Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?

Guess they've buried their heads back in the sand...

NO NO NO NO!!! LET'S KEEP THIS CHEESE GOING!!!
I dont think we've come to a decisive conclusion yet! Sooooooo.. Kinda like Republican vs Democrate view points. Theres still questions n debates to be settled!?!
Bunch o quitters!!! Come oonnnn! lets argue!! :-)

It's a zombie thread.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. The horse is dead (as is this thread).

Again, much more high quality 2 ch content, music-wise, and most can't barely (if at all) maximize and properly setup 2 loudspeaker channels to allow for accurate high quality sound reproduction playback in the first place, let alone 5 or more channels! (If you don't think so, simply play dedicated high quality signal and/or also frequency sweep through all the channels in your system independently, and see what level of quality you get from each! I think most using multi channel setup will find significant flaws in frequency response and overall sound quality from their seating position(s), loudspeaker to loudspeaker??!
So I'd simply ask myself if it's better to get the all you can eat volume meal at your local buffet, or rather to eat at a 5 star restaurant!?!
I say, quality over quantity, every time, should probably get the vote, IMO

True Metal, very true

Certainly different....I find myself using 5.1 more since I have a better system, but the big system initiates a "wow"

Read This

You only have two ears. Don't confuse them!

Notso , stereo is supposed to sound three dimensional,ad d to it, there has to have been something wrong to begin with
this is for music, non consider movies

I do not think that anyone culpable for this has learned much and that includes big record companies, equipment manufacturers and reviewers. Each still has a narrow view of the options.

I wish professional audio-reviewers would have supported SA-CDs when they first came around, as they do now to Multi-channel and DACs. We would have gotten a lot more multi-channel contents (with very good mastering) and would have found more audience for multi-channel. It is not that they did not support. But they did not put full weight behind that format, as they do today to the hi-rez downloads and DACs.
But I am glad that they are not sticking to just one format and are embracing to other formats. I am sure they must have learnt this lesson from what happened to SA-CD/DVD-A.

That sounds reasonable. However, the topic is not affordability or, even, effectiveness of expenditure but superiority (or inferiority) in reproduction.

As for one's collection being predominantly 2 channel, my MCH plays stereo recordings very well and, as time passes, my MCH collection is approaching my stereo collection in quantity.

Kr4, many people are in similar situation. It is great if you can spend more money to listen to few multichannel recordings but when most of your recordings are not multichannel then perhaps it is better to invest in better 2 channel system, unless you have $300k to spend like Rebel721.

I agree with most everyone here that agrees that multi channel audio can sound superior to 2 channel if you have the correct setup that is...Here is my current set up which I have just sold off to go to a 2 channel system... ironically because I just wanted to downsize my system. I had over $300k invested in this system and it sounded absolutely spectacular running on Trifield DSP with the subs.

Meridian 861 V8 ( Reference Surround Controller )
Meridian HD621 ( HDMI Processor )
Meridian Sooloos Media Drive 600
Mark Levinson No. 53 Monoblocks ( 2 pairs ) one on my center channel
PS Audio Perfectwave Memory Player ( Redbook )
Oppo BDP 105 - Blu Ray / Universal Player
Revel Ultima Salon 2's ( Front Speakers )
Revel Ultima Voice 2 ( Center Speaker )
Revel Ultima Gem 2's ( Rear Speakers )
Tara Labs Omega Gold Speaker Cables ( on Fronts & Center )
Tara Labs - The Cobalt Power Cords - throughout
JL Audio F113 - Subs ( 2 )
Exemplar Audio Silver Portal ( XLR ) Interconnects
Tara Labs Zero Gold Digital Cable
Stillpoints Ultra 5's ( under all components & speakers ) 48 Total

The multi channel mix of the same source recording will sound better than the 2 channel any day of the week (try this with say a 2L Nordic sound recording - not even close. This tells me all else being equal, multi channel is inherently superior. But indeed a moot point for most, because of lack of content. I'm somewhere in the middle, with about 80% of my budget invested in very good 2 channel, and another 20% in not too shabby center and surrounds. I spend 90% of the time listening to 2 channel, so this is a reasonable balance.

