Multi Channel or Stereo

[sdolezalek]

I voted "Other" because I listen to both. I have a great sounding 7.1 multichannel system, but since most recordings are in Stereo, I have optimized my digital sound chain for stereo (i.e. by not going to a multichannel DAC). I have also found that there are very few multichannel recordings that are well enough recorded that I clearly hear the overall benefit.  That differs in movies, as sound localization side to side and front to back matters more for realism in movies.  

[Ralf11]

I have 2 old Maggie speakers, an old 2 channel pre-amp, and amp - all in addition to my current 2-channel setup.  What would it take to turn this into a multichannel setup?

[bbrent73]

Have had a quadraphonic setup since the early 1970s (reels & LPs) -

never saw the need for more (a channel centered between the two front channels seems pointless - and I'd rather hear the bass sounds coming from where the instruments are placed, not splatters on the floor)

I suppose for modern movies there is a value - but just don't see (hear) it for music.

 

[gmgraves]

On 12/5/2014 at 1:36 PM, tailspn said:

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.

 

I wasn't aware that anybody danced (or listened to) the minuet any more, but you listened to FIVE of them???!!!

[gmgraves]

I went through the "Quadraphonic Craze" of the 1970s. I tried SQ, QS, CD-4, Hafler, Ambisonics, and every other cockamamie scheme that came down the pike and found them all, all  lacking. I spent a fortune on amplifiers, and surround speakers; bought a very impressive looking Sony SQ "logic" decoder which was not cheap, a CD-4 decoder and an expensive Shibata stylus'd cartridge from Audio Technica. I bought a Sony 880-4 quad tape deck and a bunch of 4-channel tapes (the only format that actually worked - except that all the tapes had the performers surrounding me, and THAT I did not like). I tried again, briefly, when 5.1 Dolby and DTS came out in the 90's. It was then that I decided that I don't need it. I've made some location surround sound recordings where the rear is just ambience, but I never thought the effect was realistic enough to be worth the effort. 

 

I find 2 channel stereo difficult enough to get right, without muddying the waters by trying to add more channels. Therefore I listen to, and record only in 2-channel stereo. I'll leave surround to those who find some worth in it. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I have 2 old Maggie speakers, an old 2 channel pre-amp, and amp - all in addition to my current 2-channel setup.  What would it take to turn this into a multichannel setup?

Well somewhere you need a Dolby Digital surround decoder or DTS or better. 

 

If just for kicks and sticking your toe in the waters at this point, I would suggest hopping on the local Craigslist and finding a cheap AVR with digital input and pre-outputs.  One should be available now or soon for less than $100.  The newer the better, and better if it has HDMI.  Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, and Harman Kardon are usually good suspects among common brands. 

 

So use your current amps up front, and your extra amp in the rear.  Use the line level outputs of the AVR to feed the amps.  So the AVR becomes surround decoder and pre-amp.  Many (most?) will have among its options decoding for a 4 channel system. 

 

Now AVRs are unwieldy beasts with likely a dozen or more baffling formats supported.  All become almost their own little world to operate.  Eventually from the initial chaos you will settle on one or two or so methods of use, and all the other stuff will be ignored.  You want Dolby Digital surround as a minimum though.  DD is 5.1 channels of sound with each channel being compressed something like MP3.  It can share available bits across channels so it works a bit better than MP3. 

 

You could add a center channel maybe a conventional good box monitor speaker.   I suggest if the initial trial is encouraging at all you do get a center channel.  You could add a subwoofer or not. The center channel might be powered by the center channel amp in the AVR sufficiently to taste the waters of multi-channel. 

 

Obviously all this is a low buck approach since you have some of the more expensive bits just sitting there begging to be used.

 

The cleaner version.  Find an Audio Video pre-amp.  Use it as a multi-channel pre-amp.  Hook everything up and get a center channel.  Oddly, without amps and all the other stuff in a AVR, the AVP usually costs 3 times or more money.  The AVP is therefore not commonly seen on craigslist or at all. 

 

Another possibility, is getting a cheap recording USB audio interface with at least 6 or 8 channels.  Feed it digitally and use as a preamp.  I don't know right off hand of an easy convenient way to do the decoding for surround in the computer for most formats though it should be possible.  If you could do your surround decoding in the computer and feed the resulting MCH format out the audio interface you have it made pretty clean and simple.   Hopefully someone else will tell us the easy way to do that as I need to myself.

[Ajax]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Well somewhere you need a Dolby Digital surround decoder or DTS or better. 

 

The cleaner version.  Find an Audio Video pre-amp.  Use it as a multi-channel pre-amp.  Hook everything up and get a center channel.  

 

 

Quote

 

 

[Ajax]

I just purchased a second hand Emotiva UMC-200 Preamp/Processor. These units are about 4 years old but have all the digital inputs and formats you will ever need. They sound great and are around US$400 used. Just add your existing power amps and speakers plus sub and centre speaker. Not expensive and a lot of fun.

[rando]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't know right off hand of an easy convenient way to do the decoding for surround in the computer for most formats though it should be possible.  If you could do your surround decoding in the computer and feed the resulting MCH format out the audio interface you have it made pretty clean and simple.   Hopefully someone else will tell us the easy way to do that as I need to myself.

