2. home-theater
  3. 1239507308

Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?

I think that 2 channel is inferior, though, of course, my ears and reason may be mistaken.

Feedback please!

The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.

In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).

It's possible that I simply need better equipment.

But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?

What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).

What am I missing in theory?
pmcneil
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Hevac1..."Sound from everywhere" describes the "difuse and directionless" effect which you get when a two channel signal is out of phase between channels. It is sometimes nice, but in no way equivalent to the precisely located rear sounds of a multichannel system.

IMHO, Jazz is best heard in the form of a jam session in someone's living room. No ear plugs permitted. Chamber music is also often performed in a private residence where you can sit really close, if not in the group. I did once play in a group, so I like that perspective best.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
Hevac1,

This is how jazz should be enjoyed. Jeff Beck with Imogen Heap at Ronnnie Scott's Jazz Club

No need for in ear monitors...
hevac1
811 posts
 
I have enjoyed small venues like that but in no way is that 5.1 audio. The entertainers and speakers are in front not in back of the audience. I see noone that is not in the band sitting with the band or in back of the band. It is also live which none of us can duplicate in our homes, with 2 or 7.1 channels. Like I said I have heard few multichannel that only us it for ambience. I am not saying it cannot be done correctly with multichannel. I am saying they don't do it right.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,424 posts
 
Sure, they do, but in classical music for the most part. The vast majority of classical 5.1 is with the traditional arrangement of performers up front but with an immmersive ambiance.

Kal
ojgalli
165 posts
 
Stereo, mono, 5 channels, a zillion channels, it's all an illusion. There is no way to recreate a concert hall, or club performance at home. And studio recordings are another can of worms, which for the most part, have completely artificial acoustics and arbitrary placement of performers in a contrived 'soundstage.'

The question is: How is the illusion created? Provided that a recording has captured all the necessary auditory cues, it's going to take more than two channels to accurately deliver all those cues to our ears.

Here's an interesting link on the subject: ambiophonics
More to discover