So, after many years of loving everything to do with audio, two channel and multi channel, I've finally experienced a stage from two tower speakers. Yamaha receiver that streams TIDAL and their Hi-Fi subscription, I'm able to get FLAC audio into my two Klipsch R820F. Hearing vocals from dead center and not from the towers is awesome. Hearing a stand up bass in-between the "center" and left tower, a guitar in-between the center and right tower, when I know all of the music is coming from just two speakers is amazing. I have a new respect for true stereo sound.
Back in the 70's a friend of mine had a Quadraphonic system in his home.It was a four channel system with four equal speakers in the four corners of the room. There were many records recorded in this format and they sounded great. Unfortunately the format did not sell well enough for it to continue. This was before the advent of home surround systems for movies. I think with the proliferation of surround systems these days, a surround music format could be popular.
I doubt it would take off people just don't care about music quality as long as it sounds good they're fine with it people still listening to music on UA-cam and through crappy Bluetooth speakers I doubt they're going to make the jump to surround sound
Hey! My question! Thank you for taking the time to answer, Paul! Much appreciated! And thanks for the kind words. Adding to my Bucket List: Coming to see Gus to listen to Joni! And, to say a warm heartfelt hello to you too! Keep on keepin’ on!
Just curious, what was the Dt from submission to getting this video? I understand it can be a few months. Not dissing Paul about it but I was just wondering. Thanks.
InsideOfMyOwnMind I’ve often wondered this. He must get an immense amount of correspondence. By memory, he doesn’t always pick the questions himself, but has a team do it. I’d happily be corrected though. Whatever, he does a great job passing on his knowledge.
Ive had this exact question on my mind for years! Great answer!. Still love listening to stereo music on my denon HT receiver in "5 channel stereo" - expands the music beautifully
I hear that exact same whining voice when people tell me they don’t want to see their speakers! Come on, are you crazy? A nice set of speakers can be as beautiful as the most elegant piece of furniture.
Theres a store in my City where u can ONLY buy HIGH END Audio stuff. Im talking about 25.000€ for THE LEFT SPEAKER!!!! 25.000€ more for the RIGHT!!!!! handmade stuff. never same designs. I would go as far as to say, THAT STORE is more beautiful than the most elegant piece of women.
I still use my old Onkyo for both 2 channel and 5.1. If you set up into the "sweet spot" for 2 channel and then switch to theater or live function, I find you can stay on that 2 channel sound experience and actually add a more 360 dimension. The surround for me does a better job at recreating live sound's room acoustics as it relies less on my listening room's dynamics.
A good surround system will play in "stereo only" as well as a "stereo only" system of equal quality but a "stereo only" system will not play surround at all. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In short yes.. But it's more complicated than that. I have a combined stereo and surround setup. Plays great in both stereo for music and surround for movies and series.
Michel Tremblay All things being equal, can't be equal because the surround processor will have digital noise inside the case. Only a higher quality surround pre/pro will sound as good as an equal pre amp section in a stereo only unit. I actually use Parasound C1 controllers in both my surround system and 2 channel system, because for the price (used) I can't find as good a 2 channel pre amp. Plus I have a remote. If a person is buying new, there is no way to get equal sound quality for the same price. No company is willing to offer free digital with the same quality analog section, for the same price.
I am not an "audiophile" and I don't care about sitting in front of my speakers trying to feel like it's a concert that's cool n all but not my thing, I just like to put my 7.2 A/V receiver on multi channel stereo and having music playing on all those speakers and a sub sounds great to me.... Seems very imersive, besides even tho my towers sound great I can't get the sound I want on 2 channel stereo aspects of the room are not ideal so it doesn't cooperate, it hurts the bass from my towers on alot of music, and I don't have the experience or patience to resolve the issue so I use the sub to reach acceptable bass levels works for me.
Personally i love the way speakers look. Take the grills off, get a good set of wood-grain speakers. They're gorgeous. Many times my choice of speaker purchase has been swayed by the way they look (Klipsch Heresy II's, for example. A work of art).
I’ve prioritized looks and performance 50/50. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve always said “anyone who says they didn’t prioritize aesthetics at either the #1 or #2 spot in their stereo build is a liar.” for some reason choosing equipment based on looks has gotten a bad stigma in the hifi community. i’m not really sure how we got to that point to be honest. Like i’ve said since I started just a few years ago: back when my dad was my age, and when his dad was my age, stereo systems were just as much a part of your living room furniture set as your couch, your tv/entertainment center or your coffee table. stereos, like the 70” giant flat screens we have in 2021, were a status symbol for your home back in the golden days of hi-fi. back in the 70/80s, when you brought a date back to your house, one of the first things you did was throw some music on so you could impress her with how nice your stereo system was. at what point did it go from WANTING to show everyone your home stereo to this notion of “i’m not getting one unless it can be completely invisible” ? it kinda blows my mind
I don't understand how people can say that they don't want to see the speakers, but yet still want this superb, great, loud and clear sound. It doesn't work like that people. Never in my listening lifetime have I ever heard "in-wall" speakers or even "satellite" speakers even think about sounding as good as a set of full range, large cabinet speakers. I run 15's in my front speakers and 12's in my rear speakers, but I won't get into my full set up here, but you can't have great, full, large sound with little tiny speakers and a hidden sub, there's a whole mid-range of sound that you would be missing out on.....
I’ve been to @ 200 concerts and about 3000 nights out at the bar watching a band. Never, never, ever was the band located all around me....except when I was in the band
I'm taking this a bit further: I use an integrated amp with old school TONE control to equalize the sound so it's absolutely not as the producer wants it to sound. I use the equalizer always to create the same sound i experienced at their concert. The concert is the best experience (if no problems occur). I want to be back at the concert. Simple. Maybe thats also why i have to use my headphones often, because some concerts... man i wouldn't wish that for my neighbors.
Stereo is for everyone and most of the stereo mixes today sound loud and compressed. 5.1 does not suffer from this as it is only available on SACD or Blu-Ray - the formats that people with only good sound systems buy. So, even it seems strange, today 5.1 mixes are more audiophile sounding than stereos.
Must be something "wrong" with my stereo only rig because when the surround test in the Chesky test CD is played in my rig, sound appears to originate from behind my listening seat despite there are no loudspeakers placed there. 🤔
Quadrophonic was a thing in the 70s, it was very popular here in Germany. Somehow it died. The first Dolby Surround stuff was just bad - it sacrificed audio quality for an effect, using filters to encode the surround signal in the stereo signal. I guess that was when it died. The first true 5.1 Media format was DVD with AC3 I think, but the players where not for audiophiles. After all 5.1 channels of audiophile amplification and speakers is still very expensive and most audiophiles prefer to have a very good 2 channel setup over a good 5.1 setup
@@Krmpfpks yes but after dvd video we had dvd audio with 5.1 uncompressed audio and SACD. You don't need to spend stupid amounts to get a really good sounding 5.1 system.
@G A absolutely agree. For multichannel music you ideally need identical speakers arranged slightly differently to a standard home cinema set up (i use the ITU circle) it makes a massive difference - but you don't need mega buck speakers.
I find that really great stereo recordings upconvert to surround really well with ProLogicII and similar systems. I tend to prefer that to vanilla stereo, except for hard rock or solo piano which make the rears too "hot".
I new surround was dead when I realized not even movie soundtracks were not recorded in surround on SACD. You would think that would be a no brainer for SACD and yet they never recorded them that way. Made me realize the industry itself wasn't very serious about the format.
Heard a multi channel audio system about 20 years ago at a show. Walked out saying that's the future... As for 2 channel audio, Q sound recordings on a good system came very close. The issue isn't the hardware it's the lack of software
Personally, I enjoy listening to ALL music in pseudo surround sound (Pro-Logic) without the center channel. It is very important to keep the rear channels at a very low volume. Occasionally hearing the out of phase signals behind me, especially the reverb trails, make my listening experience much better.
@True WingChun I have Martin Logan SL3 Electrostatics which are quality speakers by most people's standards. I've been listening to Pro-Logic in Phantom Mode for a very long time. "Accuracy" isn't what I'm looking for anymore. I'm looking for "Enhancement". And Pro-Logic with great rear speakers does that for me. Not 5.1, 7.1, 10.2, etc. www.martinlogan.com/en/product/sl3
With any luck in the future we might get music drive in multiple channel for each instrument and vocal and let a computer handle the position of the instruments and others to simulate any environment you like and hear it close to perfection with simple headphones (design for the job). I'm already happy with the fake 7.1 surround we have today, add extra life to everything as long as the headset are in a way design to support it (open or half-open back to avoid increase eco to the effect).
