Two-channel enthusiasts converting to multi-channel?

[Chris A]

Okay, so I'll start first with an observation:

The most recent high-fidelity recording formats, i.e., SACD, DTS Master Audio, DVD-A, etc. are also multi-channel formats now in that they are being used for high-fidelity music reproduction.

My question is:

If you have been a two-channel music enthusiast, have you converted to a multi-channel setup (i.e., one of the typical 5.1/7.1 configurations) that also performs dual-use for music?

Chris

[Rick]

After being a 2 channel enthusiast for many years, I converted to mulitchannel about a dozen or so years ago. I love to listen to a quality high resolution mix on SACD/DVD-A/DTS-MA/BD-A disc. I had all but quit listening to 2 channel music until about a year ago when my friends over on the "Right This Minute" thread got me back into it (thanks guys!). I am enjoying it a lot, and have even purchased a turntable and will be getting back into vinyl! I love music and now listen to and enjoy both 2 ch and multi ch music...

[mark1101]

I will not for music. But that's just me. On the other hand, my speakers are MCM-3 Grand which are cinema........and I am very satisifed with my 2 Ch system at this point. So the natural progression for me is for a Klipsch pro home theater, which I have been considering for some time.

Rigma beat me to it with his unbelievable Jub theater he put together..........and actually I am under no time constraint. I just got the big screen TV and started watching concert videos, but in 2 Ch. So at some point I will purchase the pre/pro and more amps..........use my 3 lascalas at first........I already have some subs...........but unfortunately they are music subs (Titan 48s). So I have some work to do but the groundwork has been laid and I'm very happy with my 2 Ch setup with no more changes planned for the immediate future, till I venture into HT.

I just bought a bunch of new parts for the Road King and when I do something like that, it means I really am happy with my stereo, because the stereo has always come first.

[Mallette]

I converted to multi-channel in about 1975 and have regarded 2 channel as dual-channel mono ever since. That was, of course, a Hafler DynaQuad, my favorite multi-channel device of all time. No manipulation, just the correct image from the natural out of phase info in every naturally miked recording.

I've heard only a few examples of modern "steered" and logic controlled multi-channel that I consider as good. Not sure why engineers haven't quite gotten it yet. My own experiments with SoundCube confirmed to me that successful recordings of a complete soundfield need only 2 more mikes than 2 channel, place accordingly.

While first class 2 channel beats poorly engineered multi channel in every respect, it is not defensible as anything like "realistic." It is an acquired taste with the brain somehow not going into confusion when the applause erupts from the same place as the music and the bombarde division is suddenly coming from the altar.

We still have a way to go...

Dave

[mark1101]

What if you are at an outdoor concert standing in the back?

[Chris A]

What if you are at an outdoor concert standing in the back?

Good one, Mark... [8-)]

I assume that you always stand at the back... []

Chris

[sfogg]

"I've heard only a few examples of modern "steered" and logic controlled
multi-channel that I consider as good. Not sure why engineers haven't
quite gotten it yet."

IMO they have. Check out Logic 7 Music (the Lexicon version not the dumbed down H/K version), Trifield (Meridian not Yamaha) and Dolby Pro Logic II Music for some very good examples.

Shawn

[dtel]

If the multi-channel is done right, one the better recording I have is Steely Dan's two against nature. BUT some poop for brains decided to put an interview in between each song. So you can't just play it like ANY other CD or DVD, you have to skip for each song, that's just stupid.

I can't remember what DVD it was but I have run across one that gave you a choice of DD 2.1 instead of just PCM, smart feature.

Not to change the subject but some DVD's are recorded better than Cd's, there needs to be some kind of minimum standard that is not the minimum quality, or a standard rating system to help you to not buy a junk recording.

It don't make sense, if your in the recording business trying to sell recorded music why would you not want the best product you can make. Even if the general mp3 person don't care it still is a feature to help sell music if they just think there getting something better. Just look at how many cell phone commercials are on Tv trying to push every feature imaginable, and people are eating it up, try to go anywhere and not see at least 50% of the people there NOT on or playing with there phone, losers.

OK [:@] I calmed down now and feel better,sorry [8-)]

[Mallette]

IMO they have. Check out Logic 7 Music (the Lexicon version not the dumbed down H/K version), Trifield (Meridian not Yamaha) and Dolby Pro Logic II Music for some very good examples

I am not clear as to whether you are referring to sources of recordings or of steering systems. I've had DPPLII since it came out, as well as Neo, and both do adequate enough jobs to the point that I finally retired my rather complex system of switching to my DynaQuad I used through the early period of HT decoders.

