• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Stereo Vs Surround Sound?

F

Frankfurt

New Member
Why is it that most of us prefer stereo to surround sound for music? (I know tisi is an assumption but I believe its true) Is it because we have never had anything better than stereo as a format? Is it a result of years of listening in this mode and we are therefor reticent to move to a surround sound format?

I note that we hear naturally in surround sound! If I could hear the perfect sound as the artist/s produced and presumably intended it I would actually be in the recoding studio or at the concert in the middle of the orchestra. What I would hear is surround sound with all its ambiance echos of walls etc! Stereo is an artificial way of reproducing sound. Why is it then we lean to stereo as a format? Should we not be using discrete surround as a "better" listening mode or at least a more natural mode?

I would be most interested to hear what members had to say on the subject.
 
Register to hide this ad
Most of my music that I listen to are recorded in stereo. So surround would be useless to me. Therefore I am perfectly happy with my 2.1 setup for music. Simpler. But my ht system is 5.1 for movies and cool commercials.
 
I have to disagree with you on some of your points. Speaking only for me; I listen to two channel music using only two channels because it was recorded and mastered to be listened to in only two channels.

I use the appropriate surround/MC setup for material that was recorded and mastered for that type of playback.

I have no desire to artificially enhance two channel music with any sort of "fake" effect. I also have no desire to cripple any surround/MC music by playing it back using only two channels.
 
Besides to be in the "middle" of a Band or Orchestra to capture all the ambience of the moment then you would also need something like "Smellavision" so that you would not only get all the "Grunts or Whatever" but also all the Farts etal as they happen for without all of these what would you get?:)
 
I actually just got rid of my surround set up in to concentrate on the quality of my 2 channel set up. IMO a really good stereo set up can sound very surround like. I do have a lot of media, CDs, movies(Blu-Ray and DVD) but I am much more concerned with the 2 channel stuff.
 
I was far more interested in surround sound until I heard a really good stereo image properly... Now I don't care about surround for music at all. I'd rather hear excellent imaging and clarity from two channels than mediocrity from 5. For music that is. I think movies do sound better in surround... But movies take second place to music for me.

And yes you can have both if you want... But my interest in it died once I heard what a good stereo can actually do. (And yes I made it 30 years without hearing a truly good stereo).
 
The few concert halls I have been in are designed to absorb or reflect echo away from the audience and cancel standing waves and so forth. There is very little reflected sound coming from the side, back and ceiling. In that setting the sound stage is in front of you. Therefore stereo is the more accurate facsimile of the natural experience for orchestra listening. SS that puts you in the middle of the orchestra or band isn't natural, unless you're one of the musicians. Maybe it is conditioning, but stereo just sounds more natural to me than 5.1 surround for music. It's not my set-up either, NHT SuperTwos in front, Super Center, SuperOne's for the surrounds and a SubOne are all very musical speakers. There are exceptions, but the novelty of my few DTS 5.1 audio discs (DSOTM, Fly Like an Eagle; Beck, Bogart & Appice; or 461 Ocean Blvd) wore off quickly and I will listen to those much less often than my LP or CD copies. Maybe it just sounds artificial, because it wasn't recorded that way in the first place. The recording has so much more impact on the sound than playback. I offer Sheffield Labs, The King James Version - 1 stereo mic > wire > cutting head = recording perfection that puts you in that church with a decent stereo system. What else do you need?
(I need lots more records like that.)
 
Last edited:
elcoholic said:
The few concert halls I have been in are designed to absorb or reflect echo away from the audience and cancel standing waves and so forth. There is very little reflected sound coming from the side, back and ceiling. In that setting the sound stage is in front of you. Therefore stereo is the more accurate facsimile of the natural experience for orchestra listening. SS that puts you in the middle of the orchestra or band isn't natural, unless you're one of the musicians. Maybe it is conditioning, but stereo just sounds more natural to me than 5.1 surround for music. It's not my set-up either, NHT SuperTwos in front, Super Center, SuperOne's for the surrounds and a SubOne are all very musical speakers. There are exceptions, but the novelty of my few DTS 5.1 audio discs (DSOTM, Fly Like an Eagle; Beck, Bogart & Appice; or 461 Ocean Blvd) wore off quickly and I will listen to those much less often than my LP or CD copies. Maybe it just sounds artificial, because it wasn't recorded that way in the first place. The recording has so much more impact on the sound than playback. I offer Sheffield Labs, The King James Version - 1 stereo mic > wire > cutting head = recording perfection that puts you in that church with a decent stereo system. What else do you need?
(I need lots more records like that.)
Click to expand...

