Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings? - Page 6 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings?
2-channel 179 35.73%
Multichannel, audience perspective 184 36.73%
Multichannel, stage perspective 96 19.16%
I've never heard a multichannel music recording 42 8.38%
Voters: 501. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 125Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
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
It sure would (and does) which is why we have room treatments, correction software in AVRs, etc.

We are trying to take a three dimensional effect - listening to music recorded in a recording studio, or a concert hall and replicate it as faithfully as possible in our humble homes, with their quirks.

Nothing will be perfect about this.

Depending on the quality of the recording, whether it was recorded with N points and then mixed to 2, 4, 5 or ... ? channels, the recording can be compromised.

If done well, any of these can be stellar. I have stereo SACD's that are great -- Kind of Blue for example, that blow the doors off most recordings.

I do find that multi channel gets me (myself, moi) personally more immersed in the music. It's a personal choice and I'm good with other people feeling differently.

As you bring up though, since the space it was recorded in adds or subtracts from a performance, and the effort is made in home systems to nullify the interference of the home's environment, then enhancing the delivery of the performance's hall while minimizing the home's interference may be where multi channel shines.

Just my opinion, but again - I have many recordings in stereo. Would I like to have them in multi channel ? Maybe if they were recorded that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
Maybe it is redundant and we need to accept that each listen hall has different acoustic? Each home listening room?
hernanu is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
can you please define better?

thanks
Well, I purchased a Bryston SP3 in July 2012. Since I have owned this processor, I find that if I have a 2 channel source, and I change from 2 channel to 7.1, the 7.1 sound is immersive whereas the 2 channel sound seem to collapse the music. All or my speakers contain the same drivers so the soundfield is omni-present. Naturally, all my multi-channel SACD music sounds better than the 2 channel version due to the same reason, its more immersive. However, to get this immersive sound, you must make sure all of your distant settings are accurate. If you have to keep adjusting the surrounds, then you don't have you system configured correctly. I will admit that on rare occasions, I prefer 2 channels but its very rare, indeed.
gbaby is offline  
post #153 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 01:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
billmich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by proufo View Post
I listen to all my stereo recordings using ambiance-recreation (Lexicon).

Most people (including Scott) do not take AR seriously. I can only assume that they disregard the concept a priori and have never heard a proper setup for AR.
What is "AR"?
billmich is offline  
post #154 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 01:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,842
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Inside the house there is a high probability that the audio situation is different so that one is only partially true.
I still hear sounds from all directions indoors, so that doesn't make stereo more natural than surround, especially when it comes to reproducing a recorded event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
With additional audio information, with audio coming from all kind of directions, audio information is more complex compared to stereo. Are you claiming it is not?
I'm questioning your claim that it is a "less complex task for your ears". High def 3D video is more complex than 2D standard def video, but that doesn't make viewing the former a more complex "task" for our eyes than the latter, since we're already used to viewing real life that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
But that takes not away that multichannel has drawbacks.
But fewer drawbacks than 2-channel, since multi-channel has options that 2-channel does not.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #155 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 7,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
I do get the less natural part because in real life you are constantly surrounded with sound, outside that is though. Inside the house there is a high probability that the audio situation is different so that one is only partially true. Does ''caveman'' ring a bell? All of this kind of dictates that the natural thing to do is listening to stereo at the house and to Multichannel when one is outside (when one chooses to take this kind of reasoning to the extreme..).
With additional audio information, with audio coming from all kind of directions, audio information is more complex compared to stereo. Are you claiming it is not? Additional, psychologically, for some being surrounded by music is a bit to much therefor choose stereo. One definitely could claim that stereo is easier on the ears AFAIK

Surely one could claim that multichannel is superior in audio performance when compared to stereo. But that takes not away that multichannel has drawbacks.
Not sure how you make 2 ch more natural indoors than having more information; seems with more information you gain rather than lose and actually easier on your ears/mind. How does caveman come into it? Man caves? Man caves are great for multi-ch!
quad4.0 likes this.

