Hey all, I am in a bit of a quandry these days as I find that some music sound really good in just stereo sound and get messy in 5.1. I decided to use the rest of my speakers only when I watch movies and not so much when I listen to music (except for when I feel like fooling around). The main purpose of this thread (my apologies if it is in the wrong place) is to hear the opinions on this. Especially if you have and AVR and rather listen in stereo or rather the 5.1. Thanks

Folks talk about OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) in the video world, and most wouldn't think about watching a movie in "pan & scan" or any way other than what the director intended.

On the music side...people seem to have no problem with turning on all these crazy surround effects with two-channel music. I believe that music should be listened to in the manner that the producer intended.

My opinion is if it's a two-channel recording...listen in two-channel. If it's a 5.1 surround recording...listen in 5.1 surround.

I watch movies and concert videos in surround (4.1, to be exact. Phantom center sounds best to me.)
For music, I listen exclusively in 2.0 (mostly on a separate stereo system, but sometimes on my HT mains.) I have listened to a few surround music mixes (Talking Heads, Bjork, Blue Man) and have been unimpressed by the experience.

My opinion is if it's a two-channel recording...listen in two-channel. If it's a 5.1 surround recording...listen in 5.1 surround.Print that in full caps!! :)

Kal

2.0 for me, usually on a dedicated system.

Hell, regular TV is in 2.0.

5.1 for movies only. I'm over the hype.

(5.0, actually.)

My opinion is if it's a two-channel recording...listen in two-channel. If it's a 5.1 surround recording...listen in 5.1 surround.And if a video source is a 480i recording...view it as 480i. Do not deinterlace the signal.

Sanjay

And if a video source is a 480i recording...view it as 480i. Do not deinterlace the signal.

Sanjay

Excellent retort!

I listen to both, depending on the source as others have said. Two channel is for my "serious" listening (CDs) but music videos I usually watch/listen in surround, either 5.1 or 2.0 (DPLII or Logic 7) depending on the encoding. I think the better your system is for 2 channel music the more likely you are to appreciate the psychoacoustic allure of that format. Unless you are all into hip-hop and hard rock, in which case there is no hope for you (LOL). :p

Most of my listening is multi-channel either Logic 7 or PL 2x processing of both 2 channel and 5.1 channel music/movies. I occasionally listen to 2 channel stereo but I find that the center channel adds stability to the image and at least some level of surround adds depth. At least for me for almost all recordings, it does not add any messiness.

And if a video source is a 480i recording...view it as 480i. Do not deinterlace the signal. SanjayCute but I would have put a smiley on it.

I do not think that this is an analogous process. AFAIK (and I am not a video expert), all this involves is simply re-ordering the data for the alternating lines, so that the display appears smoother. This is, to me, analogous to the conversion of the serial digital audio data on the CD to parallel stereo outputs via sample-and-hold circuitry in the DAC.

Converting 2 channel signals to more channels involves assumptions about its frequency/phase content and these assumptions are inherent (and somewhat different) in each of the possible processes for doing it. That's why there are adherents of each of the possible processes and why many offer the user hand's-on access to some of the variables.

Now, I am not opposed to doing surround processors (I rather like TriField more than the others) but prefer to see if they really enhance the experience or merely contort it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. YMMV, of course.

Kal

My opinion is if it's a two-channel recording...listen in two-channel. If it's a 5.1 surround recording...listen in 5.1 surround.


I agree. However, Jimi's Electricladyland heard with DPLII is...an experience not to be missed!

Anthony

I have listened to a few surround music mixes (Talking Heads, Bjork, Blue Man) and have been unimpressed by the experience.
I can certainly see why you'd be unimpressed by Bjork, but it probably doesn't have anything to do with the 5.1 mix...:p

The UK versions of the TalkingHeads catalog in true DVD-A (not that blasphemous DualDisc mongrel format) are awesome. So are Beck's 2 latest discs, The Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" and "The Soft Bulletin," and I'm sure that when they release "At War With the Mystics" this fall, it will also be fantastic. Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" should not be missed, nor Floyd's "DSOTM." Now to just get some old Genesis and Radiohead and...:)

J.

I've tried it many different ways, but 2.1 seems to work the best for me. I like the extra kick of the dual subs on music.

OTOH, I have a fairly good collection of DVD-A and SACD, so well recorded true multi-channel sound is a whole different experience.

I will say, however, that Dolby Pro Logic IIx can produce some amazingly convincing effects from time to time.

Kal, Cute but I would have put a smiley on it.While I don't loathe those things, I am perhaps a little too old fashioned about getting my point across using words alone. I do not think that this is an analogous process.The analogy here is that we're not discussing artistic intent but the limitations of technology. No singer sets out with the intention of wanting their voice reproduced specifically as a dual-mono, phantom-imaged, comb-filtering source. They use 2 delivery channels because that is what the popular delivery media of the time is limited to. Likewise, interlaced 480 or 1080 video is not some ideal that content makers strive for but a limitation of popular delivery and display technology. That doesn't mean we can't try to overcome these limitations during playback. Converting 2 channel signals to more channels involves assumptions about its frequency/phase content and these assumptions are inherent (and somewhat different) in each of the possible processes for doing it.Converting interlaced video based material to progressive video similarly involves some assumptions. Since odd and even interlaced fields are temporally separated, fast moving objects can appear at two locations in the de-interlaced frame. Good deinterlacers look at the two locations and place the object where it would have been, had the capture been progressive instead of interlace. This isn't very different than placing correlated mono sounds where they would have phantom imaged in the front soundstage anyway. Since no process is perfect for all sources, user controls are provided for fine adjustment of some variables. I am not opposed to doing surround processors (I rather like TriField more than the others) but prefer to see if they really enhance the experience or merely contort it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.No argument there. Just because processing attempts to place sounds where they would have phantom imaged, doesn't mean they all work well. Heck, some de-interlacers even do a bad job with film-based sources (which originated as progressive images). So it helps to first find out whether the processing is helping or hurting the experience, though some of that will come down to personal tastes and priorities. But poor implementation doesn't invalidate the concept of overcoming limitations rather than being a slave to the delivery media.

