Stereo versus surround sound

[stereophonicfan]

What is your opinion?

When listening to music on a surround-sound system are missing something or gaining something as opposed to listening on a stereo-system.

It's my experience that surround sound is indeed great for movies, but lacks realism when listening to music. The highs can be reproduced by any speaker performing it's duty in a surround-set. The lows however in a surround system are reproduced by a subwoofer. This device perhaps gives you all the bass and warmth you'll need but it's 'non-directional' sound. It doensn't really matter where you put the woofer, but is that really so? Is bass-sound non-directional?

[joel2762]

I found when listening to music in surround sound, it brought a new depth to the music. I heard things that I never knew were in the music. It does seem less lifelike, but I like these rear effects. That's just my preference.
Now for subwoofers. They just give the real lows and rumbles in movies. They still work for music, but some people just prefer the 2 channel setting on their reciever using large speakers when listening to music. Hmm. Is Bass non-directional...I think so. I had my subwoofer at the front of the room then moved it to the back. There wasn't too much difference, the bass still traveled everywhere. I could sort of pick ouut where the sub was but I think that was because I moved it there and I knew where it was...

[stereophonicfan]

Me, personally, I prefer the good old stereo experience for music.

There are actually technical reasons why a stereo-setup is more accurate than a surround system. The bass produced by a subwoofer is the weak bit, I hereby don't mean to completely disband the surround system.
My point: e.g. when listening to a random classical piece (not that I only listen to classical music, I listen to pretty much anything) containing the sound of instruments like cello's, hobo's and other instruments producing sound with double tones (a higher one and a lower one), the lower tone should, when the sound is right in the stereo-image, be heard right (and left when left).
It's the basic assumption that bass-sound is non-directional that bothers me. Yet most surround systems have only on woofer unit, only few have two directional subwoofer-units. Bass-hits are less direction sensitive but sounds from a bass-guitar are.
Again, I don't hate the surround experience, I actually love it. But as most manufacturers think you only need one bassdriver and I'm more a music-type than a movie-type, I chose the stereo-setup.

[Jim Clark]

I listen to pretty much anything) containing the sound of instruments like cello's, hobo's and other instruments

Surround really makes those hobos come to life. Funny typo, thanks. In the US, a hobo is defined as: One who wanders from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood.
I mention it only since you are from Belgium and may not get why it's funny.

Regards,

jc

[piece-it pete]

Well I prefer stereo for music. I've found the various soundfields available do IMO weird things to at least the overall presentation.

But I haven't heard a discrete multi-channel music-only recording on a good quality 5.1 system, either. Perhaps good things are in store for us :). (Of course the manufacturers are going to continue to push/develop 5.1. More amps, more speakers, and maybe, more realistic sound?)

For HT surround rocks!! I don't think anything can replace the point source of the rear channels.

They say any sound below about 80hz is non-directional. It used to be higher (I've seen mention of 120hz). And I'll say if Richard Bassnut Greene believes it it's probably true.

That said :), I'm very stubborn & run stereo subs. My unscientific, totally biased "tests" show (me at least) that the stereo setup has a wider soundstage vs. switching to mono. I think it's possible that we feel the sound as well as actually hear it.

It's also possible I'm kidding myself - and that's no joke.

But it makes me happy.

Pete

[bturk667]

I find listening to music in surround sound to be nothing more than an novelty. The rear surround speakers are there for nothing more than effect. In my opinion it's a gimick, nothing more. I would rather listen to music in stereo thanks.

[jbangelfish]

Music is recorded in two channel and is meant for stereo listening. HT systems are for movies and nothing else in my view. There may be some new CD types in which music is recorded in a different way but stereo is able to be so good that making it better seems nearly impossible. I have heard that HT uses a mono signal and splits it up a number of ways. I'm not sure if this is true but that would ruin the stereo effect of any recording and may be why stereo listeners are so opposed to the sound. Even if this is not the case, splitting a stereo signal further makes no sense to me. How many concerts have you attended where part of the band or orchestra was behind you and the rest scattered elsewhere?
I don't like the single subwoofer concept either. Had a big arguement with Mr Greene about this, I think he finally decided that I'm just too old and stubborn to change. Anyway, I've never had a system that tells the woofers to stay below 80hz and I'm in no hurry to get one. I have 4, 12 inch woofers that are xo'd to 200hz and below, reaching 18hz. What the hell would I want a single sub for? RG may be right about 80hz and below being non directional but it doesn't fit my system or any other system that I would care to have.
Bill

