Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[Newman]

Switching from science to philosophy... fidelity to what? I own an SACD of Dark Side of the Moon and that's what I play. But at the time those classic 1970s albums were made, the intention was that we would hear them typically on "music centres" that people largely had - so is that really the target we should consider today?

I think not. I think they made ‘straight’ masters before they pulled out the Auratones and made the 7” single master that all their 15-25 yo youth market would be buying and playing on ‘music centres’. I’d target the ‘straight’ one.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Many continue to get mixed up between preference and high fidelity.
Whilst lots of people like the sound from an LP system, which is fine, the reality is that its fidelity to the source isn't actually all that high however much money you spend - and that can be an absurdly large sum.

No problem if this is a preference but the only way it is actually "better" is to the profits of the people selling the stuff.

Judging by the appearance of LP's at Target, it would seem that sufficient demand is present. More expensive than CD's or streaming - yes. More practical - I don't think so. Possibly more fun - I think so. Will LP's become dominant again - probably not. Can LP's coexist with digital - sure. Do any of these disagreements affect anything really important - World Peace for example - not a chance.

 

[rdenney]

I feel people need to be able to distinguish between the two statements: "I prefer" and "is better". Sadly too many people don't seem to manage it.

Newman is making a good point. He's saying that there are two possible conditions when one might say "I prefer"--one uncontrolled and the other controlled. Expressing preference based on uncontrolled comparisons speaks about the lack of control more than about the differences. That's good science, and a warning for all of us when we express opinions. We report this problem about poetry-based reviews all the time--the reviewer is reporting his biases more than any actual difference in preference he would have if the review was based on controlled listening.

But the other possible condition is also important. When scientists conduct preference studies, they note a trend in their data with expresses a preference. That preference may be transferrable to different groups (i.e., they controlled for listener type--age, training, experience, sex, etc.). And it may seem overwhelming (i.e. demonstrating high correlation). But all subjective testing, no matter how well controlled, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is thus good advice for manufacturers trying to hit the bulk of the market, but it may not express the preference of any one individual.

Newman's point is that we cannot claim to be in the second group--expressing a non-typical preference based on controlled testing--when all we have done is in the first group--expressing a non-typical preference based on uncontrolled testing. We have been using the undoubted existence of the second group to justify our preference expressions from the uncontrolled condition. That is a logical fallacy.

I have lots of opinions about stereo versus multichannel, but I cannot claim any authority of controlled comparisons, so my preferences do indeed reflect my biases. And, because of that, they don't represent people who have a non-typical preference as a result of controlled testing. We can quantify the latter--a given preference study may show that any given person might have a 23% likelihood of holding a non-typical view, for example. We cannot quantify our uncontrolled opinions, and thus they are not instructive to others. If we express those opinions, we have to own their singularity, and not hide behind those whose responses in controlled studies were non-typical.

Rick "unfortunately, not paid by the word" Denney

 

[antcollinet]

Newman is making a good point. He's saying that there are two possible conditions when one might say "I prefer"--one uncontrolled and the other controlled. Expressing preference based on uncontrolled comparisons speaks about the lack of control more than about the differences. That's good science, and a warning for all of us when we express opinions. We report this problem about poetry-based reviews all the time--the reviewer is reporting his biases more than any actual difference in preference he would have if the review was based on controlled listening.

But the other possible condition is also important. When scientists conduct preference studies, they note a trend in their data with expresses a preference. That preference may be transferrable to different groups (i.e., they controlled for listener type--age, training, experience, sex, etc.). And it may seem overwhelming (i.e. demonstrating high correlation). But all subjective testing, no matter how well controlled, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is thus good advice for manufacturers trying to hit the bulk of the market, but it may not express the preference of any one individual.

Newman's point is that we cannot claim to be in the second group--expressing a non-typical preference based on controlled testing--when all we have done is in the first group--expressing a non-typical preference based on uncontrolled testing. We have been using the undoubted existence of the second group to justify our preference expressions from the uncontrolled condition. That is a logical fallacy.

I have lots of opinions about stereo versus multichannel, but I cannot claim any authority of controlled comparisons, so my preferences do indeed reflect my biases. And, because of that, they don't represent people who have a non-typical preference as a result of controlled testing. We can quantify the latter--a given preference study may show that any given person might have a 23% likelihood of holding a non-typical view, for example. We cannot quantify our uncontrolled opinions, and thus they are not instructive to others. If we express those opinions, we have to own their singularity, and not hide behind those whose responses in controlled studies were non-typical.

