[ekovalsky]

I listened to several multichannels setups at CES, including those using the McCormack, Lexicon, EMM/Meitner, etc.

All I can say is 2 channel is not dead, dead, dead!  The best multichannels systems put me in the middle of the stage, with sound coming from the front, from the sides, and from the back.  An interesting effect for sure, but quite unnatural.  I'd rather close my eyes and pretend I'm looking slightly down at the stage with all the performers in front of me.  Like it would be at a concert.  My current 2 channel RM/X setup does this AMAZINGLY well.  With the RM-40 the soundstage was higher, and having to "look up" at the musicians ruined the illusion of being at the concert.   I have to say with my current RM/X setup the music is "better than live" -- because I'm enjoying it just as much and I'm not sitting next to a bunch of strangers and inhaling second hand smoke, nor do I have to fight traffic to get home when I'm done -- I just walk to the bedroom and crash  

I didn't listen to the 3 ch Trinaural setup with the RM-30's very extensively.  But what I heard sounded a lot more like the best 2 channel systems than the multichannel systems.  I was expecting the trinaural to sound much different than normal stereo.

The best sounds I heard at the show were the RM-30, the TAD speakers down the corridor from the VMPS room, the Nova Utopias in the Jeff Rowland room, the Pipedreams, and the Talons.  I've always been a big ribbon fan, but the new beryllium dynamic drivers in the TAD and JM/Focus speakers are superb!

The Von Gaylord minimonitors and tube amps were amazingly good too, probably the ultimate bedroom system.

[JohnR]

Why stop at 3 JohnR?  I think it'd be cool to have dozens, maybe a hundred!

Yep! That's what I meant Well, unless you were listening to a trio... but then again, the drummer would need a dozen speakers all for himself

I mean, think of the advantages. IMD is largely gone. You can as you say choose a speaker to suit the instrument, some won't even need tweeters, some won't need woofers. Of course, having to completely rearrange your sound room for different discs or even different tracks might prove a bit of an issue for some...

You know    there are some out there who say mono sounds best. Now that I think about it, some recordings probably do. I find a solo cello or violin that's 8 feet wide to be very disturbing, perhaps it might be time to investigate going retro (ie mono) for those recordings

[Rob Babcock]

Imagine the dynamics with each instrument running to one speaker, each with a monster monoblock amp (or maybe a flea powered tube amp, if that's what you want) for every individual instrument.  You sure wouldn't run into dynamic compression with a rig like that!

[John Casler]

The best sounds I heard at the show were the RM-30, the TAD speakers down the corridor from the VMPS room, the Nova Utopias in the Jeff Rowland room, the Pipedreams, and the Talons. I've always been a big ribbon fan, but the new beryllium dynamic drivers in the TAD and JM/Focus speakers are superb!

We must share the same taste, since those were the exact rooms I liked too.  

Plus I liked the Onix Reference 3 from a very limited walk through and only about 45 sec in the sweet seat.

[Tbadder1]

Look, I have X amount of money to spend on equipment.  Do I buy five speakers and a sub or just two speakers?  Will five of my Tyler Acoustic Linbrooks (3300 each) and a Tyler sub (est. 1500) totally 20,000 smackers equal a pair of 20,000 dollar speakers.  No. Never will, never have.  Add in complicated processors/preamps when compared to simliarly priced stereo versions, and I just can't see it.  More importantly I've never heard it.  I think the whole 5.1 thing is tantamount to the tube/solid state debate.  It's a matter of preferences, tastes.  That some people like 5.1--well, that's great.  Some people like Hamburgers better than lobster.  I think 2 channel is dead as well, but then again this is America, and quantity usually wins over quality.  The inevitable death of 2-channel will be the result of marketing and the preference for video, not based on the quality of music reproduction.  Cest La Vie.

Just an example.  I was listening to a Vandersteen/ARC/Linn demonstration in 5.1.  This was all top of the line gear except for the surrounds (mid-line Vandys) although the right/left channel was inhabited by the extraordinary Vandy 5As.  Take out all the extra speakers, and play the same stuff in 2-channel, just listening to the 5As, well, that was magic. The 5.1--that was clutter.  It used to be that simpler was better in music reproduction, not now I guess.  

