Sure, they do, but in classical music for the most part. The vast majority of classical 5.1 is with the traditional arrangement of performers up front but with an immmersive ambiance.
Kal
Kal
Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?
I think that 2 channel is inferior, though, of course, my ears and reason may be mistaken.
Feedback please!
The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.
In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).
It's possible that I simply need better equipment.
But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?
What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).
What am I missing in theory?
Feedback please!
The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.
In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).
It's possible that I simply need better equipment.
But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?
What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).
What am I missing in theory?
- ...
- 108 posts total
Stereo, mono, 5 channels, a zillion channels, it's all an illusion. There is no way to recreate a concert hall, or club performance at home. And studio recordings are another can of worms, which for the most part, have completely artificial acoustics and arbitrary placement of performers in a contrived 'soundstage.' The question is: How is the illusion created? Provided that a recording has captured all the necessary auditory cues, it's going to take more than two channels to accurately deliver all those cues to our ears. Here's an interesting link on the subject: ambiophonics |
I have enjoyed small venues like that but in no way is that 5.1 audio. Well what about the ambient venue energy (from behind and sides) and the sounds of people behind you. The particular recording I linked to is available on DVD and on BD and it is an excellent 5.1 mix - very realistic. They applause is all around you - just as it would be if you had seats close to the front. |
- 108 posts total