Multi Channel or Stereo

[Mike Mcsweeney]

I know stereo is considered audiophile and multi-channel is not by the vast majority, but I am curious...

which do you prefer for listening (not video home entertainment, just audio).

 

NOTE: I realize 2.1 is really just stereo not multi-channel, but if you prefer 2.1 over 2.0 please select multi-channel 2.1...I couldn't edit the poll.

[astrotoy]

I have both, integrated into one system. I like both - multichannel especially for SACD's that I have ripped, or mch files that I have downloaded. However, the vast majority of my music will always be two channels. So other is probably my best choice although not very clear to the reader.

 

Larry

[Kal Rubinson]

I have both, integrated into one system. I like both - multichannel especially for SACD's that I have ripped, or mch files that I have downloaded. However, the vast majority of my music will always be two channels. So other is probably my best choice although not very clear to the reader.

I, too, listen to stereo quite a lot but my preference is for multichannel and that is what the poll is asking.

[Audio_ELF]

Like astrotoy ... I have greatly enjoyed the few multi-channel albums I have ... but by far the majority is 2 channel and I have no desire to listen to pseudo-multi-channel via DSP programmes etc.

 

So I'm unsure how to vote!

 

Eloise

[speavler]

I love multichannel sacds, but have grown so accustomed to listening to 2 channel computer audio controlled from my iPad that my sacd player is just collecting dust.

[tailspn]

I've always been a big fan of the music recording art, even in highschool 50+ years ago. Up through the early 80's I invested heavily in recording equipment and microphones for location music recording, owning a 1/2" Ampex ATR102, a dozen Schopes mics, and assorted support equipment. But all that never approached what I heard at a concert. Finally, I sold it all, and bought an airplane (tailspn).

 

Twenty-years later, while working for the Boston Symphony, I witnessed an experimental multi-channel internet transmission originating at Symphony Hall, between MIT Media Lab and the same UCLA department. There were five B&W speakers set up in ITU configuration in the DGG Recording Room at Symphony Hall for this Boston Phil concert. I listened to it for five minuets, and sold the airplane.

 

Now retired from day jobs, I'm doing what I like best, participating in the acoustic music recording business. 5.0 multi-channel, for me and my objectives of capturing and reproducing an actual acoustic event, is the only configuration that comes close. Except for editing, I never listen to stereo for serious music enjoyment.

[Jabs1542]

I auditioned mch but technically it wasn't in my home.

 

I'm not sure I understand the 2.1 option. Is the .1 a subwoofer, if so what if your speakers are truly full range?

[Mike Mcsweeney]

wow, I am surprised so many selected multi channel..i thought most audiophiles only want stereo....guess I was wrong. I still haven't listened to music in 5.1 I have had 5.1 for movies for awhile, but haven't attempted to play music on it as I have two other stereo systems....the speakers in the home system aren't really great (older polk 5.1 with rti8s that I bought when 5.1 was just becoming popular). I definitely have enough speakers around this house, I think I am up to about 20 pairs currently...I guess I will have to get a muti-chan sacd player just to hear what everyone else is raving about.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

I auditioned mch but technically it wasn't in my home.

 

I'm not sure I understand the 2.1 option. Is the .1 a subwoofer, if so what if your speakers are truly full range?

yea, the .1 is the subwoofer. you can have full range and a subwoofer...what speakers do you have that you consider "truly full range"? I would think you could always add a subwoofer to extend the lows....many people use 2 subs too (.2).

[Jabs1542]

yea, the .1 is the subwoofer. you can have full range and a subwoofer...what speakers do you have that you consider "truly full range"? I would think you could always add a subwoofer to extend the lows....many people use 2 subs too (.2).

 

I have a pair of Legacy Aeris speakers, they are rated down to 16Hz at -2dB. In my setup we have them measured down to 14Hz at -3 dB (the gear we used had a nice line at +/- 3 dB so that was an easier reference). Since it uses a programmable DSP as an active cross over I can adjust things and save those settings. I have a mode named Movie where I plus up the deep base about 5 dB, when you watch Jurassic Park and the water ripples inside the footprint during a dinosaur footfall your water glass sitting in the room will do the same thing.

 

I found surround music pretty cool but not natural. I've never sat in the middle of an orchestra or band so hearing instruments all around me was a little awkward.

[Kal Rubinson]

I found surround music pretty cool but not natural. I've never sat in the middle of an orchestra or band so hearing instruments all around me was a little awkward.

One of the old canards. While there are many such recordings (which I, too, find unnatural most of the time), there are also many fine multichannel recordings with a natural perspective that recreates the soundstage and ambiance of the original performance in better-than-stereo sound. Don't blame it all on poorly-produced (IMHO) recordings.

[tailspn]

One of the old canards.

 

With all respect to Kal with his view of "many such (immersive) recordings", I'd venture that the natural audience perspective recordings to those being in the middle of the group is more like >90 to <10%, with a single label (2L) pushing it.

 

I work for the Boston Symphony, and hear the orchestra, as well as chamber groups from within them all the time, and it's cool. But it's not what the composers had in mind when they scored the piece, nor what any orchestra conductor would desire. To me, if anything, most multi-channel recording's rear ambiance channels are delivered at too low a level for my taste, and can be easily adjusted.

[bmoura]

I, too, listen to stereo quite a lot but my preference is for multichannel and that is what the poll is asking.

 

I'm with Kal. Multichannel is definitely the preference over stereo here.

 

Good news for the team at exaSound - the makers of the e28 Eight Channel DAC that handles DSD up to DSD 256 and high bit rate PCM in Stereo and Multichannel. The Oppo disc players are also an option for multichannel playback. The way to go - no doubt about it, especially in DSD !