Sanjay

Sorry, Sanjay, I still don't buy the analogy. Putting phantom-imaged sounds into the front soundstage is one thing but placing them into 5.1 is quite another. Musical intent is not the issue, imho, since we are dealing with what the mixing and mastering stuffed into 2 channels without a clue as to how. It's the same problem I have with the technicall impressive Penteo process: the result may (or may not) be pleasing but it has no basis in reality.

Disclaimer: I prefer to mostly listen to real acoustic events, not mixed and dubbed music, so my concept of reality may not be relevant to many others.

Kal

I stick to 2-channel for music, separate system.

My take is, surround sound is great for movies, but music is generally performed on stage, in front of you (if you have good seats:-)

Surround speakers may add to the realism, if they emit intermittent coughing or the occasional whisper:-) But a guitar solo from the rear back?! Well, maybe for karaoke....

I actually think that the effect that I got from my old Audio Pulse Model 2 Digital Delay was more convincing than any of the surrounds I have heard from any of the receivers I have had since I retired it. No oddball movement of sounds, just depth added. I kind of miss it, and if I could figure a convenient way of putting it back in, I would.

Isn't it telling that the majority of the responses tout listening to music in 2ch unless the recording is originally 5.1, yet EVERY receiver comes with a plethora of 'enhanced modes' such as PL11x etc. I guess people like 'em or they wouldn't be there, but I wish the money went to better parts etc. Yes, my bias is towards 2 channel unless the original material is multichannel. However, I DO upconvert 480i as my DVD player can do it WITHOUT making the picture seem weird.

I used to be a dedicated 2 channel fan. On old recordings I mostly still am. However Logic 7 5.1 is simply amazing on some modern recordings. Granted not all. But on some, my guess those that are mastered cleanly, it does a WONDERFUL job of expanding the soundstage out. It doesnt put anything behind you. It seems to just widen the stage WAY out and do a partial wrap in the front.

I've tried the Dolby IIx music setting and its completely different. Its muddy, and seems thin and gimicky. The logic 7 version though.. I think I'm hooked.

I listen to regular CD's in 2.1. I purchaced a pair of big front speakers just for that purpose. I have some DVD-A stuff that I listen to in 5.1. Concert DVD's that are mixed in 5.1 I'll use 5.1. Movies and TV I use DPLIIx or 5,7.1 to watch.

If I am using the CD for background music at a party I'll use 7 channel stereo, DTS:Neo6 music or DPLIIx music to fill the room a bit better.

i'm with the purists. every multi-channel processing format i've heard applied to 2-channel music sounds, well, stupid. it just does. even the new ones.

once the initial nifty-factor subsides, you just want to know where the freakin' marimba player is supposed to be.

but personally, given my space and budget restrictions, i'm ditching multi-channel entirely. i find quality 2-channel far far more satisfying than compromised surround.

Until a standard is defined in the mixing and sound engineering world, it's all subjective. The best thing to do is chose whichever sounds the closest to reference sound (my reference is live orchestral music. Then again, I also listen to rock, so that reference may not be accurate for that genre). If you have a reference point it will make your decision that much easier.

I prefer 2 ch to be played as 2 ch. I might even go with 2.1 with more listening time. My experience with 5.1 was a little suprising. I go to a lot of concerts so I have a pretty good idea what my favorite groups sound like. I am into rock music so this is my viewpoint. I have seen the Dave Matthews Band many times so I'll use that as my reference. I had the pleasure of going to all four nights at Red Rocks last year and I have the DVD they made of those nights. When I play the DVD in 5.1 it just sounds weird. That was not the sound of the show I attended. The band was in front of me not all around the sides and rear. It is not the correct sound stage and my brain doesn't assemble it correctly. My .02 cents.

I kinda miss the reverb unit I had in my 69' Barracuda! Now that was depth ;)

Kal, Putting phantom-imaged sounds into the front soundstage is one thing but placing them into 5.1 is quite another.Just as sending phantom imaged centre info to the centre speaker is not arbitrary, neither is the information sent to the surround speakers.

One of the early Stereophile magazine test CDs has a phase test that switches between correlated (in-phase) and decorrelated (out of phase) bass guitar. The in-phase signal images dead centre of the soundstage. The out of phase track doesn't image in the front soundstage, appearing more like it's indistinctly around you.

This decorrelated info is what is sent to the surround channels; nothing else. It's not like some random guitar sounds that would normally image up front are re-routed to speakers behind you for no apparent reason. Musical intent is not the issue, imho, since we are dealing with what the mixing and mastering stuffed into 2 channels without a clue as to how.Sure we have a clue. In fact, the recording is loaded with clues, which the surround processing relies upon for steering instructions.

