Multi-channel vs. Stereo

TroyD

OK, here it is.......you multi-channel freaks, make your case on the merits of multi channel.

As previously stipulated, higher resolution is a good thing, but that applies to stereo as well.

My contention is that when you listen to live music, it's in front of you. When would you ever sit in the middle of a band? Never, that's when.

Now, there are those that will say that most of the music we hear is reflected sound (or some variation to that theme) to which I would reply, that's essentially the same argument that Dr Bose used to justify the 901's. Having said that, when I listen to a recording of, say, the Cinci Pops, I want to hear the orchestra. I don't care to hear the sound of the Pops AND the hall they were playing in. My own room will provide it's own reflections etc. etc.

Anyway, let's hear it.

BDT

mantis

Allday,
without going into the cd/sacd/dvd audio formats history,I will give you all my opnion on what Iv'e listened to and what I think of all of this.If your looking for some history.....search the web,it's all over the place.....Sony's website is a good one for SACD......

Ok ,
I will start out with 2 channel, which is something I never really considered real important to me as I have been into Home Theater since it hit the home market.I still listened to 2 channel but built my systems around theater first.I have had a 2 channel only rig for a couple of months now and I enjoy the **** out of it.I must have listened to every cd I own on it by now......almost....When you sit and listen to 2 channel.....bare with some of my comments due to the fact my 2 channel experience has been lifted greatly,and I'm so juiced to own the Lsi 15's and Rotel combo..........ok,back to action......it's an incredible experience.I can sit for hours and just listen to song after song.I like to have a cold drink for the long haul.....maybe a blanket and a pilow if it's the end of the day and I'm tired from work....you get the idea.....2 channel recording's sound there best for the most part in 2 channel.....they where recorded this way and can really capture the moment......so 2 speak......

Now Multichannel music is the new kid on the block......it came around along time ago....some of you will remember Quad.........or not......well that failed for a number of reasons,but all in all if you got to experience it, it was a cool **** idea...Today it's back(multichannel that is) due to the growth of dvd and/Home Theater in the home.Customers purchase these systems and now want to use all the channels of speakers..........makes sence to some and wacky to others...

I believe it takes an open mind as all things new.It's fun and dissapointing all in the same sentence........I have owned multichannel dvd audio and sacd since the first day the Pioneer Elite dv47a hit the market.( I bought 1 of the fist 4 Soundex got in right off the Truck).I had some demo's in Tweeter and other places and I really wanted a new DVD player anyway,so I killed 2 birds with one stone..........so to speak.........

Before I go into the new formats,Id like to talk about one dsp mode that Denon uses......7 or 5 channel stereo.......it takes a 2 channel recording and puts it all over the system in a ...I will call it tastefull manor......I'm in no way shape or form a fan of dsp modes, but this one I have found use ..........from time to time.....like any new toy, you got to play with it to see if it's going to make it in the replay bin.I have mixed feelings about this dsp mode.It works out nice for some classical peices but horrible for alot of others........for one example,I liked listening to Star Wars Sound Track in 7 channel stereo.It filled the room with sound and it stayed consistant without all the tipical echo effects tipical of your common dsp mode.............

Now for SACD and DVD AUDIO........I also have mixed feelings about these 2.I own a couple of disk's and I have stopped for awhile looking for new ones, but now the market is starting to get flooded(maybe a bad choice of words but I will go with it for now)with software from both camps,I'm looking forward to a shopping trip.
DVD AUDIO seems to do multichannel better then SACD of which the titles I have heard.DVD AUDIO has more popular titles then SACD unless your heavy into classical and Jazz,then sacd would be your first choice in formats........I like em both and glad not to have to choose between the 2.....if you ask me what one would be better to own......Id still say both,they don't share the same titles so you can't honestly compare the 2 to each other.....but....................
DVD AUDIO does seem to do multichannel better then SACD as I said already.They seem to record it with less funky moving and weird soundstages.....I also havent seen a 2 channel dvd audio disk yeat.
SACD has both they started out as 2 channel high res format then went on to multichannel with a natural progression.They messed up some recordings by doing this..In my opnion that is.....like Alice in Chains......SACD in multichannel.it's funky to listen to at times.....I love Alice IN Chains, they are one if not my favorite bands to hit the market in a very long time.....Now 2 channel SACD is awesome with no equal.I'll leave that there and more open for debate later.