Great discussion. I fully agree. I heard a recording in Japan that was played on some, I do not remember the brand but they were tall skinned speaker. But besides that, the sound effect was was extremely noteworthy, the listening field was remarkable. I would live to come and see and hear your system some day. Thanks again for this UA-cam review.
Maybe you can help me. As a musician, I am interested in the brain of organists. What I can hear is the sound of the organ. The accoustics of the room is very important here because he thinks about it too. In the late 70ths you could buy equipment for so called surround sound. This was a 2 channel record but you could also hear the room from two small boxes from behind. I find this ideal because the interesting records are simply in stereo. Can I buy such a component as an additive and how is it called today?
I like the enveloping experience of Quadraphonic/surround. You don't have to play as loud as you would with stereo. to really get into the sound. I am however sticking with stereo because most of the music that I love was recorded that way and my system is enough to fine tune.
@@graxjpg I've herd some of the recordings before. Being born in 1968 I lived through the Quadravox era. Everyone had to have it at one point but then they didn't want it anymore (that's how I ended up with it). IMHO it just didn't sound the way it should sound. Sometimes there would be some cool section of a recording but overall I was not a fan.
@@graxjpg Yeah, I was joking of course. Back in the 70's my cousins seemed to have every piece of gear made. For a few years, there were two complete quad setups in their house. Then it was ... on to the next thing. Quads had their moment...a brief one.
I own a SACD player, but not a single disc to try it out with. I have a 5.1 setup on my PC, but that's only been that way for a few months. I have always preferred to spend the money I would on a surround speakers on a better quality stereo pair.
50 plus years ago, I was very impressed with the life-like reproduction of a QUAD recording (remember that?) being played back in the AR demonstration room in Grand Central. Not many quad recordings were very good, but some were stunning. Since then I've had the immense pleasure of hearing film music played by great orchestras (like the LSO) from my favorite seat at the console while recording them...in surround. This would be before the music is compressed and covered with sound effects. Properly done, surround is quite amazing. But in most home installations, the rear channels are just an afterthought, not full range or properly adjusted. As a result, not many consumers can experience the full potential of surround. My living room playback is stereo, but I do still have a proper 5.1 mix room here at home, where I can recall the fun I had during the recording. Tell Gus I say, "Hi!"
Hey Paul. Love your videos. Had I known about you guys the last time I was in Denver I would’ve stopped by just to shake your hand. (Or fist bump, current circumstances withstanding) Anyway, thanks for addressing a question I’ve often internally wrestled with. One thing I’d like to point out to you though is all the great things being done right now with Dolby Atmos and specifically those recordings on the amazon music hd platform. I don’t work for them I just am of the opinion that it is a great time to be into surround sound music. It seems to be on the rise :)
The dream: An SACD player with the 5.1 channel outputs (they USED to exist), three stereo pre-amplifiers (one for the front, one for the rear and one for the center/sub) and FIVE MASSIVE MONOBLOCS to drive the five speakers plus a powered subwoofer. I don't know if it would be the same but we have several SACD's which feature the original quadrophonic mixes of some albums from the early/mid 1970's (plus the three channel SACD's of Nat "King" Cole albums from Analogue Productions - looking forward to those!) and I'm hoping to track down the "Dark Side Of The Moon" and "Wish You Were Here" immersion boxes. Gues I need to get an Oppo BluRay player...... oops, too late! Well, I did say it was a dream! Besides, I couldn't afford five monoblocs!
yep, like others . i thought paul would have said 2 channel and thats it.im happy you have said that as i do listen to some hifi in 7.2.4 dd and it does sound better than just the 2.i thought by doing so that id be letting the audiophile side down.ill probably listen to more of it like that now.
Hello Paul, Gary here.. I would bet you DO approve of many of the orchestral SACD recordings from Robert Woods, Jack Renner and Mr. Bishop - Telarc. I enjoy a number of those performances in my SACD library. I think Blue Coast have some very nice SACD recordings as well of which I have downloaded in that format, your absolute favorite ((O:
PS Audio could be at the forefront of transforming the audio industry by encouraging more surround sound environments and you know what, the industry might just follow with more recordings and products to support it. Especially since so many people already have home theater systems that simply lack that audiophile quality PS Audio is so well known for.
bvocal dont get me wrong , your right it did fail commercially, but many audiophiles embrace it . I know i do , I love my SACDs and if i listen in 2 channel, It feels flat , I do see a market for niche recording studios that do high quality 5.1 mixes, Im sure it will never go completely away and for this Audiophile, I like the smaller niche approach, Apple Music is for the masses, Thanks 😀
Some people use one room as primary audio and video entertainment room. In smaller homes that’s the living room. For those people it’s a bummer that nobody cares to make an audiophile system that can deliver the best in audiophile stereo combined with some reasonable surround performance whenever the content is surround: e.g pretty much every movie! Besides watching a concert done well in surround with a truly audiophile setup can be a really great and superior experience, but where is such system? Why do audiophiles have to listen with closed eyes imagining things?
But what about people who listens to dubstep(or bass music in general), where the sound wasn't recorded but electronicaly made? Wich audio system would you recommend? I know it is very specific but I can't seem to find any audio system that sounds as good as my headphones :p thx! maybe it depends on the way the producer designed its sound?
Not that image positioning but rather soundstage (hopefully not exaggerated), woofer capable of going real low (or subwoofer) with thunderous quality rather than tight . .
What if you just widen the position of speakers. I don’t have the best speakers so I emulate a surround sound by positioning the speakers wider so that they are at about 60 - 80°(90° would be pointing straight at my ears). When I do this the singer sounds like they’re right above your head!
People confuse "surround sound" with the real thing. The real thing is rear channel digital time delay. Surround sound too often places you in a circle with music being played in front and behind you. The real thing is hearing reflected sounds from the front channels being produced behind you. The sound in the rear needs to be altered to sound real. For when hearing reflected sound, not only is the sound delayed, the higher frequencies are abated. Any two channel stereo system can be used this way. The only problem is finding a good digital time delay today.
Very good explanation. Also: a surround system of the same quality is way more expensive compared to stereo. I sold hifi stuff in a nice shop for years and had people coming in al the time that thought that if they could choose between a stereo or surround system for €x,- the surround must be better just because it had more speakers. 1 minute demo was always all they need to change te choice to: buy stereo or spend more. Rooms differ a lot and so does what people listen to or watch. If you have a room for 5+ nice speakers, the budget to buy good stuff and watch movies: go for it. One advantage for 2nd hand buyers: you can buy great previous generation top range surround receivers for little cash. Just because they have no Atmos or build in Spotify.
So far all of my experiences with anything more than quadraphonic surround have been me staring at my sound visualizer wondering why the center channel is blasting everything I want to hear while the other speakers that I have configured for actual sounds, produce supporting noise. I should have tried telling windows I don't have a center speaker and maybe that would have forced some of the sound apart, but it is very hard to convince someone to do something that they've had no luck with after using a method or methods that do work. Especially when the method that isn't known to work would require the purchase of additional speakers.
This might be a dumb question but, we have vinatge iconic stereo speakers that are still better than high ends speakers to this day like cerwin vega and JBL, but are there any iconic surround sound speakers that still sound amazing in today's world?
At Last! Paul thankyou for finally conceding that 5.1 can be better the 2.0. For years I have been totally baffled by the division between 'Hi-fi' and 'Home cinema' when music is an audio/visual experience. If the aim is in the first instance to create the feeling of a live performance in your living room then how the heck does it make sense confining yourself to two channels and no visual content? I'm sitting here writing this listening to Genesis 'A trick of the tail' 5.1, it sounds amazing. Does it sound like the band are playing in my living room? no - but why does it need to? it is a studio recorded album recorded in 1976 then remixed to 5.1 in 2007 that sounds clearer and more emotional now than before. Thomas Tallis Spem in Alium was created to be performed in a horse-shoe shape surrounding the listeners so stop the obsession with 'the band being in front' pitch; we are able to hear all around us as humans and can enjoy music specifically created or carefully remixed into multi channel from stereo it doesn't matter if it doesn't feel live.
