Beyond Monophonics it's all Spatial Audio

[Lawrence Lee]

I have a friend who likes to come over to audition music. We differ in our preferences though. I really enjoy listening to music in DTS 4.1 or 5.1 channel modes. He always wants me to switch my rig into 2.1 stereo mode. He feels it doesn't sound "authentic". Seems to be a common feeling.

As I started to reflect on this. How did I get to where I am as a former stereo purist? I realized the premise above. Beyond one microphone in many cases the sound is not fully "authentic". It is spatially enhanced. Why can that be said.

Let's start with how music is captured. Our ears are less than 1 foot apart. However in most cases when music is recorded there are a number of common but different techniques for capturing the stereo recording. But for music to be quote "Authentic" the microphones should be spaced like our ears. But most of us revel when the microphones are spaced widely and accentuate the width of the stereo image. Notice what this article quoted:

Fundamental Stereo Miking Techniques

"The most basic technique is the spaced pair, or A/B. This one takes two of the same microphones (usually omnidirectional or cardioid) pointed at the sound source about 3 to 10 feet apart..."
"A spaced pair creates a wide, "almost unnatural stereo image". This is because the microphones are spaced up to several feet apart, whereas our ears are spaced only several inches apart on our heads. The ITD and IID is quite substantial then, and this can be a desirable effect..."

Also in cases where there are large ensembles of performers, there are groups of microphones. So what's being captured is not a true stereo image of the recorded environment. But rather what has been downmixed by the recording engineer out of a plethora of sources.

Also, our listening environments don't accurately match the mastering environment. That creates another problem. This is a point that was made clear in this video. I love this guy...

Just got me thinking about my choices in life

 

[lovinthehd]

Hard to determine the quality of an actual multich mix if you only listen in 2.1 rather than the multich mix. You can always upmix 2.0 to multich if you want, but not really useful to take a multich mix and downmix it IMO. Recording is one thing, mixing another, mastering another....

 

[dlaloum]

I would like to point out that the term "stereo" does not actually at its origin imply or mean 2 channels - instead it implies a 3D illusion typically produced by multiple channels (ie: more than one) - early versions were 3 channels, and dropped down to 2 due to the main medium being "records" that have 2 channels.

So Stereo by its original definition, is in fact Spatial Audio - and the term "stereo" does not define or limit the number of channels, other than it being more than 1...

Useage, as opposed to strict definitions, has however turned "stereo" into - "2 channel audio"... and that is the de facto modern usage of the term.

On other items of relevance - yes we have 2 ears... and when using headphones, with appropriate HRTF, 2 channels can do the job for all the required spatial audio queues (can, but seldom does.... between theory and practice there remains a wide gulf... but there are excellent examples of successful methods).

When using speakers in a room - we have to consider not only the two "receptors" (ie: ears) - but also their heavily tailored surround (THE Ears) - which alter the sound actually perceived, based on the direction from which it is perceived (ie: HRTF... including ear shape, lobes etc...).

So for the "perfect" illusion you need the sound to arrive at our fleshy hearing appendages, either from differing directions (as per the place/event being aurally depicted) - or to arrive directly to the ear (as per headphones) with HRTF processing, to provide the appropriate alterations to the sound to simulate that process.

Sometimes, in some rooms, with some speakers, and some recordings, the illusion can be astounding!

But listen to a well made binaural recording, and it is an order of magnitude better... we have a ways to go!

IMO multichannel (more than 2) is a step along the path to improving the sound field in a shareable "room" way.

 

[MrBoat]

I find 2 channel, with subs, to be inescapably immersive, at least with speakers that are properly designed having been made in the last two decades, or so. Even more so, since many speaker/driver companies have been including waveguides (even subtle) for the tweeters.

I've been at this a long time, and certainly haven't ignored or missed out on current tech and information available. All of my local audio peers use constantly upgraded (somewhat telling, I have found) surround mostly, with my eldest brother, and a friend's dad being the only others still totally 2 channel beside me. They all (surroundites) thought I would eventually 'grow' into 5 or more channels and assumed that everyone builds up to that. I am well aware of additional surround effects possibilities, yet still stay planted in well optimized and powerful 2-channel.

