why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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

[Woochifer]

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

Pogue

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

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[nightflier]

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.

Well I didn't say this was scientific. I haven't measured the room, but I guestimate it is 20' wide (along the wall that the speakers are on) and I am sitting about the same distance from the wall on a loveseat that is centered between the speakers facing them. I have quite a bit of furniture in the room, so it isn't ideally set up and the speakers are in the far corners (which I know is not ideal for the Polks). They are, however, toed in about 30 degrees which is quite a bit, I know. The couch is small, and moving from the center of it to the edges, I estimate that to be about three feet. Again, I have not done any measurements, so I may be off 1/2 a foot here or there.

While this may not be scientific, there is a marked difference between each of the speakers I tried; the Klipschs having very a very noticeable change, the Quarts a little less and the Polks the least. While I'm not trying to compare them, I am merely making the point that sound dispersion abilities between different speakers will increase or decrease the sweet spot accordingly.

It certainly will not compare to adding a center channel to the mix, of course, but then a center channel is a whole different type of speaker than a L/R one. One could even argue that a center channel duplicates the sweet spot for the person sitting in the center of the couch. This would over-emphasize the center as compared to a live or studio recording, which makes calibrating a 5-channel system correctly very difficult, I'm sure. In fact, a correct surround sound setup for movies would be incompatible with one for music specifically because of the center channel. This requires readjusting speaker levels everytime one switches between the two, or put up with a mediocre setup for one of the two. All I'm saying is that the sweet spot is the most problematic in a debate between 2.0 and 5.1.

And with all the different surround formats, and speaker types that people have, there are just too many factors at play between systems to make blanket statements that one is better than the other, like the original poster did.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

It really has nothing to do with the dispersion at all, it has more to do with the arrival time of the signals to the ear. Sound treatments deal with the amplitude of the signal after it is reflected, not the phase relationships between the speakers. The size of the room is not the issue since we are talking about the first arrival signals direct from the speakers. My point to you is that listening in stereo is a single seat experience if imaging and soundstaging are important to you. Multichannel is not.

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.

Sorry, but no matter what speaker you are listening to a move of 4 inches changes the arrival time of one speaker over another. This is why it is recommended that you sit exactly in between the speakers. If the arrival time of the signals is not simultaneous, then it is impossible to develope stable imaging, and a stable and coherent soundfield.

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).

Thank you for making my point. Stereo is a format for one, multichannel is a format for one or more. Having a discrete hard center speaker(as opposed to phantom imaging) keeps whatever signals emanating from this position locked in.

Stereo is a limited format, with limited spatial capabilities. Left, right, and deep are its only spatial attributes. Multichannel has the potential to place everything in the right place. The audience behind and to the sides of you, precise left, center and right position, forward or backward in the soundstage. Stereo only images for one, multichannel does for at least three. The benefits of multichannel are pretty obvious.

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.

Unfortunately stereo is not a matrixed format. Stereo has no sister format like SACD and DVD-A are to Dts and DD. (all 5.1 formats) Comparing stereo to PLII and matrixed stereo still lands you with the same problem as comparing it to 5.1. There are still more channels than stereo has, and still not a fair competition if we used your logic.