Will surround take over 2 channel? 

Great subject, Paul. Back in 2002 we experimented with developing a surround sound technique for recording. We eventually, called it Extended Sound Environment or E.S.E. The idea was to capture the sound of a live performance in the studio so that the listener could hear as if they were standing in front of the musicians. Gus Skinas was there and suggeste we release the album on SACD. We did and that became the Blue Coast Collection, our first release on Blue Coast Records. But here's the thing. For all the mixing and mastering required, it cost us, the label, an enormous amount of money. Probably 10x any other recording we've made since. And 5 years from recording to the first release. While people agreed it was an amazing sounding project, the buying audience for surround or immersive was (and still is) very small. It doesn't make financial sense and we couldn't afford to do more like that. The nice thing is we did become involved with the circle of immersive engineers at NARAS. There was still an audience for 2 channel stereo, so we released all the following albums for Blue Coast Records (40 or so) as 2 channel stereo only. I have dreams of remixing everything to surround, if and when and audience of more than 1000 people comes into being. But, I don't hold out for that. We used to sell surround downloads for other labels at our Blue Coast Music store, but the cost of storage was more than what consumers bought, so we took down our surround downloads. Here's how Apple Spatial works if you're an indie artist or label who can't afford the cost of remixing to immersive sound..... There is a box to check if you want Apple to apply a plugin to your 2 channel mix and sell it as Spatial. The artist/label never gets to preview the sound. If you click "yes" to Spatial, Apple only offers the spatial sound as a default. Personally, I don't want an Apple plugin to determine my mix. I'd prefer everyone had a chance to listen in stereo DSD, WAV or FLAC. So, if anyone wants to make a donation to Blue Coast's surround and immersive adventures, feel free to contact me. I welcome the opportunity to mix all our musis for the immersive experience. :)

I'll agree with Paul on this one. I'll take a quality 2-channel system over surround any day. I had a custom-built theater room with pretty nice gear, and it was fine... But never captured the detail and magic of a proper 2-channel system. A properly-designed 2-channel system has immersive soundstaging. My speakers completely disappear in the sound stage, to the point where it seems sound is coming from everywhere but the two speakers themselves. I never had people coming over to listen to music at my home theater. However, I had a steady stream of people coming over to listen to the 2-channel setup.

Gotta say I completely agree with this answer- that ship has sailed. That said, there is one setup I think 2-channel fans owe it to themselves to at least play around with - 3 channel. Left, right and center. I'm not alone in this, in fact Paul Klipsch was another believer - the Klipsch Heresy speaker was actually first designed for this purpose. There's honestly a lot of unexplored territory in '3-channel stereo' that doesn't require the complexity of a full surround system and its often strange interactions with the room where a lot can go wrong.

Going to a live Classic Concert (Symphonic Music) gives you a hint of reality (not Stereo). Music is total IMMERSION in the Oeuvre of the Composer. This is an experience you'll never forget. I will not say that it is "Surround", but the music overwhelms you totally

Paul make no mistake Your comments and teaching are not only highly instructive but also very interesting and enjoyable .... thank U from an old rocker down here in NZ 👋👌😎

i love seeing your passion paul ,even after so many years your still like a little boy with his toys..

Hey Paul, Love your channel and perspective on hi-fi. I’ve been seeing more and more enthusiast inquire about “surround sound”. And I understand the appeal due to the “immersion” factor. My son and I have traveled up and down the California coast typically on vacation and we’ve listened to some amazing systems from Moon to Macintosh to Dan D’Agostino accompanied with Wilson Audio Chronos and B&W 800 series typically. And although all of that sounds amazing, my son and I have been able to replicate a good portion of that soundstage and holographic imaging through a multi-channel configuration with two subwoofers. We have 6 Bowers and Wilkins tower speakers, (2-804Ss, 2-CDM7SEs, 2-CDM7NTs, 3 left channel/3 right channel). NOT surround sound. Our pre-amp allows us to independently measure each speaker including the subwoofers for room correction. We have each pair of speakers set to a different crossover per preference. When my son initially proposed the idea, I thought it was absurd. The first word that came to my mind was “cacophony”. However I let him experiment and I’m so thankful he did. Having reviewed many other systems over several decades including our own system two channel versus multi channel, and though I appreciate the higher end systems more of course, the “subjective” fact that my son was able to get creative by exploiting the functionality of our pre-amp and amp and using all speakers around the house at his disposable in one localized area, it honestly rivaled that of near million dollar systems. Anyway for what it’s worth, if any of your viewers have yet to try multi channel …. Give it a whirl. You won’t regret it.