"I realize that somebody playing free music isn't as commercial as a hamburger stand. But is it because you can eat a hamburger and hold it in your hand and you can't do that with music? Is it too free to control?" - Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) discussing commercial success in the music biz


lovinthehd is online now  
post #156 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
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.
makes sense

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 offline  
post #157 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd
Not sure how you make 2 ch more natural indoors than having more information; seems with more information you gain rather than lose and actually easier on your ears/mind. How does caveman come into it? Man caves? Man caves are great for multi-ch!
I just take the ''multichannel is natural-ish'' claim to another level..just because i can

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I still hear sounds from all directions indoors
Right, a lot of folks do not especially in the evening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
I'm questioning your claim that it is a "less complex task for your ears".
High def 3D video is more complex than 2D standard def video, but that doesn't make viewing the former a more complex "task" for our eyes than the latter, since we're already used to viewing real life that way.
And here is were you are deadwrong..
- "study suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision"
- ''All other things being equal, I would say you're increased your chances of having some discomfort''
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011...better-than-2d

The stereo-multichannel- 2D-3D etc..stuff, all of it is fake-ish, has very little to do with the real world. All that the multichannel, 3D, virtual reality etc.. does is it takes the fake to another, further away from the real world, more complex, level.
eljr and lovinthehd like this.
8mile13 is offline  
post #158 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 02:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,842
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Right, a lot of folks do not especially in the evening.
My hearing doesn't change in the evening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
All that the multichannel, 3D, virtual reality etc.. does is it takes the fake to another, further away from the real world, more complex, level.
Only when poorly done. I can likewise point to early ping-pong stereo as taking fake to another level. You're confusing poor use of technology with the capabilities of technology. We view and hear the world in 3 dimensions so it makes sense to reproduce it that way at home.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #159 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 7,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Liked: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
I just take the ''multichannel is natural-ish'' claim to another level..just because i can

Right, a lot of folks do not especially in the evening.

And here is were you are deadwrong..
- "study suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision"
- ''All other things being equal, I would say you're increased your chances of having some discomfort''
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011...better-than-2d

The stereo-multichannel- 2D-3D etc..stuff, all of it is fake-ish, has very little to do with the real world. All that the multichannel, 3D, virtual reality etc.. does is it takes the fake to another, further away from the real world, more complex, level.
Well, the whole home reproduction thing is fakish to begin with How do you have less input in the evening, not everyone is a night owl like me? I have multich sound even in the bedroom of course....and when I'm in my vehicles I'm surrounded....damn, I'm just surrounded all over!

"I realize that somebody playing free music isn't as commercial as a hamburger stand. But is it because you can eat a hamburger and hold it in your hand and you can't do that with music? Is it too free to control?" - Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) discussing commercial success in the music biz


lovinthehd is online now  
post #160 of 362 Old 07-07-2014, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
dargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I LOVE multichannel music. I'm waiting for my copy of The Who Quadrophonia in 5.1 to arrive tomorrow.
dargo is offline  
post #161 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 12:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Liked: 247
Multichannel, with the caveat that often multichannel mixes are abominable, and I find some multichannel chestnuts (“Brothers in Arms” for instance) superior in 2-channel-expanded-to-multichannel-via-DPL2 compared to discrete multichannel.

IMO, anyone who answers 2-channel simply hasn’t heard a well-mastered multichannel recording. Surrounds needn’t be part of the picture, though they help. Probably the most accessible condemnation of mere 2-channel is the 3.0-channel Mercury Living Presence SACDs. These minimally miked recordings from the 1950s* provide a depth and texture and palpability to the performance that 2-channel can only approach when a recording is amenable to matrix expansion (DPL2, Logic7, etc). Even though modern players in 3d-tier orchestras are often better than the players Ormandy et al. had in the 1950s due to cumulative learning, the rise of blind auditions, multiculturalism, etc.

*remember, “stereo” was only degraded from a 3-channel format to a 2-channel format because vinyl sucks.

As for “stage” vs “audience,” I’m personally completely uninterested “you’re in the middle of the ensemble” perspectives. Whether the performance is acoustic or electronic, music to me is a “they perform, you listen” experience. I find it odd that people use Pink Floyd to support statements about an audience concert. Admittedly, they haven’t toured much recently - last time I saw them live I was in high school, during the Division Bell tour - but they’re definitely a live act with musicians and an audience.

That said, one thing I expected to see years ago but haven’t really seen yet is the ability to hear a concert from the perspective of different seats. One of my most memorable concerts was seeing Vladimir Ashkenazy rip the DSO through Shostakovich 5 in 1999. From the front row of the “A” deck of Berlin’s Philharmonie. For those who have not had the good fortune to sit in this fine hall, here’s a seating chart.



