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
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,424 posts
 
Sorry, Audiolabyrinth but all one has to do is to construct a multichannel system of equal quality components and setup to yours (whatever it is) to demonstrate that MCH, per se, is superior to stereo.

Besides, who said anything about home theater or home theater components? You're just tossing in a red herring.
dcbingaman
90 posts
 
Rebel, based on Kal's excellent advice, I went to a Meridian-based system using a G68XXD, a BAT 6200 multi-channel amp and Vandersteen 5.1 speakers. Trifield, as you noted, adds to every stereo program I've tried it on...it seems to add depth of field that stereo lacks via the late Micheal Gerson's magic algorithm.

I agree with Kal's response to Audiolabyrinth - more OF THE SAME speakers will always sound better than the first two, because they make the room acoustic more realistic. Details that one strains to hear in 2-channel are just THERE. In fact, this 3D effect is the biggest difference I hear between a stereo recording and live music at Powell Hall (SLSO), which is, inherently multi-source, kind of like, (dare I say it), Multi-Channel !!
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
3,575 posts
 
Kr4, For many people it is a choice between good two channel system and less than average multichannel for the same cost.
How much better speakers I can afford when buying only two. How much better amp I can afford when it is two channel only etc. There are also living space constrains that can make multichannel system far from optimal. Would I invest a lot of money in multichannel when all my CDs are redbook. Not practical for me. I understand that multichannel recordings are not that popular. That's perhaps why somebody mentioned home theater system as the main use.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,424 posts
 
Cost is an issue and so is space. OTOH, the possible increase in sound quality with stereo becomes disproportionately small compared to the cost/space investment after a certain point. OTOH, the increase in sound quality due to the spatial enhancement of multichannel is substantial.

However, if all your CDs are RedBook (all CDs are RedBook, by definition), then the issue is moot to you. Also, if the discussion is about superiority/inferiority, then matters of popularity are irrelevant, as is HT.
edorr
714 posts
 
The multi channel mix of the same source recording will sound better than the 2 channel any day of the week (try this with say a 2L Nordic sound recording - not even close. This tells me all else being equal, multi channel is inherently superior. But indeed a moot point for most, because of lack of content. I'm somewhere in the middle, with about 80% of my budget invested in very good 2 channel, and another 20% in not too shabby center and surrounds. I spend 90% of the time listening to 2 channel, so this is a reasonable balance.
More to discover