#1. Reason: Back Catalogue. With millions of recordings in stereo, multichannel will always be way behind, and no one will (rightly) go back and remix classics

#2. Additional expense and space. It's already expensive to set up a decent two channel, without needing double or more the amplification and speakers, plus space is an issue. I have multichannel for my home theater setup but the back channels are relatively small and limited in range. I'm the only person I know who uses actual mid-sized front channels on stands- it's just not a WAF kind of thing, although mine is OK luckily. I'd have harder time talking her into a big rig multi-channel for music, if I even wanted it.

#3 Reason: Lack of industry standards. Unless everyone wants to play nice, a new format, even better, just never happens. Look at SACD or DVDA. Too bad too, but that's the industry. They'd rather kill something good than share it.

#4 Reason: Abuse by recording engineers. Instead of making it sound like you were at a live event, they preferred to assault our senses with ping-pong like sound effects.

Quote:
They'd rather kill something good than share it.

Bravo, that one sentence speaks volumes.

By the way, am I the only one who felt DVD-Audio was superior to SACD simply because consumers could burn their own? I've downloaded quite a few high-resolution files and put them on DVD-A discs. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't burn our own SACDs.

Correct; we cannot burn SACDs. They can only be pressed.

I also burn DVD-As and play them back on a DVD player that has 24/96 digital. Then off to a DAC. This works wonderfully well.

. . .not to mention the additional difficulties of properly setting up and positioning 5 speakers instead of 2.

I think Doug hit it on the head. There's a thread over in the Hi Rez Forum at the Asylum where they're trying to talk me into MC. For classical music they make a somewhat compelling argument, BUT the cost is double to triple, depending on how you do it and assuming that you try to keep the quality level equivalent.

They argue convincingly that HT and MC are entirely different. A serious MC music-only system sounds interesting to me, but the cost is daunting.

Dave

Beyond the novelty of using more speakers, the real benefit to multichannel is the improved realism of the sound field. The human hearing system is capable of resolving angular differences in position down to about one degree, and yet I haven't yet listened to a system that didn't have some kind of imbalance that threw that resolution out of whack.

Adding more speakers to the system increases the sweet spot at which the best positioning cues occur, but my understanding is that it usually winds up not behaving any better than stereo in the vast majority of cases.

Ultimately I think that head tracking headphone systems are going to be the highest quality method of listening to multichannel material, combined with some format that has some rational basis in acoustics theory, like ambisonics or SFS. As opposed to the ad hoc approach of "hey, let's just add more speakers!"

Quote:
Beyond the novelty of using more speakers, the real benefit to multichannel is the improved realism of the sound field.

Not more speakers, more channels with more unique information.

Quote:
Adding more speakers to the system increases the sweet spot at which the best positioning cues occur, but my understanding is that it usually winds up not behaving any better than stereo in the vast majority of cases.

Again, it is not the number of speakers but the number of channels. Adding redundant or matrixed speakers corrupts specificity.

Quote:
Ultimately I think that head tracking headphone systems are going to be the highest quality method of listening to multichannel material, combined with some format that has some rational basis in acoustics theory, like ambisonics or SFS. As opposed to the ad hoc approach of "hey, let's just add more speakers!"

Ooof! You mean a totally synthesized/reconstructed sound field, huh? IMHO, the only excuse for headphones as accurate reproducers of a total acoustical event is with binaural recordings which will probably never achieve the massive success of SACD.

Kal

I don't think it's about channels at all. People are already talking what, 22.2 in the labs? And I don't think that anybody's disputing that that insane number actually does make a difference. When's it going to stop? Heck, I've been singularly unimpressed with the surround sound of every movie theater I've been to, and even those are like 8 channels or something nowadays, aren't they?

If that's the only solution, then what hope do we have of truly realistic sound recreation - to consistently get that 1-degree level of sound resolution, given suitably resolving material, in 100% of real-world listening environments? I assert that it will either never happen with speakers, or that if it does, the price of entry will be so astronomical as to never enter the mainstream or even mid-fi.

And binaural recordings are at best a stopgap measure, because the HRTFs in such a scheme are not customized. Therefore, they will never sound "completely" realistic for all listeners.

Again: In the abstract sense, I don't think it's about channels at all. It's about soundfields, and how well they can be reproduced, and how well spatial information can be resolved. It's like how adding a center speaker to a 2-channel system improves its spatialization, even for stereo content, by fixing the mono signal more tightly.

