The two channelers have been sticking to that for years......that music isn't supposed to surround us, but come from just in two channels.......when in fact, the early research at Bell Labs in the 1930's concluded that Three channels were the best at reproducing the live sound.....I first found this out after a classical concert at the CSO. I came home and ordered a sacd of the same programme from 1951. Upon getting it, I found it was in three channels! The liner notes explained that the sound pioneers believed tri channel was optimal........
"The term stereo came to describe the delivery of music over multiple channels. The term was adopted from the Greek word stereos ("solid"), implying that music took on a certain qualitative level of tangibility when multiple audio channels were employed.
Tests were made comparing the number of stereo channels and the frequency range of the recordings. Listeners were found to prefer stereophonic broadcasts with frequencies extending to only 3740 Hz to monophonic broadcasts with frequencies extending to 15 kHz. Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra participated in the experiments, producing 128 recordings during the 1931-32 season at Bell Labs. Researchers ultimately concluded that three channels were optimal for increased spaciousness and localization, but that two channels were sufficient."
The above is quoted from an article found
HERE
...great stuff.
and Mtrycrafts...so right.
The multichannel business is driven by the movie industry. It's all about sound effects....car crashes, light swords, bullets whizzing, explosions, debris falling. Why one would spend hugh $$ on amplifiers and speakers for this is amazing. That said, 5.1 is EXCELLENT for enhancing a live music experience. I still like my 5 channel live recordings over 2 channel if produced correctly...that is, with me, a listener, in front of the performers. There are unique situations where the sound can range further than just the fronts. Use, for example, Eric Clapton's Sessions for Robert J. It has full and active use of all channels to great effect but not in a gimmicky way...it's quite natural and would be missed in 2 channel. I still love both. I use a dedicated two channel amp and player for CDs and apply another amp for surrounds when the program is good. But, the production must be HONEST in its presentation. Another good example: Roger Water's "In the Flesh" using practically nothing but the front two channels except for sound effects and room ambience. A bad example (sad to say it): Steely Dan's "Two against Nauture"...as good as it is, it's hard to accept the horn section (with the great deceased Cornelias Bumpas) coming from the left and behind and vocals from the surround right!! Why?? I'm almost jerking around looking for it! I guess it's done this way for the 'Home theater in a box' crowd to impress their friends....Hey, LOOK, Mon, I can afford 5 speakers!!