[fas42]

Since AJ politely asked me not to intrude in his new thread,

I shall respect his wishes. However, I will respond to what I disagree with in that thread, as a continuation of this thread, rather than starting a new one - to make it clear, I have zero interest in enhancing what stereo presents by adding further speakers, separating out aspects of what's contained in the left and right channels and presenting that in some fashion to "improve the experience".

 

The question I'm implicitly answering is, "Is Stereo Enough?" - I respond with a resounding, "Yes!"

[fas42]

AJ,

 

Quote

There is really no question MCH is a must for recreation of a real acoustic soundfield in spaces. But the  other reality is 98% of recorded music is stereo.

 

Yes, that is the apparent dilemma. But the falsehood here is "MCH is a must for recreation of a real acoustic soundfield in spaces." A powerful, engrossing, impactful soundfield is most certainly possible from stereo - but this will only happen when the playback quality passes a certain quality barrier: nearly all systems fail to reach the requisite level - they fall short of having what it takes to clear that barrier.

 

The huge plus is thus the "98% of recorded music is stereo." problem is solved - just pass the quality barrier, and then a satisfying soundfield will be realised.

[Phil A]

I put other.  My systems for audio are not really 2.1.  Have Rel subs which just reproduce what the mains don't in the main system I have two Rel Storm IIIs crossed over at 22Hz.  I do have multi-channel capability and some multi-channel DSD files in a 3rd system and about once a year or so I'll have some fun with it.  But prefer stereo.

[bmoura]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The question I'm implicitly answering is, "Is Stereo Enough?" - I respond with a resounding, "Yes!"

 

 

I'd respond with a resounding "No!"  

Stereo is not enough.

 

 

[fas42]

STC,

This is a perfect example of why I have zero interest in AES papers - the simplistic nature of the experiment is staggering: "stereo" is one of the options, with zero reference to the quality of that system.

 

An analogy would be asking someone to rate the comfort of using a car, versus a train to go somewhere ... ummm, what sort of a car? An old, worn out bomb, or a limousine? That's irrelevant - we're just talking about the concept of a car ...

 

[fas42]

Just now, bmoura said:

 

I'd respond with a resounding "No!"  

Stereo is not enough.

 

 

 

Fair enough ... why?

[Sam Lord]

I appreciate Kal and tailspn and many others for championing high-end (meaning well-executed) mch systems.  I don't intend to make the effort; for physical reasons it is too much for me to handle in the way I want, where I can experiment by myself.  I have heard only one good mch demo, using six full-range speakers, and fully expect that dedicated music lovers can make mch work well.

 

My focus will remain on studying and improving the fidelity and musicality of 2 and perhaps 3 ch setups: there is plenty of work in that space that could benefit all future systems.  

[rando]

I haven't voted yet because the question might yet be refined.  As it stands, yes stereo is enough.  Yet the human body can listen to one person speaking, mono, as easily as listening in on multiple other conversations happening on all sides.  Or perhaps a better example, appreciate singing in a room with good acoustics that project and shape their voice into a living being.  Coming from one point yet swelling into an all encompassing embrace.  If stereo is enough then stepping into the rare space capable of shifting sound into the realm of magic is phenomenal, sometimes 

 

Being endowed with two ears, stereo sounds emitting from a point forward and separated to target each one ideally has a pleasing effect.  It solves most issue with sounding right enough to make sense to our brains in the multitude of spaces live music would fail to coalesce.  However, I see music going closer to the effect of multichannel.  Quad recordings from the seventies sound quite good now that we can listen to them in 4 channels.  I can only imagine how overly sufficient a current recording could sound if my home was capable of reproducing it's native professional format to a similar effect without the 40 year lapse.   

 

So, "Other" if I was to vote under the current constraints.

[paul_riordan]

I voted other..... I have a combined stereo and multi channel system - the multi channel is used primarily for movies but I occasionally listen to multi channel music.  The quality and investment in the stereo setup is higher than the multi channel but I think that reflects the quantities of music that I have multi-channel vs. stereo.  

[fas42]

Note that this video has just been pointed to,

 

 

This is using manipulation of the sound content to provide auditory cue settings, to make the localising easy - something like having a stage production where the spotlight shines brightly on where the action is, while the remaining lights dim - you just gotta know where you're supposed to look!

 

Not necessary with recordings going way back when - the cues are already there, embedded in the sound - only, they are relatively subtle, and easily missed when the reproduction is not good enough. Which would you rather have, the cues that are the real ones, or additions which are heavily made over with grease paint, so that it's easy to pick them?

[audiventory]

If look to audio fidelity from point of view concert-hall sound-field reproduction, channel number is not matter as itself. It is matter of listening room configuration.

 

Currently I know about artifical sound field construction in mixing for speaker systems.

Me seems, it is not shortest way to achievement of concert hall's atmosphere.

 

In movies I listen too boosted bass primarily and some 3-D effects, that don't impress me still.

[fas42]

It was just stated that "It is impossible to recreate realism with two channels only." - I define "realism" here as experiencing the sensation of being at the event where the recording was made, and being totally unaware that there is any sort of mechanism creating that sensation, at all times. Two channels will certainly do that, but only if they operate above a certain standard of competence, something which is extremely rare - the fallback solution is to use various 'tricks' - multichannel, speaker manipulations, room treatments, special listening environments.

 

The end results will be very similar, for many people, but the two channel approach is the one that is most true to what is actually encoded in nearly all recordings.