A trumpet that is panned left of centre will still image there whether the soundstage is made up of 2 or 3 or 5 speakers. Sounds that normally image outside the front L/R speakers will be steered more towards the surrounds to maintain and stabilize that imaging. It's the same problem I have with the technicall impressive Penteo process: the result may (or may not) be pleasing but it has no basis in reality.I agree as far as moving front soundstage content to the surrounds. But the 2-channel to 3-channel Penteo process is different and maintains front soundstage imaging to a fault. It has no choice since it is the 2-channel mix that dictates what will end up in the left, centre and right speakers.

Finally, please understand that I'm not trying to convince you to use surround processing. I consider personal preferences to be exactly that: personal. However, I do hope you understand that what surround processing is attempting to do is not arbitrary. The only thing sent to the centre speaker is information that would have imaged there anyway. The only thing sent to the surrounds is stuff that would have imaged outside the front soundstage to begin with. Those clues are in the 2-channel recording, so there's no need to steer sounds randomly when it can be consistent with the 2-channel mix. To that end, it is analogous to how a bitmap image or video scaling works.

Sanjay

*snip*... The only thing sent to the centre speaker is information that would have imaged there anyway. The only thing sent to the surrounds is stuff that would have imaged outside the front soundstage to begin with. Those clues are in the 2-channel recording, so there's no need to steer sounds randomly when it can be consistent with the 2-channel mix. To that end, it is analogous to how a bitmap image or video scaling works.

but this processing is completely reliant on exactly matching drivers aligned in the same way. otherwise it complicates and confuses the soundstage, and the sound of the instruments will differ between speakers... which is a disaster for good sound reproduction.

and the fact is that all but the most painstakingly designed surround setups will not have identical LCRs. even center speakers designed to match rarely do.

For sit down listening in the sweet spot, stereo for a stereo recording.. well 2.1 if needed. else i'm moving about doing stuff/background music, then it's logic7.

this processing is completely reliant on exactly matching drivers aligned in the same way. otherwise it complicates and confuses the soundstage, and the sound of the instruments will differ between speakers... which is a disaster for good sound reproduction.I can similarly use mismatched L/R speakers to mess up the front soundstage when listening with only two speakers. If you're trying to ruin playback, there are plenty of ways to do it, irrespective of the number of speakers. and the fact is that all but the most painstakingly designed surround setups will not have identical LCRs. even center speakers designed to match rarely do.Then those people may not like the results. But how does that change things for folks that do have identical L/C/R speakers? The fact that someone implements technology poorly doesn't somehow invalidate that technology.

Sanjay

In my little experience thus far I find that the processing can sound good at times but like was said earlier the perception doesn't seem right, especially for concert DVDs. I have Carver MXR130 in the shop right now and I am seriously thinking about abandoning my main system for music. Besides when the kid gets older and wants to watch TV we won't have to battle it out. 2 birds, 1 stone.

It seems some of this discussion is about different things: 2-channel (stereo), processed surround (DPLII, Logic7), and a true 5.1 mix.

For just about every SACD or DVD-A I own that has a 5.1 mix (of what was originally a 2-channel recording), I prefer the 5.1 mix. I disagree with the "music is heard from a stage in front of you" argument somewhat - the only reason you listen in that setting is because the artist does not allow you on the stage to be surrounded by them - or because all we had until recently was stereo. And for studio recordings, why would the soundstage need to be in front of you? I always imagine the artists in a circle facing each other (I know that's rarely how it happens in the studio, but that's how I imagine it while listening). Take for example the Grateful Dead 5.1 mixes - Mickey hart puts you right in the center of the band as it was being recorded. I also prefer the 5.1 mix for many live performances like the Allman Bros Filmore East on SACD.

Processed surround is different. However, I think it does a pretty good job on some recordings, but is should not be confused with a 5.1 mix on a DVD, DVD-A, or an SACD.

Anthony

I can similarly use mismatched L/R speakers to mess up the front soundstage when listening with only two speakers. If you're trying to ruin playback, there are plenty of ways to do it, irrespective of the number of speakers. Then those people may not like the results.

But how does that change things for folks that do have identical L/C/R speakers? The fact that someone implements technology poorly doesn't somehow invalidate that technology.

Sanjay

sure, it can be done... but the vast majority of surround systems aren't set up for it. really, only those that are arrayed with SACD and DVD-A in mind are going to be suited to deal with surround processing of 2-channel material.

but even then, the processing is going to sound, well... processed. i've heard ultra-high-end systems designed for multi-channel material, which of course sounds great. and the 2-channel material sounds great as well... when played with the front mains. but when it was processed, to me it didn't sound nearly as good.

the dynamics, soundstage and imaging were all compromised. the only thing going for it was the short-lived nifty-factor, and that was pretty much a given, considering the sheer exorbitance of having epiphany 12-12's as rear surrounds.