The most difficult part of my later audio journey was with trying to embrace recent technologies from a standpoint of not missing anything in the first place. It's also what ended up saving me a lot of hassle and expense, with instead trusting what I had learned/achieved over 5 decades.

Alternately, I have realized that most of my surround sound counterparts couldn't/wouldn't optimize a simple pair of speakers if their lives depended on it. This tends to make them discount anything less, until they hear mine, at least. Some have since implemented a separate two-channel of their own for music. It's as if they just discovered sex and yet act as if they invented it, even though it's the only piece they have ever had. One of the most difficult critics, even said in front of me that he understands why I do this as often as I do.

 

[dlaloum]

The best surround setups are the ones optimised by someone who "grew up" setting up / optimising stereo ... the same principles apply, except more so, as you need to apply them 5 or 7 times over - and then you need to look at the sub(s)...

With multiple speakers, you already get some sort of "immersion" or soundstage... without doing much optimisation.... and most people have never heard a well setup system (2 channel or otherwise).

It's like when I had a housemate (in house sharing days) come by, when my ESL's were out for a service, and I had popped in a temporary pair of speakers.... this is the person that pooh-poohed all the stereo setup, etc... and she walks in and says "what's wrong with your system, it sounds like mono"....

People DO notice - but often not consciously...

 

[Bucknekked]

Hard to determine the quality of an actual multich mix if you only listen in 2.1 rather than the multich mix. You can always upmix 2.0 to multich if you want, but not really useful to take a multich mix and downmix it IMO. Recording is one thing, mixing another, mastering another....

Recording is one thing, mixing another, mastering another....and playing it in your listening space yet another

I always enjoy a good discussion of "why 2.0 or 2.1" when multi-channel setups abound. Because of the proliferation of home theater systems, I think there are oodles more 5.x and more systems than just plain 2.0 or 2.1. It's always interesting as well to see who is actually getting great imaging out of their setups. I don't think the average Joe with a Significant Other gives a crap.

Like @MrBoat says, a well-executed 2.0 or 2.1 system often provides a better image to listen to music than a poorly executed 5.x or greater. And given the 1,000's of HT in a box setups that have landed upon homes, I would wager that the average HT in a box is not very well executed in terms of the sound field for music. AH members here who have taken great care to setup and optimize their own multi-channel systems are IMHO a vast minority compared to the great unwashed masses. The AH brethren are definitely the top end for those who choose it.

As @lovinthehd said, if you have a good multi-channel recording it's probably best to evaluate that recording in a multi-channel setup. Fair enough. Taking multi-channel audio and listening to it in 2.0 or 2.1 is probably not a fair listening test. Fair enough. My personal experience is that there aren't that many good to great multi-channel recordings for strictly musical fare to make it worth the trouble. For HT, ok. Strictly for music, the SACD format and others just don't cover the spectrum of music that well, so we end up listening to 2.0 or 2.1 anyway. For those that have invested in SACD and other multichannel formats, bless you. I do not denigrate your choice.

I ran a 5.1 system for a decade or more. Movies and audio. I spent a fair amount of time doing the best I could to optimize the listening image and experience for both. It was pretty good but not better than pretty good. When I built a new house and went with a dedicated room just for audio I had to decide: keep up multichannel or go to straight 2.1? The choice was 2.1 and I went from pretty good audio to outstanding audio in the transition.

I know what I want to maximize : music. And I know that for my musical tastes and library, SACD and multichannel just don't cover very much ground. So, building and optimizing around the 2.1 idea gives me a best in a lifetime experience for music. I don't knock anybody that wants to do it differently. Bless you for your efforts. Go forth and conquer. I know my music pretty well and for this old luddite, 2.1 is the way to maximize it. Your mileage may vary and you may choose differently based on your criteria. Bravo. do it however it sound best.

No multi-channel systems were injured in the expression of this old-fashioned opinion

 

[Lawrence Lee]

If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will...

