Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

Some more about mobile apps http://http//djangostars.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-mobile-app/ . Really interesting to read!

OK, EVERYBODY, IT'S OFFICIAL! ..Kr4 HAS SHUT THE TREAD DOWN!
...we can all go home now and start on the next Oppo thread, or mull over subwoofer placement, which preamp sounds better with what rare tube, or try in vain to research which non-matching other branded center speaker ill-advisedly go with our Class B Stereophile rated dedicated music only loudspeakers!
Mission accomplished soldiers!
Let's just all move on then.

....ok aaaand we're done!

OK, EVERYBODY, IT'S OFFICIAL! Kr4 HAS SHUT THE TREAD DOWN! R.I.P 2 ch v multi thread!!! It's been real...

...we can all go home now and start on the next Oppo thread, or mull over subwoofer placement, which preamp sounds better with what rare tube, or try in vain to research which non-matching other branded center speaker ill-advisedly go with our Class B Stereophile rated dedicated music only loudspeakers!
Mission accomplished soldiers!
Let's just all move on then.

....ok aaaand we're done!

Yadda, yadda, yadda. The horse is dead.

Music only considered, I think most of this has to do with the overall quality of the recordings, 2 ch vs multi. I think it's clear that there's vastly more high quality 2 channel -analog and digital - content and, thus, purity of signal would likely flow through quality 2 channel dedicated setup, sans some multi-channel post processing of the signal..all things equal. If the a hugh percentage of musical source content was simply superb hi-rez, well recorded content on multi channel, as status quo, then I think things would be different. So quality over quantity as a priority, every time, IMO!
Then, whether either scenario is or isn't ever the case, one still needs a high quality setup for all the loudspeakers and corresponding seating and acoustics in same space to take advantage and maximize the sound quality from the setup and speakers! - this is NOT typically the case, I find, from most multi ch setup's, let alone those who don't know how to maximize the sound quality from a basic 2 ch setup! It's just harder to do right, fundamentally.
So, 2 ch is easier to setup and get good sound by default, and better source material in 2 channel mix, equals advantage to 2 ch !
...I still prefer dedicated multi mix for movies, however,..digitally processed in an AV pre/pro out to quality amps and setup, is hard to beat for that medium.

What you have now is pretty good. I have near the same in my bedroom; Denon 4802 with three channel power amp. front and surround from the Denon, and centre and two back on amp, which are 4 ohms, and amp does well with load.

Run the 7.1 analogue exit in and you have the new format.

Once you go for a higher-end, the cost goes up by a large margin.

Because we only have two ears.

It is the way we hear. Two channel make one sound with three dimension. I looked into SACD two channel was best; when more came out as multichannel, and I have found the best in NOT movie set-up, but two further out and wider ambient speakers.

You do not have part of orchestra playing in balcony, no. It is not like a movie where the car come from behind you.\

I very much like SACD, but stereo SACD is best.

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.

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/

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...:)

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 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

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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 - 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.

"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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)

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.

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.

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

I agree, 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

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.

...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

"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.

Bryon, I agree. There are, also, terrible stereo recordings. Any technology can be misused or used tastelessly.

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

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

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!

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