2-Channel Alive and Kickin!

Sa-dono · « **on:** 1 Feb 2004, 10:49 pm »

[disclaimer]
Please note the below is based on my experience, listening, and personal preferences. If you enjoy multi-channel music, all the more to you. Everyone has their own preferences, so to each their own. The following is just my experience and opinion, so do not be offended.
[/disclaimer][/b]

Thanks to oneobgyn, I finally had the opportunity to hear what well implemented multi-channel SACD can do, based on the Meitner gear. Well to say the least, I was EXTREMELY disappointed. While I can understand some people enjoying the sound, as it does have that new and "neat" factor for the non-critical listener IMO, I found it laughable and somewhat unbearable.

We made use of Norah Jones - Come Away With Me and Pink Floyd - DSOTM (which many note as the best use of multi-channel music for SACD) for my listening. This was all comparing the 2-channel SACD track to the 5.1 SACD track.

With Norah, the soundstage just went flat and became recessed. There was pretty much no depth at all. With DSOTM, the one thing I did like was the use of the surround for effects such as the alarms and cash registers. What I did not like was the unnatural placement of instruments - like hearing reverb behind me.

So what does this all mean? Well multi-channel music can take over the world - but for me, I enjoy good ole 2-channel music. I ended up feeling the industry still has A LOT of work to do if they're ever going to change that fact for me.

oneobgyn · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 02:51 am »

I do agree with Sa-dono

I am also a 2 channel guy. Out of fairness however to Sa-dono's audition, he must take into account that the center channel (which heretofore has been and still is used for video) is set 6 feet behind the left and right main speakers. Nonetheless, IMO a well imaged 2 channel sytem is what real music is all about

JoshK · « **Reply #2 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 03:35 am »

I am still 2channel for HT, so for me 2 channel is alive and well.

Sa-dono · « **Reply #3 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 04:36 am »

Quote from: oneobgyn

Out of fairness however to Sa-dono's audition, he must take into account that the center channel (which heretofore has been and still is used for video) is set 6 feet behind the left and right main speakers.

Yes - I certainly took that into account while auditioning

Pin · « **Reply #4 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 05:45 am »

Yeah 2 channel rules!

WerTicus · « **Reply #5 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 03:38 pm »

if you could afford 2x more amplifiers and 4 more 'really good' speakers for surround would you REALLY be two channel still?

given that with 6 speakers you getting like... 1/8th the THD for the same total volume of air moving in the room?

bah!

2 channel is good untill you can afford 6!
which is why i love two channel too -because i have yet to get TWO of my dream speakers!

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 04:14 pm »

Multi-channel is a pain mainly because it forces you to sit in the middle of your living room if you really wanna get the full effect. For anyone without a rather vast area in which to set this up it becomes very impractical. Surround has some serious domestic arrangement issues IMHO. I wonder how many surround systems in the world are actually set up properly?

Tbadder1 · « **Reply #7 on:** 2 Feb 2004, 05:34 pm »

That's exactly my experience when comparing the HT to 2-ch. The HT put the music on a highly linear plane, losing most of the floor to ceiling feeling. Musical instruments bizarrely placed, special effects where none were intended. It didn't sound like a hall at all, it sounded like a shooting gallery--kinda the opposite of music. By the way, the retail value of this HT system was better than 100 thousand, and as soon as you took out the center and surround sound speakers--holy cow! Deep, rich, beautiful music. HT makes me feel like I'm caught in a bad movie, like the Matrix; 2-ch makes me feel like I'm caught in the web of life. And if any one out there loves HT, well, I can respect that, and even encourage it. But one of the side affects of HT is that it's a) driving up the cost of quality, and b) delaying research and development of believable reproduction. But what the hey, I'm an American, and used to being led around by the nose of corporate marketing and bottom line thinking. So bring it on!! I'm ready to throw my money at the glory that is HT!! I love the idea of spending more and getting less!!

DSK · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Feb 2004, 12:35 am »

Hey, so I'm not alone in 2-channel

The ridiculous placement of instruments in rear speakers aside, IMHO 2-channel is the best setup for the most realistic portrayal of musical performances. BUT, this relies on your room being optimally analysed and treated.....and very few people do this. Many people scratch the surface and think they have optimal rooms but don't really.