A completely synthesized/processed headphone system - like, most notably, Smyth Virtual Surround - is the only solution I've heard about which:

a) is capable of world-class sound fidelity,

b) scales up, at least in theory, to an arbitrary number of "channels" (stereo? 5.1? 22.2? UHJ? 2nd-order ambisonics? No problemo!),

c) does not require strict room requirements for correct speaker placement and room response, and

d) is "relatively" inexpensive (the number $3000 is bandied about for the whole first release, which compared to a good surround setup including the amp, sounds like a bargain).

Seriously: the whole concept of applying personalized HRTFs and head tracking to render the soundfield, and the extremely solid reviews even the prototypes are getting, tells me that in 10 or 20 years, high-end surround sound speaker systems will be dead. All but the most megabuck speaker systems out there will be, on both subjective and objective grounds, inferior to headphone systems.

Quote:
I don't think it's about channels at all. People are already talking what, 22.2 in the labs? And I don't think that anybody's disputing that that insane number actually does make a difference. When's it going to stop? Heck, I've been singularly unimpressed with the surround sound of every movie theater I've been to, and even those are like 8 channels or something nowadays, aren't they?

I was not advocating an explosion of channels but pointing out that simply adding speakers without providing them with discrete source material is pointless. 7.1 or 7.2 is OK with me.

Quote:
Again: In the abstract sense, I don't think it's about channels at all. It's about soundfields, and how well they can be reproduced, and how well spatial information can be resolved. It's like how adding a center speaker to a 2-channel system improves its spatialization, even for stereo content, by fixing the mono signal more tightly.

It does change the center image but not nearly as well as does a real center signal. You can easily test this with the RCA Living Stereo SACDs. The stereo track, with or without a derived center, is flatly inferior to the 3 channel track. It simply creates a more accurate soundfield.

Quote:
A completely synthesized/processed headphone system - like, most notably, Smyth Virtual Surround - is the only solution I've heard about which:............................................ All but the most megabuck speaker systems out there will be, on both subjective and objective grounds, inferior to headphone systems.

Gack. I will not argue this with you but I cannot abide wearing headphones/earphones. They simply bother me and will not permit me to pay attention to the music, regardless of format.

Kal

Quote:
Gack. I will not argue this with you but I cannot abide wearing headphones/earphones. They simply bother me and will not permit me to pay attention to the music, regardless of format.

And headphones add an additional level of artificiality. We experience sound as "out there". It changes as we move, it is not attached to our heads.

I like headphones on occasion but they will never replicate the experience of listening to real world sounds.

That I can also agree to, they are too close, can really find some fine details when you are doing stuff, but not natural. Music should engulf the entire body, not just stuck on your head....I feel isolated, confined when using headphones.

Quote:

Quote:
Gack. I will not argue this with you but I cannot abide wearing headphones/earphones. They simply bother me and will not permit me to pay attention to the music, regardless of format.

And headphones add an additional level of artificiality. We experience sound as "out there". It changes as we move, it is not attached to our heads.

I like headphones on occasion but they will never replicate the experience of listening to real world sounds.

I agree with you but the technology that Axon refers to does account for most of those issues.

Another problem with headphones is the fact that they isolate you from the rest of the world.

Kal

Quote:
I agree with you but the technology that Axon refers to does account for most of those issues.

Perhaps. All of the systems I have heard so far that claim to add the proper amount of inter-ear crosstalk, adjust for timing issues, etc. don't do it for me but sound even more artificial.

Binaurel recordings on headphones are the best that I have heard so far. But there is always something new and I am happy to experience the latest.

Quote:
Another problem with headphones is the fact that they isolate you from the rest of the world.

They do, whether they are closed or open. At least for me, even open headphones make me feel separate from the world and I am always aware that I am wearing headphones. With speakers I can forget the rest of the world and the issue of "separated from or part of" never arises.

I can appreciate not enjoying headphones because of uncomfortability reasons, although SVS has been using Stax electrostatics for its setup. Those have about as much isolation ability from the rest of the world as a sheet of Kleenex.

I think, for me, surround isn't that exciting because I usually listen to live music facing the sound source, so hearing a drum come in behind me or some other sonic special effect does not amuse or bemuse me.

Two channel catches enough hall ambience for my listening purposes.

I don't watch much in the way of home theater, so the inability to hear the Cloverfield monster stomp to my rear right isn't a requirement.

Surround is nice, I guess, but not in any way 'essential.'

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
.

.

Another problem with headphones is the fact that they isolate you from the rest of the world.
Kal

Yes. But that's often a good thing! Cf. "That's not a bug, that's a feature."

