I've been collecting multichannel recordings for over 17 years now. My system and room took close to 8 years to evolve into what I originally had envisioned as my surround listening room. This endeavor unfortunately is very time consuming and a costly task to get right, but boy O' boy I feel it was well worth it. At times some recordings are like you are in the studio surrounded by the musicians, but most create an auditory panorama where instruments and voices have the room to breathe. Just like all recordings, some are re-mixed, produced, and re-mastered significantly better than others, and some music not all, just lends itself to be explored in a much greater soundscape.
I think you summed it up perfectly when you pointed out vinyl. A "V" groove has two walls, each can carry a channel, so it was easy to encode two channels into a vinyl record. During the audiophile craze back in the 70s and 80s, vinyl was the best we had, so stereo was the best we could get. Now people listen to music through ear buds on their phones and nobody but a handful of serious hobbyists care about sound quality any more. Nowadays, movie studios embed THX 5-channel audio for special effects, but it's incredibly expensive and so recording artists can't do it for their music, and nobody wants to just listen to special effects sounds as a musical experience.
Thanks for your honest words. As a child in the 1950s we had a wind up gramophone for quite a few years. We bought a small portable record player in the 1960s. We also had some old valve radios, which had a deeper sound than the record players too and with a long aerial in our back garden could pick up all pirate radio ships in the North Sea in the 1960s. Pirate radio really shaped my musical taste in my teenage years before the BBC was forced into creating a channel for our generation. I bought a reel to reel tape recorder in 1967 at 16 & connected our little record player to it to record music i couldn't get on tape back then. The record player also sounded better through the tape machine especially as I started get used external speakers. I did my first school disco with a string of external speakers bought cheaply. Later, I built some disco equipment (electronics hobby) & had a part time mobile disco. Some of the stereo speakers in the early 1970s sounded a bit feeble and I was using a large mono 18inch speaker in a hand built cabinet for the disco. A house move meant selling the speaker to a bass player in a local band. Another move meant I could build two new disco speakers with two speakers in each for the disco but I eventually gave up the electronics hobby in 1977 & I later gave the speakers to a friend who took them to Glasgow with her. So we went through cassette players, CD players, WAV & MP3 files & players to streaming music. I'm fairly new to surround sound but currently I have an HDMI 5.1 sound extractor with one Behringer mixer, one stereo power amp, 2 mono woofer power amps, Peavey subwoofer with built in amp, mono centre speaker amp, stereo amp for back speakers plus 8 speakers altogether. Yes, I too like surround sound and BBC1 television did several films this year in surround, including The Beatles 1964 film 'A Hard Days Night' which sounded great in surround.
I'm one of those fools that went Quad.🤩. I went Open Reel , CD4 and there were some fantastic discrete mixes, Like many A/V products of the era, there were format wars that like military wars, end up with no real winners. I love your comment about 'its good enough' audio consumers. More BOOM and the are happy 😞
I play my vinyl in Aura 3D through my Denon receiver and the sound is fantastic. Sounds coming from every direction in a 5.2.4 setup. Highly recommend it!
Paul is so great - he gives an honest opinion, rather than pushing what he actually sells on the public. Of course that's part of why this channel has so many viewers and Paul is so beloved. Paul sells 2 channel audio products, and he says multi-channel is much better, wow. And yet he explains why multi-channel (beyond 2 channels) didn't happen. Thanks so much Paul, and keep being you!
As the owner of a 5.2.4 separate speaker Atmos capable system used for movies and music with acoustic treatments I can say there are a lot of albums mixed in Dolby Atmos and the dynamic range is amazing as Atmos mixes don't really get compressed like most music now. The space on albums like Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and Daft Punk Random Access Memories is amazing. Thanks Paul
Live Arena/ Large Hall Concerts are Mixed in Mono!...Why?..Hardly any audience can hear a stereo image.. Imagine the disappointment in going to (for instance) a Van Halen show, being seated stage right and Eddies guitar panned fairly hard left , as it is on early albums . .You wouldn't hear the guitar!. Maybe only hear a Lexicon Chamber Reverb patch. At big concerts , for EVERYONE to get the same mix, it has to be mixed in Mono..
I often point this out to diehard audiophiles who insist on only listening to recorded music in stereo, yet happily attend live performances where the sound is in mono.
dave's an experienced live-sound engineer who'd dug into the physics of sound-reinforcement & its challenges probably deeper than anyone else on yt. if you've been to a chilli peppers show, you'll have heard his work, but his ideas are now pretty widely adopted by others too. ruclips.net/video/VHjdh-Vka-g/видео.html
Surround sound may technically be more accurate, but in my humble opinion, the illusion of the sound stage and imaging with only two speakers is what keeps us coming back to two speakers. The magic happens when the sound is enveloping you with height depth layering etc and there are only two sources of sound in the room.
Get an image off the scale with an open Tang Band or Fostex 5" or any bright FR driver and mount it OPEN on top of the box, with a woofer in the box. And slope the open FR back by about 20 degrees. Use heaps of Blue Tack to initially mount the open driver on top of the speaker box. Directly connect the FR driver to the woofer box binding posts. And use a 10" woofer with a 5.6 mh inductor in a tallish box (tall enough for good FR driver height above the floor). Make a bass vent with a 2.5" diameter (or close to it) poly pipe tube in a tightly fitted hole in the speaker box. Tune the bass vent tube length with a cardboard inner sleeve inside (a too short) polypipe tube. And get the best tube length by sliding the inner cardboard tube out to get the best bass sound. Then make 2 bass tubes the same size out of polypipe and push into the fitted hole in the box. Image is so good that you may sometimes momentarily think there is someone in the room, speaking, when it was in the speakers! I once mistaken a loud jet sound that was from my speakers, for a real jet outside just above our house (and I even looked out the window) and when my speakers were only a metre away! 😂 My friend was struggling to stop his phone from beeping, but he couldn't, until he realised it was in my speakers, 3 metres from him (while he was holding his phone!). 😂 Sounds come from nowhere, and if what I said happens, you can just imagine how amazing the imaging is. 🎉
I have only heard a few recordings done right, but those that are make every channel amazing. The one that sticks out in my mind has a performer and audience interaction. The performer says "repeat after me" and then the crowd responds. Have the audio of the crowd come from behind you is an unbelievable experience. After a few back and forths, t he crowd is called to sing with the performer and the mix with front and rear sound stages makes you believe you are front row at the event. Another recording places separate instruments at all 5 channels so it sounds like you're sitting in the studio with the band. The vocals seem to walk around you throughout the track. If it is mixed right, there is no comparison.
So, when I got back into audio five years ago, I planned on making this a 5.1 surround system. However, I learned that the games I play on PC are those with incredible 2.1 channel sound and I didn't need to pinpoint directional sound cues that online players need, so I ditched the AVR and went with two-channel separates and I'm very happy with the results. My headphone setup has also been an eye-opener. Right now I'm sitting in front of a Topping stack; the stellar D70pro OCTO dac> A90 Discrete amp. This system has elevated all my headphones and the sound is glorious!. Much more detailed and lush than my vintage speaker setup, with the Topping A90D as preamp to the NAD 208thx power amp to a pair of aDs 910s. That's my systems. Tadaaaaa
Such an honest and transparent answer. I remember quadraphonic albums of the 70s and those that had the systems that played them were considered the ultimate hifi to own.
Quadraphonic died because the engineers were the ones mixing from stereo to quad and they had no clue how to properly mix for true surround sound. And there were four different incompatible versions. The modern surround is mixed by the musicians or producers, They have been creating superb results. I have many surround discs and they always sound much better than the stereo versions.
My speakers in my last house were great when used as end-tables in my living room. Now I have what looks like a 3 foot boom box. Great sound, and I don't blast myself out of the room.
Chandos, BIS, PentaTone and other labels that release SACDs are almost all multichannel but my own personal feeling is that small or smallish rooms don't lend themselves to having numerous loudspeakers placed at a sufficient distance from the listener(s) to enable the desired effects to be created. I personally find stereo perfectly satisfactory, and i've been a regular concert-goer for many decades.
There was a moment in the early 2000s when it seemed like the winner of the SACD vs DVD-A format “war” would be the successor to the CD and usher in an era of surround music. But the rise the MP3 and the iPod ultimately squashed that. Most music is listened to via two earbuds or headphones, so most music is only mixed for two channels.
It started with mono! One of the earliest attempts at moving beyond mono was three channel audio by RCA Victor I believe. I have a couple of modern pressings of their recordings where the cover art talks about three channel recordings. My guess is it was simple economics that had us settle for stereo. Going from one speaker to three with supporting electronics was more expensive than from one to two.
Correct also look into Mercury and Philips. I think Mercury was first if my memory is correct. In my opinion the best of these rival modern recording methods.
I still use Pink Floyd DSOTM "Time" SACD 5.1 to demo my system for folks and it never disappoints. I collected ~ 100 SACD/DVD-a discs back in the day and I'll never part with them!
For many years there has been gatekeeping in high end audio. Vehicles and soundbars that support surround are become increasingly common akd higher quality as we've seen movies like Baby Driver, Bohemian Rhapsody, or The Eras Tour, offer great sound so we could be nearing a point more people push for surround audio content.
A great mid-fi solution is the Schiit Syn. It is ALL analog, takes a 2 channel signal, and I can listen L/C/R and 5.1; depending on my mood. I don't use the Syn in my main listening room because I do not want to buy an another speaker and amp; too expensive as Paul alluded. I use in another room for gaming as well as music when I am working. Sounds wonderfull! (and at a decent price)
I think the only implementation which seems to be a solution which has taken a hold in a small way is the sound bars which Paul mentions which has the atmos decoding (although to my ears it still sounds placebo), I believe the Apple buds have atmos possibly, otherwise it seems like the cinema is next in line. I could be wrong and will stand corrected.
