2. home-theater
  3. 1239507308

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?
pmcneil
les_creative_edge
174 posts
 
Question to you all?

Anyone here have experience with this product?

How about with Dolby Labs Virtual Dolby?

I'm wondering on thoughts about if one wants a simple home audio system for mostly stereo music playback but to also be able to get satisfactory results using 2 speakers and a sub with Virtual Dolby on movie watching? Satisfactory results from a typical 3 seater couch listening position for movie watching in a room that is about 10x20 with about 9 ft ceilings?

Thoughts on this receiver for vinyl, tape and cd music playback too especially including using it as a preamp to a tube amp which I have?

But again any thoughts on how good Virtual Dolby sounds for general movie playback.

In reality I watch t.v. only with my Hitachi LCD projection t.v. on and it has decent sound and effects using its speakers, SRS and BBE expansion. Good enough for general t.v. watching but for movies I have run my 5.1 set up but in reality I mostly use my system for stereo music only.

Thanks in advance.
les_creative_edge
174 posts
 
BTW the gear is a Harman Kardon HK 3490 Stereo Receiver with Dolby Virtual surround.

Thanks.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,651 posts
 
My $.02: I am not a fan of adding a center with L+R info for 2 channels sources unless the L/R setup is suboptimum, such as with too wide spacing.

OTOH, with a real phase/timing-correct and discrete center signal, the overall quality of the entire frontal soundstage is improved. As I have often said, try comparing some of the RCA Living Stereo SACDs by switching between the 2channel DSD track and the 3channel DSD track to hear the difference. Another test is to compare the quality/stability of a mono recording on a 2channel L/R playback to a mono playback only on the center channel and realize that the same thing is happening to the center image on stereo vs. mch recordings.

Also, the reference to the necessity for a center channel predates HT and does not refer to a synthesized L+R center but to a discrete one.

None of these comments directly relate to on-axis vs. off-axis listeners.

Kal
vicdamone
850 posts
 
Hevec asks, "If you are in the group and it is using electronics most have ear plug so they hear in the correct time and so they can be in time with everyone else. If they listen from where they are instead of through the earphones with all the delays and echo's their timing will be off. Is this not correct?"

More no than yes. As a working Double Bassist ear monitoring can be a wonderful tool when your working with a touring sound technician and the room is difficult. It takes a great deal of time getting the instrumentation balances correct (each player selects different balances) which usually takes place during rehearsals. Even then I prefer to hear my instrument and the drums without monitoring. At a casual small club situation it's usually a distraction because of the poor monitoring set up and less need for it.

Yoshi's Oakland is a great venue. As great as it is the best audience sound is up front at the stage and under the house sound. Yoshi's reinforcement was designed by an affiliate of Meyer Sound. The week it opened I heard the best sound reinforcement ever in every part of the room. Today it's all mucked up by people who simply don't get it.

The technology available to the sound reinforcement industry is amazing, unfortunately only a few truly know how to implement it.

You would be amazed by just how good your home system would sound if you had access to pre production media.

cdwallace3
41 posts
 
Its been a very long time since I've posted here. This subject has drown me back yet again.

Contrary to previous postings. 2 Channel is NOT inferior to multichannel yet its the corner of it. You can't have a great MC setup without an equally impressive 2 channel setup. If your 2 channel is off, so will your MC.

IMO, if you can pinpoint your center or surround channels, they aren't setup right. The center should help anchor the image not create it. The holographic creation is done with the "2channel" setup and the center channel, in essence, helps to solidify the depth and image of the soundstage, etc. However, to get the center right, it has to gel with the surrounds as well. I know its all greek to some and gibberish to others, but its reality for me and has been for quite some time.

The concept of surround SHOULD be modeled after the concept of stereo: multiple speakers working as one. If you can't grasp that concept then its all for not.
More to discover