Music Reproduction: Stereo vs Multi: If you were starting over today...

[Khorn]

and didn't have a lot of money invested over the years in either 2 channel or multi, which one would you choose to go with?

I am happy with 2 channel and, because I have a lot invested in stereo reproduction I would find it difficult and expensive to expand/change my system to give me equivalent multi/surround sound. If I were to be starting from scratch today I probably would seriously consider multi channel as I would be able to pick and choose the equipment necessary to fit that profile. As it stands now do I feel locked in?....maybe sometimes but, not unhappy about it.

How do the rest of you who are in a similar position feel?

[Steve Hoffman]

How rich are you? That's the main question. If I tried to duplicate my two-channel mastering system with a 5:1 set up it would cost something like $300,000.00. Pointless.

Most audiophiles don't have enough money to truly get a state of the art surround system. Correct?

My surround system is a big drop in quality from my two-channel set up, that's for sure....

[Holy Zoo]

I'm certain that's true... very few of us can afford 50k+ for a *state of the art* system.

I can't explain why, but I'm perfectly happy with stereo. I mean, I have all the requisite surround sound equipment, mutli SACD, DVD, etc, but it just doesn't rock me for some reason.

[Khorn]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
How rich are you? That's the main question. If I tried to duplicate my two-channel mastering system with a 5:1 set up it would cost something like $300,000.00. Pointless.

Most audiophiles don't have enough money to truly get a state of the art surround system. Correct?

I think that is the main stumbling block. Many of us have built up good 2 channel systems and as you point out to keep the same level in surround would in many cases be prohibitive cost wise. Seeing as most of the past music was originally recorded in Mono, Stereo and maybe some 3 channel I don't feel the pressure to change at this time. As to the future that's probably going to be a different story. I don't care too much about stuff that is mixed to multi that was never so in the first place but, when and if most music will start to be natively recorded in surround then a serious re-think will be necessary.

[Beagle]

Most engineers are having a hard time getting two channels musical.

Why would I want four?

[sgb]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
How rich are you? That's the main question. If I tried to duplicate my two-channel mastering system with a 5:1 set up it would cost something like $300,000.00. Pointless.

Most audiophiles don't have enough money to truly get a state of the art surround system. Correct?

Isn't California a community property state as is Louisiana?

Since I'm pretty sure I'd be getting divorce papers from some attorney here, that $300K rig you mention would cost you $600K here since you'd have to split everything right down the middle.

I don't know a single person who has a room that's adequate for SOTA multi-channel setup; from what I gather you'd really need something on the order of 40 X 30 to do it right.

[Jamie Tate]

There are so few circumstances where 5.1 has advantages over stereo. You have to sit in the exact center of the speakers, all aligned and set properly, to take full advantage. If you're in another room or the shower or doing laundry you'll get just as much out of stereo as you would 5.1 and these places are where most people listen to music. It's usually while doing something else.

Besides, there are so few good 5.1 mixes. Too much reverb, too many effects, too many gimmicks. Give me a nice stereo mix.

[proufo]

Originally posted by Khorn
How do the rest of you who are in a similar position feel?
Most recordings are two channel so that does it for me.

But at this point in the technology, I don't believe you have to choose.

You can have recreated ambiance for two-channel recordings and true-multichannel for the rare X.X recording. Put it all in a dedicated room, and I bet you won't miss anything.

[Jefhart]

I am also perfectly happy with stereo. Multi-channel doesn't interest me in the least, just like quad didn't interest me in the '70's. As we all know, with proper recording and mastering, and good equipment, you can get a perfectly wondrous sound out of two speakers. Multi channel is fine for movies where sound effects may play a big part, and it contributes to the overall experience of "being in" the movie. In straight music, IMHO, it can too easily become gimmicky, the temptation to sacrifice the music itself for the "Experience" of surround sound might be too much for some artists, producers and engineers. For me, the music itself, the songwriting, arrranging, playing, the quality of the recording are most important. I'm sure that there are, and could be, some great multi channel experiences out there I just prefer the more straighforward approach. Besides, then I'd have to eventually re-buy my entire collection in multi, not enough money in the bank for that:)

Jeff

[Dave]

Stereo man myself. Like HZ, multi just doesn't do it for me.

