2 channel Stereo vs 5.1 for music listening

Folks talk about OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) in the video world, and most wouldn't think about watching a movie in "pan & scan" or any way other than what the director intended.

On the music side...people seem to have no problem with turning on all these crazy surround effects with two-channel music. I believe that music should be listened to in the manner that the producer intended.

My opinion is if it's a two-channel recording...listen in two-channel. If it's a 5.1 surround recording...listen in 5.1 surround.

I watch movies and concert videos in surround (4.1, to be exact. Phantom center sounds best to me.)
For music, I listen exclusively in 2.0 (mostly on a separate stereo system, but sometimes on my HT mains.) I have listened to a few surround music mixes (Talking Heads, Bjork, Blue Man) and have been unimpressed by the experience.

Print that in full caps!!

Kal

2.0 for me, usually on a dedicated system.

Hell, regular TV is in 2.0.

5.1 for movies only. I'm over the hype.

(5.0, actually.)

And if a video source is a 480i recording...view it as 480i. Do not deinterlace the signal.

Sanjay

Excellent retort!

I listen to both, depending on the source as others have said. Two channel is for my "serious" listening (CDs) but music videos I usually watch/listen in surround, either 5.1 or 2.0 (DPLII or Logic 7) depending on the encoding. I think the better your system is for 2 channel music the more likely you are to appreciate the psychoacoustic allure of that format. Unless you are all into hip-hop and hard rock, in which case there is no hope for you (LOL).

Most of my listening is multi-channel either Logic 7 or PL 2x processing of both 2 channel and 5.1 channel music/movies. I occasionally listen to 2 channel stereo but I find that the center channel adds stability to the image and at least some level of surround adds depth. At least for me for almost all recordings, it does not add any messiness.

Cute but I would have put a smiley on it.

I do not think that this is an analogous process. AFAIK (and I am not a video expert), all this involves is simply re-ordering the data for the alternating lines, so that the display appears smoother. This is, to me, analogous to the conversion of the serial digital audio data on the CD to parallel stereo outputs via sample-and-hold circuitry in the DAC.

Converting 2 channel signals to more channels involves assumptions about its frequency/phase content and these assumptions are inherent (and somewhat different) in each of the possible processes for doing it. That's why there are adherents of each of the possible processes and why many offer the user hand's-on access to some of the variables.

Now, I am not opposed to doing surround processors (I rather like TriField more than the others) but prefer to see if they really enhance the experience or merely contort it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. YMMV, of course.

Kal

I agree. However, Jimi's Electricladyland heard with DPLII is...an experience not to be missed!

Anthony

I can certainly see why you'd be unimpressed by Bjork, but it probably doesn't have anything to do with the 5.1 mix...

The UK versions of the TalkingHeads catalog in true DVD-A (not that blasphemous DualDisc mongrel format) are awesome. So are Beck's 2 latest discs, The Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" and "The Soft Bulletin," and I'm sure that when they release "At War With the Mystics" this fall, it will also be fantastic. Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" should not be missed, nor Floyd's "DSOTM." Now to just get some old Genesis and Radiohead and...

J.

I've tried it many different ways, but 2.1 seems to work the best for me. I like the extra kick of the dual subs on music.

OTOH, I have a fairly good collection of DVD-A and SACD, so well recorded true multi-channel sound is a whole different experience.

I will say, however, that Dolby Pro Logic IIx can produce some amazingly convincing effects from time to time.

Kal,
While I don't loathe those things, I am perhaps a little too old fashioned about getting my point across using words alone.
The analogy here is that we're not discussing artistic intent but the limitations of technology. No singer sets out with the intention of wanting their voice reproduced specifically as a dual-mono, phantom-imaged, comb-filtering source. They use 2 delivery channels because that is what the popular delivery media of the time is limited to. Likewise, interlaced 480 or 1080 video is not some ideal that content makers strive for but a limitation of popular delivery and display technology. That doesn't mean we can't try to overcome these limitations during playback.
Converting interlaced video based material to progressive video similarly involves some assumptions. Since odd and even interlaced fields are temporally separated, fast moving objects can appear at two locations in the de-interlaced frame. Good deinterlacers look at the two locations and place the object where it would have been, had the capture been progressive instead of interlace. This isn't very different than placing correlated mono sounds where they would have phantom imaged in the front soundstage anyway. Since no process is perfect for all sources, user controls are provided for fine adjustment of some variables.
No argument there. Just because processing attempts to place sounds where they would have phantom imaged, doesn't mean they all work well. Heck, some de-interlacers even do a bad job with film-based sources (which originated as progressive images). So it helps to first find out whether the processing is helping or hurting the experience, though some of that will come down to personal tastes and priorities. But poor implementation doesn't invalidate the concept of overcoming limitations rather than being a slave to the delivery media.