Rick "unfortunately, not paid by the word" Denney

Newman is specifically saying we cannot even know our own preference unless we do it as a controlled test. Nothing to do with people expressing authority, or representing others. I can't know I prefer stereo over mono or multichannel over stereo (or vice versa) unless I've done a controlled listening test.

All those opinions you hold - you can't know you hold them without controlled comparisons.

This is clearly bunkum.

 

[symphara]

Newman is making a good point. He's saying that there are two possible conditions when one might say "I prefer"--one uncontrolled and the other controlled. Expressing preference based on uncontrolled comparisons speaks about the lack of control more than about the differences. That's good science, and a warning for all of us when we express opinions. We report this problem about poetry-based reviews all the time--the reviewer is reporting his biases more than any actual difference in preference he would have if the review was based on controlled listening.

But the other possible condition is also important. When scientists conduct preference studies, they note a trend in their data with expresses a preference. That preference may be transferrable to different groups (i.e., they controlled for listener type--age, training, experience, sex, etc.). And it may seem overwhelming (i.e. demonstrating high correlation). But all subjective testing, no matter how well controlled, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is thus good advice for manufacturers trying to hit the bulk of the market, but it may not express the preference of any one individual.

Newman's point is that we cannot claim to be in the second group--expressing a non-typical preference based on controlled testing--when all we have done is in the first group--expressing a non-typical preference based on uncontrolled testing. We have been using the undoubted existence of the second group to justify our preference expressions from the uncontrolled condition. That is a logical fallacy.

I have lots of opinions about stereo versus multichannel, but I cannot claim any authority of controlled comparisons, so my preferences do indeed reflect my biases. And, because of that, they don't represent people who have a non-typical preference as a result of controlled testing. We can quantify the latter--a given preference study may show that any given person might have a 23% likelihood of holding a non-typical view, for example. We cannot quantify our uncontrolled opinions, and thus they are not instructive to others. If we express those opinions, we have to own their singularity, and not hide behind those whose responses in controlled studies were non-typical.

Rick "unfortunately, not paid by the word" Denney

I think this is missing the point entirely. Controlled tests make sense if you want to prove or disprove something that is subtle enough and hard to prove, which is why you have a control group, an experiment group, and change one variable.

There’s no sense in having a “controlled” test for multichannel vs. stereo. The thing is immediately obvious. It’s more obvious then choosing between the rear-wheel-drive and the 4-wheel-drive versions of a car.

All you’re left with are appeals to authority (expert “X” claims this is better thus you should heed), bandwagon arguments (it’s good because most people say so) or ad hominem (you didn’t try, you don’t have the right equipment, you’re ignorant). All these are fallacious arguments.

 

[rdenney]

I think this is missing the point entirely. Controlled tests make sense if you want to prove or disprove something that is subtle enough and hard to prove, which is why you have a control group, an experiment group, and change one variable.

There’s no sense in having a “controlled” test for multichannel vs. stereo. The thing is immediately obvious. It’s more obvious then choosing between the rear-wheel-drive and the 4-wheel-drive versions of a car.

All you’re left with are appeals to authority (expert “X” claims this is better thus you should heed), bandwagon arguments (it’s good because most people say so) or ad hominem (you didn’t try, you don’t have the right equipment, you’re ignorant). All these are fallacious arguments.

It depends on what you are preferring. Ability to localize sound sources? Breadth of acceptable listening positions? Sense of envelopment? These require subjective testing, and can indeed be done blind, which just means you can't tell with your eyes whether there are two speakers in front of you and x speakers around you.

The difference may be immediately obvious, but the preference might not be. But I suspect that the difference may not be as obvious as one thinks, when comparing to sweet-spot listening.

Rick "whose comment applied to preference testing more broadly than stereo vs. multichannel, of course, to minimize people antagonizing each other" Denney

 

[amadeuswus]

On the need for controlled tests, what's good for the stereo goose should be good for the multichannel gander....

I prefer multichannel music (I think I do anyway) and that's one reason I still buy sacds. When the recording is well made, it sounds to me more like I am there in the recording venue (as opposed to the musicians are here in the front end of my listening room). But I've never participated in any blind level-matched tests to see if my preference really holds up.