Apple music,Tidal, and Amazon music all have some music in Atmos multi channel. If you have an Atmos enabled home theater system it can sound great but only sounds great if they did a good job remixing the original into an Atmos format. Some have been remixed well and others not so much.
@@joepostle3561 Currently, Atmos spatial audio on Airpods is my favorite way to listen to music. Especially the Apple Remaster albums. My least favorite listening is spotify with stereo mode.
I'm talking TAPE here, a point worth mentioning as long as we're talking audio history. We were recording on Crown CX 4 channel tape recorders in 1964, utilizing 4 speakers across the front constituting a "Wall of Sound" for playback. My current collection today includes over 1500 SACD's. Most movies today are produced utilizing some surround format. Surround Sound is as "dead" today as one would want to make it. To your point, regarding the "lazy" factor.
Is surround sound an accurate way to listen to music? If I’m listening to a live band, the sound is coming from directly in front of me. I’m probably hearing sound closer to the way it’s presented in 2 channel. Maybe the guitarist is playing on the speaker on the left, and the bass is coming from the right. I’m not convinced that surround sound would actually replicate live music; it would be weird to hear the drums behind, the vocals in front, the other instruments left and right. Thoughts?
Does the music at a concert sound different as you move around? Do the properties of the building impact acoustics? I've heard the Beach Boys outdoors, in a concert hall, and in a stadium. All three sounded different, and none of them simply had music from the front or sides
Dolby Atmos mixing done well sounds heavenly, you can add a sense of space that is hard to achieve in a 2 channel setup. It is a different experience to listening 2 channel stereo or headphones. Just like we dont experience someone is playing in front of us when we listen to headphones, dolby atmos music can be something unique and not something that replaces traditional stereo. Artists can now think of creating immersive experiences with music using multiple speakers and sound effects. Apple music has been pushing really hard to make this work. On the downside you do need to shell out on more speakers and dedicate a room to setup home theatre.
@@xaviermontalban717 That venues may have speakers everywhere isn't making the music sound any better, it's just there to accommodate the audience having tons of people everywhere so it doesn't sound as bad in the bad seats/spots. That in itself isn't something to strive for when searching for the optimal experience of the music, like we do at home where we always have the best seats.
@@T-cz3ur You are absolutely correct; the venue makes a difference. The best sounding venues I've heard, all on the small to mid size, it always sounded like the music is right in front of me; much like listening to a hifi 2 channel system.
Aurora 3D codec is so much fun for music. The only thing I don't like is that the phantom center is less for a more in your face center sound. I love that the surrounds and the extra dolby speakers are used in Auro 3D.
Please add support for multichannel DSD in your products! I have been enjoying multichannel music ever since SACD introduced it. And after listening to properly mastered multi channel music, it’s hard to go back to 2 channel, even as an audiophile. And multi channel doesn’t necessarily mean 5.1, some original RCA Living Stereo recordings were done in 3 front channels (with discrete center) and these vintage recordings sound wonderful on multi channel SACD.
I am showing my age but, as a youngster I remember the BBC broadcasting experimental stereo demonstrations. I think it was on Saturday mornings. One channel was on the B&W TV a the channel on AM radio.
God, it seems there was something like that here in the US; I'm having a hard time remembering! 🤔 It might have been something like a concert show that had one channel on the radio, or maybe it was just simulcast in stereo on FM radio... That's the problem: If you're old enough to remember this sh!t, you're too old to remember this sh!t! 😆
Out here on the west coast two FM stereo stations collaborated to demonstrate FM quad. Before that a test station demonstrated the two leading single carrier quad FM methods.
Some receivers, like my older mid-80s JVC, offer modes that set slight delays on your second set of speakers... Dolby, Hall and Stadium modes. They actually work well if you place your secondary stereo speakers behind you, much like how home theater rear surrounds are placed. If their volume is not set too high, I find it creates a nice effect and "expands" the listening room a bit. It is the same playback as your mains, only slightly delayed and echoed. Also, I think stereo for music is perfect (2.1 or maybe 3.1)... think of it... music performers are in front of you vs. movies where they try and emulate sounds that come from all directions (5.1 or higher).
Thanks Paul but you omitted a very important step in the history which was super audio CD (Sony) and DVD audio developed by Bob Stewart. Meridian and other companies developed special audio systems for listening to purely music in multi-channel format. Not home theater. Thanks to depreciation I am now enjoying an amazing Meridian multi-channel system😊😊😊. They were just too ahead of their time...
Thank you for this explanation. I suppose that 2 channel sound remains mainly ths standard because many people walk around with earphones. And with these two earphones or speakers we certainly can hear surround sound when that is used in the recording. Reverberation as in a church will also be experienced as surround sound when you have the perfect listening situation with earphones or a perfect stereo speaker system where you ar placed perfect in the middle..
I used to love listening to the quadrophonic of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells in SACD, missed the vinyl release... but since I retired the 5.1 and moved to 2.1 as you say speaker count...
For decades we were happy with Lo-Fi Mono sound,m then we had better quality sound which after a while became stereo, then the home cinema phase started which has stayed at 7 channels which not everyone can accomodate. With dedicated film sountracks yes it is excellent, but i have only heard a few atmos audio recordings that are convincing. For most of us, 2 channel audio is affordable and more practical.
I wish three speaker would make a comeback. You didn't even need a third channel, just a center speaker with synthesized middle derived from the stereo recording.
I wonder how a 2 speaker system would compare with a 3 speakers one, I know some people used to own them, Frank Sinatra had one in his home. That aside, many recordings from the 1950's and 60's done on 3-track tape are being reissued on SACD with their original 3 channels
Audio Visual Receivers, in my limited experience, can synthesize multi channel from 2 channel. Even with a just a center speaker, the sweet spot for listening is widened, especially if the main 2 speakers are in compromised locations. My AVR (c. 2005) has different acoustic presentations like concert hall and jazz club. I've been back to 2 channel for a while.
We have 2 ears because it is most effective (from biology and survival viewpoint) way to experience (hear, recognize and locate) sounds surrounding us in environment we live in. Surrounding means coming from all directions at same time. Multiple channels /speakers are required to recreate realistic environment. Your surround system from 2005 was creating new (instead of recreating real) environment, artificial environment, hence you didn’t like it long-term.
My thought is two ears, thus two channels. For music that is. Surround sound 5+ channels is great for movies as you get all the background sounds to make the movie sound awesome.
Stop and think about the typical situation in a live performance... You are in an audience, the stage with all the musicians is in front of you. The sound reinforcement is generally on either side of the stage, usually as a pair of line-arrays. The most effective way to duplicate that in your living room is with stereo... there you are on your couch, the speakers are in front of you arranged to the left and right of your listening position. Panning in the mix can move the sound to play out across the speakers, just like on the live stage. Stereo persists, because it simply makes sense.
But much of the audience is behind you with sound coming from them, and ambient reflections of the music from the auditorium come from all around you. Stereo recording and playback cannot reproduce that. Sit in an acoustically live hall like the Albert Hall and listen to a live orchestra. The sound is not just the orchestra in front of you, it is the interaction of the auditorium and the orchestra and that sound comes from all around. Again stereo cannot capture that. Stereo persists simply because it was easy to do on vinyl, and because it is hard enough now getting people to put two speakers into their rooms. It's not because it does a good job.
I remember quadraphonic. I still have several original albums done in quad (Holst, The Planets, Switched on Bach). They sounded really good when used with the Dynaco Quad Box, it was pretty convincing. Unfortunately, it was just a fad as you know and only lasted a short time. Then there were a few surround sound DVDs maybe 15 years ago which sounded pretty good on a surround system. I often wonder if with all digital recording today if it wouldn't be fairly easy to produce a quad-channel recording. But, then, you'd have to have the corresponding equipment, 4-channel output jacks, etc.
I now have a Panasonic HTIB receiver in my bedroom but I don't have the original speakers and the receiver is also connected to the Logitech Z625 speakers. I do have rear speakers connected to the Center channel and Yamaha bookshelf speakers connected to the left and right channels. I use the Super Surround setting to turn on the rear speakers and simply have the audio duplicate on all speakers and due to the placement, if I turn on all the speakers, the same audio allows me to imagine surround. Basically a "poor man's surround" which was my goal plus most of the movies I watch are very old movies that don't need surround.
Thanks Paul. It would be nice to have a center channel. I am wondering if a separate stereo processor could be developed that could analyze the stereo recording and feed portions of the recording to a center channel to enhance soundstage and imaging without a dedicated three channel recording. That would be an amazing option to have.
@@jhutt8002 interesting. I did not realize that Dolby Prologic simply used a stereo recording. If you’re running a home theater integrated amp this would be an option. Back when I had a home theater setup, I had several cd’s recorded in 5.1 surround. It would be nice to see something dedicated solely to a front soundstage.
@@matthirn7858 The way it works is that it decodes folded down surround sound from stereo source. It always does it when on, so the results just vary depending on the audio mixing. It can create proper surround sound with compatible source, but most audio CD's wouldn't have been mixed with that in mind, so it's creating faux effect.
Along with everything you just said, I find most people don't really remain stationary anymore when listening to music. They're always moving around doing stuff, so anything beyond 2-channel kinda loses its effect. Just talking the average consumer now, not the much smaller percentage of people who will immerse themselves. I definitely prefer surround, but it's not always convenient. Having a new setup has definitely compelled me to go back to immersive listening though, I will say that. Hard to go back like you said. I will say the phantom centre channel effect is really cool! Who would wanna give up having that option really?
