Anyone know why artists/record labels choose to record their stuff in 2 channel, instead of 5.1/7.1, etc..

Is it a financial thing? or something else?

:confused:

1. Ignorance of the medium
2. Doubts about the formats
3. Uncertainty of a sufficient market
4. Increased cost

5. It sounds unnatural

5. It sounds unnatural
Really?

I have heard some original DTS tracks (Boyz II Men), and it sounds amazing, better than 2 channel (Using ProLogic).

I was under the impression, the new studios these days were equipped with surrond equipment for them to master the record...

Kind of sad, IMO :-(

magawake:
Also, the hi-end AND low-end (MP3) audio folks are largely two-channel. Depending on who the studio or artist see the audience as being, two-channel may be seen as more appropriate.

5. It sounds unnaturalSure, many use that excuse because they have heard a bad one. That, however, does not change the fact that MCH is more natural when done correctly.

magawake:
Also, the hi-end AND low-end (MP3) audio folks are largely two-channel. Depending on who the studio or artist see the audience as being, two-channel may be seen as more appropriate.See my point (1)!!

What is "MCH" ?

What is "MCH" ?

Multi-channel

It sounds unnaturalNot as unnatural as hearing everything originate between two arbitrary points in front of the listener. Your personal preference for that limitation shouldn't be confused with how sounds are heard in nature.

Sanjay

Sure, many use that excuse because they have heard a bad one. That, however, does not change the fact that MCH is more natural when done correctly.

Can you suggest a good one? I haven't had any luck, but I haven't tried very hard. And other than J&R, do you know any good sources in NYC?

Not as unnatural as hearing everything originate between two arbitrary points in front of the listener. Your personal preference for that limitation shouldn't be confused with how sounds are heard in nature.

Sanjay

In a good system the speakers disappear.

I don't know about sdurani, but if I go to a concert I hear all the sound from a couple arbitrary points that are set in front of me...

I've mixed music in 5.1 before and its horrible. The only way that I could get anything decent was to have no spacial reasoning whatsoever, just a mono signal sent to all speakers with a rolloff around 150hz for the sub. Music is best served in a 2.1 type system.

there is MCH commercial music but its all in the upscale niche market (DVD-A, SACD, etc). The demographic who owns these formats are the same ones who own surround systems. The general public though has stereo only and buys the plain old CDs, so CD producers see no need to raise costs on something that won't be used the majority of the time. Its all about the money.

Can you suggest a good one? I haven't had any luck, but I haven't tried very hard. And other than J&R, do you know any good sources in NYC?I listen mostly to classical SACDs but my column (see sig) lists other genres from time to time. The most recent Ladysmith Black Mambazo SACD on Telarc/HeadsUp is excellent.

As for stores, J&R is as good as it gets, imho, so I do almost all my acquisitions from the internet sites.

In a good system the speakers disappear.Sure but the sound still only comes from the front. And let's not pay attention to that hoary argument about the room's contribution; any such contribution is false (if comfortable) and not the ambience of the original performance.

I don't know about sdurani, but if I go to a concert I hear all the sound from a couple arbitrary points that are set in front of me...

I've mixed music in 5.1 before and its horrible. The only way that I could get anything decent was to have no spacial reasoning whatsoever, just a mono signal sent to all speakers with a rolloff around 150hz for the sub. Music is best served in a 2.1 type system.This is a disappointing response. Someone who mixes music but seems oblivious to the reflections and reverberations that are unique to each performance site.

In a good system the speakers disappear.They sound remains in front of you, meaning the recorded ambiance is still originating from the wrong direction.

Sanjay

Well, everytime I've seen an orchestra, they are in front of me. So, unless the rear channels are used for the idiots with their cellphone/pda thingies, the guy arguing with his wife, and the old guy snoring, I have no qualms with someone using only 2-ch.

Besides, since every venue is unique in it's sound, does that mean the mixer now decides not only what, but where your listening? I mean listening to a concert in the Kimmel Center sounds nothing like listening to a concert at Tanglewood. Wouldn't you need to have a seperate release to simulate all the different types of listening environments?

if I go to a concert I hear all the sound from a couple arbitrary points that are set in front of me...Maybe at Anechoic Hall, but in every other concert venue you are actually hearing more of the room than direct sound from the performers, which cannot be reproduced using only two speakers.

Sanjay

Well, everytime I've seen an orchestra, they are in front of me. So, unless the rear channels are used for the idiots with their cellphone/pda thingies, the guy arguing with his wife, and the old guy snoring, I have no qualms with someone using only 2-ch.What's behind you is the rest of the concert hall and its distinctive contribution to the overall sound that you clearly note below.


Besides, since every venue is unique in it's sound, does that mean the mixer now decides not only what, but where your listening? I mean listening to a concert in the Kimmel Center sounds nothing like listening to a concert at Tanglewood. Wouldn't you need to have a seperate release to simulate all the different types of listening environments?Why? If the concert is recorded at Kimmel, it should sound like Kimmel on my system and not like Tanglewood. That can be accomplished with MCH without relying on the spurious acoustical contribution of the listening room that is required for stereo.

Compare the LSOLive series with the RCO series with the SFSO series with the.....
It's all there to enjoy.

Well, everytime I've seen an orchestra, they are in front of me.It's different when you hear an orchestra. Most listeners are sitting past the critical distance (critical distance = when more reflected energy than direct sound is reaching the listener).

The same is true from most home set-ups: more than 50% of what you're hearing is the room, not direct sound from your speakers. Notice the increasing interest in room correction (passive treatments and auto-EQ systems). Besides, since every venue is unique in it's sound, does that mean the mixer now decides not only what, but where your listening?The ambience in a live recording comes from the specific venue in which it was recorded. The recording engineer doesn't try to simulate a different venue any more than he tries to simulate a different orchestra.

In surround playback, the recorded ambience originates from around you, just like at the live event. In 2-speaker playback, the recorded ambience originates from in front of you and is reflected off your room walls.

With surround, you are hearing spatial cues that mimic the original experience. With 2-speaker playback, the spatial cues are describing your room.

The difference can be best described as "they are here" (the performers are in your room with 2-speaker playback) versus "you are there" (you are at the concert hall with surround playback).

Sanjay

Why? If the concert is recorded at Kimmel, it should sound like Kimmel on my system and not like Tanglewood. That can be accomplished with MCH without relying on the spurious acoustical contribution of the listening room that is required for stereo.


You missed my point. If the argument for surround in recordings is that it's for the "ambience" and you are making a recording in a studio, then who determines what that "ambience" is? Since it's recorded in a studio, then the sound and effect is arbitrarily made by the mixer. What if I don't like his effect? Who is he to decide what the "ambience," should be?

Besides, as a music lover, I'm just as happy with a mono recording as I am with a 5.1 track. After all, it's about the music, not about some "ambience."

Come to think of it, this "ambience" thing is what all the Bose commercials talk about.

Come to think of it, this "ambience" thing is what all the Bose commercials talk about.False ambience is what Bose is about. If you cannot see, or do not care about, the difference, buy Bose.

You missed my point. If the argument for surround in recordings is that it's for the "ambience" and you are making a recording in a studio, then who determines what that "ambience" is? Since it's recorded in a studio, then the sound and effect is arbitrarily made by the mixer. What if I don't like his effect? Who is he to decide what the "ambience," should be?Ah! Point noted. However, I am mostly concerned with recordings done in a concert hall, with or without an audience. The ambience is natural there.