I haven't read the entire thread--did any of the ASR posters who prefer multichannel form an opinion after controlled tests?

 

[MattHooper]

Quite so.
I have and it makes some threads harder to follow but showing the ignored content invariably confirms that the ignore function was well chosen in the first place.

I can understand why some use the ignore function. (I bet I'm on some people's ignore list). I've only used it for one individual in another forum
who was a troll, and it was indeed...cleansing.

However I don't see anyone I'd want to put on ignore on ASR. As far as I can see everyone is involved in essentially honest disagreements (or agreement), most are obviously intelligent, and I may disagree with someone on one thing, but in the next thread learn something from that same person. In fact I find it one of life's pleasures to agree with someone who I previously did not agree with! So I prefer to keep all channels open.

 

[symphara]

It depends on what you are preferring. Ability to localize sound sources? Breadth of acceptable listening positions? Sense of envelopment? These require subjective testing, and can indeed be done blind, which just means you can't tell with your eyes whether there are two speakers in front of you and x speakers around you.

The difference may be immediately obvious, but the preference might not be. But I suspect that the difference may not be as obvious as one thinks, when comparing to sweet-spot listening.

Rick "whose comment applied to preference testing more broadly than stereo vs. multichannel, of course, to minimize people antagonizing each other" Denney

To me the difference is as obvious as black-and-white vs colour photography. How could it not be? You've got sounds coming from speakers behind you. The sense of immersion is far greater with a surround setup, but this is something I just don't appreciate outside movies and games.

I don't even understand how someone would like these mixes where you feel like you're in the middle of the orchestra. It’s completely unnatural to me. But sure, to each their own.

 

[MattHooper]

There’s no sense in having a “controlled” test for multichannel vs. stereo. The thing is immediately obvious. It’s more obvious then choosing between the rear-wheel-drive and the 4-wheel-drive versions of a car.

I would strongly disagree with this.

If there is one thing science is good at uncovering, it's that we can be wrong in inferring from what seems "obvious" to us.

All you have to do is realize that all of the more daft claims in high end audio - from super pricey ethernet cables to AC cables to audiophile fuses etc - come with testimonials of people who truly believe what they hear is "obvious." Listening tests that control for bias tend to wipe away this "obviousness."

The retort about stereo vs multichannel would likely be "But in those other cases we know they are wrong, theory and practice tells us there is no change to the signal so we can presume they are likely imagining sonic changes. Whereas in stereo vs multichannel, we know the sound is in fact different - theory and practice suggests it."

True. But even when real world differences are audible, bias effects still occur. An obvious example is all the studies done on speakers and how sighted bias effects can skew the perception of the sound. Many have found "obvious" differences can be much reduced...sometimes essentially disappear...in some cases, when controlling for bias variables.

It's quite possible that something we prefer under sighted conditions could change when "only the sound" is being evaluated, even possibly surround sound vs stereo.

Basically, science has shown us to NEVER underestimate the power of biases in regard to our perception and inferences.

But, as I've argued many times here, that's a condition underlying every inference and conclusion we make, all day long, so pragmatism has to play a part in what we demand for *reasonable* (and provisional) inferences. This is why I've mentioned that, especially in regards to the reasonablness of our everyday claims and reports of experience, a general heuristic of "extraordinarhy claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in to play.

So applied to my own surround vs stereo comparisons: Unlike, say, hearing differences between ethernet cables, on technical/theoretical grounds it's likely, expected, I'd hear a difference between a track played on my stereo vs my surround system. So my reporting of hearing a difference is entirely plausible. It's also plausible I could prefer one over the other. So...not an extraordinary claim that "contradicts" any science on the matter. It's like my saying I prefer movies on my projection screen vs my TV set. Can I produce a scientific level of confidence? No. But there's nothing unreasonable in accepting the claim *provisionally* with the lower non-scientific level of confidence we accept most non-extraordinary claims. And if one wants to bring particular studies on the subject to bear, we are still talking about probabilities and even then we have to look at how closely the scenario subject A rendered his opinion matches the scenario of the study trials. That's why scientists are always SO CAUTIOUS about what they can infer from study trials!

So: It's one thing for a person to say "Well, I'm looking for a scientific level of confidence about such claims, where the confounding variables have been controlled for." That's a perfectly reasonable goal of course. But it's another to say "Since the claim does not meet the standards of science (sighted), I can dismiss it as wrong, or in error, or as mere fantasy, or presume it is unreasonable to accept such claims even provisionally."

