Multichannel vs Stereo

[Rob Babcock]

Might as well throw this in while everything's stirred up anyway! How do you guys feel about MC? Is MC better? How do you feel about "legacy" 2CH material being remixed for MC? Will MC replace stereo as the dominate mode of music playback in the future?

I realize the poll is too limited to encompass all available opinions, but if you like just choose the one closest to your feelings. Please elaborate on your opinion if you wish.

NOTE: Sheesh, sorry for the typos. I guess you can't edit the poll questions themselves for spelling! "My bad," as they say!

 

[WmAx]

Might as well throw this in while everything's stirred up anyway! How do you guys feel about MC? Is MC better? How do you feel about "legacy" 2CH material being remixed for MC? Will MC replace stereo as the dominate mode of music playback in the future?

I realize the poll is too limited to encompass all available opinions, but if you like just choose the one closest to your feelings. Please elaborate on your opinion if you wish.

NOTE: Sheesh, sorry for the typos. I guess you can't edit the poll questions themselves for spelling! "My bad," as they say!

I guess feelings are one thing, but facts are another. 2 channel stereo is not reliable to produce realistic playback. Such limited examples, as reported, of 2 channel stereo that has been extraordinaly realistic has (1) limited to the inherant narrow center position to have a stailbe center image (2) limited to exceptional 2 channel stereo speakers and room setups (3) limited to a very select choise of recordings

Multichannel has inherant advantages. However, in order to utilize these, a standarized recording/mixing format is required. Otherwise consistant performance can not be obtained. The most practical current potential surround system that seems to be in existance, is Holman's experimental 10.2:

http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/tomholman/

-Chris

 

[Rob Babcock]

You're probably familiar with the quote, WmAx, and maybe you can recall who said it (I can't put my finger on the name right now, maybe it was actually Holman himself)- at any rate, I read a top engineering guru's reply when asked how many channels was needed to accurately reproduce a live event. He replied, "a million."

On a theoretical level, I suspect (don't ask for any evidence! ) that the perfect playback system would use an array of many speakers in a perfectly anechoic environment. All the spatial cues would come from information encoded in the recording without any room sound.

And don't bust my chops about this being impractical- duh! I just think the ideal will end up being many channels and in a setup designed to minimize room interaction. Maybe the closest to my "real world" ideal would be a MC setup of line arrays, along with several subs. A bee'otch to dial in, probably, but lots of dynamics with minimal adverse room interaction.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Hey, no postin' without votin'!

BTW, feelings are what this topic is about. I think MC has the potential to sound much more realistic, but there's not a lot of solid evidence out there. Most people here realize that Bell Labs determined decades ago that 2 channels isn't sufficient, but we're largely blazing a trail thru the wilderness with MC. If you want to stick to facts alone this will be a pretty short conversation.

Besides, this isn't a matter of weights and measures- it's a pretty complicated psychoacoustic issue, and there likely will be no measure of what's "realistic". How would you ever measure such a thing? And what's realistic for pop or electronic music that has no "real" acoustic counterpart in the "real world"? For many genres of music "better" will simply mean "better to me."

A good example is Porcupine Tree's superb DVD-A release, "In Absentia." There are a lot of creepy atmospheric sounds that really couldn't be judged by how "realistic" they are. I suspect the point was more to make your the hairs on the back of your neck stand up than recreate reality. Fidelity on one level can be defined by how well a system reproduces what's on the recording, or how closely the recording captures a live event. But when the "event" doesn't exist in a live setting, then the recording is part of the artifice.

I believe that MC will result in a more believable illusion of a live event, but expecting only that is shortsighted. Some of the most exciting recordings to me are from bands like The Flaming Lips or Pink Floyd. I look forward to hearing what bands like The Hunger, God Lives Underwater, Dead or Alive and Built To Spill will do with the technology. In that sense I'm interested in how the creative envelope can be expanded with MC, not just the illusion of greater realism.

 

[WmAx]

You're probably familiar with the quote, WmAx, and maybe you can recall who said it (I can't put my finger on the name right now, maybe it was actually Holman himself)- at any rate, I read a top engineering guru's reply when asked how many channels was needed to accurately reproduce a live event.

A proper 2 channel binarual recording, with the appropariately matched HRTF curve applied to match the listener will recoreate all of the auditory cues to reproduce the illustion of space. However, other issues destroy the illusion: sonic illusion moving along with the head movement, no bone conducted vibrations, etc.

Also, a 2 channel [1]speaker based binaural playback, usint interaural crosstalk cancellation will work, when used in an anechoic chamber.

[1]
Direction and Space, the Final Frontiers
Floyd E. Toole

And don't bust my chops about this being impractical- duh! I just think the ideal will end up being many channels and in a setup designed to minimize room interaction.

I did qualify the Holman system as 'practical'.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Hey, no postin' without votin'!

None of options quite agree with me.

BTW, feelings are what this topic is about. I think MC has the potential to sound much more realistic, but there's not a lot of solid evidence out there. Most people here realize that Bell Labs determined decades ago that 2 channels isn't sufficient, but we're largely blazing a trail thru the wilderness with MC. If you want to stick to facts alone this will be a pretty short conversation.

I would refer you to the summary paper from Toole that I just referred in the last reply. If nescarry, I can produce a myriad of references.

I apologize for my lack of 'feelings'.

I was not intending to address surrealistic expriences such as pop/electronica/etc. music would implement multi-channel format. Afriad my perspective was quite narrow, asuming you meant realism of acoustical environments.

