Chucknms...In discrete multichannel recordings (SACD or DVD-A) the center channel carries sounds that are simply not there at all in the Left and Right channels. No amount of superb imaging can recover this information.
You really ought to take the time and trouble to get that center speaker set up right. |
How about three channel? This is something that I have done for about 30 years. The center front can just be an A+B mix, or even a speaker bridged across a stereo amp where one channel is operated out of phase (of course with corresponding reversal of its speaker wires).
In most stereo recordings a solo performer is recorded equally and in phase in the two stereo channels. A center speaker therefore outputs this sound louder than the other two speakers and permits the left and right speakers to be positioned further apart without encountering the dreaded "hole in the middle" problem.
As a bonus, the third speaker increases the SPL (loudness) or gives you the same SPL while driving the speakers less. |
Izsssakmixer...You are absolutely right about having all speakers the same.
However, if you are part of a jazz jam session, or if you play in a classical string chamber group (eg: quartet), or even if you hear these in a small room without actually playing, you would be very familiar with the sound of different instruments all around you. Also there are so- called "Antiphonal" compositions that specifically call for two or more chiors or groups of instruments located apart from each other. There is a new SACD where E Power Biggs plays Bach fugues on the four organs in the cathedral of Freiburg, and the musical phrases are "answered" back and forth between organs in a most interesting way. Handel's "Water Music" works well in multichannel...imagine yourself floating down the river with barges of musicians floating along with you. (That's how Handel intended it to be performed). In Judy Collins recording of "Amazing Grace" Judy is front and center while the congregation is around and behind you. (This was not sold as a quadraphonic LP, but this particular song is the best example of matrix quad that I know of). At the end of the song, (on the LP more than the remastered CD) as the reverb dies away, you can hear people behind you putting their Hymn books back into the racks. As the saying goes "you are there". The cannons of the 1812 Overture are rarely located on stage. Etc...Etc..Etc.
Sure, multichannel recordings can be inappropriately mastered, but don't fall into the "I only have 2 ears" ridiculing of all multichannel discs that make serious use of the rear speakers. |
Brainwater...Try to listen to Tacet DVD-A D107..Mozart Flute Quartets. You can't match this sound with any 2 channel system. Don't judge multichannel by inappropriately or poorly mastered discs. |
Brainwater...A fair question that I am not prepared to answer without some thought. It would be nice to share a list with rankings from 1 to 10.
IMHO every Tacet disc ranks near 10. I have some others (DVD-A and SACD)in the 6 to 8 range but I don't remember them off the top of my head. There are a few near 1. Oh well... it's a new thing and it may take a while to get it right.
I am also a "soundfield freak". My ability to hear the highest frequencies has surely diminished with age, but the ability to sense spatial effects is as good as ever, so it becomes more and more important. |
Bmw328iproject...Take a look at my post "Multichannel and why". Your reaction to multichannel is typical of people who have not experienced the full potential of the media, but have been exposed only to stupidly mastered discs.
Multichannel will succeed, if only because of automobiles, where rear speakers have long been standard equipment.
I do my part by buying every "audiophile" multichannel disc that I can lay my hands on. |
Dwl...Did you know that there is a rather extensive genre of music called "antiphonal" where several groups of musicians are situated around the audience, some behind? This music got lost when artificial recorded sound was invented because that came only from one place. Multichannel makes it possible to properly hear this music. I also made an interesting discovery when listening to a SACD of Bach organ fugues played in a cathedral that has several organs. This music is obviously "antiphonal", although it has (to the best of my knowledge) never been described as such, probably because there are so few multiple organ installations. The antiphonal aspect gives these "war horse" works a new dimension (pun intended).
In small groups such as classical chamber music, or jazz jam sessions, the musicians are often all around you, and simple stereo does not (to use your word) "authentically" reproduce the experience.
And then, even for an orchestral work, there is ambience.
So, in summary, I think you should open your mind a bit. You really don't know what you are missing. (But don't use elcheapo surround speakers, or you will be disappointed).
|
Dwl...Your mind, it seems, is definitely open. May I suggest that any matrix multichannel system (and I was heavily into that once) is very inferior to true discrete multichannel like DVDA or SACD. Also your two channel setup is excellent.
I think that there are two important aspects to sound reproduction: first... the sonic qualitiy (distortion, frequency response, etc.) and secondly...spatial. Multichannel addresses the second aspect, and this can be implemented with top of the line equipment, or with elcheapo stuff.
Spatial effectiveness can vary greatly even with straight stereo. Some speakers image much better than others, and planar speakers (which I like) differ most greatly from box speakers in their spatial reproduction character.