At a live un-amplified performance, the music reaches you directly from the musicians/vocalists and via reflections from the room boundaries. As long as your listening room is optimally treated, its room boundaries will not stamp their own imprint over the music to distort the soundstaging and imaging or cause frequency anomalies etc. You end up with an excellent replication of the acoustic space of the live performance ...at least, as good as what the recording allows. No need for fancy processing and multiple speakers ...which don't address the room issues that will muck up the performance anyway.

For HT though, despite excellent speaker imaging raising doubts as to the need for a centre channel, there will always be a need for rear speakers for sounds that really do occur behind you.

Just one man's humble opinion

Sa-dono · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Feb 2004, 08:09 am »

Quote from: WerTicus

if you could afford 2x more amplifiers and 4 more 'really good' speakers for surround would you REALLY be two channel still?

This is exactly what I am saying... For music, 2-channel is the only way to go, IMO.

manek · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Feb 2004, 11:28 am »

TWO CHANNEL RULES !!!!!!!!!

Carlman · « **Reply #11 on:** 3 Feb 2004, 09:02 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

Multi-channel is a pain mainly because it forces you to sit in the middle of your living room if you really wanna get the full effect. For anyone without a rather vast area in which to set this up it becomes very impractical. Surround has some serious domestic arrangement issues IMHO. I wonder how many surround systems in the world are actually set up properly?

How many people's houses have you been to where the surrounds are on top of their entertainment center, flanking the center.

That's how they were setup at Costco, right?... so, that must be how they go.

I don't like seeing wires or speakers at all. I don't mind a pair of speakers with the wires tucked away.. but, if you can see wires running up walls, going under and coming from rugs... and so on.. it just looks very unfinished to me.... which says to me you don't care about how it looks... so maybe you don't *really* care how it sounds... and maybe its goal is to impress people. I've seen that a lot. Especially when someone's husband gets told from your wife that he's 'into stereo's'... and then I get a tour of some fair mid-fi that was bought 10-20 years ago.. and they haven't heard better ever.. ugh... I'll save that tangent for another time.

I've also noticed if you don't have at least 14-15' of width and almost 20' of depth, the effect just won't work well. (with good gear) It'll work but, it doesn't sound very good to me...

Even perfectly executed, HT doesn't motivate me to strive for sonic goals like 2-channel. The rewards just aren't there.

WerTicus · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Feb 2004, 03:53 pm »

how ya supposed to put 'proper' speaker cable under a rug anyways? isnt the static of the carpet supposed to affect the sound in a negative way?

maybe its YOU who doesnt care about his sound enough

Ears · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Feb 2004, 04:05 pm »

Quote from: Sa-dono

Quote from: WerTicus
if you could afford 2x more amplifiers and 4 more 'really good' speakers for surround would you REALLY be two channel still?

This is exactly what I am saying... For music, 2-channel is the only way to
go, IMO.

Exactly right...good sonics and proper sounding soundstage require 2 speakers.

nathanm · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 Feb 2004, 04:32 pm »

That's what the little ceramic standoff doohickeys are for! So not only can you have speaker cables draped across the room, but they can also be raised higher for Super Tripping Action™!

No seriously, a friend of mine has always suggested speakers with a built-in wireless DAC and amplifier which received digital data from a central unit to eliminate the wire business. I think there are probably such designs already out there, but I don't know what they are off the top of my head.

Years ago I helped my uncle set up his surrounds and we ran the wire through the floor and across the joists. Neat 'n tidy. Of course, if one doesn't have a basement below their HT area this is impossible. Speaker placement isn't really that critical when all you do is watch football games with the "Stadium" reverb preset.

Heh!

WerTicus · « **Reply #15 on:** 5 Feb 2004, 03:21 am »

lol stadium reverb preset... baahahahahahahahahahaha

pjchappy · « **Reply #16 on:** 5 Feb 2004, 04:47 am »

Most of those presets blow my mind. . .I don't understand why anyone would listen to them. . .some remind me of the cup and string 'phones' I made as a kid.

p