Why "High End" almost hates multichannel?

[eesau55]

Hi,

you have also possibly noticed that the audiophiles (who I have recently started calling retro-audiophiles) don't like multichannel music reproduction at all. The English Hifi News is a good example of the kind of stupid attitude. But they still sometimes test and compare iPOD to other MP3 players that to me is somewhat weird ... but maybe they wan't to look up to date to the general public ... and multichannel is not in.

Only Stereophile's Kalman Rubinsson is taking this seriously.

The Swedish Hifi&Music also took up multichannel in one issue (the excellent Swedish multichannel record companies BIS and Opus3 have shown their capabilities lately) but after making a reader inquiry they found out that stories about multichannel are not expected ... so that possibly was the end of that interest.

German Stereoplay has no interest in mc but Audio has at least installed some equipment to their readers for equipment comparison. Audio is not clealy showing interest in mc but you can read their passive enthusiasm in the articles. And Audio even had a section for SACD and DVD-A record critisism but now it seems to be gone ....

So what is wrong?

The most active audiophiles are retroaudiophiles that hate CD, digital audio in general and want to go back to the golden 70es and their youth. Extremely conservative gang that controls opionions of those younger audiophiles that for some strange reason have taken up hifi as their hobby.

How do I detect a retroaudiophile:

1. He/she typically hates

. CD and all digital audio ... sometimes SACD is OK
. multichannel audio
. active loudspeakers

2. He/she typical thinks that
. cables are one of the most important factors of audio reproduction
. there are magic tools that can improve audio reproduction of equipment (like mats under your equipment or Golden Sound DH Cones, Squares, and Pads that even Ken K recommended in Hifi News one year ago).
. when the equipment costs outrageously much it cannot be bad
. I have "golden ears" that are better than average ears (and can sometimes detect even ultrasonics)
. mass market products are inherently poor
. tube amplifiers rule

And typically he/she does not understand much about acoustics, mechanics, signal processing, electronics design etc. at all.

Well ... this actually also goes very well with the market situation that is changing all the time and

. outrageously priced items produce high margings for manufacturers and sales chain (even if the quantities are small)
. there is something to write about for the papers (if all properly designed amplifiers would sound the same, Atkinson would not have anything to write about)
. small European and Chinese manufacturers have nische market for their products.

best regards to you all,

Esa

PS. sometimes it even seems to me that High End is about worshiping all sorts of audio anomalies ...

 

[JonUrban]

.......Only Stereophile's Kalman Rubinsson is taking this seriously........

Let's hear it for Kal!

Actually, the audiophile crowd always looks down at surround using the old "gimmick" line. It's an old argument, and you cannot change their minds, so why bother? You either like it or you don't.

Trying to convince them otherwise is futile!

 

[Quadzilla]

Let's hear it for Kal!

Actually, the audiophile crowd always looks down at surround using the old "gimmick" line. It's an old argument, and you cannot change their minds, so why bother? You either like it or you don't.

Trying to convince them otherwise is futile!

I am a "high-end" guy for the most, and I have quite a nice "near-high-end" surround sound system (Bryston, Canton, Thorens, Tate, etc.), and I don't look down on multichannel sound at all. I was an early-adopter of most formats ... INCLUDING quad in the 70s. The problem is that a "high-end" 5.1 (or higher) system is HUGELY expensive ... and surround sound "packages" are usually crap. MOST A/V receivers just DON'T stack up. My next addition will be a pre-pro to replace my Yamaha 6.1-ch receiver (that is only being used as a pre-pro in my system). This is not going to be a cheap upgrade, but it is necessary.

I know that there is a lunatic fringe of "flat-earthers", who worship mono sound and tubes and cryogenic everything, but they ARE the fringe. The one thing that the stereo-only crowd CAN count on though is a ready supply of music. We multichannel folks have been begging for music for decades.

Just look at how much great quad music was ONLY released on 8-track tape. I never got into 8-tracks, even for stereo, but the record labels COULD have released this stuff on LP or Q4 for the audiophile quaddies like Cai and I.

No offense intended to other members here, but 8-track tape is the farthest thing from high-end, and perhaps it set the tone 35 years ago for audiophiles' attitudes towards surround sound. No flames please. As a great Canadian (Red Green) once said, "we're all in this together"!

Mike.

 

[bmoura]

Let's hear it for Kal!

Actually, the audiophile crowd always looks down at surround using the old "gimmick" line. It's an old argument, and you cannot change their minds, so why bother? You either like it or you don't.

Trying to convince them otherwise is futile!

I second your motion! Kal is very knowledgeable when it comes to music, audio and surround sound. A combination that can't be beat.

