Un-Official Poll--Who`s Sticking w/ 2-channel for Music (1 Viewer)

[John Kotches]

Lee,
How fitting of you to provide one sentence from a couple of paragraphs completely out of context. I have highlighted your selected quotation in context to help you and everyone else out.
Let's remind everyone what I really wrote, one more time

In that case, you have a question of which fictional representation of an event that didn't exist in real time is personally preferable.

Now which part of that wasn't perfectly clear? C'mon tell me.
Now surely, in context the sentence makes an entirely different point doesn't it.
Now, do you want to continue discuss ignorance?
In the future if you're trying to make a point, might I suggest you wait a few pages further down in the discussion to take a quotation so grossly out of context as you just did above?
I've never said two channel reproduction can't be very good. I've seen too many excellent examples of surround recordings, both ambient and immersive to continue to hold on to the antiquated notion that stereo is something other than what it is, inherently limited in its ability to deliver a performance.
Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

John T:

The problem is that there's only a handful (per centage wise) that are an historical document of a live performance.

The vast majority of recordings (at least 95%, likely > 99%) have no correlation to any real time performance.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

John,

What is telling about your reply is that you neither address why you are questioning my occupation or why you think soundstage is adequately created by mixing controls. Mixing controls are almost always bad and there is a vast majority of current and historical recordings that are recorded as live events but in a controlled situation like a studio. Mixing in instruments from isolated events is a relatively new thing from the 70s forward.

It is very fruitless to try to have an intelligent discussion with someone who does not respond to one's points but instead tries to find small tidbits to attack on, mostly in an elevated aggressive tone that what was not called for.

I think your reply here is further evidence that there is no value to debating you.

I'm out of here.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

It has to be embarassing when you take a quotation grossly out of context and then get called on it.

If you're going to grab quotations, keep them in context. That is not an unreasonable request to make.

It's easy to take information out of context and have individuals come to a radically different conclusion then when they are used in context.

Since your intent was to demonstrate my ignorance, I offered back my original words. Too bad you missed them the first time around.

Regards,

 

[MikeH1]

Hey John and Lee I'm all for debate/taking the odd potshot and everything but this is getting ridiculous. The music area of the forum is my favorite place to hang out and I learn a lot from everyone, BOTH of you included. But I'm getting tired of many threads getting hijacked and turning into the John and Lee postfest with "you weren't clear enough in your past statement" debate. Or a DVD A / SACD debate. Or a ....you get the idea.
If you need to continue, then do so and I will keep reading because in amongst all the bullshit there is some good information

 

[Kevin C Brown]

What Michael said.
I personally am still curious as to what others think. I suppose in reality though, it really is up to each of us to judge whether we like stereo vs multi-channel mixes.
I just hope that even when (good) mutli-channel mixes become more prevalent, that a good old fashioned (high quality) stereo mix is still included on each disc.
You know, like Pan & Scan and Widescreen.
Or DD and DTS.
VHS and Beta.... (OK, that one is different.)

 

[Zane Charron]

I don't think there is ONE way to do a mix. Who said music has to be representative of a live situation? I can see that for the majority of classical music, some jazz and a little rock/pop, but for the most part (pop/rock/country,etc) music today (and for the past almost 50 years) is recorded in studios. There are overdubs and multiple takes and effects, etc, so why should you try to create a "live" sound with such things like the latest Celine Dion record? These were never meant to be heard that way.

With new M/C recordings I'm all for doing GOOD surround mixes utilizing all the channels. For older (read: more than 5 years) recordings, I say leave 'em in stereo. For music that is supposed to be heard as "live", give it a good ambiance, but don't put the cellos in the rear speakers (unless your some experimental group). For newer stuff that the artist/engineers want to do a surround mix on, please do.

There are no set and fast rules to how recorded music should be presented, IMO.

 

[LanceJ]

When I listen to music, I am listening for the message, atmosphere or particular emotion the artist is trying to convey to me. NOT if it has a "proper" live sound to it or that it comes from the "correct" direction.
Art is about imagination, not rules.
LJ

 

[Brian L]

Just to answer the question of the thread....

It all depends on the recording (wait, someone already said that!).

I only have a few MC titles, and like them all (Jeff Beck/Blow by Blow the exception, for which I prefer the 2CH mix).