Processed surround is different. However, I think it does a pretty good job on some recordings, but is should not be confused with a 5.1 mix on a DVD, DVD-A, or an SACD.

absolutely. a lot of multi-channel material sounds stunningly good. although with a limited budget it sounds better downmixed on a good 2-channel system than a mediocre surround setup.

processing just doesn't do it for me. "party mode" can be fun with a big group of folks, but for serious listening it just doesn't bring home the bacon.

the vast majority of surround systems aren't set up for itAgain, how does that change things for surrounds systems that are set up for it? only those that are arrayed with SACD and DVD-A in mind are going to be suited to deal with surround processing of 2-channel materialNot necessarily. It's a matter of which advantages are more important to the individual listener. If someone has a timbe matched (though not identical) centre speaker, it may not sound as consistent across the front soundstage as 2-speaker playback. However, it does avoid a dual-mono, phantom-imaged, comb-filtering centre image. Depending on the individual listener, those advantages could outweigh differences between the speakers. It's not as cut-n-dry as you're suggesting. but even then, the processing is going to sound, well... processed.To you. But for me the opposite is true. Hearing music between two arbitrary points in front of me sounds so unnatural and so unlike any reality I've experienced that I find it distracting. I can listen to music that way for clinical reasons, but not for personal enjoyment. I mean, I don't hear anything else in the world that way, including live music.

With surround processing, the central image doesn't move or drift if I lean over (just like in real life), vocals are point source instead of dual-mono (just like in real life), recorded ambience comes from around me instead of up front (just like in ...well, you get the idea).

Sanjay

I can similarly use mismatched L/R speakers to mess up the front soundstage when listening with only two speakers.

Sanjay

I think the odds are at least slightly higher that someone will have "mismatched" surounds (from the LCR) over the L/R mains themselves being mismatched. :rolleyes:

Again, how does that change things for surrounds systems that are set up for it?

no one i know who has a legitimate multi-channel music setup listens to processed surround. i'm sure there are those who do, but not in my experience.

Not necessarily. It's a matter of which advantages are more important to the individual listener. If someone has a timbe matched (though not identical) centre speaker, it may not sound as consistent across the front soundstage as 2-speaker playback. However, it does avoid a dual-mono, phantom-imaged, comb-filtering centre image.

it's not just timbre matching, it's volume and height matching as well. so it not only is the processing, but an entire set of variables, that are introduced to complicate the sound reproduction.

Depending on the individual listener, those advantages could outweigh differences between the speakers. It's not as cut-n-dry as you're suggesting.

cut and dry is exactly what i'm not suggesting. the variables create confusion and complexity that don't need to be there.

To you. But for me the opposite is true.

well of course. everything i say is IMHO. isn't that why we're having this discussion? ;)

Hearing music between two arbitrary points in front of me sounds so unnatural and so unlike any reality I've experienced that I find it distracting. I can listen to music that way for clinical reasons, but not for personal enjoyment. I mean, I don't hear anything else in the world that way, including live music.

if you are hearing 2-channel music that way, then it is improperly set up. but there are remedies for it that are far far simpler and more effective than surround processing.

With surround processing, the central image doesn't move or drift if I lean over (just like in real life), vocals are point source instead of dual-mono (just like in real life), recorded ambience comes from around me instead of up front (just like in ...well, you get the idea).

you use processing so the image doesn't drift when you lean over? to me, that's sort of like killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

and again, if you hear vocals as two distinct signals from the point of your speaker locations, then they're just not set up properly. adding speakers and processing is far more complicated than tweaking the two mains to cast a better soundstage.

but like you say, diff'rent strokes...

Hearing music between two arbitrary points in front of me sounds so unnatural and so unlike any reality I've experienced that I find it distracting. I can listen to music that way for clinical reasons, but not for personal enjoyment. I mean, I don't hear anything else in the world that way, including live music.

With surround processing, the central image doesn't move or drift if I lean over (just like in real life), vocals are point source instead of dual-mono (just like in real life), recorded ambience comes from around me instead of up front (just like in ...well, you get the idea).

Sanjay



Well, the vast majority of "studio recordings" have been mixed with 2 channel playback in mind. Surround processing screws up the basic front sound stage of music mixed with 2 channel equipment. Sort of a mono front center sound with screwed up mains added in.

"Live" music recordings are not recorded in the same manner as a "studio recording", so perhaps they are a bit different. However, the only "live" recordings that I have listened to were encoded in PL-2. PL-2 encoded music does sound pretty good when decoded with PL-2.

As far as "ambiance" is concerned, I prefer the natural ambiance of my room over the fake ambiance of surround processing.

The above is limited to music listening.



For movies and television, PL-2 locks dialog into the center of front of the room. That does indeed provide the listener with a natural sound field.

no one i know who has a legitimate multi-channel music setup listens to processed surround.I only know one person that still listens to 2-channel music using only 2 speakers. Most people I know switched to surround literally years ago. it's not just timbre matching, it's volume and height matching as well. so it not only is the processing, but an entire set of variables, that are introduced to complicate the sound reproduction.If you're hearing all those problems, your set-up isn't configured properly. cut and dry is exactly what i'm not suggesting. the variables create confusion and complexity that don't need to be there.I've had the opposite results on practically every surround system I've heard: less confusion, greater imaging stability, clearer voices. if you are hearing 2-channel music that way, then it is improperly set up. but there are remedies for it that are far far simpler and more effective than surround processing.OK, I'll bite. With 2-speaker playback, how do I get a centre image that doesn't move if I do? How do I get recorded ambience to be heard initially from around me rather than originating in front of me? you use processing so the image doesn't drift when you lean over? to me, that's sort of like killing a fly with a sledgehammer.I'm no longer locked into a sweet spot. When listening for 2 or 3 hours, I'll sometimes stretch out on my couch and relax. It's not like the central imaging is going to move just because I do.

