Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings? - Page 9 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings?
2-channel 175 35.35%
Multichannel, audience perspective 182 36.77%
Multichannel, stage perspective 96 19.39%
I've never heard a multichannel music recording 42 8.48%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 124Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 09:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
Lets talk about Multi channel content for a moment. How many Multi channel recordings are available? at what price?

It has been suggested that some the label Surround Records multichannel stuff is actually manipulated stereo. Is there a difference between ''upscaled'' stereo and ''tru'' multichannel recordings?


btw Scott started a identical poll in 2011. results were back then:
2-channel 41%
Multichannel, audience perspective 34%
Multichannel, stage perspective 15%
I've never heard a multichannel music recording 10%
So, in each case, MCH (combined) is a clear majority--and bigger now than in 2011. Good to know.
Ovation is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 09:46 AM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
looking at the poll results is interesting. It was effectively even until a couple days ago.
As I type this, it appears that multi-channel is just under 60% of the total with 2-channel at ~32% . Doesn't sound very even at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
My honest opinion, most people voting don't listen to much music at all other than on an Ipod.
Although that may be true, it probably wouldn't have any impact on how people vote. Just because someone listens to music on an iPod due to convenience, doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't prefer to listen to multi-channel music if it were more convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
There is simply not enough music available in multi channel to warrant these results.
Although the number of MC recordings might be smaller than those in stereo, that fact probably wouldn't have any impact on how people vote. Just because the number of multi-channel titles might be more limited than stereo titles, doesn't necessarily mean that people wouldn't prefer multi-channel listening when they could get it. The poll doesn't represent the count of the times one listens to a particular format, just which one you prefer. All it would take for many people is to hear MC once to prefer it -- even if they couldn't get it much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
My guess, virtually everyone with a multi movie systems voted multi just because they have it.
Or possibly because they've heard something that they believe is superior and like it.

Links: My System Diagram / System Pix
Yamaha RX-A2010, Samsung UN55B8000, AppleTV, Roku3, Yamaha CDC-685, Oppo BDP-93
Klipsch: (2) RF-83's, (1) RC-64, (2) RVX-54's, (2) RSX-5's
SVS: (1) SB13-Ultra
See links above for additional system details.

Last edited by lflorack; 07-11-2014 at 09:57 AM.
lflorack is offline  
post #243 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 11:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,025
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Liked: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
So, in each case, MCH (combined) is a clear majority--and bigger now than in 2011. Good to know.
The poll raises a lot of questions. How many hours do folks listen to music each day? Do folks do all their music listening multichannel? Do folks use their movie set-up for audio listening? Do folks sit in the center during MCH music listening? etc..

Besides the questions the poll raises one must keep in mind that the result is representative for AVS members. On a simular poll at the australian AV Forum in may 2014 for instance there was only one out of 28 votes for ''Only Multi channel, 2.0 is so yesterday''. My expectation would be that on a non-audio/AV Forum Poll the MCH preference would drop significantly.
8mile13 is offline  
post #244 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lflorack View Post


Although the number of MC recordings might be smaller than those in stereo, that fact probably wouldn't have any impact on how people vote.
isn't that my point?

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 #245 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 12:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
The poll raises a lot of questions. How many hours do folks listen to music each day? Do folks do all their music listening multichannel?
.

isn't this mutually exclusive?

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 #246 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 12:41 PM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
isn't that my point?
I'm not sure. It seemed to me that you were saying that the survey results were hard to believe because there are so few MC recordings so how could people be choosing MC?.

My point is that the poll asked what people preferred, not what they listened to the most so it does not matter how many are available.
lovinthehd likes this.

Links: My System Diagram / System Pix
Yamaha RX-A2010, Samsung UN55B8000, AppleTV, Roku3, Yamaha CDC-685, Oppo BDP-93
Klipsch: (2) RF-83's, (1) RC-64, (2) RVX-54's, (2) RSX-5's
SVS: (1) SB13-Ultra
See links above for additional system details.
lflorack is offline  
post #247 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 01:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
On a simular poll at the australian AV Forum in may 2014 for instance there was only one out of 28 votes for ''Only Multi channel, 2.0 is so yesterday''.
The poll you mentioned adds restrictions that this poll does not. It asks the people to vote based upon which formats they prefer when engaged in focused listening only and to exclude listening done in the car or when moving about the house/on the go. It also provides vastly different choices, most notably the "only multichannel", "only stereo", and "depends on my mood" options, whereas this poll simply asks you which you prefer, regardless of whether you listen to only stereo, only multichannel, or some combination of both. Let's look at the results of the poll you mentioned and see if we can explain the differences...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# channels for focused music listening (not car, running about house etc)