As I have mentioned before, I was around when stereo was introduced, and it got much the same reception from monaural audiophiles as multichannel does today. The more things change the more they stay the same. |
06: Dave_b...Mass production of DVD players has caused great improvement, and cost reduction, of D/A electronics. DVD players all benefit from this newer technology, even when playing CDs. Some years ago there was a quadraphonic LP system that required phono pickups to perform in the 20-40 KHz range. The quadraphonic system died, but the related improvements to phono pickups remain today. |
Audiotomb....It's too bad that you have never heard a good multichannel audio system. They do exist, and discs to play on them. |
And let's not fixate on the surround or rear channels. The center front is the most important of all. |
The so called "sweet spot" is the quite small listening location where the two speakers of a stereo system produce a very convincing "phantom" image of a centered soloist. In a multichannel system there is no need for a "phantom" image because there is a real image in the center speaker. And this real image does not move or disappear when the listener moves around the room. Consequently the notion of a "sweet spot" does not apply.
Interestingly when you have been using a center speaker as long as I have the "phantom" effect becomes a bit tiresome, like an old parlor trick. At one time I used Bob Carver's "sonic holography" preamps, and this was like the phantom image trick on steroids! The effect was amazing, but if you moved your head a few inches...poof. Not really conducive to listening to music. |
Landok...I disagree about your theory that a center speaker is good only for centered sound. The center speaker can combine with a left or right speaker to create a phantom halfway between. For example, if in a matrix multisound system the Center is driven with L+R, the L image will appear between L and C, with the same panorama of sound that can be created with stereo. Likewise for R and C. Of course if, as is often the case, the center speaker is inferior to the others results will be degraded. |
Landok...Somewhere there is an audiophile with a monophonic system, who doesn't want to confuse his sonic image by having it come from two places :-) |
Landok...Perhaps I have an unfair advantage because I remember when stereo was introduced, and the outcry from some audiophiles was a lot like what we hear today about multichannel. I can look at this thread with some amusement. In time you will come along. |
In this thread we see the assumption by some people that multichannel is the same thing as HT. Not so!! The most significant difference is regarding the center speaker. With HT it is desirable to have a center speaker with limited and shaped frequency response because this makes dialogue clearer. For music the opposite is true because the center front speaker almost always gets the strongest signal.
Regarding speakers that reproduce both violin and voice well...some do better than others, but IMHO you really need several different speakers to do everything best. From my experience here are a few examples...
1..Spoken work...KLH5...a three-way using a pair of very lightweight 4" drivers for midrange. (These drivers were used full range in the KLH table radio).
2..Dixieland jazz, and other music with lots of trumpets...Any speaker using compression horn driver(s) for mid and tweeter.
3..Violin...B&W 550 small 2-way monitors with titanium tweeter.
My regular speakers are Maggie 1.6 and they do a good job, if not the best, over a wide range of material. |
In my experience very few recordings sound completely right with matrix (algorithm) decoding. Regarding cost, a low cost matrix decoder uses the same algorithm as the most expensive unit. The hardware will differ, and (hopefully) sound better. |
People who buy high end (uberexpensive) audio equipment almost always express distaste for the multichannel format. It seems to be part of their personalities. Liking multichannel disqualifies you as a "serious" audiophile.
Because of this it is no surprise that dealers do not promote multichannel music. To do so would label them as not serious audiophiles, and send the high end customers elsewhere to a dealer who will play along with their prejudices.
|
"a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds" is unreal--- unless there really is a violin located there.
My apology to those who have heard me say this before but...
...the most effective multichannel music I have is TACET DVDAs of chamber music where the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround. The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue. And then there is antiphonal music, composed for two groups of musicians, one of which is usually behind the audience. The spatial effect is part of what the composer intended. Stereo is incapable of reproducing antiphonal music. |
Kr4... I agree with you about the size limitations of your room, and that is why I recommend the one-instrument-per-channel approach just for chamber music and jazz. I have experience with both live in a small room which is perhaps why I like it. But, aside from whether you like it the realism is stunning.
In my case I have also (long ago) played in an orchestra and sung in a choir, so being in the middle of a large group is also OK for me.
Some DVDA offer two selectable versions of the multichannel mix: "Stage" and "Audience". So everyone can be happy :-) |
Edorr... If you locate your speakers as recommended the "surround" speakers are to the sides. not in the rear corners. This would be quite a reasonable set up for live musicians.
I think we still have the right to play music any way we prefer, although the Obama administration may issue a regulation about this. |
Macrojack... I know nothing about AM radio or late night comedians. You seem to be up on this subject, so please explain. :-) |
