why the music is better only on 2 channel?

Tequila

Is there something to tell about? Some people likes the music on 5.1 or even 7.1 channels? What do you think?

dagame27

For me, the problem with most multichannel music is the placement of the instruments. I don't want to hear instruments behind me, as when I go to a concert I am not in the middle of the stage. It's not that it does not sound good, it does. I just prefer a good 2 channel setup with good soundstage seperation more.

michael_w

Unless music is recorded in the studio in more than two channels it's only natural to play it through two speakers. If you're playing media that only contains two channels of music and yet you're playing it through five or more speakers, it's up to the processor or receiver to basically make something up and decide how to distribute things. IMO when it comes to listening to music, less is more. Two ears, two channels, two speakers.

I started out in the audio world by setting up a little home theater for myself and later decided two channel was for me. Maybe surround was just a novelty for me, but the fun wore off quickly and two channel became my new passion. I still enjoy watching movies and hearing bullets fly over my head, just at the movies or on someone elses' system

pblanc

Some properly recorded SACD or DVD audio discs can enhance the "stereo" listening experience by using the center and surround channels to recreate the ambiance of the listening hall without detracting from the front stereo image. Obviously, this is more beneficial for live recordings.
Some recordings (Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon comes to mind) were never intended to present of a coherent front stereo image, but more of a surrealistic surround effect and multichannel is great for that type of thing.

Most recordings are totally "artificial" anyway with multitrack mixing, overdubbing, etc. On these there really isn't any ambiance to recreate.

I think if your preference is for music listening, and your budget is not unlimited, you will get vastly more bang for your buck sticking with a high quality 2 channel system rather than going with a lesser quality multichannel system. For home theater, however, I think its the other way around.

dholmes

You only have 2 ears!!

Refefer

I agree with all of them. I like to hear the music as I would hear the music. Multi-channel audio should be reserved for movies almost exclusively since all conversions from from 2-channel to multi-channel tend to do more harm then good.

cfrizz

Sorry I'm going to have to be the only dissenter here. I like listening in 5 channel stereo at times & I love multichannel SACD's & DVD-A's! I like utilizing all of my speakers, that's why I got them.

schwarcw

Cathy I'm with you for certain music. I like the multi channel music if it isn't too aggressive in the real channels. Live performances are usually pretty good in multi channel. Stereo was originally conceived to be three channel (left, right and center). Some of the original RCA "Living Stereo" recordings were done in three channel. I suggest the rear channel levels need to be much lower than calibrated for HT. This is my own preference.

cfrizz

Agreed Carl.:)

schwarcw wrote:

Cathy I'm with you for certain music. I like the multi channel music if it isn't too aggressive in the real channels. Live performances are usually pretty good in multi channel. Stereo was originally conceived to be three channel (left, right and center). Some of the original RCA "Living Stereo" recordings were done in three channel. I suggest the rear channel levels need to be much lower than calibrated for HT. This is my own preference.

cfrizz

Tequila, is this what you believe or are you simply asking because this is what all hard cord 2 channel people say?

Do you like listening to all your speakers playing music or not?

There is NO right or wrong here, just different preferences. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Tequila wrote:

Is there something to tell about? Some people likes the music on 5.1 or even 7.1 channels? What do you think?

Early B.

Music in surround mode certainly has a cool factor, but it is artificial, at best. I think it's great for parties; otherwise, 2-channel is the way to go, IMO.

Tequila

Hi Cathy:

Sometimes I think "damn, the drum is beside me or the guitar is in front" BUT not...the most of my cds are 2 channel music....but is really cool to me hear 4 speakers stereo...too. I like the two ways but i think is more real only two channel or 2.1 with SW. I will buy a pair Rti12 for the 2 channel and I have now 4 rti8 for the multichannel stereo. I think on multichannel is better the SAME type of speaker. Now my budget is not to 4 rti12.:D

Good day.

cfrizz

LOL good enough Tequila!

george daniel

two ears,,,two channels,, one for each

Deadof_knight

2 channel 4 speakers is all right but when my son plays the stereo in 5.1 mode I always walk in and change it to stereo mode it just sounds weird too me , Ive set around and played with the settings to see if I would like it then. It just doesnt so I dont worry about it anymore. 2 Channel BABY!

Music Joe

Placement of two speakers into the typical room presents a challenge. A cabling budget. Three-Five more loudspeakers to interact with the room.
Sub placement. I'm sure someone out there has the time,money,and space.
Just when you think two are set up perfect some piece of music comes along and.....

pblanc

I understand you folks who object to having a guitar suddenly pounding out some riff from your blind side, or a saxophone blasting at you from behind. Any reasonable person would agree that a sax in the rear is no damn good.

hearingimpared

Listen to 2 ch and then in multi. If you like the realism of two channel great, if you like the effects of multi great. It is entirely up to what you think sounds the best.

I personally find anything more than 2 ch sound to be effects rather than music reproduction.

Just an example. I was at a fellow Polkies house and were listening to Dianna Krall "Live in Paris". WE switched to his HT system and watched and listened to the same performace. As awesome as the HT system sounded, I found that the 2 ch recording reproduced the sound of the instruments and vocals more acurately. Sound effects vs music reproduction.

pblanc

I think for most recordings you are absolutely correct, the multichannel layer just breaks up the front stage "image". There are a few multichannel SACDs however in which the additional channels only recreate a bit of the acoustical ambiance of the original listening environment, and on those I prefer the multichannel effect.

hearingimpared

pblanc wrote:

I think for most recordings you are absolutely correct, the multichannel layer just breaks up the front stage "image". There are a few multichannel SACDs however in which the additional channels only recreate a bit of the acoustical ambiance of the original listening environment, and on those I prefer the multichannel effect.