  1. Humbug to multi channel !!! 2.0 is the only way (5 votes [17.86%])
  2. Prefer 2.1/2.2 to 2.0 if set up properly (8 votes [28.57%])
  3. Will listen to 2.0, 2.1, multi channel depending on mood (10 votes [35.71%])
  4. Only multi channel, 2.0 is so yesterday (1 votes [3.57%])
  5. Don't care as long as it sounds good (4 votes [14.29%])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There are a few different ways to read these results. One would be to add options 1 & 2 together since both responses indicate a clear preference for 2.0/2.1 over multichannel, giving you 13 out of 28 total votes or 46.43% clearly in favor of stereo. Only option 4 indicates a clear preference for multichannel over stereo, giving you 1 out of 28 total votes or 3.57% clearly in favor of multichannel. Neither option 3 nor 5 indicate a clear preference either way, which basically means that we don't know which way 14 of the 28 or 50% of the poll takers would vote if they were forced to choose between the two. If they all sided with the stereo folks then stereo would win in a land slide. If they all sided with the multichannel guy then multichannel would win in a close vote. With that amount of swing vote, it would be a mistake to suggest that either stereo or multichannel won in their poll. So, what conclusions can you draw from the results of their poll?


Let's look at this another way. Instead of looking at who prefers what in a world where you are forced to choose between one or the other, let's look at it from the perspective of how many people you would upset if you removed one format or the other. If you want to know how many people are happy that they have the option to listen to stereo, simply add options 1, 2, 3, & 5. Doing so shows that 27 out of 28 total votes or 96.43% would likely be upset if you eliminated stereo music from the face of the earth. Only 1 person or 3.57% wouldn't care if you did so. Likewise, if you want to know how many people are happy that they have the option to listen to multichannel music, simply add options 2, 3, 4, & 5 (note that just because option 2 indicates a preference for stereo, it does not mean that these people do not occasionally enjoy multichannel as well). Doing so shows that 23 of the 28 total votes or 82.14% would likely be upset if you eliminated multichannel music from the face of the earth. The other 5 people or 17.86% wouldn't care if you did.


The point is that you need to be very careful about drawing the wrong conclusions from the results of a poll. It is very easy to misinterpret results and just as easy for spin doctors to twist poll results to say whatever they want them to say, particularly if they had control over what options the poll takers were given.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
My expectation would be that on a non-audio/AV Forum Poll the MCH preference would drop significantly.
It's hard to know for certain, but I am guessing that if you posted Scott's poll on a non-AV related site, the % of votes in favor of multichannel music would indeed drop. My guess is that the option that got the most votes would be the "I have never heard multichannel music".

Last edited by HockeyoAJB; 07-11-2014 at 01:44 PM.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #248 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
isn't that my point?
Didn't seem that was your point but maybe you can explain further?

lovinthehd is online now  
post #249 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
Didn't seem that was your point but maybe you can explain further?
People are likely voting without ever even comparing.

In other words, they have not even heard MC recordings but vote that they prefer them.

hence the lack of availability is irrelevant to the voteing

" the number of MC recordings might be smaller than those in stereo, that fact probably wouldn't have any impact on how people vote."

How could you get a 50-50 result with so few titles available?

I'll tell you what confuses me most in this thread is the determination of the MC folks to insist MC is better.

Like they need some kind of validation. I don't get it. You prefer it you prefer it. God bless.

It has it's place. I don't need a conversion.

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 #250 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
People are likely voting without ever even comparing.

In other words, they have not even heard MC recordings but vote that they prefer them.

hence the lack of availability is irrelevant to the voteing

" the number of MC recordings might be smaller than those in stereo, that fact probably wouldn't have any impact on how people vote."

How could you get a 50-50 result with so few titles available?

ps Did this start out in the 2ch sub forum like I remember?

I'll tell you what confuses me most in this thread is the determination of the MC folks to insist MC is better.

Like they need some kind of validation. I don't get it. You prefer it you prefer it. God bless.

It has it's place. I don't need a conversion.
I don't get how you are correlating the 50-50 result (which it isn't, it's currently about 32% for 2-ch, with another 10% who haven't even heard a multich recording since they're apparently still smarting from having to switch from mono to 2ch ) with number of recordings available. I find it interesting in that this 2ch sub forum, already one of the smallest here at AVS, the multi-ch preference is in the majority....
I'm not proselytizing....well, a little bit.