You know I can go on and on about the 2 formats..they are the new kids on the block........I would like them to both stay for awhile and see where they take us.........be open minded.....it's what it takes to except change..........for better or worse.....lets see what happens.I know for one I want them to shine because of the incredible detail,clarity,realism,airy,REAL sound they both can reproduce in the recording arts......Your speakers will sound at there best replaying the sounds of sacd and dvd audio.
The software is limited and growing everyday.I only own a few titles and like I said have mixed feelings right now....but I HEAR HOPE in the sound........I DO.........Do YOU???????

Here is a couple of disks to try out that I have found to sound really incredible.......impressive.
1)James Tayor SACD Multichannel Hourglass
2)Train SACD 2 channel Drps of Jupiter
3)Jerry Goldsmith SACD Multichannel London Symphony Orchestra
4)Queen DVD AUDIO A Night At The Opea
5)Oliva Newton John DVD AUDIO One Womens Journey
6)Cory Johnson/Zephyr DVD AUDIO The Larks At Heavens Gate Sings
7)The Fabulous Thunderbirds DVD AUDIO Live in concert

There's many more......

shack

I like the high resolution that SACD offers but after listening to a multi-channel SACD once or twice I find myself going back to the 2-channel layer because I just prefer it. I'm getting old and set im my ways I guess. The multi-channel mixes are technologically interesting and have a certain "WOW" aspect in a good surround sound system but IMHO it does not replace a well recorded stereo mix on a good system.

Multi-channel is the only way to go with movies because the object is to become immersed in the action with the sounds comming from around you. Most soundtracks are now designed that way and this is what you get when you go to the theater.

I agree with mantis obout the Denon's 5 channel stereo for one aspect. If you are casually listening to music while you are doing something else or have a group of people in the room this is a good DSP. It basically reproduces stereo around the room. I don't think you are getting 5 different tracks but the rear mimics the fronts.

This all may be a moot issue however. DVD-A and SACD have not been large scale sucess stories. The average music listener does not appreciate the higher resolution afforded by these formats and most CDs are still played in portables, mini shelf systems and cars. Do a man on the street type of survey and I bet less than 1 in 10 would have any idea what SACD or DVD-A is. These fromats may end up being much like vinly records are today. A niche market that caters to a hi-fi hobbyist that is willing to pay more for the high resolution. Sony has made noise about making all of their CDs hybrid...meaning that they could be played on either conventional or SACD players but you would have to have a SACD player to get the higher resoultion and the normal CD would not be multi-channel. I have'nt heard much about this latley and the Rolling Stones hybrid CDs were the last big thing to happen with that format. I think they have done ok but not spectacular.

I hope multi-channel succeeds because that means the industry is healthy, its another choice and I will still be able to get high resolution music. Will it become the "standard"?....probably not. I'm afraid the standard will become the downloadable MP3 stuff as soon as the industry finds a way to copy protect it. Peter Gabriel's new album "Up" can be downloaded on the internet for a price of $10 instead of going out and buying the CD. That may be where we are going.

polkatese

I agree with Shack, if the format survive as an alternative, then we don't have to choose. If they can make technologically feasible to coat the regular CD with the multichannel data, and price it more or the less as the current pricing scheme, then I think more people will adopt the format. mass production translates to better affordability, hence more adoption....

HBombToo

There is an expression I use in the Office Often. "It iis what iit iis..."

If it exists I want the enjoyment of experiencing it.
2 channel converted to multi... Good on ya is my thought.

HBomb

rlw

but my mono LP's still sound fine to me.

Seriously, though, what if you like big speakers? You gonna have 4 big speakers? How's that going to work in a given room?

I'd rather have 2 great channels, from speakers to amplification, than 4 lesser channels - and for a given budget point, that's the compromise you have to make, right? Unless you got one of the Inifinity-Fold wallets, you either get quantity or quality.

I won't even get into the setup issues. Takes me long enough to get 2 channels sounding their best to consider more.

RuSsMaN

Just a pet-peeve, lets quit calling anything more than 2ch 'stereo'. 5, 6, 7, 42 channel is not, and cannot be 'stereo'.

Cheers,
Russ

rlw

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Just a pet-peeve, lets quit calling anything more than 2ch 'stereo'. 5, 6, 7, 42 channel is not, and cannot be 'stereo'.