You can do that to dismiss extraordinary or implausible claims (e.g. lots of the audiophile snake oil), but not where plausible audible differences are there and preferences can indeed differ.

 

[symphara]

I would strongly disagree with this.

If there is one thing science is good at uncovering, it's that we can be wrong in inferring from what seems "obvious" to us.

All you have to do is realize that all of the more daft claims in high end audio - from super pricey ethernet cables to AC cables to audiophile fuses etc - come with testimonials of people who truly believe what they hear is "obvious." Listening tests that control for bias tend to wipe away this "obviousness."

The retort about stereo vs multichannel would likely be "But in those other cases we know they are wrong, theory and practice tells us there is no change to the signal so we can presume they are likely imagining sonic changes. Whereas in stereo vs multichannel, we know the sound is in fact different - theory and practice suggests it."

True. But even when real world differences are audible, bias effects still occur. An obvious example is all the studies done on speakers and how sighted bias effects can skew the perception of the sound. Many have found "obvious" differences can be much reduced...sometimes essentially disappear...in some cases, when controlling for bias variables.

It's quite possible that something we prefer under sighted conditions could change when "only the sound" is being evaluated, even possibly surround sound vs stereo.

Basically, science has shown us to NEVER underestimate the power of biases in regard to our perception and inferences.

But, as I've argued many times here, that's a condition underlying every inference and conclusion we make, all day long, so pragmatism has to play a part in what we demand for *reasonable* (and provisional) inferences. This is why I've mentioned that, especially in regards to the reasonablness of our everyday claims and reports of experience, a general heuristic of "extraordinarhy claims require extraordinary evidence" comes in to play.

So applied to my own surround vs stereo comparisons: Unlike, say, hearing differences between ethernet cables, on technical/theoretical grounds it's likely, expected, I'd hear a difference between a track played on my stereo vs my surround system. So my reporting of hearing a difference is entirely plausible. It's also plausible I could prefer one over the other. So...not an extraordinary claim that "contradicts" any science on the matter. It's like my saying I prefer movies on my projection screen vs my TV set. Can I produce a scientific level of confidence? No. But there's nothing unreasonable in accepting the claim *provisionally* with the lower non-scientific level of confidence we accept most non-extraordinary claims. And if one wants to bring particular studies on the subject to bear, we are still talking about probabilities and even then we have to look at how closely the scenario subject A rendered his opinion matches the scenario of the study trials. That's why scientists are always SO CAUTIOUS about what they can infer from study trials!

So: It's one thing for a person to say "Well, I'm looking for a scientific level of confidence about such claims, where the confounding variables have been controlled for." That's a perfectly reasonable goal of course. But it's another to say "Since the claim does not meet the standards of science (sighted), I can dismiss it as wrong, or in error, or as mere fantasy, or presume it is unreasonable to accept such claims even provisionally."

You can do that to dismiss extraordinary or implausible claims (e.g. lots of the audiophile snake oil), but not where plausible audible differences are there and preferences can indeed differ.

There’s much to agree to in your post but I don’t think it applies to this particular case. There’s simply no comparison between silly stuff like Ethernet cable preference … for audio, and multichannel vs stereo, for which the difference is blindingly obvious.

I have a ton of multichannel music. They‘re either ambience mixes (quick recently enjoyed examples that spring to mind: Allman Brothers/Fillimore East SACD; Miles Davis/Kind of Blue, Japan remastered, SACD; a big box of Santana, Japan concert, SACD; Mozart/Requiem, DVD-Audio) or middle-of-the-action (J.M. Jarre/Aero, DVD; Mike Oldfield/Tubular Bells, SACD; Vivaldi/L’Estro Armonico, DVD-Audio; Jeff Beck/Blow by Blow, SACD). I also made comparisons of Tidal Atmos mixes. It’s not like I haven‘t tried the stuff. I have.

The first category, I don’t care much either way. But if I read or work, I prefer the stereo mix, otherwise I find it hard to concentrate.

The second category, it’s just weird. The stereo mix is better. In my personal opinion.

