How can you not have multichannel system

I agree with TVAD and Mapman here. Plus I have never heard a multi-channel system that even approached a quality two way system. TAD gave up some time ago in having multi-channel systems at shows. I know why, the sound was awful. I heard their best sound yet at the RMAF-the rack mounted two ways used in two channel.

I don't think there is right way or only way to produce mch mix. As others have pointed out, most recordings are done with several microphones whether in studio or in concerts. It's then up to the recording engineer to take the raw recordings (master tapes), and mix them into N channels (where N is 2, 3, 5 or 6) that closely represents the sound at the event. Whether the resulting number of channels is two or six, the tracks are artificially created.

I've heard some recordings where the rear channels are used for ambiance and spatial information. Some other recordings place certain instruments in the rear channels. Some other recordings place chorus in the rear channels. Obviously the listeners have a preference, and prefer certain type of mixing over other types. Some might believe the real channels should be used exclusively for the ambiance and spatial informations. Some other might find "music all around" approach to be appealing. In any case the goal for mch recording is to immerse the listener into the music, and there are different ways to achieve that.

At the minimum, I found that mch recordings tend to have more robust sound stage in the fronts. That's not to say that the stereo setup is inferior for generating soundstage. It's just that with three speakers in the front it gets the job done a little easier. The speaker placements are easier, and there are larger sweet spot.

Many of the RCA Living Stereo SACD releases are a direct transfer from three channel master tapes. In such scenario, I believe the mch mix is inherently superior to the two channel "mix" created from the original three channels, as the mch content will be identical to the master tapes.

But I agree with the consensus, that mch isn't for everyone. Most people don't have the room, inclination or both.

Look, everyone can prefer whatever they like, but the audiophile hobby endeavors to reproduce the live event, or so I believe.

Anyone who prefers hearing an instrument from a rear speaker, or hearing the chorus from the rear speakers is not endeavoring to reproduce the live event on their system. Their interested in cool sound effects.

Such is their prerogative, but it's not the audiophile goal, and therefore it's of little importance on this site.

Let's look at the total of individual contributors to this thread: 13.

Not an overwhelming response to the multi channel topic, which supports a conclusion that multi channel audio is a non starter at the present time.

Tvad, I think your argument is about the philosophy of recording engineers (how mch tracks should be mixed), not about the fundamentals of using more than two speakers in a mch system. Anyways, like I said earlier most people don't seem to be interested in mch system for one reason or another, and it's their prerogative.

01-05-09: Jylee
Tvad, I think your argument is about the philosophy of recording engineers (how mch tracks should be mixed), not about the fundamentals of using more than two speakers in a mch system.

Yes, my argument is about the use of the mix. Not necessarily from the engineer's perspective, but certainly about the mix.

I remember when Quad was introduced. That died a quick death as well.

I don't think it's because people wouldn't be interested in multi channel, but rather because it's a hassle from an end user's perspective to implement successfully in most rooms.

As I said earlier, the format is on life support...ready to for the plug to be pulled, so the discussion here is academic and of no practical value. IMO.

Those who love multi channel will continue to refine their systems (and kudos to them), and those who aren't convinced are unlikely to convert from two channel.