Cheers,
Russ

But Denon calls it 5 (and 7) channel [edit: that "s" word], right on their website. Gosh, if a manufacturer puts it on their website, doen't that make it reality?

mantis

open minds want 2 know?

F1nut

Some people just love being enveloped by sound. It doesn't matter to them if its deminensions are fake.

And these would be the same people who gain their life experiences from video games and MTV instead of getting out in the real world.

Honestly I believe its half-due in part to most people understanding that there is no band in the listening area.

Hmmmm...when I close my eyes I could swear the band is in my listening area.

Also, when positioned properly, sorround can give a seemingless sound and fill quite an expansive area full of music.

But, it's unreal.

Virtually every 2 channel rig changes sonic quality severly as you move about.

Just as a live performance does.


ATC, I not ragging on you. It's just your statements exemplify my problem with multi-channel sound.

jdavy

I agree with the person who voted for multi for your movies and 2 channel for your music. I also think it is difficult to get one system for both with out a lot of money. I have my sony dvd/sacd player hooked up to both my home theater and two channel system.

F1nut

ATC,

Yes, it is all in fun :cool:

I do admit that I'm suffering sleep depravation and perhaps not thinking as clearly as usual. I honestly don't know of any friends that have or want to have surround sound rigs and perhaps I'm showing my age (forty something) with my opinions on this subject. I fully understand that there are lots of folks who like it for HT, but I tend to view it as a fad for 2 channel and a by-product of todays times. Hell, we never had a TV until I was about 10, not that the folks couldn't afford one, just that they wanted us to use our minds, to make us think outside the box. Hence my statement, which is, of course the rantings of this opinionated SOB.......


Goodnight

danger boy

hey, i am not a freak. just because i like multichannel audio.. and it rocks!

so there, you two channel lump of oudated 16bit, stuck in the 80's, non hi resolution, flat sounding, no soundstage, I only want it from the front, puke.
(i'm only kidding here, don't get bent)

danger boy

Originally posted by TroyD
My contention is that when you listen to live music, it's in front of you. When would you ever sit in the middle of a band? Never, that's when.

Now, there are those that will say that most of the music we hear is reflected sound (or some variation to that theme) to which I would reply, that's essentially the same argument that Dr Bose used to justify the 901's. Having said that, when I listen to a recording of, say, the Cinci Pops, I want to hear the orchestra. I don't care to hear the sound of the Pops AND the hall they were playing in. My own room will provide it's own reflections etc. etc.

Anyway, let's hear it.

BDT

Where to begin?

As I sit here in front of the computer in a dark room listening to a new David Bowie CD i got tonight over and over. In two channel audio.... i'm thinking wow. how wonderful this would sound in 5.1 surround. But of course music like that would only appeal to very few of us. Most music companies wouldn't release something like that if you're only going to appeal to a niche target audience, just doesn't make business sense.

TroyD, true you would never sit in the middle of a band and listen to the music.. for one. you'd be deaf by now. Secondly your ears would or could not take in the different sounds from behind.. since your ears point forward.

You asked for us multichannel lovers to make our case for it. Here is it. It just sounds better. More life like. The two formats can co-exist in the same world.
You prefer two channel audio.. i prefer 6 channel audio. What would home theater and movie theater experiece be like today if we didn't have Dolby Digital or DTS? Remember those old theaters where they had one (or two if you were in a high tech theater) front speaker? I do. and it wasn't a very good movie experience. Same with multichannel audio. It just hasn't caught on yet. Whether is will or not only time will tell.

DVD-a and SACD have both done horrible jobs of promoting their formats. I go into my local Best Buy about once every two weeks. They have no DVD-a display at all. The SACD display is shoved away in the farthest corner of the store. Back where no one ever goes. It's hooked up to same cube type speaker set up. No one ever checks it out. If you want the masses to buy your product. you have to PROMOTE it. Simple enough.. look at Microsoft. They are good at promoting their products in mags, TV, radio, etc.

I know that if the companies who are developing this format for the masses don't give it a huge push soon. it will die along with the dinasaurs. It's to bad too. because this multichannel has a lot of potential still.

Yeah it's not for everyone. If you like your music in dos channels.... great. If you're like me and a few others and enjoy an option of listening to a multichannel at my choosing. I'm happy to have that option.