:thmbsp::thmbsp::thmbsp: :):)
 
As mentioned in other posts, I find music sound's best when it is played back using the format they were recorded in. Since my CD's and LP's are all stereo, that is my format of choice.

I do have some well recorded DD 5.1 DVD Video's that I play back in DD 5.1, and they absolutely sound great, No question about it. Some well recorded stereo music however on the right stereo system can produce a 3-D sound effect that's startlingly good. But ultimately I think a DD 5.1 program, recorded with the same care will take it to the next level. I also have a DVD-Audio and Multi-Channel SACD (which requires I use the players 5.1 analog outputs) that do an even better job of 5.1 SS.

I have even played with some of the matrix SS modes on my AVR for stereo CD and LP music, and with careful attention to the various settings it too can be enjoyable for casual listening. But for critical listening, Stereo is my first choice for material recorded that way. Part of the reason my AVR doesn't do as good a job with matrix ss is because it's DSP doesn't have the definition required, so SQ suffers some. Oddly, it does an excelent job with DD 5.1 programs.
 
Last edited:
I think most folks struggle to create a decent listening space for stereo. Surround is even harder.

My firsts surround in the den of my old house was not correct and didn't work too well. When I built my dedicated home theater in the basement in my new house, I had the luxury of designing it to be near ideal dimensions with proper placement of side and back surrounds. It was an act of faith, I'd never heard a well designed surround sound listening space. It paid off in spades. A well designed surround sound listening space can immerse you in the music.

Having said that, there are very few well done surround sound recordings. I have some multichannel SACD's of classical music that gets the ambiance just right. DSOTM works, but I'm not a big fan of "Hotel California" or "Layla".

BTW, music in well done blu-ray movies can be breathtaking!
 
charles 1973 said:
Some well recorded stereo music however on the right stereo system can produce a 3-D sound effect that's startlingly good.
Click to expand...

That's what the rest of us call a sound stage!:D

I can and do appreciate and play music using both types of reproduction. IMO this is because I started with what I think is a good two channel system. To that system I added surround/MC capability. At the flick of a switch I go from a dedicated two channel system to a (IMO) pretty good surround system. I do this without any compromising of the two channel sound and very little compromising (no center channel speaker) with surround.

IMO much of the complaining about substandard two channel reproduction with surround systems is because those systems start as surround systems with stereo as an afterthought. Start with a good two channel system and add surround to it. That way there is no sacrifice when playing two channel material.
 
Music was never intended to be heard in surround sound. It was always facing you. Your thoughts on surround sound aren't correct.

Music is recorded in left and right as far as I know minus some gimmick 5.1 SACDs no one has every made surround sound music. Not even at concerts do they use surround sound. Surround sound is used in movies to help convey the sense of you being there and to make it seem more realistic.
 
ra7c7er:
My thoughts on surround relate to how the music was recorded and mastered. If it was recorded and mastered with surround in mind that's the way I play it.

Perhaps you should actually read my previous posts where I stated quite plainly that music that's recorded in two channel should be played that way.

FYI: There are several classical pieces that were written for surround type production. Have you ever heard of Scriabin? While you're at it visit somewhere that has a large pipe organ.
 
ra7c7er said:
Music was never intended to be heard in surround sound. It was always facing you. Your thoughts on surround sound aren't correct.
Click to expand...

I had a long reply for this but then realized there was no point. Keep on believin' what you believe :)
 
I use my 2.1 system for music and my 5.2 system for TV and movies. Even when listening to concert DVDs, I set my HT to 2.2 because, as others have said, the music was recorded in 2 channel. I've never been to a live music show where there were speakers behind me.
 
I'm all about the 2.x stereo, even for TV and movies. I tried a 5.1 setup for movies for a brief period of about 6 months and it sounded unnatural to me. Music has always been a 2 channel thing for me.
 
IMO no real music lover wants to be surrounded by musicians. I've always thought that was one of the main reasons quad sound never caught on. The rock/pop record producers spent too much time and effort placing musicians all around you. Most people, including myself, don't like that type of sound.

I can state with some authority that even when playing on stage you're not surrounded with musicians. I helped work my way through college playing bass so I have some knowledge in this area.

Have you detractors ever heard of ambience? A properly done live surround recording will use the rear channels for ambience. If you ever go a classical music concert you'd know that hall ambience has a lot to do with the sound. The only way to reproduce it is with rear speakers. Ambience is such a part of classic pipe organ sound it's pretty obvious you've never heard any live.

You can't reproduce hall ambience with only two speakers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom