2. speakers
  3. 1177210462

MultiChannel too complicated for most...

I've been on the gon for a little while now, posting and enjoying all the spectacular virtual systems. There is one thing I've noticed though. It's that many seem to associate the terms 2 channel and simple, especially when heading and detailing their virtual systems. I don't see it too often in threads, but every now and again it'll show up their as well.

Me being the multichannel guy I am, this small and most times overlooked detail seemed to jump out at me. Its been a passing thought for a while, but seems to be a somewhat valid question.

Now...before I go any further, this is not in insight a riot and bombard the moderators with request to have this thread pulled because it "potentially offends" 2 channel lovers. This is not that kind of posting, but just posing a question that has crossed my mind more times that one.

Do 2channel only audiophiles shun multichannel (discrete or DSP based) because they find it too complicated?

If the concept of thinking in 360 degrees (Multichannel) were simplified, for a lack of better terms, would multichannel be more accepted?
cdwallace
jeffreybehr's avatar
jeffreybehr
805 posts
 
"You suggest that 2-channel is like standing in an open doorway rather than in the theater. I find that much mc is like being in the center of the orchester and having a blanket over your head. You may know the music is all around you but it has no realism."

Wow--we sure do listen to different music AND you've never heard my system. MC reproduction of MC Classical recordings sounds so much more natural and real than 2-channel reproduction that I too would never go back to 2-channel. I hear lots of real music--lots of highly skilled, real people playing in good spaces--and that's always what I compare reproduced music to. I have NEVER heard a 2-channel system sound even close to as good as my MC system when playing Classical music.

Complicated? I simply don't care.
.
inpepinnovations
134 posts
 
In fact, well done pseudo MC (derived rear channels, ala Hafler) with good amplification and speakers, is very convincing for classical music and especially 'real' sounding on organ music.
My venerable Lafayette 4-ch decoder (SQ and derived) is the basis of my MC. Just don't crank up the rear channels so that you can hear them, about 15db lower in volume seems to be just right for most discs, that aren't SQ encoded, of course.
Salut, Bob
tbg
5,263 posts
 
Impepinnovavations, SQ and pseudo mc, wow! Those are wrong words to say in my opinion. Probably 20 years ago I invested heavily in trying to generate rear channel sounds using Haflers, Lafayette, and Audio Plus, I think it was called. Not once did I achieve anything that I would listen to despite two instances with professional efforts made to tailor the settings for their best results.

If mc is not discrete on the disc, I am not going to listen to it or make any new effort to introduce it into my system. My disinterest comes from what I have heard with discrete channels on the disc. Until I hear a convincing demonstration on music I value, I won't spend a cent to get mc.
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
I won't be baited into this fiasco again. If MC works for you, enjoy it. I've 'been there, done that' with MC. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but 2-channel, vinyl and tubes rule. :)

Peace out,
John
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,467 posts
 
I won't be baited into this [MC] fiasco

A fiasco?

2-channel, vinyl and tubes rule.

Of course they do.
More to discover