 

[MattHooper]

Newman is making a good point. He's saying that there are two possible conditions when one might say "I prefer"--one uncontrolled and the other controlled. Expressing preference based on uncontrolled comparisons speaks about the lack of control more than about the differences. That's good science, and a warning for all of us when we express opinions. We report this problem about poetry-based reviews all the time--the reviewer is reporting his biases more than any actual difference in preference he would have if the review was based on controlled listening.

But the other possible condition is also important. When scientists conduct preference studies, they note a trend in their data with expresses a preference. That preference may be transferrable to different groups (i.e., they controlled for listener type--age, training, experience, sex, etc.). And it may seem overwhelming (i.e. demonstrating high correlation). But all subjective testing, no matter how well controlled, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is thus good advice for manufacturers trying to hit the bulk of the market, but it may not express the preference of any one individual.

Newman's point is that we cannot claim to be in the second group--expressing a non-typical preference based on controlled testing--when all we have done is in the first group--expressing a non-typical preference based on uncontrolled testing. We have been using the undoubted existence of the second group to justify our preference expressions from the uncontrolled condition. That is a logical fallacy.

I have lots of opinions about stereo versus multichannel, but I cannot claim any authority of controlled comparisons, so my preferences do indeed reflect my biases. And, because of that, they don't represent people who have a non-typical preference as a result of controlled testing. We can quantify the latter--a given preference study may show that any given person might have a 23% likelihood of holding a non-typical view, for example. We cannot quantify our uncontrolled opinions, and thus they are not instructive to others. If we express those opinions, we have to own their singularity, and not hide behind those whose responses in controlled studies were non-typical.

Rick "unfortunately, not paid by the word" Denney

Rick, I often enjoy your posts! You bring a thoughtful, balanced viewpoint IMO. (Not that many others here don't as well). I'm glad you joined this forum.

The problem that sometimes arises is when we want to point to the scientific research, which has of course minimized variables of bias, and because we are appealing to such research, we presume the case we've presented is unbiased.

But we aren't noticing a bias in how we INTERPRET the science with respect to a discussion and what types of leaps of inference we are making from the science, to any particular claim or subject being discussed. In other words - while the studies being cited have been controlled for bias - the way we might be using those studies in an argument HAS NOT been controlled for bias. So we don't notice some of the blindspots in the inferences and arguments they are making. Psychologically it feels like: "Well, obviously I'm in the right because after all I'm the one citing the science!"

I've seen this issue crop up over and over in my "own community" (I out myself as an "atheist who has spend decades in the trenches debating subjects like religion, Intelligent Design, Free Will, Epistemology etc, arguing for the primacy of epistemic responsibility best represented by Science).

That's something I have been pointing out in how some are arguing. And as much as I try to guard against it myself, I'm sure I fall in to similar blind spots.

Matt - who even more unfortunately not paid by the word, if I was I could buy and sell all you bums! ;-)

 

[rdenney]

To me the difference is as obvious as black-and-white vs colour photography. How could it not be? You've got sounds coming from speakers behind you. The sense of immersion is far greater with a surround setup, but this is something I just don't appreciate outside movies and games.

I don't even understand how someone would like these mixes where you feel like you're in the middle of the orchestra. It’s completely unnatural to me. But sure, to each their own.

Edit: You said much of this after I typed it.

It would depend on the mix. Sure, some mixes are designed to put one in the middle, but those wouldn't be the ones I'd choose for a blind test. Rather, I would choose a stage presentation from the audience's perspective, one in stereo, and one in multichannel to emulate the envelopment of a real hall. The difference would be the room responses as recorded versus those that are inferred from the stereo image or simulated (inappropriately, probably) in the listening room.

I suspect that if I can point to speakers when blindfolded, then the system is not working very well. Even a 5-channel system should create a phantom sphere of continuous sound--right?--and not five discretely detectable sources.

I don't think the difference is as stark as between color and black & white. But even there, if my subject is itself (nearly) monochromatic, will a color photo bring something additional that a black & white photo won't? I'm reminded of a photo made by a gifted photography student in the commercial program at East Texas State University back in the deeps of time. He had photographed, in high key, an egg carton that was open to show the eggs within. The carton was white with no visible markings, and the background was white (again, in high key). The eggs were as white as white eggs can be. It was submitted to a photo contest at which I was one of the judges. It took us some pretty close inspection to be sure that it was a color photo, but we all agreed that being in color added something that would have been lost (or, really, too graphic) in black & white. The point is that the subject was selected to reveal the subtleties of the choice, and not merely to demonstrate the difference. Preference testing for stereo versus multichannel could work the same way, given that concert-hall listening where the music is coming from the front is such a common use case.