Sanjay

Sorry, Sanjay, I still don't buy the analogy. Putting phantom-imaged sounds into the front soundstage is one thing but placing them into 5.1 is quite another. Musical intent is not the issue, imho, since we are dealing with what the mixing and mastering stuffed into 2 channels without a clue as to how. It's the same problem I have with the technicall impressive Penteo process: the result may (or may not) be pleasing but it has no basis in reality.

Disclaimer: I prefer to mostly listen to real acoustic events, not mixed and dubbed music, so my concept of reality may not be relevant to many others.

Kal

I stick to 2-channel for music, separate system.

My take is, surround sound is great for movies, but music is generally performed on stage, in front of you (if you have good seats:-)

Surround speakers may add to the realism, if they emit intermittent coughing or the occasional whisper:-) But a guitar solo from the rear back?! Well, maybe for karaoke....

I actually think that the effect that I got from my old Audio Pulse Model 2 Digital Delay was more convincing than any of the surrounds I have heard from any of the receivers I have had since I retired it. No oddball movement of sounds, just depth added. I kind of miss it, and if I could figure a convenient way of putting it back in, I would.

Isn't it telling that the majority of the responses tout listening to music in 2ch unless the recording is originally 5.1, yet EVERY receiver comes with a plethora of 'enhanced modes' such as PL11x etc. I guess people like 'em or they wouldn't be there, but I wish the money went to better parts etc. Yes, my bias is towards 2 channel unless the original material is multichannel. However, I DO upconvert 480i as my DVD player can do it WITHOUT making the picture seem weird.

I used to be a dedicated 2 channel fan. On old recordings I mostly still am. However Logic 7 5.1 is simply amazing on some modern recordings. Granted not all. But on some, my guess those that are mastered cleanly, it does a WONDERFUL job of expanding the soundstage out. It doesnt put anything behind you. It seems to just widen the stage WAY out and do a partial wrap in the front.

I've tried the Dolby IIx music setting and its completely different. Its muddy, and seems thin and gimicky. The logic 7 version though.. I think I'm hooked.

I listen to regular CD's in 2.1. I purchaced a pair of big front speakers just for that purpose. I have some DVD-A stuff that I listen to in 5.1. Concert DVD's that are mixed in 5.1 I'll use 5.1. Movies and TV I use DPLIIx or 5,7.1 to watch.

If I am using the CD for background music at a party I'll use 7 channel stereo, DTS:Neo6 music or DPLIIx music to fill the room a bit better.

i'm with the purists. every multi-channel processing format i've heard applied to 2-channel music sounds, well, stupid. it just does. even the new ones.

once the initial nifty-factor subsides, you just want to know where the freakin' marimba player is supposed to be.

but personally, given my space and budget restrictions, i'm ditching multi-channel entirely. i find quality 2-channel far far more satisfying than compromised surround.

Until a standard is defined in the mixing and sound engineering world, it's all subjective. The best thing to do is chose whichever sounds the closest to reference sound (my reference is live orchestral music. Then again, I also listen to rock, so that reference may not be accurate for that genre). If you have a reference point it will make your decision that much easier.

I prefer 2 ch to be played as 2 ch. I might even go with 2.1 with more listening time. My experience with 5.1 was a little suprising. I go to a lot of concerts so I have a pretty good idea what my favorite groups sound like. I am into rock music so this is my viewpoint. I have seen the Dave Matthews Band many times so I'll use that as my reference. I had the pleasure of going to all four nights at Red Rocks last year and I have the DVD they made of those nights. When I play the DVD in 5.1 it just sounds weird. That was not the sound of the show I attended. The band was in front of me not all around the sides and rear. It is not the correct sound stage and my brain doesn't assemble it correctly. My .02 cents.