Notice that unlike a Musikverein/Concertgebouw shoebox, the Philharmonie has most of its seating behind the orchestra. The podium is in front of the “H.” Indeed, one reason that particular concert was so memorable is that I could literally see into Maestro Ashkenazy’s eyes.

But even in a Musikverein/Concertgebouw-style shoebox, it would be neat to have the option of a 7th row center perspective, a mid-hall perspective, etc. With the surround channels mostly providing the ambient cues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LairdWilliams View Post
***The other issue is the following question - how many of the folks here have centers and surrounds that are on par with their front speakers? Yes, with a movie or TV show, most of the action is in the front 3 speakers. Your surrounds only need to be so good to be sufficient for movies, and most folks spend far less on their surround speakers than on the other 3.***
Any good system will use identical speakers across the front.

Surround quality is as uncritical for multichannel music as it is for movie sound. Actually, let me restate that, as I really don't know or care about plotless special effects wonders so I don't know/care what their requirements are. Surround channel quality is unimportant for multichannel music, though, as long as they're decent or better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Is [a smaller sweet spot] really true? I don't see why it should be.
Yes, it generally is. The reason is simply time/intensity trading. I usually point my surrounds at the ceiling to minimize such cues. Toole discusses using line arrays or CBTs as "ideal" surround speakers in Sound Reproduction, because they have much less falloff per distance, but to my knowledge nobody has really done that.
Frank Derks likes this.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #162 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 05:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
My hearing doesn't change in the evening.
When you are in one room with closed doors, at night when there is less activity outdoors sounds from all kind of directions will be limited. I do not understand why you have difficulties to understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
Only when poorly done.
Ok. So now it is poorly done. Recommendation is to limit 3D viewing even when it is well done..
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
I can likewise point to early ping-pong stereo as taking fake to another level. You're confusing poor use of technology with the capabilities of technology. We view and hear the world in 3 dimensions so it makes sense to reproduce it that way at home.
Seems that you can not handle the simple fact that 3D and Multi-channel provides more complex information for the brain compared to 2D and Stereo.
8mile13 is offline  
post #163 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
joehonest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Multi-channel is a fixed type of sound, sounds good in a small SPL window, were as stereo is wide open, sound good at all SPL levels, you get to change the type of sound with just a change in volume.
Multi-channel sound is like having a switch in your car that makes your car feel and handle like its going 120mph but its really only doing 60mph... or visa versa.

Last edited by joehonest; 07-08-2014 at 06:27 AM.
joehonest is offline  
post #164 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
When you are in one room with closed doors, at night when there is less activity outdoors sounds from all kind of directions will be limited. I do not understand why you have difficulties to understand that.
This isn't what you said before. In your previous post, you implied that people's directional hearing was somehow impaired in the evening as compared to daytime. Now you seem to be saying that there is less ambient noise in the evening than during the daytime. That may be true, but I don't see how this has anything to do with a preference for stereo vs. multi-channel music. Having less ambient noise would make the experience of listening to music better, regardless of how many channels are used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Ok. So now it is poorly done. Recommendation is to limit 3D viewing even when it is well done..
Seems that you can not handle the simple fact that 3D and Multi-channel provides more complex information for the brain compared to 2D and Stereo.
Everything we see in the real world is in 3 dimensions. Even if we accept the idea that viewing or hearing things in 3D is more complex than seeing or hearing them in 2D, the fact that our brains and our sensory organs are made to experience the real world in 3D defeats any argument that 2D is superior because it is possibly easier for our brains to interpret than 3D.

In this context, we are not talking about well done vs. poorly done 3D content relative to what currently exists. The truth is that all current 3D is "poorly done", since it all has issues with convergence and only really works properly when you are focused on the part of the image that the director wants you to focus on. "Good 3D" will require a different method of delivering the intended imagery. It is the weaknesses of the current methods that make viewing 3D content for extended periods of time unhealthy. If the method for delivering the 3D imagery were more natural with fewer issues than there would be no more harm in viewing it for extended periods of time than there is in viewing your natural surroundings. Unless your doctor has told you that you need to keep a patch over one eye most of the time so that you only see the real world in 3D for a couple hours a day then you can't really argue that there is anything inherently safer about limiting yourself to 2D.
Frank Derks likes this.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #165 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
quad4.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: here
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Is that really true? I don't see why it should be.
Scott is right-because 2 channel has the ability to make a 3rd or a phantom channel, making it seem to come from thin air. In MCH, the sweet spot is different. A very good example is Kamakiriad dvd audio in 5.1 The one cut "Teahouse on the tracks" is incredible. A shining example of the capability's of the whole concept. again, unfortunatly, not many productions can come close to what has been done-Elliot Scheiner is a master at it, and has done the best work.
Frank Derks likes this.
quad4.0 is offline  
post #166 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
Multichannel, with the caveat that often multichannel mixes are abominable, and I find some multichannel chestnuts (“Brothers in Arms” for instance) superior in 2-channel-expanded-to-multichannel-via-DPL2 compared to discrete multichannel.