As to the folks who aren't in to Surround Sound but will spend endlessly on unqiue speakers, vinyl LPs, cartridges and various audio gizmos and gimmicks, I guess to each his own.

 

[JonUrban]

Mike! No Flames Intended. Of course, I was excepting everyone here! I too have "high end stuff", but I still love surround.

As for those 8-tracks, well, you would NEVER catch me with a stereo 8 - EVER. Somehow, quad brings one "over the edge"!

 

[Cai Campbell]

The one thing that Q8 had going for it was awesome channel separation that is extremely difficult to match on quad LP. Q8 vs. LP was always about a compromise between fidelity and channel separation. The only format that really offered both on a consistent basis was Q4 (quad reel).

As for most audiophiles' hatred or dismissal of surround, there are many contributing factors, many of which have been mentioned so far. I don't think you can point to any single reason, it's a combination of them all.

Another reason is the wide variability in surround mixes. I believe that variations in mixing methodologies increase exponentially with the number of channels. If you accept that, then you must accept that there is a greater consistency, across the board, for stereo mixes over surround mixes. A lot of audiophilia centers on the quality and approach of the mix for a piece of music. Throw in a lot of variability and people are rocked out of their comfort zone in a hurry.

So, I would say that the size of one's comfort zone; the ability to stretch beyond the conventional to appreciate variability and not be afraid of it, goes a long way towards defining whether one embraces surround-sound or retreats to the relative safety of stereo.

 

[Quadro-Action]

I think too, that there are among the Fans of High-End also those, who are additional ore general surround-freaks. But the "mafia" of puristic journalist in the journals always tell the people, that Surround and High-End are 2 different sound- and quality world's. And often they compare surround sets (all inclusive) for $ 150 with a stereo-amplifier of $ 1.500 or much more. My argument:
Take a second similar amplifier together to the first - and you have a surround-set with equal quality as before with only one for stereo. But high-enders are common also not millionairs. So for some may be a raise or stock up to a surround set in the same quality too hard. But grumble about surround will be a lot easier.

I read also many of hifi-papers. I wonder, that a few will till now on the market with their adjustment only to the small group of (stereo) High Enders.
In one, coming from GB, one could read, that there are people, who likes till now the mono-sound. I will understand, that it will be difficult to write sometimes many about surround, when there is actual nearly no software available (outside of classic). But I unerstand not, that there are puristic people, who will even torpedo again surround-sound.

So I have written over the years umpteen times readers letters. They are even often printed. Especially in the stereopaly (germany). The relevant editor means, that they wellcome my letters (now as e-mail) with my point of views about the sleepiness of the software industry in hinsight of surround productions. The most puristic paper in Germany is the STEREO and his chief editor. For excample in one of his editions: Wild operating surround engineers in the studios... But he is often on hifi-events and shows. By occasion I have asked him directly about this rubbish. Then the answer will be more careful. It may be true, that the most readers of his paper will be stereo-fans. But that is not a reason for such a rubbish again surround. And by discussion with present stereo high-end fans, they don't find too real arguments again surround. Like the political press: Writing in a secret chamber will be more easier - without present opposition.

That means, that we surround fans must have much more aggressiveness in the public relations. Especially outside of this well quadraphonic...forum. - with readers letters, firm-calls, discussion on hifi-events.

 

[Lucanu]

A few months ago I emailed a guy which supports the "Real Stereo" campaign which was promoted from TNT-Audio pages.
I explained to him why I disagreed so far on what he called a retrospective or a nostalgic 1970s quaddy who is now researching for those recordings onto a new digital format, and nothing else.
I told him that SACD, DVD-A is a great hi-end way to have new and old titles in mch, and that whoever owns a high-end system has to explain why THAT system is better to the same system in mch...

he still doesn't have an answer at all...

 

[bmoura]

I think too, that there are among the Fans of High-End also those, who are additional ore general surround-freaks. But the "mafia" of puristic journalist in the journals always tell the people, that Surround and High-End are 2 different sound- and quality world's. And often they compare surround sets (all inclusive) for $ 150 with a stereo-amplifier of $ 1.500 or much more. My argument:
Take a second similar amplifier together to the first - and you have a surround-set with equal quality as before with only one for stereo. But high-enders are common also not millionairs. So for some may be a raise or stock up to a surround set in the same quality too hard. But grumble about surround will be a lot easier.

Absolutely. If the speakers, amps and pre-amps match up, a Surround Sound system can be as "high end" as any Stereo system. Certainly gear from companies like Ed Meitner's EMM Labs and Meridian, among others, prove that out.

