[DVV]

We've covered a great deal of topics here, but I don't remember one like this.

This is an ongoing debate everywhere, so why not here as well?

In my view, for effects, and thus for Hollywood, multichannel is the better of the two, though even that with a reserve - if the budget for a decent multichannet HT setup is spent on better quality stereo, and with the help of the lectronics built into many DVD players, a 2 channel setup can sound actually better for the same or very similar price. Such is my experience.

In terms of definition, resolution and sheer "musicality", I have yet to hear a multichannel setup capable of what the best of stereo systems can do.

What say you, fellow audiophiles?

Cheers,
DVV

[BeeBop]

I don't think multichannel is killing stereo yet. Most of the SACD/DVD-A software is stereo. There is still not a lot of multichannel audio software. As far as audio goes, multichannel is still an illusion.

[Carlman]

multichannel, surround sound, et. al. was killing traditional 2-channel for a while but, I thought it leveled off a few years ago.  The remnants of the big surge of multichannel is more high-end or customized 2-channel systems and a mid-fi market that caters only to multichannel.

The only thing I see killing 2-ch audio today is really bad recording techniques... which is being covered elsewhere on AudioCircle.

[nathanm]

I can't see how multi-channel is a sensible format for music playback, simply because the average person does not want, know or care how to properly set up TWO speakers much less 5 or more of them.  Hell, I don't even like properly setting up 5 speakers and I'm into this crap!  The small sweet spot you get from 5 channels (in anything besides very large living rooms) really makes it a very anti-social activity.  The rear speakers are just a pain in the ass to place.  I don't like having my couch in the middle of the living room either.  Unless all the speakers are identical you get weird tonal differences, it's a pain to get the levels matched, and the average public is NOT going to be sitting there with pink noise CDs and SPL meters like the audio geeks who read this site.  Multi-channel is a challenge to get right for enthusiasts and I can't imagine other people wanting to put that much effort into it.  So yeah, you might have people who want to buy all this stuff, but I doubt they really want to tweak it the way it should be.  

I also think that outside from audiophiles nobody really actively listens to music in their homes anyway.  It's just a background sound bed to have on, or they listen in cars or while they are doing something else.  Nobody I know in Real LifeTM actually sits in a chair and listens to an album anymore.  If they do it'd be news to me.

I have not heard multi-channel music yet, but something tells me it would just be an abuse of the format.  "Wow look what we can do, the vocals over here, the guitar over there! Yay!"  What else does multi-channel offer besides increased imaging effects?  Well, if you don't like sitting your ass in a chair and not moving your head for 45 minutes then what's the point?  It's hard enough to line up stereo speakers to get a floaty soundstage and nice phantom center sound. Throwing 3 more speakers into the works seems like more rope to hang yourself with.

I'm sure it's possible for a multi-channel setup to totally blow me away and sound really cool, but it's too much work.  There's too many things that can go wrong.  I always use my parents as a litmus test.  I think, "Would my mom be willing to get this system right?"  The answer is usually no.

Formats and multiple speakers and all that is peripheral noise compared to the real issue: the record industry has gotta stop manufacturing dreck!  Crappy songs that last a month and die, recording levels crammed to the ceiling, no reverb, no feedback, no ambience, nothing that makes a recording seem more real.  Absolutely no variety on public radio stations, endless repetition...how they still sell so many albums is a mystery as their goal seems to be annihilating anything and everything that is good about musical expression.  You won't need speakers when they can direct inject Britney Spears iTunes files into your spinal cord via USB cable and withdraw $17.99 from your credit card at the same time.