Angelwars love the band, the lambs lay down on broadway and selling England by the pound are amazing work of Art, I also love fish Marillion was born in 78 myself but my dad was really into music so I grow up on the best era of progressive rock music ❤️
@@arongatt Yes I was brought up listening to all of these albums right back to Trespass 1970. The Lamb is fantastic. All of these records were remixed from the original track tapes to new 2.0 and 5.1 versions by Nick Davies back in around 2007. To be honest many people really didn't like the mastering in particular and yes they are a little 'bright' in places to say the least but I haven't bothered listening to the two channel versions only the new 5.1's and overall they are really good. 'Trick' and Wind and Wuthering IMHO sound really great - if you get the chance to hear it in 5.1 put 'Dance on a Volcano' on 11 and enjoy :)
Angelwars at the moment I’m without the SACD , but I do have a few digital files on 5.1 (no genesis tho) I love 5.1 music and I believe it gives a different experience, as right now I’m having with tubular bells (mike oldfield). Will look into the genesis 5.1 mixes tho. Thanks
Dear Paul, jou have it in your own hand. Developing a decoding pre amplifier, developin dtreaming device, capabile of supporting 5.1 Sound. You already have a mixing studio to prepare 5.1 audio for music. You can also establish a streaming service for high res 5.1 and stereo music. Maybe I will be your customer. And by the way - I have to by some more power amps and loudspeaker, too...... This will be great :-)
Heya there, love your videos. I have a surround sound system myself Paul and you spoke in another video on here about how quadrophonics never caught on my current surround system can playback in either 2.1, 4.1 of 5.1 sound, would you agree that playing back audio in 4.1 is more preferable when listening to music that was recorded in stereo, I for one can hear a difference especially when the two back speakers are directly inline with my ears and it just sounds dramatically better than listen to stereo recordings in 4.1 than in 5.1. In my experience the inclusion of the mono speaker in the middle seems to muddle or distort the stereo image when upmixed into 5.1 and sounds nowhere near as good as what would seem to be a preserved stereo image in 4.1. I hope you can clarify this for me all the best - Matt
The best sorround system ever? Teatro Colón de Buenos Aires with the Orquesta Estable del Teatro Colón. Verdi's Otello overture is like a hurricane there! The second one? Teatro Avenida de Buenos Aires and its small orchestra pit with the Juventus Lyrica orchestra setting the trombones and timpani in the palcos platea next to the stage. If you listen Nabucco there, you are in a point of non return.
it seemed like the same time surround sound music formats were being developed so was MP3 compressed music. it seems like the masses prefer simple carry around music instead of the best possible sound regardless of the equipment used for playback
Surround sound's application to a audiophile system could be used to attempt to recreate the ambiance of the concert hall or venue in which the music is played. This would be very expensive to capture, and since it would be a live show, there would be that crowd noise which to me is annoying.
I got an impression that there is few audiophile speaker packages for sorround and they are very expensive. For the same money of a good sorround system you can buy an amazing stereo system. A friend of mine has a cheap sorround system but he prefers my stereo setup for watching movies.
My processor does a good job of expanding stereo into 7 channel, but the processor is very expensive, and cost goes into the DSP settings and licencing. Obviously DTS etc. coming from the source is more accurate, but many recording are not so.
This is my first foray in to what I would consider "audiophile" given I'd never thought to spend this much on audio alone. I was looking in to getting a pair of elac reference dbr62 and pairing it with a Yamaha a-s501 or a-s801. And then I started researching home theater systems and was drawn towards getting a center and a subwoofer as well, but didn't like the idea of a 5.1 AV receiver vs the more music oriented integrated amps I was looking at (which only go up to 2.1). This video and an article on audiosciencereview helped me decide in favor of my original stereo setup. Having said that, I do have some lingering doubts about not going 3.1. How much dialog would I lose out on without a center channel? What do you think of "phantom center" to make up for the absence of the center channel (which apparently drives most of the dialog)? Will adding a sub be necessary to help me get the most out of music recordings?
One thing that needs to be said to anyone who is new or just getting start into HIFI or surround. Let's say you have 5k as a budget for system. 2 channel: You could go with something like a Rotel RA 1572 (approx 1700 usd) which has a very good built in DAC, bluetooth, lots of inputs and outputs, and good power. For speakers you could get Buchardt audio S400s (approx 1800 usd) which would give you a fantastic full range sound. That leave plenty of room for cables, source, stands, room treatment. All components in this system will be high end. Multichannel: If you were to stick to the same budget many compromises would have to be made. For starters, the quality of amplification would be seriously degraded. A Yamaha AV processor may be a good choice. Other companies may provide something decent for a low cost. Then you need 5 speakers, a sub, more cabling than a 2 channel system. Because of the amount of components required to build a complete home theatre system in the same budget the quality of the components are severely compromised compared to a 2 channel system. You can still get a great surround system in this price range, but you can get a much better 2 channel system in this price range. That is the difference. In my opinion, 2 channel is 100% better. Less fuss, better quality, simpler to setup.
I'm curious, you say that people complain about seeing the speakers, but in my experience people are often wowed by my speakers when they go through my house. In my opinion I think as long as the speakers look good they can be in the open for all to see. I'll admit if all I had was a cheap all in one that came stock with dents and scratches from being dropped off the lift gate several times before making its way to me I'd probably want to hide it though lol.
I prefer to listen to my music on my home theater setup in surround rather than stereo. My av reciever does this multi-stereo thingy that mirrors the stereo from the front speakers to all 7.1 and i love it. Anyone else or is it just me??
Beatles Love album was done taking the original masters and remixing to 5.1 DSD SACD mix. Very well done, Ringo said he loved it . True, not much out there that isn't a muti channel mish mash of sound. Kind of what killed quadraphonic was the recordings were made wrong and costs and practicality were not there.
I highly recommend tidal hifi’s new Dolby Atmos for home theater (never thought I’d see the day) selection of music. It works very well with my marantz Sr8012 + Apple TV and 9 channels. I just wish they would allow more devices that can stream it
Most of what I buy in music is in surround. There's plenty of 5.1 albums out there. I just love the feel of being there, totally immersed. Whether it's live or studio recorded, in my opinion it beats the pants out of stereo.
Interesting, when I worked at Dolby in the '90s it was kind of evenly divided among the people there of those who had 2 channel music systems at home and those that had multi channel theatrical systems. And then there were a couple of oddballs who restored vintage tube radios. ;-)
I guess, surround recordings would need a number of recording microphones, front, center and rear, in order to accurately record not only the music from stage but also the ambiance of the venue. And, at play back, this is what will make the difference, i.e. the sense of _being there_ created by the additional mics. Can't see it happening very fast..new recordings, new libraries, new / more equipment!
I'm sure if I had 60k into my stereo I'd be stoked to have to buy another 60k of gear to add a couple of channels that rarely got used and caused nothing but headaches acoustically.
You can have a surround system that gives you immersion it is called Yamaha DSP wit the right speakers and set up correctly it is amazing and you can get it out of almost any 2 channel recording
Thanks a lot for making this video. Will using only two speakers out of a 7.2 channel avr give the same audio quality as using them out of a power amp? Assuming the avr and amp are of decent quality.
From my POV it's all about having options and different types of experiences. I have a complete 7.2.4 HT system powered by a Yamaha preamp and amp. Along with a complete analog system to include manual turn table with a moving magnet cartridge, a vacuum tube integrated amplifier and a hybrid phono stage.. Both front speakers are shared by the 2 different amps using a speaker switch. My point, I can listen to 2 channel music using Dolby Surround upmixer which distributes the 2 channel information to 7 ear level channels for an evenloping sound field. The bulk of the musical information will be in the front stage but you will get a lesser amount and lower volume reflected sound like you would in a live venue. I can also listen to 2 channel music through the Yamaha DSP programs which replicate famous musical venues acoustically. Or I can listen to the slightly warmer sounds of the analog amplifier In 2 channel. For me, there is no holy grail of audiophile truth, that I find is stifling and limiting, it all depends upon what you can afford and what you like. There are many roads up that mountain. Enjoy.
@True WingChun I accept the fact that there is no substitute to actually being there. And since we can't be there, this is the best that we can do and depending on your circumstances some more real then others.