Studio recordings rely, as you point out, on the establishment of a confortable ambience and setting by the producers for the recording. Most have enough concert experience to do OK. However, they must do that for stereo and mono recordings as well. (Or would you have contact microphones on each instrument as the only inputs?)

Besides, as a music lover, I'm just as happy with a mono recording as I am with a 5.1 track. After all, it's about the music, not about some "ambience."Just as happy? Not I. I just finished listening to some dandy older recordings (only from the 50's) and enjoyed them thoroughly. Would I prefer to hear these performances in better sound? Unquestionably. I would hear more of the music.

You missed my point. If the argument for surround in recordings is that it's for the "ambience" and you are making a recording in a studio, then who determines what that "ambience" is? Since it's recorded in a studio, then the sound and effect is arbitrarily made by the mixer. What if I don't like his effect? Who is he to decide what the "ambience," should be?

Most classical music is recorded in concert halls. Recording the ambience and natural acoustics of those halls, and reproducing them accurately, is what surround concert recording is all about. These recordings, done right, are far, FAR more accurate than a 2-channel recording made in the same place and time could ever be.

If music is recorded in a studio, then the odds are that there is no "stage" at all. A stereo panorama is no more accurate or natural than a surround mix -- and the surround mix is much more likely to enable the listener to uncover detail and nuance that are often masked in two-dimensional mixes.

Besides, as a music lover, I'm just as happy with a mono recording as I am with a 5.1 track. After all, it's about the music, not about some "ambience."

Yes, it's about the music, and when technology enables me to get further inside it, to hear that detail and nuance, to have either a more immersive or a more deeply analytical experience (because surround enables both), or both... I embrace it.

RichC

(Or would you have contact microphones on each instrument as the only inputs?)



Been there. The only way to record directly to CD in college bars!!!! Good times, when the beer cost more than the equipment :D


Just as happy? Not I. I just finished listening to some dandy older recordings (only from the 50's) and enjoyed them thoroughly. Would I prefer to hear these performances in better sound? Unquestionably. I would hear more of the music.

Better sound(cleaned up, remastered, filtered. etc.), sure, but they could still be in mono. Multichannel sound does nothing for me. Higher quality sound, no matter if its 1 or 100 channels would work just fine. Besides, there really should only be one speaker, it should be a ring with you sitting at the center, and the sound coming from the entire ring.

I am anything but an audiophile...built my theater for movies solo, or so I thought. On a whim I set up my universal player with analog outputs and tried out a multichannel disc (it was Sting I recall). Since then I can not get enough of it. Maybe the problem is that everyone is debating its use with classical music, and while I have some classical MCH discs I agree classical sounds just as good on a 2-ch system. But for newer music where you can experiment with different instument locations and effects (like Nine Inch Nails) I think the improvement is quite impressive. Kind of off topic from the OP's original question I know. My 2 cents.

Thanks for the responses...

I think I have a better understanding now. The reason why artists don't record in "MCH" is because it does not make sense to recreate a concert scene since you will be viewing the orchestra/singer/performes from the front. There should no sounds from the sides, back or crowd noise--ambience.

So, I guess I should ask, "Why DO artists record in MCH?" :-)

Sure, many use that excuse because they have heard a bad one. That, however, does not change the fact that MCH is more natural when done correctly.

Kal:
I've been a multichannel fan since the '70s (bought a Sansui QRX 6500 in 1972). My point was that the ignorance is not simply artists and sound engineers but includes the marketing and business types as well as the audience. Add to this the lack of robust multichannel demonstration facilities, and it is no surprise that ignorance is widespread. Mustn't forget the equipment manufacturers either (I'm thinking of those "canned" settings on multichannel receivers - 'jazz club,' 'concert hall')...

magawake:
As for why do it at all, you touched upon one reason when you mentioned "ambiance." There are sounds reflected off of surfaces in the space where the music is performed which, when represented accurately in a recording, facilitate a "you are there" type of ambiance that is very engaging to a listener - the recording sounds more "real" (assuming that the playback environment - equipment, room, etc. - is up to the task of reproducing what was recorded).

Note that there is a concern for "accuracy" in representing a musical performance and there is also - equally valid - a concern for "fun" in the playback of recorded music. I would hope that artists would see the utility of multichannel for the former. This emphasis puts the essential relationship as being between the actors/performers and the listener/watcher instead of the recording and equipment in between them. Unfortunately, many of the business types and equipment manufacturers are just interested in making a buck, so whatever gets the rubes to lay down their money works for them. Fun is fine but it can get in the way of a serious listener in that the fun distorts the accuracy (usually to the point where accuracy is not even possible). The relationship is now on the "stuff" in between the actor/performer and the audience, i.e., the recording engineer, the equipment, the room, etc.

Some people actually like karaoke! 8^)

Well, everytime I've seen an orchestra, they are in front of me. So, unless the rear channels are used for the idiots with their cellphone/pda thingies, the guy arguing with his wife, and the old guy snoring, I have no qualms with someone using only 2-ch.

Excellent point. I enjoy movies in surround becase they simulate being in an environment where things are happening on all sides. When I watch concert DVDs, however, the only contribution the surrounds make is hearing the audience around me (on those rare occasions when instruments are placed in the surround channels, it just sounds wrong.) I have a separate 2-channel system for music without video, and would not consider it an "upgrade" to add surround to it.

Better sound(cleaned up, remastered, filtered. etc.), sure, but they could still be in mono. Multichannel sound does nothing for me. Higher quality sound, no matter if its 1 or 100 channels would work just fine. Besides, there really should only be one speaker, it should be a ring with you sitting at the center, and the sound coming from the entire ring.I give up. Have you ever heard decent multichannel? Have you ever compared the Philips originals with the Pentatone RQR reissues? The latter, despite/because of being multichannel are much clearer and cleaner and easier to enjoy.

Sit in the middle of the ring with a single channel source? Uggghh.

I think I have a better understanding now. The reason why artists don't record in "MCH" is because it does not make sense to recreate a concert scene since you will be viewing the orchestra/singer/performes from the front. There should no sounds from the sides, back or crowd noise--ambience.

So, I guess I should ask, "Why DO artists record in MCH?" :-)Do you understand? There SHOULD be sound from the sides and back. Ambience is a natural and important part of the concert experience and it is corrupted in stereo.

Do you understand? There SHOULD be sound from the sides and back. Ambience is a natural and important part of the concert experience and it is corrupted in stereo.
That is why soundstaging/imaging is one of my primary criteria when choosing stereo speakers. All of the ambience is present on a stereo recording (if it weren't, matrix decoders such as PLII would have nothing to work with), and it just requires great imaging to reproduce it in the listening room.

All of the ambience is present on a stereo recording (if it weren't, matrix decoders such as PLII would have nothing to work with), and it just requires great imaging to reproduce it in the listening room.It's still coming from the wrong direction: in front of you.

Sanjay

I give up. Have you ever heard decent multichannel? Have you ever compared the Philips originals with the Pentatone RQR reissues? The latter, despite/because of being multichannel are much clearer and cleaner and easier to enjoy.

Sit in the middle of the ring with a single channel source? Uggghh.

Never said it was a single source, but if you want ambiance, only 5 speakers ain't gonna do it. No matter what you do the brain can localize it(those that work in the dark, especially in the woods, know what I'm talking about) but the brain can be trained to find sound, and lack thereof, you can always tell if there is something near you like a tree or a rock. If you had a single continual speaker, (Or even better a sphere), then determine how to to make a section of that speaker produce sound, then their are no gaps. So, the point now is that you can make the argument for 5.1, but why only 5.1? Why speakers only on the horizontal plane? I've never found a set-up that does a convincing job in telling my ears that something is overhead or below.

