In defence of Multi-channel mixes

PaulDA · 06-01-2005, 05:41 PM

I posted this on a British forum but got little reaction (though an earlier debate in that same forum revealed a serious antipathy toward MCH music). I put this to you all and ask for comments.

Regardless of preference for two channel vs MCH and the level of equipment one has on hand, I believe the case against multichannel is the same kind of case as was once made against stereo back when mono was king. I've raised this several times here and elsewhere and no one seems to have a comment one way or another, which I find odd. Of course, as an historian, my fascination for things considered out of date (like mono vs stereo) is probably not shared by the majority of gadget-geeks (which I also am).

In the early days of stereo, the kinds of complaints I hear/read regularly today about MCH mixes were almost the same. People complained about "gimmicky" mixes that "ping-ponged" across (rather than around, as today's MCH mixes) the soundstage for no good reason. Also, the expanded sense of spaciousness (which I LOVE about well done MCH mixes today) was often criticized as presenting a sonic image out of proproportion to the imagined venue. There just seemed to be a lot of "silliness" that was superfluous and seemed only designed to draw unwarranted attention to itself. And it was true. There were mixes like that in the early days of stereo, just as there are today in the early days of MCH mixes. Stereo grew up, so to speak, and I'm confident MCH will as well. In fact, I'd say the majority of the mixes are already mature in that sense.

An additional barrier to acceptance of MCH mixes, again IMO, is it represents a "paradigm shift" in the way we receive the musical experience. 99% of music listeners are not music makers. They've never been in a recording studio during a jam session or onstage with a band or in a choir or orchestra or etc. As such, they've always received music (when purposefully listening, at any rate) from in front. In that sense, the change from mono to stereo represented a change of degree, not kind. Stereo expanded the soundstage, gave it depth as well breadth, but it remained up front. I can understand the conditioning that makes most people more comfortable with the idea of music coming from in front of them--particularly a live recording, as it represents their seating position vis a vis the performers. People who attend concerts, whether rock or classical, will say, "I wasn't surrounded by the music, the players were up front".

To that I say: yes and no. It's true that at a live performance, your main source of sound is from the front. But sound reflects all around the room/venue and you are, in effect, "surrounded" by the music. It's just that not all of it is directly radiating at you. The "ambient hall" mixes found on most classical and many live concert recordings are trying to recreate this sense of space--and many do it quite well. A well set up set of stereo speakers and gear can give some impression of this space, but the room in which you listen to your gear is not the same as the recording venue and I think, as good as stereo can be, properly done ambient MCH mixes capture that spaciousness even better. And those mixes are far from "gimmicky".

Let's look at the "gimmicky" mixes, or, as I like to call them, "in the band" mixes. I've been in recording studios, choirs and onstage, so I don't find the "in the band" perspective unusual. But even if I didn't have those experiences, I would still like to listen to "in the band" mixes. It's one thing to argue that live performances are "in front" of the audience, and so should be mixed that way to reflect reality. In the studio, however, there is no "front". Most often, the individual tracks are played separately and mixed later. Traditionally, mixes have been directed to the "front", as that was the kind of playback gear available. But now, with the ability to play back DISCRETE MCH mixes, the mixers/artists are no longer bound by that constraint. Does it always make a good mix? No. But the same can be said of stereo. I think it's a question of acclimatization. Perhaps, as others suggest, it will never take off. It's possible, as the masses are generally far less adventurous than they'd like to believe. If true, I'll be sad, as I find the possibilities available to MCH mixers still largely untapped. But I don't think "in the band" mixes deserve the scorn heaped upon them by many "traditionalists", for lack of a better term.

Anyway, I've rambled enough, so I'm signing off for now. I know I won't likely convert anyone (MCH vs stereo seems a bit too much like Republicans vs Democrats, these days) but I think MCH deserves more careful consideration than it's getting and this is my little plea for some of that consideration.

In the end, though, as I often say and write--no matter what the format or the number of channels--it's about enjoying the tunes.

Man-Fai Wong · 06-01-2005, 08:25 PM

Hi, Paul.

You've made some good points. And I'm not one to hate anything out of hand.

