Seduced By Surround, Saved By Stereo

**geekwithfamily** · **11-12-06, 10:29 AM**

Have you ever been seduced by surrround sound?

A few years back when Dolby Pro Logic II was introduced I was excited to listen to all my music with the processing. I spent hours tweaking the settings to get the most 3D image I could. Eventually I found the sound to be more of a gimic than an improvement. I went back to listening to normal stereo.

Then I got seduced again by multi-channel DVD-Audio and SACDs. I never found much music on the formats that I liked. Some stand-outs included Queen A night at the Opera and Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots. I tried to impress my father-in-law with the Queen surround mix and he fell asleep. The Flaming Lips album is more an experiment in annoying surround mixing than music so I only listened to it once.

Since then I've been on a quest to get the best stereo experience my budget will allow. I've upgraded my speakers, purchased tube pre-amps and separate 2 channel amps.

I think surround sound is great for movies and video games but it should keep its distance from stereo recordings.

Have you been seduced? Does surround music have a place in our listening rooms? Anyone else with similar stories as me? Did you feel cheated or was it a fun experiment?

Would you join the Real Stereo Campaign?

**terry j** · **11-12-06, 01:35 PM**

must admit I've never been seduced, 2 ch is my only interest.

HT, for me, is a waste of time. 1) movies, especially mainstream ones, bore me and 2) for mine, most of what I get from soundtracks is basically crash and bang for the sake of it, and to my ears they all sound the same anyway so why bother??

Some have said that 5.1 etc is good for music, but again for me my taste in music means any of the music I prefer is not mainstream so would never appear in a format like that so miss out there as well.

No, I'm with you, I'll stick with stereo thanks

lots of love

terry

**Wayne A. Pflughaupt** · **11-12-06, 06:37 PM**

Personally I think Yamaha’s approach is best, what they call Digital Soundfield Processing. They don’t use the center channel at all. Instead they add a couple of extra front speakers and use them, with the rears, to imitate the acoustic signature of real venues – certain concert halls and clubs in various places around the world.

Aside from modeling real acoustic spaces, the nice thing that separates Yamaha from most others manufacturer’s surround effects is that the main front speakers play the original, unaltered stereo signal. Plus, the effect can be turned up or down, so you can have it as prominent or as subtle as you like. The receivers have dozens of effects to choose from, so you’re bound to find at least a few that you like. Personally I like to use one that’s appropriate for where you would likely see a particular artist perform, like an Arena setting for a national touring act, a European concert hall for an orchestra, an intimate Jazz Club setting for a lesser-know small ensemble, etc.

Regards,
Wayne

**Danny** · **11-12-06, 09:22 PM**

I've never been a fan of Surround sound for CD's and other 2Ch sources. I'll stick with just 2Ch for music.

**geekwithfamily** · **11-13-06, 03:40 PM**

Wayne - I've never heard the Yamaha set up you're describing but it sounds interesting.

Back when I was playing around with Dolby Pro Logic II Music, I was especially impressed by a track off DJ Shadow's Private Press album. It has a minute of circular pans that the DPLII really spun around my head. Later, after I'd upgraded to my Vandersteen 1c speakers I listened to the same track in 2 ch stereo and got almost the same circular panning effect. Stereo can be amazing and immersive with the right speaker setup and recordings.

Anyone else have any recordings that can envelop the listener to the point that you think you have surround channels active?

**Chrisbee** · **11-21-06, 10:19 AM**

While I haven't spent much time listening to the very few surround music DVDs I own I wouldn't be without surround for films now.

Let's not forget that subwoofers are the product of HT enthusiasm. Stereo fans only flirted with the idea and many still wont let one near their two channel systems.

I was turned to the dark side of film watching by subwoofers. They added so much to ordinary TV and film watching in stereo through my system. Subwoofer addiction was the result of listening to a single, half-hour organ music programme using my stereo tuner through shoebox monitors. (Linn Kan MK1)

I had enjoyed organ recitals at the local cathedrals decades before. Hearing the emasculated effect of tiny monitors reminded me of my system's catastrophic weakness in the bass. Yet bass is an everyday reality for us all. The rumble of a pallet truck in the supermarket, the passing bus and the train all expose us to very low frequencies at levels that most subwoofers can only dream about.

Don't you find music DVDs go flat when you revert to plain old stereo? You've watched a whole DVD of Metallica strutting at a steady 100+dB. You're drooping in your chair. Completely wasted by the experience and soaked with summer sweat. Then you decide to hear how it sounds in stereo with the picture switched off.

Dead boring, isn't it?

Our ears are not humble stereo nor are ours eyes blind. We are surrounded by reality in all its bewildering complexity and its extremes of sound and light and sensation. We must forgive its weaknesses when reproduced by our humble collection of expensive boxes.

Isn't it ironic that no affordable system can accurately reproduce the sound of our hitting one of the empty boxes that once housed a system component on its way home from the dealers?

**muse77** · **12-28-06, 05:33 AM**

The first recording that comes to my mind for surround would be Pink Floyd 'Meddle'

. I don't have surrounds yet but when I do 'Meddle' will be one of the first. Moody Blues 'Days of the Future Past' might be another. I also like various albums from Hawkwind but I enjoy the Space Rock kind of thing.