When is multi-channel enough?

It's still coming from the wrong direction: in front of you.

Sanjay
The illusion of a complete ambient space (including sounds coming from behind) can be highly convincing in stereo. That is one reason why many audiophiles prefer it (another being far less muddying of the sound by interactions between multiple speakers.)

The illusion of a complete ambient space (including sounds coming from behind) can be highly convincing in stereo.But not as convincing as surround. And that's the point.

With 2-speaker playback, the "complete ambient space" is your listening room. Recorded ambience comes initially from the wrong direction, in front of you, and then reflects off your room walls to provide spatial cues. But the timing, duration, delay and direction of these cues are painting a description of your room, not the recording venue.

In order to get a better approximation of the recording venue, the ambience in the recording should originate from your sides during playback. Lateral (sideways moving) sound is what our ear/brain mechansim uses to judge the listening environment. Sounds from above, below and behind add to envelopment but don't excite the spatial cues the way lateral sounds do.

A pair of speakers in front of you cannot simultaneously be at your sides. Without recorded ambience originating from your sides, you'll never be able to replace your room's ambience with the ambience in the recording. Your belief that simply playing back recorded ambience is enough completely misses the aspect of playing it back from the proper direction.

If you want to hear the performers in front of you, then those sounds need to originate in front of you. If you want to hear recorded ambience the way it was heard at the original event, then those sounds need to originate from along your sides. One pair of speakers isn't enough to do both. That is one reason why many audiophiles prefer it (another being far less muddying of the sound by interactions between multiple speakers.)Audiophile prefer it because they don't know any better. As for more speakers muddying the sound: if that were true, you'd be using one speaker instead of two.

Sanjay

That is why soundstaging/imaging is one of my primary criteria when choosing stereo speakers. All of the ambience is present on a stereo recording ......True. It's just in the wrong place and cannot be corrected. :D

Audiophile prefer it because they don't know any better.
Now that is funny! :D I expect a few million audiophiles will quite vehemently disagree with you.

Never said it was a single source, but if you want ambiance, only 5 speakers ain't gonna do it. No matter what you do the brain can localize it(those that work in the dark, especially in the woods, know what I'm talking about) but the brain can be trained to find sound, and lack thereof, you can always tell if there is something near you like a tree or a rock.That observation is based on a single source which, indeed, one can localize (but better in some planes and at some coordinates than in others).

However, two (or more) identical and synchronous sources are localized by the brain at an intermediate position such that one does not require a true source at that point. That's why a mono source on a decent stereo system is localized in the center.

If you had a single continual speaker, (Or even better a sphere), then determine how to to make a section of that speaker produce sound, then their are no gaps. So, the point now is that you can make the argument for 5.1, but why only 5.1? Why speakers only on the horizontal plane? I've never found a set-up that does a convincing job in telling my ears that something is overhead or below.

When is multi-channel enough?That's a good question but one whose best answers are made moot by the commercially available technology. I have heard good overhead (and below the horizon) localization with certain recordings from Telarc, Chesky, mdg and TaceT when they were playing with their channel utilization and I was willing to shlepp around my speakers. Unfortunately, there is no standard for this but you should try on some of the TaceT 2+2+2 discs for size.

I've heard 20.4 but it lacked vertical resolution and proximity. Still, I would not play my stereo discs in mono or my MCH discs in anything fewer than the the number of channels recorded on it.

Now that is funny! :D I expect a few million audiophiles will quite vehemently disagree with you.They're as wrong as any 50 million Frenchmen.

Now that is funny!More sad than funny actually. But whatever tickles your funny bone.

Sanjay

if you want ambiance, only 5 speakers ain't gonna do itYou're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Until you get your seamless ring of sound, 5 speakers encircling you can certainly come closer to that concept that 2 speakers in front of you. You're rejecting the current state of surround because it isn't perfect, without taking into consideration that every alternative is even more lacking when it comes to approaching your ideal.

Sanjay

When I watch concert DVDs, however, the only contribution the surrounds make is hearing the audience around me (on those rare occasions when instruments are placed in the surround channels, it just sounds wrong.) I have a separate 2-channel system for music without video, and would not consider it an "upgrade" to add surround to it.


Thats exactly why concert recordings are nothing special on the multichannel format and because most classical is recorded on stage instead of a recording studio it too is not ideal for the format. But as I stated earlier, a properly mixed studio track on MCH can be quite moving and more involving than its stereo counterpoint.

I have a better question. Why do people who do not like surround sound bother to read the section of this forum concerning surround sound?

Having sound come from only in front of you is only a product of what you have learned. Since you were born, you listened to the radio IN FRONT OF YOU, you listened and watched the TV "IN FRONT OF YOU", you went to a concert and watched and listened IN FRONT OF YOU.

The reason the crap is in front of you is because THAT is a limitation. You are USED to a limitation. If your brain cannot deal with the concept of sound coming from all around you, do not disparage the people who can.

And don't bring up the "two ears" deal either. It's old, it's mold, it's YESTERDAY.

Thats exactly why concert recordings are nothing special on the multichannel format and because most classical is recorded on stage instead of a recording studio it too is not ideal for the format. Au contraire. That's exactly why it is ideal for the format and why classical SACDs are still coming on strong while the SACD/DVD-A formats are on the wane in other genres. The sound of the hall is an integral component of the sound of the performance and stereo is simply inadequate to reproduce it.

Hey Kal cut me a break, I'm just trying to get some people on the multichannel bandwagon. Believe me I have plenty of classical DVD-audio's and enjoy them very much, my point (imho) is that the rock genre is more succeptible to the format.

As far as why classical is doing better than other genres I think has more to do with the core audience. People who listen to classical generally are older, have the money to have proper 5.1 listening rooms and will sit in one place for a couple of hours to enjoy the experience. Rock (and other "pop" music) fans want to listen to CDs in the car and on mp3 players. Most college kids and young adults don't have multichannel setups.

Those rock groups that are coming out on MCH are not what one would consider contemporary (eg. Doors, Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.). You know, things an older rocker may like. Just an observation!

Flame on boys!

Just as happy? Not I. I just finished listening to some dandy older recordings (only from the 50's) and enjoyed them thoroughly. Would I prefer to hear these performances in better sound? Unquestionably. I would hear more of the music.
That is it in a nut shell, "I would hear more of the music." With 5 channels pumping out music instead of just two there is not as much down mixing. I've got some dvd-a or sacd discs that are the same recordings as my old LPs, so I'm very familar with the music. I hear instruments in the 5 channel that I don't in the 2 channel. Makes it much more enjoyable.

I have a better question. Why do people who do not like surround sound bother to read the section of this forum concerning surround sound?


The poster asked the quesition. So I gave a response. They wanted to know why So I played devils advocate. PErsonally, I don't give a crap if it's mono or 24.4.

Hey Kal cut me a break, I'm just trying to get some people on the multichannel bandwagon. Believe me I have plenty of classical DVD-audio's and enjoy them very much, my point (imho) is that the rock genre is more succeptible to the format.

As far as why classical is doing better than other genres I think has more to do with the core audience. People who listen to classical generally are older, have the money to have proper 5.1 listening rooms and will sit in one place for a couple of hours to enjoy the experience. Rock (and other "pop" music) fans want to listen to CDs in the car and on mp3 players. Most college kids and young adults don't have multichannel setups.