But I think MCH has some inherent problems that make it more diffiult to win over audiophiles than stereo did -- I'm not talking about the average Joe here.

Put it succinctly, I'd say stereo hits the sweet spot for most people well enough that MCH becomes the victim of the law of diminishing returns.

1. I agree that we are already so very comfortable w/ stereo and MCH still requires a big paradigm shift that stereo did not really require (from mono). But that paradigm shift is not just for the listener, but also for the music makers, recording engineers, mixers, etc., and I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that the music producers have actually made that shift yet. There may be the "appearance" of making a shift, but real paradigm shifts can take a lot of time and work -- and still may never truly happen for many people steeped in the old ways.

2. There is just too much good music that already exists that don't really need MCH. I mean while your point about MCH possibly providing a better, alternative experience is a good one, it won't necessarily win anyone over because then you're just talking about a choice, a matter of preference, not of something remotely close to an objective, undeniable truth, which is significant for people who actually care about audio fidelity. Not everyone cares to be listening to music in the middle of the stage like he/she's part of the band/ensemble. Certainly, there's no reason to think such mixes can completely replace traditional stereo mixes.

3. Even if you want to recreate the experience of being on stage itself, you won't likely get that from MCH mixes for the forseeable future. IMHO, there's just no realistic chance to faithfully do it -- that is if there's really such a thing anyway (as you seem to point out for studio recordings). As I mentioned in #2, audio fidelity is important. If there's no such thing as fidelity (or the appearance of fidelity) to a certain experience (whether it's "faked" in the studio or not), then what's the point? Afterall, that's really what drives most audiophiles, no?

And if it's just about the "music", not audio fidelity, then why do we need MCH? Is stereo not just as "musical" as MCH, except where the musician truly requires MCH to make the music work -- and how often would that be? At least w/ mono vs stereo, we know we hear in stereo (w/ 2 ears), and there's clear benefit there. But w/ stereo vs MCH, the benefit is not nearly so clear, except in certain cases.

4. IMHO, it's just too difficult to reap the full potential of MCH in practice. First, it's more difficult to make the proper recording and mixes for a truly great MCH mix -- or so I would assume. Second, it's even that much more difficult to have a playback setup that does justice to such MCH mixes. Consider for a moment how difficult it already is to handle playback in stereo faithfully. Now you throw in MCH. I haven't done any real analysis of the problem, but I'd think the problem is likely exponential based on number of channels involved -- and if all you want is truer recreation of the ambient sound of a live performance and the usual concerns of soundstage, etc., well, the returns are probably logarithmic in order.

Remember, there is still enough quality differences across the frequency response range to distinguish the vast arrays of speakers available today -- not to mention anything about the electronics and room acoustics. And unless money is no object for you, you may still need to choose your speakers knowing that you'll compromise significantly on certain aspects of the playback even in stereo -- and that's assuming you'll have everything properly set up in a proper space and using good electronics.

If you don't have any of these things, which is the case for the average Joe, then there's not much chance you'll ever benefit much, if at all, from MCH. For the average Joe, just running their HT-in-a-box in some sort of fake surround mode will probably do well enough. OR worse yet, he might actually push for the gimmicky stuff that you don't want.

_Man_

Kevin C Brown · 06-01-2005, 09:05 PM

Short story: when SACD and DVD-A were just coming down the pike, I was anti-MC bigtime. I only cared about high resolution stereo mixes. (I grew up in the '70's, and had about 1500 lps before I started swapping them for CDs. Still have about 500 left.) Give me Stereo or give me Death!

So then I got the Dark Side of the Moon SACD. My opinion changed 100%. First off, I did some critical listening between the stereo versions of some DVD-A's and SACDs and CD. Not a big difference. But the MC mix of DSOTM just blew me away. My current conclusion? When an MC mix is done well, there is no doubt in my mind it will improve on the 2 ch mix. The biggest thing I discovered with the best MC mixes, is that the "clarity" of the recording is much improved. Here's what I mean by "clarity": in a 2 ch mix, all of the information is simply divied up between L & R. But in an MC mix, that info is divided up between 5 speaker channels. So the information per channel (or, density) is lower, which to me, makes it a heck of a lot easier to hear lower level detail in the music. I was frankly surprised by this. But that's what I hear from good MC mixes. You can hear "deeper" into the recording.

