Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

02-10-10: Ledhed2222
But where are the decoders Martin?

Please read what I wrote. For B-Format, free ad hoc software decoders are available. Decoding B-Format in software has been made very straightforward.

Also, the more than 200 pieces available at Ambisonia.com are all available as DTS DVD file images. Any of these can be burnt to a DVD and played on a DVD player.

Finally, you can also use software to decode UHJ, but it is not as neatly packaged as the B-Format software decoders. Decoding UHJ requires the use of wide-band 90 degree phase shifters. In the digital domain these are usually implemented using convolution. This can be done using available tools, but it is not for the faint hearted.

Regards,
Martin

Martin - What you need to realize is that you were 15 years ahead of the crowd 10 years ago. Ambisonic will be complete nonsense to the majority IF they even pay you any attention. Its an uphill battle the IMO isn't worth the effort.

Have at it bro!! Fight on!

I'm not a big fan of multi-channel and it may be because of my age (over 60). Two channels make sense for music because that is how it is listened to: i.e., singers and musicians are in front of you and not all around you. I see multi-channel as more related to home theater and movies and not music. With that being said, I also accept that we all have our own preferences. Just read the different opinions on speakers, cables, amps, etc. on Audiogon.

Well, I've reviewed a lot of responses to this thread, but still pose the question in terms of "upgrading". First let me say I spend 50% of the time listening to music, with the balance being 30% movies and then 20% televison/sports. I;ve always enjoyed B & W speakers in a much-appreciated 2 channel system, powered by the famous c320bee amp and its nad brother single cd player. Now I face the prospect of changing to a system powered by a denon 3310 a/v receiver to accommodate the thirst for movies (first time buyer of the denon brand and a/v breed).

I wonder if:

1) the same sound quality will be found in this denon a/v receiver (what hi-fi 4 stars) powering a pair of b/w 602 s3 bookshelves and center htm 61 for movies... versus

2)the c320bee for 2 channel (versus 3 channel) audio through the same speaker set - up..

I have a basic low-budget surround system (head unit, amp, bass and 5 speakers which includes center speaker) in my car that allows me to listen to both 2-channel and surround music--both in discs (DTS CDs, redbook, SACD DVD-A, DVD and redbook) and Dolby ProLogic II processor. The good news on this is that I never miss the sweet spot!

While I agree speaker placement is important, just as important is the disc itself, the quality of the recording and the quality of the mix and mastering engineer. This goes for both 2-channel and multi-channel discs (some with different mixes on the same disc).

I have heard some multichannel discs and/or mixes that surpass 2-channel recordings, though I have 2 channel recordings that do the exact
opposite. Some 2-channel recordings' soundstage sound so lifelike and immersive that you forget you're listening to multichannel! Conversly, I have heard gimmicky 5-channel recordings (SACD and DVD DTS or DD)hat turning off the center channel is the only option. This goes
especially for some recordings where the main vocal is isolated in the center channel...it sounds like there's a ghost in the room. Freaky!

In conclusion, I'm a "plug and play" type guy and hate tweaking. By having either having a 2-channel or 5-channel properly set-up in a stationary position, one really needs all to do is focus on the recording itself. (please exuse any typos.)