[Kalman Rubinson]

On 21 Oct 2006 02:53:24 GMT, John Doe wrote:

About 10yrs ago, I read an editorial in Fi magazine (remember them ?)
concering multichannel (mc) vs 2ch reproduction. The gist of the
article was that mc audio was (at the time) based on the audio standards
established for the movie industry, which are vastly different from the
needs of audiophile listeners. Video is about recreation of an
artificial event; audio is about the recreation of a natural event- 2
different needs.

I find this misleading. With exceptions, the mch audio in video,
derived from films, requires a consonance between the sound and the
scene which means that the acoustic results have to make logical sense
in the defined context. As a result, good mch attempts to replicate a
real event. As such, there is mostly ambience in the surround but
those channels also assist in the imaging across the front.

JGH was an original proponent of mc for audio, but with the surround
channels set up to subtly enhance the sound coming from the main
channels rather than trying to use mc to recreate the sound of
thunderstorm behind the listener. Used as JGH proposed, mc can be a
valuable addition to audio reproduction.

Yup. As Harry and I have suggested, one needs only a good system and
a few well-made recordings from companies like Pentatone and Channel
Classics to be convinced. Sadly, there are few players that will
permit on-the-fly switching from the mch track to the stereo track of
an SACD but such a transition is usually eye-opening and never in the
favor of the stereo track. And there's absolutely no need to adjust
one's long-learned criteria for quality reproduction.

Used to recreate a T-Rex
attack behind the listener and we are left with the current situation,
which is really of no use to the serious listener.

Except that, in rare, specific cases where there ARE meaningful voices
intended to be behind/beside the listener, mch is of similar use to
the serious listener.

Kal