For some reason I thought this was in the 2ch subforum....was it originally or just my memory?

lovinthehd is online now  
post #251 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 02:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
I don't get how you are correlating the 50-50 result (which it isn't, it's currently about 32% for 2-ch, with another 10% who haven't even heard a multich recording since they're apparently still smarting from having to switch from mono to 2ch ) with number of recordings available. I find it interesting in that this 2ch sub forum, already one of the smallest here at AVS, the multi-ch preference is in the majority....
I'm not proselytizing....well, a little bit.
38/31 a couple day ago it was effectively 50/50

be that as it may...

---------

It is clear that anything short of, "I see the errors of my ways, I love MC and will always curse the days I listened in stereo" will result in stained relationships.

So let me say, I see the errors of my ways, I love MC and will always curse the days I listened in stereo.

OK?

Aren't you the guy who took issue with me posting two spins to close together in the other thread?

I still love ya, but I feel for your wife.


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 #252 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 02:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lflorack View Post
I'm not sure. It seemed to me that you were saying that the survey results were hard to believe because there are so few MC recordings so how could people be choosing MC?.

My point is that the poll asked what people preferred, not what they listened to the most so it does not matter how many are available.

I see the errors of my ways, I love MC and will always curse the days I listened in stereo.


on a side note, I checked out your system, I love the clean neat look and relative simplicity.

Well done


imhO you can kick that system up significantly with some serious subwoofers. have you considered that?

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 #253 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 07:21 PM
Senior Member
 
lflorack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hilton, NY
Posts: 432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
on a side note, I checked out your system, I love the clean neat look and relative simplicity.

Well done


imhO you can kick that system up significantly with some serious subwoofers. have you considered that?
Thank you for your kind words. Although I will point out that the little 10" Klipsch RSW-10d is pretty potent especially for it's size, I agree with you that the subwoofer is at least one of the weakest parts of the system.

Links: My System Diagram / System Pix
Yamaha RX-A2010, Samsung UN55B8000, AppleTV, Roku3, Yamaha CDC-685, Oppo BDP-93
Klipsch: (2) RF-83's, (1) RC-64, (2) RVX-54's, (2) RSX-5's
SVS: (1) SB13-Ultra
See links above for additional system details.
lflorack is offline  
post #254 of 351 Old 07-11-2014, 07:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Liked: 856
If you feel that you need to change "sides" to fit into my POV that's up to you. Reminded of the Joker's "why so serious?" .

Not me on the spins, enjoy your selections most of the time as our tastes are similar.

Why in heck would I want to be married?

Xoxo back at ya!
eljr likes this.

lovinthehd is online now  
post #255 of 351 Old 07-12-2014, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
If you feel that you need to change "sides" to fit into my POV that's up to you. Reminded of the Joker's "why so serious?" .

Not me on the spins, enjoy your selections most of the time as our tastes are similar.

Why in heck would I want to be married?

Xoxo back at ya!
Great comeback, I tip my hat.
lovinthehd 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 offline  
post #256 of 351 Old 07-14-2014, 05:17 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
""Reminded of the Joker's "why so serious?"" . So true, I wouldn't put any weight on the poll, If we are to count all the homeless with Iphones, 2.0 would blow the #s off the chart..
joehonest is offline  
post #257 of 351 Old 07-14-2014, 05:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by joehonest View Post
""Reminded of the Joker's "why so serious?"" . So true, I wouldn't put any weight on the poll, If we are to count all the homeless with Iphones, 2.0 would blow the #s off the chart..
Because all homeless people with iPhones prefer stereo over multichannel? More likely that they wouldn't know that multichannel music even exists.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #258 of 351 Old 07-15-2014, 11:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SoundChex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, west coast
Posts: 2,715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
It has been suggested that some the label Surround Records multichannel stuff is actually manipulated stereo. Is there a difference between ''upscaled'' stereo and ''tru'' multichannel recordings?

It looks to me like upmixing 2.0 to (only!) 5.1 is now no longer the limit of that "dark art"...?!

It appears from this One Bit Audio (link) news item that--despite the fact that most of these artists predeceased the invention of Auro-3D technology--some upcoming releases from Stan Getz (February 2, 1927 – June 6, 1991) John Lee Hooker (August 22, 1917 – June 21, 2001) Charles Mingus Jr. (April 22, 1922 – January 5, 1979) Chick Corea (born June 12, 1941) and Thelonious Monk (October 10, 1917 – February 17, 1982) will all contain 9.1 Auro-3D mixes.