**zetabass** · **01-02-07, 12:44 PM**

Quote:

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Personally I think Yamaha’s approach is best

Excellent! I love hearing good things about names I own

That being said, I really don't care for extra processing, and prefer direct input mode, bypassing as much internal dsp as possible...

Honestly, and I think it really comes to this for many of us, the content decides..
Two 2ch source = 2ch playback. I know for myself my main goal is getting as close as I can to acheiving a sense of what the artist/producer/engineer intended for us to enjoy about the recording.
Likewise, a 5,6,7.1 formatted program, music or otherwise was also intended to be listened to in that format or enviroment.

(On a side note, after having a will not be named A/V REceiver die on me, and having a tech explain the cost/value of repair, I purchased my two Yamaha units, later my tech guru jokingly complained that I would never need his services for the yamaha gear as in his experience they were probably never going to die! I loved that and obvioulsy haven't forgotten it!)

Viva la resolution!
Brad

**adogand6kids** · **01-02-07, 01:18 PM**

As far as I understand, if you are sitting in the "sweet spot", you won't get much improvement or change in sound between stereo and multichannel processing for music. The advantage I have found is when you have more than one listener (like eight!). In that situation, the soundstage that you get out of the sweet spot is much better with multichannel processing. Try putting in you favorite 2 channel recording and listening to it in your listening position. Switch back and forth between 2Ch and Multi-Ch and see if you really notice a difference - if things are well set up, you won't notice a change in the front sound stage. Now move and sit directly in front of the left or right speaker and do the same. For me, the multi-ch sounds much better. If you never sit anywhere but the sweet spot, 2Ch will be fine for you. Multi-Ch was designed not to improve on 2Ch in the sweet spot, but to make "every seat a good seat".

**audiobomber** · **07-24-07, 06:19 PM**

Interesting thread title. I sold my multi-channel gear and went back to pure stereo, even for movies. I find multichannel music gimmicky and artificial. I liked the Hafler surround setup for movies, but discrete 5.1 never did it for me. I find sound effects and dialogue suddenly appearing behind me just pulls me out of the movie. I'll be sticking with good ole stereo.

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-07, 08:13 PM**

Quote:

Wayne A. Pflughaupt wrote:

Personally I think Yamaha’s approach is best, what they call Digital Soundfield Processing. They don’t use the center channel at all. Instead they add a couple of extra front speakers and use them, with the rears, to imitate the acoustic signature of real venues – certain concert halls and clubs in various places around the world.

Aside from modeling real acoustic spaces, the nice thing that separates Yamaha from most others manufacturer’s surround effects is that the main front speakers play the original, unaltered stereo signal. Plus, the effect can be turned up or down, so you can have it as prominent or as subtle as you like. The receivers have dozens of effects to choose from, so you’re bound to find at least a few that you like. Personally I like to use one that’s appropriate for where you would likely see a particular artist perform, like an Arena setting for a national touring act, a European concert hall for an orchestra, an intimate Jazz Club setting for a lesser-know small ensemble, etc.

Regards,
Wayne

Seems redundant to me. Either the ambience of the original event is on the recording or its not. On good MCH SACDs, it is and adding anything distorts it. If it's not, then a simulation of it is a band-aid.

Kal

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-07, 08:18 PM**

Quote:

adogand6kids wrote:

As far as I understand, if you are sitting in the "sweet spot", you won't get much improvement or change in sound between stereo and multichannel processing for music. The advantage I have found is when you have more than one listener (like eight!). In that situation, the soundstage that you get out of the sweet spot is much better with multichannel processing. Try putting in you favorite 2 channel recording and listening to it in your listening position. Switch back and forth between 2Ch and Multi-Ch and see if you really notice a difference - if things are well set up, you won't notice a change in the front sound stage.

Nope. You will notice a change in the front soundstage due to additional channels but what is most noticeable is the addition of the ambience of the original venue, even from the "sweet-spot."

Quote:

Now move and sit directly in front of the left or right speaker and do the same. For me, the multi-ch sounds much better. If you never sit anywhere but the sweet spot, 2Ch will be fine for you. Multi-Ch was designed not to improve on 2Ch in the sweet spot, but to make "every seat a good seat".

Sheer nonsense, of course. It was designed to convey the sounds that impinge on the listener from all directions at any real performance event. It is not a crutch for 2channel.

Kal

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-07, 08:19 PM**

Quote:

audiobomber wrote:

Interesting thread title. I sold my multi-channel gear and went back to pure stereo, even for movies. I find multichannel music gimmicky and artificial.

It may have to do with what you listen to.

Kal

**audiobomber** · **07-24-07, 08:40 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

It may have to do with what you listen to.

Kal

Yeah, I guess I tend to remember the bad music mixes, the ones that intentionally put me in the middle of the soundstage. There were some pretty spectacular hi-rez discs that didn't have weird effects. but even then, I couldn't quite get the sound right. I couldn't get equidistant from the front and rear speakers. Also, my m-c gear wasn't quite at the level of my stereo gear, especially my universal player and the pre-pro. Anyway, all the kafuffle over DVD-A and SACD seems moot now. Bring on the Blu-Ray.