Those rock groups that are coming out on MCH are not what one would consider contemporary (eg. Doors, Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.). You know, things an older rocker may like. Just an observation!

Flame on boys!All too true. The tragedy, of course, is that contemporary rock/pop is not rushing to MCH but the economics may not work for them. If it did, it would help the rest of us.

More sad than funny actually. But whatever tickles your funny bone.

Sanjay
If the statement that "audiophiles don't know any better" were actually true, then yes, that would be sad. The funny part is you making such a ridiculous claim. :rolleyes:

I hear instruments in the 5 channel that I don't in the 2 channel.
That doesn't make any sense. Multichannel effects the way that the sounds are located in space, not what sounds are on the recording. 100% of the tonal (as opposed to spatial) information would still be there even in mono. :confused:

When a recording gets down mixed from, lets say, 10 tracks to only 2 some of that sound is going to get lost. That statement, or something like it, was made by a sound engineer or maybe an old rocker, when talking about multi-channel, a few years ago. And I believe it to be true, from what I've heard on multi-channel.

When a recording gets down mixed from, lets say, 10 tracks to only 2 some of that sound is going to get lost. That statement, or something like it, was made by a sound engineer or maybe an old rocker, when talking about multi-channel, a few years ago. And I believe it to be true, from what I've heard on multi-channel.
That seems less like an inherent limitation of the process than incompetence on the part of the person doing the downmixing. There is no reason why any sound should ever be lost, merely condensed. (Remember that mixing multiple tape tracks onto single tracks has been a part of the recording process almost from the beginning.)

That doesn't make any sense. Multichannel effects the way that the sounds are located in space, not what sounds are on the recording. 100% of the tonal (as opposed to spatial) information would still be there even in mono. :confused:It's not that the sounds are not there but it has to do with the way we distinguish individual sounds. If you combine many signals into a mono channel, the brain cannot use spatial cues to separate individual ones. If you provide more spatial cues, the task is even easier.

The funny part is you making such a ridiculous claim. :rolleyes:Nothing ridiculous about the claim; in fact, easily demonstratable. Witness your own ignorance of how surround works, believing that simply playing back recorded ambience without concern for proper direction can reproduce how those sounds were heard at the original event. If you understood how sound is reproduced and how our ear/brain mechanism works, then you would never have made the statements you did in this thread.

Sanjay

It's not that the sounds are not there but it has to do with the way we distinguish individual sounds. If you combine many signals into a mono channel, the brain cannot use spatial cues to separate individual ones. If you provide more spatial cues, the task is even easier.
That makes a lot more sense than the notion that some of the sounds are "lost".
On the other hand, when I compare stereo and surround mixes of the same music (easily done with the Talking Heads brick, for example), I don't feel like I am hearing any additional instruments,just more movement in space.

Nothing ridiculous about the claim; in fact, easily demonstratable.
Well then, it is sure a good thing that there are self-styled "experts" such as yourself to set us straight. I would hate to see we poor, deluded audiophiles continue to enjoy our music in the way that experience has taught us sounds best, instead of the "right" way as defined by you. :eek:

Well then, it is sure a good thing that there are self-styled "experts" such as yourself to set us straight.You can call me any sarcastic name you want, but you can't argue the actual issue being discussed. I don't need to be an "expert" when I have facts supporting my statements. Since you cannot support your claims with anything factual, you are left with no choice except resorting to ad hominem comments.

Sanjay

When a recording gets down mixed from, lets say, 10 tracks to only 2 some of that sound is going to get lost.Those sounds get "lost" to the extent that they are more difficult to hear when masked by louder sounds. We humans use more than volume level to distinguish sounds, like directional cues.

But the fewer channels you use, the less directional information you retain, and the more you end up relying on amplitude. Which is why sounds can appear to get lost in 2-channel mixes that are easily discernable in multi-channel mixes.

BTW, the multi-channel mix of 'Dark Side of the Moon' is a good example of this. On the track 'Us and Them', the saxophone isn't any louder in the surround mix than the 2-channel version, but you can hear subtle details in the multi-channel version that are "lost" in the 2-channel downmix.

Sanjay

I don't need to be an "expert" when I have facts supporting my statements.
Let us consider your statement that stereo cannot convincingly portray the ambience of the original event. This is an opinion, not a fact. I hold the opposite opinion, because my own stereo does portray this ambience convincingly. There is also no ignorance on my part because I own both a surround system and a stereo, which has provided me with ample opportunity for comparison.
You are the one who started down the insult path by offering the insult that the millions of audiophiles who have conciously chosen stereo (many after spending time with a surround system) are ignorant.

Keep it up boys this is fun.

Pulliamm, when I listen to stereo recordings in my room my processer has whats called "7-channel stereo" which is often how I listen to regular CDs. Obviously this is not a multichannel setup, just each of the speakers playing the same music.

Do you hate me for doing this?;)

Keep it up boys this is fun.

Pulliamm, when I listen to stereo recordings in my room my processer has whats called "7-channel stereo" which is often how I listen to regular CDs. Obviously this is not a multichannel setup, just each of the speakers playing the same music.

Do you hate me for doing this?;)
Of course not. I don't care how anyone chooses to listen. I only object to statements like "my opinions are facts and those who disagree must be ignorant."

That makes a lot more sense than the notion that some of the sounds are "lost".
On the other hand, when I compare stereo and surround mixes of the same music (easily done with the Talking Heads brick, for example), I don't feel like I am hearing any additional instruments,just more movement in space.Well, that's a relatively simplistic mix; everything is mastered so that you hear what they want you to hear (and very effectively, too). OTOH, with really complex music (and all I know here would be classical) as 100-300 performers are simultaneously making sound, those additional spatial cues allow one to hear more of the details and the inner voices. That increased resolution afforded by discrete MCH is as important as and inextricable from the surround ambience.

Let us consider your statement that stereo cannot convincingly portray the ambience of the original event. This is an opinion, not a fact. I hold the opposite opinion, because my own stereo does portray this ambience convincingly. The problem with your opinion is that it holds to a physical impossibility. No frontal system can accurately convey the true ambience of the original event (one that had real ambience and not an electronic simulation) because the speakers are only in front. Any sound you hear as "ambience" is due to the acoustics of your own room which, even you must admit, are not those of the original event and artificially superimposes on what is coming from the front.

Well, that's a relatively simplistic mix; everything is mastered so that you hear what they want you to hear (and very effectively, too). OTOH, with really complex music (and all I know here would be classical) as 100-300 performers are simultaneously making sound, those additional spatial cues allow one to hear more of the details and the inner voices. That increased resolution afforded by discrete MCH is as important as and inextricable from the surround ambience.
Perhaps my indifference to MCH is partly a result of never listening to classical anymore (I was trained as a classical violist, but lost interest in it after high school.) The most complex music I listen to these days is probably large jazz ensembles (though some of my new age, world music, and electronica can get pretty complex also.)

Any sound you hear as "ambience" is due to the acoustics of your own room which, even you must admit, are not those of the original event and artificially superimposes on what is coming from the front.
Most of the ambience is reproduced by the binaural effect (the audio equivalent of 3D glasses.) In fact, it is better when the room's effects are minimized.
Sure, it is an illusion, but it is an entirely convincing illusion. That is the most that one can ask from any system, regardless of the number of channels.

Most of the ambience is reproduced by the binaural effect (the audio equivalent of 3D glasses.) In fact, it is better when the room's effects are minimized.
Sure, it is an illusion, but it is an entirely convincing illusion. That is the most that one can ask from any system, regardless of the number of channels.Well, it's all illusion but one can have a better one.

i love mch...WHEW..thank goodness...and YES. you do get much more sound out of 5 channel compared to two..go buy teh grateful dead dvda's and compare in surround to 2 channel...there is none..you can here so much distinction in teh surround..

here is a basic analogy..put 5 people five feet in front of you all talking at the same time from teh same area. what do you hear? a bunch of mixed up jumble.

Now take those five people and spread them around you and have them all talk at once...You can easily pick out who is saying what, and it is not all jumbled.

if someone here says they have listened to those two dead dvda's and they still prefer the two channel then that is probably similar to my grandparents decidingt they do not need a computer. Very short sighted...and closed minded...

here is a basic analogy..put 5 people five feet in front of you all talking at the same time from teh same area. what do you hear? a bunch of mixed up jumble.


You must have never lived in an Italian American household. You either figure out each individual conversation in front of you and participate in all, or sit in a corner somewhere. :D

so then they would prefer 2 channel then...

Look towards the bottom of this thread I started: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=771795

It can have an unlimited number of channels, but there are only two speakers!

If the headphone thingy existed, one channel of sound could actually sound more real than multi-channel sound. Just the mono recording of a trumpet playing a tune and it's position could allow for holographic sound, given the right hardware. If more channels were added, the echoes caused by the room could also be captured, allowing for an almost perfect representation of what it would actually be like to be there. The listener would also be able to move around their room, and hear what it would be like in different parts of the room where the audio was recorded.

This is an opinion, not a fact.Hardly. I didn't wake up one day and decide on a whim that lateral sounds provide spatial cues to our ear/brain mechanism that sounds from above, behind and in front don't. This is why the better concert halls are shoe-box shaped, with side walls that are perpendicular to the audience. Someone mentioned Tanglewood earlier, which is a fan shaped hall, but uses flat panels along the side walls that can be angled out to be perpendicular to the audience. Why this attention to sideways moving sound? Certainly not based on my "opinion".

In fact, I haven't been expressing my opinion in this thread but simply repeating well established fact. No one has to take my word for it, just read the papers by David Griesinger, Bob Stuart, Floyd Toole, et al. They've all researched the limitations of 2-speaker playback; limitations you're not willing to accept despite objective evidence to the contrary.

The only evidence you can support your statements with is completely anecdotal. Perfect example: I hold the opposite opinion, because my own stereo does portray this ambience convincingly.That's like being convinced that Elvis is alive because you saw him. Nothing objective; 100% anecdotal.

As Kal pointed out, the spatial cues you hear are based on your listening room, not anything in the recording. In fact, overlaying those cues on top of the ones in the recording is a recipe for confusion. You may like the way that sounds, and that is completely your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with convincing reproduction of a different acoustic space.

Ambience from in front of you is literally coming from the wrong direction to excite the proper spatial cues. You can't bend the laws of science irrespective of how much you want to believe otherwise. You are the one who started down the insult path by offering the insult that the millions of audiophiles who have conciously chosen stereo (many after spending time with a surround system) are ignorant.No insult, just a statement fact. See the first line of the first reply in this thread. The fact that most audiophiles don't understand acoustics is obvious from their priorities. They've historically eschewed room treatments in favour of ebony hockey pucks and cable elevators. Most still believe that "stereo" was originally designed to be 2-speaker playback, not realizing that this technological limitation was never the intended goal. That doesn't make them stupid or lacking in intelligence (which would have been an insulting thing to say) but simply ignorant of the facts.

Sanjay

Having been into audiophilia since 1972 (and still owning an operational Pioneer SQ/QS/CD4 "quadrophonic" receiver), I've listened to "surround" sound since it's inception and have come to the following conclusion.

For me, MCH replicates the sound that a musician would hear as he were playing on stage. For example, when Blueray and HD-DVD adopt 7.1, I can hardly wait for some of the early Allman Brothers' stuff to be coded into 7.1. Those two rear surround channels, operating discretely, could really highlight the experience of being on stage as part of the band and hearing/feeling the interplay between the two drummers.

For most, IMHO, this issue is difficult to understand if they have never been part of a performing troupe. There is communication happening all the time that the performance is going on, but some of that is inaudible, such as the almost imperceptible "tap" that some drummers use to signal an upcoming change. It can be, and usually is, a pre-determined stimulus used to "choreograph" the musical performance.

For those who have never been part of a performing group, and who have truly spent most of their lives focusing on that spectacle laid out before them on a stage as viewed from the position of an audience member, MCH may very well seem un-natural. It's all part of the focus. When you focus so intensely on that stimuli right in front of you, it's only nautural for the "stimulus generalization" effect to reduce the perceived input from the ambience of the space in which the music is being performed. The spectacle becomes the focus and extraneous sounds, such as the audience member behind me and slightly to the right sneezing, or the drunk singing out of tune with the band, are more likely ignored than embraced, so it becomes a habit to focus on the frontal stimuli.

Now, I'm a true audiophile at heart--I still have a wonderful high end stereo system and routinely play my 33 1/3 RPM albums, but having always been one to embrace new "out of the box" thinking I have also embraced the MCH experience. For me, I'd rather be onstage than on the floor and MCH puts me there!

Perhaps that's why I fiind my SACD collection sorely lacking in classical music. I've never performed as part of an orchestra, so I don't have that orientation. I've listened to a lot of classical from the audience, though, so for me stereo, with it's limited "view" of the performance, most closely matches what I'm use to. But, as one who admits to being open minded, I'm going to spend my Christmas gift from my daughter, a gift card to Fry's Electronics, on some SACD classical music.

In the meantime, I plan on enjoying all music formats to the exclusion of none. Having said that, though, I do think it would be difficult to for me to embrace a format in which sound comes from below--in my earthbound experience, sound doesn't often come from below, so it wouldn't seem natural to me.

Doug

iif someone here says they have listened to those two dead dvda's and they still prefer the two channel then that is probably similar to my grandparents decidingt they do not need a computer. Very short sighted...and closed minded...

That is just silly, there is no way everybody should prefer multichannel audio over stereo or mono. The analogy your grandparents don't need a computer might be valid for your grandparents, there is no correct way to appreciate music or conduct your daily affairs. That would be like me stating Halle Berry is prettier than your wife. While I am sure, even without seeing your wife, most would think that, it may be you and her mother would disagree, maybe others. Subjective opinions are not facts. Since multichannel audio has been around since the 70's and hasn't become mainstream yet, it would appear the majority of the population does not prefer to listen to music that way and it has nothing to do with being closed minded. Even if things change and the majority prefers multichannel audio, it isn't an opinion everybody will share.

Chris

I don't know about sdurani, but if I go to a concert I hear all the sound from a couple arbitrary points that are set in front of me...

I've mixed music in 5.1 before and its horrible. The only way that I could get anything decent was to have no spacial reasoning whatsoever, just a mono signal sent to all speakers with a rolloff around 150hz for the sub. Music is best served in a 2.1 type system.

When i play live i am on stage with the sound all arround me much better than watching at the front.

Some of the best music i have heard is in pub jam sessions often played in teh round again very surround.

If you are a player in an orchestra you are often surrounded by other instruments. and have a very different perspetive of the sound the orchestra is making becuase you are involved with the music.

It may be only a point of view but they are all natural settings and sound so much better that that compramise of stereo.

when i have seen pink Floyd play live they have used a surround set up which mas always sounded good.

So i dissagree with your point of view I like to be involved with the music and surround 5.1 offers a better more natural sound field than 2.1

You must have never lived in an Italian American household. You either figure out each individual conversation in front of you and participate in all, or sit in a corner somewhere. :D

:D

That is just silly, there is no way everybody should prefer multichannel audio over stereo or mono. I, too, object to the analogy but not to your other statement. Everyone should prefer multichannel. After all, the ideal way to listen to music is to be there and that encompasses the performers and the venue. Stereo simply cannot reproduce that but multichannel can, to a considerable degree. In fact, I will posit that whatever 2channel stereo can do, discrete multichannel can do better, issues of cost, bulk and WAF acceptance aside.

Since multichannel audio has been around since the 70's and hasn't become mainstream yet, it would appear the majority of the population does not prefer to listen to music that way and it has nothing to do with being closed minded. That's only one reason. Add to that the the original quad stuff was gimmicky and of inferior resolution. Add also resistence due to issues of cost, bulk and WAF acceptance to basic misunderstanding.

In fact, I will posit that whatever 2channel stereo can do, discrete multichannel can do better,
A good 2-channel system keeps the signal as pure as possible from the source to the speakers, especially when "CD direct" mode is used to bypass the tone controls. A multichannel receiver applies all sorts of digital processing that can't help but corrupt the signal to some degree. Multichannel also reduces the effectiveness of the binaural imaging that makes stereo so convincing (it it this, much more than room reflections, that is responsible for the ambience.)

Since multichannel audio has been around since the 70's and hasn't become mainstream yet, it would appear the majority of the population does not prefer to listen to music that way and it has nothing to do with being closed minded. Even if things change and the majority prefers multichannel audio, it isn't an opinion everybody will share.

Chris
There are many reasons multi-channel has not become mainstream.
First, the '70's gig was not as good as today's surround formats. And it fizzled out.
Second, is the cost, one needs another disc player and at least 5 quality speakers. The little tin can freebes that some people got when they bought their 55" hd don't cut it. And to make it worse, maybe the first time a person heard MC was on a system that was far from that "quality". So he or she thinks, I don't need this.
Then again, maybe its because they like what they're used to hearing and that's all they want.
Here is an example of that fact.
When I was in my early teens my grandfather had a hifi unit, which had a turntable and tuner and speaker in one piece of furiture. It also had a rca out for an outboard powered speaker to take advantage of this new thing called "stereo". He prefered mono over this new stereo thing, because that is what he was used to hearing. Then gave me the outboard speaker, which I connected to my large suitcase sized Sears stereo.

A multichannel receiver applies all sorts of digital processing that can't help but corrupt the signal to some degree.

don't know where you get your player and receiver from but my elite dv47ai and elite 59txi send firewire (Ilink) from dvd/cd player to Multichannel receiver without one bit of processing. My receiver send exactly what comes over firewire from DVDA or SACD to play in 5.1...where the heck do you think corruptions occur..maybe you have a very low end player but I get exactly in multichannel what the disk has on it..no alterations whatsoever....

You may want to retry multi channel on a nicer rig...

In the case of sacd, it can only be sent via 5.1 analog. Not counting Pioneer's Ilink
But with DVD-A you have a choice, the same 5.1 analog or digital coax. With my H/K receiver thru the coax I can use DD, DTS, DTS 96/24 Logic7, ES, EX, prologic 3~7 channel.
And which I use depends, for the most part, on how a certain disc was recorded. Some sound better in true DVD-A, others DTS 96/24. And sometimes I just play around and jump back and forth.

A multichannel receiver applies all sorts of digital processing that can't help but corrupt the signal to some degree.

don't know where you get your player and receiver from but my elite dv47ai and elite 59txi send firewire (Ilink) from dvd/cd player to Multichannel receiver without one bit of processing. My receiver send exactly what comes over firewire from DVDA or SACD to play in 5.1...where the heck do you think corruptions occur..maybe you have a very low end player but I get exactly in multichannel what the disk has on it..no alterations whatsoever....

You may want to retry multi channel on a nicer rig...
You may be right as far as a true 5.1 channel connection to the receiver (with a discreet multichannel source) is concerned. I was primarily referring to programs like PLII that "create" multichannel from a stereo source.
Also, as an experiment, I tried an optical connection to my HT receiver in place of my usual analog connection to a 2-channel integrated in my stereo setup, and it sounded quite distinctly worse.

ok..you make sense pulliamm..I would never send PLII from a stereo signal..If the disk is stereo I listen in 2 channel..if the disk is 5.1 I listen in 5.1..but I do not like pro logic stuff..you lose so much with converting to that...

You may be right as far as a true 5.1 channel connection to the receiver (with a discreet multichannel source) is concerned. I was primarily referring to programs like PLII that "create" multichannel from a stereo source.
Also, as an experiment, I tried an optical connection to my HT receiver in place of my usual analog connection to a 2-channel integrated in my stereo setup, and it sounded quite distinctly worse.
Pulliamm, you have been quite resolute in your preference for stereo over multi-channel, which is, of course, your right. But, if I read this correctly, it appears that you have not actually listened to multi-channel processed in the same fashion as your stereo setup. PLII is not discrete multi-channel and should not even be considered. Optical connections do not carry high resolution multi-channel signals, although you can get the DTS and DD 5.1 tracks this way. But, using an optical connection means all of the decoding and digital to analog conversion is done in your receiver instead of the player, which is different from the way you process stereo signals. So, if you have not already done so, I suggest you run six analog outputs from your player to your receiver and listen using the same "pure direct" mode you use for stereo. That seems like the only fair way to compare.

Pulliamm, you have been quite resolute in your preference for stereo over multi-channel, which is, of course, your right. But, if I read this correctly, it appears that you have not actually listened to multi-channel processed in the same fashion as your stereo setup. PLII is not discrete multi-channel and should not even be considered. Optical connections do not carry high resolution multi-channel signals, although you can get the DTS and DD 5.1 tracks this way. But, using an optical connection means all of the decoding and digital to analog conversion is done in your receiver instead of the player, which is different from the way you process stereo signals. So, if you have not already done so, I suggest you run six analog outputs from your player to your receiver and listen using the same "pure direct" mode you use for stereo. That seems like the only fair way to compare.
That is something to consider. My DVD player does have multichannel analog outs for SACD, but I would rather let my receiver process movie soundtracks. Not sure how it works when the mutichannel and optical are both connected at once.
My music system is stereo and in a separate room from my HT.

A good 2-channel system keeps the signal as pure as possible from the source to the speakers, especially when "CD direct" mode is used to bypass the tone controls. A multichannel receiver applies all sorts of digital processing that can't help but corrupt the signal to some degree. WRONG. Using discrete, lossless sources, such as SACD or DVD-A or some of the new ones coming down the pike, there is absolutely no additional processing involved in multichannel.

Multichannel also reduces the effectiveness of the binaural imaging that makes stereo so convincing (it it this, much more than room reflections, that is responsible for the ambience.) BZZZTT! Wrong again. MCH may reduce reliance on that as the only mode for inducing the suggestion of depth/localization but it does nothing to reduce it. In fact, imaging in the frontal plane is improved by multichannel for many reasons and is easily demonstrable.

You may be right as far as a true 5.1 channel connection to the receiver (with a discreet multichannel source) is concerned. I was primarily referring to programs like PLII that "create" multichannel from a stereo source.Feh. That's like saying that stereo is inferior to mono because you relied on those old pseudo-stereo LPs in your experiment. Irrelevent.