[joel2762]

This is where you can have cake and eat it too. You can still have a surround sound and stereo. On my Sony reciever, simply push 2CH and you're back to classic stereo. Press mode until it says NORM SURROUND, and you're all set for movie playback!..As for preferences on where sound is coming from. I'm not one of those people who are all for reproduction exactly how the music was recorded. I like the rear effects. I don't care what way the stage was arranged...Thats just my preference. I like the cool effects. I haven't got the chance to listen to DVD-Audio or SACD but I think a Pink Floyd albumor something on SACD would sound pretty cool with all those neat sounds..It may not be lifelike, but it sounds pretty cool.

[markw]

Well, that depends. I'm assuming you are refering to recordings origiinaly made in a two channel mode. That's what I'll be addressing here.

With any two channel recordings, any attempt to get more than two channels out of 'em is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. REalism is not even a concern here. Different effects, some pleasing and some not, may be achieved, but enhancing realisim is not about to happen.

With my old HT system, which had only DPL and a few hall type modes, no music sounded anywhere near listenable using that or any other enhancement mode it offered. So, two channel it always was.

I've recently jumped to the 21st century with a Denon 2802 receiver which offers DPL2, Neo, and 5 or 6 channel stereo. Space being somewhat limited for now, I am only running a 5.1 system although it can handle 6.1. in time...

One thing to consider as far as the subwoofer is concerned... Bass management is nowhere near consistent throughout all receivers and all modes. For instance, I have my sub set at 0 for DPL2, Neo and Stereo 5 while in two channel stereo, it's set to -12 db. Otherwise it is overpowering.

Anyhow, I've taken to experimenting with these various modes with two channel recordings. Some interesting results... Some recordings sounded "better" in either DPL2 or stereo 5. I can't think of any that sounded "better" in both. Of course, many recordings did not benefit from either, so two channel is the way to go for these.

Interestingly enough, the recordings I seemed to prefer in DPL2 were those recordings that "seemed" to provide some ambiance thru the rears. Insturments coming from them were an instant turn off.

On the whole, I gotta say I prefer two channel over any enhancements on most of the recordings by a wide margin.

Again, it's like steak sauce. Some people have no problem slathering a fine porterhouse in A1 and others find it a sacralige to profane a fine piece of meat. It's nice to have a choice. Unless I'm gonna eat it, I keep my mouth shut.

[topspeed]

Don't forget about SACD and DVD-A in multi-channel, hi-rez. DVD-A in multi channel is actually pretty cool. One song that was particularily memorable was America's "Ventura Highway" (for all you old schooler's out there) that really utilized the surround aspects quite well. The Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" live concert is also very cool in surround w/ the audience applauding behind you. While I still do all of my critical listening in two channel and w/ the sub turned off, I could easily see jumping into the sacd/dvd-a fray if for nothing else because it makes some of the old classics new and fun again. Isn't that what our love for music is all about?

[poneal]

Here's my take on the surround issue. Sometimes, with some songs, and seated in the right position it adds depth to the music. For the most part it distracts me. I do however have the receiver in theater mode when watching TV. I say this because I can have the receiver at a lower volume level and still hear what they're saying through the surrounds. Even in 3 channel stereo ( stereo + combined l/r mono to center) it sounds distracting. Movies are fine, kinda cool hearing someone creep up behind you. I'm waiting to get a sacd/dvd-a player to check out that sound like topseed mentioned. Those sacd discs are recorded with multichannel in mind and stereo is not. Is prologic II better than theater, hall, and all those others choices, yes, in my opinion it is. In the end, it is a personal preference.

[Woochifer]

I think it's pretty simple. If a soundtrack was originally done for two-channel, then you play it back in two-channel. If it was mixed for surround, then you're best served playing it back with a surround setup.

The thing about surround music is that it's really in its infancy. Sound engineers are just learning how to work with the new medium and already you see a lot of compelling examples of what's possible with 5.1 channels. Some are good, some are bad, some are mixed to make it sound like you're in a concert hall, others are mixed to put you into a completely different world of sound. It's like the early days of stereo where the early recordings took some wildly different approaches. Just as some of the left to right panning effects in early stereo recordings now sound cheesy, I'm sure that some of the early attempts at surround music won't be looked upon too favorably 50 years from now.