Spatial music is available, it's just limited. It hasn't caught on yet because of the extra cost in production and the fact that most people listen to music in their cars where it's possible to have spatial sound, but nearly no cars are setup that way. That said, the demand for spatial sound music in the home environment is on the rise. But only a little bit. I would guess less than 5% of people even consider getting something like a 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos system and probably less than half of those will actually do it. Last year I finally stopped using a soundbar and went to a true 5.1 system. The sound difference was so astounding that I upgraded to a 7.1 system capable of Atmos. The difference between Atmos and 5.1 was also enough to where I am looking into a complete 13.1 setup. My point is simple, most people are fine with stereo or bad sound simply because that's what they know. Once they experience good spatial sound, it's hard to settle for less.
When I go to an orchestral concert, I am unlikely to be offered a seat in the middle of the orchestra................... 5.1 and atmos sound awful as does any system with sub-woofers
@@johnholmes912 Why would anyone want to hear music through any combination of speakers at a live event? The logical assumption is that if we are talking about listening to music from speakers, it will be in the home environment, where you could be in the center of the listening space. As far as subwoofers and music goes, if it's a ported subwoofer, then they typically sound bad. But sealed enclosures are a different story. That is unless you are listening to rap or bass specific music.
Thx. I have never agreed to this surround sound system hype. As long as I don’t have a surround movie around me, I don’t need a surround sound. My TV is in front of me. All I need is stereo sound coming from the front of me.
CD-4 was better than that. It was "almost" like 2 lots of FM from an LP. Admittedly, you needed a cartridge that could play 40khz, like my ADC ZLM with suitable stylus.
@@joesharkey1021 , you needed the "Shibata" or similar profile stylus. Frequency response extended to 50 kHZ & beyond. You're right about having "2 lots of FM". I suppose it is limited by the quality of the demodulator. For me the benefit is improved shapes for stereo reproduction, & I've been a beneficiary from it with the "Ogura" tip in 3 successive Lyra cartridges.
His thinking is sound.. The human voice is a single point source. It comes from one area in space not 2. So in theory a centre channel for vocals will always trump 2 channel for that reason. If not why have a centre channel for cinema sound.
I get the reason why surround sound works with movies but not with music. When going to see a live performance, the audience is not surrounded by the performers so to me, stereo is the more authentic way to listen. Perhaps the question was more about having multiple speakers in front of the listener, although I think that 2 speakers are good enough in a system capable of conveying the soundstage.
@@xaviermontalban717 The mains are generally just to the left and right of the main stage. At least that's been the case at 95% of the shows I've been to living in Austin for 15 years.
@hartsickdisciple firstly you're missing the huge stack of subs in the middle. Secondly. That doesn't matter. For some reason, people think that surround sound means having six channels that play the same. It is meant to recreate the atmosphere. If well done, I believe it can take the listening experience to a new level
Live music in large venues is usually mono for a lot of the people. Even something like a classic orchestra might rely on the acoustics of the room to amplify which at least to a degree blends it to mono.
@@hartsickdisciple yes the mains are placed at the left and right, but speakers are elsewhere, including the roof and the back of many venues. as Paul rightly pointed out, it is more of a practicality thing. when I listen to music with a surround sound system, I prefer the rear speakers just for added ambience that imitates you sitting in the middle of a theater with the sound bouncing all around you as opposed to dedicating rear speakers for certain instruments...
Dolby Atmos or Auro 3D can be mixed down to 2 channels real time. So 9.1.6 (or 13.1) and stereo (2.0) systems can be served by the same multichannel song/album. So why there so few multichannel records? Cost. Cost of creating of 14 or 16 channel records is multiple of one for stereo records. And business exist for profit.
I enjoy the stereo, for the only reason that we have two ears, and when we are in a live concert hall,the sound comes out from one stage (most of the time) the idea of multiple channels is valid, only if we virtually can emulate coming out for two. That’s my opinion.
I run virtual 5.1 through my amp and it sounds great. I have to say that most men don’t mind speaker wires all over the place but our wives aren’t very keen on it- even though they appreciate the improved sound.
I've always believed one channel per ear is sufficient, mostly because human aural capability can determine left or right bearing via time displacement, but not fore or aft.
I know Paul is not a fan of Klipsch, but Paul Klipsch was developing a third center channel in the 1950's for which he made the Hersey. Keep the great videos coming
I remember show report of Briston setting up three front channels with Magnepan speakers and the results apparently were very good. If you think about soundstage depth, just a tiny delay in the centre speaker can add enormous depth. I kind of know because at some stage I had my stereo sub woofers half baked installed and partially off phase (I wouldn't call it it out of phase) and I had a very deep soundstage. The problem with mine was that every recording had a deep soundstage so it wasn't natural, so I had to fix it. But what a great tool would i be if you had three speakers and a simple delay adjustment for the centre speaker on your remote control. Then you would be in charge of how it sounds. Not the mastering engineer.
I remember the QUADRAPHONIC days of the 70's. That was weird. 5 Channel like Home Theater would be very nice and lots of SACD's have muti channel tracks that sounds wonderful even for a very inexpensive HT system.
I remember those days as a teenager. I caught the tail end of Quadraphonic. That makes me wonder. Has anyone tried to play quadraphonic vinyl in Dolby surround?
I get 5.1 where I need it such as in my home theater, two 65 OLEDs...one with a Bose 5.1 system and one with a Hitachi 5.1. I don't use ear buds which can look like two broken cigarettes stuck in each ear. 7.1 requires discreet speaker placement and listener placement which is not usually available outside my home except in a movie theater so what's the problem? I gave up vinyl years ago and TV streaming is in 5.1 audio where available so saying that we are stuck with stereo is not quite true. Most Blu Ray and DVD's are in Dolby 5.1 audio plus INFUSE to set up my video library. A little planning can fix a lot.
Back in the 1970's I had an SQ system. (I still have some of the albums) With orchestral, it was more like reflective sounds giving a little more depth. Synthesiser was more like being playful with the music source, for instance, Walter/Wendy Carlos' 'Swiched on Bach'. The problem for me was small band, like jazz, it was like it was putting me in the middle of the band, eg.a trumpet playing from the left rear. Novelty tricks. So I am OK with two channel. Movie surround is for putting you into the action, not in the middle of the stage.
2-channel can provide 2-D images when you combine amplitude and phasing. There may or may not be cost appetite for more channels for music - each extra speaker is more cost on the listener with limited improvement, if any. And then there is the home/space appetite - do you REALLY want more speakers in your home if it really doesn't improve anything? There is also the WAF (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_acceptance_factor). Yes, we have multi=speakers for movies, but movies kind-of make sense - some things in the movie may be taking place behind you, like cars honking, ambient noise, etc. Music, on the other hand typically involves musicians on a stage, L and R image, in front of the listener. Rebounding off of hall walls is undesirable at live events, so we might not be trying to reproduce that in home hi-fi. When reproducing music from musicians, extra channels may be unnecessary.
I think the Dolby Home Theatre feature on my PC does a fair job of upmixing stereo audio on my 5.1ch Z906. Although there are times I turn it off because it can create weird delay effects with some sounds on the rear speakers.
Nope. We have 2 ears because it is most effective (from biology and survival viewpoint) way to experience (hear, recognize and locate) sounds surrounding us in environment we live in. Surrounding means coming from all directions at same time.
@@XX-gg3mx But if you listen to music played by a band? The expectation is band is playing in front of you. Why would you need more than two channels? There is no reason for any sound to come behind you. Expect reflections of course, but unless you're in studio dead room, it happens the same in the room. I just don't see the logic? What sounds would there be panned to channels other than right and left?
Was about to make the same comment…but then realized that the human sense of audio yield far more depth and spatial separation/location than 2-channel provides. That said, stereo seems to be the pragmatic approach to recreating music recorded for playback. It’s a diminishing returns issue of sound quality versus complexity and cost that has struck the proper balance for more than a half century.
Is your head fixed into a fixture while you listen? I don't think so. Your soundstage is always surround, and the brain hallucinates it based on what you hear with the two ears with reflections from the ear lobes and also by just turning your head around. The soundstage like visual scene also, is virtual, and is actively generated by the brain, and the ears being two microphones analogy is false. Ears are not microphones like eyes are not cameras.
Steven Wilson produces some amazing Dolby Atmos albums, but generally its so limited. And, unless you are combining with a movie system, a surround sound music system is so expensive (processor/amps/speakers/subs). Unless a movie fan, then investing your budget in a stereo system is the way to go for now. I wonder what AI will eventually do for creating surround from stereo?
Paul, what do you think about Cross Talk Cancellation which is a project/product "Bacch" which has been introduced to the market by Edgar Chouerie working at the Princeton University? If we think that 2 channel audio cannot provide anything near surround sound, than maybe we have to think again. But maybe the Audio Industrie is not ready (or try to avoid) this product. Would highly apreciate your take in this matter. By the way, i am a fan of your "down to earth" RUclips clips!
The "only" fair comparison is between a Stereo Mix played back on a Stereo System AND a 5.1 Channel Mix (DTS being my favourite) of the same track or album played back on a 5.1 channel system AND then there are DVD-Audio and other multiple channel versions as well. As you note there are few tracks one can buy in DTS 5.1 or more - most of the 30 I own are remasters of studio tapes cut in the 1970s and 1980s -- which is great for me since this is the era I enjoy the most. What is important in DTS 5.1 -- the front 3 must all be of comparable quality and driven by equally capable gear (amp and cables). In my case I use the Celestion A3 pair and a matching centre channel. I also use Celestion A1 speakers in the other roles -- all have the same tweeters and mid-range drivers. Base is handled via the A3 and a pair of Celestion subs run L and R stereo. Playing the same track in pure stereo through just the mains feels flat compared to the same track in DTS played in 5.1 -- whole different level of immersion. By processing a Stereo Track in a surround sound processor and applying a surround sound mix can make most recordings far more immersive. I am in my mid 60s and so I really cannot hear as well as I could decades ago -- so yes I am sure I lose some purity, but my enjoyment is heightened for most of the music I listen to.