Quote:
I think, for me, surround isn't that exciting because I usually listen to live music facing the sound source, so hearing a drum come in behind me or some other sonic special effect does not amuse or bemuse me.

A canard. The major benefit of surround music is the accurate recreation of the ambient conditions at the performance. One can easily grant that the same performance/performers in a large concert hall, a stadium, a small club or a recording studio will sound substantially different. Discrete surround is the only way to accurately (to a great degree) convey the differences.

Quote:
Two channel catches enough hall ambience for my listening purposes.

Good stereo recordings do capture that ambiance but, unfortunately, they must place it in the only channels they have: the two up front. That is not where most of it belongs. In addition, the "immersive" effects, conveyed on some stereo recordings in good setups/rooms is, to a great degree, due to listening room acoustics, not those of the performance. They can be quite satisfying but they are a constant effect superimposed on all recorded performances.

Quote:
Surround is nice, I guess, but not in any way 'essential.'

OK.

Kal

Quote:
The major benefit of surround music is the accurate recreation of the ambient conditions at the performance.

For me this is the only potential appeal to surround. Stereo absolutely does not accomplish this. Multi-channel gets far closer.

"Re: So why doesn't multi-channel ever seem to stick?"

In my view it is about the nature of the hobby...doing 2 channel right is VERY costly. Doing it 2.5 times more is prohibitive and the 'dedicated listening rooms' get too complicated for most normal folk. In addition, the technology changes too quickly...by the time someone with deep pockets has his nirvanah up and running the industry announces a major change and he is back to the drawing board.

Quote:
doing 2 channel right is VERY costly. Doing it 2.5 times more is prohibitive and the 'dedicated listening rooms' get too complicated for most normal folk.

Good 2-channel does not have to be costly. Many people spend way too much on gear and speakers when they'd have gotten results as good if not better by simply buying wisely. But you are correct that the room is a big factor. Getting a room in shape is no more complicated than any other aspect of hi-fi. It's just that most people don't take the time to learn the basics.

--Ethan

Or have the money to indulge the hobby. Put another way, multi channel is like trying to sell Krell to a Yahmaha world, and that world is the limited world of the high end.

I really don't see why. I have a great Pioneer receiver that was very affordable. Add some affordable speakers and you can have a very good surround system for modest $$$. Again, the key is shopping wisely.

--Ethan

The high end of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound do not buy a lot of Pioneer. When one speaks 'high end' they usually mean big bucks.

Quote:

Quote:
doing 2 channel right is VERY costly. Doing it 2.5 times more is prohibitive and the 'dedicated listening rooms' get too complicated for most normal folk.

Good 2-channel does not have to be costly. Many people spend way too much on gear and speakers when they'd have gotten results as good if not better by simply buying wisely. But you are correct that the room is a big factor. Getting a room in shape is no more complicated than any other aspect of hi-fi. It's just that most people don't take the time to learn the basics.
--Ethan

All true. However, getting stereo right or, at least, optimal will still not result in correct disposition of ambiance. It is still coming from the wrong direction and/or is the product of residual listening room acoustics.

I will relate, again, an experience that I had with the Wispelwey SACD of the Britten Cello Suites. Playing it in multichannel SACD, it really sounded superb with excellent presence and warmth of the instrument and a good sense of an acoustic space. I was going to swap the disc or change track but, by chance, I hit the SACD/stereo button on the player just as Wispelwey approached the last note.

As the player jumped to the stereo track, everything changed. First, the presence of the cello receded just a bit as we went from a discrete center to a phantom center, the ambience clouded and, very strangely, the decay of the last note and its reverberation receded away from me, rather than occupying the room (as it did on a replay in MCH).

So, all the arguments about cost, bother and complexity are real. Nonetheless, all my experience makes me adamantly in favor of MCH. YMMV.

Kal

Where's DUP? We need him to chime in on multichannel as it relates to vinyl

Yeah, those Quadraphonic records worked out real well, didn't they? Was that like middle 70's? Hafler had surround sound ideas before any one did, with his Dynaco QD-1 Quadapter...it did a good job of adding a bit of ambiance, low cost, just clever thinking.

I want surround sound and 3D images on the next generation of tv's. HD-3D Philips is working on it....it's gonna happen, pretty soon, you will loose your balance not realizing where your floor is with all this "ambiance", both auditory and visually. And I want my Garmin Zumo to drive my car, why do I have to be the interface? Zumo, take me home.....wouldn't be possible with vacuum tube technology. DIGITAL baby

Quote:
Yeah, those Quadraphonic records worked out real well, didn't they? Was that like middle 70's? Hafler had surround sound ideas before any one did, with his Dynaco QD-1 Quadapter...it did a good job of adding a bit of ambiance, low cost, just clever thinking.