Cost is an issue and so is space. OTOH, the possible increase in sound quality with stereo becomes disproportionately small compared to the cost/space investment after a certain point. OTOH, the increase in sound quality due to the spatial enhancement of multichannel is substantial.

However, if all your CDs are RedBook (all CDs are RedBook, by definition), then the issue is moot to you. Also, if the discussion is about superiority/inferiority, then matters of popularity are irrelevant, as is HT.

Kr4, For many people it is a choice between good two channel system and less than average multichannel for the same cost.
How much better speakers I can afford when buying only two. How much better amp I can afford when it is two channel only etc. There are also living space constrains that can make multichannel system far from optimal. Would I invest a lot of money in multichannel when all my CDs are redbook. Not practical for me. I understand that multichannel recordings are not that popular. That's perhaps why somebody mentioned home theater system as the main use.

Rebel, based on Kal's excellent advice, I went to a Meridian-based system using a G68XXD, a BAT 6200 multi-channel amp and Vandersteen 5.1 speakers. Trifield, as you noted, adds to every stereo program I've tried it on...it seems to add depth of field that stereo lacks via the late Micheal Gerson's magic algorithm.

I agree with Kal's response to Audiolabyrinth - more OF THE SAME speakers will always sound better than the first two, because they make the room acoustic more realistic. Details that one strains to hear in 2-channel are just THERE. In fact, this 3D effect is the biggest difference I hear between a stereo recording and live music at Powell Hall (SLSO), which is, inherently multi-source, kind of like, (dare I say it), Multi-Channel !!

Sorry, Audiolabyrinth but all one has to do is to construct a multichannel system of equal quality components and setup to yours (whatever it is) to demonstrate that MCH, per se, is superior to stereo.

Besides, who said anything about home theater or home theater components? You're just tossing in a red herring.

I love this thread!, It would be A sad day if multichannel would sound better than an state of the art 2 channel system that I do have!, Are you kidding!, A home theatre system is subpar by light years!, The fricken speakers designed for home theatre suck!My system fills the entire room with magic!, no home theatre system will ever touch that!, how do I know?, been there done that!, no matter the cost!, cheers!

If you like multi channel music then you need to hear Trifield which is a DSP setting on the Meridian 861 which incorporates the center channel along with the 2 front speakers. It sounds better than straight 2 channel. I run it with (2) F113 subs running in stereo and it sounds absolutely killer ! I just happen to be selling my unit which is V6 just upgraded to the new V8 3 weeks ago along with the new Sooloos Media Drive 600. My unit is a little over a year old and it's the best pre/pro on the market today. Reference ! The new Sooloos sounds incredible !

Interesting observation. I'm a great fan of MCH, but not so much in channel expansion processing modes (not for native 5.1 music anyway). Goes to show there are no golden rules and whatever works works.

I'm sorry I can't keep quiet on this subject.

06-12-12: Audiofreak32
Music is not intended for multichannel. Surround sound is for movies.

06-11-12: Audiofreak32
No, just stating facts...

01-02-13: Kr4
Just because you assert your opinions does not make them facts.

And Kr4 lands a blow worthy of Ali or Fraiser!

I feel like Springer is going to be coming by to antagonize someone into a fight or maybe throwing a chair!

Andrew

One day last year I had the opportunity to hear a better 2- channel setup than most if you could dream of, and DTS's 11.2 surround studio setup in SoCal back-to-back using the same source material. The 2-channel system was at Randy's Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica and included Vandersteen 7's, Audio Research electronics, the top of the line Basis turntable with an Air Tight PC-1 Supreme, and a DCS-based digital front end. It sounded glorious. (Randy, BTW, is a gentlemen, a scholar, and a great host).

The DTS system was all digital using proprietary DCS hardware and software with a Macintosh-based source and GUI, 11 Vienna Acoustics speakers of various sizes, two huge Vienna Acoustics subwoofers, and all driven by Ayre Acoustics amplification. This setup was in a huge room and had a mastering console in the middle of a speaker array that looked like Stonehenge with a hemispherical cage above which held several height channel speakers. The system software was running a prototype of DTS NeoX optimized for 11.2 channels, with Audessey-based room equalization.