I've been listening to music using a 3-speaker front soundstage for over 15 years. At this point I take the improved imaging stability for granted and, over that much time, my listening habits have slowly changed compared to my 2-speaker days. No sledgehammer, simply less reliance on phantom imaging. if you hear vocals as two distinct signals from the point of your speaker locations, then they're just not set up properly.I hear vocals as a phantom centre image when listening with 2 speakers. The problem is that I don't hear anyone's voice in real life as a phantom image. The human voice is a single, hard, point-source. Why would I reproduce it using two speakers when I never hear it that way in real life?

And the difference does come down to how we hear sounds. If a person were to stand in front of you and sing, her voice would go directly to both your ears. This is easily mimicked using a single speaker. Compare that to reproducing the same voice using two speakers, where each speaker is first heard in the nearby ear and then again a moment later when the sound wraps around your head to the opposite ear. Yes, you hear that mono voice 4 times. Never happens like that in real life. adding speakers and processing is far more complicated than tweaking the two mains to cast a better soundstage.Two speakers, with their greater reliance on phantom imaging, cannot deliver what three speakers can. At some point tweaking starts to approach a limit of what can be done. After that, the only way to gain significant benefits is by adding more speakers.

Sanjay

And the difference does come down to how we hear sounds. If a person were to stand in front of you and sing, her voice would go directly to both your ears. This is easily mimicked using a single speaker. Compare that to reproducing the same voice using two speakers, where each speaker is first heard in the nearby ear and then again a moment later when the sound wraps around your head to the opposite ear. Yes, you hear that mono voice 4 times. Never happens like that in real life. Two speakers, with their greater reliance on phantom imaging, cannot deliver what three speakers can. At some point tweaking starts to approach a limit of what can be done. After that, the only way to gain significant benefits is by adding more speakers.

i fully agree with you that multiple speakers potentially create a more life-like and accurate listening experience... when the recording is created for multiple speakers.

when the recording is created for 2-channels, processing (again, to my ears) does not accomplish this.

while dead center focus, such as vocals or soloists, can improve with a third channel, the remainder of the imaging is muddied.

Kal, Just as sending phantom imaged centre info to the centre speaker is not arbitrary, neither is the information sent to the surround speakers.
snip
This decorrelated info is what is sent to the surround channels; nothing else. It's not like some random guitar sounds that would normally image up front are re-routed to speakers behind you for no apparent reason. Sure we have a clue. In fact, the recording is loaded with clues, which the surround processing relies upon for steering instructions. It really depends on how the stereo recording was made. There are many inclusions in a 2 channel recording which will be routed to the surrounds only because the phasing so dictates although that was not the reason it was so included. It is exactly why SOME recordings sound absolutely phase-y in stereo and why SOME recordings sound absolutely weird when subjected to surround processing.

Again, I am not opposed to surround processing but I find it rather fiddle-y and inconsistent. Sometimes, it's great.

Kal

I only know one person that still listens to 2-channel music using only 2 speakers. Most people I know switched to surround literally years ago.

Man, is this the karaoke club crowd:-)

Really, I'd say a lot of people here maintain two systems, one for home theater (movies,) which does surround, and one for those times when you just want to sit and listen to music, which for most that take it seriously, I would guess, is still stereo.

You could make some sort of an argument for a center channel, but to my ears even that sounds a bit weird compared to just stereo.

As far as your surround ambience argument, unless you are in a very quiet open space, the recorded ambience will interact in weird ways with the walls of your own room.


P.S. At least in the last 30 years, if musicians thought it was better and really wanted to, they could surround you with sound at live concerts:

All they had to do is hook up their electric guitars to speakers at the back or to the side of the audience, and deliver some truly "head-turning" (pun intended) experience.

Hell, the band could even split up and play on platforms in the four corners of the venue, if they want to make it more realistic:-)

There are many inclusions in a 2 channel recording which will be routed to the surrounds only because the phasing so dictates although that was not the reason it was so included.That same phasing also dictates how those sounds will be heard with 2-speaker playback; i.e., imaging outside the front soundstage. So what the surround processing is doing is not inconsistent with how those sounds would be perceived anyway.

The specific reason those sounds were included as decorrelated is neither here nor there. What's unmovable is that they are that way on the recording, making their imaging distinctly different from in-phase sounds; whether listening with 2 speakers or more.

Again, whether you like the results or not remains a personal choice. My point is that the processing does respect the original 2-channel recording, certainly when it comes to how the recording's phase and amplitude are perceived by our ears.

Sanjay

Man, is this the karaoke club crowd:-)More like the music-first crowd. As far as your surround ambience argument, unless you are in a very quiet open space, the recorded ambience will interact in weird ways with the walls of your own room.And other sounds somehow won't interact similarly with the walls of your own room?

Assuming well treated rooms. When listening in surround, the recorded ambience will be sent to the surround speakers and heard originating at your sides and behind you. With 2-speaker playback, those same sounds are initially heard in front of you and then as reflections off the room walls.

The former gets you closer to the spatial cues of the recorded venue while the latter gives you acoustic clues about your room. Instead of it sounding like the musicians are in my room, I'd rather it sound like I'm where the musicians were. Difficult to do that with 2-speaker playback, which uses the room for a surround processor (and not a very good one at that).

Sanjay

Again, whether you like the results or not remains a personal choice. My point is that the processing does respect the original 2-channel recording, certainly when it comes to how the recording's phase and amplitude are perceived by our ears.
SanjayExactly. The problem is that the the original 2-channel recording is just that and the extractions are as unpredictable as what went into it. The exceptions would seem to be recordings made with only 2 microphones and delivered as those two discrete channels. Rare these days.

