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.
|
When you're in a concert hall (reflected) music is coming to you from all angles as well. A MCH system is better capable of recreating this acoustic environment than 2 channel. Of course, this is not the same as some old quad mix with guitars blaring from the surround channels behind you. Here I agree with you. I also hate most synthetic surround sound generated with a DSP from 2 channel sources. What I am talking about is well recorder discrete 5.1.
Subjective as this may be, I am 100% sure that if I played the same track in 2.0 and 5.1 in my system to 100 random listeners, >90% would prefer the 5.1 track. The simple reason is that it is closer to the live experience. |
I'm not sure why people are being so intransigent about this - any subjective scenario of this nature is neither right nor wrong. I know Robert Harley is a well known fan of multi-channel music but I hate it. Having music coming at me from all angles is as unnatural an experience as I can imagine. I am lucky to be able to have separate systems for audio and TV/movies. The latter is never used for 2-channel and I find stereo TV unwatchable nowadays, as the sound now sounds flat. That said, my surround system is a significant number of steps down in quality compared to my main rig. 2 for music and multi for TV but that's just me. |
The notion that 2 channel is inherently better for music reproduction is ludicrous. A well recorded discrete 5.1 mix of the same content sound far better than the same material mixed in stereo. This is true even when you do the comparison on similarly priced MCH and 2 channel systems (in other words, you don't even need five identical speakers and amps to achieve this result). I have 50K worth of mains speaker, cable and poweramp, and a relatively modest 10K center, sub and surrounds (speakers + amps). In my setup MCH completely blows 2 channel out of the water. If I took this 10K and applied it towards an upgrade of my 2 channel system I would get a marginal improvement. I can only imagine how good MCH would sound if my center and surrounds were of the same caliber as my mains.
The reason no one is bothering with MCH music is pure and simple the lack of content, wiht the exception of classical. |
It think the absolute sound quality of a two channel system easily exceeds any surround system (assuming similar dollars spent) that I've heard, but when it comes to the home theater realm, the multi channel provides an experience that simply isn't the same with only two channels.
This may also apply to multi channel recording of live events, but it seems that this is another example where there is an element of experience that may trump absolute sound quality for some.
I've never heard an excellent two channel recording played on an quality system and left thinking something was missing. I've also never heard a multi-channel music recording that really impressed me, but I'm sure there are exceptions that would knock my socks off.
I guess I placed my vote when I purchsased an SACD player that doesn't do mutli-channel. |
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 |
Armyscout knows how to shout but not how to think. The beholders and the critics are one and the same. Some of the critics agree with him and some do not. Everybody has an opinion and everyone is correct in stating what they each think. Upper case utilization and assertive tone do nothing to diminish that FACT.
To me this boils down to a value decision. I put greater value in quality - others seem to value quantity (more is better). Both are valid but us quality proponents get more snob points. I may change my position when they get to 21.1 channel and 2 to 200Khz frequency response however. |
very disturbed by the BIAS opinions of the 2 channel ONLY crowd. the facts are, would you use a TANK for a drag race? Woud use a porsche in a combat zone? Multichannel was intended for MOVIE soundtracks and VIDEO concerts. To most of us, we would prefer the multi channel approach when using it on it's proper context. Those who claim they'd rather use 2 channel for surround sound? give me a break, it defeats the purpose and sounds like garbage to those of us who like watching home theater. 2 channel designs is strictly MUSIC to recapture a live performance. TWO different setups for 2 different purposes. I DON'T AND WILL NEVER AGREE with the BIASES of the 2 channel crowd. You are comparing apples to oranges. For movies, multi channel is superior, for music, two channel is superior, CASE IS CLOSED! but the truth is SOUND is in the EAR of the beholder not the CRITICS! |
Kr4,
Are you saying that you don't beleive that multi channel systems as for popularity dwarf the sale of (2) channel systems? Do you not believe that electronics dealers (especially the ones that most people frequent), mainly promote multi channel systems? If I am different, it is because I promote and sell the best sound quality available per dollar invested. I do that by designing (2) channel systems (preferably tube based). Most of the "dealers" that I frequent in my admittedly small rural state, primarily sell multi-channel systems. There displays have Center channel speakers, Effect channel speakers, powered woofers, multi-channel electronics, etc.. My clients NEVER report being previously exposed to or informed about this way of putting together an AV system and are always surprised when I suggest it. Also, my customers are often unaware of "high-end" dealerships (or have a negative impression of them but that could be another forum). I preach the advantages of high end (2) channel systems to people who know nothing about electronics. Elderly women and men, technically intimidated people who happen to have a love affair with Music and Cinema. I see (2) channel audio as a fringe in the overall market place. That doesn't mean that it is not better. I think that it means that consumers are less informed about the possibilities that are out there. I obviously realize that there are numerous high end audio specialists around that also share my enthusiasm for (2) channel & I am probably not much different than those professionals. Ultimately, if my client knows what is available and can determine with greater proficiency what is "good enough" for themselves, then they can buy what is best. Not knowing and or comparing is to proceed blindly. |
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? |
As a dealer that almost uniquely, currently and continuously designs and sells (2) channel systems, I had to contribute to this forum. I have a lengthy list of clients that bought a (2) channel system from me that can attest to the superior attributes of their systems over a similarly priced multi-channel system. The most obvious advantage is buying such higher quality with a given budget, when buying such fewer items. The 2nd advantage is having fewer speakers. More, cheaper speakers do not sound better. When (2) speakers are set up properly in a well matched system, they merely represent the boundaries of a stage and then disappear. When your system sounds like a band or an instrument being struck in front of you, or like you are part of the scene in the movie, instead of sounding like a stereo (or speakers), you quickly get the idea of why it is so much better. I may not have read every response to this question and don't mean to repeat anything. It is just a question that I encounter and answer almost everyday. 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! |
This thread has progressed haltingly through nearly nine years of inconclusive debate. During that time much has changed in the world around us and in our narrow area of special emphasis.
My system has changed a lot since I first rendered an opinion on this subject and it is probable that the rest of us can say the same.
At present I have a two channel system comprised of big wooden horns and 15 inch woofers. The frequency response is narrow - (40 Hz. to 14Khz.) but the character and impact are very real and very impressive. I don't feel that I am missing anything.
To me the whole surround thing is an unnecessary gimmick, like 3-D. |
I'm a little late to the game here but could not resists weighing in. There is no doubt in my mind that a very good recording which is available in a 5.1 and 2.0 mix, is more enjoyable in 5.1 at any systems pricepoint over say 5K (or even a bit lower). For example, the Nordic 2L recordings come in 5.1 96/24 and 2.0 192/24 and the MCH mix wins hands down on any half decent surround system.
Think of it like this. You have say 20K invested in a good 2 channels system, and have 10K more to spend. Your options are upgrading your 20K 2 channels system to a 30K 2 channels system, or spend 10K on a center channel, pair of surrounds, 3 channel poweramp and active sub. Your 2.0 channel upgrade is deep into diminishing returns territory, while your 2.0 to 5.1 upgrade is a huge net system improvement. The issue is that because outside of the classical reportoire there are so few good native 5.1 mixed recordings available, many people in the audio crowd would understandable opt for the 2 channel upgrade anyway. However, this is not because a 2 channel 30K system is better than a 30K 2 channel system. It is because there is no content to enjoy the superior 5.1 system. Obviously for the movie crowd the equation is different.
So in my opinion you cannot discuss the relative merits of 2.0 and 5.1 without considering availability of content. Interestingly, the way audio is evolving it looks like legacy MCH high rez (i.e. SACD and DVD-A) is dead, future MCH high rez (i.e. Blu Ray music) is not really going anywhere, and 2 channel high rez may well have a future through 96/24 and 192/24 downloads. I personally love MCH high rez audio and this state of affairs frustrates me no end, but what can you do other than spinning your favorite MCH recordings over and over again.... |
I have been struggling with this myself and have decided after listening to a limited number of SACD recordings that I am going to convert back to 2 channel and utilize my 5 channel amp to bi-amp my Linn Ninka's and call it a day. Most films I watch are just fine in 2 channel anyway |
There is no reason why you can't enjoy both. It does take a substantial investment into multichannel to have a system that does both very well. |
"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 |
"08-10-10: Kr4
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"
I guess I don't follow how MCH is better. If you compare 2 similarly priced systems and the 2CH sounds better...