IMO, anyone who answers 2-channel simply hasn’t heard a well-mastered multichannel recording. Surrounds needn’t be part of the picture, though they help. Probably the most accessible condemnation of mere 2-channel is the 3.0-channel Mercury Living Presence SACDs. These minimally miked recordings from the 1950s* provide a depth and texture and palpability to the performance that 2-channel can only approach when a recording is amenable to matrix expansion (DPL2, Logic7, etc). Even though modern players in 3d-tier orchestras are often better than the players Ormandy et al. had in the 1950s due to cumulative learning, the rise of blind auditions, multiculturalism, etc.

*remember, “stereo” was only degraded from a 3-channel format to a 2-channel format because vinyl sucks.

As for “stage” vs “audience,” I’m personally completely uninterested “you’re in the middle of the ensemble” perspectives. Whether the performance is acoustic or electronic, music to me is a “they perform, you listen” experience. I find it odd that people use Pink Floyd to support statements about an audience concert. Admittedly, they haven’t toured much recently - last time I saw them live I was in high school, during the Division Bell tour - but they’re definitely a live act with musicians and an audience.

That said, one thing I expected to see years ago but haven’t really seen yet is the ability to hear a concert from the perspective of different seats. One of my most memorable concerts was seeing Vladimir Ashkenazy rip the DSO through Shostakovich 5 in 1999. From the front row of the “A” deck of Berlin’s Philharmonie. For those who have not had the good fortune to sit in this fine hall, here’s a seating chart.



Notice that unlike a Musikverein/Concertgebouw shoebox, the Philharmonie has most of its seating behind the orchestra. The podium is in front of the “H.” Indeed, one reason that particular concert was so memorable is that I could literally see into Maestro Ashkenazy’s eyes.

But even in a Musikverein/Concertgebouw-style shoebox, it would be neat to have the option of a 7th row center perspective, a mid-hall perspective, etc. With the surround channels mostly providing the ambient cues.



Any good system will use identical speakers across the front.

Surround quality is as uncritical for multichannel music as it is for movie sound. Actually, let me restate that, as I really don't know or care about plotless special effects wonders so I don't know/care what their requirements are. Surround channel quality is unimportant for multichannel music, though, as long as they're decent or better.



Yes, it generally is. The reason is simply time/intensity trading. I usually point my surrounds at the ceiling to minimize such cues. Toole discusses using line arrays or CBTs as "ideal" surround speakers in Sound Reproduction, because they have much less falloff per distance, but to my knowledge nobody has really done that.
I have a subscription to the Digital Concert Hall and stream the Berliner Philharmoniker (live) concerts through the DCH app in my Oppo.
Although the sound is only stereo I get very good results with the matrix conversion to mc option in my AVR.


And there is a concert available in the archive that has musicians at various locations in the hall. To the right of G next to the Orgel and at the opposite end left of F on the balcony.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #167 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:41 AM
Senior Member
 
quad4.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: here
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by billmich View Post
What is "AR"?
ambiance-recreation (Lexicon).
quad4.0 is offline  
post #168 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
Multi-channel is a fixed type of sound, sounds good in a small SPL window, were as stereo is wide open, sound good at all SPL levels, you get to change the type of sound with just a change in volume.
Multi-channel sound is like having a switch in your car that makes your car feel and handle like its going 120mph but its really only doing 60mph... or visa versa.
A good multi channel system has a much wider SPL range and sounds more open than stereo. MC is just in another league.
billmich likes this.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #169 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 07:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
joehonest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Derks View Post
A good multi channel system has a much wider SPL range and sounds more open than stereo. MC is just in another league.
Really,, phasing, distortion, reflection on top of reflection, sweet spot, it all ADDS UP.. Low volume only, high volume at your own risk..