Most of the concerts I go to (hundreds over the last few years) are performed by orchestras, sometimes with soloists, or just solo instruments or voices. These are not amplified (although there may be a little reinforcement in acoustically disadvantages ares). The sounds I hear will differ depending on my location in the concert hall. If I'm at the front near the cellos and double basses it will be a different sound should I listen from the other side, or from the back. (Some concerts feature off-stage musicians behind the listeners but it's not normal). So if you want to record in surround, how do you balance it? The sound of orchestral instruments may surprise some people. Instruments (other than huge pipe organs) don't generally shake the floor. The triangle is a tiny instrument with a quiet but penetrating sound. Orchestras can and do play very quietly and very loudly. I listen to the same music in my small living room, and in my small noisy car. Generally I like to listen to the music as I would in a concert hall, but this isn't really possible. Rear speakers might nicely place dropped wine bottles in the corporate boxes, but I am willing to forgo this. Movie music is mixed to impress, not to re-create the studio environment. Rock concert sounds depend on the folk at the mixing desk. But an acoustic orchestra or soloist need only a bit of stereo to give some ambience when the music is quiet. But I'm pretty old and my ears past their best.
To your point about there not being many songs mixed in surround, there apparently seemed to be a flood of new songs and some older songs being mixed in Dolby Atmos on services like Amazon Music and Apple Music. It's an interesting time for sure.
There’s a big difference between being actually mixed in surround and simply digitally created as surround. Most of the Apple Music Dolby Atmos are simply digitally created with AI
Agreed, the adoption of Dolby Atmos in the music production industry is growing fast. Lots of new music is mixed and released in Dolby Atmos and old classics are not behind. Many studios are upgraded or in the processes of upgrading and the knowledge to record and product music in surround is growing. I see the signs everywhere in the industry. I don't think stereo will disappear anytime soon, but there are music available in surround format and it keeps coming.
I was into Quad in the 70's, dropped it and forgot about it for a long while and then once DVD Audio and SACD started killing each other off the market I accumulated quite a few of those releases and set up a system again. It is quite equipment heavy to do that, but now I find that I listen to (well mixed) surround sound just to try and get back all the sounds I could so easily hear in stereo when I was eighteen. So partly I am trying to use technology to make up for hearing degradation, and with a well crafted surround mix of an older release, it is almost like hearing a classic for the first time again. Good feeling for an old Boomer!
@@seed_drill7135 I was lucky enough to get an Oppo 205 just before they stopped making them and I have an couple of 4 channel reel to reels for those type of tapes. Should be good until I go completely deaf!
I believe there was some interesting research by Bell labs in sound reproduction when mono was still the primary if only listening format. While some believed that 3 channel was a better reproduction format stereo was chosen for financial reasons of easier mass adoption. Some of the early non-mono music recordings were done with 3 microphones instead of 2 by Mercury, RCA and Philips.Some of theses rival modern recordings in my opinion. The first documented use of surround sound was in 1940 for the Disney film Fantasia. The whole process must be considered from sound capture to reproduction. Most modern sound is a bunch of separate recordings being mixed together with psychoacoustics tricks being used to simulate them as happening together in the same space and time. Hearing is probably the most complex sensory input for our brain to process. the ultimate goal of surround sound is to recreate the acoustic environment plus the sound source in a different place. When watching a movie being transported to another place is the immersion.
Three channel would be great. Look at Frank Sinatra's home listening three channel system. It'd be great to listen to a Decca Tree recording through a three channel system. However three channels ain't the norm so I'm content with stereo as its fine.
I have a 5x1 hometheater I intend to use solely to watch movies. I'm replacing its speakers for better ones. A friend of mine once played a 7X1 recording of a Jethro Tull album. It is impressive, although he would need to improve the quality of its speakers. But I still prefer the two channel configuration. My old DSP audio can also be used as a hometheater with 4 channels and I did that for some time connected to a pc sound card that had an option compatible with this configuration. Currently, I only use this old stereo system to listen to music in two channel configurarion with stereo subwoofers.
There is multichannel audio DTS 5.1 cd and DVD audio but you need a special cd player or dvd player. Also the selection of music is limited but it does exist.
Back in the early to mid 70's I went to a sound show where a quadraphonic system was promoted in this incredible globe style audio acoustic setting. The sound was my question? They played a song on this turntable which yes it played the 4 channels. Who made this. It was designed by of all things the Japanese company JVC. WOW.
I have an integrated amp/DDC question. My integrated amp has a built in dac using Optical as an input. Would a. DDC be of any benefit in sound hooking it up to the optical of the built in dac?
1) For music, I like whatever sounds the best to me. Sometimes it's stereo, sometimes it's 5.1. But virtually every concert dvd sounds better in 5.1 than in stereo. It just does. 2) I guess I'm not someone who is always looking for the live concert experience. Sometimes, depending on the 5.1 mix, it's really cool to feel like I'm on stage with the performers then in the audience. 3) In the early 2000's I knew a guy who put all 5 speakers on the front wall with the "surrounds" outside and above the mains. Again, sometimes it sounded great! Sometimes it didn't. Credit for trying something different. 4) I have a fairly large collection of 5.1 music discs on DTS CD (remember those?) DVD-A, SACD and BluRay. A 5.1 concert dvd in DD HD or DTS MA sounds incredible to me! But stereo sounds groovy to me as well. 5) When stereo first started to gain popularity in the mid sixties, Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) still recorded in mono as he felt 90 percent of the listening would be in the car...which still had mono systems. There's no right answer here. That's why we have (dwindling) choices.
I embrace technology... I love enhancing 2 channel to get surround sound... Looking fwd for the next technology... I want to experience all i could before i go 6 foot under
there is no way you should mess with history ?? When that came out it was the ultimate recording by a man who will never be forgotten ?? So I believe the original is the best way to listen to that album. End of...
@@paulaj2829 Mmm! dunno , I've listened thru' my 5.1 , not true quality seperation , but mighty bloody nice current evolving tech' could do interesting things , IMO.
I have installed some three Channel live PA systems with really good results if the engineer is working properly. There are also numerous experiments with three channel through the years.
I absolutely love Apple's Spatial Audio setting compared to regular stereo when listening to anything! I know this is just "fake surround sound" but it's in my opinion the best we've got if we don't want to create an Atmos mix or use a 5.1 speaker setup.
I have a mate who is currently mixing in atmos with a 12 speaker system and it’s the best audio I’ve ever heard.. of course, I hear it in his studio which is not what most have, but.. it’s way better than stereo.. another league altogether and with digital ever improving it has to be the future.. whether the market place catches up to it is a whole other question..
SACD and DVD-A were hi-resolution multi-channel products in the 1990s and 2000s that eventually fizzled out because, as Paul says, people don't want the extra speakers and amplifiers, and also because 2 channels are "good enough." We have 2 ears, so the theoretical ideal solution is stereo headphones, but they don't have deep bass, so we use stereo speakers as the best overall compromise.
@wisehippo3072 Exactly. Two eyes allow us to see 3D, and two ears allow us to localize sounds in 3D. We don't need more than two channels to create a 3D soundstage in front of us. Multi-channel audio remains popular for home theater, but music purists find little to be gained with more than one channel per ear. 🙂
This discussion seems to be identical to the one about whether movies should continue at 24fps or use 60fps. I think many people are too attached to habit and nostalgia and are closed to a different approach for emotional rather than practical reasons. Since the beginning of cinematography it was decided that the best way to avoid flickering of the image was to use 48 frames per second but as this would imply a greater expense in tape it was decided to use half and project each frame twice, decades later it was established that the “correct” speed of cinema should be 24fps. With surround music it's the same, just because something works efficiently and we are used to it doesn't mean that it can't be improved and that we can't like it better.
In the 60ties Harman Kardon had an amp, with a center channel. So it is not new. And as we know. Sir Ken Fritz made a system as well with a center channel.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I've been collecting multichannel recordings for over 17 years now. My system and room took close to 8 years to evolve into what I originally had envisioned as my surround listening room. This endeavor unfortunately is very time consuming and a costly task to get right, but boy O' boy I feel it was well worth it. At times some recordings are like you are in the studio surrounded by the musicians, but most create an auditory panorama where instruments and voices have the room to breathe. Just like all recordings, some are re-mixed, produced, and re-mastered significantly better than others, and some music not all, just lends itself to be explored in a much greater soundscape.
I think you summed it up perfectly when you pointed out vinyl. A "V" groove has two walls, each can carry a channel, so it was easy to encode two channels into a vinyl record. During the audiophile craze back in the 70s and 80s, vinyl was the best we had, so stereo was the best we could get. Now people listen to music through ear buds on their phones and nobody but a handful of serious hobbyists care about sound quality any more.
Nowadays, movie studios embed THX 5-channel audio for special effects, but it's incredibly expensive and so recording artists can't do it for their music, and nobody wants to just listen to special effects sounds as a musical experience.
Thanks for your honest words. As a child in the 1950s we had a wind up gramophone for quite a few years. We bought a small portable record player in the 1960s. We also had some old valve radios, which had a deeper sound than the record players too and with a long aerial in our back garden could pick up all pirate radio ships in the North Sea in the 1960s. Pirate radio really shaped my musical taste in my teenage years before the BBC was forced into creating a channel for our generation. I bought a reel to reel tape recorder in 1967 at 16 & connected our little record player to it to record music i couldn't get on tape back then. The record player also sounded better through the tape machine especially as I started get used external speakers. I did my first school disco with a string of external speakers bought cheaply. Later, I built some disco equipment (electronics hobby) & had a part time mobile disco. Some of the stereo speakers in the early 1970s sounded a bit feeble and I was using a large mono 18inch speaker in a hand built cabinet for the disco. A house move meant selling the speaker to a bass player in a local band. Another move meant I could build two new disco speakers with two speakers in each for the disco but I eventually gave up the electronics hobby in 1977 & I later gave the speakers to a friend who took them to Glasgow with her. So we went through cassette players, CD players, WAV & MP3 files & players to streaming music. I'm fairly new to surround sound but currently I have an HDMI 5.1 sound extractor with one Behringer mixer, one stereo power amp, 2 mono woofer power amps, Peavey subwoofer with built in amp, mono centre speaker amp, stereo amp for back speakers plus 8 speakers altogether. Yes, I too like surround sound and BBC1 television did several films this year in surround, including The Beatles 1964 film 'A Hard Days Night' which sounded great in surround.