So I guess my answer to the OP would be that 2CH is better because it sounds better. "At a given pricepoint" is always understood. |
Surely, Macrojack, none of those people are among us!! Indifference is rarely apparent here. That leaves the other possibilities. ;-)
Kal |
Kal - Don't forget indifference. Most people could care less. They just want access. No qualitative thoughts ever cross their minds - except maybe brand name. That's where Bose comes in. |
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 |
The few times I've heard multichannel it never sounded right to me, although the systems may not have been all that good. Instruments and voices way off the stage and even behind me just sounded weird.
Kr4 - Are you suggesting that for a given amount of money you could put together a better 5.1 (or whatever) system than a 2-channel system for music only? I always assumed it would be much more expensive to get multichannel music to sound as good (more amps, more speakers, etc.). |
Multichannel is for better music but I understand that others reject it for reasons of bulk, cost and prejudice. |
Stupid comment - 2 channel is for anyone who uses it. Many people see no reason to introduce the gimmickry and complexity of multi-channel. It is very possible to ignore 5.1 or 7.1 or 11.1 or whatever else the marketeers are able to dream up for you to buy. That doesn't mean they are purists but simply tat they do not respond to every opportunity to buy something new. Maybe they are content or poor or busy elsewhere. Audiophools need to come to grips with the fact that too many of us treat this like a bleeping religion. It's just stuff.
2 channel is for music. Multi-channel is for sound effects. |
2-channel is for purists only! |
Actually, Onhwy61, whether my response is incorrect or flawed depends entirely on the perspective or premise of the question being asked and you bring up some good points.
First there's the all important question,
In general, is the vast majority of music information recorded at the live event (regardless of the 5 or 10 most common methodologies employed) sufficiently transferred to the final recording medium?
My answer is yes. Perhaps not for every last recording but certainly for the majority of recordings including oldies, Redbook, on up. Therefore, from where I sit, this is not an issue. So yes, my post above had to do with playback only in this thread.
So I think there are two questions remaining,
1) If 2-channel playback systems in general are accurately capturing and audibly reproducing the vast majority of music info embedded in the recording and thereby produce a relatively natural and believable music presentation, then can a similar quality multi-channel system improve on that presentation?
My answer is probably. But since I presume nobody was at this level, this most likely was not the question asked, unless it were at the time pure hypothetical.
2) If 2-channel playback systems in general are NOT accurately capturing and audibly reproducing the vast majority of music info embedded in the recording and thereby produce a music presentation that is anything but natural and believable, can a multi-channel system of similar quality improve on that presentation so that it's at least a bit more natural and believable than the 2-ch version?
My answer here is generally no.
The multi-channel system may create a more intriguing or more exciting presentation (because it's different) but it has to be just as unnatural and unbelievable as the 2-channel version because the system is still only able to retrieve and process the exact same poor percentage of music info as the 2-ch..
So if a recording engineer sticks a couple of recording mics out in the concert hall lobby for the rear channels, sure you might hear a car horn honk, a toilet flush, or people talking there, but you're still going to only hear 50% of the horn honk, 50% of the the toilet flush, and 50% of the talking. Simply because multi-channel is only dealing with the effects of the deficiencies rather than the cause, therefore multi-channel cannot offer a better recovery system of unprocessed music information embedded in the recording.
In other words, the toxicity of all reproduced sound remains the same, whether it's 2-channel or 563 channels. And this is where my toxic water and multi-shower head analogy came in.
-IMO |
The type of reasoning put forth by Stehno is flawed and ultimately wrong. He incorrectly focuses upon the playback side of the equation. The real question is whether 2 channels of audio is sufficient to record the sound of an instrument playing in a real space? As a practical matter it's done all the time and with good results, but it's not perfectly done. There are at least 10 different microphone techniques for two channel stereo recording (spaced omni, X/Y, Blumlein, Jecklin, binaural, etc.) and that's a tip off to the problem. There are too many techniques. If one of the techniques really worked as opposed to just doing an okay job, then there wouldn't be a need for such a variety. Everyone would just use the one recording technique that worked perfectly. Now if you can't capture the sound of an instrument playing in a real space with only two channels, then it stands to reason that a two channel playback of the same is faulty.