TroyD have you listened to a good multichannel audio set up? I'm not saying i have the best system.. by looking at what you all have on here. i have a low end system, but it's all I can afford right now. I don't have any Rotels, Carvers, Krells, Integras in my set up.. but the Marantz does okay for home theater and music.

Finally, last night ai had the house to myself for a few hours and just sat and listened to several different discs in both 2 channel and multichannel. They were Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, Riding with the King, BB King & Eric Clapton, Barenaked Ladies - Maroon, Diane Krall (DTS 96/24), and Eagles - Hotel California. Time and time again, i found that two channel audio "lacked" something. Clarity. It sounded muted.. even in hi resolution stereo. Something about having more speakers available to your ears that two speakers just can't compare with. Think of it this way. Sound mixed in two channels will not sound as full as sound from 6 speakers. Each speaker bringing something to the sound presence.

At least in my set up (800i's fronts, 400i center, 300i's rear, 350sub) the sound does not always come from the rear.. the rear channels just complement the front soundstage. Yes sometimes it sounds a little "hollow" or distant.. but i feel that adds to the unique openness to the music. All i'm saying is that i'm glad I have the option of listening to it in either 2 channel or multichannel. I have options available to me. Something I don't with with a old fashioned CD.

Hope this made some sense. I'm not here to agrue with you or anyone. I won't knock your 2 channel stereo likes if you don't knock my love for something better, multichannel audio.

wow this is long. it's bedtime now. later guys.

madmax

Originally posted by ATCVenom
Most people I talk to about it fully understand that they cannot reproduce the sound of a live concert, nor do they have the financial means to do so. So they live with what they have, and enjoy it for what its worth.

The setup I've been using recently really makes me wonder about the above statement. I have been to some live performances and recently have set in (just listening) on a rehersal with the full sound going. In the rehersal I closed my eyes and said to myself "this sounds just like I'm in my livingroom". After that I really tried to pick out anything that was different. I couldn't. When I got home I put in their CD. No difference! Wow! So, how much does this cost?

Jolida 302A: $355 used.
Luxman CD player: $105 used and 10 yrs old
SRS SDA Polks: $1200 used and over 10 yrs old
Tripplite lcr surge suppressor: $75 used
Cables: $75 used. Not very exotic

Total: $1725

Not much for a live representation! And BTW, these are not the best deals going. This is even using the SDA SRS, not the 1.2TL versions and if you look real hard you could probably find the 502A amp for about the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some musical passages are upgraded when you spend more, but... the quality of sound I'm talking about is probably far superior to what was referred to in the above statement.

madmax

Paul Connor

In my experience, multi channel is great for movies. I previously owned a Pioneer surround system which I played movies in the vhs format. The listening experience was great. I have demoed dvd systems and have a friend with a Krell/Thiel home theater rig and it is awsome to say the least. However, for music, I find that anything more than two speakers for music seems to wear on me and I find myself wanting to hear the sound coming from one direction. Even with the Pioneer system I owned, I would play music from just the front channels only. Down the road, (money currenly lacking) I plan on putting together a multi channel home theater, but I don't plan on replacing my two channel gear for music. My collection of music will not allow it, and I am more than happy with what I currently own. But then again, my granfather probably never envisioned replacing his Edison hand crank phonograph either.

F1nut

ATC,

But, if you don't close your eyes then you're looking at your gear, be it 2 channel or surround. I, for one, find it impossible to "see" the band while looking at my gear. I do agree with your statement, "It's all opinion" and for sure we all have one.
Satisfied? Maybe when I get some mono blocks...lol.

madmax

Originally posted by ATCVenom
MadMax,

Music to me is all about atmosphere. And when it comes to a live performance - I gotta *feel* the atmosphere around. I dont want to have to close my eyes, or attempt to convince myself of someone being there.

Well that's a good reply to someones post... My post in particular was about closing my eyes while the live band was playing to see if I could feel like I was in my livingroom. BTW, I did.

madmax

TroyD

Let me first begin by saying that I'm not per se against multi-channel nor do I think that those who embrace it are mentally challenged (except for danger boy, j/k), just so no one thinks that I'm scoffing at their preferences.