I kinda miss the reverb unit I had in my 69' Barracuda! Now that was depth

Kal,
Just as sending phantom imaged centre info to the centre speaker is not arbitrary, neither is the information sent to the surround speakers.

One of the early Stereophile magazine test CDs has a phase test that switches between correlated (in-phase) and decorrelated (out of phase) bass guitar. The in-phase signal images dead centre of the soundstage. The out of phase track doesn't image in the front soundstage, appearing more like it's indistinctly around you.

This decorrelated info is what is sent to the surround channels; nothing else. It's not like some random guitar sounds that would normally image up front are re-routed to speakers behind you for no apparent reason.
Sure we have a clue. In fact, the recording is loaded with clues, which the surround processing relies upon for steering instructions.

A trumpet that is panned left of centre will still image there whether the soundstage is made up of 2 or 3 or 5 speakers. Sounds that normally image outside the front L/R speakers will be steered more towards the surrounds to maintain and stabilize that imaging.
I agree as far as moving front soundstage content to the surrounds. But the 2-channel to 3-channel Penteo process is different and maintains front soundstage imaging to a fault. It has no choice since it is the 2-channel mix that dictates what will end up in the left, centre and right speakers.

Finally, please understand that I'm not trying to convince you to use surround processing. I consider personal preferences to be exactly that: personal. However, I do hope you understand that what surround processing is attempting to do is not arbitrary. The only thing sent to the centre speaker is information that would have imaged there anyway. The only thing sent to the surrounds is stuff that would have imaged outside the front soundstage to begin with. Those clues are in the 2-channel recording, so there's no need to steer sounds randomly when it can be consistent with the 2-channel mix. To that end, it is analogous to how a bitmap image or video scaling works.

Sanjay

but this processing is completely reliant on exactly matching drivers aligned in the same way. otherwise it complicates and confuses the soundstage, and the sound of the instruments will differ between speakers... which is a disaster for good sound reproduction.

and the fact is that all but the most painstakingly designed surround setups will not have identical LCRs. even center speakers designed to match rarely do.

For sit down listening in the sweet spot, stereo for a stereo recording.. well 2.1 if needed. else i'm moving about doing stuff/background music, then it's logic7.

I can similarly use mismatched L/R speakers to mess up the front soundstage when listening with only two speakers. If you're trying to ruin playback, there are plenty of ways to do it, irrespective of the number of speakers.
Then those people may not like the results. But how does that change things for folks that do have identical L/C/R speakers? The fact that someone implements technology poorly doesn't somehow invalidate that technology.

Sanjay

It seems some of this discussion is about different things: 2-channel (stereo), processed surround (DPLII, Logic7), and a true 5.1 mix.

For just about every SACD or DVD-A I own that has a 5.1 mix (of what was originally a 2-channel recording), I prefer the 5.1 mix. I disagree with the "music is heard from a stage in front of you" argument somewhat - the only reason you listen in that setting is because the artist does not allow you on the stage to be surrounded by them - or because all we had until recently was stereo. And for studio recordings, why would the soundstage need to be in front of you? I always imagine the artists in a circle facing each other (I know that's rarely how it happens in the studio, but that's how I imagine it while listening). Take for example the Grateful Dead 5.1 mixes - Mickey hart puts you right in the center of the band as it was being recorded. I also prefer the 5.1 mix for many live performances like the Allman Bros Filmore East on SACD.

Processed surround is different. However, I think it does a pretty good job on some recordings, but is should not be confused with a 5.1 mix on a DVD, DVD-A, or an SACD.

Anthony

sure, it can be done... but the vast majority of surround systems aren't set up for it. really, only those that are arrayed with SACD and DVD-A in mind are going to be suited to deal with surround processing of 2-channel material.

but even then, the processing is going to sound, well... processed. i've heard ultra-high-end systems designed for multi-channel material, which of course sounds great. and the 2-channel material sounds great as well... when played with the front mains. but when it was processed, to me it didn't sound nearly as good.

the dynamics, soundstage and imaging were all compromised. the only thing going for it was the short-lived nifty-factor, and that was pretty much a given, considering the sheer exorbitance of having epiphany 12-12's as rear surrounds.