??? I find few restrictions in any format. I still have a few thousand LPs and CDs but my multichannel SACD/DVD-A collection is also well over 1000 and growing daily.
That said, I will bow out of this thread whose title question I find unacceptable.
Kal |
IMO, indeed. You can posit a lot of numbers and create strawman arguments (cost, bulk) but I do not see any convincing reality-based arguments about the fundamental differences between 2 channel and multichannel. Some of it is fundamentally wrong: It's roughly the same audible information (15% or 20% at most of the live performance) of the 2-channel but now spread across more than just two speakers. Same old, same old. Kal |
Nope. It was a purely visceral response.
Kal |
" The reason I ask is it seems to me in a multi-channel environment regardless of what the source is sending it, the processor algorithms are what decides what goes to each speaker." Only with synthesized or matrixed materials. With discrete sources, what is in each channel is decided by the mixing engineer. The only user options are level, delay and bass management. (Well, EQ, too, if you have that facility.)
Kal |
Yes, exactly. Running Redbook through a processor is highly variable as there are many different processors, only some of which permit user intervention. In fact, I don't really consider that multichannel (well, it is multichannel output but the info is not). Of these, favorite is Meridian's TriField.
Kal (who denies the premise of this entire thread) |
Multichannel is for better music but I understand that others reject it for reasons of bulk, cost and prejudice. |
No. I am acknowledging that decent MCH will take up more space and cost more than decent stereo. I was also saying that prejudice was the only other reason I can see. ;-)
Kal |
Surely, Macrojack, none of those people are among us!! Indifference is rarely apparent here. That leaves the other possibilities. ;-)
Kal |
"At a pricepoint" is not universally understood. If you want (it) to be understood, you must say so.
In addition, even at a pricepoint, the choice might be influenced by the particular pricepoint. For a $2K system, I would certainly agree that a 2CH system would sound and, therefore, be better. For a $200K system, the situation is debatable. The advantages of MCH will, imho, will be more enjoyable compared to a $100K 2CH system and, also, more enjoyable than any incremental improvements you might make to the 2CH system for an additional $100K.
Is that a real-world analogy? For some, it is. OTOH, we are speaking of generalities here.
Kal |
It's too bad that more dealers don't try to promote higher end (2) channel systems as an alternative to surround sound. Although, the current "norm" of multi-channel design provides a niche for me! Really? I have rarely ever found a high-end dealer with any multichannel music systems set up for demo. HT, yes, but, otherwise, everything is stereo. Are you different? |
Cine 100, I was distinguishing between multichannel for music and multichannel for home theater. Without doubt, MCH HT is the volume mover for dealers these days and those that still sell a bit of audio tend to sell stereo. What is the issue for me is that nearly no dealers set up, promote or, even, acknowledge MCH for music and that continues to support the archaic attitude that music is ONLY two channel. Live music is performed in real spaces and the proper reproduction of the entire event is logically and subjectively better with multichannel. There are, also, books and papers on the topic. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I could direct anyone to hear this because dealers are of no help. Armyscout 41 wrote: "For movies, multi channel is superior, for music, two channel is superior, CASE IS CLOSED!" I'll bet you hate broccoli, too. This is a classic example of preference stated as fact. Papers and listening tests contradict this absolutist statement. Kal |
Niacin wrote: Having music coming at me from all angles is as unnatural an experience as I can imagine. I do not generally care for such either but that statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals and advantages of multichannel reproduction. It is not about dumb surround effects. Kal |
Niacin, in a real world live performance, sound does come from all around you. That is what accounts for the differences in the sound of a performance in a small club, a concert hall, a gymnasium and an outdoor stadium. It is, also, those differences which can be reproduced by a good multichannel recording and reproduction system. Stereo cannot do this as its sounds (including whatever site ambience was captured in the recording) come only from the front. Any immersive feeling derived from such a stereo recording are due to the acoustics of the room in which one is listening and, both logically and subjectively, are different from the original acoustics.
I do not intend to be patronizing and you are certainly entitled to exercise/express your opinions but I do not believe you can support them on the basis of our scientific understanding of sound reproduction or perceptual mechanisms.
Kal |
Bryon, I agree. There are, also, terrible stereo recordings. Any technology can be misused or used tastelessly.
Kal |
Eldartford wrote: The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue. Bryoncunningham wrote: I think you are right about this. So, whether you find this approach to multichannel music appealing depends largely on whether you prefer the illusion that "you are there" or the illusion that "they are here." I have enjoyed both but my decided preference is "you are there" mainly because I cannot fit or even imagine fitting more than a handful of musicians in my listening room. However, that is a matter of preference and the fact that multichannel media can be used to satisfy either preference should be regarded as one of its technical advantages. Kal |
Poprhetor asked: Is surround more akin to the headphone experience?
Oh no! Headphones implode the soundstage imaging of standard stereo recordings by collapsing it into the space between the ears. From my perspective, headphone listening is on the opposite (and less satisfying) end of the spectrum from good multichannel with good stereo in the middle.
Good multichannel attempts to preserve the spatial representation of the original venue. This distinguishes it both from crude surround synthesis and from irresponsibly improbable studio surround synthesis. Judging from most of the posts, the latter is a huge problem for pop/rock recordings which are created in a studio and not at a concert.
Kal |
Darrylhifi's comment "Because God gave us two ears. If he gave us 5 , then multichannel would be better" is:
1. Unoriginal
2. Indicative of ignorance of basic hearing mechanisms
3. A red herring of no significance and intended only to annoy.
Pick one.
Kal |
06-06-11: Macrojack wrote:
Stereo is an illusion supported by our natural triangulation of our ears and the source. This provides location and certain cues (clues) as to the nature and characteristics of the sound source. True but incomplete. Triangulation is only one part and a simplified one, at that. Our eyes perform similarly to identify size, distance, color, etc. of visual counterparts. Again, a grossly simplified analogy but, fwiw, you can hear what is behind you but you cannot see without turning your head. If you don't like (or have never really experienced) good multichannel, fine. Specious arguments should be avoided. Kal |
"If someone turns a lamp on behind you can generally see the light that comes from it reflecting on things within your visual range. Just because you can't see the source doesn't mean that you can't see the light. In some ways the light from a lamp and the sound from a speaker are similar. Maybe that's why people get confused and use lamp cords on their speakers."
One could list all the physical differences between light and sound as well as the physiological mechanisms that humans devote to each and/or both. However, just leave it that it you can heard sound from behind you without any boundary reflections but the same cannot be said for light. Besides, the analogy has no general value here.
Kal |
Yadda, yadda, yadda. The horse is dead. |
