2. speakers
  3. 1177210462

MultiChannel too complicated for most...

I've been on the gon for a little while now, posting and enjoying all the spectacular virtual systems. There is one thing I've noticed though. It's that many seem to associate the terms 2 channel and simple, especially when heading and detailing their virtual systems. I don't see it too often in threads, but every now and again it'll show up their as well.

Me being the multichannel guy I am, this small and most times overlooked detail seemed to jump out at me. Its been a passing thought for a while, but seems to be a somewhat valid question.

Now...before I go any further, this is not in insight a riot and bombard the moderators with request to have this thread pulled because it "potentially offends" 2 channel lovers. This is not that kind of posting, but just posing a question that has crossed my mind more times that one.

Do 2channel only audiophiles shun multichannel (discrete or DSP based) because they find it too complicated?

If the concept of thinking in 360 degrees (Multichannel) were simplified, for a lack of better terms, would multichannel be more accepted?
cdwallace

Showing 6 responses by kr4

kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
Tbg wrote: "You suggest that 2-channel is like standing in an open doorway rather than in the theater. I find that much mc is like being in the center of the orchester and having a blanket over your head."

You just have not heard anything representative of what good MCH can do. I can understand the arguments that good MCH is too expensive, too complex (for some) or too bulky but I cannot understand not finding it superior to 2 channel.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
"Were I to have ever heard a demonstration of mc with discrete channels that was not the "you are in the orchester" variety, I might be more tempted by mc. "

Most have the traditional perspective with the orchestra/soloists up front and ambience in the rear/surround and offer a more accurate recreation of the original venue's acoustics than does stereo. Of course, SOME actually want to be inside the orchestra.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
Yes, at CES but it is rare.
No, for THE Show.
Never been to RMAF.

Peter McGrath (of Wilson) and I have talked about this problem at length because we know of no place that we can recommend where the interested can satisfy their curiosity about MCH. I have many stories about conductors/composers who had not heard their own work on MCH (SACD) but were stunned when they finally did.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
Madhf: Can you explain what you mean about noise in the rear channels of SACD mc? I have never heard such. If you are referring to music/sounds in the rear channels, that has absolutely nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the mixing/mastering. As a result, it is at least as prevalent in DVD-A as in SACD and, in my experience, more so.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
Well, Madhf, I wish you could give me one example of the distortion and, perhaps, a better description of it as it applies to a disc that I have. If you listen to the rear channels only, the sound is, of course, quite strange in most cases since it is a pick-up of the hall sound and a very remote pickup of the main performance.

Now, you are also pointing out the difference between two renderings of an old performance (Moody Blues), neither in MCH and, again, I question the relevance of this to a general conclusion. It is possible that you are hearing a difference in the mastering that has nothing to do with the formats.

Do you ever listen to modern recordings in any of these formats?

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,650 posts
 
BTW, I think it is less that one needs to learn to listen in MCH than that one needs to unlearn thinking that 2 channel is an accurate representation of a real event. We have listened in 2 channel for so long, it has become the de facto standard for us.

Kal
More to discover