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
savjam
48 posts
 
I agree based on many comparisons I have performed. Multichannel, properly done, is clearly superior to two channel. Multichannel creats a three dimensional sound field with you in the middle, that with properly set up spesakers, can come really close to being "there". The only problem with mutichannel is there is so little good material out there. One standout I have found is Diana Krall's "Live In Paris".
avgoround
287 posts
 
I am certain that you can get better sound quality with a carefully assembled 2 ch system. I know I have.
I still, however, get more pleasure doing a bit lesser quality with a carefully setup AV multi-ch system. This way, everyone gets to enjoy along with me.. When I get really ambitious, I meld the two, and loop the musically superior 2 ch system into an auxilary/loop/direct into the multi-ch system for surround and movies and what not. Best of both worlds, if must do both systems together.
All in all, I've heard best quality sound refinement from 2 ch sources and equip, yes. Still, more fun with movies and surround for me, I suppose. Guess it's a social/family thing
dcbingaman
93 posts
 
Multi-channel is ALWAYS better than 2-channel with well-recorded sources. These will become prevalent with time, since 5.1 home theater systems have out-sold 2-channel rigs by a wide margin for sometime, and digital is becoming cheaper and cheaper.

recently heard two systems, back to back with similar recordings on the same day. The first was a Vandersteen 7 / Audio Research / Basis (analog) 2-channel system playing 50's jazz. The second was at DTS which had an 11.2 system, using Vienna Acoustics monitors in a perfect circle away from the room boundaries, (think Stonehenge), Ayre amps, dcs DACs and high bit-rate digital program sources. There was NO comparison. The DTS set-up was far superior in every respect, and was probably the best sound reproduction I have ever heard.

2-channel analog audio had it's day, but that day has passed.
avgoround
287 posts
 
I would also like to qualify some of the responses above, where others are stating "multi-channel as superior". My experience is that most cannot even setup a 2 channel system for best sound, let alone 5 or more ch!
Let's just assume two equal quality level of recodings, sacd, whatever - one two channel, the other 5.1 ch recording. If you wind up getting several channels set up for lackluster performance from the speakers (due to poor placement and overall setup, acoustics, issues, etc), and you can forget about hi-fidelity coming at you from all around!
Imagine one speaker sitting in an acoustic hole at 63-80hz, or another too close to the walls (reinforce all the upper bass/mid frequencies and improperly treating reflection points ), or one speaker out in the open, and all of a sudden you wind up with way different fideltiy sound coming from each speaker. Now you got lack luster sound, and a hodge-podge setup, that's in dire need of some help!
I think, with 2 speakers, most people have a much better shot at getting a reasonably descent setup attempt -less possible acoustic issues to address, simpler, etc. In this case, you'll likely have the potential for better over all sound quality. I'm just sayin.
The more complicated, the more the average audio hobbiest is gunna screw things up. K.I.S.S. applies here over throwing in many more variables, beyond the control of the masses.
What does everyone think here on my viewpoint?
dcbingaman
93 posts
 
I agree that multiple- channel is harder to set-up, but Audyssey and other digital EQ software solutions are making this less of a problem.

The simple truth of home audio is that the room is the most important component, whether 2, 3, 5 or 7 channel. If you don't get the room right, no matter how much money you spend on everything else, you limit the ability of your system to recreate the artist's intended acoustic 3-space. In my opinion, that 3-space is the whole point. If you can't recreate it, then monophonic reproduction is as valid as anything else you may try, and costs a lot less.
More to discover