Last edited by joehonest; 07-08-2014 at 07:41 AM.
joehonest is offline  
post #170 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 07:48 AM
Member
 
amcfarla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


The vast majority of music recordings are 2-channel, but multichannel recordings offer a different experience. Which do you prefer?

-------------------

A multichannel surround system is essential for the full enjoyment of most movies, but it can also provide an enhanced musical experience. Multichannel recordings also offer more options than 2-channel—in particular, a choice of perspectives. Mixing engineers can put you in the audience with ambience (room reverb, audience noises during live shows, etc.) in the surround channels, or they can put you in the middle of the ensemble, what AIX Records—a leading provider of multichannel-music recordings—calls the "stage perspective." On the other hand, the sweet spot for multichannel is smaller than for 2-channel—a point in the middle of the speaker array instead of a line perpendicular to the plane of two speakers.

Which leads me to ask: When you sit down to listen to music, do you prefer 2-channel or multichannel recordings? If multichannel, do you prefer the audience or stage perspective?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+
No question, Multi-channel sounds much better. I have a SACD 5.1 version of Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, and a 2 channel version and the 5.1 blows away the 2 channel version. I even hooked up a $500 parasound DAC with the 2 channel version and the 5.1(not through a DAC) still sounded much fuller. Too bad, getting 5.1 recordings of albums is kind of rare, especially more considering SACD and DVD-audio are kind going the way of the dodo bird.
amcfarla is offline  
post #171 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 08:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
Really,, phasing, distortion, reflection on top of reflection, sweet spot, it all ADDS UP.. Low volume only, high volume at your own risk..

Because there is a center channel there is actually less phasing with multichannel.
MC has also a wider sweet spot than stereo that has to create a phantom center image that is often the main content in a mix.


Distortion? Nonsense. A multi channel system has actually less distortion as the workload is distributed over more channels in comparison.
And why would one channel in a multi channel system have more distortion than one channel in a two channel system anyway?


Reflection upon reflection is happening with stereo too. The advantage is that sounds from the back channels come in sync with the front channels. The slightly later arriving side and back wall reflections from the fronts are perceived as part of the reverb (Haas effect) .
Ambient sound from the rears sounds much more natural because off this.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #172 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,842
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1393 Post(s)
Liked: 1007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
When you are in one room with closed doors, at night when there is less activity outdoors sounds from all kind of directions will be limited. I do not understand why you have difficulties to understand that.
That's still not a change to my hearing. If I go camping in the woods, my hearing hasn't changed just because I hear less traffic noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
So now it is poorly done.
Yes, just as stereo can range from distracting ping-pong mixes to natural soundscapes, so can 3D vary in execution. Some approaches can increase strain compared to others: the flicker of active shutter glasses vs passive 3D glasses, side-by-side or top-bottom 3D vs frame-packed, low frame rate vs higher frame rate, dark image vs bright image, etc.

The study you linked to had viewers watch Clash of the Titans but not Avatar. It isn't difficult to prove a point using poor examples. Like claiming computer monitors cause eye strain and using an interlaced, monochrome-green, low refresh rate screen as your example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Seems that you can not handle the simple fact that 3D and Multi-channel provides more complex information for the brain compared to 2D and Stereo.
The world is three dimensional, but that doesn't mean experiencing it is a more difficult "task" for our senses. We've evolved for it and spent a lifetime adapting to it. Reproducing that at home is as natural as the real world, at least compared to 2D sound and images.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #173 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 09:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,145
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 403 Post(s)
Liked: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB
This isn't what you said before. In your previous post, you implied that people's directional hearing was somehow impaired in the evening as compared to daytime. Now you seem to be saying that there is less ambient noise in the evening than during the daytime. That may be true, but I don't see how this has anything to do with a preference for stereo vs. multi-channel music. Having less ambient noise would make the experience of listening to music better, regardless of how many channels are used.
What i mean is that when you are outside there is sound coming from all directions. When you are inside a stucture (a house, a cave, closed doors, closed windows etc..) the directions from which sounds come are very limited. So outside has that in common with Multi-channel, inside a stucture has that in common with stereo.
[quote=HockeyoAJB]
Everything we see in the real world is in 3 dimensions. Even if we accept the idea that viewing or hearing things in 3D is more complex than seeing or hearing them in 2D, the fact that our brains and our sensory organs are made to experience the real world in 3D defeats any argument that 2D is superior because it is possibly easier for our brains to interpret than 3D.
[QUOTE]
It is possibly easier probably not It simply does not work that way. Its not the real world it is an artificial world. When complexity is added to that artificial world the brain has some additional work to do. After that additional work is done the brain might feel more at home. Anyway that is how i look at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyoAJB
In this context, we are not talking about well done vs. poorly done 3D content relative to what currently exists. The truth is that all current 3D is "poorly done", since it all has issues with convergence and only really works properly when you are focused on the part of the image that the director wants you to focus on. "Good 3D" will require a different method of delivering the intended imagery. It is the weaknesses of the current methods that make viewing 3D content for extended periods of time unhealthy. If the method for delivering the 3D imagery were more natural with fewer issues than there would be no more harm in viewing it for extended periods of time than there is in viewing your natural surroundings. Unless your doctor has told you that you need to keep a patch over one eye most of the time so that you only see the real world in 3D for a couple hours a day then you can't really argue that there is anything inherently safer about limiting yourself to 2D.
You could also claim that 2D is poorly done. In that case we are talking about poorly 2D vs. poorly 3D.. Even if 3D would be perfect (what it never will be!) 2D will allways be easier to watch, i have no doubt about that.
8mile13 is offline  
post #174 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 09:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
joehonest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 30