[eico1]

As far as audio goes, multichannel is still an illusion.

and stereo isn't? Don't getcha. I think people who have experience in soundfield reproduction believe a better recording could be made using left right and center, I don't know if adding  minuscule sound from sides or rears depending on room etc.


steve

[ABEX]

DVV:
What I know of HT\Stereo is that the most important thing is to separate the 2 as best you can which has been a struggle for myself the last few years. You would have to pay a lot to get both that were good enough working through the same unit. I would like to have the $$ to get the ultra expensive bulky units like the Lexicon or Mark Lev.. Rotel has a unit I like at the lower end, but even that is pricey to me. I thought HK would have come out with a unit that was great owning both ML and Lex, but they seem to have stuck to making mif-fi stuff instead of giving us a great unit for an affordable price.  

I have owned 3 SS Processors over the years 2 of which I am selling here at the moment. The 3rd I just received and have been testing it’s 2ch. Playback. If that did not work for me in 2ch. I would get rid of it.

I owned a Yamaha DSP which was just an add-on for the CC and SS channels which was ok, but seeing that it added coloration due to the circuitry and IC’s I wanted to step up. Next was the Lexicon CP-3Pro which had a By-Pass and did not color the sound of the 2ch. Stereo playback. I wanted AC-3 Dolby so I am looking to sell the Lexicon. Now comes the Panasonic SA-XR45 Receiver which has great 2ch. Digital amplification and nothing leads me to believe that the HT will not be good. People that know me cannot believe I actually own a receiver again after 20yrs. of not owning one. Even if the HT is just adequate it will be fine by me because I am mainly a 2ch. Stereo man and if anything gets in the way of that it has to go.

I only hope that the Panasonic unit is as good in the HT department as the 2ch. Playback has been. At first I was disappointed with it until I replaced it’s 2-Prong Powercord.

To answer the Q of the thread,I do not think Multi Channel is Killing Stereo,but giving us more alternatives. OTOH I wish they would settle on what format which is best to use instead of so many different ones.  

Good Luck.  

[boxhead]

Paul W Klipsch had the right idea about the 3channel stereo. He used 2 K Horns with a Belle center channel to apporoximate what a stereo should sound like. Hell, I used both + from the left and right  speakers in my car hooked up to a makeshift center to make a fluid transition between all speakers in my car system back in 76. It sounded rather nice with certain types of music but I still preferred straight ol 2 channel. Could have been the weed or Robin Trower that affected the sound to merit this. But anyway, it still sounded good and I have been hooked on getting the most natural, live sounding equipment since. It should be called upgraditist. Cheers.

[IanATC]

What we have now is a glut of mini-systems and ht-in-a-box.  Admittedly, the mini systems are far better than the rack system offered years back, but still midfi thump-and-sizzle dreck.  
  It is very difficult at best to find someone who really cares about 2 channel, that actually sets it up right and listens to it between the speakers.  Now it's more about bells and whistles like built-in EQ curves, delay, LFE, and "wattage."
  The average consumer that  even buys HT seems to be truly impressed by two things.  LOUD and BASS.  Note that Transparency, detail, imaging, and quality are not in that statement, nor is musicality. RMS and PMPO are alien language...it just seems to translate into "quality"  and "loud"  for them.
  It's about a system that looks impressive with many boxes (on paper and in the home)  that can play "wicked loud" and have "stupid bass"  for that new Terminator 3 dvd.
  It can be difficult sometimes to re-sell hifi components simply because the average consumer sees no point in paying over $100 US  for a player because "all cd players sound the same."  I wish I had a quid for each time I heard that. So with the enormous glut of fancy-looking uber-hyped gizmos out there and the latest "cool mp3's"  real fidelity and music listening take a back seat.  I even met a chap last month that swore 168k mp3 is CD quality.
No doubt the same chap thinks a speaker has "Tribble"  and "base"
  Feature overload, mid-fi glut, and mp-3 are killing hifi. Sound and Vision magazine touting that everything sounds bloody good kills quality.  As devils advocate I must also state some hifi companies simply price themselves out of buisiness.  

[Mathew_M]

Actually I think there is some interesting work that could be done with 5.1 music.  A lot of people are investing in HT systems and most dvd players have either DVD-A or SACD decoders built into them now.  I'm even willing to bet that a lot of people when they play music on their HT system utilize one of the surround matrixes.  It's the musicians who now must create the music that utilizes the format.  I can see bands like Radiohead creating 'aural theater' (not to say that their last few albums were not just a little gimicky).  Head Music could make a comeback.