One obvious reason you missed in this good video is that if you budget is 2000e for sound system. Lets use 2way speakers as an example. With stereo you can then have 500e per speaker and lets say 500e per amplification stage, so it's 250e for element. With surround 5.1 you can only have 167 per speaker and per amplification stage, which is 83e for element. With 7.1 its even lower. Therefore there is quality difference in parts used. So similar quality surround (5.1) system costs like 3 times as much as stereo
In stereo I tend to go nuts from instruments taking their designated sides, but still i think, for music, a surround system would be most ideal to have each speaker representing an instrument. Or a couple, if there are dozens of course. I don't really care about who or what was where when they recorded the thing, it is very rarely interesting (it can happen) if music plays around with sound source locations. But the added fidelity on the other hand, only stretching each speaker as much as it is absolutely necessary, that could be more beneficial than getting the sensation that the clarinet was at 2 o'clock, or Jean-Michel Jarre thought that particular who knows what effect was supposed to go from North-East to the West.
I know Court and Spark sounded great in four channel, even though I’m not a fan of hers. That was my quadrophonic demo disc I used in 1974. That one along with several Doobie titles and Tomita’s Kosmos.
Paul, could the answer then be have both an amazing resolving 2.1 systems and be able to then switch to your balanced and amazing 5.1 system when the recording suits?
In the future when MPEG H becomes the norm I'm sure we will see a rise in more surround sound systems because it would be streamed from more common sources
80s child here. I grew up listening to stereo. Invested a lot of money in speakers and components in my day. I abandoned my love for music and decided to go with surround sound for entertainment purposes in the late 90s. Now I'm rediscovering my passion fo stereo audio but there's not a lot to chose from. I have shopped to the edges of the internet looking for a good 2 channel stereo reciever and found nothing appealing. At a family reunion last year my sister told me she had put my old Kenwood stereo system (minus the speakers) in the attic after I moved out and joined the military. I couldn't believe it. Is it just my imagination or did they know how to build them in those days? I have given up trying to find a new stereo system with all the options that my old Kenwood has. I would like to get the system refurbished and invest in a new set of speakers. Am I wrong? Is there any reason a stereo receiver made in the early 90s doesn't compare with all the new stuff today? It sounded pretty darn good back then.
Nor have I but why does recorded music (which isn't live whatever Paul may say )have to be 'in front of you'? It's idiotic to confine recording to two channels placed in front of the listener and even more idiotic to try to constantly push two channel only as the only way to (attempt) to create a live performance!
Yes you have. In a concert hall sound is reflected off the walls and ceiling. The hall is designed with a certain level of reverberation. So not only do you here the direct sound from the stage but the reflections and reverberation surrounds you.
@@bluesky6361 But that is the same thing that happens in your listening room. Concerts are usually preformed on a stage and the audience faces the stage. There was bands that tried the "in the round" crap but that didn't last long.
I mostly agree. Stereo just generally compared to same price surround totally blows it away in regards to playing REAL music, especially instruments and getting a more intimate feel. Where surround is generally a more limited HIFI mode focusing on the isolated effects good for movie type material. Even if there was surround music recordings it generally would not get anywhere close to same price 2 channel. (because most people only use a very basic circa 1000 dollars receiver. But and this is a big but... There are very few (maximum like 10 receivers in the world) really really good sourround receivers like the most expensive Yamaha receivers that they have made the last 5 years time, that can easily beat most normal top end hifi models from most brands that is 2 channel under "extreme" conditions. But again, this is a reality that does not exist in the practical world as a finished product that the regular Joe will setup. But I have heard it 1 place in the world, and yes you do something like this: 1. Top Yamaha receiver for like 10.000 dollars. 2. Have a really good power setup with cables and powerbar, I mean really good, not necessarily expensive but really good. 3. Very very important that you then have a good single or biwire setup to your 2 channel speaker, and that you generally bypass the speaker connectors. 4. Then have some really good speakers like Canton, or B&W or Yamaha in the expensive end for your surround part. (monitor audio subs are also a really good steal for the money) 5. And have a good value 2 channel speaker like for example a monitor audio pl300. 6. Then have a crazy good streamer with clock boxes setup like I usually recommend in my videos. Now with this type of setup you can use it for 2 channel which is like "stereo" or "pure a" mode And later you can then switch it over to surround when you are watching tv. This will give you an extremely good 2 channel stereo sound and a possibility to switch it over to surround using a "surround receiver". This is a solution that can save a lot of money, but do not expect a good 2 channel sound anything near a good Mcintosh or Pass Labs amp, if you do not do everything 100%. One of my friends has this type of setup, and it's so good it beats most 1-5 million dollar HIFI setup I have heard in the world. But only because he is an absolute freak, and has harvested around 95% of what that Yamaha receiver can output. Most surrounds setups I heard, aren't even 1/10 as good. It is possible to do, but mostly unlikely that anyone will repeat this insanely high level 2 channel sound. But it also took him about 100.000 dollars to find the right everything for the setup. If he knew from the start what was the best combination, and did not have to find out the hard way by testing every insane thing in the world, then he might only have paid around 30.000 dollars for this sound all in all. So just letting you guys know, it can be done circa 30.000 dollars done just right which will beat most 1-5 mil dollar 2 channel setups in the hifi world.
Very well answered! Most good music now is mixed in stereo, so forcing it into an artificial mode electronically will sound artificial (with instruments playing in the rear, etc.). I listen to almost all music in stereo, even on my surround systems -- even when listening to an SACD with multichannel capabilities. Still, I cannot forget some of the concert performances I have heard reproduced skillfully in surround sound back when I sold audio in the 90s. Roy Orbison and Friends performing "Pretty Woman" with the ambient sound all around blows away the stereo reproductions of that performance I have heard since. I could say the same about several other performances I heard back then. If there were more well-done multichannel recordings being produced today I would change the default setting on my SACD player from stereo (at all times) to multichannel (when offered).
* You need something multichannel encoded *You need to space the speakers in such a way there is no weird dropout node pattern or reverberation *The speakers have to be as good as 2.0 and the amp, then yes
Surround will be more expensive if you want good sound for stereo as well,if you are after as good music experience as possible a pair of speakers and an amp will get you best sound for the money
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/48PxwspDvrE/mqdefault.jpg)
So, after many years of loving everything to do with audio, two channel and multi channel, I've finally experienced a stage from two tower speakers. Yamaha receiver that streams TIDAL and their Hi-Fi subscription, I'm able to get FLAC audio into my two Klipsch R820F. Hearing vocals from dead center and not from the towers is awesome. Hearing a stand up bass in-between the "center" and left tower, a guitar in-between the center and right tower, when I know all of the music is coming from just two speakers is amazing. I have a new respect for true stereo sound.
yup, exactly like my recent "awakening" by ELAC Debut Reference Speakers (in Stereo ofc)
Back in the 70's a friend of mine had a Quadraphonic system in his home.It was a four channel system with four equal speakers in the four corners of the room. There were many records recorded in this format and they sounded great. Unfortunately the format did not sell well enough for it to continue. This was before the advent of home surround systems for movies. I think with the proliferation of surround systems these days, a surround music format could be popular.
It makes sense, because the most of the recordings sold in the past maybe 25 years, are sold to headphone users.
I doubt it would take off people just don't care about music quality as long as it sounds good they're fine with it people still listening to music on UA-cam and through crappy Bluetooth speakers I doubt they're going to make the jump to surround sound
Hey! My question!
Thank you for taking the time to answer, Paul! Much appreciated!
And thanks for the kind words.
Adding to my Bucket List:
Coming to see Gus to listen to Joni!
And, to say a warm heartfelt hello to you too!
Keep on keepin’ on!
Just curious, what was the Dt from submission to getting this video? I understand it can be a few months. Not dissing Paul about it but I was just wondering. Thanks.
InsideOfMyOwnMind I’ve often wondered this. He must get an immense amount of correspondence. By memory, he doesn’t always pick the questions himself, but has a team do it. I’d happily be corrected though. Whatever, he does a great job passing on his knowledge.
InsideOfMyOwnMind I tried to check.
Not exactly sure but I think it was around the end of Feb that I sent in my question.
Short answer: "Because we have wives." Lol
Ive had this exact question on my mind for years! Great answer!. Still love listening to stereo music on my denon HT receiver in "5 channel stereo" - expands the music beautifully
I hear that exact same whining voice when people tell me they don’t want to see their speakers! Come on, are you crazy? A nice set of speakers can be as beautiful as the most elegant piece of furniture.
You forgot a serious point: Speakers can be beautiful furniture! Only - I don´t pet my couch or my sideboard..but i pet my speakers ! lol
Stereo speakers are awesome in my opinion! Playing video games and watching movies in Stereo is the best way ever!!