Now, what about video?  The 5.1 sounded much better.  But the point is, it's video--who cares?  Not me.  That others care--good.  I'm really happy for them, and I don't mean that sarcastically.  That eventually it'll cost me 2-channel reproduction twenty years down the line--yeah, that pisses me off just a little.

Live long and prosper (you'll have to to afford the best in 5.1) for, as Kurt Weill says, "tomorrow we die!"

[petermwilson]

Hi,
There's a war going on.  That war is going right to the heart of our lifestyles.  Right now the winners are the manufacturers of wide screen tvs.  Their winners in other ways too.  Now that youve just spent between $3,000 to $6000 on a new display lets finish maxing out that card by getting a Home Theatre in a Box for $500.00

Unless your a gazzillionaire how can you justify your sound system not being part of your video system.

So 2ch's not dead, it just got multiplied by 3 but unfortuneatly our disposible income didn't multiply by three so for many the quality either comes down or we wait until we can create mltich at the same quality level as our 2ch.

Peter m.

[Ears]

People buy the MAP-1 for hi rez multi channel only...for the most part and not converting cd's to 5.1.
Whith that in mind The Parasound halo c2 was tested as equal to the Map-1 when used as a 5,1 analog pre.
I Used the c2 through its tottaly analog multi channel inputs whith a 4k L egacy 250 x 5 amp, a Denon 5900 and 5 identical spealers whith all Scan Speak drivers including revelators.

This was all wired together whith Acoustic Zen, Analysis Plus and Audience cables.

The sonics were great but other than DSOTM,a few cuts off REM's greatest and the ambience recorded in the surrounds on Alisson Krauss Live multi channel music sounds rediculous whith instruments coming from the rear that should be in front of you whether live or recorded in a studio.

I do not see how anyone can prefer multi channel whith a few exceptions as it does not even give the illusion of sounding correct most of the time.

Maybe a better investment would be to spend some money on better 2 channel speakers that create a realistic sounding soundstage and a you are there in the studio/audience.... more realistic sound.

Bash me if you will but I believe that a lot of you have never experienced this,because if you had, I don't see how multi channel music for the most part, could apeal to you.

Has anyone heard the Eagles Hotel California?????.....there is no way that this recording sounds natural on the dvd-a release,as a matter of fact, I would say listening to this and many other hi rez releases in 5.1 is distracting and can not possibily be enjoyed the way a properly recorded 2 channel version can.

I have been into surround for movies from the begging, but for music there is NO way that 2 channel is dead and my opinion is echoed by all the local dealers of mid to hi end gear.

[petermwilson]

Hi Ears,

Of course dealers with wharehouses full of 2ch hardware are totally objective!!.

I'm going to fall back on a saying that has not let me down. "There's a Time for all,(most) ideas, but there's not too many single idea's for all Times."

Pete Towsnend who reproduced the mltich HIREZ of TOMMY suggested that TOMMY had been waiting for just such a technology.
From someone who initiated the whole thing it's still just an opinion, enlightened though it may be.  I guess the buying public will decide.

I've got lots of HIREZ versions of 2ch only sacds and don't feel I'm missing anything from some of them.  But then again unless I want to DSP it, which is sort of counterfeit, I'll never know.

We can always point a finger at the mltich Cowboy Audio Engineer who scewsup a classic but if there's a good original, that also can be fixed.

Who'se quote was it originally.  "How many times am I going to have to buy The White Album".

Peter m.

[Rob Babcock]

Condemning MC because you don't like warmed-over stereo remixes is like criticizing color film because you don't like B&W movies colorized.  Sure, you can make a crappy MC that way, just like a lot of mono recordings remixed to stereo are totally fake and crappy.  Stereo discs are mixed 'n' mastered around the limitations of stereo, not with a thought towards future formats with more channels.

