Multi Channel or Stereo

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.  

[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.......... 

[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. 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, semente said:

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

 

Is 2.1 multi-channel stereo?

IMHO, no.  It is stereo with bass management.

[Kal Rubinson]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And I get that. I just don't happen to think that it's worth the effort or the expense.

Then OK.  I can't make you appreciate it.

 

59 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 I have heard many surround setups, some costing megabucks, but when I heard the effect, I didn't like it.

It's not broccoli.

[Kal Rubinson]

16 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

I have always found this puzzling. What's the point? Bass is removed from the two-channel stereo recording and is dumped into a single-channel, designed for bass only and then routed to a single subwoofer. If left in the stereo domain, the possibility remains for the listener to have TWO subwoofers and have real stereo bass.  I know that many believe that bass frequencies below 200 Hz are nondirectional and that the full-range speakers locate the bass instruments from the spatial cues of the frequencies emitted by these bass instruments which are above 200 Hz, but I find that stereo bass, from two subwoofers sounds much more natural. 

That is a valid objection to 2.1 but not to bass management, per se.  2.2 would resolve it.