If you're willing to settle for a rough approximation, let's use Stehno's 15-20%, of the sound of an instrument playing in a hall, then 2 channel playback is a proven technology that works well. Personally, I'm more than satisfied with just 2 channels. However, if you really want to fully capture and reproduce all the sound being produce in a hall, you'll need more than 2 channels. |
Thanks for the support, Russ. I think.
So I guess the point you were trying to make was, if the water coming into your home is toxic and you hate to shower in it, your thinking is to add 5 more shower heads surrounding you in the shower will make things better? And next year you'll add two more shower heads and when you've really advanced in your plumbing skills you plan to install 23 more shower heads?
Isn't that logic what some might call silly or unbright?
I'm there for you too buddy.
-IMO |
Unlike the vast majority of the responses in this thread, at least Stehno ends with IMO. Although I believe his response is a meaningless diatribe of clueless words. He's obviously never heard a quality multichannel SACD recording played back in a quality multichannel system. Like the majority of the two channel proponents in this thread.
IMHO of course. |
I have no idea what your budget is, but home theater receiver that provides pre-outs for each channel would allow you to get a 2 channel amplifier for your main speakers. My personal opinion is that spending a bunch of money for surround sound speakers is far less important than building your system for 2 channel listening. Movies have a way of shifting the focus from the audio a bit. |
Nope. It was a purely visceral response.
Kal |
That's a pretty incredible post, Kr4.
This is just a shot in the dark but you're not involved with one of those new inner-city Toastmaster's summer programs are you? If so, I think it's working.
-IMO |
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 |
I've offered a response I think back in 2002 but perhaps I can offer a bit more insight since then.
The all-important question is what "sound" are we talking about?
For my response, I'll assume you're implying "the absolute sound" (tas), the sound of unamplified music in a recording or concert hall space.
1) It should be quite rare to find any 'receiver' whose sonic performance can match a high-quality amp and preamp. A receiver and perhaps some-to-many multi-ch integrated amps are better known for convenience and being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. Some of these receivers are so loaded with internal parts that I'd guess to match the internal component and build quality of some better 2-channel amps, a receiver might have to retail at $20k or more.
That is probably the most reasonable and easily justifiable explanation why multi-channel systems would struggle to sonically compete with 2-channel.
2) Along the same vein as no. 1 above, one would have to budget for similar quality of interconnects, speaker cables, and speakers to maintain an apples to apples comparison in sound. In other words, if you budget say $10k for interconnects, speaker cables, and speakers for a 2-channel system, you'd need to multiply that $10k amount a number of times over to maintain the same level of sonic quality and musicality in a multi-channel system. Without somebody willing to follow this methodology, it's impossible to do an apples-to-apples comparison and since people are more apt to compromise performance to meet a budget when going the multi-channel route, the multi-channel version will suffer compared to what they might own or purchase for just a 2-channel system.
3) Getting back to the absolute sound as the goal to strive for, it is no secret that some-to-many with a passion for live music and high-end freely confess that we are lucky if even our very best (2-ch) playback systems can capture 15% or at most 20% of the magic or believability of the live performance. Some think even this 15 or 20% is too high.
For the sake of argument, assume that 100% of the live performance is embedded in the recording medium and the source (the music server, cd player, or turntable) is also able to retrieve 100% of the information embedded in the recording. Obviously, one or both are potentially big assumptions.
But if per chance one or both of those assumptions are relatively accurate, that would imply that while processing the signal our components (including ics, scs, and speakers) are either only processing a fraction of the information or are processing the vast majority or even 100% of information but during the processing, our components (including cables and speakers) are smearing or blurring the signal to the point where the information becomes inaudible, drops into the noise floor while also raising the noise floor.
Since the components, ics, scs, and speakers in a 2-ch system has blurred or smeared much of the signal to point where the vast majority of the music information is inaudible (mostly low level detail and some high-level detail), then it stands to reason that even if all other things are equal, just the mere number of extra components, cables, and speakers for a multi-channel system would imply that a multi-channel system would induce more distortion (less music) simply because of the added hardware. And since it is unreasonable or even impossible for any component, cable, or speaker to be truly neutral, it stands to reason that this is a very viable possibility.