Aside from music, I really don't like hearing foley effects, dialogue etc behind me in a movie. That's artificial and gimmicky to me.

I'm perfectly happy with stereo, even for movies. I won't be going m-c again.

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-07, 08:52 PM**

Quote:

audiobomber wrote:

Yeah, I guess I tend to remember the bad music mixes, the ones that intentionally put me in the middle of the soundstage. There were some pretty spectacular hi-rez discs that didn't have weird effects. but even then, I couldn't quite get the sound right. I couldn't get equidistant from the front and rear speakers. Also, my m-c gear wasn't quite at the level of my stereo gear, especially my universal player and the pre-pro. Anyway, all the kafuffle over DVD-A and SACD seems moot now. Bring on the Blu-Ray.

Yeah but the Blu-ray audio is also multichannel.

Quote:

Aside from music, I really don't like hearing foley effects, dialogue etc behind me in a movie. That's artificial and gimmicky to me.

Not to me but, as with music recordings, the success depends on the skill of the producers and the quality of the reproduction.

Quote:

I'm perfectly happy with stereo, even for movies. I won't be going m-c again.

OK. I am not trying to convert anyone but I do respond when the reasons given are invalid.

Kal

**audiobomber** · **07-24-07, 08:59 PM**

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

Yeah but the Blu-ray audio is also multichannel.

Not if I don't select m-c.

Quote:

Kal Rubinson wrote:

OK. I am not trying to convert anyone but I do respond when the reasons given are invalid.

Kal

Did I say something invalid?

**Kal Rubinson** · **07-24-07, 09:04 PM**

Quote:

audiobomber wrote:

Did I say something invalid?

No but other posts got me started. I didn't mean to imply that you did.

Kal

**Sonnie** · **07-24-07, 09:27 PM**

This just proves to us all that there are different strokes for different folks. I don't fault anyone for preferring multi-channel over stereo or stereo over multi-channel. Personally since I've had multi-channel, I've never looked back. Stereo seems like it's missing something, especially when I go to my parents house where they use a pair of stereo speakers for everything. FWIW... I did try the stereo gig back when I picked up the VMPS RM30's because they were raved about so much as having such a fabulous sweet spot, but I still preferred my surround. The stereo was good, but just not what I preferred.

A movie that uses surround ain't the movie it's intended to be to me if the surrounds aren't being used. Just like I prefer to watch widescreen movies in widescreen so that I see what the producers intend for me to see, I prefer to also hear what the producers intend for me to hear....

**reed.hannebaum** · **07-25-07, 12:15 AM**

I enjoy surround sound in movies and sometimes while listening to SACD's, but generally I prefer 2-channel stereo while listening to music. I was not always this way, I use to listen to multi-channel music a lot. But with each succeeding upgrade to my equipment, I have noticed that I listen to 2-channel stereo more and more. Every once in a while I will flip over to 7-channel stereo or PLIIx, which I still enjoy, but I will eventually gravitate back to listening to 2-channel stereo.

I can understand a speaker upgrade having a pronounced effect on how my system sounds, but I was delightfully surprised to hear what an impact an amplifier upgrade has made. Now with some well recorded CD's I will hear (see) a gorgeous 3-dimensional sound stage with distinctly placed instruments and vocals plus a remarkably real phantom center channel. Multi-channel surround may give me an impressive sense of spaciousness but at the same time I will often loose the precision and depth of the front sound stage. I can no longer see the band playing.

**Bob_99** · **07-25-07, 07:06 AM**

Quote:

This just proves to us all that there are different strokes for different folks.

I couldn't agree more with this. It's good to see people expressing their preferences because understanding these differences should help guide other people to the type of system they want to buy. I sit on the fence because sometimes stereo is what I want and sometimes surround. I wonder though if it's because I grew up with stereo and have learned to 'listen' in stereo. Will the next generation brought up with surround not appreciate stereo? (Especially if improvements in technology make it better than it is currently)

Bob

**jvc** · **07-25-07, 10:54 AM**

I'm with sonny on this. To me, stereo seems like it's missing something. I can hardly listen to stereo anymore, except in the car. I love multi-channel music (dvd-a, sacd, and dts cds).

My favorite of all multi-channel music is the sacd of Dark Side Of The Moon. When I heard it for the first time, on sacd, it was like I was hearing it for the first time ever.............again. My cd player doesn't get used much anymore. I play cds, in my dvd player, and listen in pro logic. Pro logic isn't as good as discreet multi-channel music, but to me, it's better than stereo.

**audiobomber** · **07-25-07, 05:02 PM**

Quote:

jvc wrote:

I play cds, in my dvd player, and listen in pro logic. Pro logic isn't as good as discreet multi-channel music, but to me, it's better than stereo.

That reminds me, I don't like lossy compression; DTS, D-D and especially Dolby Stereo. They're all horribly compromised, ESPECIALLY DOLBY STEREO.

All music DVD's should have a compressed multichannel soundtrack, and a gloriously unfudged 24/48 stereo track.

Advertisement