2. digital
  3. 1069991417

I have a general question about surround sound.

What is the big deal about multichannel music? I see where many of the new SACD's are multichannel. Does this make the recording seem more lifelike? When we go to a concert, the music only comes from in front of us. Isn't that the purpose of the two speakers in our stereo systems? Why do we need two behind us? I understand about ambient noise, reflections, etc. It just seems to me that music is more accurately reproduced with two channels rather than multichannel. Could I please get some feedback and whether you agree or disagree with me and why.
chrisclaypf88a

Showing 1 response by audiotomb

audiotomb's avatar
audiotomb
1,112 posts
 
I share your sentiments on surround sound

two channel done right can be phenomenal
spend the money there not on multi

multi channel smears the image unless it is set up perfectly and with a recording which actually incorporates the spatial relationships of the room. very few recordings are done true multi channel outside of the big budget action movies. WHo wants a boom boom room for just that? What you typically have in a multi channel recording is just mixing of multichannel info into 5.1 channels and no ambience or hall dynamics. One rare example of good multi is the last track on the Eagles Hell Freezes Over dvd - one singer per channel. String quartets or jazz trios should be recorded well in a 5.1 setting, but typically are not. Most 5.1 is very old historical (best seller back catalog stuff) two channel sources.

I just don't understand home theatre

more is not better

but it's a great way for people with older stereo systems to feel like they are actually missing something and get the upgrade bug

and you can impress your friends with psuedo imaging

tom
More to discover