I'm one of those fools that went Quad.🤩. I went Open Reel , CD4 and there were some fantastic discrete mixes, Like many A/V products of the era, there were format wars that like military wars, end up with no real winners.
I love your comment about 'its good enough' audio consumers. More BOOM and the are happy 😞
Love Quad and glad to see hundreds of Quad classics being reissued on SA-CD and Blu-ray Audio.
I play my vinyl in Aura 3D through my Denon receiver and the sound is fantastic. Sounds coming from every direction in a 5.2.4 setup. Highly recommend it!
Paul is so great - he gives an honest opinion, rather than pushing what he actually sells on the public. Of course that's part of why this channel has so many viewers and Paul is so beloved. Paul sells 2 channel audio products, and he says multi-channel is much better, wow. And yet he explains why multi-channel (beyond 2 channels) didn't happen. Thanks so much Paul, and keep being you!
Yes it's a nice change from the other Paul. I hope it continues.
As the owner of a 5.2.4 separate speaker Atmos capable system used for movies and music with acoustic treatments I can say there are a lot of albums mixed in Dolby Atmos and the dynamic range is amazing as Atmos mixes don't really get compressed like most music now. The space on albums like Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and Daft Punk Random Access Memories is amazing. Thanks Paul
Live Arena/ Large Hall Concerts are Mixed in Mono!...Why?..Hardly any audience can hear a stereo image.. Imagine the disappointment in going to (for instance) a Van Halen show, being seated stage right and Eddies guitar panned fairly hard left , as it is on early albums . .You wouldn't hear the guitar!. Maybe only hear a Lexicon Chamber Reverb patch.
At big concerts , for EVERYONE to get the same mix, it has to be mixed in Mono..
Unfortunately this also happens in small venues when there is no reason not to mix in stereo.
I often point this out to diehard audiophiles who insist on only listening to recorded music in stereo, yet happily attend live performances where the sound is in mono.
dave rat has a fix for this. man's clever.
@@duncan-rmi who?
dave's an experienced live-sound engineer who'd dug into the physics of sound-reinforcement & its challenges probably deeper than anyone else on yt.
if you've been to a chilli peppers show, you'll have heard his work, but his ideas are now pretty widely adopted by others too.
ruclips.net/video/VHjdh-Vka-g/видео.html
Surround sound may technically be more accurate, but in my humble opinion, the illusion of the sound stage and imaging with only two speakers is what keeps us coming back to two speakers. The magic happens when the sound is enveloping you with height depth layering etc and there are only two sources of sound in the room.
Get an image off the scale with an open Tang Band or Fostex 5" or any bright FR driver and mount it OPEN on top of the box, with a woofer in the box. And slope the open FR back by about 20 degrees. Use heaps of Blue Tack to initially mount the open driver on top of the speaker box. Directly connect the FR driver to the woofer box binding posts. And use a 10" woofer with a 5.6 mh inductor in a tallish box (tall enough for good FR driver height above the floor). Make a bass vent with a 2.5" diameter (or close to it) poly pipe tube in a tightly fitted hole in the speaker box. Tune the bass vent tube length with a cardboard inner sleeve inside (a too short) polypipe tube. And get the best tube length by sliding the inner cardboard tube out to get the best bass sound. Then make 2 bass tubes the same size out of polypipe and push into the fitted hole in the box. Image is so good that you may sometimes momentarily think there is someone in the room, speaking, when it was in the speakers! I once mistaken a loud jet sound that was from my speakers, for a real jet outside just above our house (and I even looked out the window) and when my speakers were only a metre away! 😂 My friend was struggling to stop his phone from beeping, but he couldn't, until he realised it was in my speakers, 3 metres from him (while he was holding his phone!). 😂 Sounds come from nowhere, and if what I said happens, you can just imagine how amazing the imaging is. 🎉
I have only heard a few recordings done right, but those that are make every channel amazing.
The one that sticks out in my mind has a performer and audience interaction. The performer says "repeat after me" and then the crowd responds. Have the audio of the crowd come from behind you is an unbelievable experience. After a few back and forths, t he crowd is called to sing with the performer and the mix with front and rear sound stages makes you believe you are front row at the event.
Another recording places separate instruments at all 5 channels so it sounds like you're sitting in the studio with the band. The vocals seem to walk around you throughout the track.
If it is mixed right, there is no comparison.
So, when I got back into audio five years ago, I planned on making this a 5.1 surround system. However, I learned that the games I play on PC are those with incredible 2.1 channel sound and I didn't need to pinpoint directional sound cues that online players need, so I ditched the AVR and went with two-channel separates and I'm very happy with the results. My headphone setup has also been an eye-opener. Right now I'm sitting in front of a Topping stack; the stellar D70pro OCTO dac> A90 Discrete amp. This system has elevated all my headphones and the sound is glorious!. Much more detailed and lush than my vintage speaker setup, with the Topping A90D as preamp to the NAD 208thx power amp to a pair of aDs 910s. That's my systems. Tadaaaaa
Such an honest and transparent answer. I remember quadraphonic albums of the 70s and those that had the systems that played them were considered the ultimate hifi to own.
Quadraphonic died because the engineers were the ones mixing from stereo to quad and they had no clue how to properly mix for true surround sound. And there were four different incompatible versions. The modern surround is mixed by the musicians or producers, They have been creating superb results. I have many surround discs and they always sound much better than the stereo versions.
My speakers in my last house were great when used as end-tables in my living room. Now I have what looks like a 3 foot boom box. Great sound, and I don't blast myself out of the room.
Chandos, BIS, PentaTone and other labels that release SACDs are almost all multichannel but my own personal feeling is that small or smallish rooms don't lend themselves to having numerous loudspeakers placed at a sufficient distance from the listener(s) to enable the desired effects to be created. I personally find stereo perfectly satisfactory, and i've been a regular concert-goer for many decades.
There was a moment in the early 2000s when it seemed like the winner of the SACD vs DVD-A format “war” would be the successor to the CD and usher in an era of surround music.
But the rise the MP3 and the iPod ultimately squashed that. Most music is listened to via two earbuds or headphones, so most music is only mixed for two channels.
Great video , very informative and inspirational 👍👍👍👍
It started with mono! One of the earliest attempts at moving beyond mono was three channel audio by RCA Victor I believe. I have a couple of modern pressings of their recordings where the cover art talks about three channel recordings. My guess is it was simple economics that had us settle for stereo. Going from one speaker to three with supporting electronics was more expensive than from one to two.
Correct also look into Mercury and Philips. I think Mercury was first if my memory is correct. In my opinion the best of these rival modern recording methods.
I still use Pink Floyd DSOTM "Time" SACD 5.1 to demo my system for folks and it never disappoints. I collected ~ 100 SACD/DVD-a discs back in the day and I'll never part with them!
For many years there has been gatekeeping in high end audio. Vehicles and soundbars that support surround are become increasingly common akd higher quality as we've seen movies like Baby Driver, Bohemian Rhapsody, or The Eras Tour, offer great sound so we could be nearing a point more people push for surround audio content.
A great mid-fi solution is the Schiit Syn. It is ALL analog, takes a 2 channel signal, and I can listen L/C/R and 5.1; depending on my mood. I don't use the Syn in my main listening room because I do not want to buy an another speaker and amp; too expensive as Paul alluded.
I use in another room for gaming as well as music when I am working. Sounds wonderfull! (and at a decent price)
How does this relate to Atmos? Don't know much about it but it seems to be growing.
I think the only implementation which seems to be a solution which has taken a hold in a small way is the sound bars which Paul mentions which has the atmos decoding (although to my ears it still sounds placebo), I believe the Apple buds have atmos possibly, otherwise it seems like the cinema is next in line. I could be wrong and will stand corrected.
Actually having said what I just did, I think Apple Music has some Atmos content so their earbuds must have atmos capability.
Apple music,Tidal, and Amazon music all have some music in Atmos multi channel. If you have an Atmos enabled home theater system it can sound great but only sounds great if they did a good job remixing the original into an Atmos format. Some have been remixed well and others not so much.
@@joepostle3561 Currently, Atmos spatial audio on Airpods is my favorite way to listen to music. Especially the Apple Remaster albums. My least favorite listening is spotify with stereo mode.
I love surround sound music. Once you hear a good mix you wish you had EVERYTHING in surround. But nothis is perfect.
I'm talking TAPE here, a point worth mentioning as long as we're talking audio history. We were recording on Crown CX 4 channel tape recorders in 1964, utilizing 4 speakers across the front constituting a "Wall of Sound" for playback. My current collection today includes over 1500 SACD's. Most movies today are produced utilizing some surround format. Surround Sound is as "dead" today as one would want to make it. To your point, regarding the "lazy" factor.
Is surround sound an accurate way to listen to music? If I’m listening to a live band, the sound is coming from directly in front of me. I’m probably hearing sound closer to the way it’s presented in 2 channel. Maybe the guitarist is playing on the speaker on the left, and the bass is coming from the right. I’m not convinced that surround sound would actually replicate live music; it would be weird to hear the drums behind, the vocals in front, the other instruments left and right. Thoughts?
Does the music at a concert sound different as you move around? Do the properties of the building impact acoustics?