My final tidbit is that people are 3-D creatures. Stereo is absolutely not 3-D the way a good 5.1 setup can be. Sure, you can talk about "depth", soundstage, etc, in a stereo recording. They are there. But compared to a good MC mix, stereo is like comparing a black and white TV to color.

I am just sad that overall in America (the world?), that music itself is just not the focus that it once was. Video games, DVD-V, HDTV, MP3, the internet, etc, all take away from any penetration that good MC music could have had. SACD and DVD-A have gone nowhere. DualDisc? Who knows. High res HD-DVD or BluRay as applied to music only releases? Who knows. But I have my doubts...

PaulDA · 06-01-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Put it succinctly, I'd say stereo hits the sweet spot for most people well enough that MCH becomes the victim of the law of diminishing returns.

Perhaps, but I recall reading the same about mono to stereo--why go to two speakers when one is perfectly good. Then there are the equipment upgrades (extra amp, new TT).

Quote:

1. I agree that we are already so very comfortable w/ stereo and MCH still requires a big paradigm shift that stereo did not really require (from mono). But that paradigm shift is not just for the listener, but also for the music makers, recording engineers, mixers, etc., and I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that the music producers have actually made that shift yet. There may be the "appearance" of making a shift, but real paradigm shifts can take a lot of time and work -- and still may never truly happen for many people steeped in the old ways.

But a number of recording engineers have said they find it liberating to design a sonic soundstage in MCH. Moreover, film music has been doing it for a long time already. Artists too, feel liberated. I think the reticence is far more powerful among the listeners than the music makers.

Quote:

2. There is just too much good music that already exists that don't really need MCH. I mean while your point about MCH possibly providing a better, alternative experience is a good one, it won't necessarily win anyone over because then you're just talking about a choice, a matter of preference, not of something remotely close to an objective, undeniable truth, which is significant for people who actually care about audio fidelity. Not everyone cares to be listening to music in the middle of the stage like he/she's part of the band/ensemble. Certainly, there's no reason to think such mixes can completely replace traditional stereo mixes.

Again, I think it's a matter of acclimatization. And fidelity surely has to do with the realism of the sound of the instrument and voices, not just where they come from in the room? Hybrid SACD is the ideal format for this, if only they'd done it right. CD compatibility for all, hi-res stereo mixes for those who favour them and MCH mixes for people like me. Moreover, "in the band" mixes are not the only way to go. "Ambient mixes" do an excellent job of increasing spaciousness in the sonic presentation (and one that is immediately evident even with entry level equipment--a spaciousness that is next to impossible with a pair of stereo speakers, whatever their price, by the way, I've tried). Over on the DVD-A side, AIX Records have a great approach. There is more room on DVD-A than SACD, so they offer a hi-res "audience mix", a Dolby "audience mix" (for those without DVD-A playback), a DTS "stage mix" and a hi-res stereo mix. There are ways for the new formats to provide a variety of presentations to suit just about everyone--if only the record companies pull their heads out of their collective asses and stop appealing to the lowest common denominator (I know, pie in the sky thinking).

Quote:

3. Even if you want to recreate the experience of being on stage itself, you won't likely get that from MCH mixes for the forseeable future. IMHO, there's just no realistic chance to faithfully do it -- that is if there's really such a thing anyway (as you seem to point out for studio recordings). As I mentioned in #2, audio fidelity is important. If there's no such thing as fidelity (or the appearance of fidelity) to a certain experience (whether it's "faked" in the studio or not), then what's the point? Afterall, that's really what drives most audiophiles, no?

Well, studio mixes in pop/rock are inherently "artificial", so if they started to mix for MCH, it wouldn't change much. As for the fidelity issue, I believe I addressed that above. Again, I'm not advocating an abandonment of stereo mixes (once you have a MCH mix, a stereo mix is easily made). I just want to see MCH remain available and continue to evolve and mature.