DTS had high definition digital masters of everything we played at Randy's place on consumer 2-channel media, (vinyl and CD's). Fellas, it wasn't even close. Randy's set-up sounded like a very good stereo reproducer - maybe the best I've heard. The DTS set-up was like a time and space warp machine - it put you in the recording venue. Not only that, with movement of the Mac's mouse, it moved your apparent location anywhere in the venue. It was mind-blowing.

Having heard this, it is very hard to take stereo seriously, except as a historical footnote to real high definition audio. This is what I want in my home, and my 5.1 system is much closer than to it than 2-channels can ever be.

06-12-12: Audiofreak32
Music is not intended for multichannel. Surround sound is for movies.

06-11-12: Audiofreak32
No, just stating facts...

Just because you assert your opinions does not make them facts.

Although I can achieve some very impressive results with just L/R speakers, I gotta say. I recently upgraded and (this is important) So that all my speakers (L/C/R/SR/SL) are identical in performance @ 125watts RMS per L/C/R/SR/SL channels @ 8 ohms - .008 THD, but I run them at 12 ohms to lower the Total Harmonic Distortion a little, and since I have so many drivers - output, SPL, and clarity doesn't suffer.

They can handle the whole show on their own with out the subs on. Each channel consists of Vifa 6" drivers, three per channel and three tweeters per channel as well. That's fifteen 6" drivers and tweeters (bi-amped for the L/R channels).

Also the benefits of multi channel sound doesn't end there, the sub woofer output has it's purpose.

I know this is over kill, but when I'm watching a movie and gun shots ring out. I want the neighbors to call the cops, you know, that kind of dynamic range.

So my subs are broken up into frequency categories if you will. I have six 6" JL Audio subs under the center channel (ported and tuned to 50 Hz). Under the L/R Monitors I have four sealed 12" Kicker Still-water subs, two per side. And behind the flat screen I have four ported long throw 8" subs by MTX, above that resides two Momo 12" subs in a whooping 18 cubic feet (9 per) of ported madness directly aimed at 30 Hz and below, and lastly above that I have two Dynaudio 12" subs in a bandpass box aimed at that low end also.

So I would take the Pepsi challenge with a stereo setup any day, I mean come on - More channels with more power, setup at a lower impedance - means equal (if not better output) and lower distortion in the process.

I haven't even gotten into the many amps and power system I've got running this setup, but, rest assured the cops are on the way.

Andrew
Synesthesia Studios

Well put Frank!

[soap box on]
>>Things blowing up, jets, cars, and other sound effects, fine.

Sad to see (pun intended) that many of the current movies are just a cacophony of latest sound effects and done over a zillion times but now bigger, 3D and whatnot gizmos. The real story behind it gets lost and in the background (pun again intended).

Hollywood, wake up! Be creative, think more, copy less! To the movie goers that want to escape reality I say: try travel more/farther away.

[soap box off]

As a young child I started out as a two transistor radio listener. In my teens I discovered magazines and catalogs with pretty pictures and reviews. I was bound and determined to buy a stereo. I built my own speakers, bought a Pioneer SA-8100 integrated amp and a Kenwood receiver. Back then, Cassette players were the rage for recording. The medium of choice were vinyl LPs or 45s. Typically, the only sound arrangement available was two speaker stereo or mono. Having lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I attended many concerts. No matter where I sat or stood the music came at me from the front.

I now have a nicer system than that original two transistor radio. I have a dedicated stereo system and a dedicated surround system. I can switch back and forth between the two while playing music.

Music, it comes at you from the front and sounds better.

Movies........sound effects. Things are happening around you, so you get sound around you.

For music, stick with two channel. If your speakers are positioned properly and you have good room acoustics, the sound stage should have you identifying the vocals and instruments left, center and right.

For the bling, bling of movies............surround is good;
Things blowing up, jets, cars, and other sound effects, fine. For music, not so fine.

My experience is that 2 channel is better than home theater and here is why (I hope I can explain this in a way people understand).