When I first cued up the DVD-A of Hotel California, I had a smile on my face the likes of which I have not had for a long, long time (at least as relates to Music listening). It was like hearing the music for the 1st time. I get the same feeling when listening to Yes, Big Phatt Band, and ELP.

Little nuances of the music that are buried in the 2CH mix came to life. The sense of envelopment can not be recreated in 2CH, IMHO, and Lee's arguments not withstanding.

I agree with those posters that argue that MC is the way to go in terms of representing a live performance (with a better front sound stage and proper use of ambiance in the rear channels), or delivering an entertaining and enjoyable mix of a decidedly artificial performance (virtually ALL pop/rock). I for one would love to pull up a chair next to Joe Walsh while he trades off solos during Hotel California!

But of course, no one is right or wrong. Its a personal preference kind of thing. That's why they make Chocolate AND Vanilla ice cream, Blondes AND Brunettes, Ginger AND Mary Ann.........

Happy Holidays and Happy Listening,

BL

 

[mike_decock]

Put me down as sticking with 2 channels. Most of my home listening is vinyl anyway.

I'll explore SACD/DVD-A when companies like Rotel, Adcom, NAD, etc start putting out good 2 channel hi-rez players. No Sony for me, thanks. Also, I won't pay a penny more for the hi-rez versions than I would pay for the CD counterparts.


-Mike...

 

[LanceJ]

Also, I won't pay a penny more for the hi-rez versions than I would pay for the CD counterparts.

Mike: Please explain this.
LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Hey John and Lee I'm all for debate/taking the odd potshot and everything but this is getting ridiculous.

I agree Michael. We seem to be getting more and more off topic on any given thread which is subtracting from the Forum.
This is what I am going to do in the spirit of Christmas:
*** No more replies to John Kotches posts. ***
I will not respond or pick up any conversation going forward.
It is simply not proven worthwhile or intellectually stimulating at the end of the day.
I hope you find this solution satisfying.

 

[cwhite]

Is it unreasonable to assume that any of these multi-channel, high resolution audio formats can be listenable in a regular, 2-channel folddown stereo mix? What would be the pros and cons of this idea?

 

[John Kotches]

Charles,

SACD has (as part of the spec) a dedicated stereo mix. In fact, the vast majority of titles have been released as stereo only mixes.

DVD-A has all mixes optional. In practice the vast majority of titles (>75%) have delivered dedicated stereo mixes in addition to surround mixes. In addition, the vast majority of the releases are aimed at surround.

Regards,

 

[StevenW]

I'm sticking with 2 channel for the simple fact that there isnt enough decent rock, that I prefer, for me to warrant an upgrade.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I'm sticking with 2 channel for the simple fact that there isnt enough decent rock, that I prefer, for me to warrant an upgrade.

Steven,

What kind of rock would you like to see in Super Audio?

 

[mike_decock]

Mike: Please explain this.

I just means I won't pay a premium for the hi-rez versions. If the CD of an album sells for $13.99, I won't pay more than $13.99 for the SACD/DVD-A. It just ain't worth it to me. I'm all for a better, hi-rez format, but I know that the music I love won't get any attention from the big labels or the small audiophile reissue labels.

I'll go with the flow if it becomes mainstream and I hope it does. I'm just not gonna pay through the nose for a future Betamax or Laserdisc.


-Mike...

 

[StevenW]

Steven,
What kind of rock would you like to see in Super Audio?

TOOL

 

[Joel Fontenot]

What kind of rock would you like to see in Super Audio?

How about,

• Curve
• Heart
• Pat Benatar
• Missing Persons
• LeRoux
• Juliana Hatfield
• Tangerine Dream
• Alan Parsons Project (Yes, I know ONE of their albums is on DVD-A)
• Blondie

I could go on.
Actually, as for me - two channel for the moment. Only because my car, computer, and work computer w/ headphones are all only 2 channel. I have a 5.1 set-up in the media room, but everywhere else that I actually sit to listen to music is only 2-channel.
Joel

 

[Rachael B]

Joel, Tangerine Deam has an SACD release, RUBYCON. I have it. It's really not one of my favourites by them but I bought a copy. Le Roux, that's wishful thinking. I concur but pigs will proably fly spaceships before it happens...? I have a copy of their first album on vinyl. I wish I had a couple more platters by them. Le Roux is so very forgotten, unfortuneatly. The two of us are two of the few. Best wishes!