However, the fact is I've not heard one yet that beats the Hafler for purity and putting stuff where it actually should be without sounding processed, and I was not referring so much to the systems as to the mixing. I hate mixing and it's always painfully obvious on acoustic material that shouldn't be mixed in the first place. It's fine as a creative tool for "created" music that doesn't exist outside the the electronic world, but acoustic music should be recording like a golf game...play the ball where it lies. If you can't place your mikes in such a way that you get a reasonable facsimilie of what your ears are hearing at that point, you are not competent.

I have an original Hafler demo disk of DynaQuad. Played back with DynaQuad it is truly incredible. Very natural...other than "Flight of the Bumblebee" acutually spinning through the air over your head. I've heard few modern processed surround programs as convincing and clean.

Dave

[Ironsave]

The debate is a valid one.......

I stick with 2 channel music because to me; it sounds the most real and accurate....

This likely is because I grew up with the luxury of my Dad's 2 channel setup; JBL L100s and a Sansui 9090db......

That being said, I have heard 5.1 and even 7.1 concerts (Blu Ray) and even my current receiver's 5.1 codec is great.........

These can literally bring an enveloping feel; without losing accuracy or detail......... (On occasion)

But; I will always stick to 2.1 until proven otherwise consistantly......

My .02

[Audible Nectar]

I built a combo system for the purpose of doing 2 channel (all tube) as well as multichannel movies and music. My intent was to provide a system that would do all three well, that could "roll" with whatever format, be it audio or video.

One thing I found out quickly is that multichannel music systems can turn out VERY nice if you use identical speakers. When I did the "first incarnation", it was Cornwalls as mains, Academy as center, and Chorus as surrounds. For movies, it sounded quite good, and aside from a bit of strain with the Academy was a very good sounding HT, and could fool an only HT user into thinking that "it can't get much better than this". That is until I heard what it sounded like using six identical Cornwalls, then I discovered how "locked in" the sound was, and how much better the center channel could be.

Multichannel music was a real revelation. Discs like "The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over" or Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" are phenomenal multichannel examples and justify the system building effort, and the system leaves me open to more of these multichannel specialties. I do tend to focus on 2 channel, however, when listening to music through this system....I tend to tie the multichannel music to the video titles in a theater setting, and don't often seek out 5.1 music only titles. I use my multichannel for movies and concert films much more often than I do for strictly music only. When it's music only I do that in 2 channel - it's all tube so it's hard to step away from that in music only applications, and it's very "3-D" so I don't pine for the multichannel mixes much......just a superb 2 channel recording.

[Boxx]

My main system is used for both 2-channel listening (where I use a TT, reel to reel, etc...) and also for my 5.1 HT setup. I'm very much satisfied with the result. I use a tube setup, in a dedicated listening room, for 2 channel play only.

[Mallette]

One thing I found out quickly is that multichannel music systems can turn out VERY nice if you use identical speakers.

My own research has come to the same conclusion. The rather startling results I obtained doing 4/192 recording with SoundCube yielded totally convincing localization with four identical speakers spaced equally in the inverse of the SoundCube.

No steering or decoding mechanism of any kind was used. Just 4 discrete channels played through 4 amplifier channels fed to 4 identical speakers.

Perhaps technology will find a way to do this...and I've read some stuff recently that is very promising...but even the best commonly available steering circuits aren't remotely convincing as that experiment was. Each and every person who heard the recording turned and stared in the same direction when the phantom door opened.

It was lots of fun...

Dave

[sfogg]

"However, the fact is I've not heard one yet that beats the Hafler for
purity and putting stuff where it actually should be without sounding
processed, and I was not referring so much to the systems as to the
mixing"

That sounds like it is more the limits of Hafler masking the mixing choices that you don't like compared to a problem with the modern system which are more revealing of mixing choices.

IME Hafler can be fairly pleasing (it was what I started with first too) but the lack of hardly any channel seperation in the rear channel can be a problem in most setups due to the Haas effect. Ambiance being totally correlated (mono) is unnatural compared to a hall.

You should listen to Trifield sometime. It works on a different manor from DPLII and Logic 7 and is an unsteered system at least on the front three channels. Up front it sounds very natural but the lack of steering limits the envelopment in the surrounds and the surrounds are too correlated which again sounds unnatural compared to a hall.