Yup. That was my first taste. Colin Davis' Last Night of the Proms. Switched in the Hafler circuit (DIY, of course) and Wow!

Kal

I built the Hafler as well, along with some other Hafler products. Fun stuff.

I think it's kind of like asking why audio books haven't surpassed turning pages?
You could tick-off a long list of pluses and benefits of listening to an audio book.
But, there's something about being able to immerse oneself in a book that frees the
imagination and more directly links the concentration and absorption of the words.

Quote:
I built the Hafler as well, along with some other Hafler products. Fun stuff.

I still have the QD-1 from Dynaco. Used it with their ST-120 amp. The 'surround' information was spacious-sounding. Don't use it now, because it would present too low an impedance to the power amp now.

I have a difference signal (L-R) going to a modified Dyna ST-120 powering the rear channels when listening to 2-CH plus ambience, or shut it off for 2-CH only. Alternatively, the rear speakers can be used for HT discrete surround channels through the same amp, for watching movies.

Quote:
I think it's kind of like asking why audio books haven't surpassed turning pages?

Interesting simile.

Hardcopy books for me, no audio books or electronic books come close to holding a book and reading.

Quote:
The high end of Stereophile or The Absolute Sound do not buy a lot of Pioneer. When one speaks 'high end' they usually mean big bucks.

Yes, I agree there is a lot of misinformation out there, and the conventional wisdom of audio is more often wrong than right.

--Ethan

Quote:
However, getting stereo right or, at least, optimal will still not result in correct disposition of ambiance. It is still coming from the wrong direction and/or is the product of residual listening room acoustics.

Yes, of course, and nice story. Further, some people have spouse constraints that prevent optimal placement of even two speakers. I avoid advising people with those issues because nothing I say will change anything.

--Ethan

Quote:
Further, some people have spouse constraints that prevent optimal placement of even two speakers. I avoid advising people with those issues because nothing I say will change anything.
--Ethan

I do so only if they ask.

Kal

Kal, I appreciate your participation and the thoughtful, civil posts in this thread.

Having adopted MC in 2000, I have been disappointed to see the industry's lack of support considering the potential.

I am currently using Wharfedale Evo towers, Opus Centre and Wharfy Evo stand mounted (same drivers as towers) in a 480 sq. ft. room with vaulted ceiling. I'm set up on the long wall with thick carpet over slab foundation, lots of furniture, media, books and window treatments to absorb sound. I run one large sub for MC music and 2 large subs for movies (also Wharfedale).

Marantz receiver (140 watts X 7 with front speakers "bi-amped" and Marantz universal player). Admittedly, I have less into this than some do in cables, but Kal is right about the increased potential of resolution and soundfield accuracy.

DVD-A seems to have the edge on overall fidelity and I can hear a difference even on 2-channel and 3-channel only recordings. (Some, like Buena Vista Social Club are done in 4 channel w/out the center).The Steely Dan MC catalog is superb (I believe Elliot Shiner produced all).

Respectful production is very important to avoid unnatural surround "effects", although what Linkin Park's Reanimation lacks in subtlety, it makes up for in explosive, dynamic realism.

MC music got me back into hi-fi and vinyl. I love it all. I still fight WAF at times and it is a major commitment to space and budget. The industry's lack of support, informational marketing and the competition among formats also militated against universal acceptance. Too bad.

I think that the reasons MC has difficulty getting a hold in the market are multifaceted. There is cost issue, space/decor, availability of software (most of which is in stereo), format wars and horrible recordings. Engineers seem to go effect crazy when mixing in multi-channel. So, when all of these things combine, is it any wonder that MC is doomed to failure from the very start?

Quote:
I think that the reasons MC has difficulty getting a hold in the market are multifaceted. There is cost issue, space/decor, availability of software (most of which is in stereo), format wars and horrible recordings. Engineers seem to go effect crazy when mixing in multi-channel. So, when all of these things combine, is it any wonder that MC is doomed to failure from the very start?

No argument except that the classical field is, I am grateful to say, largely immune from those crazy effects mixers.

That said, I am still optimistic in the long view. Even with the lossy formats on DVD, the public is expecting, more and more, that home listening is multichannel. Why else would they have a myriad of marginally useful DSP modes?

