2. home-theater
  3. 1014610053

Why is 2 Channel better than multi-channel?

I hear that the music fidelity of a multi-channel AV Receiver/Integrated amp can never match the sounds produced by a 2 channel system. Can someone clearly explain why this is so?

I'm planning to upgrade my HT system to try and achieve the best of both worlds, I currently have a 3 channel amp driving my SL, SR, C and a 2 channel amp driving my L and R.
I have a Denon 3801 acting as my pre. Is there any Pre/Proc out there that can merge both worlds with out breaking my bank? Looking for recommendations on what my next logical steps should be? Thanks in advance.
springowl
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
"a lone violin started screaming out of one of the surrounds" is unreal--- unless there really is a violin located there.

My apology to those who have heard me say this before but...
...the most effective multichannel music I have is TACET DVDAs of chamber music where the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround. The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue. And then there is antiphonal music, composed for two groups of musicians, one of which is usually behind the audience. The spatial effect is part of what the composer intended. Stereo is incapable of reproducing antiphonal music.
bryoncunningham
893 posts
 
...the instruments are individually distributed to the five channels. For example: violin left, viola right, flute center, cello left surround, piano right surround.

Eldartford - This is the approach to multichannel music that I find unnatural, since I am not accustomed to hearing music from the middle of a chamber group. Having said that, I don't want to imply that other people should feel the way I do. It's a matter of preference, and in this case, I don't believe that one preference is more valid than the other.

The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue.

I think you are right about this. So, whether you find this approach to multichannel music appealing depends largely on whether you prefer the illusion that "you are there" or the illusion that "they are here." That distinction was discussed at length in another thread.

Bryon
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,703 posts
 
Eldartford wrote: The effect is to put the musicians in your room as opposed to the usual approach of transporting you to some recording venue.
Bryoncunningham wrote: I think you are right about this. So, whether you find this approach to multichannel music appealing depends largely on whether you prefer the illusion that "you are there" or the illusion that "they are here."

I have enjoyed both but my decided preference is "you are there" mainly because I cannot fit or even imagine fitting more than a handful of musicians in my listening room. However, that is a matter of preference and the fact that multichannel media can be used to satisfy either preference should be regarded as one of its technical advantages.

Kal
mceljo
1,357 posts
 
I've always wanted to have a CD with a quartet recorded one per channel so it would sound like you were standing in the middle of them. I think it would sound really interesting.
bryoncunningham
893 posts
 
...the fact that multichannel media can be used to satisfy either preference should be regarded as one of its technical advantages.

I agree, Kal.
More to discover