2+2+2 Multichannel


I just bought two DVD-A discs put out by a German Audiophile recording outfit called MDGD. They use the six available channels differently.

They use the Left and Right, Front and Rear channels in the usual way. But then they call for two additional front speakers, located above and outside the regular front speakers. These are driven by the Center and Subwoofer channels. It is all supposed to produce a "3-dimensional" sound field, with no particular "sweet spot" for listener location.

I have not yet had the time to jury-rig this setup. The printed material that came with the discs does not provide much in the way of description of this 2+2+2 scheme. Does anyone out there have any info?
eldartford
Chesky's version is different though. The two height channels are at the sides of the room, between the listener and the main channels, whereas the European 2+2+2 has the height channels in the front of the room. The two formats aren't strictly interchangeable, since the microphone placement and mixing was done assuming one speaker configuration or the other.
You are right about the differences between the Chesky and MDG setups. The Telarc, too, is different in that it has a single height channel multiplexed with the LFE channel. I also agree with PBB that it was unfortunate that compatibility with HT 5.1 took precedence over considerations for optimum music reproduction.
Almost everyone who cares about multichannel audio agrees on the point about the problems of 5.1. But there are just so few people with audio-only multichannel systems that its hard to make the case for profitability of non-HT compatible formats. The eventual answer would be hierarchically processed multichannel data which can be configured by your player/receiver to whatever speaker arrangement exists in your home, for HT as well as for audio. But this is still a research area and years away from being a reality or a recording standard.

The 2+2+2 ideas could work if the mains and rears were at the same angles as in 5.1; then the additional 2 could be switched in or out depending on the format of the recording.
I've never heard a properly set up Ambisonics system. Has anyone here? If so would you please describe your impressions? How might it compare to this?
It seems to me that above the fronts would likely be the best place for "height" channels. However, I am all bent out of shape about loosing the center channel, which I have always considered most important, even for stereo, where it is easily derived from ther 2-channel source.

I don't know why the center channel speaker gets such criticism in audiophile circles. Examination of the signal characteristics of stereo recordings will show that common-mode modulation dominates, and this is center material. In particular, solo performers are usually recorded equally in both channels, and isolate nicely in the center channel. I know that two good speakers will image the soloist between them, but this effect depends stronly on listener position, which is not the case where a center channel speaker is used. Other advantages are a wider soundstage because the left and right speakers can be further apart, and reduced speaker power for a given room sound volume level. Of course it goes with my philosophy that the center speaker and amplification should be as good or better than the left and right. Perhaps the minimalist center channel speakers that are commonly used for movie dialog may be responsible for the bad rap for music.