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
dynami28
55 posts
 
Although I can achieve some very impressive results with just L/R speakers, I gotta say. I recently upgraded and (this is important) So that all my speakers (L/C/R/SR/SL) are identical in performance @ 125watts RMS per L/C/R/SR/SL channels @ 8 ohms - .008 THD, but I run them at 12 ohms to lower the Total Harmonic Distortion a little, and since I have so many drivers - output, SPL, and clarity doesn't suffer.

They can handle the whole show on their own with out the subs on. Each channel consists of Vifa 6" drivers, three per channel and three tweeters per channel as well. That's fifteen 6" drivers and tweeters (bi-amped for the L/R channels).

Also the benefits of multi channel sound doesn't end there, the sub woofer output has it's purpose.

I know this is over kill, but when I'm watching a movie and gun shots ring out. I want the neighbors to call the cops, you know, that kind of dynamic range.

So my subs are broken up into frequency categories if you will. I have six 6" JL Audio subs under the center channel (ported and tuned to 50 Hz). Under the L/R Monitors I have four sealed 12" Kicker Still-water subs, two per side. And behind the flat screen I have four ported long throw 8" subs by MTX, above that resides two Momo 12" subs in a whooping 18 cubic feet (9 per) of ported madness directly aimed at 30 Hz and below, and lastly above that I have two Dynaudio 12" subs in a bandpass box aimed at that low end also.

So I would take the Pepsi challenge with a stereo setup any day, I mean come on - More channels with more power, setup at a lower impedance - means equal (if not better output) and lower distortion in the process.

I haven't even gotten into the many amps and power system I've got running this setup, but, rest assured the cops are on the way.

Andrew
Synesthesia Studios
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,689 posts
 
06-12-12: Audiofreak32
Music is not intended for multichannel. Surround sound is for movies.

06-11-12: Audiofreak32
No, just stating facts...
Just because you assert your opinions does not make them facts.
dynami28
55 posts
 
I'm sorry I can't keep quiet on this subject.

06-12-12: Audiofreak32
Music is not intended for multichannel. Surround sound is for movies.

06-11-12: Audiofreak32
No, just stating facts...

01-02-13: Kr4
Just because you assert your opinions does not make them facts.

And Kr4 lands a blow worthy of Ali or Fraiser!

I feel like Springer is going to be coming by to antagonize someone into a fight or maybe throwing a chair!

Andrew
dcbingaman
93 posts
 
One day last year I had the opportunity to hear a better 2- channel setup than most if you could dream of, and DTS's 11.2 surround studio setup in SoCal back-to-back using the same source material. The 2-channel system was at Randy's Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica and included Vandersteen 7's, Audio Research electronics, the top of the line Basis turntable with an Air Tight PC-1 Supreme, and a DCS-based digital front end. It sounded glorious. (Randy, BTW, is a gentlemen, a scholar, and a great host).

The DTS system was all digital using proprietary DCS hardware and software with a Macintosh-based source and GUI, 11 Vienna Acoustics speakers of various sizes, two huge Vienna Acoustics subwoofers, and all driven by Ayre Acoustics amplification. This setup was in a huge room and had a mastering console in the middle of a speaker array that looked like Stonehenge with a hemispherical cage above which held several height channel speakers. The system software was running a prototype of DTS NeoX optimized for 11.2 channels, with Audessey-based room equalization.

DTS had high definition digital masters of everything we played at Randy's place on consumer 2-channel media, (vinyl and CD's). Fellas, it wasn't even close. Randy's set-up sounded like a very good stereo reproducer - maybe the best I've heard. The DTS set-up was like a time and space warp machine - it put you in the recording venue. Not only that, with movement of the Mac's mouse, it moved your apparent location anywhere in the venue. It was mind-blowing.

Having heard this, it is very hard to take stereo seriously, except as a historical footnote to real high definition audio. This is what I want in my home, and my 5.1 system is much closer than to it than 2-channels can ever be.
edorr
714 posts
 
Interesting observation. I'm a great fan of MCH, but not so much in channel expansion processing modes (not for native 5.1 music anyway). Goes to show there are no golden rules and whatever works works.
More to discover