Theres a store in my City where u can ONLY buy HIGH END Audio stuff. Im talking about 25.000€ for THE LEFT SPEAKER!!!! 25.000€ more for the RIGHT!!!!! handmade stuff. never same designs. I would go as far as to say, THAT STORE is more beautiful than the most elegant piece of women.
JBL L 100 with orange grills !!!!....OMG ..beautiful
I still use my old Onkyo for both 2 channel and 5.1. If you set up into the "sweet spot" for 2 channel and then switch to theater or live function, I find you can stay on that 2 channel sound experience and actually add a more 360 dimension. The surround for me does a better job at recreating live sound's room acoustics as it relies less on my listening room's dynamics.
So first thing I look at when getting a new place to live IS how will my sound system fit in.
A good surround system will play in "stereo only" as well as a "stereo only" system of equal quality but a "stereo only" system will not play surround at all.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
There are many contentious facets to that statement.
In short yes.. But it's more complicated than that.
I have a combined stereo and surround setup. Plays great in both stereo for music and surround for movies and series.
Michel Tremblay All things being equal, can't be equal because the surround processor will have digital noise inside the case. Only a higher quality surround pre/pro will sound as good as an equal pre amp section in a stereo only unit. I actually use Parasound C1 controllers in both my surround system and 2 channel system, because for the price (used) I can't find as good a 2 channel pre amp. Plus I have a remote. If a person is buying new, there is no way to get equal sound quality for the same price. No company is willing to offer free digital with the same quality analog section, for the same price.
@@gordthor5351 an example of the surround to sound as stereo when is the case ? Up to 5K USD.
I am not an "audiophile" and I don't care about sitting in front of my speakers trying to feel like it's a concert that's cool n all but not my thing, I just like to put my 7.2 A/V receiver on multi channel stereo and having music playing on all those speakers and a sub sounds great to me.... Seems very imersive, besides even tho my towers sound great I can't get the sound I want on 2 channel stereo aspects of the room are not ideal so it doesn't cooperate, it hurts the bass from my towers on alot of music, and I don't have the experience or patience to resolve the issue so I use the sub to reach acceptable bass levels works for me.
Personally i love the way speakers look. Take the grills off, get a good set of wood-grain speakers. They're gorgeous. Many times my choice of speaker purchase has been swayed by the way they look (Klipsch Heresy II's, for example. A work of art).
The new Hersey's are gorgeous. Nice taste!
I’ve prioritized looks and performance 50/50. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I’ve always said “anyone who says they didn’t prioritize aesthetics at either the #1 or #2 spot in their stereo build is a liar.” for some reason choosing equipment based on looks has gotten a bad stigma in the hifi community.
i’m not really sure how we got to that point to be honest. Like i’ve said since I started just a few years ago: back when my dad was my age, and when his dad was my age, stereo systems were just as much a part of your living room furniture set as your couch, your tv/entertainment center or your coffee table. stereos, like the 70” giant flat screens we have in 2021, were a status symbol for your home back in the golden days of hi-fi. back in the 70/80s, when you brought a date back to your house, one of the first things you did was throw some music on so you could impress her with how nice your stereo system was.
at what point did it go from WANTING to show everyone your home stereo to this notion of “i’m not getting one unless it can be completely invisible” ? it kinda blows my mind
I don't understand how people can say that they don't want to see the speakers, but yet still want this superb, great, loud and clear sound. It doesn't work like that people. Never in my listening lifetime have I ever heard "in-wall" speakers or even "satellite" speakers even think about sounding as good as a set of full range, large cabinet speakers. I run 15's in my front speakers and 12's in my rear speakers, but I won't get into my full set up here, but you can't have great, full, large sound with little tiny speakers and a hidden sub, there's a whole mid-range of sound that you would be missing out on.....
I’ve been to @ 200 concerts and about 3000 nights out at the bar watching a band. Never, never, ever was the band located all around me....except when I was in the band
Exact!!!! Music in 5.1, 6.7, 7.1, etc. = 💩
I'm taking this a bit further: I use an integrated amp with old school TONE control to equalize the sound so it's absolutely not as the producer wants it to sound. I use the equalizer always to create the same sound i experienced at their concert. The concert is the best experience (if no problems occur). I want to be back at the concert. Simple. Maybe thats also why i have to use my headphones often, because some concerts... man i wouldn't wish that for my neighbors.
@True WingChun Well Said...coming through LOUD & CLEAR..as natural as it should be..
Stereo is for everyone and most of the stereo mixes today sound loud and compressed. 5.1 does not suffer from this as it is only available on SACD or Blu-Ray - the formats that people with only good sound systems buy. So, even it seems strange, today 5.1 mixes are more audiophile sounding than stereos.
Must be something "wrong" with my stereo only rig because when the surround test in the Chesky test CD is played in my rig, sound appears to originate from behind my listening seat despite there are no loudspeakers placed there. 🤔
Well, good to finally have a definitive answer to this, at least.
Thank you very much, Paul!
@Fat Rat
Lol!
O.K., you may be onto something there... XD
@Fat Rat
Eh?
@Fat Rat
Ah!
O.K.
Well yeah, in this case, sure!
At least for me...
@Fat Rat
Yep, especially when it's late and I'm tired. : P
@Fat Rat
* sigh *
Must be... : P
We have a 60 year legacy of recordings mixed in two channel stereo, and relatively few multichannel mixes.
It's worth having a half decent 5.1 system for the recordings remixed to 5.1 (done well) and new 5.1 recordings. You can still play stereo on it.
Not to mention for home theatre
Quadrophonic was a thing in the 70s, it was very popular here in Germany. Somehow it died. The first Dolby Surround stuff was just bad - it sacrificed audio quality for an effect, using filters to encode the surround signal in the stereo signal. I guess that was when it died. The first true 5.1 Media format was DVD with AC3 I think, but the players where not for audiophiles. After all 5.1 channels of audiophile amplification and speakers is still very expensive and most audiophiles prefer to have a very good 2 channel setup over a good 5.1 setup
@@Krmpfpks yes but after dvd video we had dvd audio with 5.1 uncompressed audio and SACD. You don't need to spend stupid amounts to get a really good sounding 5.1 system.
@G A absolutely agree. For multichannel music you ideally need identical speakers arranged slightly differently to a standard home cinema set up (i use the ITU circle) it makes a massive difference - but you don't need mega buck speakers.
I find that really great stereo recordings upconvert to surround really well with ProLogicII and similar systems. I tend to prefer that to vanilla stereo, except for hard rock or solo piano which make the rears too "hot".
Surround sound done great on
Pentatone, Chandos, Bis, Channel Classics ,LSO live RCO live etc
I new surround was dead when I realized not even movie soundtracks were not recorded in surround on SACD. You would think that would be a no brainer for SACD and yet they never recorded them that way. Made me realize the industry itself wasn't very serious about the format.
Heard a multi channel audio system about 20 years ago at a show. Walked out saying that's the future...
As for 2 channel audio, Q sound recordings on a good system came very close. The issue isn't the hardware it's the lack of software
what a positive and informative video, big thumbs up
I heard at Bauer studios a recording made for surround. Unbelievable great experience.
Personally, I enjoy listening to ALL music in pseudo surround sound (Pro-Logic) without the center channel. It is very important to keep the rear channels at a very low volume. Occasionally hearing the out of phase signals behind me, especially the reverb trails, make my listening experience much better.
@Vyrisus Exactly!
@True WingChun I have Martin Logan SL3 Electrostatics which are quality speakers by most people's standards. I've been listening to Pro-Logic in Phantom Mode for a very long time. "Accuracy" isn't what I'm looking for anymore. I'm looking for "Enhancement". And Pro-Logic with great rear speakers does that for me. Not 5.1, 7.1, 10.2, etc.
www.martinlogan.com/en/product/sl3
With any luck in the future we might get music drive in multiple channel for each instrument and vocal and let a computer handle the position of the instruments and others to simulate any environment you like and hear it close to perfection with simple headphones (design for the job). I'm already happy with the fake 7.1 surround we have today, add extra life to everything as long as the headset are in a way design to support it (open or half-open back to avoid increase eco to the effect).
Great discussion. I fully agree. I heard a recording in Japan that was played on some, I do not remember the brand but they were tall skinned speaker. But besides that, the sound effect was was extremely noteworthy, the listening field was remarkable. I would live to come and see and hear your system some day. Thanks again for this UA-cam review.
