Is multichannel audio really worth getting into

For those of you who dwelved into multichannel audio, ie DVD-A or SACD, do you find it worth it or has the novelty worn off? I haven't heard multi audio and I love the way 2 channel sounds. It puts me in the listener's perpspective as opposed to putting me in the band's perspective if you know what I mean. But since I never heard multichannel audio, I can't really judge this..sooooo

It depends more than anything on the quality of the recording. After hearing Pink Floyd's DSOM on 5.1 SACD I have no interest in the stereo version.
But it is a personal preference as well. I listen to most music in Dolby PLIIx. I like it better than straight 2.0 or 2.1. If PLIIx or DTS Neo6 don't appeal to you then Discrete multi channel may not be your bag.

I love multichannel movies and concert videos. I have never had the slightest interest in it for music, though.

That's purely s a judgment call.

I know what you're saying about DSOTM but you should realize that this is not your typical implementation of MC for music. It's more of a "performance art" type of situation. And, taken as such, it's fun. Likewise, recordings that "put you in the middle of the band" would fall into this category also.

But, in the real world, music eminates from in front of you with a soundstage extending across the front plane. There may be some room ambiance from the surrounds but not much else.

Starting in the early 50's, RCA's Living Stereo project recorded all the masters with three microphones, the usual right and left , but also from a center channel perspective. These would be a natural for MC playback, but not for what I guess are the mainstream expectations, though.

For my tastes, I don't see a great need for MC music playback. Movies, yes, but not for music but, as usual, YMMV and that's fine.

I have DVD-Audio, SACD, DTS 5.1 Music, and 2Ch Stereo.
The quality of each absolutely depends on the original source.
I can't say that any one type of music is better than the other because some MC music are better than 2Ch, and some 2Ch music are better than MC music.

Life is about enjoyment and experiencing new things for yourself. I don't want to be limited to any one thing, and I don't want my experience to be soley based on other's opinions. I have both blu-ray and HD DVD. I TrueHD, PCM Uncompressed Audio, & DTS-HD HR. But now I also want DTS-HD MA, and so I will be buying the upcoming Panasonic DMP-BD50. Will DTS-HD MA sound much, much better than DTS-core? Maybe, maybe not. But I want to experience it firsthand.

Same thing with Multi-Channel music: experience firsthand.

If for no other reasons, discrete MC music is fun because it lets all your speakers shine for that one moment. I spent good money on my surround speakers, and I like to hear them sing.

Multi-channel factors

I got multi-channel audio mainly for DVD/TV playback. I never got into DVD-A or SACD because there were only a handful of CDs that interested me. I also did not want to fool with four or five analog RCA cable connections from the CD player to the Receiver. Music listening is generally stereo but I have been experimenting with multi-channel DSP modes on my Yamaha receiver. A few of the modes I like. I think most people will say they don’t care for DSP though. Modern receivers come all set for multi-channel sound. It’s the cost of the additional speakers that adds up. Whether it is worth it you would have to do some speaker shopping and listening in stores or someone else’s house. The surround sound is usually pretty subtle except for an occasional special effect such as a plane or spaceship flyby. Overall I would say its worth it to me but it was about $500 extra in speakers.

Thanks for the responses. I have a HT system. My question was related to music listening only and not watching concert DVDs or movies. I see the benefits going with multichannel there. Does SACD/DVD-A offer a more realitic presentation than 2 channel?

I love m/c music. Looove it! Two-channel is great, and I wouldn't give it up, but I consider m/c music to be something of a treat. My favourites of my collection would include terrific albums like The Beatles' Love, Blue Man Group's Audio, Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, Porcupine Tree's In Absentia, Queen's A Night at the Opera -- and the surround implementation on them is done superbly. It feels like you're inside the music or that you're on some crazy, kaleidoscopic ride. It doesn't replace 2-channel music, but it's a fun alternative (and isn't that what this hobby is supposed to be -- fun?). Give it a try. You might like it, you might not. Part of the joy in life is trying new things.