If I'm right, never tried this but free is the word here, something like SRS or Bongiovi should let you select stereo or mch output inside their program (Windows)  The standalone SRS programs are discontinued but a number of manufacturers use their driver which adds a little taskbar icon.  Usually you will get to select between music, movies, and speech pre-set EQ's as well.  

[esldude]

7 hours ago, Ajax said:

I just purchased a second hand Emotiva UMC-200 Preamp/Processor. These units are about 4 years old but have all the digital inputs and formats you will ever need. They sound great and are around US$400 used. Just add your existing power amps and speakers plus sub and centre speaker. Not expensive and a lot of fun.

Yes this is the next best step up from an AVR.  A friend has one and they are very good.

[semente]

17 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I find 2 channel stereo difficult enough to get right, without muddying the waters by trying to add more channels. Therefore I listen to, and record only in 2-channel stereo. I'll leave surround to those who find some worth in it. 

 

Same here, although I don't record (would love to).

Besides, multi-channel means spreading a finite budget over a much larger amount of gear, which in turn leads to worse performance (unless you have a huge amount of funds).

Finally there is the question of space, although this is probably more of a problem in Europe than in the new world.

[gmgraves]

32 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Same here, although I don't record (would love to).

Besides, multi-channel means spreading a finite budget over a much larger amount of gear, which in turn leads to worse performance (unless you have a huge amount of funds).

Finally there is the question of space, although this is probably more of a problem in Europe than in the new world.

 

Yes, I'd forgotten that. If you have X dollars and only X dollars to spend on your system, having to make that money encompass a surround system instead of just a two channel system will result in that equipment all being cheaper  (and ostensibly of less quality) than what you could have bought for a two-channel system!  

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, I'd forgotten that. If you have X dollars and only X dollars to spend on your system, having to make that money encompass a surround system instead of just a two channel system will result in that equipment all being cheaper  (and ostensibly of less quality) than what you could have bought for a two-channel system!  

Yes, the average cost per device will decrease and that is likely, but not necessarily, to mean less quality.  That is simple arithmetic.  OTOH, I do not believe that it means worse performance since that is a multi-parameter subjective assessment.  I would argue that the obvious enhancement to the accuracy and spatial resolution of the soundstage can be subjectively more satisfying than any incremental change in the individual components.

 

That is my experience but only as long as we are not talking about low-cost systems where imposing any reduction in component cost moves the choices completely out of quality audio.

[fas42]

Noting comment about "You need to distinguish between "They are Here" and "You are There" recording and reproduction." In competent 2 channel reproduction the difference is that "They are Here" type are positioned merely some inches behind the speakers, whereas "You are There" are positioned much further back, say well beyond the wall in front of you. There's no real difference overall, merely that if one put the tape measure on it, as the distance from behind the speakers to where the sounds appear to be, as to what the reading would be.

[semente]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Noting comment about "You need to distinguish between "They are Here" and "You are There" recording and reproduction." In competent 2 channel reproduction the difference is that "They are Here" type are positioned merely some inches behind the speakers, whereas "You are There" are positioned much further back, say well beyond the wall in front of you. There's no real difference overall, merely that if one put the tape measure on it, as the distance from behind the speakers to where the sounds appear to be, as to what the reading would be.

 

In my opinion "you are there" when the recordings has captured spatial cues of the original venue.

It has nothing to do with playback...

[fas42]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

In my opinion "you are there" when the recordings has captured spatial cues of the original venue.

It has nothing to do with playback...

 

Spatial cues are always captured, even when the recording engineers do their best to extinguish them! They can damp the acoustics as much as they like, but the materials and environment still react to some degree, and the microphones are sensitive enough to pick up the cues. Only an extremely well engineered anechoic chamber would do the job, and I'm sure musicians would love to perform in one of those!

 

So, I can always "hear the space" where the sound is being made when my system works well enough - which is not that of the listening room.

[davidl10]

The problem for me is how little music is available on SACD or DVDA and then reduce that even further by how many are mixed and recorded well. I have never watched a DVD live concert and felt I was there so I am not comparing DVD concerts. 99% of my music is in stereo and therefore stereo will always dominate my listening habits.

 

To be fair it is impossible for me to do an apples to apples comparison. My movie theater is a 7.2 setup with an Oppo player, Onkyo amp, 5 Klipsch speakers and 2 HSU subs worth approx $3,000 and is designed and voiced for movies. My stereo system consists of C.A.P.S Media Player, ARC DAC and tube amp, and Vandersteen speakers and is worth four times as much. The only 4 albums I have in both HiRes and SACD/DVDA are Dark Side of the Moon, Madman Across the Water, Hotel California, and Rumors. Of these the Dark Side is amazing in multichannel but is the only one I would prefer to the stereo version. Once in a while I love to listen to music in the theater especially when I feel like cranking loud rock music. This has more to due with the 2 subs and solid state amp and I usually turn off the multi channel and go back to stereo anyway. I have never thought to myself on my drive home I can't wait until I am home to hear that system but like most of us here I am usually thinking of getting home to relax and listen to my two channel system. 