Good question and answer thanks Ragu
Maybe you can help me. As a musician, I am interested in the brain of organists. What I can hear is the sound of the organ. The accoustics of the room is very important here because he thinks about it too.
In the late 70ths you could buy equipment for so called surround sound. This was a 2 channel record but you could also hear the room from two small boxes from behind. I find this ideal because the interesting records are simply in stereo. Can I buy such a component as an additive and how is it called today?
I like the enveloping experience of Quadraphonic/surround. You don't have to play as loud as you would with stereo. to really get into the sound. I am however sticking with stereo because most of the music that I love was recorded that way and my system is enough to fine tune.
Okay, that's it... I'm setting up my quadraphonic system now...(gauntlet was thrown)
I have a Realistic STA 64 Quadravox Receiver. Never use the feature.
fin screenname I know of only a few records that were mixed to it, You by Gong and Caravanserai by Santana come to mind
@@graxjpg I've herd some of the recordings before. Being born in 1968 I lived through the Quadravox era. Everyone had to have it at one point but then they didn't want it anymore (that's how I ended up with it). IMHO it just didn't sound the way it should sound. Sometimes there would be some cool section of a recording but overall I was not a fan.
@@graxjpg Yeah, I was joking of course. Back in the 70's my cousins seemed to have every piece of gear made. For a few years, there were two complete quad setups in their house. Then it was ... on to the next thing. Quads had their moment...a brief one.
JACKnJESUS haha that’s awesome!! Interesting how we’ve come back to 2 channel isn’t it?
I own a SACD player, but not a single disc to try it out with. I have a 5.1 setup on my PC, but that's only been that way for a few months. I have always preferred to spend the money I would on a surround speakers on a better quality stereo pair.
50 plus years ago, I was very impressed with the life-like reproduction of a QUAD recording (remember that?) being played back in the AR demonstration room in Grand Central. Not many quad recordings were very good, but some were stunning. Since then I've had the immense pleasure of hearing film music played by great orchestras (like the LSO) from my favorite seat at the console while recording them...in surround. This would be before the music is compressed and covered with sound effects. Properly done, surround is quite amazing. But in most home installations, the rear channels are just an afterthought, not full range or properly adjusted. As a result, not many consumers can experience the full potential of surround. My living room playback is stereo, but I do still have a proper 5.1 mix room here at home, where I can recall the fun I had during the recording.
Tell Gus I say, "Hi!"
Stereo is the best quality sound reproducing digital playback music most all singing artists using the Stereo not Surround
Hey Paul. Love your videos. Had I known about you guys the last time I was in Denver I would’ve stopped by just to shake your hand. (Or fist bump, current circumstances withstanding) Anyway, thanks for addressing a question I’ve often internally wrestled with. One thing I’d like to point out to you though is all the great things being done right now with Dolby Atmos and specifically those recordings on the amazon music hd platform. I don’t work for them I just am of the opinion that it is a great time to be into surround sound music. It seems to be on the rise :)
The dream: An SACD player with the 5.1 channel outputs (they USED to exist), three stereo pre-amplifiers (one for the front, one for the rear and one for the center/sub) and FIVE MASSIVE MONOBLOCS to drive the five speakers plus a powered subwoofer.
I don't know if it would be the same but we have several SACD's which feature the original quadrophonic mixes of some albums from the early/mid 1970's (plus the three channel SACD's of Nat "King" Cole albums from Analogue Productions - looking forward to those!) and I'm hoping to track down the "Dark Side Of The Moon" and "Wish You Were Here" immersion boxes. Gues I need to get an Oppo BluRay player...... oops, too late! Well, I did say it was a dream! Besides, I couldn't afford five monoblocs!
Dare to dream!
That's one of my favorite disk EVER. Joni Mitchell with orchestra.
yep, like others . i thought paul would have said 2 channel and thats it.im happy you have said that as i do listen to some hifi in 7.2.4 dd and it does sound better than just the 2.i thought by doing so that id be letting the audiophile side down.ill probably listen to more of it like that now.
Hello Paul, Gary here.. I would bet you DO approve of many of the orchestral SACD recordings from Robert Woods, Jack Renner and Mr. Bishop - Telarc. I enjoy a number of those performances in my SACD library. I think Blue Coast have some very nice SACD recordings as well of which I have downloaded in that format, your absolute favorite ((O:
Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". I'd love to hear the long choir part in great surround sound.
PS Audio could be at the forefront of transforming the audio industry by encouraging more surround sound environments and you know what, the industry might just follow with more recordings and products to support it. Especially since so many people already have home theater systems that simply lack that audiophile quality PS Audio is so well known for.
Ah, it already failed in the music market place twice.
bvocal dont get me wrong , your right it did fail commercially, but many audiophiles embrace it . I know i do , I love my SACDs and if i listen in 2 channel, It feels flat , I do see a market for niche recording studios that do high quality 5.1 mixes, Im sure it will never go completely away and for this Audiophile, I like the smaller niche approach, Apple Music is for the masses,
Thanks 😀
Some people use one room as primary audio and video entertainment room. In smaller homes that’s the living room. For those people it’s a bummer that nobody cares to make an audiophile system that can deliver the best in audiophile stereo combined with some reasonable surround performance whenever the content is surround: e.g pretty much every movie! Besides watching a concert done well in surround with a truly audiophile setup can be a really great and superior experience, but where is such system? Why do audiophiles have to listen with closed eyes imagining things?
Hey for once - I TOTALLY agree with you :)
But what about people who listens to dubstep(or bass music in general), where the sound wasn't recorded but electronicaly made? Wich audio system would you recommend? I know it is very specific but I can't seem to find any audio system that sounds as good as my headphones :p thx! maybe it depends on the way the producer designed its sound?
Not that image positioning but rather soundstage (hopefully not exaggerated), woofer capable of going real low (or subwoofer) with thunderous quality rather than tight . .
What if you just widen the position of speakers. I don’t have the best speakers so I emulate a surround sound by positioning the speakers wider so that they are at about 60 - 80°(90° would be pointing straight at my ears). When I do this the singer sounds like they’re right above your head!
People confuse "surround sound" with the real thing. The real thing is rear channel digital time delay. Surround sound too often places you in a circle with music being played in front and behind you. The real thing is hearing reflected sounds from the front channels being produced behind you. The sound in the rear needs to be altered to sound real. For when hearing reflected sound, not only is the sound delayed, the higher frequencies are abated. Any two channel stereo system can be used this way. The only problem is finding a good digital time delay today.
Surround sound is no more 'real' thing than two channel. It's a different way to experience music. You want 'live' go to a concert.
@@angelwars3176 I have had time delay. I used to sell it when I worked in a he-end shop. You need an education that's all.
Very good explanation. Also: a surround system of the same quality is way more expensive compared to stereo. I sold hifi stuff in a nice shop for years and had people coming in al the time that thought that if they could choose between a stereo or surround system for €x,- the surround must be better just because it had more speakers. 1 minute demo was always all they need to change te choice to: buy stereo or spend more. Rooms differ a lot and so does what people listen to or watch. If you have a room for 5+ nice speakers, the budget to buy good stuff and watch movies: go for it. One advantage for 2nd hand buyers: you can buy great previous generation top range surround receivers for little cash. Just because they have no Atmos or build in Spotify.
So far all of my experiences with anything more than quadraphonic surround have been me staring at my sound visualizer wondering why the center channel is blasting everything I want to hear while the other speakers that I have configured for actual sounds, produce supporting noise.
I should have tried telling windows I don't have a center speaker and maybe that would have forced some of the sound apart, but it is very hard to convince someone to do something that they've had no luck with after using a method or methods that do work. Especially when the method that isn't known to work would require the purchase of additional speakers.
This might be a dumb question but, we have vinatge iconic stereo speakers that are still better than high ends speakers to this day like cerwin vega and JBL, but are there any iconic surround sound speakers that still sound amazing in today's world?
Surround system with many speakers can be natively experienced live in many audio sound art installations.
At Last!
Paul thankyou for finally conceding that 5.1 can be better the 2.0. For years I have been totally baffled by the division between 'Hi-fi' and 'Home cinema' when music is an audio/visual experience. If the aim is in the first instance to create the feeling of a live performance in your living room then how the heck does it make sense confining yourself to two channels and no visual content?