And even now, there's disagreement as to the best approach to surround music. Some producers and engineers prefer to mix without the center channel active, some prefer to go full range on all channels and keep the subwoofer track silent, some recordings put you in the audience near the back of the room, some recordings put you inside of the instrument. All I know is that the better surround music recordings are very compelling. Audiophiles typically look for loosely defined attributes such as imaging, soundstaging, "air", etc. and the better surround recordings provide all of these qualities in abundance and sometimes better than with any high end two channel setup I've ever heard. If you listen to a high quality surround recording and cannot denote these attributes, then you need to make sure that the system is setup correctly.

In order to get the maximum benefit from surround music, two factors are absolutely critical -- speaker placement and timbre matching. The studio monitoring setup with surround music mixing is typically done in the ITU multichannel reference configuration (diagram below)



Ideally, you would setup your speakers in this configuration as well. Placement with a surround system is more difficult to get right just by tweaking than with two speakers, so this is where you should start.

If you plan on also using your setup with movies, you should make a compromise by raising the surround speakers at least 1' above ear level and pointing them directly at one another. This is the configuration that Dolby recommends for home systems used for both surround music and movies because it retains the precise imaging mixed into surround music mixes while imparting some diffused sound with ambient movie sound effects. If the surround speakers are closer to your ear than the mains, then you need to increase the delay time to the surrounds.

Timbre matching is also absolutely critical if you want to hear what surround music is capable of. With movie soundtracks, the sound that gets sent into the surrounds is not often mixed at the same levels as the front, and more often the sounds that go into the surrounds are ambient effects separate from what's going on up front. Timbre matching in this case is still desirable, but not crucial. (Although more and more, you see much more aggressive sound mixes with movies that steer a lot of the music and action from the front three speakers into the surrounds)

With surround music (including a lot of concert DVDs), the surround channels very often get the lead instruments and vocals at roughly the same level as the mains. Any timbre mismatches significantly diminish the imaging quality. When I timbre matched my system after going almost two years with mismatched surrounds, surround music soundtracks gained an almost eerie three dimensionality. The soundstage across the front is now exceptionally wide, and the side imaging is solidly anchored in a way that's impossible for two-channels to achieve.

Aside from the higher resolution that topspeed also mentioned, surround music has further benefits in that the 5.1 mixes require going all the way back to the multitracked master tapes. In many cases, the two-channel "master" tape was originally prepared with the vinyl medium in mind, and got directly transferred to CD without any other preparation (which explains why so many early CD transfers sounded harsh and tinny compared to the LP versions). With new 5.1 mixes, the soundtrack can now be done specifically with a high res digital format in mind.

[skeptic]

What is your opinion?

When listening to music on a surround-sound system are missing something or gaining something as opposed to listening on a stereo-system.

As someone who has experimented with surround sound for almost 30 years and who has listened to a lot of live music both inside and outside of concert halls, it is clear that ordinary 2 channel stereo is very inadequate. The larger the hall would be for a given musical group, the greater the disparity between what a recording can offer under the best of circumstances and what you would hear live will be. Unfortuantely, modern multi channel systems developed for the home are entirely inadequate for reproducing concert hall acoustics which contribute so much to music.

If you think acoustics at a live performance are unimportant, consider that not only do acoustic architects and engineers get to spend tens of millions of dollars of other people's money to build rooms for listening to music, change them around, tear them down, and build them back up again, but one famous electrical engineer from MIT whose name inspires so much anger measured that a mere 19 feet from the performing stage at Boston Symphony Hall, America's acoustically best room for listening to music, the audience hears 89 percent reflected sound and only 11 percent direct sound and as you move farther back, the percentage of reflected sound continues to increase (this has almost nothing to do with his product.)

As for the bass from subwoofers, while it is true that a separate subwoofer can often increase both the loudness and range of bass, integrating it with the rest of a sound system to accurately reproduce music is not a particularly simple task. At the point where it crosses over to the rest of the system, there is evey likelihood that there will be major frequency response anomolies due to interference patterns. The best and most accurate loudspeakers for reproducing music have the woofers or subwoofers built into them in a way that indicates that the manufacturer has considered and dealt with this problem. Case in point, Bill's Teledyne AR9s.

