Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings? - Page 5 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings?
2-channel 108 32.93%
Multichannel, audience perspective 124 37.80%
Multichannel, stage perspective 63 19.21%
I've never heard a multichannel music recording 33 10.06%
Voters: 328. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 83Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 04:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EscapeVelocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Wizard of Oz - original mono soundtrack or new fangled 5.1 reproduction?

Vizio VP322 Plasma / Vizio GV42LF LCD / Denon 2200 Silicon Image DVD / Panasonic S97 Faroudja Genesis DVD / Oppo 970HD Mediatek DVD / Oppo 983H Anchor Bay DVD / Panasonic LX-600 Laserdisc / Aiwa MX100 Multi-region VCR / JVC S7600 S-VHS / PS2 / Sega Genesis / Nintendo SNES / Roku 2 XS & HD-XR / Realistic STA-90 Reciever / Realistic Minimus 7 / Antennacraft G1483 Hoverman / Belden 7915A RG6 / Channel Master 7777 Titan 2 UHF/VHF / Panasonic AX-200u / Optoma Graywolf 92" / Draper Luma 92"
EscapeVelocity is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 04:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EscapeVelocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perpendicular View Post
I find mono recordings, one dimensional. stereo, or two-channel recordings, two dimensional. The best is multi-channel recordings that sound real life, three dimensional.
I find Widespread Panic concerts take me to the 4th Dimension.

Vizio VP322 Plasma / Vizio GV42LF LCD / Denon 2200 Silicon Image DVD / Panasonic S97 Faroudja Genesis DVD / Oppo 970HD Mediatek DVD / Oppo 983H Anchor Bay DVD / Panasonic LX-600 Laserdisc / Aiwa MX100 Multi-region VCR / JVC S7600 S-VHS / PS2 / Sega Genesis / Nintendo SNES / Roku 2 XS & HD-XR / Realistic STA-90 Reciever / Realistic Minimus 7 / Antennacraft G1483 Hoverman / Belden 7915A RG6 / Channel Master 7777 Titan 2 UHF/VHF / Panasonic AX-200u / Optoma Graywolf 92" / Draper Luma 92"
EscapeVelocity is offline  
post #123 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,708
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
By the above logic, we humans only hear sounds at our sides. Couldn't possibly hear sound in front or behind or above us since we don't have additional ears pointing in those directions.
With sound coming from several directions extra ears would make sense to me. With those extra ears you could split up directions, even when those ears would be on the sides of ones head. That way less energy will be used for pinpointing sound. Pinpointing sound distracts from listening to music..


My main thing is that i want to keep things simple and clear. That is why multichannel does not appeal to me.
8mile13 is offline  
post #124 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 05:25 PM
Member
 
von Levi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 77
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
enjoy!
You just proved my point.

1. AIX is a tiny label.

2. Instead of pointing to offending MC mixes you've heard, you pointed to someone else's comments.

3. You didn't provide a list of offending MC mixes.

Have you even heard a MC recording?

You're assertions about how the rear channels are used is true about 1% of time.

For example, BIS, one of the most prolific makers of MC recordings/SACDs has put out 320 titles and has never done this. Telarc, who put out about 170 MC SACDs before they went defunct never did this. Pentatone, 265 albums, including reissues of Quad recordings released in 4.0 on SACD, has never done this. Channel Classics at nearly 200 has yet to do it.

That's nearly 1,000 MC albums that don't use the rears in any gimmicky way. Can you match that list with a 1,000 that do?
Ovation likes this.
von Levi is offline  
post #125 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Pinpointing sound distracts from listening to music..
Which is why we don't need extra ears to listen to the surrounds in multi-channel music nor extra eyes to see what is at the edge of a large IMAX screen. You can hear sounds around you and see things with your peripheral vision while still focusing on what's in front of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
My main thing is that i want to keep things simple and clear. That is why multichannel does not appeal to me.
I like things clear as well, which is why overlapping everything in a mix into just 2 channels doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather spread those sounds to additional channels/speakers so that they're less obscured due to fewer sounds layered on top of them.
Ovation likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #126 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EscapeVelocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,639
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 111
SADC is a failed standard.

Vizio VP322 Plasma / Vizio GV42LF LCD / Denon 2200 Silicon Image DVD / Panasonic S97 Faroudja Genesis DVD / Oppo 970HD Mediatek DVD / Oppo 983H Anchor Bay DVD / Panasonic LX-600 Laserdisc / Aiwa MX100 Multi-region VCR / JVC S7600 S-VHS / PS2 / Sega Genesis / Nintendo SNES / Roku 2 XS & HD-XR / Realistic STA-90 Reciever / Realistic Minimus 7 / Antennacraft G1483 Hoverman / Belden 7915A RG6 / Channel Master 7777 Titan 2 UHF/VHF / Panasonic AX-200u / Optoma Graywolf 92" / Draper Luma 92"
EscapeVelocity is offline  
post #127 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post
SADC is a failed standard.
MCH is not dependent upon SACD (though I'd argue it's a niche, rather than dead, format). I have MCH on CD, DVD-A,SACD, Blu-ray, DAD, DVD-V and while I don't yet have any, it's also available as downloadable files.