Perhaps as an homage to the somewhat pejorative term "iPod audio", we might christen this kind of post-mortem post-processing as "iZombie audio" . . . ?!



With apologies to the graphic novel and forthcoming TV series...

"Gwen eats brains . . . and so does bad upmixing!"



FYI: Note that the BDs mentioned above use Pure Audio (link) technology . . . no extra points for confusing the name with UMe's High Fidelity Pure Audio (HFPA) initiative releases also on BD!
_

[Home Office system schematic]
"My AV systems were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many speakers. And they have . . . A PLAN."


Last edited by SoundChex; 07-19-2014 at 10:08 AM.
SoundChex is offline  
post #259 of 351 Old 07-19-2014, 05:36 PM
Senior Member
 
wadeh911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
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 ??
Joe's comment explains much of the confusion about multi-channel...many think it is synthesized Dolby prologic 2 or such...when it absolutely is not. Multichannel music is not fake or simulated to come from 5.1 speakers, but actually mixed in the studio where each speaker is assigned a musical position from the live recording. I love both 2CH and true MCH music, and agree that MCH systems are more expensive and complex to achieve the same sound quality as 2CH. Recreating live music in my home is my hobby and well worth the time and money I invest. For those of you who have never heard a high end MCH music system you are in for an amazing experience. And when you tire of listening to steely dan everything must go, or queen night at the opera, or bach's tocatta & fugue you can with the touch of a button change over to a High end home theater and watch/listen to master & commander or saving private Ryan in TrueHD or DTS-Master audio formats. Both of those formats are true multi-channel and not synthesized or made up.

Everyone listens to movies in multichannel and never argues 2 channel movies are better. Just sayin..
lovinthehd likes this.

South Florida is my Theater
Listen to live music and recreate it at home.
wadeh911 is offline  
post #260 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 06:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeh911 View Post
Multichannel music is not fake or simulated to come from 5.1 speakers, but actually mixed in the studio where each speaker is assigned a musical position from the live recording.

excluding movies, what is achieved by this besides novelty?


no one argues about 5.1 for movies because in real life sounds can come from any direction. In music presentation, it is rare for all the sound to not originate in the forward position.

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 #261 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
excluding movies, what is achieved by this besides novelty?


no one argues about 5.1 for movies because in real life sounds can come from any direction. In music presentation, it is rare for all the sound to not originate in the forward position.
You keep asking a question that has repeatedly been answered, with detailed explanations among those answers.

Have you ever attended a concert or been present at any live music performance? If so, you have experienced something that a discrete MCH mix is better at reproducing than a mere 2 channel mix. Even if the sound originated in front of you. Even if you have only two ears.

There are two kinds of MCH mixes. There are "audience perspective" mixes and "on stage/in the band" mixes. You appear convinced the latter is the dominant form of MCH presentation. It is not. Of the nearly 10,000 MCH releases in all formats (DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, BD, downloads, DTS-CD, etc.), I'd estimate that "in the band" mixes are under 30%, probably closer to 20%, of the mixes released. The rest are "audience perspective" mixes and they are designed to reproduce the sound of the place where the music was performed more fully than any 2 channel mix can accomplish.

I've noted elsewhere in this thread that among my best sounding MCH discs are three releases that are recordings of a solo instrument--one jazz piano, one classical piano and one classical harp. There are no "gimmicks" of the kind you persist in imagining are the default standard of MCH mixes. The 2 channel mix in each case sounds pretty good--like a good recording of a performance on the specific instrument. The MCH mix sounds a lot better--like I'm in the room with the instrument (not precisely, of course, it's still a recording, but MUCH, MUCH more so than with the 2 channel mix). The MCH mix, in each of these three cases, re-creates the sound of the performance space much more realistically than the 2 channel mix is capable of doing because it is capturing not only the sound directly emanating from the instrument, but also the sound of the room in which it is being played. And if I had been in the room, I would have heard the instrument AND the room interacting together (as is the case in the presence of any live musical performance inside a room of any size). It is physically impossible for a 2 channel mix to play back that instrument/room combination as well as a MCH mix (all gear being equal for playback purposes and presuming the mixer isn't somehow attempting to dramatically alter the original sound in the room). Now, it is certainly possible for people to prefer the 2 channel mix, for any number of reasons. But preference is NOT reference (a phrase I used to see thrown around in various A/V fora all the time).