DPLII and L7 both can be adjusted quite a bit to taste too. In DPLII set Center Width to Max and it won't steer from L/R to center. Panorama off and Dimension to front.

Surprised you like Neo. That one is rife with real steering errors that have nothing to do with the mix itself.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"When it's music only I do that in 2 channel - it's all tube so it's hard to step away from that in music only applications"

You can do tube processing and multi-channel together too. Just need to find one of these:

This was from Jim Fosgate. Jim Fosgate is the guy who built the circuit (with tubes in the analog domain) which become Dolby Pro Logic II. Fosgate built a limited run of his analog tube version as shown above.

Shawn

[gnatnoop]

No, quite the opposite actually. With my home theater system over the years, i listened to music less and less, about 2 years ago, built a 2 channel system and now enjoy music again. I'm listening to music as much now as my college years decades ago! []

[artarama]

I'm stopping at three channels for now.

I used to set up four speakers in each corner of the room. If you sat right in the middle it really would make it fell like the music was right in your head, it was pretty cool. But as I started getting better speakers and electronics the sound stage was much better putting everything up front.

I only care about the music for now (probably always will) and want to get the best system in two/three channel I can afford. Getting that quality in 5.1/ 7.1/ 8.1 would be out of my price range. I am not even sure the multi channel recordings or processors could keep up with two channel if you put the same amount of cash into each system.

I think I would rather have three two channel sytems than one six channel system.

[Mallette]

Surprised you like Neo. That one is rife with real steering errors that have nothing to do with the mix itself.

Wouldn't say I 'like" it. Seems that occassionally when DPLII provides a confused field that Neo sounds better. However, I use it rarely.

Dave

[Chris A]

Some interesting responses thus far. The question was:

"If you have been a two-channel music enthusiast, have you converted to a multi-channel setup (i.e., one of the typical 5.1/7.1 configurations) that also performs dual-use for music?"

On the subject of surround recordings, I've experienced both good and bad, but the fact remains (at least for me) that the ability to reproduce good surround recordings far outweigh the poor experiences with bad surround recordings. I'm particularly impressed with the newest recordings on Blu-Ray--including Pat Metheny's "The Way Up - Live", etc. The SACD and DVD-A reissues that I've been collecting are a real treat: I can finally understand lyrics and instrumentation that were always "convolved" and muddied up in the original 2-channel recordings.

I'm still impressed at how good two-channel mode sounds on Jubs/TADs--stereo sometimes competes with multi-channel on some recordings. But I have never been able to justify having a 2-channel-only setup. Putting in additional surround channels/speakers have always been a no-brainer for me, hence my original question.

On the subject of quality and similarity/full-range capability of speakers in the setup: I've noticed that the better the speakers (all the way around)--the better the sound. I've found that all channels need quality speakers when playing quality surround recordings, i.e., those recordings where surround channels are carrying their own source instrumentation like standing in the middle of an ensemble playing on stage. However, I've found that the speakers don't have to be identical, rather just high quality and (you guessed it) horn-loaded. The surrounds usually loaf along during most movies and videos but come alive for quality surround recordings (e.g., Blu-Ray, DVD-A, DTS, SACD surround). I've been impressed in the gains in sound quality for each incremental improvement in speaker quality.

Chris

[chisoxpurdue]

I was discussing this issue with someone at one point. Two-channel systems are usually set up different from the 7.2 systems. I say 7.2 because that is what I use.

2 channel systems are usually set up to sit down and enjoy a recording. Whether that means a set up with a tube CD player into a tube preamp into a tube amp, or a turntable into tubes into the speakers or anything similar. But it usually is sit down and experience the music. Some multi-channel systems are enjoyed this way for music, but usually only for video and audio stuff.

I know we use the 7.2 especially when playing pool. This means listening to stereo recordings in all-channel stereo a great deal of the time. But instead of turning it into a two-channel system for the experience when listening to vinyl, we leave it in all-channel stereo and are enveloped by the sound. It helps with the newer preamps that allow you to set distances to the speakers individually. Our system even has the great fun of every speaker wire being the same length (except the subwoofer). It is great listening to multi-channel recordings especially. I could not even imagine having 7 of the same speakers for the sound. All Heritage (or extended Heritage) is close enough for now. But we have moved to always utilizing all the speakers compared to strictly 2 or 2.2 channel listening.