[vex]

I will take a good multi-channel mix over a good stereo mix any day of the week.

[mcow1]

Stereo, all the way. If you see music live it comes from in front, unless you have bad acoustics. Surround for h/t though.

[ezio gallino]

I agree for stereo too. Personally I just added a cheap back surround system only for films in 5.1 DVD. Just for hearing rear sound.
An MSB decoder and an old stereo amp. When I listen to music I switch it off.

[Grant]

Gotta be stereo!

[Calavera]

I mostly like classic rock, which was originally recorded in stereo.
I'm not familiar with the process of turning a stereo reconding into a 5.1 or whatever you call it but I don't think you can make it better without altering the essence of the recording, by this I mean adding effects and stuff like that. It might be ok for movies, or for music recorded in 5 channels, you know, like if Eminem, Jahrule, Christina Aguilera or Britney Spears decided to go "surround sound", but when it comes to good old recordings, nothing like a nice stereo.

[lsupro]

The potential of 5.1,6.1,7.1,9.1,10.2 and all of these multi-channel systems is incredible. It opens a whole new world of recording possibilities. Some of the things I can hear in my head just give me goose bumps. Granted, (no pun intended) I am so used to hearing the violins int the left channel that it would be weird. I get the most out of what I have for both MCH and 2 Ch. They both are great!

[lennonfan]

Having been a quad fan since '73 in my youth, I'm going multi.
To me it's always been a more involving experience, and I find stereo can be every bit as 'gimmicky' as surround. (just listen to any Pink Floyd record).
Every person I've ever given 'the test' to, prefers the m/ch. First, I play a 2 channel mix, then switch to 5. Almost all of their comments start with 'wow, what a difference'.
I find stereo satisfying at times, but I'd rather hear the m/ch if possible. With modern tech, stereo fold downs for the masses who like boomboxes, etc. isn't a prob. I'd like to have the option to expand my listening enjoyment if possible. From what I see, it's becomming a 5.1 world in a hurry, home theatre systems are leading the way, and the people that I know that have purchased them have junked their stereos or given 'em to the kids;)
I find stereo recievers a dime a dozen at the goodwills now.
I've never felt the need to invest $100,000 in a stereo setup. I've listened to hi end tube stuff at my local audiophile shop (soundscape is one) and it just doesn't blow me away like it does some others. I guess our hearing is different, true enough. Gimme a Stanton or Ortophon cartridge, decent TT, at least 100 wpc and 5 speakers and I'm happy. I have these massive Electrovoice Patrician speakers for the front and they are truly incredible, I really like their Klipsch design. They run on as little as 1 watt. When I push about 30 it's enough to blow you out of the room. My volume level never exceeds 3. My only complaint is that my surround speakers aren't as good, but someday I'll get some killer Klipsch's in the rear and center and that should balance things out nicely.

[Gary Freed]

Going way back to mid 1960's, the concept of surround sound was always appealing to me. Back then I rigged our stereo for two speakers on each channel.

Many Audiophiles prefer the soundstage facing them.

I also enjoy great sounding CD's and great sounding Audio equipment but
always felt that with only two speakers directly facing, that something was
missing for me.

If I was starting over and as Steve pointed out to do it right is very expensive, I would go multi-channel.

[TimM]

I would stay with stereo if I had the luxury of building a separate music only system. I too listen to mostly older music, and only own about a dozen multi-channel discs in the DVD-A & DTS formats. Honestly I consider them more of a novelty than anything else, and would not consider building an audio only system just to listen to them. Since I live in the real world though I had to build a system that would do double duty for audio and video and multi-channel is great if you enjoy movies. My entire family enjoys the surround sound for video and I consider the system a worthwhile investment. I would also elaborate on Steves statement by pointing out that most people don't have enough money for a truly state of the art stereo system either,let alone multi-channel.