 

So I voted for "I have auditioned multi-channel in my home for at least a week, but will stick with Stereo"

 

 

[gmgraves]

On 6/21/2017 at 4:42 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes, the average cost per device will decrease and that is likely, but not necessarily, to mean less quality.  That is simple arithmetic.  OTOH, I do not believe that it means worse performance since that is a multi-parameter subjective assessment.  I would argue that the obvious enhancement to the accuracy and spatial resolution of the soundstage can be subjectively more satisfying than any incremental change in the individual components.

 

That is my experience but only as long as we are not talking about low-cost systems where imposing any reduction in component cost moves the choices completely out of quality audio.

 

Well, Kal, I suppose that in the aggregate, you are correct, but let me put you a specific case: Suppose you were debating on whether your new system should be two-channel stereo or a 5.1 surround system. Suppose you had settled on a pair of Magnepan MG-3.7is for your stereo system because the 6-grand that the speakers would cost are at the top of your speaker budget. Now, you're contemplating a 5.1 system. 2 pair of 3.7i's are gonna cost you 12-grand AND you need a center channel speaker, that would be a CC5 (to be reasonable) at ~$1100. now we are at $13,100. Can't do it, so, wanting to stay with Magneplanars, we drop down to the MG-1.7i's. Well 2 pair of those are about $4400, that's less than a single pair of 3,7i's. That'll work. add a CC5 center speaker, and you are at $5600. _ still less than a pair of 3.7i's. Of course, we haven't added the .5 subwoofer, yet, but that will be what one wants to spend for that component irrespective of what one pays for the 5 main speakers, so we'll let that go. OK. Now we have our 5.1 system and it's of a similar price to the TWO 3.7i's needed for a 2-channel system. I'll grant you that decent amplifiers come at lots of price points, and going for 6 channels of inexpensive, but decent amps can be had for the same price as two channels of, say, Nelson Pass amplification for your 2-channel system, so, no penalty there. On the surface of it it looks like one can build a 5.1 system that's in the same price range as a 2-channel system using similar components. But, Kal, there's no way that FOUR Magnepan 1.7i's (as good a they are) are going to sound as good as TWO 3.7i's! And to me, anyway, the addition of the surround effect does not make up for that difference in playback quality.

[Kal Rubinson]

26 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

But, Kal, there's no way that FOUR Magnepan 1.7i's (as good a they are) are going to sound as good as TWO 3.7i's! 

That is subjective and I will disagree.

 

27 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And to me, anyway, the addition of the surround effect does not make up for that difference in playback quality.

Ah.  But to me the "surround effect" is not a compensation for playback quality; it is a major component of playback quality.  

[Fletch-a-sketch]

Surround sound baby, the world is full of sound front and back, having played in a band music has always surrounded me rather than just in front. 

[rando]

Given the economics are being questioned..  I was under the impression for most purposes the following was acceptable; two floorstanders staged FR+FL, two standmounts staged RR+RL, standmount center, and subwoofer(s)? 

 

Were the sounds coming out of the rears always mirrored stereo with phase retarding I could see the validity of using four identical speakers.  Were one to listen to no musical content with traditional instrumentation, same.  A theoretical mind blowing remaster of PF's  "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" off Ummagumma is more likely to be a gateway into synthesized music than accurate recreation of live performance spaces.  Where the shell around the players directs sound forwards into the audience.  

 

Some mch albums produce seemingly unconnected sounds out of the rear channels while others take an approach closer to simply playing the same stereo signal out of both lefts and rights.  Imperfect world etc, some works are going to sound better on any given set up than others stereo or otherwise.  

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, rando said:

Given the economics are being questioned..  I was under the impression for most purposes the following was acceptable; two floorstanders staged FR+FL, two standmounts staged RR+RL, standmount center, and subwoofer(s)? 

Under many circumstances, yes, but I prefer floorstanders all around.

 

2 hours ago, rando said:

Some mch albums produce seemingly unconnected sounds out of the rear channels while others take an approach closer to simply playing the same stereo signal out of both lefts and rights.  Imperfect world etc, some works are going to sound better on any given set up than others stereo or otherwise.  

One cannot generalize among all mch albums, as you point out, nor can we generalize among the constellation of possible surround synthesis options.  However, one can see some distinction between classical/jazz mch recordings and pop/rock mch recordings.  The former are usually offered with a traditional proscenium placement of the performance up front and ambiance in the surround or, in some cases, a more immersive "in the ensemble" placement (e.g., 2L, Tacet) due to non-standard performer placement but, still, recorded as performed.  With the latter, particularly those recorded in studios rather than at live events, the mixing procedure can place the individual performers anywhere but with the loss of a common integrated ambient shell.  De justibus.......... 

[semente]

13 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Ah.  But to me the "surround effect" is not a compensation for playback quality; it is a major component of playback quality.  

 

That is subjective too.

[semente]

I was looking again at the poll options in this thread.

 

Is 2.1 multi-channel stereo?

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

That is subjective too.

Of course.  There is no objective superiority except in theory and that is on the side of multichannel.