-Chris

 

[Rob Babcock]

You're missing the spirit of the question, though. I agree two channel stuff can create a great illusion under perfect conditions. And I agree there are technical reasons MC can be better. I'd love to have a 10.2 setup, too, and the odds are good that one day Holman's 10.2 will be the standard (I'm an optimist). But I'm concerned also about the philosophy of recorded music, too. I'm not looking for a link to someone else's opinions or research, but rather your opinions and feelings.

MC can be used to recreate a live event, but I'm personally very excited to hear it used creatively. I'm anxious to hear it construct fantastic soundfields and things that really can't be done with 2 speakers. I have a wide range of musical tastes that run from classical to folk, jazz to electronica, with a healthy dose of heavy metal thrown in for good measure. Each genre/artist will have a differnet way to view the tools they're given.

I for one would love to hear what Sigur Ros would do with MC!

 

[Rob Babcock]

I would refer you to the summary paper from Toole that I just referred in the last reply. If nescarry, I can produce a myriad of references.


-Chris

Thanks for the offer, already read Toole's research. Besides, I was sorta hoping for one at least response without a myriad of references.

 

[WmAx]

But I'm concerned also about the philosophy of recorded music, too. I'm not looking for a link to someone else's opinions or research, but rather your opinions and feelings.

I don't normally like to offer opinions or feelings that are not strictly based on objectively designed research. What real value are my opinions or feelings to others, if not based logically on susbstantiated data?

I'll try to work on this.

-Chris

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

MC isn't "better" it's "differant".

I don't think 2-channel stereo is going to go away. Unless people want to start wearing chanadlier-shaped contraptions around their heads, nothing is going to beat good-ol' stereo for the portable market. Yes you can get a psychoacoustic surround effect. But your not really gonna hear 5.1, you'll hear modified stereo.. so don't hold your breath for Apple's 5.1 iPod.

Car's also don't offer much for surround sound. You cannot put five or six full-range speakers in a dashboard. You cannot put five or six independant channels in a car and make it sound good to anymore than one passenger at a time. Stereo is bad enough, what with tweeters in the dash, woofers in a door panel and subwoofers in a trunk. At least you can have it good enough so people in the rear seat get the same sound as the front.

Then you have the problem of needing multiple surround systems at home. Both a music system with 5 direct-radiating towers of equal height in a 'clockface' pattern, or three towers, and two quasi-pole speakers umpteen inches above your head and not facing the listener directly.



And who's idea was the center channel?? The whole purpose of soundstage is that 2 L/R speakers can magically make things sound like they're coming from the void bewixt them.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'm not sure "whos idea" the center channel orignally was, but I think it originated with Bell Labs research in the 50's. They deteremined that the minimum number of channels for a solid image was three. Many RCA recordings from the 50's on were recorded in three channels, although it was quickly determined that 3 channels wasn't going to catch on with consumers. Some of these recordings are now being released in 3 channel configuration.

WmAX, don't sell short your opinions. I usually put some stock in Roger Eberts opinions, even tho there's no empiracal formula for what constitutes a good movie. Insight and opinion will always have a place in audio, as well as most other human endeavors.

Good point with regards to portable use. I don't really anticipate 5.1 on the beach, either. Maybe in the car- you know right where the passengers will be sitting, and you should be able to work out some type of decent surround.

 

[djoxygen]

Yikes! Heading further down the "stirring up" path quickly!

I think stereo will be around for the indefinite future. A well-engineered recording (studio recreation or binaural for live) can be stunning on a pair of good 'phones.

The opening track "Dark & Long" of Underworld's dubnobasswithmyheadman is frightening when Hyde's voice comes from just behind your right ear. The first time I listened on 'phones I reflexively turned my head to see who was talking to me.

But unless we all plan to be pod-people when we listen to music (I like to share and commune when the music's on) I think there's firm footing for MC.

As far as the reissue goes, we should have a choice between the origs and the MC versions. (Good thing George Lucas isn't a record producer, huh?)

 

[House de Kris]

I have high hopes for it. Unfortunately, my experiece with DVD-A and SACD is nil since my preamp doesn't support MC analog ins. Since I don't plan on changing that preamp for a long time, I'm not jumping on either of those formats quickly.

I have listened to music tracks on DVD-Vs in multi-channel and liked the mix. If MC is the future, I have no problem with it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

None of options quite agree with me.

I apologize for my lack of 'feelings'.


-Chris

My twin, where have you been all my life

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for the offer, already read Toole's research. Besides, I was sorta hoping for one at least response without a myriad of references.

But for this to happen, this wonderful place of knowledge would have to be restricted and censored severely, eliminate all those facts getting in the way

 

[mtrycrafts]

Also, a 2 channel [1]speaker based binaural playback, usint interaural crosstalk cancellation will work, when used in an anechoic chamber.


-Chris

Interesting. A few years back, before I became smart I listened to a polk, I think, that used this method. I got spacial disorientation after a while, no kidding.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm not looking for a link to someone else's opinions or research, but rather your opinions and feelings.

Then, I trully prefer MC for music.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'll try to work on this.

-Chris

For some reason the emotion figures are not working for you. The graphic is not as good as the actual faces

 

[Rob Babcock]

But for this to happen, this wonderful place of knowledge would have to be restricted and censored severely, eliminate all those facts getting in the way

I disagree- sharing your own thoughts instead of parrotting the thoughts of others surely can't be censorship, can it? The former adds to a forum, the latter merely clogs it up.

Nothing wrong with a good old fashioned personal opinion now and then. I'm sure letting a feeling slip or committing a hunch to paper (er, pixels) won't tear down the ivory towers of science!

 

[WmAx]

My twin, where have you been all my life

LOL, right before fantasyland.com, uh, I mean audioreview.com suspended my account, someone was asking me if you and I were the same person. lol.

-Chris