I'm willing to bet that one of those would be the Jazz at the Pawnshop SACD. One of the great things about his recording is the room ambience and din. With the 2 ch, you feel a part of the audience I can only imagine what it would sound like with multi. . . pretty soon though I'll have my HT rig up and able to listen to it.

Tequila

I did try and try and try and really think than 2 channel is better for music to ME. Sometimes like me the efects from mch BUT the image from the FRONTS is really better. Now, I am thinking buy another amp to another pair of fronts and another SW to FULL the FRONT stage with real 2.1 sound x 2. That is better than bi-amp....I mean bi-amp and bi-speakers and bi-woffer...:D

AND No surrounds.

John K.

The reasons and technology for using surround speakers with 2-channel music sources should be explained. The idea isn't to move a performer to the side or back of the listener; with a properly calibrated surround level this doesn't happen. Note that what's being discussed isn't multi-channel DVDs, DVD-As and SACDs which may intentionally place performers or other sounds discretely in the surround channels; this applies to 2-channel sources only. In the concert hall the majority of the sound(unless we're conducting the orchestra)reaches us as reflected ambience from the sides and back, rather than directly from the front. When all of this taken in by the recording microphones, if the format is 2-channel it has to be mixed into those 2 channels, not as a matter of choice but because there's no place else to put it.

Now, processing such as DPLII and Logic 7 can detect the phase differences which exist in the part of the sound in the 2 channels which is reflected rather than direct and extract it. It's then steered to the surround speakers, where it belongs. Nothing is added, this is simply making the reproduction in our homes sound a little more realistic by reproducing the natural ambience from a direction that more closely duplicates what was heard at the actual performance.

F1nut

If you're going to continue posting quotes you copied from a Goggle search, please put the info in quotes as not to deceive the noobies into thinking that you actually know anything about audio.

michael_w

John K. wrote:

Nothing is added, this is simply making the reproduction in our homes sound a little more realistic by reproducing the natural ambience from a direction that more closely duplicates what was heard at the actual performance.

If the source is recorded without any ambience (such as a recording studio) woudn't two channel still be the wiser choice so that your room can create it's own ambience as if they were playing in your own home? How can you create an ambience that wasn't there to begin with, asuming the recording is not of a live performance.

pblanc

I agree, if it wasn't a live recording, the additional channels are a "waste of watts". Your living room isn't going to recreate the ambiance of a concert hall, a jazz club, or an auditorium, however (unless you like using those rather hokey sound effects that you get with the DSPs on most recievers these days).

pblanc

Joe, You must be psychic. Jazz at the Pawnshop is one of the recordings I was thinking of.

Joey_V

I like to listen in stereo 2ch, but I would have to agree that if multichannel is done right, that ambience is pretty darn cool if implemented correctly. Nothing like truly feeling like you're at the venue.

F1nut wrote:

If you're going to continue posting quotes you copied from a Goggle search, please put the info in quotes as not to deceive the noobies into thinking that you actually know anything about audio.

Who cares if he posts it straight from google. Last I checked this place isnt a place of academia where it matters. Leave the guy alone, Jesse. Quit policing the place.

TroyD

For one reason, if you know the source of the quote, it can either add/detract from the credibility fo the information.

Sort of like if you are posting information about, let's say smoking. You post a bunch of stuff that says smoking isn't harmful etc. If it's a tobacco company posting it it's probably less credible than if the FDA posted it.

Plagarism isn't cool.

In John K's case, he just doesn't believe in hifi. He likes to post a lot of garbage and pass it off as original thought when in most cases, it isn't. He also seems to not grasp that not everyone hears things the same way.

BDT

TN_Polk_Lover

I agree with TroyD. If I ever post anything that I have just read somewhere and have not personally experienced myself, then I like to say so, even if I don't remember the exact source. Furthermore, if I were to quote something verbatim, I'd always put it in quotes and give credit. If it is something you just "lift" from another webpage, I would prefer to just provide a link to that webpage.

The good thing about this forum is when people talk about things they have done / experienced first hand and share with everyone their findings.

Robert

hearingimpared

TN_Polk_Lover wrote:

The good thing about this forum is when people talk about things they have done / experienced first hand and share with everyone their findings.

Robert

You got that right brother the key word is experience. It seems of late there are a lot of yahoos who love to post **** they've read and stick with it like gospel and they haven't even the least experience with it. I'll take one year of experience to 4 years of schooling.

Joey_V

Troy,

I agree, plagiarism isnt the best way to get your point across, so if John K has been doing this on more than one occassion, then I suppose calling him out in public is not entirely uncalled for.

However, I checked his recent posts and havent seen evidence of this, so I thought calling him out on the basis of posting what appeared to me as something that he didnt write was a little of a "macho" thing. It's cool when plagiarism is called out on account of being a damaging to the subject at hand, but in this case, I just thought John K was called out because he was being a noob by trying not to be one, hence the plagiarism.

I'll be the first to agree, posting your own thoughts is one way to gain respect, but maliciously calling someone out (F1nut's reply) isnt exactly the best way to go about it I think. A PM might be better.

But, again, if John K has been doing this and I have not been a witness to it, then the call out was appropriate in my opinion.

I just wanted to stick up for the little guy. This place need not a jack **** remark for everytime someone does something a little "off".

Just me... I could be wrong. But again, you're right, plagiarism isnt exactly the best way to get around.