Kal

I see myself as somewhat of a purist; however, since I got my Pioneer Elite VSX-54TX 2 years ago, I have been listening to cd's in Dolby Pro-Logic IIx. Once in a while, I will go back to stereo, and I find it lacking something. I don't really care that much about what the recording engineer intended; I just find the experience more enveloping; I feel like I am there, it feels right. And I have an extensive collection of DVD-A and SACD discs.

Sanjay,

What kind of processor/ receiver are you using? On my Marantz SR8400, 'upconverted' to multi-channel music sounds pretty bad. My front speakers are perfectly matched,

I think he uses an MC12B. With that kinda rig I guess it becomes easier to enjoy MCH.

Ajay (same name as my brother),

What dollarman said: I use a Lexicon MC-12 (non-balanced, but with room correction).

For listening to music in surround I use their LOGIC7 processing pretty much exclusively. However, I've been able to adjust PLIIx to sound pretty good also; just my personal tastes veer more towards L7.

What surround processing were you using on your Marantz? What didn't you like about it?

Sanjay

...I just find the experience more enveloping; I feel like I am there, it feels right.

hear! hear! (pun intended)

Ajay (same name as my brother),

What dollarman said: I use a Lexicon MC-12 (non-balanced, but with room correction).

For listening to music in surround I use their LOGIC7 processing pretty much exclusively. However, I've been able to adjust PLIIx to sound pretty good also; just my personal tastes veer more towards L7.

What surround processing were you using on your Marantz? What didn't you like about it?

Sanjay

Umm Sanjay (same name as MY brother AND I have another brother named Vijay...sounds like a Bollywood movie, huh?).

I bet the Lexicon does surround great! I've used PL2x and Circle Surround 2 and actually find the tonality changing immensely. I find, at least in my Marantz, music sounds best in Source Direct bypassing all bass management and processing. The processsing circuitry in the Lexicon you have is FAR superior and probably does all its processing wizardry without adding any coloration. I'd probably like multic-channel music if I listened to it on your set-up!

Umm Sanjay (same name as MY brother AND I have another brother named Vijay...sounds like a Bollywood movie, huh?).More like typical Indian mothers; they think rhyming names sound cute. I've used PL2x and Circle Surround 2 and actually find the tonality changing immensely.It would be pointless to use surround processing if it didn't sound different enough from Source Direct. Whether you like that change or not comes down to personal preference and your frame of reference.

I'll use the example of voices again because it's convenient. If you're used to vocals as dual-mono phantom-images, then you may have trouble getting used to hearing them as true point sources. Same with surrounds. If you're used to hearing recorded ambience always come from in front of you, then you may be uncomfortable hearing it originate from around you.

If your frame of reference has always been 2-speaker playback, you may have to unlearn some of your listening biases. Or maybe just decide that listening in surround is not for you. I find, at least in my Marantz, music sounds best in Source Direct bypassing all bass management and processing.As an experiment, try minimizing the processing and see how you feel about it. Go into the PLII Music mode: set Panorama to OFF, Centre Width to its Maximum setting (no centre extraction), and Dimension to its forward-most setting (minimal surround extraction). This should get you closer to 2-speaker playback, with minimal surround envelopment.

Sanjay

The problem is that the the original 2-channel recording is just that and the extractions are as unpredictable as what went into it.I guess I don't see the unpredictability. I'll go back to the Stereophile test CD example.

I've played it over 2-speakers. When I listen to the in-phase track, I hear the bass guitar in the centre of the front soundstage. When I listen to the out-of-phase track, the bass guitar images outside the front soundstage.

Then I tried it using surround processing, with predictable results. The in-phase track imaged in the centre of the front soundstage and the out-of-phase track imaged all around me.

Sanjay

Personally, I'm with the surround people. I prefer it for music AND movies. 2 channel stereo sounds great but it's all in front of you. Hold on...because here comes some crazy stuff...

My justification of the superiority of surround has nothing to do with the processors or the speaker placement or any of the theory involving acoustics, etc. Well sorta the last one but you'll see what I mean...

My ears are on the sides of my head...one on each. I know it's hard to believe...but bear with me. :rolleyes: My eyes, on the other hand, are both on the front of my head. :eek: Crazy, I know. So the best way for me to SEE something is if it's directly in front of me. If it's behind me, I'm out of luck. Vision is, by definition, 100% directional...so it makes sense to me that that's why most audio up to this point has been 2 channel stereo. You go to a concert (i.e. a LIVE music source...which was how people enjoyed music to start out). You go to said concert to hear music, of course, AND to see the artist performing the music. So you MUST face them...which puts all of the sound in front of you. No matter where you are (concert hall, open air auditorium, hay field, etc.), the sound your ears receive is NOT all coming from in front of you. There are echoes, there are reflections, there are all kinds of ways that sound is being received by your receptors...which are on the SIDES of your head. Why are our ears on the sides of our heads vs. on the front? Who knows? I would bet that hearing is more important in a survival sense and having one on each side of the head allows for more spatial sound detection. (hint, hint) Either way, having sound all coming from in front of you seems counterintuitive if the possibility is there that it could be coming from all around you...as it does naturally in everyday life. On my DVD-A of Hotel California, the producer says that he designed his surround mix with "putting the listener in the middle of the band" in mind. I think that's what all the surround processing of 2-channel music is attempting to do. Some do it better than others...and every person has their own idea of what it should sound like.

