No, at least not in my opinion. Dollar for dollar I think two-channel offers better quality/value, and most people don't have large enough rooms to properly accomodate the extra channels. There is only a tiny percentage of well recorded multi-channel music available compared to well recorded two-channel music. But, if money and space aren't an issue, I suppose multi-channel could be superior.
Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?
I think that 2 channel is inferior, though, of course, my ears and reason may be mistaken.
Feedback please!
The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.
In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).
It's possible that I simply need better equipment.
But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?
What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).
What am I missing in theory?
Feedback please!
The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.
In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).
It's possible that I simply need better equipment.
But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?
What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).
What am I missing in theory?
- ...
- 108 posts total
It took me a while to find it but here's a previous thread that has all the opinions you could ask for on the subject. For the record though, I prefer two channel because it suits my room. |
Most of the CD's you listen to are red book and recorded in 2 channels at 16/44.1. Most of the DVD & SACD & DVDA are not, they are typically 24/96 or higher. There is more information so yes they will sound better than most any CD. Vinyl in 2 channels sounds way better than most CD's IMHO. Vinyl has depth and space just for starters. Redbook CD's for me sound flat and uninvolving unless played on say a DCS type system. I do really like the new 24/96 or 196 from music servers with outboard DACs for 2 cannel, they are very involving. The issue I have with multi channel is that a lot of them put you IN the band. Not listening to them in a seat say 7 rows back. I myself do not like being part the band, it does not seem real and would not happen in real life for most of us anyway. I do not want to hear instuments behind me unless it was meant to be by the artists. For instance, I went to 2 Pink Floyd concerts along time ago. The sound effects were going all around and back and forth but not the instruments, they were all in front of me and sounded that way. The multi channel SACD of DSOTM sounds nothing like the live concert. Listening to the SACD I felt I was IN the band. I have listened to some multi-channel that do not do this but they have been few. |
- 108 posts total