I've heard the Beach Boys outdoors, in a concert hall, and in a stadium. All three sounded different, and none of them simply had music from the front or sides
Dolby Atmos mixing done well sounds heavenly, you can add a sense of space that is hard to achieve in a 2 channel setup. It is a different experience to listening 2 channel stereo or headphones. Just like we dont experience someone is playing in front of us when we listen to headphones, dolby atmos music can be something unique and not something that replaces traditional stereo. Artists can now think of creating immersive experiences with music using multiple speakers and sound effects. Apple music has been pushing really hard to make this work. On the downside you do need to shell out on more speakers and dedicate a room to setup home theatre.
Perbaps in a room setting. All the concerts where I've been to had speakers everywhere. Not only that, the sound also reflects in these places
@@xaviermontalban717 That venues may have speakers everywhere isn't making the music sound any better, it's just there to accommodate the audience having tons of people everywhere so it doesn't sound as bad in the bad seats/spots. That in itself isn't something to strive for when searching for the optimal experience of the music, like we do at home where we always have the best seats.
@@T-cz3ur You are absolutely correct; the venue makes a difference. The best sounding venues I've heard, all on the small to mid size, it always sounded like the music is right in front of me; much like listening to a hifi 2 channel system.
Aurora 3D codec is so much fun for music. The only thing I don't like is that the phantom center is less for a more in your face center sound.
I love that the surrounds and the extra dolby speakers are used in Auro 3D.
Please add support for multichannel DSD in your products! I have been enjoying multichannel music ever since SACD introduced it. And after listening to properly mastered multi channel music, it’s hard to go back to 2 channel, even as an audiophile. And multi channel doesn’t necessarily mean 5.1, some original RCA Living Stereo recordings were done in 3 front channels (with discrete center) and these vintage recordings sound wonderful on multi channel SACD.
I am showing my age but, as a youngster I remember the BBC broadcasting experimental stereo demonstrations. I think it was on Saturday mornings. One channel was on the B&W TV a the channel on AM radio.
God, it seems there was something like that here in the US; I'm having a hard time remembering! 🤔 It might have been something like a concert show that had one channel on the radio, or maybe it was just simulcast in stereo on FM radio... That's the problem: If you're old enough to remember this sh!t, you're too old to remember this sh!t! 😆
Out here on the west coast two FM stereo stations collaborated to demonstrate FM quad. Before that a test station demonstrated the two leading single carrier quad FM methods.
There was also the famous surround sound Tomorrow's World broadcast. Also showing my age.
Gotta agree. I have a quad system (Marantz 4270) and about 30 quad albums. I wish we could have expanded upon the idea.
Some receivers, like my older mid-80s JVC, offer modes that set slight delays on your second set of speakers... Dolby, Hall and Stadium modes. They actually work well if you place your secondary stereo speakers behind you, much like how home theater rear surrounds are placed. If their volume is not set too high, I find it creates a nice effect and "expands" the listening room a bit. It is the same playback as your mains, only slightly delayed and echoed.
Also, I think stereo for music is perfect (2.1 or maybe 3.1)... think of it... music performers are in front of you vs. movies where they try and emulate sounds that come from all directions (5.1 or higher).
Thanks Paul but you omitted a very important step in the history which was super audio CD (Sony) and DVD audio developed by Bob Stewart. Meridian and other companies developed special audio systems for listening to purely music in multi-channel format. Not home theater. Thanks to depreciation I am now enjoying an amazing Meridian multi-channel system😊😊😊. They were just too ahead of their time...
Omitting SACD and DVD-Audio is a big miss in this discussion.
It’s all down to production of course… but they can be amazing !
Thank you for this explanation. I suppose that 2 channel sound remains mainly ths standard because many people walk around with earphones. And with these two earphones or speakers we certainly can hear surround sound when that is used in the recording. Reverberation as in a church will also be experienced as surround sound when you have the perfect listening situation with earphones or a perfect stereo speaker system where you ar placed perfect in the middle..
I used to love listening to the quadrophonic of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells in SACD, missed the vinyl release... but since I retired the 5.1 and moved to 2.1 as you say speaker count...
For decades we were happy with Lo-Fi Mono sound,m then we had better quality sound
which after a while became stereo, then the home cinema phase started which has stayed
at 7 channels which not everyone can accomodate.
With dedicated film sountracks yes it is excellent, but i have only heard a few atmos audio
recordings that are convincing.
For most of us, 2 channel audio is affordable and more practical.
Didn’t KLIPSCH try to utilize a center channel scheme in the early days of 2 channel?
I wish three speaker would make a comeback. You didn't even need a third channel, just a center speaker with synthesized middle derived from the stereo recording.
I wonder how a 2 speaker system would compare with a 3 speakers one, I know some people used to own them, Frank Sinatra had one in his home. That aside, many recordings from the 1950's and 60's done on 3-track tape are being reissued on SACD with their original 3 channels
In the new old tech department, Porter Music Box Company makes a three channel music box. The center channel is for the bass notes.
Audio Visual Receivers, in my limited experience, can synthesize multi channel from 2 channel. Even with a just a center speaker, the sweet spot for listening is widened, especially if the main 2 speakers are in compromised locations. My AVR (c. 2005) has different acoustic presentations like concert hall and jazz club. I've been back to 2 channel for a while.
We have 2 ears because it is most effective (from biology and survival viewpoint) way to experience (hear, recognize and locate) sounds surrounding us in environment we live in. Surrounding means coming from all directions at same time. Multiple channels /speakers are required to recreate realistic environment.
Your surround system from 2005 was creating new (instead of recreating real) environment, artificial environment, hence you didn’t like it long-term.
My thought is two ears, thus two channels. For music that is. Surround sound 5+ channels is great for movies as you get all the background sounds to make the movie sound awesome.
Thousands of 5.1 pieces of authentic music available. Many artists recorded and released in 5.1. I love mine.
Stop and think about the typical situation in a live performance... You are in an audience, the stage with all the musicians is in front of you. The sound reinforcement is generally on either side of the stage, usually as a pair of line-arrays.
The most effective way to duplicate that in your living room is with stereo... there you are on your couch, the speakers are in front of you arranged to the left and right of your listening position. Panning in the mix can move the sound to play out across the speakers, just like on the live stage.
Stereo persists, because it simply makes sense.
But much of the audience is behind you with sound coming from them, and ambient reflections of the music from the auditorium come from all around you. Stereo recording and playback cannot reproduce that. Sit in an acoustically live hall like the Albert Hall and listen to a live orchestra. The sound is not just the orchestra in front of you, it is the interaction of the auditorium and the orchestra and that sound comes from all around. Again stereo cannot capture that.
Stereo persists simply because it was easy to do on vinyl, and because it is hard enough now getting people to put two speakers into their rooms. It's not because it does a good job.
@@owensmith7530
Only true if you have a totally dead listening area. Room reflections easily mimic audienc sounds.
I remember quadraphonic. I still have several original albums done in quad (Holst, The Planets, Switched on Bach). They sounded really good when used with the Dynaco Quad Box, it was pretty convincing. Unfortunately, it was just a fad as you know and only lasted a short time. Then there were a few surround sound DVDs maybe 15 years ago which sounded pretty good on a surround system. I often wonder if with all digital recording today if it wouldn't be fairly easy to produce a quad-channel recording. But, then, you'd have to have the corresponding equipment, 4-channel output jacks, etc.
I've always enjoyed audio, but I backtracked to only stereo.
I now have a Panasonic HTIB receiver in my bedroom but I don't have the original speakers and the receiver is also connected to the Logitech Z625 speakers. I do have rear speakers connected to the Center channel and Yamaha bookshelf speakers connected to the left and right channels. I use the Super Surround setting to turn on the rear speakers and simply have the audio duplicate on all speakers and due to the placement, if I turn on all the speakers, the same audio allows me to imagine surround. Basically a "poor man's surround" which was my goal plus most of the movies I watch are very old movies that don't need surround.
Thanks Paul. It would be nice to have a center channel. I am wondering if a separate stereo processor could be developed that could analyze the stereo recording and feed portions of the recording to a center channel to enhance soundstage and imaging without a dedicated three channel recording. That would be an amazing option to have.
That's essentially what Dolby Pro Logic does. Developed in the 80's and preceeded Dolby Digital in 90's.
Also adds limited rear channel. I have it on my A/V receiver and some CD's do sound great with it. Def Leppard's Pyromania for instance.
@@jhutt8002 interesting. I did not realize that Dolby Prologic simply used a stereo recording. If you’re running a home theater integrated amp this would be an option.
Back when I had a home theater setup, I had several cd’s recorded in 5.1 surround.
It would be nice to see something dedicated solely to a front soundstage.
@@matthirn7858 The way it works is that it decodes folded down surround sound from stereo source. It always does it when on, so the results just vary depending on the audio mixing. It can create proper surround sound with compatible source, but most audio CD's wouldn't have been mixed with that in mind, so it's creating faux effect.
Along with everything you just said, I find most people don't really remain stationary anymore when listening to music. They're always moving around doing stuff, so anything beyond 2-channel kinda loses its effect. Just talking the average consumer now, not the much smaller percentage of people who will immerse themselves. I definitely prefer surround, but it's not always convenient. Having a new setup has definitely compelled me to go back to immersive listening though, I will say that. Hard to go back like you said. I will say the phantom centre channel effect is really cool! Who would wanna give up having that option really?
Spatial music is available, it's just limited. It hasn't caught on yet because of the extra cost in production and the fact that most people listen to music in their cars where it's possible to have spatial sound, but nearly no cars are setup that way. That said, the demand for spatial sound music in the home environment is on the rise. But only a little bit. I would guess less than 5% of people even consider getting something like a 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos system and probably less than half of those will actually do it.
Last year I finally stopped using a soundbar and went to a true 5.1 system. The sound difference was so astounding that I upgraded to a 7.1 system capable of Atmos. The difference between Atmos and 5.1 was also enough to where I am looking into a complete 13.1 setup. My point is simple, most people are fine with stereo or bad sound simply because that's what they know. Once they experience good spatial sound, it's hard to settle for less.