Also, as an experiment, I tried an optical connection to my HT receiver in place of my usual analog connection to a 2-channel integrated in my stereo setup, and it sounded quite distinctly worse.Again, irrelevent. Just shows your HT receiver is inadequate. Just like most of your inferences.

Just to add my 2 cents. I find the most convincing demonstration of the superiority of MCH over 2 channel is with simple music--simple in the sense of few performers/instruments, not simple in composition, necessarily (a solo piano or a singer w/one instrument, for example). I have an SACD of Pletnev playing a number of Schumann pieces and I've compared the 2 channel to the MCH and there is no contest. The 2 channel sounds pretty good, until I switch to MCH. Then it goes from a nice sounding recording of a piano to (almost--it can NEVER be identical) me being in the room listening to the piano being played.

Two channel can be very good (and I have a lot of it) but if it were possible for me to "wave a magic wand" and transform all my two channel material to MCH, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Now, are there some poor MCH mixes out there? Of course there are. Just as there are poor 2 channel mixes. But those reflect the limitations of the mixer, not the format.

I think you will find that the most vocal anti-surround voices on the internet are voices that cannot afford to upgrade their system to play the new surround formats properly. In their minds, they will use every ancient "two ear" argument to augment and validate their being stuck with stereo.

I've had people argue the point at other forums, and when push came to shove it was always the "my wife won't let me have more than two speakers", "I have no room for more speakers", "I only have two ears", "Who wants music coming at you from the sides and the back", "It's unnatural", etc, etc.

Whatever you can "image" between two stereo speakers, you can also "image" between sets of speakers in a surround setup, creating an even more vivid soundfield.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own aural spectrum.

I think you will find that the most vocal anti-surround voices on the internet are voices that cannot afford to upgrade their system to play the new surround formats properly. In their minds, they will use every ancient "two ear" argument to augment and validate their being stuck with stereo.

I've had people argue the point at other forums, and when push came to shove it was always the "my wife won't let me have more than two speakers", "I have no room for more speakers", "I only have two ears", "Who wants music coming at you from the sides and the back", "It's unnatural", etc, etc.

Whatever you can "image" between two stereo speakers, you can also "image" between sets of speakers in a surround setup, creating an even more vivid soundfield.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own aural spectrum.

intersting point...

Most of the ambience is reproduced by the binaural effect (the audio equivalent of 3D glasses.) In fact, it is better when the room's effects are minimized.
Sure, it is an illusion, but it is an entirely convincing illusion. That is the most that one can ask from any system, regardless of the number of channels.

You cannot experience a valid binaural effect through loudspeakers, unless you (1) position them directly to the sides of the listener and (2) are listening to recordings that (intentionally or accidentally) were recorded with a binaural microphone or some other technique designed to emulate one.

I spent a lot of years making binaural recordings, using styrofoam-head mounted mics, and I know how well such recordings can reproduce room ambience -- when heard through headphones, or nearfield speakers at 90 degrees. The same recordings sound awful played over conventionally-arrayed speakers, in part because the listening room's acoustics actually destroy the locational cues in the recording.

But because I know what live venues sound like, and because I know what a recording of a live venue sounds like, I know that it was not until the advent of digital discrete multichannel that we were able to achieve convincing live ambience via loudspeakers.

I agree with the previous poster, whose point was that most objections to multichannel come from the "I don't understand it, it's too complicated, I'm uncomfortable with change, and I can't afford it anyway so it must suck" camp.

RichC

I've had people argue the point [anti-surround] at other forums, and when push came to shove it was always the "my wife won't let me have more than two speakers", "I have no room for more speakers", "I only have two ears", "Who wants music coming at you from the sides and the back", "It's unnatural", etc, etc.


Even though many of the arguments against use surround for music are moronic, there are valid concerns for how surround sound is presented to the listener. Some recording companies are addressing these issues.

For instance, there is music with a surround mix that is gimmicky or otherwise bad/tasteless. I would not be surprised the "It's unnatural" crowd have this in mind. This is not a valid argument against use of surround as such, but how it is mixed/recorded. So what does the Swedish audiophily recording company Opus 3 say about their usage of surround (http://www.opus3records.com/surround.html):

"Normally we at Opus 3 would not want, for example, to put the listener in the middle of the orchestra where the human psyche in the form of ear-brain relationships resents sharp sounds behind the head. Ideally our main aim is to imbue to the listener the feeling that he or she is there, in the same room as the musicians, whether it be a Concert hall, Church, or your favourite seat (near the bar) in your Blues or Jazz club."

The "I have no room for more speakers"/"Are too costly" does have a point. But this is, again, not a valid argument against use of surround as such. Opus 3 has a SACD MCH "Showcase 2005" : "It is said that a multichannel system is normally achieved by the use of five 'fullrange' loudspeakers. However we believe that normally for economic reasons this is not feasable. In any event even a fullrange loudspeaker does not go down to the freqency requirements of, for example a church organ. This is the reason why we in the past made the change from 4.0 to 4.1".

there is MCH commercial music but its all in the upscale niche market (DVD-A, SACD, etc). The demographic who owns these formats are the same ones who own surround systems. The general public though has stereo only and buys the plain old CDs, so CD producers see no need to raise costs on something that won't be used the majority of the time. Its all about the money.

I know it's a bit off-topic, but what I find ironic about this statement is most people are driving around listening to music in cars with 4, 5, 8, 10 or even 12 speakers! Granted the head unit isn't there to decode multichannel (usually, although that could be changing too with the advent of more complex mobile entertainment systems).

I noticed the multi-channel mixes in the movie Layer Cake, and thought they were pretty impressive. Probably the best thing about the film, in fact. I don't pretend to be an audiophile, and I'm certainly not some kind of sound engineer -- it just sounded better. I was disappointed at the number of DVD-A titles available, but I bought a few several days ago and some are quite good. Others -- primarily the classical music, which surprised me -- don't seem to take much advantage of the additional channels. On the other hand, Metallica sounded pretty great. (I'll preemptively note that I'm not interested in debating my preference in music.)

I find it amusing that nobody finds it unusual for a live band to set up a stage full of speakers, but that it's suddenly preferable to limit yourself to two speakers when you're listening to a recording.

I wish this thread had stuck to the original question -- examining why there isn't more material available. "Because it sucks" isn't a very good answer.

The "gimmicky" argument is something of a red herring. In the early days of widely available 2 channel pop music, there were "gimmicky" 2 channel mixes--ping-ponging from side to side--that were just as "annoying" as any such mixes can be in MCH mixes.

However, while I thoroughly enjoy the "hall ambience" mixes that dominate MCH classical presentations, I do think such a limited approach, when mixing studio recorded pop/rock/alternative music, is not entirely necessary (and even in classical music). I think the best approach is the one offered by AIX Records. They offer a 2 channel mix for those who want/only have such an option. They offer two MCH mixes--an "audience" mix and a "stage" mix--that allow different vantage points of the same material. In a perfect world, this is how all recordings would be offered--variety for each taste.

In the real world, though, MCH mixes are either "ambient" or "stage/in the band" and while I see the attraction of the former, particularly for "live" or "hall" recordings (where the site plays an important acoustic role), for studio recordings, I find "in the band" mixes quite satisfying (the best examples of which I own are the Elton John re-releases and Dark Side of the Moon). In any event, it seems clear that MCH at all (and hi-res as a sub-set) will remain a niche product. Oh well, at least I'll be happily listening to it, if the masses aren't or won't.

....
Those rock groups that are coming out on MCH are not what one would consider contemporary (eg. Doors, Who, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.). You know, things an older rocker may like. Just an observation!