The problem with multi-channel is that some-to-many assume that introducing more speakers translates to more audible music information. There's simply no truth to that old wives tale. 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. This should be true even if the sound engineer inserted 1000 carefully placed recording mic's throughout the recording hall and the consumer had 1000 speakers to reproduce the recording in a listening room.
Additionally, if one owns a multi-channel system, it's not uncommon to start playing with the DSP modes and features to add a false sense of ambient information, that no matter how you look at it is a further distortion of the original signal since it is not actually retrieving or making audible more of the recorded information, it's simply altering the audible portions of it.
I think all 3 explanations hold water, but in the bigger scheme of things, I think number 3 is the most significant reason why multi-channel, as impressive and fun as it might sound, at best simply cannot retrieve any more information than a 2-channel system. At worst, multi-channel adds more distortion.
To an untrained ear the multi-channel could easily sound more impressive or 'real' but that does not mean it actually is more realistic sounding.
-IMO |
I have a basic low-budget surround system (head unit, amp, bass and 5 speakers which includes center speaker) in my car that allows me to listen to both 2-channel and surround music--both in discs (DTS CDs, redbook, SACD DVD-A, DVD and redbook) and Dolby ProLogic II processor. The good news on this is that I never miss the sweet spot!
While I agree speaker placement is important, just as important is the disc itself, the quality of the recording and the quality of the mix and mastering engineer. This goes for both 2-channel and multi-channel discs (some with different mixes on the same disc).
I have heard some multichannel discs and/or mixes that surpass 2-channel recordings, though I have 2 channel recordings that do the exact
opposite. Some 2-channel recordings' soundstage sound so lifelike and immersive that you forget you're listening to multichannel! Conversly, I have heard gimmicky 5-channel recordings (SACD and DVD DTS or DD)hat turning off the center channel is the only option. This goes
especially for some recordings where the main vocal is isolated in the center channel...it sounds like there's a ghost in the room. Freaky!
In conclusion, I'm a "plug and play" type guy and hate tweaking. By having either having a 2-channel or 5-channel properly set-up in a stationary position, one really needs all to do is focus on the recording itself. (please exuse any typos.) |
Well, I've reviewed a lot of responses to this thread, but still pose the question in terms of "upgrading". First let me say I spend 50% of the time listening to music, with the balance being 30% movies and then 20% televison/sports. I;ve always enjoyed B & W speakers in a much-appreciated 2 channel system, powered by the famous c320bee amp and its nad brother single cd player. Now I face the prospect of changing to a system powered by a denon 3310 a/v receiver to accommodate the thirst for movies (first time buyer of the denon brand and a/v breed).
I wonder if:
1) the same sound quality will be found in this denon a/v receiver (what hi-fi 4 stars) powering a pair of b/w 602 s3 bookshelves and center htm 61 for movies... versus
2)the c320bee for 2 channel (versus 3 channel) audio through the same speaker set - up.. |
I'm not a big fan of multi-channel and it may be because of my age (over 60). Two channels make sense for music because that is how it is listened to: i.e., singers and musicians are in front of you and not all around you. I see multi-channel as more related to home theater and movies and not music. With that being said, I also accept that we all have our own preferences. Just read the different opinions on speakers, cables, amps, etc. on Audiogon. |
Martin - What you need to realize is that you were 15 years ahead of the crowd 10 years ago. Ambisonic will be complete nonsense to the majority IF they even pay you any attention. Its an uphill battle the IMO isn't worth the effort.
Have at it bro!! Fight on! |
02-10-10: Ledhed2222 But where are the decoders Martin? Please read what I wrote. For B-Format, free ad hoc software decoders are available. Decoding B-Format in software has been made very straightforward. Also, the more than 200 pieces available at Ambisonia.com are all available as DTS DVD file images. Any of these can be burnt to a DVD and played on a DVD player. Finally, you can also use software to decode UHJ, but it is not as neatly packaged as the B-Format software decoders. Decoding UHJ requires the use of wide-band 90 degree phase shifters. In the digital domain these are usually implemented using convolution. This can be done using available tools, but it is not for the faint hearted. Regards, Martin |
But where are the decoders Martin?
Other than Meridian gear, which is very very expensive, I know of no end-user decoders.
