why do people like 2.0 channel so much???

[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...)

[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?

[Resident Loser]

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?

...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...and I don't really have all that much of a problem even with THAT application...Zep, Kraftwerk, Floyd, etc. all have used it in stereo to provide the desired effect...the genres that use such devices, pop/rock or experimental/performance art, seem to rely more on production values than on quality of composition and are more of style than substance IMHO...These affectations(including any deliberately "misplaced" musicians) are done for effect and are, in general practice, the exception rather than the rule...particularly in a live venue.

Classical music and classic jazz do not require such manipulation. The quality of the MUSIC and performance transcends the medium, be it stereo, mono or my little finger-spinning execise. I defy anyone, anywhere to "improve"(and to whom it may concern, you know perfectly well what I mean, so let's not go off on some insipid tangent) on something like Miles Davis' "Birth Of The Cool"...originally twelve sides, released in mono...as 78s and re-mastered from the original studio sources(as opposed to the second or third generation disks used in other releases of this material) fairly recently by Rudy Van Gelder for release as a CD...It has depth and presence and it's still in mono...fancy that! Pool players have a saying "class beats @$$"

BTW, my experience as a performer, later as a field recordist and more currently as an educated and opinionated consumer, negates TtTs demeaning and highly insulting statements re: my "qualifications" to post on this or any other topic within my field of endeavor. It is misleading AND irrelevant to the issue and simply an example of a continuing "smokescreen". Should one chose to review the "to and fro" that has transpired within this thread, it should be painfully obvious who is actually the "spinmeister".

And to those who think we don't hear in "stereo", at least in the "audiophile" sense of the word...you are right, we hear binaurally...Our two(count 'em) ears have more acuity to determining sources and reflections than any system or format could ever possibly hope to represent in a sound reproduction situation. HOWEVER...the end mix pretty much consists of L&R...anything beyond that basic representation, any discrete sound sources we may hear at the live event, is due to bleeding of these sources...In the finished product, they would require a specific assignment in the "stereo" soundstage, via panning, to approximate what we hear binaurally.

jimHJJ(...I hope that clarifies things a bit...)