Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What? I said nothing about any sort of sound effects ata ll - please read my post. I said I do not like music coming at me from all angles and that is what surround sound does! It might be subtle but there are still elements coming from the rear speakers - if there weren't it would not be utilising the multi-channel system. Your need to be patronising does you no favours and was unwarranted thank you!

In my limited exposure to multichannel music, I have heard recordings in which the surrounds were used to effectively reproduce the ambience of the recording space. If the mix is done well, and the multichannel playback system is set up well (two difficult tasks), then multichannel recordings can enhance the experience that "you are there," by presenting ambience cues omnidirectionally, just as they were presented in the recording space.

On the other hand, I have also heard multichannel music recordings in which, half way through a track, a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds. My head whipped around like a gunshot had gone off. This approach to multichannel music can be very unnatural, to use Niacin's word.

Like all technology, multichannel technology can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is used.

Bryon

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

"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.

...the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround.

Eldartford - This is the approach to multichannel music that I find unnatural, since I am not accustomed to hearing music from the middle of a chamber group. Having said that, I don't want to imply that other people should feel the way I do. It's a matter of preference, and in this case, I don't believe that one preference is more valid than the other.

The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue.

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." That distinction was discussed at length in another thread.

Bryon

I've always wanted to have a CD with a quartet recorded one per channel so it would sound like you were standing in the middle of them. I think it would sound really interesting.

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

...the fact that multichannel media can be used to satisfy either preference should be regarded as one of its technical advantages.

I agree, Kal.

The Los Angelos Guitar Quartet has a very well recorded SACD out ("Latin"), with one of the guitar players mixed to each of the four corner channels. They have a few more SACDs out that probably does the same.

If you want to experience instruments coming at you from all four corners in quite a different genre, get the quadrophonic mix of Deep Purple's Machine Head.

I actually have a LAGQ SACD, but my player isn't multi channel and my rear speakers are comparative "junk" so at this point it's more of something that I'd like to hear rather than something that could be a reality in my system.

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 :-)

Even if you had a string quartet playing in a small room, you would not put one musician in each corner of the room. The "stage" approach emulates "being in the band", not a small ensemble performing in a small room.

Just for kicks I played my "one instrument per channel" LA Guitar Quartet SACD yesterday, and I must say I much prefer "audience" mixes (i.e. instruments/vocals from the front, ambience cues from the surrounds). Thenagain, I never played in an orchestra so may be "stage" mixes just needs to grow on you.

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.

Living in the deep South I am more concerned about local politicians banning music on Sunday altogether, than any Obama regulation, but thenagain we probably have different political affiliations.

Blaming Obama is a quick and easy way to demonstrate that you listen to AM radio and late night comedians. Why you would want that known I cannot imagine.

As for multi-channel, sound effect laden, gimmick strewn reproduction, why not? It's as valid as any other form of self-deception. And isn't hi-end audio all about self-deception? Aren't we trying to close our eyes and be there or bring the performers euphemistically "into our listening space? What difference does it make how we go about deluding ourselves as long as we satisfy the delusion.

All of you have my express permission to utilize any form of self-delusion you enjoy, no matter how many speakers that requires. Enjoy it while you still can. Wall Street isn't done with us yet.

Macrojack... I know nothing about AM radio or late night comedians. You seem to be up on this subject, so please explain. :-)

My tuner is FM only and I go to bed at 9:00 P.M. so I can't help you out.

Someone put you up to snide asides about your President. I was just guessing who it might have been that so inspired you.

I think Obama likes music more than any President in recent memory.
Bush and company went after The Dixie Chicks for simply disagreeing with a stupid decision in public. Freedom of speech?

I'm not a fan of surround, although I think it can be pretty great. Discussions pitting the merits and flaws of each against the other often distills into the "authentic experience" debate. Macrojack hit the nail on the head: it's all self-deception, whatever allows us into the most enjoyable listening experience. The immersion of surround is pretty cool, and so is a wave brought on by a wall of sound, and so is the intimacy of bookshelves in a small room, and then there's the cool thing that planars do, etc.

For myself, just like when I experience live music, I simply want to experience the best (for lack of a better word) the space has to offer. That's a broad statement, and it suggests a broad range of possible experience. Each listening session can be so different. Perhaps this is less so for others--for some, there seems to be a very specific "place" they desire to be, and they painstakingly choose each bit of media and equipment to take them there. I can't disparage these lifelong seekers, as so many of them seem to be the ones we ask when we need advice. ;) I enjoy music and the stuff music comes from. I wouldn't want my equipment to "disappear" anymore than I'd want the musicians to disappear.

But I like two-channel better, even though I clearly believe that anything can be amazing. I think I narrowed in on why. It comes back to the same thing so many say. Whether it's the live musicians or hi-fi, I prefer a stage. I want the stuff producing the music to perform. I can sit up or slouch--a stage induces these and many other types of involvement. With surround, I feel that my range of possible experience is somewhat more limited, as it always feels to me like I should just sink into a bing-bag and take it in. The only time I've felt that surround is more correct is when listening to loud club music.

Is surround more akin to the headphone experience?

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

Because God gave us two ears. If he gave us 5 , then multichannel would be better.

Darrylhifi - Do you only eat one thing at a time because you only have one mouth? Cereal must be dry!

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. Our eyes perform similarly to identify size, distance, color, etc. of visual counterparts. More info is not necessarily better. I find it confusing. But, then again, I have no use for absurd special effects in movies. If people leaping tall buildings in order to slap the face of an opponent is your cup of tea, I can see why you might enjoy 5 or 7 or 21 different channels of sound raining upon you from all directions.

