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
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
7,477 posts
 
I won't be baited into this [MC] fiasco

A fiasco?

2-channel, vinyl and tubes rule.

Of course they do.
flrnlamb
508 posts
 
"Now...(,)before I go any further, this is not in (TO) insight a riot (,) and (OR)(TO) bombard the moderators with request(S) to have this thread pulled (,) because it "potentially offends" 2 channel lovers."

Cdwallace? I count several grammer and spelling problems here. Do you have spell check on your computer? It's hard to read your post here. Thank you
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Tbg...You are quite correct that matrix multichannel from vinyl rarely produced good effect. I think that two reasons are:
1...The rear channels were predominantly vertical groove modulation which is noisy.
2...Four channels from two is too much to ask. Matrix 3-channel (to drive a center speaker) is good.

With CDs, reason 1 does not apply, but the results are still poor. But, with digital, the oportunity for discrete multichannel exists, so why bother with matrix?
.
More to discover