 

[Tubefreak]

maybe they don't like it because they have to buy/build a second (verrrrry expensive) tube(valve) amp, with 2 extra even more expensive speakers...?
go and ask the high enders, if they could afford another set of amp+speakers.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

They have generally not done a direct comparison, matched dollar for dollar, between a mch system and a stereo system. Granted, the MCH system will have less expensive individual components but the rewards are different and, imho, worth it. Of course, you have to take into account that many of those naysayers want to judge the difference on their old recordings and mentality.

Kal

 

[mandrix]

I just erased about 20 lines of what I thought was a balanced, well thought out compilation of "my" views.
Realized it was not necessary.
It all rolls down to this: multichannel is the greatest in my world.
regards,
boondocks

 

[Bob R]

Just a small thread hi-jack to thank Kal for the "Music in the Round" link.

Great work there. I bookmarked it so I can read all 19 articles at my leisure.

I'll pass it on to the Sound and Vision gang.

Thanks,

Bob R

 

[john_m_crosbie@yahoo]

I personally enjoy DVD-A and SACD, though I have to buy the Disc online, no stores around here carry either format.
On the other hand, I still play vinyl and buy(online also) 180 gram and 200 gram records.
CDs, ipod, mp3 I can do without. I have no use for compressed music.

 

[Analogueghost]

Ahh... this thread reminds me of why I've been reading this forum for so long and why I eventually joined: intelligent, informed discussion about surround sound products (hardware and software, new and old), mixes, etc. without constant "stereo is the only way" threadcraps. I love the Hoffman Forums, but sometimes the derisive attitude towards surround from an admittedly small but vocal group gets really old.

I suspected that the same held true in the magazines, which it apparently does, but it's nice to know that there are a few people out there pulling for us surround geeks!

 

[Old Quad Guy]

One must also consider why does the average person of today "Low End" does not like / or use multi-channel even though they already own amps that contain 5.1 abilities. I have friends that own such amps and it's like pulling teeth trying to get them to hook up their systems proper. I suspect people don't know how or where to put the rear speakers. Nor do they realize the power of a great classic song in multi-channel that can send the listener to a whole different place that Stereo and Mono mixes can only hint at. You can't appreciate music that you've never heard before.
But we can. :sun

 

[Frantic]

Nor do they realize the power of a great classic song in multi-channel that can send the listener to a whole different place that Stereo and Mono mixes can only hint at. You can't appreciate music that you've never heard before.
But we can. :sun

Well said.

I am a very lonely person when it comes to enjoying my collection of multi channel music. No one else really seems to care, so, I just enjoy my solitude with a Maker's Mark on the rocks.

 

[Analogueghost]

Well said.

I am a very lonely person when it comes to enjoying my collection of multi channel music. No one else really seems to care, so, I just enjoy my solitude with a Maker's Mark on the rocks.

It's a lonely hobby (although I do have the pleasure of one surround buddy in the real world), but it's a great way to relax. Surround music + bourbon = perfect night.

 

[Quadzilla]

It's a lonely hobby (although I do have the pleasure of one surround buddy in the real world), but it's a great way to relax. Surround music + bourbon = perfect night.

LOL ... You got that right AGhost. I have one very cushy brown leather recliner in the sweet spot of my surround sound room. Everybody asks where the rest of the furniture is, and all I can do is grin.

 

[HDJK]

...Another reason is the wide variability in surround mixes. I believe that variations in mixing methodologies increase exponentially with the number of channels. If you accept that, then you must accept that there is a greater consistency, across the board, for stereo mixes over surround mixes. A lot of audiophilia centers on the quality and approach of the mix for a piece of music. Throw in a lot of variability and people are rocked out of their comfort zone in a hurry.

So, I would say that the size of one's comfort zone; the ability to stretch beyond the conventional to appreciate variability and not be afraid of it, goes a long way towards defining whether one embraces surround-sound or retreats to the relative safety of stereo.

Very true. There are two stores for audiophiles where I live. Both shop owners are very special characters. Before you can finish a question they force their opinion upon you without giving away much information. They seem so tuned in to what they think is the holy grail of music listening that nothing else has a right stand next to it. Needless to say both are stereo or mono only freaks So I think you hit the nail on the head with the 'comfort zone' explanation.

Just a small thread hi-jack to thank Kal for the "Music in the Round" link.

Great work there. I bookmarked it so I can read all 19 articles at my leisure.

+1

Well said.

I am a very lonely person when it comes to enjoying my collection of multi channel music. No one else really seems to care, so, I just enjoy my solitude with a Maker's Mark on the rocks.

I know how that feels