[Geoffcin]

The best and most accurate loudspeakers for reproducing music have the woofers or subwoofers built into them in a way that indicates that the manufacturer has considered and dealt with this problem. Case in point, Bill's Teledyne AR9s.

While I have to agree with Skeptic that full range speakers always the best choice, for the most part they are much more expensive than a sat/sub system. A modern speaker with the frequency response of the AR9's would cost thousands. I think it's unnecessary for most HT application. i.e. If you want to listen to movie tracks, sat/sub is a good value.

HT is in the process of growing up now, while stereo is fully mature, and is specifically designed for High Fidelity sound reproduction, not music & movie sound. Does this make them incompatible? No, but it's going to take some time before engineers are able to understand the surround process enough to make the surround mix sound "better" than stereo. My guess is that there's going to be at least a 10 year learning curve, and we've only just started. There is great promise there though, and I see more and more of the quality names in hi-fi designing amps, and processors for HT.

Right now the only "surround" music that I prefer to stereo is live performance DVD's. The Eagles, "Hell Freezes Over", and Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" come to mind.

[jbangelfish]

Well, I had the chance to hear another HT system the other day at a coworker's home. He's been bragging it up for months for both music and movies. First, he had to demonstrate a movie and it impressed me the way that all of these systems have. When a horse hoof hits the ground or a door closes, it sounds like a bomb went off. Throughout, there is a bass rumble which is unidentifiable noise. To me, real life does not sound anything like this. Maybe he has his bass turned up too far, I don't know but this is always the feeling that I get when I hear one of these systems.
Then he played a CD both in stereo and surround mode. It sounded best to me in stereo but I would not call it good, one sub, off to the right and stereo speakers in front, I can't get used to it and the sound quality just wasn't there. I'm sure there are systems that do it better but he has a fair amount of money into this, one of the biggest Yamaha HT receivers and all JBL speakers. Probably a middle of the road system but I'm in no hurry to go to this type of system.
I have heard of people using AR9's with HT but I'm in no hurry to try that either. The amp I'd want to adequately drive so many speakers would have to be too heavy for me to want to pick it up. The effect is nothing I'd strive for anyway. If I ever get into HT, it will be a small modest system that won't overwhelm me with unidentifiable bass sounds and it will be a completely separate system from my stereo.
The AR9's are the most accurate speaker that I have ever had and I am pleased in nearly all aspects of their sound. I don't sense the depth that I used to get with 901's but I have better accuracy. I think the reason is simple physics. I think Dr. Bose made an amazing discovery in the reflected sound principle and the little 901 is able to reproduce the depth of a concert hall better than any speaker that I have ever heard. Unfortunately, it is limited in how well it can do this by the small drivers, too small for the deepest bass and too large for the highest treble, especially when they have to do it all at once.
If someone were to combine the theories and principles of Bose and AR, they might have something really special. I intend to build something along these lines, just to satisfy my curiousity once and for all. As I said, it is simple physics, when you reflect most of the sound, there is a slight delay in the arrival. Call it a reverberation, echo, whatever you like but it gives the sound depth. It's fast enough that you don't hear it as echo or reverb and it does mimic a concert hall. I'm not aware of any other speaker system that utilizes this technology, some do it partially.
With any forward firing systems, all the sound arrives at the same time and to me sounds rather lifeless. There were some time array type systems in which some was delayed, I think Polk dabbled in this and Dahlquist but it's not the same as reflecting like what happens in a concert hall. I think Bose made one of the greatest discoveries in acoustic sound reproduction but in making an affordable system (and 901's are overpriced), he missed the whole package. You'd need loads of power to drive such a vast array of speakers but I for one, completely believe in the concept.
Bill

[Woochifer]

Well, I had the chance to hear another HT system the other day at a coworker's home. He's been bragging it up for months for both music and movies. First, he had to demonstrate a movie and it impressed me the way that all of these systems have. When a horse hoof hits the ground or a door closes, it sounds like a bomb went off. Throughout, there is a bass rumble which is unidentifiable noise. To me, real life does not sound anything like this. Maybe he has his bass turned up too far, I don't know but this is always the feeling that I get when I hear one of these systems.