Rick "not trying to justify one versus the other" Denney

 

[symphara]

Edit: You said much of this after I typed it.

It would depend on the mix. Sure, some mixes are designed to put one in the middle, but those wouldn't be the ones I'd choose for a blind test. Rather, I would choose a stage presentation from the audience's perspective, one in stereo, and one in multichannel to emulate the envelopment of a real hall. The difference would be the room responses as recorded versus those that are inferred from the stereo image or simulated (inappropriately, probably) in the listening room.

I suspect that if I can point to speakers when blindfolded, then the system is not working very well. Even a 5-channel system should create a phantom sphere of continuous sound--right?--and not five discretely detectable sources.

I don't think the difference is as stark as between color and black & white. But even there, if my subject is itself (nearly) monochromatic, will a color photo bring something additional that a black & white photo won't? I'm reminded of a photo made by a gifted photography student in the commercial program at East Texas State University back in the deeps of time. He had photographed, in high key, an egg carton that was open to show the eggs within. The carton was white with no visible markings, and the background was white (again, in high key). The eggs were as white as white eggs can be. It was submitted to a photo contest at which I was one of the judges. It took us some pretty close inspection to be sure that it was a color photo, but we all agreed that being in color added something that would have been lost (or, really, too graphic) in black & white. The point is that the subject was selected to reveal the subtleties of the choice, and not merely to demonstrate the difference. Preference testing for stereo versus multichannel could work the same way, given that concert-hall listening where the music is coming from the front is such a common use case.

Rick "not trying to justify one versus the other" Denney

It’s not a question of the speakers being well integrated or not. I have three hi-fi surround sound systems and another one on my work computer. The three hi-fi systems are 7.1.4, 5.1.2 and 5.1, all with room correction. The first one is spectacular (Atmos in-ceiling, Gik panels etc) for creating a surround sound bubble where you hear no individual speaker. Like a personal mini-IMAX.

The issue is that when listening to a stereo mix, there’s no sound bubble. It comes from the front. All of it, minus very small reflections. So it’s really easy to tell.

Now I’ll grant you one thing. On my work computer I can make the system (also 5.1) use the center too on top of front LR, and then it’s much more subtle. It’s similar to a stereo mix.

But ihe question is not if it’s detectable or not. It’s easily detectable, once rear speaker fire. My suspicion is that it’s all to do with what we look for (I personally like to dig deep into the detail of the sound and the layering of the melody) and how well we tolerate immersion when listening to music. I absolutely love immersion when it comes to movies. So much so that in ‘99 I spent an unreasonable amount of money on a PC Dolby Surround decoder card, imported from Singapore, so I could play games and watch whatever MPEG-1 crap I had at the time, but in surround.

With music, it’s different, for some reason. You could do whatever preference testing you‘d want (I’ve done it myself) and I would come to the same result.

 

[MattHooper]

There’s much to agree to in your post but I don’t think it applies to this particular case. There’s simply no comparison between silly stuff like Ethernet cable preference … for audio, and multichannel vs stereo, for which the difference is blindingly obvious.

I have a ton of multichannel music. They‘re either ambience mixes (quick recently enjoyed examples that spring to mind: Allman Brothers/Fillimore East SACD; Miles Davis/Kind of Blue, Japan remastered, SACD; a big box of Santana, Japan concert, SACD; Mozart/Requiem, DVD-Audio) or middle-of-the-action (J.M. Jarre/Aero, DVD; Mike Oldfield/Tubular Bells, SACD; Vivaldi/L’Estro Armonico, DVD-Audio; Jeff Beck/Blow by Blow, SACD). I also made comparisons of Tidal Atmos mixes. It’s not like I haven‘t tried the stuff. I have.

The first category, I don’t care much either way. But if I read or work, I prefer the stereo mix, otherwise I find it hard to concentrate.

The second category, it’s just weird. The stereo mix is better. In my personal opinion.

And I certainly don't deny your experience or your preference. I accept it like I accept my own. (Insofar as neither of us associate a scientific-level reliability to our claims).

As for surround sound, to clarify: I actually really like it for music. In most instances I'm using upmixing of one sort or another and I can find it very pleasing. And I tend to prefer it for electronic music. But if I had to choose only between listening to music on my 2 channel system or my surround, I'd choose the stereo system.