I don't have a DVD-A or SACD player, I've done a few demos of them and I have a number of concert DVD's. I'd say that I've got a fair multi channel setup (RTA12's/CS400i/R10's/Paradigm PDR10) and I'm just not convinced that music sounds better in multichannel. Having sound coming at you from all sides has a certain cool factor to it but it, IMO, it doesn't give you a realistic presentation of the material. The best adjective that I can come up with is 'contrived'. It would seem that the material is more dependent on the quality of the engineer than the band. This is true to a certain extent with stereo but is far greater with multichannel.

No soundstage? Non hi res? I'd invite you to come check out my 2ch rig!

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BDT

HBombToo

BDT, i think you give way more credit than whats deserved.

I'm trashed so what the Hell!

madmax

Originally posted by TroyD
I have a number of concert DVD's. I'd say that I've got a fair multi channel setup (RTA12's/CS400i/R10's/Paradigm PDR10) and I'm just not convinced that music sounds better in multichannel. BDT

I would be willing to state that concert DVD's are not a good comparison to multichannel SACD or DVD-Audio sound. In general most of the concert DVD's I have are not that good. Only the very few are. At least all the DVD-Audio discs I've heard have good sound quality. Too bad they don't know how to mix them properly.

I hate helping the other side

madmax

mantis

I agree with that.DVD music disk for the most part are ...I'll say ok at best.No compare to SACD or DVD AUDIO in sound quality.........Yeah gotta hear how clear and clean the recording sounds....any audiophile can at least respect that......I do .

TroyD

I agree with what your saying, I grant that the quality of the recordings are not equal but I'm saying that a concert DVD in stereo is better than in multi channel. The stereo version is more 'real' for lack of a better term.

As I said, I grant the higher resolution point.

BDT

mantis

I can see where your coming from,
I like most of my concert dvd's in stereo as well........maybe not talking heads...but Alice n chains I like better in stereo.....o **** ......I can't even do a shoot out anymore..........looks like I'm just gonna have to upgrade sooner then I expected to......:supermad:

danger boy

Originally posted by TroyD
.

I don't have a DVD-A or SACD player, I've done a few demos of them and I have a number of concert DVD's.
No soundstage? Non hi res? I'd invite you to come check out my 2ch rig!

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BDT

TroyD, okay.. i appreciate your explantion.. as thin as it is.. but it's cool guy. no reason to beat each other up over something this trivial. we both just like different things.. you may like blondes, and i may like brunettes. Just a matter of what you prefer is what it boils down to.

You said you don't have a DVD-a or SACD player. but yet you have hi res stereo? How is that possible? You can't increase the res on a 16bit CD. If it wasn't recoreded in hi res 96/24 and above. it ain't hi resolution.

Oh yeah.. concert DVD's are not the same as SACD or DVD-a. concert DVD's are not mastered in 24bit/192KHz dvd audio standards. not all dvd's are created equal.

Anyway, just had to make this points and clear up some misinformation.

danger boy

I feel much better now. ahhhh :cool:

jmasterj

Ok Troy,

I'll be your" multi-channel freak" if thats what you want to call me.
However, I don't feel the need to"make a case on the merits of
multi-channel" to you or anybody else. Now what I will make a case on the merits of, is your evaluation of equipment you don't have. Now that I find interesting. Who is trying to convince you that multi-channel sounds better? Someone here on the forum? I
think not! Some choose to use 6.1, some 7.1 some only 2 channel I guess if we don't do what TroyD likes got to be freaks huh? Well
when TroyD starts paying for my equipment then I'll be concerned
with what TroyD likes, untill then ,personally I could care less...

TroyD

Uhhhhh, excuse me but I was just trying to stimulate some light hearted debate about the relative merits of each format. I am not bashing anyone, their gear or their preferences. If you construe it that way, I apologize.

BDT

RuSsMaN

Jesus, the peanut gallery is growing by the day. Lighten up Jam Master J, it's just audio...no one attacked you, your gear, or your preference in formats.

On a side note, I just want to be clear that no-one was kicking my gear or formats, because it is the best period, surpasing EVERYONE else's system here.... and I KNOW I'm right, so nanner nanner nanner.

Cheers,
Rooster

madmax

What really matters is "who is right". I think that would be me. Although my multichannel system is modest and my two channel system even more so I think I am the one everyone should follow without question. Two channel for music and multichannel for movies and wow factor demonstrations. I mean, the real determining factor is not how many channels you have anyway, it is how many channels you drive with tubes that really matters.
madmax

F1nut

dangerboy,

A suggestion for your new quote and I quote, "I only want it from the front."