Thread: 2 Can Be Better Than 6 (Or, Why Stereo Is Still My Friend)

Posts: 38
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Post by tailspn January 6, 2004 (21 of 38)
Here's an excellent open group dedicated to furthering the science of surround sound using Ambisonics, which all are invited to join:

http://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

A very good group sharing practical information and science.

Take care
Tom

Post by Dan Popp January 7, 2004 (22 of 38)
Here's the info on "B Format," on the Soundfield site:

http://www.soundfieldusa.com/b_format.html

And if you want to learn about ambisonics but don't want to join the newsgroup, you can go to:

http://www.ambisonic.net/ .

Click on the link to the article, "Alternatives to 5.1" by Richard Elen. Seems he has the same uninformed theories as I do. Poor dope.

Post by JamieF January 8, 2004 (23 of 38)
Multi-channel presents a real conumdrum for the audiophile. Is promises so much, but often fails to deliver. However, it's not much of a conumdrum for Sony et al. The difficulties of getting a high quality and consistent result aren't going to worry their target market, who just want "sound from all directions" as the latest item on their hifi buying feature list.

I think that once pseudo-multi-channel headphones and multi-channel in-car systems become more commom, the scales may be tipped towards general multi-channel acceptance, which will force radio down this route too.

High quality discrete multi-channel is impractical unless you
(a) satisfy many of the requirements mentioned in the thread above
(b) are prepared to re-balance your speakers for each recording
or until some recording and mixing standards are introduced.

That aside, for my mainly classical listening, I choose to operate a 4.0 system. The benefit I get from discrete multi-channel in this application is marginal compared with ambience recovery from stereo for the rears. The best use of six channels, again in this application, would be to have a pair each of fronts, mids and rears to maximally isolate the soundfield from the speakers.

So until production standards are introduced, discrete multi-channel can't be much more than a gimmick for the mass-market and a tantalizing toy for audiophiles.

Post by Dan Popp January 8, 2004 (24 of 38)
JamieF said:

the scales may be tipped towards general multi-channel acceptance, which will force radio down this route too.

Jamie,
I don't see how this can happen. More output channels on radio means that each station would need more bandwidth - forcing the FCC to strip away licenses from some stations so that other stations could do MC. If you can't get the bandwidth demands down, 5.1 would mean that 2/3 of American radio stations would be shut down. Believe me, no politician is considering that!

American radio has just now committed (sort of) to digital broadcasting. It took them well over a decade because the stations didn't want the system the rest of the world has (Eureka 147) - they didn't want to lose their dial positions. So they created a new (laughable) alternative that allows listeners to pick up both the analog and digital signal in the same location on the dial (in-band-on-channel, or IBOC).

This is not a group that's going to say, "You want my license so somebody else can do Surround? No problem."

Post by tream January 23, 2004 (25 of 38)
Some place in this thread, or other threads possibly, was a comment about that the need for careful speaker placement rises dramatically with multichannel. Having never heard a poorly set up multichannel system I was unable to comment; however, yesterday I did hear one that was seriously out of whack and will now agree that this is a critical need. I was visiting a high end dealer in the San Francisco Bay Area, and while I did surprise them by showing up rather than phoning in advance and therefore they didn't have the system proprerly placed, there is, or should be, a standard that they have their equipment ready for audition. At the end of the session, I brought the salesman into the room to talk about the set up and he agreed that nothing was really set up correctly and asked that I call in advance next time. Had I not heard multichannel properly set up before and was making a decision on stereo vs MC I would have decided that MC was terrible and a waste of money, which I know not to be true.

The equipment itself was excellent-the stereo pair were B&W 804's (which I have at home as well, so I know the sound), the center speaker was the HTM1, based on the 804, the rears were the SCM2's, based on the 805, and the sub was the ASW800. Front end was the Krell SACD Standard, and the processor/amplication was the Krell Showcase. Don't know about the cables.

The stereo pair's sweet spot was behind the seating area. The center speaker was well forward, and no adjustment had been made in the set up for this, which meant that the center speaker dominated the sound. Can't even describe what the rears were doing.

So, kind of difficult to tell about the Krell equipment, my real reason to be there. I'm looking for a new SACD front end, which must be a multichannel player. I am also going to be upgrading my electronics-right now my MC system is being driven by a Denon AV4802 - actually a pretty good unit, but with room to improve.

I did think the Krell equipment sounded bright, and this is not a function of the B&W's themselves-I did extensive auditioning before going with B&W and find them to be an excellent speaker that produces a neutral (uncolored) sound from bottom to top. It might have been the speaker placement or might have been the use of the "Showcase" line, which is home theater oriented. Reviews have suggested that the SACD Standard has a "sweet" sound, which is not consistent with what I heard. Any other experiences out there greatly appreciated.