[BradOlson]

I listen to music mostly in stereo and am not interested in 5.1 audio music discs. A good mono or stereo mix is all I really need to enjoy music.

[RetroSmith]

Its so funny.......most of the folks here at SH are adamantly against 5.1

Yet, when I PM them, the confess theyve never had a 5.1 setup in their house to really compare. Thats all I ask, because a well done 5.1 makes you fall in love with your favorite recordings all over again!!

The Elvis 5.1 DVD is just amazing. Youve never heard anything like that in stereo.

[JonUrban]

I'm for Multi-channel.

What I can never understand is why people who want "stereo" only or "mono" only, love to bash multi-channel.

"I don't need it", "I only have two ears", "It's not what was intended", "It's a gimmick", etc.

A multi-channel recording can be a great experience. It allows the listener to actually hear the music. There are no rules saying that the sounds should only come from the forward two corners. That is what we were brought up with.

No one says that surround speakers must be BEHIND you. Heck, line then up all in front of you and you may have wider stage! Live music on the stage does not come at you from two locations, but MULTIPLE locations.

Now, that is not to say that a Mulitchannel Mix will never be gimmicky, or done poorly, or sound horrible. That is a given. Just like there are horrible stereo mixes, there are horrible multi-channel mixes, but that should not turn one off to the format.

If we all only heard Silverline DVD-A's, the format would go away FAST!

I find that MC mixes allow me to hear more of the recording, making it easier to hear a sax, or strings, or instruments that might get buried in the stereo soundfield.

All in all, Multichannel is just an extension of stereo. Some 3.1 CDs I've heard are fantastic. Really, it all comes down to the mix.

I would LOVE to hear a "Steve" multichannel mix. That might set the standard.

Anyway, remember, modern multichannel media can be played both ways, so really, why be concerned?

[Ron Stone]

I'm surprised no one has taken the opposite course, and recommended a return to the monaural system of recording and playback! Before you dismiss this proposition as a typical Luddite opinion, consider the advantages of a true monaural system:

1. First, you would save money by purchasing less equipment: one channel versus two or more. Or, more enticingly, you could invest your money in a much higher grade system; in effect, your budget would at least double (hypothetically more, considering the manufacturers' parts savings). You'd buy a bigger speaker, a better run of interconnects and cables, a more powerful amp, etc.

2. You would be better able integrate your playback system into your room. With a stereo system, you have to account for at least two sets of room reflections, variables which can take months to correct or optimize. The variables introduced by multichannel would make my head spin. Also, a monaural system largely eliminates the "sweet spot" problem.

Of course, true monaural mixes of music largely ended sometime in the sixties, so your software would be somewhat limited. And I don't even know if they make monaural cartridges anymore.

But you could buy a CD player, affixing only one interconnect to one of the output channels, feed it to a high-end mono preamp and amp, and into a high-end speaker you couldn't afford or fit if you had to buy two (or six). Then you cue up your DCC of Ella Fitzgerald's SINGS THE COLE PORTER SONG BOOK, or the "First Great Quintet" recordings of Miles Davis, maybe the Rolling Stones's SINGLES COLLECTION . . .

Sounds like a project!

[RetroSmith]

>>>>>>>>I think Ron is really Phil Spector.

[BradOlson]

Originally posted by mikey5967
Its so funny.......most of the folks here at SH are adamantly against 5.1

Yet, when I PM them, the confess theyve never had a 5.1 setup in their house to really compare. Thats all I ask, because a well done 5.1 makes you fall in love with your favorite recordings all over again!!

The Elvis 5.1 DVD is just amazing. Youve never heard anything like that in stereo.

I'm not against 5.1 at all, it's just that I'm not interested in it at this point.