how many channels is best for music

3 channels are cool(3.1 better) but as i have 6.1 decoder, some 5.1 sources and do my own encodes i prefer 5.1 to don't let the surrounds channels in silence.
even doing some encodes where i can be 6.1 and having 6.1 decoder i prefer 5.1.

The shamans at Stereophile say some of the strangest things. One can imagine what they would have written in the 1950s about two channel recording and playback. After reading the entrails of pigeons and frogs, they would undoubtedly conclude that only monophonic could properly reproduce the "dynamics" and "soundstage" of live music.

And of course the Victrola was far superior to amplified music, what with all those horrible "resonances" in speakers. ;-)

Me, too.

i think 4.0 or 4.1 is best. the center channel seems like overkill for audio esp...john

The center channel is critical for music, if it is not compromised and if it gets a discrete signal.

Kal,

I wonder if you have heard Porcupine Tree's live DVD - and if you haven't could you try and give it a listen. Steven Wilson mixed the DTS track with nothing in the center channel

edit: and it sounds gorgeous

Multichannel is much more dependent on the mix, and how you will then perceive the soundstage. When you are "in front" of the stage, it is wonderful, but if you are in the center of the performers, it seems totally unnatural. I'm old enough to remember the release of stereo albums. Some of the original stuff was mixed to show off the both sides, with a ping pong effect. Some of the Beatles stuff was mixed with music to one channel and vocals to the other. Eventually things calmed down, and the engineers mixed to produce a proper soundstage. Eventually most multichannel stuff will also try to just enhance the performance rather than play with it.

True dat: when Bell Labs started experimenting with "stereo" in the late 1930s, it was 3 channels. The first movie to use 3 speakers across the front was Disney's 'Fantasia', which was 99% music (for those who think the centre channel was intended for dialogue). Unfortunately, there was no suitable delivery media at the time, so stereo ended up being 2 channels.

As for "how many channels is best for music", I say the more the better. Capture and mix using as many discrete channels as logistics allow. Downmixing can be done later to match the channel limitations of various delivery media: 7.1 for BD, 5.1 for DVD, 2.0 for CD. Likewise, deliver using as many discrete channels as possible. Listeners can downmix to fewer channels in order to match their speaker layout (I'd prefer that to extracting additional channels).

For stereo to give the impression of a solid and stable wavefront, I'd want at least 3 channels (L/C/R). The rest (surrounds, height, etc) can be done using some sort of ambience extraction IF more discrete channels aren't possible. But the minimum for me would be 3 channels.

as a beatle fan, the reason and you probably know this ,the reason for the american albums having the ping pong sound voices on one channel and instruments on the other was when emi sent the masters over to america the one tape had the voices and the other the backing track and the capitol engineers were to mix them to mono for release, but capital had that full demensional fake stereo to sell thats why they are hard right vocals and hard left instruments and when they implemented that full demensional stereo it had that sick high sound out of one channel and low sounds out of the other. this all stopped with sgt. pepper. john

Yes, there are some MC mixes where I'd like to drag the surrounds to the front of the room, but I'd rather deal with that "unnatural" mix because the (older) 2-channel recordings just seem unable to capture the detail available with 5.1. Oh, and no one has ever left my house after hearing my Lexicon 7.1 rig - multichannel or 2-channel material enhanced to 7.1 - saying that they'd rather have just stereo.

AR

No doubt but I hope you will excuse me if I say that I cannot tolerate this music and will not listen to it. I acknowledge that one can do many things with non-acoustic recordings that will sound satisfying but they are not reproducing an actual event; they synthesize an event and can do so impressively.

I'd have to go back and re-read the editorial, but I don't think the author (Steve Guttenberg) was necessarily saying 5.1 couldn't be any good for music - just that it hasn't been. And it's hard to argue with his points.

I am a big 5.1 music fan and prefer it almost always to 2.0, but there is little question that there has been poor catalog support, questionable surrond mixing, and complete apathy on the part of the general consumer - all of which adds up to mass-market R.I.P.

If surround is not being asked to re-create the listening venue (which is a contradiction in terms if the recording in question is studio-sourced), then it becomes somewhat 'gimmicky' - which is why I think classical has remained the healthiest niche for 5.1 audio, albeit for a quite small audience. By extension, therefore, it is concert performances, where the venue is relevent, where we should expect to see continued availability of 5.1 - as the article argues - and that is exactly what we see. And if you want just 5.1 audio, turn off your TV - I do this all the time.

Stereophile? Phffft. WTF have they done to support hi-res surround recordings since JGH left.
They've got one measley writer who only writes about every other issue but MF blathers on and on about 100k f'ing turntables on every other page.
JA measures everything and then states that measurements don't matter if the reviewer's ears tell them otherwise.
Talk about an out of touch publication.
Their target demographic is Orthodontists, Thorassic surgeons and Obgyns plus the above who have retired. Basically they're too fossilized to acknowledge anything beyond stereo and only grudgingly buy CDs because they've already bought every vinyl puck pressed since the late 50's.
(tongue in cheek post. Not that it matters, but I do respect KR greatly, but some of the other staff aye-yi-yi)

I think you mean Jurassic surgeons.

I consider the LFE channel for music recordings as unnecessary. We all know why it was necessary for movies, but they simply don't apply for music. The fact that the music recording industry has no standards as to how to use this channel also created problems for playback standards as it has been discussed in numerous threads. All the bass that any music recording have can be mixed in the main channels in any fashion the producer and mixer feels necessary, and the BM in the playback chain would handle this best as the user wishes it.
So my preference is 5.0.

I have "Arriving Somewhere" if that's what you're talking about.
Interestingly he uses the center ch on every DVD-A I have from PT and his latest solo album.

Amen.

Why waste a channel? Why not 6.0 as long as we can figure out a standard use for it, such as center/height or center/rear?

How is my preference is a waste? I'm not against future expansions, but based on on what currently being used by producers for MCH mixes, 5.0 is what I consider a good choice. Why the rolleyes?

It was all tongue-in-cheek. I do not anticipate any consensus beyond the present situation.

Got it.

Do you mean you do not tolerate PT's music, or multichannel music without a center channel?

If the latter: are you saying you would not even listen to center-less multichannel releases (if there was no other multichannel mix avaialble)?...and restrict yourself to the stereo mixes?

There are many 4.0 or 4.1 releases out there (Moody Blues SACDs, and as a matter of fact I just listened to the "Sonny Clark Trio" SACD which is 4.0). Do you shun all those discs?

The former. I have and enjoy many of Pentatone's RQR recordings which are all 4.0. I also enjoy stereo and mono recordings if the music suits me.

So Kal, I guess it's the anti-thesis of Surround Music, but are you buying or have you received or heard the Beatles Mono Remasters?
I'm buying the monos buy holding out hope for a hi-res version that has mono, stereo and 5.1.
A guy can dream, right?

Nope. Not a real Beatles fan or, in fact, a fan of most popular or rock music.

You and my older brother have something in common

There are several more of us.

Depends on your Brothers age BUT,
I am a fan of "Au Clair de la Lune,".

I was late for the original recording.
But I caught it, in the warbled reruns