I'm sitting here writing this listening to Genesis 'A trick of the tail' 5.1, it sounds amazing. Does it sound like the band are playing in my living room? no - but why does it need to? it is a studio recorded album recorded in 1976 then remixed to 5.1 in 2007 that sounds clearer and more emotional now than before. Thomas Tallis Spem in Alium was created to be performed in a horse-shoe shape surrounding the listeners so stop the obsession with 'the band being in front' pitch; we are able to hear all around us as humans and can enjoy music specifically created or carefully remixed into multi channel from stereo it doesn't matter if it doesn't feel live.
Wow , love A trick of the tail ❤️
@@arongatt sounds amazing in 5.1 and i'm old enough to have owned the vinyl back in 76 :)
Angelwars love the band, the lambs lay down on broadway and selling England by the pound are amazing work of Art, I also love fish Marillion was born in 78 myself but my dad was really into music so I grow up on the best era of progressive rock music ❤️
@@arongatt Yes I was brought up listening to all of these albums right back to Trespass 1970. The Lamb is fantastic. All of these records were remixed from the original track tapes to new 2.0 and 5.1 versions by Nick Davies back in around 2007. To be honest many people really didn't like the mastering in particular and yes they are a little 'bright' in places to say the least but I haven't bothered listening to the two channel versions only the new 5.1's and overall they are really good. 'Trick' and Wind and Wuthering IMHO sound really great - if you get the chance to hear it in 5.1 put 'Dance on a Volcano' on 11 and enjoy :)
Angelwars at the moment I’m without the SACD , but I do have a few digital files on 5.1 (no genesis tho) I love 5.1 music and I believe it gives a different experience, as right now I’m having with tubular bells (mike oldfield). Will look into the genesis 5.1 mixes tho. Thanks
I don’t know why but somehow I like this guy from the first second of listening to him.
Dear Paul, jou have it in your own hand. Developing a decoding pre amplifier, developin dtreaming device, capabile of supporting 5.1 Sound. You already have a mixing studio to prepare 5.1 audio for music. You can also establish a streaming service for high res 5.1 and stereo music. Maybe I will be your customer. And by the way - I have to by some more power amps and loudspeaker, too...... This will be great :-)
I have 5 Maggie's and a REL that are now begging for this Joni Mitchell surround mix! The hunt is on.
Heya there, love your videos. I have a surround sound system myself Paul and you spoke in another video on here about how quadrophonics never caught on my current surround system can playback in either 2.1, 4.1 of 5.1 sound, would you agree that playing back audio in 4.1 is more preferable when listening to music that was recorded in stereo, I for one can hear a difference especially when the two back speakers are directly inline with my ears and it just sounds dramatically better than listen to stereo recordings in 4.1 than in 5.1. In my experience the inclusion of the mono speaker in the middle seems to muddle or distort the stereo image when upmixed into 5.1 and sounds nowhere near as good as what would seem to be a preserved stereo image in 4.1. I hope you can clarify this for me all the best - Matt
3:38 When Paul gets angry !! I watched this so many times :)))
The best sorround system ever? Teatro Colón de Buenos Aires with the Orquesta Estable del Teatro Colón. Verdi's Otello overture is like a hurricane there!
The second one? Teatro Avenida de Buenos Aires and its small orchestra pit with the Juventus Lyrica orchestra setting the trombones and timpani in the palcos platea next to the stage. If you listen Nabucco there, you are in a point of non return.
it seemed like the same time surround sound music formats were being developed so was MP3 compressed music. it seems like the masses prefer simple carry around music instead of the best possible sound regardless of the equipment used for playback
Surround sound's application to a audiophile system could be used to attempt to recreate the ambiance of the concert hall or venue in which the music is played. This would be very expensive to capture, and since it would be a live show, there would be that crowd noise which to me is annoying.
I got an impression that there is few audiophile speaker packages for sorround and they are very expensive. For the same money of a good sorround system you can buy an amazing stereo system. A friend of mine has a cheap sorround system but he prefers my stereo setup for watching movies.
My processor does a good job of expanding stereo into 7 channel, but the processor is very expensive, and cost goes into the DSP settings and licencing. Obviously DTS etc. coming from the source is more accurate, but many recording are not so.
This is my first foray in to what I would consider "audiophile" given I'd never thought to spend this much on audio alone. I was looking in to getting a pair of elac reference dbr62 and pairing it with a Yamaha a-s501 or a-s801.
And then I started researching home theater systems and was drawn towards getting a center and a subwoofer as well, but didn't like the idea of a 5.1 AV receiver vs the more music oriented integrated amps I was looking at (which only go up to 2.1). This video and an article on audiosciencereview helped me decide in favor of my original stereo setup. Having said that, I do have some lingering doubts about not going 3.1.
How much dialog would I lose out on without a center channel?
What do you think of "phantom center" to make up for the absence of the center channel (which apparently drives most of the dialog)?
Will adding a sub be necessary to help me get the most out of music recordings?
One thing that needs to be said to anyone who is new or just getting start into HIFI or surround.
Let's say you have 5k as a budget for system.
2 channel:
You could go with something like a Rotel RA 1572 (approx 1700 usd) which has a very good built in DAC, bluetooth, lots of inputs and outputs, and good power. For speakers you could get Buchardt audio S400s (approx 1800 usd) which would give you a fantastic full range sound. That leave plenty of room for cables, source, stands, room treatment. All components in this system will be high end.
Multichannel:
If you were to stick to the same budget many compromises would have to be made. For starters, the quality of amplification would be seriously degraded. A Yamaha AV processor may be a good choice. Other companies may provide something decent for a low cost. Then you need 5 speakers, a sub, more cabling than a 2 channel system. Because of the amount of components required to build a complete home theatre system in the same budget the quality of the components are severely compromised compared to a 2 channel system. You can still get a great surround system in this price range, but you can get a much better 2 channel system in this price range. That is the difference.
In my opinion, 2 channel is 100% better. Less fuss, better quality, simpler to setup.
I'm curious, you say that people complain about seeing the speakers, but in my experience people are often wowed by my speakers when they go through my house. In my opinion I think as long as the speakers look good they can be in the open for all to see. I'll admit if all I had was a cheap all in one that came stock with dents and scratches from being dropped off the lift gate several times before making its way to me I'd probably want to hide it though lol.
Great video mate
Love the honesty
I prefer to listen to my music on my home theater setup in surround rather than stereo. My av reciever does this multi-stereo thingy that mirrors the stereo from the front speakers to all 7.1 and i love it. Anyone else or is it just me??
Beatles Love album was done taking the original masters and remixing to 5.1 DSD SACD mix. Very well done, Ringo said he loved it . True, not much out there that isn't a muti channel mish mash of sound. Kind of what killed quadraphonic was the recordings were made wrong and costs and practicality were not there.
I highly recommend tidal hifi’s new Dolby Atmos for home theater (never thought I’d see the day) selection of music. It works very well with my marantz Sr8012 + Apple TV and 9 channels. I just wish they would allow more devices that can stream it
The multi-channel version of Joni Mitchell's album sounds great. Thanks for the recommendation.
Great answer
I've been using a stereo system for years, but have read the amp instructions and use surround sound, for my old ears its better.
Paul Could I use PS Audio M700 mono blocks for sound sound speaker or would it sound bad becouse the mono block engineered for front listing?
My love of music has outlasted every romantic relationship. In my old age, my house has speakers everywhere. You know what i never hear? Complaints.
Most of what I buy in music is in surround. There's plenty of 5.1 albums out there. I just love the feel of being there, totally immersed. Whether it's live or studio recorded, in my opinion it beats the pants out of stereo.
I love your personality omg
Interesting, when I worked at Dolby in the '90s it was kind of evenly divided among the people there of those who had 2 channel music systems at home and those that had multi channel theatrical systems. And then there were a couple of oddballs who restored vintage tube radios. ;-)
The earliest Paul vid I watch ....below 1 thousand ...
Sprouts seem to be growing everywhere in that building. They have Paul surrounded 😁
i recon it depends on the content you are running switching to stereo cranks while fidelity is real nice though mid-twett surround speakers
I guess, surround recordings would need a number of recording microphones, front, center and rear, in order to accurately record not only the music from stage but also the ambiance of the venue.
And, at play back, this is what will make the difference, i.e. the sense of _being there_ created by the additional mics.
Can't see it happening very fast..new recordings, new libraries, new / more equipment!
I'm sure if I had 60k into my stereo I'd be stoked to have to buy another 60k of gear to add a couple of channels that rarely got used and caused nothing but headaches acoustically.
