Multi-channel vs. Stereo

madmax

I thought he liked it from the... No, I can't. I just can't finish the statement.

jmasterj

TroyD,

Apology accepted, It's not what you say, but how you say it! Sounded like an attack. Now I confess to being a freak but it's not related to music.

RuSsMaN,

Yours was the best. past tense. Somebody should have told you.

danger boy

F1nut & madmax001,
if you guys only knew for real how i like it.... front/rear, upside down. you name it..
F1nut, i like your suggestion for a new quote. i'll keep in in mind. hee hee hee!

other quotes could be.. time to get your freak on!
It's happy hour somewhere in the world right?

new quote for TroyD, All i want for Christmas is my two front Polks.

i crack myself up some times.

mantis

Again,
thats just what they do...they word things that seem like an attack..and then say it's not.

anyway big guy it's like you want someone to prove you wrong or convince you that multichannel is better then 2 channel......I say they are both good...one being newer.Multichannel could be the way of the future.......who knows...it sells......I feel it's at least recorded cleaner......maybe not so pleasing sometimes as they still do weird things with it.......but who know maybe they'll get it right, make it pleasing for 2 channel and multichannel people so we all can enjoy.

Russ your always ready to add people to the peanut gallery.....I believe your the leader of the group....even if you didn't realize that.................good on yeah man;)

RuSsMaN

Isn't it about time for you to leave the forum again?



Cheers,
Russ

joe logston

the last word is , they are both good

TroyD

thats just what they do...they word things that seem like an attack..and then say it's not.

Uhh, no Dan, that's NOT what I do. If I have something derrogatory to say I normally don't mince words. All I said was ' you multi-channel freaks' as in 'multi-channel enthusiats' not mutants or what have you. Other than that I don't see where anyone could misconstrue any of my words as any type of a personal attack. I do think it's interesting that if Russ and myself say anything of the type you are quick to point it out yet if it's liv4fam you don't seem to notice it.

It was said in another thread that we should have a separate thread on multi-channel / stereo debate so I started on. My comments about multi-channel are not personal in nature. Now, near as I can see, all the arguments for the new format seem to stem around the higher resolution of the material, which I have stipulated as being a good thing. What I haven't heard, is a compelling explanation of how adding more channels gives a better, more accurate presentation of the material. Now, having said that, if you like multi channel, more power to you. I'm just not sold on it yet, that's all.

BDT

STUFFMD

Troy,
My response is simple, yes the band is in front of you.........but then there are these things called walls, pylons and trees and even people,echos,that direct music torward you, behind you and in front of you all around you.........and I don't know many people who have a 30ft+. long stage to play their speakers on. I think the multi channel set up brings you much closer to a bigger sound stage..that is difficult to achieve in a say 10'by 15' room that can't be achieved with only 2 mains in my opinion, unless your mains happen to be several stacks of Marshalls in a theatre.....and yes I don't sit in the middle of a the band, that's why you calibrate your rears and most DSP settings Do Not send anywhere near as much volume to the rear speakers as do the mains......the sound is there for Effect.
My 2 Cents ..StuffMD

danger boy

ok, i've posted my thoughts and best arguments as to why i think multichannel is in my opinion better than stereo. so i have nothing left to say on the topic. And yes i made more of an argument than just saying it sounds better and with higher resolution it is better.
The only thing left to do is for those doubters is to take a listen to a multichannel setup and then decide if you still don't like it. We all have plenty of experience with two channel audio. but few of us have experience with multichannel music.. and i'm not talking a DVD concert or home theater 5.1 here.

Finally, i like to keep my posts lighthearted whenever possible.. yeah i get in an occasional jab here and there to those guys i think need a smackdown once in a while.. and i'll take my lumps along with you all too. I have no problem with that. We all know about the love/hate relationship that Russman and Mantis have going on. I can't take either sides on that.. but of you guys have good things to add to the forum.

so anyway. just keep an open mind when it comes to the world of audio.. if you dont.. you could be missing out on something really good. And with those of us in here who truely love audio in all forms..it would be a shame not to experience what is currently out there.

TroyD

Cool, and for the record, I think you guys make very cogent points about the benefits of multichannel..

Stuff, I agree in theory with what you are saying but here are my thoughts on what you are saying (which is similar to what Dr Bose uses for rationale) but IMO, I view all those reflections and so forth as distortion and something to be minimized or eliminated on the recording. My reasoning is that whatever venue that you use for listening will present it's own reflections etc. so why would you want to, in effect, compound the problem?

The whole soundstage thing, essentially the way I view it is that you are adding a center channel (which, theoretically I think could be a good thing) and rear sounds, can that more accurately recreate the soundstage? I would say that is more dependent on your equipment.

Anyways, I appreciate the thoughts you guys have, I think this is good stuff and makes for good debate.

BDT

shack

As someone who has both formats (SACD and Stereo) and has listened to both quite a bit I will tell you that I still prefer 2 channel for music. I just listened to one of the finest stereo SACD discs I have ever heard. Handel's Messiah from First Impressions Music. This was recorded live in a Swedish church in 1982 and I can't imagine having the voices and instruments coming from anywhere other than the soundstage created by this disc. When I find a multichannel recording that sounds this realistic I might change my mind.

But for now.......Give me movies in multichannel.... Music in 2 channnel....and I like redheads (although I tend to be flexible on this point)!

Oh...and I don't need to hear all this B/S about an old **** just not accepting change. I deal with change every day. I have always been one of the first to try and SOMETIMES embrace new formats. I been around music and electronics for a long time.

I minored in computer science in college in the 70s when Steven Jobs was still tinkering. Learned to write in COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC programming languages and punched cards to write programs. Helped my dad set up a computer system for a retail company for accounting, inventory and POS data and it filled up a 3000 sq ft room. Now I use a handheld PDA for my schedule and information that probably can process more data faster and fit in my coat pocket.


When I bought my first record album at 13 in 1967 it was a MONO Magical Mystery Tour LP by the Beatles. At 16 I had a nice 8 track system for the car. By the time I was 19 and in college I had a pretty nice Hi-Fi set up (vinyl and reel to reel). I bought a Quadraphonic system (hated It). As soon as cassettes came out I bought a recorder and copied everything to tape. I bought a CD player when every one said this was just a fad and it will never replace tape. I had one of the first vcrs , one of the first Laser disc players and one of the first DVD players. I've had multi channel HT since the early 90s. I've had SACD for a while.

So change or lack of acceptance of change as has been stated in a couple of posts has nothing to do with MY preference for 2 channel over multi channel. I have them both.....I listen to both.....but I prefer Stereo!

YOMV!

STUFFMD

Buuutttt Troy,
What I hear you saying and good old Amir saying is that microphones are placed all over the theatre??????? Very few have come up with that on a recording. Microphones are on the main stage very close to the instruments,thats why you don't hear people coughing, lighting lighters, and girls lifting their shirts, like you would on a boot tape, the DSP effects help create the reverb and bring the sound you like I believe you experience in a live show.....Yes you get echos and reverberation and that is what makes every hall and stage have it's own sound and personality...I don't think you get much of that on a recording. It has to be created in the home environment.....
I have yet to have anyone tell me that their Home System sounds Better than a live concert....with all it's distortion and reflections.........What I am getting from you and Dr. Bose is that you don't like live music much?????
Not trying to heat up a discussion...again just my 2 Cents....you are either a 2 channel man or a DSP person..all the talk in the world won't change that, sound is very personnel, that's why there are so many kinds of speakers in the world.The only thing I find in a lot of my experience is that people who don't like DSP don't take time to set up and tweek the settings and their speakers to get the desired effect, or you have 2 main speakers that are just that good and have such an awsome sound stage..(Dahlquist Dq-10's with the right amp come to mind)...but most people can't afford the amps or the esoteric speakers to achieve that. Some people are just afraid of technology.
Me I like to play with the settings and move things around....ask my wife............
Peace StuffMD

mantis

I say this Russ......whatever dude.......wasn't it your turn this time?
Troyd.........ditto.........

this is a good post none the less despite all of our differences and the way we perceive each others way/style of posting.