Problems with bass can usually be blamed on room acoustics, which for a typical small to medium sized room will affect the overall sound much more in the low frequencies than in the midrange and highs. Boominess like what you observed is room induced peaking at specific frequencies caused by standing wave formation. In a lot of situations, these peaks can be upwards of 20 db or more, which can easily drown out other sounds and give you bass that's loud and overwhelming with certain sounds and empty otherwise. The only way around this is careful measuring of the in-room response and room treatments and/or parametric equalization.

The AR9's are the most accurate speaker that I have ever had and I am pleased in nearly all aspects of their sound. I don't sense the depth that I used to get with 901's but I have better accuracy. I think the reason is simple physics. I think Dr. Bose made an amazing discovery in the reflected sound principle and the little 901 is able to reproduce the depth of a concert hall better than any speaker that I have ever heard. Unfortunately, it is limited in how well it can do this by the small drivers, too small for the deepest bass and too large for the highest treble, especially when they have to do it all at once.
If someone were to combine the theories and principles of Bose and AR, they might have something really special. I intend to build something along these lines, just to satisfy my curiousity once and for all. As I said, it is simple physics, when you reflect most of the sound, there is a slight delay in the arrival. Call it a reverberation, echo, whatever you like but it gives the sound depth. It's fast enough that you don't hear it as echo or reverb and it does mimic a concert hall. I'm not aware of any other speaker system that utilizes this technology, some do it partially.

I think you're going at this from a flawed assumption. Just because concert halls have reverberant acoustics and scads of reflected sound does NOT mean that home speaker systems should try and emulate that. Why? Because the playback chain is different than a live performance. One is an actual event, the other is a reproduction of that event. If a recording already captures that reverberant effect from a live performance in a concert hall, the last thing you want is for the playback to add even more reverberation and echo.

And to me, that's the fatal flaw of the Bose direct/reflecting design. It sounds good in marketing literature, but it's not based on sound acoustic principles. The sound quality of the speaker itself with that design is dictated almost entirely on the distance from the walls, the room acoustics, the reflectivity of the surfaces, the placement, etc. Any asymmetries, odd shapes, open spaces, etc. will affect that type of speaker far more than with a direct firing speaker. The type of sound you get is much more unpredictable. And even when placed optimally, a direct/reflecting speaker introduces time domain errors and distortions that reduce dialog intelligibility, muddy up the imaging (because the head-transfer effects necessary to discern a three-dimensional sound image have to interpret smeared sounds), and have less than optimal tonal response.

There's a reason why mixing studios are soundproofed to minimize the reflected sound, why the best sounding movie theatres have acoustic controls in place to reduce the amount of echo, and why high end demo rooms are typically built with acoustic panels, bass traps, and other room treatments in place. Because a live sounding room will impose its own signature on top of what was already recorded. If the goal is to reproduce live sounds as accurately as possible, then any kind of alteration in the playback chain, whether that be an overly live sounding room or speakers that spray the sound in a random pattern, constitutes a distortion and deviation from that goal.

With any forward firing systems, all the sound arrives at the same time and to me sounds rather lifeless. There were some time array type systems in which some was delayed, I think Polk dabbled in this and Dahlquist but it's not the same as reflecting like what happens in a concert hall. I think Bose made one of the greatest discoveries in acoustic sound reproduction but in making an affordable system (and 901's are overpriced), he missed the whole package. You'd need loads of power to drive such a vast array of speakers but I for one, completely believe in the concept.
Bill

It may sound lifeless, but that very well may have been the intent of the recording engineer. Or it could be an overly dead sounding room, or the speakers were not placed correctly. If you're doing a blanket condemnation of all forward firing speakers and saying that Bose's approach is the correct way, then I think you're way off base. Bose is the only speaker company that takes the approach that they do, and I don't think it's because they know something that everyone else doesn't. Other manufacturers have tried to impart greater spatiality by tinkering with the phase relationships (which is what Polk did with their SDA speakers) or going with a bipolar design (forward and back firing drivers in phase with one another, which is very different from the almost random off-angle driver placements that Bose uses), using an omnidirectional driver, or simply designing a forward-firing speaker with a wide dispersion pattern. But, those designs are based on much more solid research than Bose's "discoveries." (Their marketing brochures look good, but their products are based on principles that predated them by decades)

[jbangelfish]