3dB, it depends on what you mean by "realistic". If you mean, will it sound like you're at the gig? Depending on the mixing, the quality of the recording, and in the intent of the person mixing it, it might. If you mean, will it sound like you're in the recording room with the band? Again, depending on the mix, it might.

There are some m/c live albums, and I would assume they're mixed to sound like you're at the gig: the music coming from the front three speakers, ambiance, echoes, and crowd noises from the rears. So that would be "realistic", I think. But the m/c albums that place you right in the middle of the music? Not "realistic" I guess, but fun definitely.

cheers,
supervij

3db said:

Does SACD/DVD-A offer a more realitic presentation than 2 channel?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so.

It offers an alternative.

Take Crowded House DVD-Audio for example. Every single speaker gets a discrete sound. The center speaker gets only one sound: the lead singer's voice (no back-up singers, no instruments). Of course, the LFE goes only to the subwoofer. The L+R front gets all the main instruments. The surround speakers get the back-up singers' voices, and some ambient sounds.

3db said:

For those of you who dwelved into multichannel audio, ie DVD-A or SACD, do you find it worth it or has the novelty worn off? I haven't heard multi audio and I love the way 2 channel sounds. It puts me in the listener's perpspective as opposed to putting me in the band's perspective if you know what I mean. But since I never heard multichannel audio, I can't really judge this..sooooo

Click to expand...

As Nomo says, it depends upon the recording. I love 5.1 audio when done right, and dislike it when it isn't. I hate DPL II, and never use it for 2 channel audio. In my opinion, DPL II never properly directs the sound to the correct channels, and it tends to "muddy" the sound. (Others like DPL II, of course, and they are free to listen to their 2 channel discs with whatever extra processing they want.)

Nothing beats a discrete 5.1 recording when properly done. I have several recordings (they happen to be on SACD, but I think DVD-A is fine as well) in which one might think that there is only sound coming from the front, as the rear is used for ambient sounds. But the difference between it and 2 channel is incredible. It sounds much more like you are in the same room with the musicians. When at a live concert, there are sounds that bounce off the wall behind you; they are much quieter than the sounds from the front, and therefore it seems like the sound is only coming from the front. And so it is with good recordings in 5.1: the rear channels are relatively quiet, and one might think one is listening to sound only from the front. But, the rear does make a significant difference in enveloping one in the sound. I might also add that the center front speaker is a good addition as well. I have some RCA "Living Stereo" hybrid SACDs which are three channel, and they sound better than just stereo. The hybrid SACDs are very nice in that they have a regular CD layer, and can be played on any player that can play CDs. Of course, when playing the CD layer, they are exactly like a 2 channel CD.

With the gimmicky mixes, which attempt to put one in the middle of the performers with "direct" sounds coming from the rear, I would rather have plain 2 channel. But I think a lot of people prefer this, as they want to "hear" those rear channels, since they have paid for them. But I want the music to sound as natural as possible.

I should also add that a 5.1 channel system must be set up properly for it to work well, and if one is going to be moving about the room instead of sitting as if at a concert, then it would not be worthwhile.

I recommend that you listen to it for yourself. Perhaps you live near some other person here who is interested in demonstrating it for you.

Pyrrho said:

I hate DPL II, and never use it for 2 channel audio. In my opinion, DPL II never properly directs the sound to the correct channels, and it tends to "muddy" the sound.

Click to expand...

I agree. Same here.

I've also used the Harman Kardon 7Ch music mode. But I think it also degrades the sound somewhat. If it's recorded as 2Ch, I will listen to it as 2Ch. If it's recorded for 5.1 Discrete, I'll listen to it as 5.1 Discrete.

Multichannel music

Start with a DTS audio disc that you can play in your current CD player. If you like what you hear, condiser one of the oppo digital universal players.

markw said:

But, in the real world, music eminates from in front of you with a soundstage extending across the front plane. There may be some room ambiance from the surrounds but not much else.

