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 8 responses by tbg

tbg
5,263 posts
 
Two channel would be preferable to two channel through a mc setup. There are just too few available mc recordings to undertake the expense, especially since no one at shows has shown the foresight to bother with good recordings. Often now days at shows the demonstrators seem indifferent even to the quality of two channel recordings.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Being long in this hobby and disinterested in HT and totally unconvinced by mc, I see no reason to undertake the expense of adding channels.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
John, let me say right on.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Chasmo, you are certainly right about how expensive it would be to match the quality of my two channel with at least three additional channels as well as how much more difficult it would be to deal with the proper placement of the speakers and setting everything to proper levels. Then there is the matter of software. I have heard mc setups at shows and in dealers. I heard nothing that interested me. Were it possible to go back and capture outstanding performances in the past in mc, I might be interested. I concede that there have been some efforts to do this.

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 may know the music is all around you but it has no realism.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Impepinnovavations, SQ and pseudo mc, wow! Those are wrong words to say in my opinion. Probably 20 years ago I invested heavily in trying to generate rear channel sounds using Haflers, Lafayette, and Audio Plus, I think it was called. Not once did I achieve anything that I would listen to despite two instances with professional efforts made to tailor the settings for their best results.

If mc is not discrete on the disc, I am not going to listen to it or make any new effort to introduce it into my system. My disinterest comes from what I have heard with discrete channels on the disc. Until I hear a convincing demonstration on music I value, I won't spend a cent to get mc.
tbg
5,263 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. Even then the doubling of my investment in audio would be offputting as would the lack of music in mc discrete.
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Kal, again all I can say is that I have yet to hear a demonstration with the traditional perspective at CES, THE Show, or the RMAF. Have you?
tbg
5,263 posts
 
I think it is apparent that some find mc enjoyable and others find nothing that tempts them. It is not a matter of complication anymore than it is that the mc group have low resolving systems with poor speakers that need the added clues from mc.
More to discover