Quote:

And if it's just about the "music", not audio fidelity, then why do we need MCH? Is stereo not just as "musical" as MCH, except where the musician truly requires MCH to make the music work -- and how often would that be? At least w/ mono vs stereo, we know we hear in stereo (w/ 2 ears), and there's clear benefit there. But w/ stereo vs MCH, the benefit is not nearly so clear, except in certain cases.

If two channels are enough, then why are almost all modern recordings done in 24 channel? Wouldn't a couple of mics and some jam sessions be enough? Stereo is mixed down from 24 channels to two. I would argue a MCH mix is more like the "real thing" than two. And we don't hear in stereo because we have two ears. That's based on two misconceptions. One, stereo means THREE dimensional, not TWO channel. The great leap represented by stereo over mono was a sense of spaciousness and three-dimensionality that was previously lacking. MCH simply takes that spaciousness to a new level. And even on basic entry level gear, the spaciousness and separation (which allows backing vocals and instruments to breathe with new life) is evident. The second misconception is that we hear in "two channel" because we have two ears. Our ears are a complex system of sound reception that basically hears in "surround". We can localize sounds and place them, spatially, in their proper context. If we couldn't, discrete MCH MOVIE soundtracks would be a complete waste of time. If it works for movies, it certainly should work for music.

Quote:

4. IMHO, it's just too difficult to reap the full potential of MCH in practice. First, it's more difficult to make the proper recording and mixes for a truly great MCH mix -- or so I would assume. Second, it's even that much more difficult to have a playback setup that does justice to such MCH mixes. Consider for a moment how difficult it already is to handle playback in stereo faithfully. Now you throw in MCH. I haven't done any real analysis of the problem, but I'd think the problem is likely exponential based on number of channels involved -- and if all you want is truer recreation of the ambient sound of a live performance and the usual concerns of soundstage, etc., well, the returns are probably logarithmic in order.

I have installed my own and other peoples sound systems for the past 20+ years. I'm not a professional, but I'm not a rookie either. I know the amount of work required to properly set up a stereo pair to get a decent soundstage. If you follow the ITU configuration for MCH speaker setups, the job is a lot easier. While not required, the majority of MCH mixes today are monitored with an ITU array of studio monitors. Two channel mixes are monitored with a pair of speakers that can be in any number of configurations. Emulating the ITU configuration for MCH playback gives you a better shot of recreating what the sound engineer intended than guessing at the proper two channel setup. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, you don't have to sit in the "sweet spot" for MCH to get good sound. In fact, the "sweet spot" is far larger in MCH than in stereo.

Quote:

Remember, there is still enough quality differences across the frequency response range to distinguish the vast arrays of speakers available today -- not to mention anything about the electronics and room acoustics. And unless money is no object for you, you may still need to choose your speakers knowing that you'll compromise significantly on certain aspects of the playback even in stereo -- and that's assuming you'll have everything properly set up in a proper space and using good electronics.

You're absolutely right. In the real world, compromise is the name of the game. But, again, if a surround array gives a more realistic movie experience, there's no reason it shouldn't do the same for music. "In the band" mixes certainly benefit from the ITU array. Ambient mixes add a level of spatial enhancement that, in two channel, would require a far more tedious setup AND far better speakers. The stereo pair might offer better detail (and the matching quality in MCH would be a larger expense) but the spaciousness is easier to discern than the detail and so gives a larger improvement to more people.

I don't want to eliminate stereo. In fact, I don't use "artificial" surround processing on my two channel music. But I do think discrete MCH, done right, can represent the same level of improvement in sonic quality that stereo represented over mono. And, in an ideal world, the hi-res formats can (and already do) offer us the choice. As a fan of MCH music, especially in hi-res, I just don't want to see that choice disappear.

Man-Fai Wong · 06-01-2005, 10:18 PM

Honestly, I should probably have qualified in my post that I'm mostly interested in acoustic music, not so much the other stuff that would benefit more from "in the band" mixes.

And I remain unconvinced that MCH can really be that much better than stereo for ambient mixes in practice. Think about it. You're talking about using discrete multi-channels to create ambient sound to go w/ the performance in front of you. For that to be truly high fidelity, that's gotta be very difficult to do right (from recording all the way to playback).