[IanATC]

Actually I think there is some interesting work that could be done with 5.1 music.  A lot of people are investing in HT systems and most dvd players have either DVD-A or SACD decoders built into them now.  I'm even willing to bet that a lot of people when they play music on their HT system utilize one of the surround matrixes.  It's the musicians who now must create the music that utilizes the format.  I can see bands like Radiohead creating 'aural theater' (not to say that their last few albums were not just a little gimicky).  Head Music could make a comeback.

  Actually I rather enjoyed the 5.1 presentation of "Holst:  the planets" and Eagles:  7 bridges road.  It was interesting, and entertaining, but I feel it lost something in fidelity.  Again, I was listening to it on a 5.1 system with a bunch of Sonus Faber speakers, and not some HT in a box. I cannot however subscribe to what passes for the average HT system.  Somehow having my ears assaulted by a battery of mix-n-match Kenwood and Bose speakers doesn't "get it."

[DVV]

Some time ago, like 2 years back, a friend of mine heavily into multichannel, and also an electrical engineer by trade, worked out the size and place of the multichannel "sweet spot" in my living room. Sweet spot is THE perfect place, where it all comes together as well as the elctronics are able to dish it out.

It turned out to be 0.75 cm (app. 0.33 inches) large, slap bang in the middle of my table.

Anyway, not to be put off the eager little beaver that I am, I set out to experiment with as many components as I could lay my hands on, and thank God, my favorite dealer carries a lot of stuff. I played and played with it, but in the end, two impressions were there that I could not shake off:

1. Set it right for DVD video (i.e. Hollywood) and it's all wrong for pure music reproduction, and

2. If the same budget set aside for an HT gig is instead used for a decent stereo system, the ned result is far more satisfying overall. DVD movies lose little, if anything - less out-and-out space, true, but much more definition and resolution, while standard audio only replay is far better.

So, my Marantz 4100 DVD currently feeds a stereo integrated amp by Yamaha, model AX-592 (2x100W/8 ohms), feeding a pair of JBL Ti600 floorstanders (European model, was never available in North America, 2x6.5 inch bass drivers, 1x8" mid cone, 1x1" titanium dome) via van den Hul CS122 speaker cables. Interconnects van den Hul D102 Mk.2 with Neutrik RCA plugs. TV set by Philips, no idea of model designation, don't care much for them, but very nice picture.

It's certainly no raver of a system, but it still beats most HT rigs I know of.

Cheers,
DVV

[4ears]

As a guy who listens to multi channel SACD music every day, I don't mind saying that this talk of a tiny sweet spot is utter nonsense. There is a *bigger* sweet spot with multi channel than with stereo. The center channel with discrete info anchors the image.

With stereo, the ideal sweet spot is dependent on the listener being equidistant from the left and right speakers. That's the way to get the illusion that there is a lead vocalist in the middle even though there is no speaker there.

But with MCH, that lead vocalist is going to be coming from the middle no matter where you are in the room, because the lead vocal is indeed coming from a real-life middle speaker.

It's just like if a woman is sitting on a couch in your living room, talking to you. She doesn't change her location, and it doesn't sound like her location has changed, just because you might get up to answer the phone.

I never listen to the stereo mix of anything when I have the option of multi channel.

I think the thing that has poisoned a lot of people about MCH is that they hear it through these stupid little 4-inch cube speakers instead of in a quality system with real speakers. I wouldn't be happy with MCH that way either.

[Ears]

I just recently spent  over 12k on an amp and prepro whith analog outs that are equal to the McCormack dap-1 all analog mc preamp[Parasounds Halo c2] + three very revealing speakers to match my 2 channel speakers.