You appear to be convinced that MCH mixes are predominantly intended to place you "in the band", thus disorienting your usual experience of having music coming from "in front of you". That is not the case (such mixes do exist, but they are a minority). But do feel free to keep asking "apart from novelty, what is a MCH mix good for"--much easier to do that than to take the time to experience an actual, discrete MCH mix with an "in the audience" perspective and find your pre-conceived notions do not hold up in all situations.
Ovation is offline  
post #262 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
You keep asking a question that has repeatedly been answered, with detailed explanations among those answers.
the answers c0me back bogus like this one.

Have you ever attended a concert or been present at any live music performance?

No, I am not into music and I live in a box.


There are two kinds of MCH mixes. There are "audience perspective" mixes and "on stage/in the band" mixes. You appear convinced the latter is the dominant form of MCH presentation.

What I am convinced of I can't post.

It is not. Of the nearly 10,000 MCH releases in all formats (DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, BD, downloads, DTS-CD, etc.), I'd estimate that "in the band" mixes are under 30%, probably closer to 20%, of the mixes released. The rest are "audience perspective" mixes and they are designed to reproduce the sound of the place where the music was performed more fully than any 2 channel mix can accomplish.

I've noted elsewhere in this thread that among my best sounding MCH discs are three releases that are recordings of a solo instrument--one jazz piano, one classical piano and one classical harp. There are no "gimmicks" of the kind you persist in imagining are the default standard of MCH mixes. The 2 channel mix in each case sounds pretty good--like a good recording of a performance on the specific instrument. The MCH mix sounds a lot better--like I'm in the room with the instrument (not precisely, of course, it's still a recording, but MUCH, MUCH more so than with the 2 channel mix). The MCH mix, in each of these three cases, re-creates the sound of the performance space much more realistically than the 2 channel mix is capable of doing because it is capturing not only the sound directly emanating from the instrument, but also the sound of the room in which it is being played. And if I had been in the room, I would have heard the instrument AND the room interacting together (as is the case in the presence of any live musical performance inside a room of any size). It is physically impossible for a 2 channel mix to play back that instrument/room combination as well as a MCH mix (all gear being equal for playback purposes and presuming the mixer isn't somehow attempting to dramatically alter the original sound in the room). Now, it is certainly possible for people to prefer the 2 channel mix, for any number of reasons. But preference is NOT reference (a phrase I used to see thrown around in various A/V fora all the time).

You appear to be convinced that MCH mixes are predominantly intended to place you "in the band", thus disorienting your usual experience of having music coming from "in front of you". That is not the case (such mixes do exist, but they are a minority). But do feel free to keep asking "apart from novelty, what is a MCH mix good for"--much easier to do that than to take the time to experience an actual, discrete MCH mix with an "in the audience" perspective and find your pre-conceived notions do not hold up in all situations
.


Too bad we can't talk in person but you do such a good job of speaking for me one would think it not necessary. Still I feel I could "express" myself in a very satisfying manner if we did.

Clue, your preference for multi channel does not make it in any way superior, it simply makes it your preference.

peace brother

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.

Last edited by eljr; 07-20-2014 at 11:57 AM.
eljr is offline  
post #263 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 01:31 PM
Senior Member
 
wadeh911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
excluding movies, what is achieved by this besides novelty?


no one argues about 5.1 for movies because in real life sounds can come from any direction. In music presentation, it is rare for all the sound to not originate in the forward position.
Last Friday night I sat in Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club while in London to enjoy Lee Ritenauer and Dave Grusin. While most of the sound was direct from the stage, the club had excellent multi-channel ambiance, just like in my multi-channel room.

I looked for you while there but guess you caught the early 2 channel show rather than the MCH 10:30 show. Cheers.

South Florida is my Theater
Listen to live music and recreate it at home.
wadeh911 is offline  
post #264 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadeh911 View Post
Last Friday night I sat in Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club while in London to enjoy Lee Ritenauer and Dave Grusin. While most of the sound was direct from the stage, the club had excellent multi-channel ambiance, just like in my multi-channel room.

I looked for you while there but guess you caught the early 2 channel show rather than the MCH 10:30 show. Cheers.
This is an interesting post.

You verify my point yet claim it is consistent with yours.

God bless.

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 #265 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Looks like someone doesn't understand sarcasm.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #266 of 351 Old 07-20-2014, 09:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
the answers c0me back bogus like this one.

Have you ever attended a concert or been present at any live music performance?

No, I am not into music and I live in a box.