If there's even one good, convincing MC recording, then we know it can be done.  It's just a matter of time; MC is pretty young in it's present form ( and PUH-leeeve, don't try to lay that Quad crap on me- that dog don't hunt! ).

That said, I don't think 2 channel is going away anytime soon.  Maybe it never will.  After all, who wants rear channels on their boombox at the beach?  Or at their computer in their cubicle at work?  There's some places MC just couldn't reasonably be made to work.

[Ears]

Peter, all the dealers I am talking about sell Pioneer elite,Sony es Denon,Arcam,Classe ect ect multi channel players but  after talking to them, more than 90% of there customers are 2 channel for audio and  multi channel for HT only.

One store owner started preaching to me after I mentioned hi rez that the future was mp3 and that 50% of all music is now listened to on computers.
He said he sold only a few multi channel hi rez units and the owners were using them for 2 channel he also preached that vinyl was still superior to hi rez, and that cd played back on a higher end player was as good or better than hi rez played on a 3-500.00 player.

He was almost in shock when I agreed whith him on most of this.

Another dealer is selling Pioneer elite,Denon and Sony es all in one store along whith some hi end names and although a couple of the salesman find a few multi channel recordings interseting, none of them find it to be the future as far as sales so far and felt the same as me that if placement of instruments in the surrounds and or center channel is not drastically changed on most multi channel recordings, that people who are used to an illusion of an accurate soundstage will never buy into it unless the recording process changes drastically.


Rob, first of all,I wanted to like multi channel hi rez and I am not quite old enough to have had a quad set up.
Lets take DSOTM as an example of a
decent muti channel recording.
When I play this back in 2 channel, it already sounds surround like in its nature and has a lot of surround type effects when played in 2 channel so it just seems natural to that it would sound decent to great when played back in hi rez multi channel.

Even though I found a few cuts off REM and Joe Satriani that sounded decent in multi channel,in most of these cases I never preffered the multi channel over the 2 channel recording even then.

When I place my center channel 7-8 ft back and listen to cd's or 2 channel hi rez almost nobody could guess if the center channel is on or not.
Actually dozens have tried and everyone has guessed that it is on but the fact is, the speakers image so well and disappear to create a 3d natural sounding soundstage,it creates a realistic presentation of the music and if the recording has sonics coming from behind your left ear 8-9 ft away from the mains, then the 2 speakers do so whithout the need for surrounds or center channel.

The main reason I prefer sa-cd over dvd-a is that 2 channel sa-cd has a wider and deeper soundstage in most cases.

To suggest that 2 channel is dead is not accurate at all as even if the masses were interseted in hi rez, they already have dvd video concerts whith the masses, or at least the majority of those that like ss music mixes buying these already.

I am open to keep trying multi channel hi rez whith the hope that the recording engineers start figuring out what affects sound right and where but overall I don't think there are very many hi rez multi channel recordings that sound realistic at this point, and although a few may like the current hi rez ss recordings, whith half the country using there computers and i pods for music[2 channel] and most owners of decent 2 channel speakers still preferring music[hi rez or otherwise] in 2 channel,I would not be saying 2 channel is dead just yet

[Rob Babcock]

No problem, Ears.  I'm not saying you're wrong.  But I do wanna point out every single discs you mentioned was originally a stereo recording remixed for MC (DSotM, The Satriani one, the REM).  When you get into remixing old stuff some guys are bound to just hate it- sometimes I'm one of them.  My pet peeve is when the guy mixing it throws lead vocals and horns right behind my head- I fucking hate that!

I've heard some MC that I much preferred to the 2 Ch, but I agree that the engineers and producers of the future mostly have a lot to learn about mixing MC.

BTW, MC can also be 3 Ch, or 4 Ch.  I can't recall where, but I was reading about some old 3 Ch recordings being reissued in their original form (ie L, R, C).  Many recordings from the early days of stereo were recorded that way as it was well known from WWII on that 3 front channels was the minimum needed to get the best imaging.  I'm anxious to hear some of those discs.