I found that multi channel hi rez for the most part is gimicky sounding whith a guitar for instance coming from a front speaker and drums coming from a rear speakers.
There were exceptions such as DSOTM and Allison Krauss Live which has mostly ambience coming from the rears and some applause ect.

I would  think that someone whith a properly set up and revealing 2 channel systym would prefer 2 channel for audio even though I prefer multi channel for most HT material.

I would also think that if you have been into audio for years whith better than lower midfi gear, most would prefer 2 channel and if you are younger and raised whith surround sound, you might prefer multi channel.

It is also early in the game for hi rez multi channel to be perfected and eventually, it may sound more realistic.

I have plain old off the shelf recordings that produce sound 3ft behind my left ear ect in 2 channel but I do not find that gimicky like seperating drums and guitar and other instruments between the front and back speakers.

[audiojerry]

Hey Dejan,
I'm glad you can think about audio with all that's been happening in that part of the hemisphere.  

If I could have my wish, it would be for 4 channel multi channel - forget the center channel. I'd like the recording process to use the best proven minimum miking and mixing that is currently done for 2 channel stereo, and merely add placement of microphones for ambient information for the 2 rear channels. To me, the only piece missing from high-quality 2 channel recordings is the sense of the space around you when attending a live event.

Also, a 4 channel model is less costly. You can keep your current stereo speakers, which are so difficult to find the right pair, you don't need to worry about a matching center channel, and the rear speakers don't need to be as critical if they are only needed for reproducing ambient information. Besides, a separate center channel track probably requires additional processing of the signal in the recording process. The less processing, the better, imho.

[doug s.]

...I also think that outside from audiophiles nobody really actively listens to music in their homes anyway. It's just a background sound bed to have on, or they listen in cars or while they are doing something else. Nobody I know in Real LifeTM actually sits in a chair and listens to an album anymore. If they do it'd be news to me.
...

this is why multi-channel *AUDIO* won't threaten 2-channel audio, at least no time soon - no market for it.  the cost to develop the hardware, & ensure the software will be present in quantities similar to what ya find at a typical tower records today, is yust too great for the potential sales.  this is why a true hi-res alternative format has failed to dominate the market, replacing redbook cd.  there is no real push from the market - most folk tink redbook cd is more than good enuff, & the recording industry is loathe to spend the money, if they can't see a demand...

the present boom in multi-channel is for the h-t gang, where folk *WILL* sit down & watch a movie, therefore they *will* dump relatively large sums of cash on the hardware, to do so.  so it sounds like crap for 2-channel (or multi-channel) audio?  who cares?

but, this is as it's always been in audio - it has *ALWAYS* been only the lunatic fringe audiophiles that have ever actually planted themselves in the sweet spot for a listening session.  so, hi-end audio will always exist, imo, but it will *never* be mainstream.  of course, i *do* wish the recording industry would suck it up & revamp their software to the highest-quality possible, so we a-philes could reap the benefits.  it wouldn't *hurt* the masses to only be able to buy sacd/dvda/or whatever is decided to be the best format, would it?  

doug s.

[4ears]

I have several dozen MCH SACDs and I have never heard a mix with flying guitars or any other gimmicks. I do hear such things *talked* about. I guess they are urban legends.

I have a few mixes with instrument sounds coming directly from surrounds, but the vast majority use the surrounds for ambience. I like them either way, depending on the circumstances of the music.

I have no problem whatsoever with an artist, let's say Pete Townshend, making a MCH mix of Tommy and using surrounds to create the effect he is after, and if he wants a particular instrument coming from somewhere other than front L or front R, that's his right.

[rosconey]

i have been on the sacd-dvda fence for a year or so now
i never liked a center channel in my ht setup-i run phantom- and i also now have custom fronts that there is no matching center.picked up the eagles 5.1 cd awhile ago-other than seven bridges road i dont think any of the other songs impressed me,no i havent heard a real sacd-dvda setup.
at the present time i'm not worried about multi-chan my 2 channel  setup is starting to get excellent for music and for now thats enough.