Flame on boys!

[Poster puts on his new asbestos underwear and approaches the keyboard]

The "older rocker" has grown up, has money to spend after the kids left the house and some companies attempted to expand the MCH market by remastering older recordings that they believed had market potential for selling more hardware.

I bought Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon as well as Roxy Music - Avalon, but mostly for nostalgic reasons (i.e. I am feeling my age :D ) Many have those two MCH very high on their "Top Ten" list and what better symptom for the sad state of affairs for contemporary rock/pop published by major recording labels is there? Remastering music from original sources is laudable for historical reasons, but, surely, there are talents in our own time deserving our appreciation?

Speaking with regard to current artists, I'm very surprised that a lot of the club-type music isn't available on multichannel DVD. The audience for this music is technologically oriented and in my experience, are very likely to own at least 5.1 systems. In this case, there is no "real world" physical performance or even physical instruments which someone might argue don't sound natural in a surround format, and most or all of the music is produced digitally to begin with.

I have to assume the most important correct answer to the original question -- why do ARTISTS choose 2-channel -- is expense. As I understand it, the leeches on the corporate side of the business arrange the contracts so that the artists pay for the actual production -- studio time, editing, and so on. Just one more reason to reject the current state of the music industry...

...surely, there are talents in our own time deserving our appreciation?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some newer artists doing MCH versions of their music. I just don't see a huge market (not like their is a huge market for anything MCH) for bands like the White Stripes on DVD-Audio or SACD, no matter how much I would like to hear it.

"Gimmicky Mix" is really an arbitrary term.

For example. Take a piece of rock music, fairly elaborate. For example, let's say the ending of Abbey Road. If George Martin (or his son) mixed that piece for surround, and distributed the three guitar solos, one to each speaker, say John - Center, Paul - Rear Left, George - Rear Right, so that the room was enveloped with surround sound, some folks would say "Gimmicky Mix" and be infuriated. Others would think it was great to be able to listen to each individual solo on it's own.

Step back and place the "rear" speakers at the sides, or even to the side of the front speakers towards the front, so that all sounds were coming from IN FRONT of the listener. Now, is it still "Gimmicky"?? The sounds are all coming from individual speakers, but it's all in front of you. Now it's more like a "stage" presentation, to those who are anti-surround.

So, if "gimmicky" is more a result of WHERE the sounds are coming from, then the fact that they are coming from dedicated speakers, then those who don't like the "gimmick" should move their rear speakers. However, most folks who this bothers do not have rear speakers, or a surround system.

Again, it's all a matter of what you are used to.

The "gimmicky" argument is something of a red herring. In the early days of widely available 2 channel pop music, there were "gimmicky" 2 channel mixes--ping-ponging from side to side--that were just as "annoying" as any such mixes can be in MCH mixes. ....


Not quite a red herring. When new technology is available there is invariably many experiments, and most of those does not have a satisfactory outcome. Apart of how not to do it :D

This is not exclusive to music in any way. Once upon a time overhead projectors was very new and cool, but very few could actually make any decent use of it. Even worse was Microsoft Powerpoint where any fool could make flashing presentation with no content at all. But it looked good.....

Well music is an art form and as such the artist is bound to feel limited by 2ch sound. Using "MCH gimmicks" might be what the artist wants or intends (see the flaming lips MCH recording for instance). Of course this won't necessarily translate well to live performances or to the true definition of High Fidelity. But it's the artist that must decide how to connect to the listener no matter how many channels.

Well music is an art form and as such the artist is bound to feel limited by 2ch sound. Using "MCH gimmicks" might be what the artist wants or intends (see the flaming lips MCH recording for instance). Of course this won't necessarily translate well to live performances or to the true definition of High Fidelity. But it's the artist that must decide how to connect to the listener no matter how many channels.Oh, I do definitely agree but would add that it won't necessarily translate into an artistic success. Nonetheless, there's no reason to restrict the artistic effort to older media and we, the audience will have to deal with it. :)

Just to be clear, I never suggested that I disliked surround for music. I only said that IMO the cost involved in moving from stereo to surround while maintaining the same level of quality is excessive for the relatively small benefit that this would provide. (An HT receiver with sound quality as good as my dedicated 2-channel integrated would be very expensive, and the extra speakers would need to match my mains, effectively at least doubling the cost.)

Just to be clear, I never suggested that I disliked surround for music. I only said that IMO the cost involved in moving from stereo to surround while maintaining the same level of quality is excessive for the relatively small benefit that this would provide. (An HT receiver with sound quality as good as my dedicated 2-channel integrated would be very expensive, and the extra speakers would need to match my mains, effectively at least doubling the cost.)
I wouldn't call listening to DVD-A or SACD a small benefit. When I transformed my L212 stereo system to 7 channel (read 7 Identical speakers) was more than double. And it was worth ever penny. I would like to upgrade my H/K receiver, that I use as a pre/pro, to a Lexicon, but an extra $13k I don't have.
But the system still sounds great.

If I had enough money to more than double the price of my music system, I could either get surround at about the same quality as my current 2-channel setup or stick with 2-channel and get a really huge increase in quality. I know which option I would choose.

False ambience is what Bose is about. If you cannot see, or do not care about, the difference, buy Bose.

Mr. Rubinson,
With all due respect, Bose stereo systems generate sound pressure throughout the listening room by and large like most other stereo system utilizing conventional speakers. The amount of direct and reflected sound power arriving at your ears depends, naturally, on the radiation pattern of the speakers (all other things being equal). Any wide dispersion loudspeaker will put a lot of "reflected" sound power into the room. So, if you want to speak accurately, all wide dispersion speakers generate a lot of ambient sound, and in your words they are all guilty of providing "false ambience." In point of fact, even a very beamy speaker produces sound that gets reflected about in the room (unless it's a highly absorptive room), and since the 2-ch recording and the room acoustics are unlikely to match that of the live event ... all stereo playback utilizes "false ambience."

Finally, Bose sells systems that support 5.1 surround playback, and these systems benefit from MCH in the same way as other 5.1 systems.

John Feng
P.S. I am a Bose employee
The contents of this post are my private opinion. They in no way reflect the opinions and position of Bose corporation.

All i'm going to say is Dark side of the moon...with the lights off, eyes closed in 5.1 surround, its like.. hearing god :o

All i'm going to say is Dark side of the moon...with the lights off, eyes closed in 5.1 surround, its like.. hearing god :o
Especially with the right "chemical enhancement", yes? :p

If I had enough money to more than double the price of my music system, I could either get surround at about the same quality as my current 2-channel setup or stick with 2-channel and get a really huge increase in quality. I know which option I would choose.
If one has a good stereo system and adds more of the same speakers you still have the same quality, with the added pleasure of multi-channel, by adding a good surround receiver or pre/pro.
That is what I did(2 to 7 channel) and enjoyed it for 4 years. But last month I fell into a "can't pass up this chance". A new 5 channel system I'd been wanting to get for 5 years @ a price of only $500/ea. The list is $1700/ea.
The other reason to make the jump to the new system is the old system was 30 years old. Though very good, was never designed for digital. So the new is in the HT. The older system is split between two other rooms, the highly upgraded mirror pair is being used with a turntable, another pair in the MB flanking the sides of this 32" HT monitor. One is not being used, while 6,7 are still in the HT on the back wall.

Especially with the right "chemical enhancement", yes? :p
oh no not for this one, although after the first time i listened to it i felt like there had been chemical enhancement involved and it was one heck of a trip!