I too have DSOTM SACD (and also Roxy Music's Avalon too among others), but have not listened to the MCH mix because my setup is just not remotely proper for it. No doubt, DSOTM (and many others like it) will knock the socks off of very many people, but that's really besides the point if we're talking about audio fidelity. In a sense, it's really not much different than the average Joe playing twisters w/ their boomboxes' EQ/tone controls, except it's done by the music producers. And there are still plenty of folks who are convinced that Bose makes great speaker systems too or that the Star Wars prequels look great, etc. etc.

I know that's a low blow, but in the pure sense of speaking theoretically (as the original post seemed to be appealing toward), is it really all *that* different?

And no, I'm not a true purist either. And I can understand that surround sound doesn't seem to require as much fidelity (at the individual channels) to be convincing as evidenced by home theater surround sound for movies, which actually use highly lossy compression formats. OTOH, the point of using movie soundtrack is a weak one because there is really not much fidelity (or the appearance of fidelity) to aspire toward w/ movie soundtracks anyway.

And using actual theater sound playback as evidence doesn't work either as we don't all have the luxury of the kind of space involved.

Finally, while I'll agree (as I originally did) that there's *potential* in MCH even for ambient mixes, calling it 3D is a fallacy me thinks. It is no more 3D than stereo unless you have channels aligned along a different plane/axis than stereo. It is just enhanced 2D, not truly 3D.

As for Kevin's point about "clarity" and "density" of info, that does make sense to me. However, I don't believe you need more than 3 channels for that in practice for ambient mixes (or rather for the traditional stage-to-audience experience). And if your listening space is small-ish, the extra channel probably won't help either.

But again, I'm speaking mainly of acoustic music performances in a stage-to-audience experience here, not the completely "artificial" stuff or some sort of new approach to the concert experience that something like DSOTM might use in a hypothetical Pink Floyd concert.

_Man_

**HTF Ads**

PaulDA · 06-02-2005, 09:22 AM

First of all, I'd like to say, thanks for engaging in the debate. It's much more pleasant that just getting a reply like:

MCH: pretty daft!

If you don't mind, I'd like to address your comments further.

Quote:

And I remain unconvinced that MCH can really be that much better than stereo for ambient mixes in practice. Think about it. You're talking about using discrete multi-channels to create ambient sound to go w/ the performance in front of you. For that to be truly high fidelity, that's gotta be very difficult to do right (from recording all the way to playback).

Let's take an acoustic example. I have a recording of Mikhail Pletnev playing Schumann piano pieces. It's a solo recording. One instrument. I've listened to it in stereo and in MCH. The MCH mix is an "ambient" one--no gimmicks.

I don't have entry level equipment. I have what I consider a decent mid-fi system. I have an Integra DTR 6.4 receiver, a pair of Boston Acoustics VR-M60 standmounts up front, a Boston VRC centre, a pair of VR-M50s (about 90% scale of the 60s) for surrounds and Boston PV900 sub. My hi-res universal player is a Marantz DV6400. My room has some minor acoustic treatments at the moment, with more on the way. It is a smallish room--12x22.5x7.5ft (ceiling is a drop ceiling with acoustic tiles made of fibreglass, not the basic brittle tiles). As noted, I have my speakers arrayed as close as possible to the ITU configuration.

Whenever I play anything in two channel, I get decent soundstage depth and width (as good as it can get with my speakers and the room). That depth extends away from me to the front, but I have to rely on my room's size and wall configuration (standard rectangle) to provide the indirect "ambience", since I'm only relying on my front pair. When I play the same piece in MCH, the "ambience" of the original space has been captured by the recording engineer (as it has in the stereo mix) but it is placed in the rear channels and thus has more presence.

Let's return to Pletnev's piano solo. In stereo, I get a clear sound, a solid image and a very pleasurable listening experience. In MCH, it's as if the piano is "in" the room. The sense of space and "fidelity" is so much more real that going back to the two channel sounds flat and uninvolving (whereas before I listened to the MCH, it seemed quite vivid).

You say it's difficult to capture ambient sound and play it back in MCH. I have to disagree here from a logical standpoint. The master recording in this case has far more than two channels. It has 24. To create a two channel mix, you have to mixdown from the 24 channels and "steer" the sounds into the two channels while trying to maintain "fidelity". With a MCH mix, you have far more options about where to "steer" the sounds and with a discrete array of more than two channels, you can preserve the individuality of the sounds more clearly, thus with more "fidelity".

