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
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Tbg...Many MC discs do not put the listener "in the orchestra" although some people who play or played in an orchestra or chior enjoy such a presentation. I find it particularly appropriate for chamber music where live performances are ideally held in relatively small rooms that do put the listener in the midst of the performers. Jazz too.

Some DVDA let you select the mix you prefer: "stage" or "audience".
.
mcrheist
130 posts
 
To answer your question, I simply dislike multichannel. I enjoyed the newness of the experience in a home built in 1992 (and sold in 1999) but quickly grew tired of multichannel music and movies. It has nothing to do with simplicity; it has to do with unnatural sound IMHO. But to each his own. If you enjoy the experience, then by all means, do not cheat yourself out of this musical environment. However, it is just not my preference.
madhf
170 posts
 
Eldartford,
I definately agree with you on the great sound of multichannel. Been listening in one form or another since 1971. However, cannot agree that matrix isn't effective. I use matrix for all my 2 channel sources and it sounds great. I have an Angstom processor and Mike Moffitt has developed an algorithm for surround matrix that is astonishing imo. I have a problem with SACD mc because of the noise in the rear channels. I do not have this problem with dvd-a, dd or dts (which is my favorite surround mode)
Take dark side of the moon. Playing the mofi cd in my matrix is easier to listen to than the SACD. However, if the noise factor wasn't there, the SACD would be great. Also, I use the matrix to play back SACD 2 ch cds with good results. Same with HDCDs which I think sound even better than SACDs. I understand that mixing and mastering are a big part of the eqation, so I wont get into that. Long live multi-channel!!
tbg
5,263 posts
 
I think it is apparent that some find mc enjoyable and others find nothing that tempts them. It is not a matter of complication anymore than it is that the mc group have low resolving systems with poor speakers that need the added clues from mc.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,724 posts
 
Madhf: Can you explain what you mean about noise in the rear channels of SACD mc? I have never heard such. If you are referring to music/sounds in the rear channels, that has absolutely nothing to do with the format and everything to do with the mixing/mastering. As a result, it is at least as prevalent in DVD-A as in SACD and, in my experience, more so.

Kal
More to discover