When I go to an orchestral concert, I am unlikely to be offered a seat in the middle of the orchestra................... 5.1 and atmos sound awful as does any system with sub-woofers
@@johnholmes912 Why would anyone want to hear music through any combination of speakers at a live event? The logical assumption is that if we are talking about listening to music from speakers, it will be in the home environment, where you could be in the center of the listening space.
As far as subwoofers and music goes, if it's a ported subwoofer, then they typically sound bad. But sealed enclosures are a different story. That is unless you are listening to rap or bass specific music.
Thx.
I have never agreed to this surround sound system hype.
As long as I don’t have a surround movie around me, I don’t need a surround sound.
My TV is in front of me. All I need is stereo sound coming from the front of me.
1:32 4-channel "kind of worked" or "sort of worked".
In QS & SQ matrix systems, front-rear separation is around 2dB, 5dB for CD-4.
CD-4 was better than that. It was "almost" like 2 lots of FM from an LP. Admittedly, you needed a cartridge that could play 40khz, like my ADC ZLM with suitable stylus.
@@joesharkey1021 , you needed the "Shibata" or similar profile stylus.
Frequency response extended to 50 kHZ & beyond.
You're right about having "2 lots of FM".
I suppose it is limited by the quality of the demodulator.
For me the benefit is improved shapes for stereo reproduction, & I've been a beneficiary from it with the "Ogura" tip in 3 successive Lyra cartridges.
His thinking is sound.. The human voice is a single point source. It comes from one area in space not 2. So in theory a centre channel for vocals will always trump 2 channel for that reason. If not why have a centre channel for cinema sound.
I saw ELP in 1973 at Cad Cod Colosseum and they played in QUAD with Equal Speakers in the rear - made trippin on window pane amazing ! (~);}
I get the reason why surround sound works with movies but not with music. When going to see a live performance, the audience is not surrounded by the performers so to me, stereo is the more authentic way to listen. Perhaps the question was more about having multiple speakers in front of the listener, although I think that 2 speakers are good enough in a system capable of conveying the soundstage.
Except the speakers are often placed everywhere at a concert
@@xaviermontalban717 The mains are generally just to the left and right of the main stage. At least that's been the case at 95% of the shows I've been to living in Austin for 15 years.
@hartsickdisciple firstly you're missing the huge stack of subs in the middle. Secondly. That doesn't matter. For some reason, people think that surround sound means having six channels that play the same. It is meant to recreate the atmosphere. If well done, I believe it can take the listening experience to a new level
Live music in large venues is usually mono for a lot of the people. Even something like a classic orchestra might rely on the acoustics of the room to amplify which at least to a degree blends it to mono.
@@hartsickdisciple yes the mains are placed at the left and right, but speakers are elsewhere, including the roof and the back of many venues. as Paul rightly pointed out, it is more of a practicality thing. when I listen to music with a surround sound system, I prefer the rear speakers just for added ambience that imitates you sitting in the middle of a theater with the sound bouncing all around you as opposed to dedicating rear speakers for certain instruments...
Dolby Atmos or Auro 3D can be mixed down to 2 channels real time. So 9.1.6 (or 13.1) and stereo (2.0) systems can be served by the same multichannel song/album.
So why there so few multichannel records?
Cost. Cost of creating of 14 or 16 channel records is multiple of one for stereo records. And business exist for profit.
I assumed it was because we hear in stereo and live music is annoying unless you are actually there!
I enjoy the stereo, for the only reason that we have two ears, and when we are in a live concert hall,the sound comes out from one stage (most of the time) the idea of multiple channels is valid, only if we virtually can emulate coming out for two.
That’s my opinion.
I run virtual 5.1 through my amp and it sounds great. I have to say that most men don’t mind speaker wires all over the place but our wives aren’t very keen on it- even though they appreciate the improved sound.
Surprised that Paul did not mention SACDs. Got a few albums in that multichannel format and it's pretty good! You should try it 😊
I've always believed one channel per ear is sufficient, mostly because human aural capability can determine left or right bearing via time displacement, but not fore or aft.
I know Paul is not a fan of Klipsch, but Paul Klipsch was developing a third center channel in the 1950's for which he made the Hersey. Keep the great videos coming
google frank sinatra's home hifi setup; he has a three channel system & a three channel tape deck
We have two ears that's fine for 2 channel sound.
I remember show report of Briston setting up three front channels with Magnepan speakers and the results apparently were very good. If you think about soundstage depth, just a tiny delay in the centre speaker can add enormous depth.
I kind of know because at some stage I had my stereo sub woofers half baked installed and partially off phase (I wouldn't call it it out of phase) and I had a very deep soundstage. The problem with mine was that every recording had a deep soundstage so it wasn't natural, so I had to fix it. But what a great tool would i be if you had three speakers and a simple delay adjustment for the centre speaker on your remote control. Then you would be in charge of how it sounds. Not the mastering engineer.
Ive got a bunch of 5.1 stuff and i love it.
I remember the QUADRAPHONIC days of the 70's. That was weird. 5 Channel like Home Theater would be very nice and lots of SACD's have muti channel tracks that sounds wonderful even for a very inexpensive HT system.
I remember those days as a teenager. I caught the tail end of Quadraphonic. That makes me wonder. Has anyone tried to play quadraphonic vinyl in Dolby surround?
I remember Decca's "Phase 4" records. Those LP's sounded pretty decent on a two channel stereo system.
I get 5.1 where I need it such as in my home theater, two 65 OLEDs...one with a Bose 5.1 system and one with a Hitachi 5.1. I don't use ear buds which can look like two broken cigarettes stuck in each ear. 7.1 requires discreet speaker placement and listener placement which is not usually available outside my home except in a movie theater so what's the problem? I gave up vinyl years ago and TV streaming is in 5.1 audio where available so saying that we are stuck with stereo is not quite true. Most Blu Ray and DVD's are in Dolby 5.1 audio plus INFUSE to set up my video library. A little planning can fix a lot.
Had home theater and reverted back to stereo even though I had multichannel audio
Back in the 1970's I had an SQ system. (I still have some of the albums) With orchestral, it was more like reflective sounds giving a little more depth. Synthesiser was more like being playful with the music source, for instance, Walter/Wendy Carlos' 'Swiched on Bach'. The problem for me was small band, like jazz, it was like it was putting me in the middle of the band, eg.a trumpet playing from the left rear. Novelty tricks. So I am OK with two channel. Movie surround is for putting you into the action, not in the middle of the stage.
Stereo is the standard because it is the natural solution for beings with two ears.
Your ears hear in far more than stereo.
No reference to multi-channel SACD?
2-channel can provide 2-D images when you combine amplitude and phasing. There may or may not be cost appetite for more channels for music - each extra speaker is more cost on the listener with limited improvement, if any. And then there is the home/space appetite - do you REALLY want more speakers in your home if it really doesn't improve anything? There is also the WAF (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_acceptance_factor). Yes, we have multi=speakers for movies, but movies kind-of make sense - some things in the movie may be taking place behind you, like cars honking, ambient noise, etc. Music, on the other hand typically involves musicians on a stage, L and R image, in front of the listener. Rebounding off of hall walls is undesirable at live events, so we might not be trying to reproduce that in home hi-fi. When reproducing music from musicians, extra channels may be unnecessary.
I think the Dolby Home Theatre feature on my PC does a fair job of upmixing stereo audio on my 5.1ch Z906. Although there are times I turn it off because it can create weird delay effects with some sounds on the rear speakers.
We have 2 ears. One channel of sound for each. The best reproduced sound I ever heard was binaural through really good headphones.
Nope.
We have 2 ears because it is most effective (from biology and survival viewpoint) way to experience (hear, recognize and locate) sounds surrounding us in environment we live in. Surrounding means coming from all directions at same time.
@@XX-gg3mx But if you listen to music played by a band?
The expectation is band is playing in front of you. Why would you need more than two channels? There is no reason for any sound to come behind you. Expect reflections of course, but unless you're in studio dead room, it happens the same in the room.
I just don't see the logic? What sounds would there be panned to channels other than right and left?
Was about to make the same comment…but then realized that the human sense of audio yield far more depth and spatial separation/location than 2-channel provides. That said, stereo seems to be the pragmatic approach to recreating music recorded for playback. It’s a diminishing returns issue of sound quality versus complexity and cost that has struck the proper balance for more than a half century.
Is your head fixed into a fixture while you listen? I don't think so. Your soundstage is always surround, and the brain hallucinates it based on what you hear with the two ears with reflections from the ear lobes and also by just turning your head around. The soundstage like visual scene also, is virtual, and is actively generated by the brain, and the ears being two microphones analogy is false. Ears are not microphones like eyes are not cameras.
Steven Wilson produces some amazing Dolby Atmos albums, but generally its so limited. And, unless you are combining with a movie system, a surround sound music system is so expensive (processor/amps/speakers/subs). Unless a movie fan, then investing your budget in a stereo system is the way to go for now. I wonder what AI will eventually do for creating surround from stereo?
Paul, what do you think about Cross Talk Cancellation which is a project/product "Bacch" which has been introduced to the market by Edgar Chouerie working at the Princeton University? If we think that 2 channel audio cannot provide anything near surround sound, than maybe we have to think again. But maybe the Audio Industrie is not ready (or try to avoid) this product. Would highly apreciate your take in this matter. By the way, i am a fan of your "down to earth" RUclips clips!
I listened to it at Axpona a couple years ago, and I was very impressed.
The "only" fair comparison is between a Stereo Mix played back on a Stereo System AND a 5.1 Channel Mix (DTS being my favourite) of the same track or album played back on a 5.1 channel system AND then there are DVD-Audio and other multiple channel versions as well.