Is surround sound "better" in a pure audiophilic sense? Depends on who you ask. Does it make it more realistic? Depends on who you ask. My opinion on each is a resounding yes. When you come down to it, I think we're at the mercy of the processing we choose and the mixing of whatever it is we're listening to. Some mixes are good and some are not. Some processors work well and some don't.

So that's my take on it. No matter how you do it, happy listening to all. :)

I guess I don't see the unpredictability. I'll go back to the Stereophile test CD example.

I've played it over 2-speakers. When I listen to the in-phase track, I hear the bass guitar in the centre of the front soundstage. When I listen to the out-of-phase track, the bass guitar images outside the front soundstage.

Then I tried it using surround processing, with predictable results. The in-phase track imaged in the centre of the front soundstage and the out-of-phase track imaged all around me. OK. How can one even assess the unpredictability with one sample? I am not twisting your arm to try out hundreds of CDs in order to provide statistical results but you did choose an 'audiophile' disc which is likely to contain minimally-miked and minimally-tweaked recordings. Those are predictable. It's the ones with the melange of mikes, redubs and remixes that are unpredictable. Of course, those usually sound pretty rotten in 2 channel. :D

Kal

I am not twisting your arm to try out hundreds of CDs in order to provide statistical results but you did choose an 'audiophile' disc which is likely to contain minimally-miked and minimally-tweaked recordings.I should have clarified. I was actually talking about only two tracks on that CD: the in-phase and out-of-phase tests. They are an easy way to demonstrate the predictability of surround processing (described in my previous post) compared to 2-speaker playback.

As for trying out hundreds of CDs, no need to twist my arm since I've already tried out thousands. For the last 15 years, my system has been used primarily for listening to music in surround, 99% of which is 2-channel material.

When listening with 2 speakers, correlated sounds end up in the middle of the front soundstage and de-correlated sounds image outside the front soundstage. This doesn't change when I turn on the surround processing; i.e., I don't hear things in the centre speaker or surrounds that weren't already imaging in those directions with 2-speaker playback.

Others have told me about the unpredictability of surround processing, so you're not the first to mention it. The problem (if you can call it that) is I simply don't hear it; maybe it's because of all my years listening to 2-channel music in surround.

Kal, when you listen with 2 speakers, can't you already tell which sounds are going to end up in the centre speaker even before you turn Trifield on?

Sanjay

I'll use the example of voices again because it's convenient. If you're used to vocals as dual-mono phantom-images, then you may have trouble getting used to hearing them as true point sources. Same with surrounds. If you're used to hearing recorded ambience always come from in front of you, then you may be uncomfortable hearing it originate from around you.

If your frame of reference has always been 2-speaker playback, you may have to unlearn some of your listening biases. Or maybe just decide that listening in surround is not for you. As an experiment, try minimizing the processing and see how you feel about it. Go into the PLII Music mode: set Panorama to OFF, Centre Width to its Maximum setting (no centre extraction), and Dimension to its forward-most setting (minimal surround extraction). This should get you closer to 2-speaker playback, with minimal surround envelopment.

Sanjay


Your biased point of view seems to be based on the assumption that the room is "treated", and assumes that the user uses a $14,000 audio processor.


I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people have untreated rooms. Perhaps the real ambiance of the actual listening room just sounds better than the fake ambiance produced by extracted fake ambiance obtained from 2 channel music.


While your observation of how solid the voices sound via the center channel via PL-2 (or equal), there is more to it than that simplistic point of view. Unless the particular Cd in question was encoded with surround sound in mind, then the end results are unpredictable.


Since your frame of reference is fake surround sound playback via a very expensive processor in a highly treated room, you may have to unlearn some of your listening biases for those that have a different listening environment and standard equipment.

Others have told me about the unpredictability of surround processing, so you're not the first to mention it. The problem (if you can call it that) is I simply don't hear it; maybe it's because of all my years listening to 2-channel music in surround.



Sanjay



Maybe you don't hear it because you use a $14,000 processor, use Logic 7, and have a highly treated dedicated listening room!

Kal, when you listen with 2 speakers, can't you already tell which sounds are going to end up in the centre speaker even before you turn Trifield on? Yup. That's not what is the nubbin. What bothers me is the sporadic and annoying pop-ups in the rear channels which are inappropriate and out of context. How frequently they occur depends on the process(or) but, mostly, on the source.

Let me say that this is a bigger discussion than it is an issue. For most classical recordings, Trifield works beautifully and DPLII only somewhat less so. (I tend to be more restricted in my non-classical listening and analysis.) However, with a remote control, I can easily choose the presentation that works, so I am not as dogmatic about it as I may have sounded.........as long as I preserve that option.

Kal

What bothers me is the sporadic and annoying pop-ups in the rear channels which are inappropriate and out of context.Understood. I tend to hear those sounds outside the front soundstage anyway, so it doesn't bother me when I turn on surround processing and continue to hear those sounds outside the front soundstage.

It would be quite another thing if something imaged solidly in front of me when listening with 2 speakers but suddenly appeared behind my left shoulder when listening in surround. But I've rarely, if ever, run into that.