When I have used a Surround sound processor I never used a center channel, because if you have the right speakers set up correctly they should project a huge sound stage and image so well that the sound fills the room and you have a sense of some depth, however when I used a center channel, soundtracks are usually mixed so most of the info comes from the center, and even if I used two speakers there is no stereo center only mono. So bottom line is that the sound stage always lacks when I used a processor.

Also I have two large full size main speakers, but most soundtracks are not mixed to take advantage of two large side channels. Most info happens in the center channel. So my main speakers never get used to their full potential. Also the processors I have used always seem to take info away from my speakers and send it to the sub. I used full range speakers on all channels of my previous home theater but the processor would never let them sing like they do in plain stereo. I did A B comparisons and in processor mode the speakers always sounded less than full range. Even if I manually went in and set up the menu, I figured it must have to do with the processing protocols.

The other problem is, once I had all things set up and sounding decent with one movie, all channels at the right level etc. I would pop in the next movie and would have to go back in and change the channel settings again because the surround is too soft or too loud, I guess just because of the way it was mixed.

Then there is the constant, or I should say inconsistent standard of audio. I had my system set up like a 7.1 system, side and rear surround plus mains. But when they release the new movie with HD sound it was only 5.1, then the next one is 7.1 but wait then they release the worst 6.1, 6.1? So when I watch Star Wars I only get one rear speaker working? I have to move the speaker to the center of the back wall just for this movie?

I got so tired of it, I love tubes and used Tube amps on all my channels in my home theater, I had 5 tube amps. I came across the Decware multi channel tube Pre-amp and was about to buy it, even tho it was not set up to do 7.1, anyway I had an injury that had me stuck in bed for two months, during this time I had a temporary system set up in my bedroom that was a simple two channel set-up. Wow, changed my life forever, as soon as I was well enough I sold all my home theater gear and invested In a very nice hi-end 2 channel system that blows away any home theater I know of personally. Of course, this is just my ears and my opinion.

I will never go back to Home Theater.

Processors I have used over the years include, Cary Cinema 11a, McIntosh MX-119, Outlaw Audio, Marantz, Kenwood, Rotel.

I agree W/Criderfive. Just had a guy I trust tell me that most DVD players and theater preamps do NOT fully convert all of the sound into 2-channel. So am I missing some audio???? Anyone else heard this?

BTW I am a 2-channel guy, 2.1 anyway. I was an Adcom/Klipsch rep in Japan. Bought my first surround sound in 1990. Thought it sounded like crap. Upgraded my surround speakers. Sold them for a $30 loss. I have set up a LOT of homes with surround. They ALL sound like crap, except for one seat. If I sat anywhere else, the speaker 12 inches from my left ear is way too loud and I can't even hear the one 10 feet from my right ear.

I agree with Jeffery. I have a NAD surround receiver driving two Image speakers in front with Bose 100s for surrounds. No sub right now, it blew. The NAD has two quality sound modes that distribute any signal to all speakers.

I don't know why, but everything sounds better multi-channel, even stereo recordings. Of course, I had to tweak the speaker levels to get it right. I listen to LPs with a Music Hall turntable, and even those sound better with multi-channel.

Music is not intended for multichannel. Surround sound is for movies.

Let him have the last word. This thread has run its course.

No, just stating facts...

Audiofreak32,

I assume you're trying to revive a dead horse, otherwise a mere restatement of one of the positions in this thread makes no sense. Unless you imagine you're the arbiter of all things true, and thus spake the truth . . .

db

Anyone that thinks that music sounds better in multi-channel than stereo has not heard a decent 2-ch setup yet.

Ok I've been reading hear for sometime, I tend to not get into opinionated threads. I've read most of this one and there are great arguments for both sides. It is hard (but not impossible) to create a solid sound field with multi channel systems. First off my main concern is lossless movie playback and a well placed 5.1 system will smoke a poorly placed 7 or 9.1. I'm sure we can all agree more speakers just means you have more speakers not more authentic sound. Do I genuinely believe multi is superior for everything, NO. I also have discovered the joys of solid stereo imaging, and yes dare I say 2.1, so it all comes down to personal taste,content,and what I am trying to achieve with my system. I got started on this adventure in the mid 90's when surround was really catching on so I'm much more familiar with it. I also spend far, far to much time reading about the subject. So I'm no noob. Like I said normally I try to stay away from opinionated threads but this one caught my attention and I just couldn't help myself.