Click to expand...

I have been to some outdoor concerts. Certainly the music is coming from the band but it is very flat compared to a concert in doors, in a concert hall.
DPLII helps with that spacial feel beyond the front 3 channels, or at least that feeling being in an audience at a concert hall.

Delos has a DVD recording of a Choral presentation of 1812 in a church or huge concert hall with the choir in front and back. without MC, that presentation would be lost.
I guess it is a personal preference in the end.

3db said:

. Does SACD/DVD-A offer a more realitic presentation than 2 channel?

Click to expand...

Firstly, it will depend on the recording quality, the engineer's and producer's tastes, I suppose.
But, I would say that 2ch just cannot present a sound field envelopment that you get at a live presentation, be it a small combo or a large orchestra. The early Bell Labs research was partially there with 3 ch up front at least.

AcuDefTechGuy said:

... the lead singer's voice (no back-up singers, no instruments). ....

Click to expand...

Have you really tried to disconnect or turn off the other speakers to see how much music does come from the center channel with the singer with all/most of those discs that has a singer?
I think you may be surprised. Certainly if she has instruments behind her that should also be in there, not in the left/right channels.

Pyrrho said:

... But the difference between it and 2 channel is incredible. It sounds much more like you are in the same room with the musicians. When at a live concert, there are sounds that bounce off the wall behind you; they are much quieter than the sounds from the front, and therefore it seems like the sound is only coming from the front. .

Click to expand...

One would only have to attend some out door concerts to see how flat it is, no room/concert hall envelopment with the soundfield.

jcPanny said:

Start with a DTS audio disc that you can play in your current CD player. If you like what you hear, condiser one of the oppo digital universal players.

Click to expand...

Or, Delos may still have some DD DVDs to try

Aha! The exception that proves the rule!

mtrycrafts said:

I have been to some outdoor concerts. Certainly the music is coming from the band but it is very flat compared to a concert in doors, in a concert hall.
DPLII helps with that spacial feel beyond the front 3 channels, or at least that feeling being in an audience at a concert hall.

Delos has a DVD recording of a Choral presentation of 1812 in a church or huge concert hall with the choir in front and back. without MC, that presentation would be lost.
I guess it is a personal preference in the end.

Click to expand...

and I have been to Paul Winter's Winter Solstice concerts in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine where they had a trumpet refrain from the back of the church also but, in the general scheme of things, these are rare enough to be considered an anamoly and, in fact, is an example of "performance art" in itself.

They also had one where Micky Hart and a bunch of others were being towed up the center aisle on a cart while banging on various percussion instruments.

IMNSHO, I go for playing back the music in the format in which it was recorded. DPL and the like do nothing for me with music.

I agree with Pyrrho - when done right, multichannel is definitely the way to go. 2ch is great and can be very involving, but well mastered multichannel is a great thing.

I own a DVD-A that has a 30 second sample of the first track in Carl Orff's Carmina Burana and I own a 2 channel CD of Carmina Burana. Although they are different recordings of different choruses and orchestras, the vast difference in CD sound and DVD-A sound can only be explained by the fact that DVD-A freakin' ROCKS bro!

I'm not a bits and bytes kind of guy but I'm under the impression that a lot more info can go on a DVD-A. To me it's really like high def, but for your ears.

Is it worth it? To me? Probably not but I love it so. My player ran me $350. The 6 M/C discs I own were probably $150. The 6 analog cables were at least $50. So far $550 and I'm really wanting Pink Floyd and Dire Straits. So that's gonna make it $600 pretty soon. That's not a fortune to me .....but .....

I absolutely love multi-channel music. I think it's like watching movies on a HDTV widescreen. Once you get a taste of it, there really is no going back. Then again, some people don't care. They're good watching The Matrix in a 4:3 aspect ratio.