No one is suggesting that 2ch recordings should stop being made. I have a lot of them (and mono recordings as well). No one is suggesting that people MUST listen in MCH even if they don't want to.

However, it is rather irritating to see so many misconceptions about MCH bandied about. There really is no need for that.
Ovation is offline  
post #128 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 06:55 PM
Member
 
Nighthawk68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I mostly prefer 2 channel recordings, but there are a few really good multi-channel recordings I like, notably the SACD of Dark Side Of The Moon.
I often find a better sound stage in 2-ch than multi. Deep Purple's Blu-Ray of Live at Montreux 2011 with the Orchestra is one such example.


Ed
eljr likes this.

Denon AVR-X4000, Panasonic TCP-55VT50, OPPO BDP-103, DirecTV HR44-700, Apple TV
Polk Audio RTi-A9, RTi-A7, RTi-A3, CSi-A6 & DSW PRO 660
Nighthawk68 is online now  
post #129 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post
SADC is a failed standard.
What is SADC?

lovinthehd is offline  
post #130 of 299 Old 07-06-2014, 08:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity View Post
Wizard of Oz - original mono soundtrack or new fangled 5.1 reproduction?
On my old mono tv when I was a kid I could care less and mono and limited worked just fine. I have both the new and old WoO on bluray but I didn't listen to the original mono soundtrack (assumig its a setup option?) but I'd rather not if the mixer at least could do something interesting.

lovinthehd is offline  
post #131 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 12:59 AM
Member
 
fscottwhite1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
All Channel Stereo for me please

I listen to practically all my music in All Channel Stereo. I've wanted to like 2Ch stereo but it just leaves me wanting for more. I currently use an Integra DHC 80.2. I engage Audyssey XT32 with my Dynamic EQ set to ON and my Dynamic Volume set to Light. Really an immersive listening experience in my current setup. This may not be for everyone. Ironically, prior to my Integra, I ran a Yamaha receiver and also preferred its All Channel Stereo mode. Sounds more 3D like and enveloping. Loving everybody's feedback on this thread, btw!

P.S. I agree with previous posts that Pink Floyd's DSOTM SACD is outstanding in discrete multichannel format. My favorite of all my music collection without a doubt!

Last edited by fscottwhite1; 07-07-2014 at 01:16 AM. Reason: Addendum
fscottwhite1 is offline  
post #132 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 04:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,708
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
Which is why we don't need extra ears to listen to the surrounds in multi-channel music nor extra eyes to see what is at the edge of a large IMAX screen. You can hear sounds around you and see things with your peripheral vision while still focusing on what's in front of you.
Stereo is a less complex task for your ears. You don't need an extra pair of ears for multichannel but they certainly would come in handy
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
I like things clear as well, which is why overlapping everything in a mix into just 2 channels doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather spread those sounds to additional channels/speakers so that they're less obscured due to fewer sounds layered on top of them.
I wrote simple and clear. Clear meaning overseeable. Multichannel is less overseeable compared to stereo.


An article from ratsbehavior.org pinpointing a source of sound
8mile13 is offline  
post #133 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
myoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 53
If a recording is mixed natively in multichannel, then it's all good for me. Not too keen on the pseudo-surround effects available on my receiver. One of my favorite surround discs is Donald Fagen's Morph the Cat - it won a Grammy in 2007 for Best Surround Sound Album. Porcupine Tree does a great job with their surround mixes too. Another fantastic disc is Foreigner 4 on DVD Audio.
518BKuAm3aL.jpg
I listen to this disc at least once a week.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/fo...-robinson.html
http://www.amazon.com/4-Foreigner/dp...mm_dva_title_0

Just my 2.5 cents.

Last edited by myoda; 07-07-2014 at 07:12 AM.
myoda is offline  
post #134 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 07:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
joehonest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I found that the louder I turn up the volume I prefer 2-channel, at low volume (backgound levels) multichannel (5.1+) helps to sound full.
2-channel music does sound its best loud, stereo is CLEAR and CLEAN mainly due to less/none digital processing.
When 2-channel music is played at high volume levels it is room filling and there is no need for digital processing for rear + speakers to fill in.
At times multichannel does sound sweet, but the music and my mood has alot to do with it, but switch back to stereo and stereo just about everytime sounds better.
Just want to note that the only DTS CD album I own is Bonnie Raitt Road Tested, and many music tracks on BR and dvd movie discs, at this point I wouldn't pay extra just for multichannel music..
I'm behind the times, are there better formats ??
eljr likes this.