In real life the starting point of the music is in one small area , say right in front of you ( unless you got the cheap seats). Does 2 channel audio do that, yes it does. So what are the rears for?
joehonest is offline  
post #175 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

IMO, anyone who answers 2-channel simply hasn’t heard a well-mastered multichannel recording..
that;s a very egotistical claim

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 offline  
post #176 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13
...Its not the real world it is an artificial world. When complexity is added to that artificial world the brain has some additional work to do....

There is no extra 'complexity' added. The ear brain is simply acting on changing (sound) pressure levels on the two available eardrums.
It would only be more complex for the brain if it had to deal with signals coming from five ears instead of two.


I could claim that listening to stereo ,as a less complete artificial world than multichannel, is more complex and fatiguing for the brain as it attempts to fill in the missing information that normally occurs in the natural environment.
Frank Derks is offline  
post #177 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 1374
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post


In real life the starting point of the music is in one small area , say right in front of you ( unless you got the cheap seats). Does 2 channel audio do that, yes it does. So what are the rears for?
another honest question joe.

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 offline  
post #178 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Actually, it's been answered several times, quite well and clearly. Persisting in thinking otherwise is just stubbornness--likely still motivated by the erroneous assumption that all MCH recordings involve "swirling instruments" all around you. Such recordings exist, but they are a tiny minority of all MCH releases in SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray etc.

The centre channel of MCH does as described above--widens the sweet spot (the opposite of what many 2 ch "purists" claim). Moreover, "stereo" was originally conceived as a THREE channel L/C/R system. The ONLY reasons it was brought down to two channel were the inherent limitations of vinyl playback and the need for adding two, rather than one, speaker to a mono system (the latter viewed as economically impeding the adoption of stereo, even if the vinyl problem could have been solved early on).

The science of all this is clear (and has been explained above, as I noted above). A scientific approach to receiving new information is to re-adjust what we think we know about the world to incorporate that new information. A non-scientific approach is to simply reject that which conflicts with our previous views rather than dare to admit those views might be in error.

No one is saying anyone has to prefer the listening experience of MCH over 2 ch (well, no one should be--that's a matter of personal, subjective preference). But an attitude of refusal to accept that which has been empirically validated, just because it clashes with one's "beliefs"--well, that's hardly the path to become more knowledgeable about the world, let alone tinier parts of it like audio.
Ovation is offline  
post #179 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 10:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
joehonest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 30
So maybe for real life music lovers, it would be best if all 5.1+ channels were used for the front sound stage.
Hell, that would work out perfect for a 4 or 5 piece band !

Last edited by joehonest; 07-08-2014 at 11:02 AM.
joehonest is offline  
post #180 of 362 Old 07-08-2014, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frank Derks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Region A,B,C
Posts: 1,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
So maybe for real life music lovers, it would be best if all 5.1+ channels were used for the front sound stage.
Have you actually been in a concert hall with a good seating position?
The sound is far more enveloping than you think.
Frank Derks is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

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