Got it.

Lame.

05-25-11: Isochronism
I will go multi channel when I grow more ears! :)

This requires growing another brain...get it? ;-)

Yes, I know about Ambiophonics but that doesn't validate the silly proposition that I was responding to.

Kal

Go to the TacT Audio website and lookup Ambiophonics. With two speakers 30 degrees apart in front, and using their Ambiophonics processor to eliminate cross talk between channels, a smooth continuous image is created more than half way around the room. It's a more natural surround sound and avoids the chopped up images that center and other surround speakers create. It's like a rainbow wrapped around the room instead of red, orange yellow, green, blue, indigo,and violet each coming from different speakers.

I will go multi channel when I grow more ears! :)

I know that this is usually said in jest but, otherwise, it represents a sad ignorance of hearing mechanisms.

Kal

I will go multi channel when I grow more ears! :)

Rockitman:
My test for multi channel versus two channel... What would the band playing live do ? I bet it's two channel ! Save the multi channel for movie soundtracks...

I find this literally incomprehensible. The band plays. What does that have to do with the number of channels?

Kal

Yes, Audyssey - or any other DSP room correction/EQ device - is a good tool for helping systems/acoustics out. This is certain. As a final tune for your system, I think these are necessary, particularly in typical small home systems, shared entertainment spaces, and most any situation where you're not dealing with all out fully dedicated and engineered acoustic spaces, sure.
That however does NOT FIX fundamental flaws in initial setup parameters and considerations.
Here's what something like Audyssey WILL NOT DO:

1) account for/fix acoustic "holes in the response curve"!
(place a speaker/seat where there's a hole in the
response, and you'll ALWAYS have a hole in the sound)
2) properly adjust for phase between ALL listening
positions and speaker locations, in relation to each
other and the subwoofers!
3) properly "aim" or "toe-in" your loud speakers for
even coverage and tonality across all seating locations
4) fix for inherently placing loud speakers "too wide" in
relation to one another (causing undefined oundstage,
soft transients, and week overall imaging.
5) teach you to properly place loudspeakers so their not
placed too close together, creating too narrow of a
soundstage, constricting envelopment, and cramping
steering
5) properly place speakers for proper steering and
envelopement
6) Adjust phase between multiple subwoofers for accurate
phase from all listening positions in relation to each.
7) properly address first order refelctions in the room
from listeing positions in relation to speakers
8) accurately adjust and/or deal with "reverb" (rt60) in
the room (you got too much bass and overhang to
replicate a large acoustic space - room sounds "small")
9) accurately predict and adjust for a good crossover
between speakers and subs (Even Audyssey gets it wrong)
10)Help you chose correct gear allowing for maximum focus
impact, dialog inteligibility, resolution, overall
system matching, etc (years of audiophile experience
can't be erased and made up for with Audyssey, sorry.)
11)Can't replace refined equipment, and what it offers,
beyond what EQ'ing can do.
12)Nor can fancy EQ's help you adequatly select the proper
types, amounts, and locations of acoustic treatments
necessary to get the best sound from a room/system.

Basically, Audyssey and the likes helps greatly, yes. Still, it cannot fix foundational errors, and educate someone on how to put together a complicated multichannel system, and expect world beatter kind of results! It's just not gunna happen...unless you get real REAL lucky.
I mean we're talking 7 speaker, a subwoofer or two, multiple seating positions (likely), various acoustical issues to be properly addressed (thes rooms are SMALL), and a myriad of other issues that most novices aren't gunna have a clue about (if you don't know what's doing what, how can you fix it?)
Bottom line, can't replace experience with gadgets..and you can't get me to believe someone who's using Audyssey on their denon, to EQ out their Bose system, has the end-all-be-all system! Um, no

My test for multi channel versus two channel... What would the band playing live do ? I bet it's two channel ! Save the multi channel for movie soundtracks...