Last edited by joehonest; 07-07-2014 at 07:33 AM.
joehonest is offline  
post #135 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Levi View Post
You just proved my point.

1. AIX is a tiny label.

2. Instead of pointing to offending MC mixes you've heard, you pointed to someone else's comments.

3. You didn't provide a list of offending MC mixes.

Have you even heard a MC recording?

You're assertions about how the rear channels are used is true about 1% of time.

For example, BIS, one of the most prolific makers of MC recordings/SACDs has put out 320 titles and has never done this. Telarc, who put out about 170 MC SACDs before they went defunct never did this. Pentatone, 265 albums, including reissues of Quad recordings released in 4.0 on SACD, has never done this. Channel Classics at nearly 200 has yet to do it.

That's nearly 1,000 MC albums that don't use the rears in any gimmicky way. Can you match that list with a 1,000 that do?

dude, I like multi for movies and performance art which to me is what music lapses into when it is produced in surround

i like stereo for traditional music

I'd like to invite you over to the Which Album Are You Listening To Now thread.


you can share with us what you spin the format you used and tell us what you though


BTW, no music in any presentation "offends" me

What seems to "offend" you is a differing opinion. it shouldn't.

peace brother
myoda likes this.

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #136 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 07:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
I found that the louder I turn up the volume I prefer 2-channel, at low volume (backgound levels) multichannel (5.1+) helps to sound full.
2-channel music does sound its best loud, stereo is CLEAR and CLEAN mainly due to less/none digital processing.
When 2-channel music is played at high volume levels it is room filling and there is no need for digital processing for rear + speakers to fill in.
At times multichannel does sound sweet, but the music and my mood has alot to do with it, but switch back to stereo and stereo just about everytime sounds better.
Just want to note that the only DTS CD album I own is Bonnie Raitt Road Tested, and many music tracks on BR and dvd movie discs, at this point I wouldn't pay extra just for multichannel music..
I'm behind the times, are there better formats ??
There are lossless, many of them high resolution, formats (SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray). However, I'm the opposite of you in one sense--I would (and frequently have) pay extra for MCH, even if it means forgoing a lossless version. For example, I have the DTS-CD of Joshua Judges Ruth by Lyle Lovett. Wouldn't trade its MCH goodness for a 2 ch 192/24 recording (but I would do the reverse). Different strokes...
eljr likes this.
Ovation is offline  
post #137 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 07:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
I found that the louder I turn up the volume I prefer 2-channel, at low volume (backgound levels) multichannel (5.1+) helps to sound full.
2-channel music does sound its best loud, stereo is CLEAR and CLEAN mainly due to less/none digital processing.
When 2-channel music is played at high volume levels it is room filling and there is no need for digital processing for rear + speakers to fill in.
At times multichannel does sound sweet, but the music and my mood has alot to do with it, but switch back to stereo and stereo just about everytime sounds better.
Just want to note that the only DTS CD album I own is Bonnie Raitt Road Tested, and many music tracks on BR and dvd movie discs, at this point I wouldn't pay extra just for multichannel music..
I'm behind the times, are there better formats ??
Nice post Joe, very honest.

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #138 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Levi View Post
Right.

The beauty of recordings is that you can give listeners a perspective that you don't get in a live concert, and to a large extent, stereo recordings have always done this, offering a upfront viewpoint.

As for the issue of being surrounded by the musicians, the only reason we don't see much of this is because few concert venues are designed for it.

But there definitely seems to be a rise in it. There are regularly concerts of all different genres at the Park Ave Armory in NYC where the building's very large space allows for the musicians to surround the audience.
Great post

which event do you suggest I attend to experience, to the fullest, a presentation as you speak to?

Thank you in advance

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #139 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 08:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Multi-channel is hands down better than 2 channel. And, depending on your processor, a 2 channel mix up converted to 7.1 is also hands down better than 2 channel.
gbaby is offline  
post #140 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaby View Post
Multi-channel is hands down better than 2 channel. And, depending on your processor, a 2 channel mix up converted to 7.1 is also hands down better than 2 channel.
can you please define better?

thanks

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #141 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 08:46 AM
Newbie
 
mcdoc29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Windsor Mill MD
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have really come to prefer multi channel music. especially well engineered sacd and live concerts on blue ray. Just something about being in the center of the music instead of just in front of it. 2 channel music can be an aborbing experience but if I compare a well recorded 2 chanel offering to that same piece of music in multichanel such as Pink Floyd DSOTM or Herbie Hancocks Headhunters I find the multichannel is much more compelling.
mcdoc29 is offline  
post #142 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Stereo is a less complex task for your ears.
Also less natural, making you adapt constantly since you don't hear that way in real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
I wrote simple and clear.
I was just commenting on the clear part. If I was looking for simple, I wouldn't have gotten into this hobby.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #143 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 09:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Also less natural, making you adapt constantly since you don't hear that way in real life..

, please explain why you would say this

thanks

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #144 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 10:00 AM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
i feel compelled to challenge this

we are speaking of music now and I have never had musicians sit to the side and behind me
BUT, the sound from those performing in front of you bounce off the side and rear walls and probably the ceiling and floor too. Large halls create an echo from the rear and sides.. Smaller rooms create a different kind of sound that you are sitting in. A well done MC recording can capture all of the acoustic characteristics of the room and put you, not only in front of the performers, but in the room too. So, even though no instruments, singers or whatever are moving around the room or auditorium, doesn't mean that MC won't enhance what's already happening in reality.

I'm not saying MC is better for you, I'm just pointing out that for some, it has advantages if done well.

My System Diagram: Here System Pix: Here

(1) Yamaha RX-A2010

(2) Klipsch RF-83

(1) Klipsch RC-64

(1) Klipsch RSW-10d

(2) Klipsch RVX-54

(2) Klipsch RSX-5

(See Links Above for Full Info)

lflorack is offline  
post #145 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 10:01 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
, please explain why you would say this
Because in real life we don't hear between two arbitrary points in front of us. Having the brain interpret this artifice might not be "a less complex task for your ears" as you claim. The less complex task might be recreating how we hear in real life, with a bubble of sound around the listener.

It's one thing to say you subjectively prefer 2-speaker playback to surround sound. It's quite another to claim that 2-speaker is objectively easier on your hearing than surround.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #146 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by lflorack View Post
BUT, the sound from those performing in front of you bounce off the side and rear walls and probably the ceiling and floor too. Large halls create an echo from the rear and sides.. Smaller rooms create a different kind of sound that you are sitting in. A well done MC recording can capture all of the acoustic characteristics of the room and put you, not only in front of the performers, but in the room too. So, even though no instruments, singers or whatever are moving around the room or auditorium, doesn't mean that MC won't enhance what's already happening in reality.

I'm not saying MC is better for you, I'm just pointing out that for some, it has advantages if done well.
thanks for the explanation

would not the sound bounce off the walls in your listen space as well? Would this not corrupt the effect of the surround in this regard? or

Maybe it is redundant and we need to accept that each listen hall has different acoustic? Each home listening room?

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #147 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 10:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 3,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Because in real life we don't hear between two arbitrary points in front of us. Having the brain interpret this artifice might not be "a less complex task for your ears" as you claim. The less complex task might be recreating how we hear in real life, with a bubble of sound around the listener.

It's one thing to say you subjectively prefer 2-speaker playback to surround sound. It's quite another to claim that 2-speaker is objectively easier on your hearing than surround.
thanks for the reply but i did not post anything about "2 speaker objectively easier" "less complex task" or brain interpretations.

moving on,

are you suggesting that surround is objectively superior in some way?

and that people who prefer stereo are just being subjective (with all the implications this site makes for the "tattooed" subjectivist?) that is what it sounds like???

What you got back home, little sister, to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you got little save pitiful, portable picnic players. Come with uncle and hear all proper! Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited.
eljr is online now  
post #148 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 10:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 18,738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
thanks for the reply but i did not post anything about "2 speaker objectively easier" "less complex task" or brain interpretations.
Sorry, my mistake, should have typed 8mile13 instead of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
are you suggesting that surround is objectively superior in some way?
To the extent that stereo is superior to mono. And certainly when it comes to options.

For example, if you want to playback recorded ambience from the same direction as the performers, then stereo and surround can do that. However, if you want recorded ambience to emanate from the direction (laterally) that it does in a venue, then stereo doesn't give you that option, only surround does.

More options is superior to fewer options.
jmtbe likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is online now  
post #149 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 11:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Suntan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 7,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I like them both.

Multi channel is nice when you just want to sit back and chill.

2 ch is great when mastered well. Being able to actually place the instruments on a mental soundstage adds a compelling addition to a "stereo" track.

The better question - "Is music better with the lights on or the lights off?

-Suntan
Suntan is offline  
post #150 of 299 Old 07-07-2014, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post

are you suggesting that surround is objectively superior in some way?

and that people who prefer stereo are just being subjective (with all the implications this site makes for the "tattooed" subjectivist?) that is what it sounds like???
I think that multich definitely has the capability of being superior, but the choke point is how much it has been utilized in recordings/mixes compared to the availability of two-ch stereo recordings; the playback equipment is there for many now, but need more material to choose from, just as a shift back in the day to take advantage of the shift from mono to two-channel stereo took a while for both recordings and playback equipment Multich is just the next step, at least until some other technology for sound reproduction comes along. IMHO.

lovinthehd is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off