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
vicdamone
850 posts
 
Hevec asks, "If you are in the group and it is using electronics most have ear plug so they hear in the correct time and so they can be in time with everyone else. If they listen from where they are instead of through the earphones with all the delays and echo's their timing will be off. Is this not correct?"

More no than yes. As a working Double Bassist ear monitoring can be a wonderful tool when your working with a touring sound technician and the room is difficult. It takes a great deal of time getting the instrumentation balances correct (each player selects different balances) which usually takes place during rehearsals. Even then I prefer to hear my instrument and the drums without monitoring. At a casual small club situation it's usually a distraction because of the poor monitoring set up and less need for it.

Yoshi's Oakland is a great venue. As great as it is the best audience sound is up front at the stage and under the house sound. Yoshi's reinforcement was designed by an affiliate of Meyer Sound. The week it opened I heard the best sound reinforcement ever in every part of the room. Today it's all mucked up by people who simply don't get it.

The technology available to the sound reinforcement industry is amazing, unfortunately only a few truly know how to implement it.

You would be amazed by just how good your home system would sound if you had access to pre production media.

cdwallace3
41 posts
 
Its been a very long time since I've posted here. This subject has drown me back yet again.

Contrary to previous postings. 2 Channel is NOT inferior to multichannel yet its the corner of it. You can't have a great MC setup without an equally impressive 2 channel setup. If your 2 channel is off, so will your MC.

IMO, if you can pinpoint your center or surround channels, they aren't setup right. The center should help anchor the image not create it. The holographic creation is done with the "2channel" setup and the center channel, in essence, helps to solidify the depth and image of the soundstage, etc. However, to get the center right, it has to gel with the surrounds as well. I know its all greek to some and gibberish to others, but its reality for me and has been for quite some time.

The concept of surround SHOULD be modeled after the concept of stereo: multiple speakers working as one. If you can't grasp that concept then its all for not.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
3,575 posts
 
Cdwallace3 - I'm not sure how center channel would help in my system where I have center images right on the spot and midrange is very clear but I suspect it helps a lot with center image and voice presence on cheap satellite home theater system and widens sweet spot for multi-seat home theater environment.

2 channel might be better same way 100W amp might be better than 200w amp - for the same money you can get better quality/sound (in case of an amp only 20% less perceived loudness)
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,424 posts
 
Well, all other things being equal, two-channel is certainly cheaper and more compact than multichannel. ;-)

Kal
cdwallace
216 posts
 
"Cdwallace3 - I'm not sure how center channel would help in my system where I have center images right on the spot and midrange is very clear but I suspect it helps a lot with center image and voice presence on cheap satellite home theater system and widens sweet spot for multi-seat home theater environment."

I didn't think we were talking cheap home theater. The center channel performance has no direct bearing on the quality of your system, per se. Cheap equals cheap with or without the center channel. However, your image an be spot on with crystal clear midrange; if you implement a matching speaker (I'm not a huge fan of center channel speakers) for the center channel and apply the correct processing, your image and soundstage will improve. Yes, your system will get better. If it doesn't, blame it on user error. But you're in the right place; audiogon can help. Even with a comparably "bad" processor you can make improvements. Hate to break it to you but your system still has potential that can be unlocked.

"2 channel might be better same way 100W amp might be better than 200w amp - for the same money you can get better quality/sound (in case of an amp only 20% less perceived loudness)"

Not sure how that applies, but sure, we'll go with that. Just keep in mind that there are always those finds that will produce something that is less expensive than the competition but build better and is better quality.
More to discover