How can you not have multichannel system

01-01-09: Mig007
Your comment is incorrect and suggests you have not heard certain multichannel sacd recordings. Blood on the Tracks was released in the mid 70's; Live at the Fillmore East released in the early 70's. Both released in stereo format only. Yet, both were re-released this decade as multi-channel sacd discs.

No. Sorry. My comment is absolutely correct. You need to reread my comment more carefully. In fact, your example illustrates my point perfectly. "Blood" and "Fillmore" were stereo recordings reprocessed into multi channel recordings. They were not originally recorded or mixed as multi channel recordings (with for example mics placed in the rear of the hall specifically to record the ambient sound far from the stage). Their original tracks have been remixed to create the illusion of a multi channel recording, but in fact they are not so. Were we fortunate to hear a true multi channel recording of "Fillmore" we would hear somthing more faithful to the original event, and we would detect the difference easily.

There are some multi channel recordings of orchestral music. If possible, you might pick up one of these and compare with its stereo counterpart. This would be the best illustration of the point I am making.

Your video card illustration is an example of higher resolution versus lower resolution, i.e. SACD versus CD. It is entirely different from a discussion of multiple channels. High resolution exists in both stereo and multi channel formats. Multiple channels does not make a high resolution recording higher resolution. Stereo versions of high resolution SACD recordings are the same resolution as their multi channel counterparts. 24bit/192kHz resolution is the same whether stereo or multi channel.

Sorry Mrtennis, but you lose 40 love

Mig007, your knowledge of tennis is suspect. At 40 love the game is not finished.

In my opinion, the video analogy is right on, if you understand multichannel re-mixing of stereo discs. What is so hard to understand that when you take the original tracks and remix them over 5 channels instead of two, the instruments and vocals are going to sound fuller and more distinct, as opposed to remixing all the instruments and vocals over two channels. Isn't a highway with 4 lanes less congested than a highway with 3 (unless you live in Los Angeles). Actually, forget about the stereo disc. The sacd engineers will build on the intent of the original engineers and use the additional tracks to allow the sounds greater space. Not every multichannel sacd or dvd audio recording is a success. Again, its based on the talents of the sound engineers and the original tracks, garbage in garbage out.

Mig007, I fully understand the point you are attempting to make. You hear additional details in the music when it's divided among five (or more) separate channels. This has nothing to do with increased resolution as your video card example attempts to describe, and the example is misapplied.

More homework is in order to better make your case.

Maybe things have somehow changed over the years, but as far back as I can remember (and was at all involved) there was actually very, very little that was ever recorded in stereo. The vast majority of true "recorded in stereo" titles that I ever knew of were classical offerings. Practically everything else was recorded to a number of tracks (4, 8, 16, etc.) and then post-processed (mixed and produced) to construct the final product. With the notable exceptions of stuff like the Beach Boys (mostly mono) the non-classical stereo releases from about the mid-to-late 60's and on were "stereo constructions". The source material was all pretty much discrete and they were built/mixed from some number of these discrete source tracks - it really was all kind of a trick and often not at all a record of a single coherent performance.

The vast majority of material released over those decades was mixed to stereo and that's what the vast majority of us grew up with and what we acquired our gear for. That's what we're used to (so that must be the best?). Quite a few of the multi-channel releases (SACDs,etc.) aren't any real improvement over the original stereo release - they lack the original's fresh emotional impact and aren't new and compelling ('cause we already heard 'em in stereo). However, if you ever do get a chance to hear offerings like this ABB SACD then y'all might understand Mig007's reaction. There really is a whole lot of older stuff that was just not just all that well done for the original (stereo) release. Some of those (like the Fillmore East, Layla, etc.) really do get more of the mix they deserve in their latest incarnations - and they just happen to be on multi-channel SACDs. If the same care had gone into all those original stereo constructions the differences probably would not have been so striking (and this thread might never have started).

Do you prefer all your movies in stereo? Some only really need a center channel, but some only truly come alive with the multi-channel treatment. I just like mine well-done - stereo or multi, as appropriate.