Quote:
Why else would they have a myriad of marginally useful DSP modes?

Because they are cheap to include and are additional gadgets that sell to the great unwashed.

Cell phones and cameras also have many essentially useless "features" that few use, but make great marketing.

I would buy a cell phone without a camera, no cute icons or even color, no MP3 capability and just simple number memory - with the money put into call quality. However, most people wouldn't consider it. Gadgets sell electronics.

Quote:

Quote:
Why else would they have a myriad of marginally useful DSP modes?

Because they are cheap to include and are additional gadgets that sell to the great unwashed.

Cell phones and cameras also have many essentially useless "features" that few use, but make great marketing.

I would buy a cell phone without a camera, no cute icons or even color, no MP3 capability and just simple number memory - with the money put into call quality. However, most people wouldn't consider it. Gadgets sell electronics.

Exactly. Multichannel is a gadget to them but they control the market.

Kal

The DSP modes are marginally useful...for tv, but all multi- channel music on my set-up is played back on "pure direct" mode through analog connections. The Marantz and many of the better universal players and receivers allow you to turn off the video circuits also. All speakers are run "large".

Well engineered albums like Beck's, the Steely Dans' and Talking Heads' and the Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, Yes' Fragile, The Band's Music From Big Pink, and DSOTM can be startlingly realistic and palpable. Sibelius and Copeland on SACD is wonderful as well. Hi-res Al Di Meola, Cannonball Adderly, John Coltrane, Olu Dara and Billy Cobham are a joy. The AIX titles are superb. Even guilty pleasures like Deep Purple's Machine Head can be played at arena rock levels without glare, breakup and noticeable distortion. Some of the bass lines on LP's Reanimation actually hit your chest hard enough to disrupt your breathing. Cool. They stand with the best of vinyl, IMO.

There is so much in this hobby to love. Even Dup can't kill my buzz.

What does "Palpable" mean? Related to music? Also never ever heard any difference on any player with video ckts on or off. Ever, never I have about 3 universal players 2 different brands with that function, but the cool Blue LED looks cool, when it says video ckt is off. Wonder what advertising guy came up with the feature, bogus. "Pure direct"...that sounds like another one....

Quote:
Well engineered albums like Beck's, the Steely Dans' and Talking Heads' and the Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, Yes' Fragile, The Band's Music From Big Pink, and DSOTM can be startlingly realistic and palpable.

This is great to learn. My limited experience with rock and pop multi-channel recordings exposed me to all sorts of annoying ping-pong effects, guitar solo from behind, etc. I am glad some take this music seriously when mixing for multi-channel.

As a separate observation, I have the SACD of DSOTM. My system is two-channel only. The sound on this disc is fantastic.

Quote:
What does "Palpable" mean? Related to music? Also never ever heard any difference on any player with video ckts on or off. Ever, never I have about 3 universal players 2 different brands with that function, but the cool Blue LED looks cool, when it says video ckt is off. Wonder what advertising guy came up with the feature, bogus. "Pure direct"...that sounds like another one....

Palpable is one of those New Agey audiophile words. It means you can FEEL the music!

Feeelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa feeelings....

Quote:

Quote:
Well engineered albums like Beck's, the Steely Dans' and Talking Heads' and the Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, Yes' Fragile, The Band's Music From Big Pink, and DSOTM can be startlingly realistic and palpable.

This is great to learn. My limited experience with rock and pop multi-channel recordings exposed me to all sorts of annoying ping-pong effects, guitar solo from behind, etc. I am glad some take this music seriously when mixing for multi-channel.

As a separate observation, I have the SACD of DSOTM. My system is two-channel only. The sound on this disc is fantastic.

Elkster, Someone with your experience and knowledge IS going to notice more annoying artifacts of production excesses. I always try to listen to both the 2 and multi tracks to get a better sense of these. If instruments are isolated in a distracting and non-realistic manner, I have no problem deferring to the 2 track mix.

My ultimate goal is to revive my Fisher/Mac tube set (or start over) and have a smaller room set up for Quad 57's and 2 channel vinyl. My current system is a compromise that serves the family's needs, yet keeps me "in the game", so to speak.

Quote:
If instruments are isolated in a distracting and non-realistic manner, I have no problem deferring to the 2 track mix.

While obvious once one thinks about it, this is a great observation. There is no requirement that any particular recording be listened to in MC if the two channel is better.

A point for MC!

There is a future for multi-channel with only two channels, only two speakers, and this is what is going to happen, music and films. They are going to can those five and seven channels.