Part 2 Continuing my journey to the Dark Side...
A few things happened very quickly that shifted my thinking firmly from spatially enhanced stereo audio to surround sound audio listening. The father of one of my friends was a music lover from the Netherlands. He invited me to an opportunity to listen to his system. In my smugness, I wouldn't really call it a system. His setup consisted of Bose 301 (yes, I said the B-word) bookshelves that were really firmly mounted in a bookshelf for his front speakers. The rear speakers were mounted on either side of the couch as dictated by Dolby Surround specifications. He had a 5-disk Onkyo CD changer. His system was driven with an Onkyo TX-SV919THX integrated AV receiver.

He played a few classical and jazz selections in stereo and then he enabled the nightclub and theater modes of the surround system. This particular receiver allowed you to manually adjust the time delays in each channels. And this gentleman had patiently by ear, adjusted the listening experience until he got it right. And he did. It was impressive. If you closed your eyes the room seemed to disappear. Even from that initial listen I was convinced that it imaged better than my 5-foot-tall rack of separates stereo system with Sonic Holography. I took home the CD's that he played. No amount of adjustment or justifications or mental gymnastics could get me to find that my hifi stereo system sounded spatially better.

 

[dlaloum]

If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will...

Part 2 Continuing my journey to the Dark Side...
A few things happened very quickly that shifted my thinking firmly from spatially enhanced stereo audio to surround sound audio listening. The father of one of my friends was a music lover from the Netherlands. He invited me to an opportunity to listen to his system. In my smugness, I wouldn't really call it a system. His setup consisted of Bose 301 (yes, I said the B-word) bookshelves that were really firmly mounted in a bookshelf for his front speakers. The rear speakers were mounted on either side of the couch as dictated by Dolby Surround specifications. He had a 5-disk Onkyo CD changer. His system was driven with an Onkyo TX-SV919THX integrated AV receiver.

He played a few classical and jazz selections in stereo and then he enabled the nightclub and theater modes of the surround system. This particular receiver allowed you to manually adjust the time delays in each channels. And this gentleman had patiently by ear, adjusted the listening experience until he got it right. And he did. It was impressive. If you closed your eyes the room seemed to disappear. Even from that initial listen I was convinced that it imaged better than my 5-foot-tall rack of separates stereo system with Sonic Holography. I took home the CD's that he played. No amount of adjustment or justifications or mental gymnastics could get me to find that my hifi stereo system sounded spatially better.

The Bose 301's were one of the better "Direct/reflecting" speakers in the Bose range...

So he had started out with a set of speakers well suited to setting up a good soundstage... then he tweaked the surround setup - and Dolby PLII had been designed and tuned with music in mind by Jim Fosgate (Dolby paid him, and his estate royalties until they replaced PLII with the digital Dolby Surround).

He had all the makings of a good stereo music oriented surround setup! (as you discovered!)

In the early 90's I used a Lexicon DC1 and later an MC1 with Logic7 to do the same thing - and it worked very well indeed. I am not convinced that current Dolby Surround does a better job....

 

[Bucknekked]

Hard to determine the quality of an actual multich mix if you only listen in 2.1 rather than the multich mix. You can always upmix 2.0 to multich if you want, but not really useful to take a multich mix and downmix it IMO. Recording is one thing, mixing another, mastering another....

I apologize if I am replying to an old thread or an old part of an old thread. It just caught my eye because I have been working on recording/mixing/mastering.

First off, I probably need to apologize to @TLS Guy and anyone else that's been involved in the actual recording and producing of music. I had this assumption about what recording/mixing/mastering was all about.
Now that I am a beginning musician trying to record/mix/master my own stuff I am finding out a whole lot more about what that means. In short, being a musician and learning to play music well enough to record it is a world unto itself. Nothing easy about it. I thought that's where the tough stuff was. Playing the music.

What I have learned is that each step in the process is practically its own world. Good recordings? That's an artform to put together. Mixing the instruments? Who knew that was an entire livelihood. Mastering? Oh my word its as involved as all the others. Each leg of the process has so much more depth and challenges to it than I ever imagined.

What I have learned over the last 18 months is just how little I know. The more I learn, the clearer it gets that I really only know a smidgen of what's available. It is entertaining however and there's great satisfaction when I can play some music and capture it and create a final product that's fun to listen to. But it aint easy and I apologize to all who really know what they are doing..