 

[Robin L]

And I certainly don't deny your experience or your preference. I accept it like I accept my own. (Insofar as neither of us associate a scientific-level reliability to our claims).

As for surround sound, to clarify: I actually really like it for music. In most instances I'm using upmixing of one sort or another and I can find it very pleasing. And I tend to prefer it for electronic music. But if I had to choose only between listening to music on my 2 channel system or my surround, I'd choose the stereo system.

I prefer headphones. Odd, in that it has some of the aspects of surround [binaural recordings can have all]: there is a sense of being surrounded by sound. I also get the impression of hearing more low-level detail. I know it's not "real", but "Stereo" is not "real" either, insofar as the imaging of two-channel is an audio illusion. I have owned and enjoyed a 5.1 system, but in the end I find headphone listening makes it easier to hear musical detail, so I often use headphones when speakers are an option. The audio perspective of headphones might not be "real", but it is consistent.

I would think this sort of information could and should be a data point, to be included alongside the various arrays of speakers.

 

[MattHooper]

I prefer headphones. Odd, in that it has some of the aspects of surround [binaural recordings can have all] in that there is a sense of being surrounded by sound. I also get the impression of hearing more low-level detail. I know it's not "real", but "Stereo" is not "real" either, insofar as the imaging of two-channel is an audio illusion. I have owned and enjoyed a 5.1 system, but in the end I find headphone listening makes it easier to hear musical detail, so I often use headphones when speakers are an option. The audio perspective of headphones might not be "real", but it is consistent.

I would think this sort of information could and should be a data point, to be included alongside the various arrays of speakers.

I remember spending some glorious times late at night with good headphones, immersed in tons of music (especially Rush).

These days I highly value a sense of density, impact and corporeality - of air-moving acoustic power - in my music system, which I don't get from headphones. So I stick to speakers.

(Also, I have to guard my tinnitus and hyperacusis from flairing up, and I find headphones really exacerbates the issue. For on thing I think headphones have a particularly sneaky way of making it harder to know exactly how loud I'm playing the music).

 

[Newman]

Newman is specifically saying we cannot even know our own preference unless we do it as a controlled test. Nothing to do with people expressing authority, or representing others. I can't know I prefer stereo over mono or multichannel over stereo (or vice versa) unless I've done a controlled listening test.

All those opinions you hold - you can't know you hold them without controlled comparisons.

This is clearly bunkum.

The fact that you think it is ‘bunkum’ merely illustrates that you have a learning opportunity here.

Simplest to explain by way of an example. In sighted listening you clearly prefer speaker A over speaker B. But in controlled conditions you clearly prefer speaker B over speaker A. So it turns out that you actually prefer the SOUND WAVES from speaker B. But without the controlled test you would be dead certain that you prefer the sound waves from speaker A, and you would be wrong.

P.S. Before you assert that the example is unrealistic: it is actually routine and has been done repeatedly. Even when speaker A and B are very different. There is nothing to debate about the realism of the example.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Curious how these threads meander. What started as Vinyl not sounding so bad is now stereo versus multichannel.
I don't know which is superior. The expense of at least 3 extra speakers and the associated electronics is discouraging. Perhaps something to considered if a dedicated movie room became available - in a different house. For now I have a decent stereo with a subwoofer used during movies for room shaking effects.

 

[JRS]

<snip>
I don't know why people fall over themselves to demonstrate that LPs are somehow superior. They aren't. It's just nostalgia. Own up to it, there's nothing to be ashamed of. It's perfectly acceptable to choose something objectively worse because it makes you feel better due to its very quaintness and the ritual attached to using it.

A good analogy is the old muscle cars and big chryslers, caddies what have you. Lots of folk love those years and the cars they produced and wax on and on about their sublime qualities. Yea like a bench seat, a 3/4" steering wheel, crank windows, aftermarket 8 track, optional AC and a three speed auto transmission were the apex of automobile evolution. Sure the muscle cars made noise and burned rubber, but an 800HP Hellcat is street legal, has a top speed of 200+ and in 1970 dollars, costs around 10K. To me digital vs TT is the difference between say a Hellcat and SuperBee. On the one hand 800HP and an 8speed auto that you simply can't improve on vs 400 HP and a Hurst 4 spd.

Something to be said for manual. And something to be said for TT's. But it aint performance.