To each their own.

Long ago I noted that children make most of their assessments and valuations on a quantitative basis. I'm sure the term gazillion was coined by a child.

As we mature and evolve, we tend to appreciate qualitative distinctions more, even to the point of disregard for quantity. Let's hope that is in your future.

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

"Again, a grossly simplified analogy but, fwiw, you can hear what is behind you but you cannot see without turning your head." - Kr4

In the spirit of taking things too far...

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.

"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

Kr4 - Agreed. I started thinking about a bunch of different things while typing my tongue in cheek reply. It's difficult to find an analogy that applies across the board.

Armyscout41 - "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! "

Aren't movie soundtracks and video recorded concerts...music? A recording of a live performance, right? So we agree, MCH is better for these. But wait...you then say 2CH is designed strictly for music...pardon me...live reproduction of music. Wait, let me get this right; is superior. So which is it? You're words not mine.

The beauty of MCH is it does both better than 2CH, music and movies. No need to rely on subjectivity...which is really the holy grail of 2CH purists (identity), MCH has test results to prove it. Something 2CH guys run from. We use our ears to enjoy the music, not validate our existence.

KR4 - I commend you for keeping at it. Better you than me.

Lol I was just kidding . I enjoy my 2 channel setup , I enjoy multichannel if recorded properly. But 2 channel can be better than multi channel if your front two speakers are high end , and the rest of your speakers are mid fi.

The bottom line is if you enjoy a recording , than you enjoy a recording. I have never been to a live concert where the band says OK we can only use 2 channels and Ive never been to a concert where the performers set up surround sound. In this hobby the only one you have to entertain is yourself , if you like X or Y or both X and Y
its all good.

Well, um, because, you know, um, well, huh, yep, it just is....

Guess I never gave the subject much serious thought...I have the HT system in the living room for the 5.1 movies and a nice analog TT based system in a spare bedroom..seems to work for whatever listening/viewing mood I'm in...

It is not inherently better. 2 channel is a dying form of entertainment. The 'dead cat bounce' is no reason to believe that it is being resuscitated by the Cro-Magnons. I have subscribed to Hi-Fi pubications since 1965, have sold equipment in specialty stores and still buy hard/software.

The principle reason that 2channel is inferior is that it is essentially an anti-social medium. Only one person can sit in the sweet spot. Frequently you can not even move your head to maintain the illusion of dimensionality. It lives on with mostly regurgitated recordings.

If you want good two channel, buy quality earphones sit on a sub-woofer and be done with it.

^ That is an awesome post, 'goodies. Love it. ^

I enjoy both and have my own theory why most multichannel setups fall short ,back in the early 90s several speaker manufactures were backing the idea that you did not need full range speakers if you used small monitors and a sub woofer in a 2.1 setup .
I like many others bought into this idea till we dragged out our huge full range speakers and then the 2.1 system all but died for anything other than computer applications.

however in the home theater world the small monitors and sub woofers are the technology of choice because of the fact that integrating 5 or 7 large speakers into a rooms decor is hard to do so the compromise is made .

back in the Quad era you used four full range speakers and that is what I do all be it 5 instead of 4 and my multichannel setup is very satisfying .

I could not do this in our house without my wife's tolerance ,but she puts up with a lot as long as I am a little respectful of the fact she hates the music I listen to and choose only a few days a month to raise the roof and scare the neighbors at full volume

2channel is inferior / anti-social medium???? It is the complete opposite. Draw your room to scale with speakers. Your sweet-spot is NOT that much closer or further than your friends’ spots in a two-channel setup. In a 5 or 7 channel setup, the person to the right and left of you are A LOT closer to their respective surround sound speaker. Don’t believe me??? Hand the guy to the right the remote and have them adjust the surrounds to their seating position. Then have the guy to the left do it. Then switch it to 2-channel and ask everyone if it is better.

So, as you can see, TWO-channel is the more socially ameliorating.

I've read through this thread and enjoy the opinions but something that hasn't been talked about is a bipolar stereo setup.I own definitive BP-8060-ST bipolar towers in a straight up stereo setup.I used a full 5.2 setup if you will for months and enjoyed it but having switched to stereo just using my towers I was even more impressed than my 5.2 setup.With my towers setup correctly I am getting an incredible 3D sound field...star wars episode 3 opening was the first movie I tested in stereo...and I was looking above and behind me as the ships flew around.These towers image very well and I have no need for a center or have a tough time with dialog.Music is just as impressive...I chose very well in my speaker choice.Happy listening...:)

ProShark Mobile Application Development
Just in case you missed some of the pertinent facts regarding application development for mobile platforms, here are a few that may catch your attention.
• 72% of adult Cellphone users text messages
• 65% of adult Cellphone users sleep with their phones
• 50% of US Cellphones will be smart phones by Christmas 2011
• 1 out of 3 Yelp searches is from mobile
• Apple Will Sell $2B in Apps in 2011
• Approximately 40% of social media users access their accounts through mobile devices.
• One billion mobile applications were downloaded in the week between Christmas Day and New Years Day - Flurry Analytics
• The total global mobile applications market is expected to be worth $25 billion by 2015 (up from about $6.8 billion in 2010) – Marketsand Markets
Go to::>> http://proshark.com/

Multi-channel can be a gimmick to some but when I first used it I was impressed that it provided a very involving listening experience with movies. Fast forward a few years, my interest in it has diminished and I couldn't be bothered sometimes to play a movie using surround sound. Maybe because my first love and priority is two-channel. More recently I am gaining a little more interest in surround sound again and would like to revisit to see what I remember was so exciting.