I don't think that there is anything random about what Bose designed. Change the angle, change the distance from the walls or turn them around and the desired effects are lost. Placement of the 901 is absolutely critical with very little adjustment available for different situations. Most people have never had them in the correct placement or had enough power to do them justice. Rest assured that a great deal of research went into their simple design. Dr. Bose is a highly regarded professor and either did or still does teach at MIT. He's ahead of most of us.
I do not want to alter a recording either, this is why I don't like equalizers and I have no tone controls. This leaves everything up to the recording engineers to get it right for me. If adding depth to the sound by strategically bouncing it out of corners is wrong, I guess I like being wrong. It creates a 3 dimensional image of sound better than anything that I have ever heard. The main flaw is a general weakness in the upper treble and a slight weakness in bass. They will reach 22hz which is lower than most high end speaker systems with 8 inch or even 12 inch woofers. If you ask me, it sounds better in person than it does on paper. I haven't read any of this stuff in years and I realize that the vast majority of audiophiles hate 901's. They can't do everything well but they do some things extremely well, mainly create a huge spatial sound experience.
Anyway, I'd take a pair of 901's over any HT system or multichannel system that I've ever heard anywhere, store demo or in a home. Overall, I'm happier yet with my AR9's, I just miss that depth of the 901. This is why I say that I'd like to build something that can do both accuracy and create the three dimensional quality achieved through direct reflection.
Don't worry, you won't change my mind. I'm old and stubborn and I've heard lots and lots of music live and recorded for my entire 51 years of life.
Bill

[Beckman]

What is your opinion?

lows however in a surround system are reproduced by a subwoofer. This device perhaps gives you all the bass and warmth you'll need but it's 'non-directional' sound. It doensn't really matter where you put the woofer, but is that really so? Is bass-sound non-directional?

Moving my sub just six inches in and direction greatly affects how it sounds. Currently I have it facing perpendicular to my speakers about 1 ft. away from the wall in on both sides. This seems to make the subwoofer less noticeable, that is I can't tell if the bass is coming from the sub or the speakers. Other tricks I have tried involve elevating the front tof the sub an inch higher than the rear, and placing the sub one foot behind the two front speakers.

The main problem with subs and music is that spekaers usually go down to about 35 Hz - 50 Hz. The sub then kicks in. The lowest note on a bass guitar is about 38 Hz. The lowest note on a piano is 28 Hz (I think). During musical passages a poorly set up sub can sound terrible. People tend to turn them up too loud and don't have the crossovers adjsuted properly. With my system if the sub is turned up too loud I notice that the lowest note on the bass guitar comes out on the sub, while the other notes come out on the main speakers. Sounds terrible.

As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go.

[maxg]

"As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go."

My take is that unless someone comes up with a downloadable MP3 like multi-channel format it will always be a minority interest product, not much larger than vinyl is today.

Apple have hit upon a mechanism that will allow the music industry to make money from downloadable music and it looks like it will stick. This may have a very dramatic effect on music sales, and not all of it bad.

I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.

Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.

DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.

(Interesting side note: I spent christmas in Manchester (England) and had a full day in the enormous shopping centre they have there. Whilst my wife attempted to buy every shoe and item of clothing ever made I sought sanctuary in a Sony store.

In the store there were innumerable portable players (MP3 and CD), DVD players, a new DVD recorder, an MP3 type jukebox with a 40 Gb disk, headphones, camera's, organisers, video cameras and all the rest of the Sony stuff, except SACD players. I did not see a single SACD player (either dedicated or DVD combo unit). Equally as surprising - they had 2 turntables on display, although to be fair one of them did look more aimed at DJ's than casual users).

[Beckman]

I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.[Quote]

I agree. CD are to easily converted to mp3. Records companies can't make as much money on them.

Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.[Quote]

I disagree. I think multichannel will take over much the same way surround sound with video has. Just because music will be released in multichannel format doesn't mean you can't play it in stereo.(Ex. DVD)

DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.[QUOTE]

I agree, more speakers will be pushed. I think it is Parasound that sells a processor that has 7 channels, a sub output, another sub output for ultra low frequencies(to shake the room) and four additional programmable outputs for a total of 11 speakers and 2 subs. I think that for most people 5-7 is the most they will use.


As for releasing multichannel music an a mp3 type format that can't be illegaly downloaded, it would have to sound better or as good as RBCD/DVD-Audio/SACD for it to really catch on. MP3 sounds terrible compared to RBCD on a good stereo.