A Broad Discussion of Speakers with Major Audio Luminaries

[Cote Dazur]

I’m not claiming that multichannel is systematically better for every stereo recording. Far from it. But presenting stereo as the only “mature” solution and multichan as little more than a gadget for blockbuster feels a little reductive given how production practices are evolving

Great post, I agree with all that you said, I do not believe either Stereo is the "only" way to go, but neither is Multi.

Mature, in the context of my post means: fully grown, developed or aged to a state of complete readiness, which, in comparison to Multi, seems like a reasonable description, as stereo is more mature than Multi. As opposed to obsolete, as Stereo is far from obsolete.

Elegant was in the way it will fit in a conventional decor, 2.0 better than Multi, even if staying with 5.1, which seems to be minimalist in this days of 7.2 or 9.2 configuration. So yes, to me, Stereo is more elegant than Multi.

I have nothing against Multi, my post was expressing my opinion, that many, seems to think Multi is the only way and that stereo is retarted.
As if they have something to prove. I have nothing to prove,
I have tried multi, it is not bad, just not doing it for me as much as stereo.
At the end of the day, they both are legitimate choices, nice alternatives, can even be enjoyed in the same house, if one is lucky enough to have 2 different set up.
I do, have 2 different set up, ( 3 actually) but they are all stereo, my house, my choices.

 

[Mort]

They are udder idiots (sorry).

I'm guessing you are a Dad.

 

[Mort]

Great post, I agree with all that you said, I do not believe either Stereo is the "only" way to go, but neither is Multi.

Mature, in the context of my post means: fully grown, developed or aged to a state of complete readiness, which, in comparison to Multi, seems like a reasonable description, as stereo is more mature than Multi. As opposed to obsolete, as Stereo is far from obsolete.

Elegant was in the way it will fit in a conventional decor, 2.0 better than Multi, even if staying with 5.1, which seems to be minimalist in this days of 7.2 or 9.2 configuration. So yes, to me, Stereo is more elegant than Multi.

I have nothing against Multi, my post was expressing my opinion, that many, seems to think Multi is the only way and that stereo is retarted.
As if they have something to prove. I have nothing to prove,
I have tried multi, it is not bad, just not doing it for me as much as stereo.
At the end of the day, they both are legitimate choices, nice alternatives, can even be enjoyed in the same house, if one is lucky enough to have 2 different set up.
I do, have 2 different set up, ( 3 actually) but they are all stereo, my house, my choices.

Do you even own a multi system? How do you know so much about it is you stick with stereo?

 

[Mart68]

All the music I listen to with the exception of a couple of old Sinatra albums was made to be listened to as 2 channel stereo. Not that I don't think multi-channel up-mixing is wrong or invalid, but it's not the way it was intended to be heard so I don't really understand why anyone would consider 2 channel to be wrong or worse?

I don't listen to the mono albums in single channel though so maybe I'm breaking my own rules

 

[Newman]

I don't listen to the mono albums in single channel though so maybe I'm breaking my own rules

indeed

 

[RexrothPigeon]

it's not the way it was intended to be heard

(A) this is unknowable
but (B) if you think it's knowable, then it would preclude all modern developments like good speakers, CDs, digital files, Class D amplification, DSP, room correction, subwoofers, etc.

It's a complete dead end to think that way

 

[Satanica]

I note your use of the word potential which is a synonym for possible, not definite. So why not definite?

Let me try to provide reasons why up-mixing might be a backward step.
1) A relatively poor up-mixer.
2) Relatively poor or different performing speakers (centre, rear etc.) compared to the front left and right.

I think I am in agreement that a more costly, more than stereo setup with a good upmixer with identical make/model speakers for each channel will be preferred by the majority of listeners, including me. I'm yet to hear that kind of setup, but would like to.

The only insistence I see is that experiments have shown that (for stereo recordings, per your insistence) good upmixing has the potential to improve perceptions of ASW and ENV, which is proven to correspond with perceptual preference, while not simultaneously degrading soundstage imaging, which also corresponds with perceptual preference.

 

[Newman]

I agree. Upmixing can be bad. Mixing can be bad!

I think you and I are agreeing on the word potential being correct in this instance, and on the reasons.

 

[Mart68]

(A) this is unknowable
but (B) if you think it's knowable, then it would preclude all modern developments like good speakers, CDs, digital files, Class D amplification, DSP, room correction, subwoofers, etc.

It's a complete dead end to think that way

It's completely knowable. Mixed on two channels, mastered on two channels.

Good speakers are not a new thing, there were good speakers in the '70s and transparent electronics in the '70s. That's just not relevant.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

It's completely knowable. Mixed on two channels, mastered on two channels.

Good speakers are not a new thing, there were good speakers in the '70s

"intent" is unknowable. Yes they were mixed and mastered on two channels, but we have no way of knowing their intent, regardless, for FR, SPL, directivity, none of it. And I guess there were good speakers in the 70s, but most records weren't mixed on them. Unless I guess you consider JBL 4311 & L100 and Altec 604 (1970s) and NS10s (1980s) "good." I don't.

 

[Sokel]

It's an american adv, I know we have to take it with a boat of salt, but regardless, the FR concept was a thing even at the 50's.

These are powered(!) studio monitors of the era, who have replayed masterpieces.