[DVV]

Hey Dejan,
I'm glad you can think about audio with all that's been happening in that part of the hemisphere.   [\quote]

You refer to the presidential electons of last Sunday? They failed, of course, the third time running. But we're not worried, we have premature parliamentary elections coming up on December 28. Then New Year holidays. After that, we'll organize new presidential elections. Then, after that, elections for local communities. By then, the commnity garbage disposal company will probably need a new managing director, the employees will strike, and we'll have to organize new elections.

Aintcha heard, Jerry? Elections are FUN, so many chances to get stuffed with food, get drunk if you win or lose, and baby, it's all sooooo democratic!

Work? You don't wanna be using them bad words around here, bo'!

If I could have my wish, it would be for 4 channel multi channel - forget the center channel. I'd like the recording process to use the best proven minimum miking and mixing that is currently done for 2 channel stereo, and merely add placement of microphones for ambient information for the 2 rear channels. To me, the only piece missing from high-quality 2 channel recordings is the sense  ...

Odd you should mention this, because I've been asking myself why don't we have that for something like 15-16 years. It's so logical to me, in the back you have a pair of smaller speakers, there to give you the sense of space and reverberation, no more.

But I guess the industry wouldn't be happy with that, far too simple, and worse, you could actually upgrade what you have rather than do the Right Stuff, like junking what you have and buying brand new all over again.

Cheers,
DVV

[doug s.]

jerry & dejan, i have an ambient surround-sound processor - the jvc xpa-1010.  it was discontinued several years back; s'phile even reviewed it & gave it a "class a" rating, for whatever that's worth.  designed to be used w/conventional 2-channel recordings, it has four channels: two ambient speakers to be placed on the walls behind the main speakers, above & to the outsides of them; the other two placed on the wall behind you, in the same layout.  jvc used dsp and four microphones, placed to mimic the placement of the surrounds in your room, to map twenty different venues thruout the world.  included are warious concert halls, outdoor pavillion, jazz club, stadium, a coupla different churches, theatres, etc...  each has been programmed into the processor.  a dizzying array of adjustments are possible, from wolume, delay, reverb, your room size, etc.  (all the set-ups, btw are individually adjustable for each venue.)  complicated to setup, really, but once done, it's pretty much set & forget.  there's really only two perameters ya would mebbe wanna play with, once initial set up is complete: the wolume, & a point-source/spread source.  ya would choose point source, for example, for a quartet, & spread source for an orchestra.

this device really is quite effective - it does provide a sense of ambience & spaciousness, w/o intruding on to the main two channels.  (you can run the main speakers totally unprocessed, which is the way to go - using the processor for the mains only gains ya the flexibility to use one single wolume control, but the sonic compromise is not worth it.  and, besides, it's not really an issue - ya yust use a second remote to control the wolume of the surrounds.  and, once ya set the surrounds' wolume, the main preamp controls the wolume of everyting.)  you cannot actually hear the surrounds, but ya can feel the soundstaging collapse a bit when ya turn it off.  

my wife really likes this a lot.  i *used* to like it a lot, when i had a solid state preamp.     now, i use it once in a while, but, to be honest, i get such good soundstaging w/my present set-up, that it's really not essential.  i'd suspect the jvc processor would be more useful in a smaller room, where the room itself would add more of its own unwanted sonic signature - i am fortunate to have a big room, & hardly any early reflections at the listening area.  

for unobtrusive ambient surround processing, that doesn't need special recordings, i don't see how these things can be beat...  and, they still were a marketing flop...  yust not enuff interest in it amongst audiophiles, which is a tiny segment of the audio industry in the first place...  i have no intention of ever selling mine, tho - it took forever for me to find one on the used market at a price i could afford, and i don't know if i will always be blessed w/such a big room - ya never know if & when ya may be moving to new digs!    

doug s.

[Rob Babcock]

It's not killing stereo off fast enough to suit me!

Sincerely,

Rob, The Multichannel Guy