I said what I wanted to say about 2 channel and multiroom.......it's on you to experience it or disguard it.....I like both,all of the formats currently..I just hope they all co exsist.........It keeps my pockets full.........or empty depending on how you look at it.:p

TroyD

STUFF,

It's not heated at all, amigo. I certainly respect your positions and you make excellent points. As for me, I am a minimalist by nature so that would explain my gravitation to 2ch.

Agreed with the DQ-10's, any time you want a demo, c'mon by.

BDT

TroyD

BTW Dan, if you got something to say, c'mon, out with it. I'm tired of being pegged for **** that I don't do.

Troy

mantis

I got nothing for yeah Troy........you just do what you do.

I'm tired of arguing with you about it........

TroyD

Well, I would say this, I've insulted no one intentionally nor ridiculed thier gear or thier ideas and frankly, I'm tired of being accused of it.

IF you got a point, make it Dan.

Troy

RuSsMaN

Originally posted by TroyD
Well,
If you got a point, make it Dan.

After a year and a half, I'm still waiting for this...

He just got into serperates in the past couple months, just give it more time. Dan has a good heart, he just needs time.

Cheers,
Rooster

mantis

Troy,
I don't know what you want me to say nor do I have a point to make,It's just the way it is around here with us,I learned to live with it, the way it is,i'm not going to battle with you ......you do what you do.........I'm used to it.Why are you so defensive?Relax man chill out.Go fire up the DQ-10's and Carver rig.....

Russ,
What would I need time for?I like seperates for alot of reasons,and I'm glad to get out from under the thumb of the receiver........ok that was alittle twisted sounding but ......that it in a nut shell.Thanks for the compliment Russ.:)

STUFFMD

Hey Troy,
Dad had a pair of DQ-10"s paired up with a complete Mac system, some **** stole the whole thing....bigtime sad day...I can afford the referbished DQ's right now but unfortunately don't have the scratch for the proper amps........might take you up on the Demo...
Peace, StuffMD

danger boy

why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors? I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me.

TroyD

Stuff,

I have mine hooked up to a Carver m1.5t. Maybe not the last word in amplification but I'm not at all dissatisfied with it. If you are ever in Charleston, look me up!

OK, Dan, I got it......I'll do what I do and you can continue with the baseless accusations.

BDT

HBombToo

danger boy, Great question. I'll start an integration thread to see what kind of response we get.

HBomb

shack

why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors?

Copy Protection.

I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me

This is because you are not getting the higher resolution of DVD-A or SACD when you use the digital cable...just regular old redbook CD.

danger boy

you would think that there would be no difference in sound quality between the two. but there is. i guess with multichannel audio.. the player does the decoding and passes the signal to the receiver/amp with the 6 rca connectors so that there is no change in sound quality from the receiver. it's pure and untouched virgin sound straight from the player. ??

phuz

Originally posted by danger boy
why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors? I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that it's because the player has to do the decoding - so it can only output a 6ch analog signal.

When you use the digital out, you are sending the signal to the receiver to handle the decoding. Which unless you have a receiver or other SACD decoder, is going to be a plain old 2ch redbook signal.

Onboard decoding, analog out. Remote decoding, digital out.

Someone please put my foot in my mouth if I'm wrong?

rlw

SACD/DVD-A players will not permit passing the encoded bitstream, purportedly to discourage piracy. Basically, it means that consumers will never be able to make digital copies of their media.

Note that there are a couple of exceptions: Pioneer Elite gear can pass a bitstream from player-receiver, but both pieces have to be Pioneer Elite. Likewise, Accuphase does the same thing.

HBombToo

Yes the 47Ai does this but the receiver handles the bass management. The Pioneer actually takes the six channels and modulates them onto the firewire then the receiver demods and provides the extra bass management feature and speaker out.

I don't desire a total upgrade so the question becomes how do we take care of bass management of a SACD/DVD-A player that does not include this feature.

HBomb

hoosier21

Outlaw has a 200.00 or so bass management unit. It goes between the Player and Receiver. It does the bass management in analog

HBombToo

I have been considering purchasing that unit along with the 47Ai. It seems pretty good and I'm real happy with my Oulaw 770 Amp. Lotta horsepower in that amp.