There are two kinds of MCH mixes. There are "audience perspective" mixes and "on stage/in the band" mixes. You appear convinced the latter is the dominant form of MCH presentation.

What I am convinced of I can't post.

It is not. Of the nearly 10,000 MCH releases in all formats (DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, BD, downloads, DTS-CD, etc.), I'd estimate that "in the band" mixes are under 30%, probably closer to 20%, of the mixes released. The rest are "audience perspective" mixes and they are designed to reproduce the sound of the place where the music was performed more fully than any 2 channel mix can accomplish.

I've noted elsewhere in this thread that among my best sounding MCH discs are three releases that are recordings of a solo instrument--one jazz piano, one classical piano and one classical harp. There are no "gimmicks" of the kind you persist in imagining are the default standard of MCH mixes. The 2 channel mix in each case sounds pretty good--like a good recording of a performance on the specific instrument. The MCH mix sounds a lot better--like I'm in the room with the instrument (not precisely, of course, it's still a recording, but MUCH, MUCH more so than with the 2 channel mix). The MCH mix, in each of these three cases, re-creates the sound of the performance space much more realistically than the 2 channel mix is capable of doing because it is capturing not only the sound directly emanating from the instrument, but also the sound of the room in which it is being played. And if I had been in the room, I would have heard the instrument AND the room interacting together (as is the case in the presence of any live musical performance inside a room of any size). It is physically impossible for a 2 channel mix to play back that instrument/room combination as well as a MCH mix (all gear being equal for playback purposes and presuming the mixer isn't somehow attempting to dramatically alter the original sound in the room). Now, it is certainly possible for people to prefer the 2 channel mix, for any number of reasons. But preference is NOT reference (a phrase I used to see thrown around in various A/V fora all the time).

You appear to be convinced that MCH mixes are predominantly intended to place you "in the band", thus disorienting your usual experience of having music coming from "in front of you". That is not the case (such mixes do exist, but they are a minority). But do feel free to keep asking "apart from novelty, what is a MCH mix good for"--much easier to do that than to take the time to experience an actual, discrete MCH mix with an "in the audience" perspective and find your pre-conceived notions do not hold up in all situations
.


Too bad we can't talk in person but you do such a good job of speaking for me one would think it not necessary. Still I feel I could "express" myself in a very satisfying manner if we did.

Clue, your preference for multi channel does not make it in any way superior, it simply makes it your preference.

peace brother
Predictable. And I don't have to "speak for you". All anyone needs to do is read the posts you've already made. Easy enough to draw conclusions from them. And "clue", it's not my preference for MCH that makes it superior at capturing the room ambience where the performance was recorded (the only thing for which anyone has claimed any objective superiority)--it's physics. I don't care what you enjoy. But reality trumps preference, and I do care when people suggest otherwise. It is called Audio Visual Science here, is it not?
Ovation is offline  
post #267 of 351 Old 07-21-2014, 07:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
Predictable. And I don't have to "speak for you". All anyone needs to do is read the posts you've already made. Easy enough to draw conclusions from them. And "clue", it's not my preference for MCH that makes it superior at capturing the room ambience where the performance was recorded (the only thing for which anyone has claimed any objective superiority)--it's physics. I don't care what you enjoy. But reality trumps preference, and I do care when people suggest otherwise. It is called Audio Visual Science here, is it not?
This is so ridiculous.

What room ambiance are you trying to capture in a typical recording studio?

Tracks can be fused from days or even years apart. What is it you capture in this kind of "performance?"

How about when the sound hits your room? LOL

This is so so ridiculous.


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 #268 of 351 Old 07-21-2014, 08:24 AM
Senior Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I actually prefer MONO (1 channel) but since there is no MONO option I selected 2 channel....

Alot of my records are 2 channel and are OK but if I could listen to ALL OF THEM IN MONO,i would
Dude111 is offline  
post #269 of 351 Old 07-21-2014, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
eljr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Futuristic London
Posts: 4,160
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked: 1087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
I actually prefer MONO

I don't think that is allowed.


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 #270 of 351 Old 07-21-2014, 01:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
This is so ridiculous.

What room ambiance are you trying to capture in a typical recording studio?

Tracks can be fused from days or even years apart. What is it you capture in this kind of "performance?"

How about when the sound hits your room? LOL

This is so so ridiculous.

I have hundreds of MCH recordings of classical music and jazz performances that were recorded in concert halls, churches or other performance spaces (some live in concert, others in those venues without an audience). Those are the room ambience recordings MCH reproduces far better than any 2 channel mix could ever hope to do.
Ovation 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