As you note there are few tracks one can buy in DTS 5.1 or more - most of the 30 I own are remasters of studio tapes cut in the 1970s and 1980s -- which is great for me since this is the era I enjoy the most.
What is important in DTS 5.1 -- the front 3 must all be of comparable quality and driven by equally capable gear (amp and cables). In my case I use the Celestion A3 pair and a matching centre channel. I also use Celestion A1 speakers in the other roles -- all have the same tweeters and mid-range drivers. Base is handled via the A3 and a pair of Celestion subs run L and R stereo.
Playing the same track in pure stereo through just the mains feels flat compared to the same track in DTS played in 5.1 -- whole different level of immersion.
By processing a Stereo Track in a surround sound processor and applying a surround sound mix can make most recordings far more immersive. I am in my mid 60s and so I really cannot hear as well as I could decades ago -- so yes I am sure I lose some purity, but my enjoyment is heightened for most of the music I listen to.
Most of the concerts I go to (hundreds over the last few years) are performed by orchestras, sometimes with soloists, or just solo instruments or voices. These are not amplified (although there may be a little reinforcement in acoustically disadvantages ares). The sounds I hear will differ depending on my location in the concert hall. If I'm at the front near the cellos and double basses it will be a different sound should I listen from the other side, or from the back. (Some concerts feature off-stage musicians behind the listeners but it's not normal). So if you want to record in surround, how do you balance it?
The sound of orchestral instruments may surprise some people. Instruments (other than huge pipe organs) don't generally shake the floor. The triangle is a tiny instrument with a quiet but penetrating sound. Orchestras can and do play very quietly and very loudly. I listen to the same music in my small living room, and in my small noisy car. Generally I like to listen to the music as I would in a concert hall, but this isn't really possible. Rear speakers might nicely place dropped wine bottles in the corporate boxes, but I am willing to forgo this.
Movie music is mixed to impress, not to re-create the studio environment. Rock concert sounds depend on the folk at the mixing desk. But an acoustic orchestra or soloist need only a bit of stereo to give some ambience when the music is quiet.
But I'm pretty old and my ears past their best.
To your point about there not being many songs mixed in surround, there apparently seemed to be a flood of new songs and some older songs being mixed in Dolby Atmos on services like Amazon Music and Apple Music. It's an interesting time for sure.
There’s a big difference between being actually mixed in surround and simply digitally created as surround. Most of the Apple Music Dolby Atmos are simply digitally created with AI
Agreed, the adoption of Dolby Atmos in the music production industry is growing fast. Lots of new music is mixed and released in Dolby Atmos and old classics are not behind. Many studios are upgraded or in the processes of upgrading and the knowledge to record and product music in surround is growing. I see the signs everywhere in the industry. I don't think stereo will disappear anytime soon, but there are music available in surround format and it keeps coming.
I was into Quad in the 70's, dropped it and forgot about it for a long while and then once DVD Audio and SACD started killing each other off the market I accumulated quite a few of those releases and set up a system again. It is quite equipment heavy to do that, but now I find that I listen to (well mixed) surround sound just to try and get back all the sounds I could so easily hear in stereo when I was eighteen. So partly I am trying to use technology to make up for hearing degradation, and with a well crafted surround mix of an older release, it is almost like hearing a classic for the first time again. Good feeling for an old Boomer!
I continue to nurse my old OPPO and Pioneer Elite players that handle both. Going to be hard to replace them when they finally bite the dust.
@@seed_drill7135 I was lucky enough to get an Oppo 205 just before they stopped making them and I have an couple of 4 channel reel to reels for those type of tapes. Should be good until I go completely deaf!
Hey Paul, is there on the upper right on the video the upcoming PS Audio Sub ???
I believe there was some interesting research by Bell labs in sound reproduction when mono was still the primary if only listening format. While some believed that 3 channel was a better reproduction format stereo was chosen for financial reasons of easier mass adoption. Some of the early non-mono music recordings were done with 3 microphones instead of 2 by Mercury, RCA and Philips.Some of theses rival modern recordings in my opinion. The first documented use of surround sound was in 1940 for the Disney film Fantasia. The whole process must be considered from sound capture to reproduction. Most modern sound is a bunch of separate recordings being mixed together with psychoacoustics tricks being used to simulate them as happening together in the same space and time. Hearing is probably the most complex sensory input for our brain to process. the ultimate goal of surround sound is to recreate the acoustic environment plus the sound source in a different place. When watching a movie being transported to another place is the immersion.
Because people do not sit WITHIN a band or orchestra while seeing/hearing them perform.
Three channel would be great. Look at Frank Sinatra's home listening three channel system. It'd be great to listen to a Decca Tree recording through a three channel system. However three channels ain't the norm so I'm content with stereo as its fine.
The John Eargle Delos surround sound recordings sounded great when I had a surround sound system set up in the 1990's.
when you go to a concert, half the band isn't behind you, surround sound is a gimmick only relevant to movies and gaming
I have a 5x1 hometheater I intend to use solely to watch movies. I'm replacing its speakers for better ones. A friend of mine once played a 7X1 recording of a Jethro Tull album. It is impressive, although he would need to improve the quality of its speakers. But I still prefer the two channel configuration. My old DSP audio can also be used as a hometheater with 4 channels and I did that for some time connected to a pc sound card that had an option compatible with this configuration. Currently, I only use this old stereo system to listen to music in two channel configurarion with stereo subwoofers.
There is multichannel audio DTS 5.1 cd and DVD audio but you need a special cd player or dvd player. Also the selection of music is limited but it does exist.
Back in the early to mid 70's I went to a sound show where a quadraphonic system was promoted in this incredible globe style audio acoustic setting. The sound was my question? They played a song on this turntable which yes it played the 4 channels. Who made this. It was designed by of all things the Japanese company JVC. WOW.
I have an integrated amp/DDC question. My integrated amp has a built in dac using Optical as an input. Would a. DDC be of any benefit in sound hooking it up to the optical of the built in dac?
1) For music, I like whatever sounds the best to me. Sometimes it's stereo, sometimes it's 5.1. But virtually every concert dvd sounds better in 5.1 than in stereo. It just does. 2) I guess I'm not someone who is always looking for the live concert experience. Sometimes, depending on the 5.1 mix, it's really cool to feel like I'm on stage with the performers then in the audience. 3) In the early 2000's I knew a guy who put all 5 speakers on the front wall with the "surrounds" outside and above the mains. Again, sometimes it sounded great! Sometimes it didn't. Credit for trying something different. 4) I have a fairly large collection of 5.1 music discs on DTS CD (remember those?) DVD-A, SACD and BluRay. A 5.1 concert dvd in DD HD or DTS MA sounds incredible to me! But stereo sounds groovy to me as well. 5) When stereo first started to gain popularity in the mid sixties, Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) still recorded in mono as he felt 90 percent of the listening would be in the car...which still had mono systems. There's no right answer here. That's why we have (dwindling) choices.
Happy new year Paul
I embrace technology... I love enhancing 2 channel to get surround sound... Looking fwd for the next technology... I want to experience all i could before i go 6 foot under
If it ever happened "The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Electric Ladyland" should be the first done!
We have DSotM
@@Spractral LOVE SOUND , NOT A NERD , what's DsotM , ?
there is no way you should mess with history ?? When that came out it was the ultimate recording by a man who will never be forgotten ?? So I believe the original is the best way to listen to that album. End of...
@@paulaj2829 Mmm! dunno , I've listened thru' my 5.1 , not true quality seperation , but mighty bloody nice current evolving tech' could do interesting things , IMO.
Electric Ladyland IS available for purchase in a 5.1 mix.
Interesting... I was expecting a different answer from Paul!
I have installed some three Channel live PA systems with really good results if the engineer is working properly. There are also numerous experiments with three channel through the years.
I absolutely love Apple's Spatial Audio setting compared to regular stereo when listening to anything! I know this is just "fake surround sound" but it's in my opinion the best we've got if we don't want to create an Atmos mix or use a 5.1 speaker setup.
I have a mate who is currently mixing in atmos with a 12 speaker system and it’s the best audio I’ve ever heard.. of course, I hear it in his studio which is not what most have, but.. it’s way better than stereo.. another league altogether and with digital ever improving it has to be the future.. whether the market place catches up to it is a whole other question..
Can-ton?
SACD and DVD-A were hi-resolution multi-channel products in the 1990s and 2000s that eventually fizzled out because, as Paul says, people don't want the extra speakers and amplifiers, and also because 2 channels are "good enough." We have 2 ears, so the theoretical ideal solution is stereo headphones, but they don't have deep bass, so we use stereo speakers as the best overall compromise.
"We have 2 ears". What the hell does that have to do with anything? You also have 2 eyes but see the world in 3D.
@wisehippo3072 Exactly. Two eyes allow us to see 3D, and two ears allow us to localize sounds in 3D. We don't need more than two channels to create a 3D soundstage in front of us. Multi-channel audio remains popular for home theater, but music purists find little to be gained with more than one channel per ear. 🙂
This discussion seems to be identical to the one about whether movies should continue at 24fps or use 60fps.
I think many people are too attached to habit and nostalgia and are closed to a different approach for emotional rather than practical reasons.
Since the beginning of cinematography it was decided that the best way to avoid flickering of the image was to use 48 frames per second but as this would imply a greater expense in tape it was decided to use half and project each frame twice, decades later it was established that the “correct” speed of cinema should be 24fps.
With surround music it's the same, just because something works efficiently and we are used to it doesn't mean that it can't be improved and that we can't like it better.
home theatre and multi-channel audio are already in decline. This tech is headed to bye bye land.
In the 60ties Harman Kardon had an amp, with a center channel. So it is not new. And as we know. Sir Ken Fritz made a system as well with a center channel.
Whatever you ask him Paul will try to sell you something😁