 

[Mart68]

"intent" is unknowable. Yes they were mixed and mastered on two channels, but we have no way of knowing their intent, regardless, for FR, SPL, directivity, none of it. And I guess there were good speakers in the 70s, but most records weren't mixed on them. Unless I guess you consider JBL 4311 & L100 and Altec 604 (1970s) and NS10s (1980s) "good." I don't.

Well like all professional recordings they used a variety of speakers to get a balanced result. Really the only drawback to those recordings is that they had to mix with vinyl playback in mind which is why we didn't start to get 'proper' bass on recordings until the mid to late 1980s.

My point still stands that no-one involved in making those recordings ever considered how they would sound through more than 2 channels.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

It's an american adv, I know we have to take it with a boat of salt, but regardless, the FR concept was a thing even at the 50's.

These are powered(!) studio monitors of the era, who have replayed masterpieces.




View attachment 555964

Do we have measurements? because speakers from that era were infamously variant from box to box. Anyway, this is a great example of how "intent" is a futile (and ultimately unknowable) target--are we supposed to only listen to those records on those speakers? If not, then might as well listen to them in the conditions that sound the best. If that's upmixing to multichannel, then I say go for it!

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Well like all professional recordings they used a variety of speakers to get a balanced result. Really the only drawback to those recordings is that they had to mix with vinyl playback in mind which is why we didn't start to get 'proper' bass on recordings until the mid to late 1980s.

My point still stands that no-one involved in making those recordings ever considered how they would sound through more than 2 channels.

They never considered how they would sound on DSP corrected active cardioid monitors or on a modern car stereo or in .flac or .wav or .mp3 format or in airpods or in a home system with multiple subs either. Why does stereophony get to be sacrosanct?

 

[Mart68]

They never considered how they would sound on DSP corrected active cardioid monitors or on a modern car stereo or in .flac or .wav or .mp3 format or in airpods or in a home system with multiple subs either. Why does stereophony get to be sacrosanct?

All those systems are still 2 channel, how they work isn't relevant.

I'm not suggesting 2 channel is 'sacrosanct' - if you prefer to up mix them to multi-channel I've no ideological issue with that.

 

[Sokel]

Well like all professional recordings they used a variety of speakers to get a balanced result. Really the only drawback to those recordings is that they had to mix with vinyl playback in mind which is why we didn't start to get 'proper' bass on recordings until the mid to late 1980s.

My point still stands that no-one involved in making those recordings ever considered how they would sound through more than 2 channels.

They should go down low though, other wise they would not hear this:

One of the best recordings, ever (Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra conducted by Reiner)

Do we have measurements? because speakers from that era were infamously variant from box to box. Anyway, this is a great example of how "intent" is a futile (and ultimately unknowable) target--are we supposed to only listen to those records on those speakers? If not, then might as well listen to them in the conditions that sound the best. If that's upmixing to multichannel, then I say go for it!

I don;t think we will ever have modern measurements from those.
But judging by the result, they should be decent (they were big-ish as well, and that by my definition of "big" )

 

[Vuki]

It's an american adv, I know we have to take it with a boat of salt, but regardless, the FR concept was a thing even at the 50's.

These are powered(!) studio monitors of the era, who have replayed masterpieces.




View attachment 555964

With built in harman target curve. +6dB in bass and - 6dB in highs.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I'm not suggesting 2 channel is 'sacrosanct'

it's not the way it was intended to be heard so I don't really understand why anyone would consider 2 channel to be wrong or worse?

You are selecting one known fact about how records were mixed and mastered (stereophony) and holding that up as an artistic intention while happily ignoring many other known facts about how records were mixed and mastered (many examples above), picking and choosing to suit your rhetorical aim (to defend stereophony against claims that multichannel is superior).
Why not do the same in threads where people discuss subwoofers? Cardioid speakers? New-fangled driver materials? Digital files? The same reasoning is true, after all: "it's not the way it was intended to be heard so I don't really understand why anyone would consider [subwoofers or any other post-1970s innovation] to be good or better?"

 

[ShadowFiend]

I do not believe the word "potential" in upmixing right now. Why, because even now, there is no rules or standard of how stereo tracks is made or mixed. Each mixing engineer, especially the famous ones, has their own practices and ideas when mixing. And within their own practices and ideas, it can be varied depends of individual tracks. Furthermore, each era has its own mixing trends and favorites. That is why all three researches that compare Upmix stereo and stereo do not shows any preference in general in favor of Upmix stereo. Those three researches are
1. Wilcock in "Surround Sound in the Eighties: Localization and Psychoacoustics" (1983)
2. Rumsey in "Controlled Subjective Assessments of Two-to-Five-Channel Surround Sound Processing Algorithms" (1999)
3. Choisel and Wickelmaier in "Evaluation of multichannel reproduced sound: Scaling auditory attributes underlying listener preference" (2007)
At best on paper by Choisel and Wickelmeier (2007), upmixing is preferable in 2 Pop tracks while on 2 classical tracks, it loses to Wide Stereo.

For AI-helping upmix, I even have less faith since AI needs data (both pre production and post production tracks) to train and it also needs a way or benchmark to evaluation. Both I do not see as easy in audio works.

 

[Chr1]

As mentioned elsewhere, I think that it is also very genre dependant. I would put a large sum of money that the vast majority of people that listen to modern electronic music would prefer it upmixed to multichannel. I certainly do. Most just haven't had a chance to hear it this way.

However, I grew up with new wave/rock and much prefer that in stereo. Personally I reckon that it's a subjective thing, but perhaps some genres are more suited to one or the other. My 2c.