concepts ambiance restoration unit, a second amp and loudpeakers, much to the dismay of my SO.

You are only assuming they haven't got it right. And that assumption is spread over multichannel as a whole, and not a specific genre of music. What if it is the artist intent that HIS music be mixed with instruments behind you? Is that wrong to you? Why is your opinion greater than the artists intent?

Quad died, not only because of the competing formats, but also because they didn't know what to do with it...you had instruments originating in all four corners as discrete sources or some overblown swirly-swirly, panning effects. I get the impression, that our neophyte is as impressed with that type of arrangement as were some of the folks back then. If I'm wrong in my estimation, sue me.

Not only are you wrong in your estimation of my mixing taste, but you are also wrong about engineers not knowing what to do with quad. They knew exactly what they were doing, they in the beginning were demonstrating the capabilities of the format. What killed quad was that it did not work well with the ear/brain function(the setup was wrong), there were no standards, there were four or five different incompatible formats, and equipment used to playback quad was unreliable and noisey. None of this had anything to do with the mixing engineer.

"...it seems pretty obvious that you haven't been keeping up on multichannel music releases..."

CO-RECTUM-UNDO!!! Give dat man a big seegar! Why should I? I've been going back in time, educating myself in stuff I missed whilst enamored of rock...supplementing my classical collection and listening to Coltrane, Davis, Gillespie, Brubeck, Hampton et al, listening to their music(mono in some cases) for the music, not the format and certainly NOT the gear...good stuff is good stuff, even if it comes from a transistor radio!

Stuff that eminates from a transitor radio may be good, but it doesn't sound very good. If you haven't been keeping up with new releases, then valid and educated is your opinion as illustrated here?

"...It is not a sign of intelligence to use the sonic soundscape of a few niche releases to discribe a entire format worth of releases..."

It's not a sign of intelligence to characterize anyone's intelligence based on what YOU THINK is being said. Insult #1...

If you are insulted by this, then perhaps you should spend more time at Disneyland and less time here. You are too easily insulted.

"...In case it escaped you, not every recording locates instruments in the surround speakers..."

And I said this when? When did I use the word "instruments"? I wrote "...listen to the effects...", "...performance art...", "...big noises...". Nary a word re: one single kazoo or anything else bowed, blowed, plucked or struck...BTW, insult #2 didn't escape me.

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

"...Classical music released in multichannel for the most part has only hall ambience in the surrounds..."

When it becomes de rigeur, let me know.

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

"...Most studio jazz recordings have reverb stretched into the surrounds..."

Been there, done that...not looking for artificiality, whether it's mono re-processed into psuedo-stereo or some sort "enhanced" stereo/digital "quad'...it'll need to be miked in a real space, in real time and not a product of engineering "art'...

Ummm, the whole process of recording in the studio is artificial, so what's your point? I did mention STUDIO didn't I? Instruments in the studio are miked in a real space(STUDIO) and a reverb trail can be nothing more than a delay of elements of the frontal mix steered to the rear. Nothing fake about that. Positioning things in a mix goes on all the time, especially if its a studio project. Sometimes it is not practical to do things in real time because of scheduling and space constraints, that is why they make multitrack recorders and hard drives.

"...Only experimental music such as Alan Parsons on air, or music that is being remixed from two channel masters(with the artist and record companies approval) have the possibilty of having instruments in the rears..."

I think I covered "performance art" previously.

Just because you don't care for "performance art" doesn't mean it has to die. Remember, you are only one person of millions. Other folks may like it alot.

"

...Perhaps more listening to more titles in different genres of music might help you answer this question with a little more knowledge..."

I seek knowledge...that's why I listen to everything from native American flute music to Hawaiian slack-key and zydeco, it's also why I listen forty-year-old performances by dead men and not the gear . Was that supposed to be number three?

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

"...Its too bad you cannot appreciate when an artist tries to stretch out of the limitation of stereo, but just maybe outdated technology better suits you..."

Please stop mentioning "...performance art..." Numero quatro?

Is perfomance art to you like salt on a snail? All studio recording are performance art based on your beliefs. Mixing in general is performance art, nothing wrong with that.

"...The passive matrix processors you describe had poor seperation, where only mono, and were noisy to boot..."

As I recall, Dyna-quad was dead silent...perhaps nostalgia colors my memory...maybe it's just that "wax" yellowing...

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

"...In all cases everyone settles down and begins to use the technology as they should..."

Except, of course, "performance art"...you'll let me know when that happens in this go-round, eh?

It has already happened, you just need to catch up. I am sorry that you don't like performance art, many do though.

"...For your information, Eisner doesn't do music, he does theme parks, television and movies..."

I'm sure the boss loves it when his underlings defend his honor, but have you taken a look at the corporate structure or the 2004 Annual Report?...Does the Buena Vista Music Group ring a bell? No matter how you slice it , dice it or compartmentalize it, regardless of how many paper "walls" are put up, the buck stops at the top...sooo, yes he do do music! It might even be doo-doo music! Mickey, whack him on the pee-pee!

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

Besides, I said "Eisner-types"...like referring to all cotton swabs as Q-tips...he's just an entertainment-related name that seems to be an emblematic purveyor of the type of insidious, all-pervasive pablum being distributed by corporate swine.

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

"...If the old catalog has been remaster and remixed, and the result is better than the original, then everyone is getting a benefit..."

That's a matter of opinion.

This is a dumb response(note, I didn't say you were dumb), or you are just being contrary just for contrary sake. Come on get serious man.

"...Now for those people who like to sit on the sidelines and complain about profits, don't buy multichannel..."

I don't.

Yes and that is why your comments on multichannel are dated, and not very educated.(no that is not an insult, its a fact)

"...But for those of us who don't live in the past and are much more progressive, we get what we want..."

Well la-dee-dah and sakes alive I believe I dectect number 5...

"...Nobody is that stupid unless they are sheeple..."

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public...

jimHJJ(...or something like that...)

Actually the number is 5.1. Maybe nobody went broke underestimated the American PUBLIC, but they will go broke trying to do that with me.

[squeegy200]

I have the equipment and a dedicated listening room to do both 5.1 and 2.0 setups. I've always seemed to gravitate towards the two channel setup because I like listening to music sources and its more than adequate for movies. However, I could not do the same with the 5.1 setup.

My two channel setup seems to create the same holographic space equivalent to wearing a good pair of headphones. Therefore, the 5.1 gear does not have that advantage in my listening room. Guests have sworn they heard percussion instruments eminating from behind them and asked where the rear speakers were located. They were skeptical when I revealed to them that they were listening to two channel stereo.

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?

[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...)

[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...)