Software listened to included the Fischer/Phillips Dvorak 9, which is everything that has been said about it, the Midori Bruch/Mendelssohn concertos, the Opus 3 recordings of Brahms chamber music, and the Jerry Douglas stereo SACD on Sugar Hill, Lookout for Hope (Douglas plays Dobro in Union Station).

Post by Bill January 28, 2004 (26 of 38)
Mc is not that big of a deal, just go for it unless you have an entirely inappropriate space to work with. There are so many variables that every discussion or choice comes down to individual circumstances.
I have larger front speakers than in the rear but the tweeters are the same. The center is just an old hand me down put into temporary service until I can build a center with a similar voice to the existing speakers. The 12" sub does fine for everything, movies, 2ch and multi-ch music. I don't have low standards I just happen to have a room that 'works'. Do I have a bass bump here and there? Yes but so would a pair of full-range speakers, rooms have resonances.
Do the front speakers seem to overwhelm the rears? Not really. The way we listen to music and movies most of the sound comes from the front two quadrants. What comes from behind musically is reflection the speakers don't have to be equal in capacity. What is most important in movies is the effect of moving sounds and the effect of hearing background noises from all directions.
My mismatched center does sound thin and weak but then it is 30yr old technology. But you know what? When watching a movie it doesn't matter that much. For pure music it's not cool but as I said a new matched center will be made eventually.
Another opinion we don't NEED multichannel music, stereo music does fine. Multi channel for movies is worth the effort.

Post by Dennis Quad December 22, 2012 (27 of 38)
One of the reasons 3 tracks were used on master tapes that were later transfered to stereo discs was that that there was time blurring at upper midrange and high frequencies between the left and right track due to slight differences of azimuth alignment between the record and playback head and by recording stuff that was supposed to be dead center on its own track guaranteed that it would get transferred to disc that way. An unexpected dividend is that we now have 3 channel masters in the vault.

Post by benvandyk December 22, 2012 (28 of 38)
there were a lot of posts to read. I have never heard anyone say anything bad about mch. and ive read 1000s of posts. I never knew what I was doing I only knew on some disc I did not like the sound on the rear channels. I just did what I thought was right to fix it. I saw posts stating different ways to fix it. it cost more money but it does work.

the sound is better. why didnt they put the abience in an extra channel on the discs. anyway what I ended up with is a very power 2 channel sound. all rewired for mch but with 2 channel left right seperation. Im not done yet. it sounded great but I added 10 more channels of amplication. its not set up right. I really did not like buying that amp but thats what I wanted but never could afford it.I was trying to figure out what speaker set up I should use. I had no plan so I just hooked it up to see if it all worked. I think I will go around the room 2x it should be close to the original set up. it wont sound the same but its a start

Post by Kal Rubinson December 23, 2012 (29 of 38)
Dan Popp said:

With 5.1, not only do we have the old difficulties we had in stereo, we have many multiplied new ones as well: speaker type(s), placement, bass boost, increased room interaction and therefore anomalies, etc.

I disagree with this assessment.

Speaker types? The differences between a small monitor (e.g., KEF LS50) and a large dipole (e.g., Magnepan 20.7) are as large as any used for mch in terms of radiation characteristics.

Placement? Since there are no defined standards for stereo placement and there are for MCH (e.g., the ITU spec), this issue is moot.

Bass boost? Irrelevant since this option has nothing to do with the number of channels and is a user option in all cases.

Increased room interaction? Not at all. In fact, as the addition of channels more greatly imposes the acoustics on the recording, it is more likely that room acoustics will have less of an effect on the sound.

Cost and bulk, aside (and acknowledged), there is nothing a 2 channel system can do that an equally informed user's mch system cannot do better. One of the great advances of mch is the increased appreciation of stereo users of the effects of room acoustics.

Post by Nagraboy December 23, 2012 (30 of 38)
Kal Rubinson said:

I disagree with this assessment.

Speaker types? The differences between a small monitor (e.g., KEF LS50) and a large dipole (e.g., Magnepan 20.7) are as large as any used for mch in terms of radiation characteristics.

Placement? Since there are no defined standards for stereo placement and there are for MCH (e.g., the ITU spec), this issue is moot.

Bass boost? Irrelevant since this option has nothing to do with the number of channels and is a user option in all cases.

Increased room interaction? Not at all. In fact, as the addition of channels more greatly imposes the acoustics on the recording, it is more likely that room acoustics will have less of an effect on the sound.

Cost and bulk, aside (and acknowledged), there is nothing a 2 channel system can do that an equally informed user's mch system cannot do better. One of the great advances of mch is the increased appreciation of stereo users of the effects of room acoustics.

Good points Kal. Most of the OPs points are not backed-up by actual listening to good MCH systems. There are a lot of myths around MCH setup difficulty perpetuated by 2ch stick-in-the-muds frightened that their religious adherence to 2ch might be just that and nothing more.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Closed