Quote:

I too have DSOTM SACD (and also Roxy Music's Avalon too among others), but have not listened to the MCH mix because my setup is just not remotely proper for it. No doubt, DSOTM (and many others like it) will knock the socks off of very many people, but that's really besides the point if we're talking about audio fidelity. In a sense, it's really not much different than the average Joe playing twisters w/ their boomboxes' EQ/tone controls, except it's done by the music producers. And there are still plenty of folks who are convinced that Bose makes great speaker systems too or that the Star Wars prequels look great, etc. etc. I know that's a low blow, but in the pure sense of speaking theoretically (as the original post seemed to be appealing toward), is it really all *that* different?

You've never even tried the MCH mixes? Just out of curiosity? I think you owe it to yourself to at least try them out, no matter how much your "setup is just not remotely proper". If you have a 5.1 speaker setup, then you have enough to try.

MCH mixes ARE NOT the same as "playing twisters w/ their boomboxes' EQ/tone controls". There can be such fooling around by the recording engineers, but I've heard little evidence of this (and I have some experience in a recording studio). I won't even comment on the Bose/Star Wars issue. I will say, though, that if you've not heard a good MCH mix on a properly set up system, then your operating in the dark when it comes to commenting on its audio fidelity. If you lived in the neighbourhood, I'd invite you over for a listen. On of my best friends (and a fellow audio nut--his is the studio I've recorded in) was quite dubious when I first broached MCH mixes with him, until he came over and sat down and listened. I didn't try to dazzle him with DSOTM or anything like that. I played Love Song from Elton John's Tumbleweed Connection SACD--a simple acoustic ballad with Elton John on lead vocal and Lesley Duncan (the woman who wrote the song) on backing vocal, along with an acoustic guitar player (don't remember which one--Elton had several guitar players back then). My friend and I had recorded a version of this song, so we knew it well. I played it in two channel first, so he could hear the familiar mix, and then played it in multichannel. To say he was impressed is an understatement. The backing vocals took on new life and distinction, in a way not possible in two channel. As for fidelity--he said the guitar sounded more real than at any time he'd heard this track before. The mix isn't gimmicky with weird panning effects, but it is an "in the band" mix. I then played him Dave Brubeck's Pvt. Brubeck Remembers, another solo piano (jazz this time) recording in MCH SACD (ambient mix) and he became a convert (we'll be shopping for his next system together in the fall). Please give it a try before you knock it.

Quote:

Finally, while I'll agree (as I originally did) that there's *potential* in MCH even for ambient mixes, calling it 3D is a fallacy me thinks. It is no more 3D than stereo unless you have channels aligned along a different plane/axis than stereo. It is just enhanced 2D, not truly 3D.

As for Kevin's point about "clarity" and "density" of info, that does make sense to me. However, I don't believe you need more than 3 channels for that in practice for ambient mixes (or rather for the traditional stage-to-audience experience). And if your listening space is small-ish, the extra channel probably won't help either.

MCH channels ARE aligned along a different plane/axis than stereo. That's largely the point.

As for the ambient mixes and rear channels, the smaller the room, the more the rear channels offer a greater sense of spaciousness.

I encourage you to find a properly set up system for MCH music playback (difficult to find, unfortunately, but worth the effort) and give MCH music an honest listen. After that, I'd be happy to continue the debate. I also recommend reading Kalman Rubinson's column at Stereophile called "Music in the Round". It's MCH music seen from an audiophile's perspective. These articles are free to access at their website.

Rick_Brown · 06-02-2005, 10:59 AM

"we know we hear in stereo (w/ 2 ears)"

I would challenge that statement. It's not as simple as two stereo speakers running straight into our ears. Our ears don't hear in stereo; our ears hear a 360-degree space all around us.

Multi-channel should in theory add to our ability to come closer to re-creating that 360-degree space than just 2 speakers along one wall.

Kevin C Brown · 06-02-2005, 08:59 PM

Bingo. Well put.