You can have a surround system that gives you immersion it is called Yamaha DSP wit the right speakers and set up correctly it is amazing and you can get it out of almost any 2 channel recording
Thanks a lot for making this video. Will using only two speakers out of a 7.2 channel avr give the same audio quality as using them out of a power amp? Assuming the avr and amp are of decent quality.
From my POV it's all about having options and different types of experiences. I have a complete 7.2.4 HT system powered by a Yamaha preamp and amp. Along with a complete analog system to include manual turn table with a moving magnet cartridge, a vacuum tube integrated amplifier and a hybrid phono stage.. Both front speakers are shared by the 2 different amps using a speaker switch. My point, I can listen to 2 channel music using Dolby Surround upmixer which distributes the 2 channel information to 7 ear level channels for an evenloping
sound field. The bulk of the musical information will be in the front stage but you will get a lesser amount and lower volume reflected sound like you would in a live venue. I can also listen to 2 channel music through the Yamaha DSP programs which replicate famous musical venues acoustically. Or I can listen to the slightly warmer sounds of the analog amplifier In 2 channel. For me, there is no holy grail of audiophile truth, that I find is stifling and limiting, it all depends upon what you can afford and what you like. There are many roads up that mountain. Enjoy.
@True WingChun I accept the fact that there is no substitute to actually being there. And since we can't be there, this is the best that we can do and depending on your circumstances some more real then others.
One obvious reason you missed in this good video is that if you budget is 2000e for sound system. Lets use 2way speakers as an example. With stereo you can then have 500e per speaker and lets say 500e per amplification stage, so it's 250e for element. With surround 5.1 you can only have 167 per speaker and per amplification stage, which is 83e for element. With 7.1 its even lower. Therefore there is quality difference in parts used.
So similar quality surround (5.1) system costs like 3 times as much as stereo
In stereo I tend to go nuts from instruments taking their designated sides, but still i think, for music, a surround system would be most ideal to have each speaker representing an instrument. Or a couple, if there are dozens of course. I don't really care about who or what was where when they recorded the thing, it is very rarely interesting (it can happen) if music plays around with sound source locations. But the added fidelity on the other hand, only stretching each speaker as much as it is absolutely necessary, that could be more beneficial than getting the sensation that the clarinet was at 2 o'clock, or Jean-Michel Jarre thought that particular who knows what effect was supposed to go from North-East to the West.
What Joni Mitchell song was featured in this? 2:00
possibly www.discogs.com/Joni-Mitchell-Both-Sides-Now/release/2844240
I know Court and Spark sounded great in four channel, even though I’m not a fan of hers. That was my quadrophonic demo disc I used in 1974. That one along with several Doobie titles and Tomita’s Kosmos.
Can you please do a video about that 5.1 setup you have, and what you need? Thank you.
he has....check his library
What is the brand name of the speakers on the front picture of this video?
Band in front of you absolutely - but with 2 channel live recordings the audience is also put up front on the stage, which is weird!
I’m 69 years old and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a well done multichannel recording
Paul, could the answer then be have both an amazing resolving 2.1 systems and be able to then switch to your balanced and amazing 5.1 system when the recording suits?
I was literally just about to send in this EXACT question. lol.
In the future when MPEG H becomes the norm I'm sure we will see a rise in more surround sound systems because it would be streamed from more common sources
80s child here. I grew up listening to stereo. Invested a lot of money in speakers and components in my day. I abandoned my love for music and decided to go with surround sound for entertainment purposes in the late 90s. Now I'm rediscovering my passion fo stereo audio but there's not a lot to chose from. I have shopped to the edges of the internet looking for a good 2 channel stereo reciever and found nothing appealing. At a family reunion last year my sister told me she had put my old Kenwood stereo system (minus the speakers) in the attic after I moved out and joined the military. I couldn't believe it. Is it just my imagination or did they know how to build them in those days?
I have given up trying to find a new stereo system with all the options that my old Kenwood has. I would like to get the system refurbished and invest in a new set of speakers. Am I wrong? Is there any reason a stereo receiver made in the early 90s doesn't compare with all the new stuff today? It sounded pretty darn good back then.
I have never been to a surround sound concert before.
I have. Steven Wilson
Nor have I but why does recorded music (which isn't live whatever Paul may say )have to be 'in front of you'? It's idiotic to confine recording to two channels placed in front of the listener and even more idiotic to try to constantly push two channel only as the only way to (attempt) to create a live performance!
Yes you have. In a concert hall sound is reflected off the walls and ceiling. The hall is designed with a certain level of reverberation. So not only do you here the direct sound from the stage but the reflections and reverberation surrounds you.
@@bluesky6361 Absolutely!
@@bluesky6361 But that is the same thing that happens in your listening room. Concerts are usually preformed on a stage and the audience faces the stage. There was bands that tried the "in the round" crap but that didn't last long.
Surround Sound for musical recordings is compressed. The only way to achieve the full audio experience is in PCM mode.
I mostly agree.
Stereo just generally compared to same price surround totally blows it away in regards to playing REAL music, especially instruments and getting a more intimate feel.
Where surround is generally a more limited HIFI mode focusing on the isolated effects good for movie type material. Even if there was surround music recordings it generally would not get anywhere close to same price 2 channel. (because most people only use a very basic circa 1000 dollars receiver.
But and this is a big but...
There are very few (maximum like 10 receivers in the world) really really good sourround receivers like the most expensive Yamaha receivers that they have made the last 5 years time, that can easily beat most normal top end hifi models from most brands that is 2 channel under "extreme" conditions.
But again, this is a reality that does not exist in the practical world as a finished product that the regular Joe will setup. But I have heard it 1 place in the world, and yes you do something like this:
1. Top Yamaha receiver for like 10.000 dollars.
2. Have a really good power setup with cables and powerbar, I mean really good, not necessarily expensive but really good.
3. Very very important that you then have a good single or biwire setup to your 2 channel speaker, and that you generally bypass the speaker connectors.
4. Then have some really good speakers like Canton, or B&W or Yamaha in the expensive end for your surround part. (monitor audio subs are also a really good steal for the money)
5. And have a good value 2 channel speaker like for example a monitor audio pl300.
6. Then have a crazy good streamer with clock boxes setup like I usually recommend in my videos.
Now with this type of setup you can use it for 2 channel which is like "stereo" or "pure a" mode
And later you can then switch it over to surround when you are watching tv.
This will give you an extremely good 2 channel stereo sound and a possibility to switch it over to surround using a "surround receiver".
This is a solution that can save a lot of money, but do not expect a good 2 channel sound anything near a good Mcintosh or Pass Labs amp, if you do not do everything 100%.
One of my friends has this type of setup, and it's so good it beats most 1-5 million dollar HIFI setup I have heard in the world. But only because he is an absolute freak, and has harvested around 95% of what that Yamaha receiver can output. Most surrounds setups I heard, aren't even 1/10 as good.
It is possible to do, but mostly unlikely that anyone will repeat this insanely high level 2 channel sound. But it also took him about 100.000 dollars to find the right everything for the setup.
If he knew from the start what was the best combination, and did not have to find out the hard way by testing every insane thing in the world, then he might only have paid around 30.000 dollars for this sound all in all.
So just letting you guys know, it can be done circa 30.000 dollars done just right which will beat most 1-5 mil dollar 2 channel setups in the hifi world.
Very well answered! Most good music now is mixed in stereo, so forcing it into an artificial mode electronically will sound artificial (with instruments playing in the rear, etc.). I listen to almost all music in stereo, even on my surround systems -- even when listening to an SACD with multichannel capabilities. Still, I cannot forget some of the concert performances I have heard reproduced skillfully in surround sound back when I sold audio in the 90s. Roy Orbison and Friends performing "Pretty Woman" with the ambient sound all around blows away the stereo reproductions of that performance I have heard since. I could say the same about several other performances I heard back then. If there were more well-done multichannel recordings being produced today I would change the default setting on my SACD player from stereo (at all times) to multichannel (when offered).
So i just wasted money on a 5.1.2 dolby atmos surround sound? I listen to music more than any tv or music
* You need something multichannel encoded *You need to space the speakers in such a way there is no weird dropout node pattern or reverberation *The speakers have to be as good as 2.0 and the amp, then yes
If you want a concert in your living room atmos brings it
Paul, is that Joni Mitchell recording one that's generally available??
Surround will be more expensive if you want good sound for stereo as well,if you are after as good music experience as possible a pair of speakers and an amp will get you best sound for the money