2. home-theater
  3. 1239507308

Two-channel is inferior to multi-channel, no?

I think that 2 channel is inferior, though, of course, my ears and reason may be mistaken.

Feedback please!

The obvious reason, I am thinking, it is that two channels are less representative of infinity (live music) than 3, 5 or 7, etc. This is the case even if the transducers, amps & speakers, and room acoustics, are perfect (dream on...) in the 2-channel mode.

In my own system, two Revel M-20s as center channel, vertically arrayed, with Revel M-50s on either side, there is the occasional CD (jazz is my thing) that sounds better in stereo, than with 5.1 processed sound, but this is rare. Most sound better with the center channel prominent (either in Dolby Standard or Music modes).

It's possible that I simply need better equipment.

But then why do I find that the best sound (in my system) is from digital sources, e.g. DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, whether the sound reproduces music or movies. Would better equipment neutralize (and even flip) this negative comparison of stereo to multi-channel reproduction? If so, what is the explanation?

What I find in particular (for music and movies) that is that digital sources in multi-channel mode give full breath and focus to the center channel, placing this important sound component exactly where it should be: precisely in the center of the room. And giving the other channels 'room' to shine (though, in my system, given the amplification available, this should not problem).

What am I missing in theory?
pmcneil

Showing 7 responses by kijanki

kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Eldartford

"A discrete center. All playback, even that recorded with only two channels, sounds better with a center (derived). This has been known since the earliest days of stereo."

On my 2 channel system I can hear voices at exact positions in the center - how you can improve on that? I had impression that center channel was introduced for the home theater in order to widen sweet listening spot for voices (or center fuzzy image created by cheap plastic L/R speakers).
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
ELdartford - I'm just trying to understand what gets better. My system is far from perfect but I can here "illusion" of person standing/speaking exactly in the center. It cannot get any more exact - if this means "better". I was suspecting that in the theater environment where more people listens sitting often far from the center it is important to widen sweet listening spot. Another suspicion I have is that home theater contains often inexpensive L/R speakers with less than perfect imaging and center channel fixes it (mono for voices?).

I'm just trying to understand since I've never had more than two speakers. I can see need for rear speakers and subwoofer but center channel always puzzled me.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Cdwallace3 - I'm not sure how center channel would help in my system where I have center images right on the spot and midrange is very clear but I suspect it helps a lot with center image and voice presence on cheap satellite home theater system and widens sweet spot for multi-seat home theater environment.

2 channel might be better same way 100W amp might be better than 200w amp - for the same money you can get better quality/sound (in case of an amp only 20% less perceived loudness)
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Mikelavigne - Does center channel improve sweet spot? Can you hear voice more anchored in the center when sitting far off-axis?
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Cdwallace - Not only that my system has potential to be unlocked but any system has this potential. I know we're not talking cheap home theater but that is where center channel helps the most. In my system imaging is close to perfect and sweet spot is wide enough for me.

My brother was helping his sister-in-law to get better sound from TV. Obvious route was to buy something like Bose Acoustimas and be done with it but he bought good integrated and speakers on sale - 2 channel only for the same amount. Sound is so much better (including better imaging).

There are people who believe that amount of gear speaks of the quality and keep buying multichannel amps, speakers, equalizers and others. If objective is to have special effects for the movies it is different story but for music alone 2 channel system with better speakers and amplifier will deliver more thrilling sound.

You're not sure how 100W vs 200W amp applies here? Simply - don't get 200W amp if you don't need it and get better 100W amp instead as well as get better imaging and better midrange 2 channel system instead of fixing worse system with third channel IMHO.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Kr4, For many people it is a choice between good two channel system and less than average multichannel for the same cost.
How much better speakers I can afford when buying only two. How much better amp I can afford when it is two channel only etc. There are also living space constrains that can make multichannel system far from optimal. Would I invest a lot of money in multichannel when all my CDs are redbook. Not practical for me. I understand that multichannel recordings are not that popular. That's perhaps why somebody mentioned home theater system as the main use.
kijanki's avatar
kijanki
4,394 posts
 
Kr4, many people are in similar situation. It is great if you can spend more money to listen to few multichannel recordings but when most of your recordings are not multichannel then perhaps it is better to invest in better 2 channel system, unless you have $300k to spend like Rebel721.
More to discover