Of course there is G-Format, but there is very little content available in G.
Maybe we should start an "Ambisonics Primer for Audiophiles" thread? |
02-02-10: Ledhed2222 wrote:
Quadraphonic baby.
If that technology EVER gets off the ground, it will be better than stereo.
WHOOPS...I so meant ambisonics, NOT quadraphonic.
No need to wait. Today, at Ambisonia.com there are over 200 Ambisonic pieces available for free download. These are in B-Format, but free ad hoc software decoders are available. Almost all of these pieces are *full sphere*. (Note that Ambisonia.com will shortly be moving to SoundOfSpace.com.) Also, several hundred CDs and LPs have been released which are UHJ encoded. A UHJ bibliography is available. UHJ is the two-channel version of Ambisonics, and can be decoded back to surround sound. Meridian surround processors have always included a UHJ mode, or 1980s decoders are occasionally offered on eBay. (A Minim AD7 sold recently for 75 pounds/US $120.) Finally, domestic Ambisonic decoders include a Super Stereo mode for "decoding" stereo sources. This includes a stereo width control which allows the stereo image to be compressed to mono-like or expanded into a horseshoe around the listener. For more information please see the Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ which is on my websiteRegards, Martin |
Talk about learn something new everyday...I had no idea 2ch was better than multi-ch...wow. |
WHOOPS...I so meant ambisonics, NOT quadraphonic. |
Quadraphonic baby.
If that technology EVER gets off the ground, it will be better than stereo. |
Well, you can get a Krell HTS 5.1 which has a preamp mode which bypasses the digital stuff so you can listen just to the front. I have one and love the sound, only its difficult to set up at first. You can find them here for sale.
I didn't read the previous posts so if I'm being redundant, then sorry.
Cheers |
I wonder if technology since '02 could have changed the answer to this question a bit. I always thought that 2 channel would be better for fidelity than multi. In general that does seem to be the case with my stuff and most of my music. I do on the other hand have lots of electronic (gasp MP3's) that frankly sound pretty bad in 2 channel mode. I have found that for the bad stuff it sounds WAY better on my system to run my receiver in Extended Stereo mode and fake it to 5.1 channels. Maybe someone can explain it to me but it really helps. I wind up switching between 2.0 and 5.1 regularly. Mind, I'm not sure if this was a typical option in 2002. |
Many systems can't handle movies that were encoded with multi-channel where we want only a 2-channel delivery. The systems can't minimize the background noise in favor of dialog. It is hard to hear the movie as we would like.
I own an Anthem D2 that can process these multi tracks for two channel when I want two channel. For instance at a Superbowl party. |
2 channel for me, is better than multi-channel because I have only 2 ears. |
Mostly Hi end audio multi or otherwise suffers from Environmental effects.. Fact is if you can get a 2 speaker system to work well in a single room environment, chances are adding speakers to that space from 3 other different points and angles in a room can in fact make it worse to a degree.
As stated above it can be done, but gets a lot more complex, especially for standard stereo recordings going thru multi channel processors. Bottom line it all starts, and ends with the room layout and acoustics. Sometimes just can't be done easily, and 2 channel imaging is easier to acheive period.
Many can argue what they want, but its not really all about "2 Channel gear" has been around longer, or has better hardware development, and or recordings due to cost factors... Its about the room and final setup that will cause most issues in 2 channel or multi. In the end no doubt people will find consitentley that 2 channel can work out better, but thats not to say a very well done multi channel can't compete, but yes it will normally cost much more, especially the room its in! |
Without all the technical knowledge that alot of the posters convey, I listen like it's real world. When you go to a concert of any kind, the stage is in front of you and instruments and vocals are projected to your seated location. As much as I would like to be sitting in the middle of what ever group is performing (5.1-7.1 surround) there is not enough room for all of us to sit there. So 2 channel with great sound engineering for stage presence of instruments and vocals gives me the most realistic sound imaging to the original performance. |
In my system, the two channel SACD has better sound quality (resolution, dynamic) than its multichannel.
It may be due to higher resolution encoding on the two channel layers.
However, we could not hear the difference on my friend's lower end systems.
I am using B&W 801N with Levinson; his system is Polk Audio with Pioneer Elite receiver. |