While I can tell the difference that surround processing makes (would be pointless to use it if I couldn't), I guess what's missing for me is the element of surprise. Again, it may just be a decade and a half of hearing how 2-channel material decodes to surround. However, with a remote control, I can easily choose the presentation that works, so I am not as dogmatic about it as I may have sounded.........as long as I preserve that option.That's one option (the ability to turn off the processing) that will always be available in good surround processors. The other thing that's useful is the adjustability built into modern matrix decoders. For example: PLII allows user control of the processing itself, letting you choose exactly how much centre and surround content is extracted, so you can custom tailor the results for your particular tastes and/or the source material. That goes a long way to making the presentation as subtle or exciting as you desire.

Sanjay

I love all the Yamaha DSP moded ... many others think they're a waste of time, typically people that have never heard them. But if I'm just wanting to rock out to something I'll use a DSP mode, my favorites right now are "The Bottom Line" and "The Roxy Theater". They make a very concert-like experience while still keeping the reverb to a minimum.

If I'm 'testing' something, a recording, or changes in my system - I'll listen to it in 2 channel stereo or Pure Direct. But the experience simply isn't as engaging that way.

I listen to CD music mostly in 2.0, sometimes in 2.1. I listen to SACD in either 2.0 or 5.1 dependeing on the mix, and concert DVDs in 5.1.

It depends on the material. I listen to stereo in "Stereo" mode or "Direct" mode. Sometimes it is fun to listen in "Dolby PLII Music" mode. The extra ambience can brighten up an otherwise dull piece of performance.

I found more ambience rich recordings like most classicals, that it sound "better" with PLII, however rock studio albums tend to be more natural in 2ch bypass mode.
Discrete 5.1ch recordings however almost always preferable to me then the same in 2ch.

I do all of my music listening on a dedicated 2-channel stereo for two reasons:

- the vast majority of my music is on vinyl

- my music system was gradually acquired over 25 years and is of MUCH higher sonic quality than my surround system.

I did try several SACDs on my surround system, and the surround effects are indeed interesting, but not enough for me to spend much time listening to just music.

I would very much like to go into a high end music multichannel component system and replace my high end stereo component system but I see the following problems:
1- Virtually everything I like is in two channels.
2-Even if I could find sufficient multichannel recordings there would still be a problem since there are no recording standards and anyone can produce a DVD-A or SACD from one or two channel recordings and end up with multiple channels. The fact that there are no recording standards greatly reduces the availability of well made discrete recordings (at least 4 discrete channels). This explains why many who go into a multchannel music system are dissolutioned and why sales of DVD-A and SACD are dismal. Furthermore you don't listen to music because of its quality only. You listen to music because you like it. One more point , in double blind tests people could not tell the difference between a 24 bit/96 high resolution recording, such as DVD-A and SACD, and a standard 16 bit 44.1 CD, thus what you really get from a well made multichannel discrete recording is not better sound but a more involved realistic sound from various directions. (I'm not talking about video surround sound which has developed very well.)
Richard

I am using a HTPC, and would like to listen to 5.1 for my movies, but 2 channel for my music.

My HTPC is using an Auzentch X-Meridian, and my receiver is a 10 year old 5.1 model with limited modes.

My HTPC outputs surround signal that my receiver is picking up, what is the easiest way to switch the system over to stereo when I want to listen to music over my computer? When I put the receiver on Stereo, it doesn't pick anything up, I think because my computer is sending a Dolby Digital Live signal through to the optical port on my receiver.

What to do?

I am using a HTPC, and would like to listen to 5.1 for my movies, but 2 channel for my music.

My HTPC is using an Auzentch X-Meridian, and my receiver is a 10 year old 5.1 model with limited modes.

My HTPC outputs surround signal that my receiver is picking up, what is the easiest way to switch the system over to stereo when I want to listen to music over my computer? When I put the receiver on Stereo, it doesn't pick anything up, I think because my computer is sending a Dolby Digital Live signal through to the optical port on my receiver.

What to do?
I'm into high end audio and can only make suggestions relative to QUALITY AUDIO. I would suggest the following:

1-Source components(CD etc.)
2-Receiver, or integraded amplifier or preamplifier and power amplifier
3-Loudspeakers
It's hoped someone else can help you with your computer issue.
Richard

i have a 7.1 HT setup. The listening mode depend on the occasion. If i want just low backround music i will listen to the 7 channel setting on the AVR. The music nicely surrounds you. BUT if i wanna crank the music ( listen at referance level) i only listen to stereo (same system mind you). You cannot beat the loud awesome sound coming from horn tweeters in the mains.

I played around with the surround settings on my computer, and was able to vastly improve the sound quality of stereo sources encoded into surround. Now I actually prefer the surround mode, so no need to switch to stereo any time now, which is great.

I prefer to listen to music in their native format. Music-wise, the vast majority is engineered in 2 channel formal. So I mostly stick to the 2.1 format. The exception are the music DVDs which are engineered in 5.1 channel format.

I am finding with 2.1 vs. 5.1 that the biggest difference is my center speaker. When the center takes care of the vocals, it leaves my mains with less to "do", and that makes what sound they do reproduce sound better to me.

If I had better mains, I probably would not notice the difference, but in a cheapish system like mine, it is noticeable even to me.

If a person is going to listen to digitized surround music(DVD-A/SACD) then you do need 5 identical speakers, otherwise its just wrong.
On the other hand I listen to more analogue music, read vinyl, and I don't want any digitizing of the signal in any way. And here is where a very good pair of mirror imaged speakers brings it all home, along with a very good preamp/power amp combo.
There are some vinyl recordings that are so well engineered that they sound like surround, when played on such quality gear. And the same is true for surround music, some recordings are much better than others.