2 channel hifi and multi channel home theaters are going to remain niches for audio enthusiasts. The future of consumer audio are sound bars and wireless speakers because they provide “good enough” sound quality and fit easier in real world spaces.

Hi Paul, when I was a teenager of approx 16 yrs old, I always hung out with older people, usually about 10 years older than myself. My friend was in the Navy and brought back a Sansui quadraphonic system from overseas. He had the Reverb box, and put on Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. It sounded amazing. In my opinion the reason quadraphonic never took off, because there was too much involved. You had to have a quadraphonic receiver, a quadraphonic cartridge for your turntable, of course a set of four speakers, and the quadraphonic album. I believe SACD is the best bang for the buck. I really wish it would have took off more. But like you said all the licensing issues. Someday I would love to come take a tour of PS audio. Keep up the great work, I really enjoy your videos. Much love from the D. Jer

Music is more important to me than video. If I watch a movie I'm interested in the visuals and being able to understand dialogue. I found out a long time ago that surround sound was more of a distraction and rather gimmicky. When I put together my first really decent hi-fi setup back in the '90s with Magnepan speakers I knew two channel was the only way to go for me.

Remember the name Steven Wilson. He's doing magical work in Atmos and 5.1 for not only himself but also very well know artists, such as Yes, Jethro Tull, XTC, Guns n Roses and Gentle Giant. The list is growing.

Great video. I had a surround setup at my old house many years ago. I absolutely loved it. In fact, I always had people coming over just to watch movies at my place. Sometimes it became annoying. Now that I have this new house I attempted the same thing, and the results were horrible. The biggest issue were reflections and how muddy everything sounded. Not to brag but as a musician and semi-serious audiophile, I have a pretty good ear for things. I switched back to 2-channel and everything cleared up. It sounds much better in stereo. Maybe one day I'll fix all the issues that created such bad sound, but for now I'll stay with the simpler way.... plus I get a lot less company. ;P

While not in the same league as PS Audio ,20 years ago Bob Carver's Sunfire Cinema Grand system was considered high end and the amplifiers were often compared to the mighty Krell able to double the power each time the impedance halves down to 1 ohm for a fraction of the cost and weight. I use his Ultimate AV Receiver II in 2 channel mode 90% of the time and to me $5,000 was pretty high end in 2005. Back then it received many great reviews , I and my friends consider it highly resolving.

I used to use a voice chat program while talking with my friends online that allowed you to map each person to a specific speaker. When listening to everybody on 2 speakers it was hard to understand when multiple people were talking at the same time, when I mapped each to an individual speaker it was much easier to understand. I'd like high end digital audio recordings to include individual tracks (vocals, guitar, drums, etc) with the mix being a vectorized suggestion. So people could also customize the sound for their many channel systems. So the default mix could be set for two channels or 3d, and the consumers system could map tracks to specific speakers to achieve the best results for the given system as well as allow custom mapping such as vocals to a center channel.

Paul,I follow your many comments,views of the many topics relating to amps,receivers,speakers,wiring,positioning etc,I have actually two independent audio systems,one a two channel audio comprising of old school pioneer receivers, amps with equalizer and preamp( seperates) and good sounds speakers which I use only for music (70’s and 80’s pop,rock and classical),my other system is home theater surround Bose accoustimas 10,which I use mainly for movies and occasional musical videos,I say all this in relation to the question and your perspective,I share the view,music sounds better for me from the two channel stereo/ mono system,though the surround is also good for music

Paul - I recently got your 2 books and I can’t wait to come visit you in Boulder. Pronouncing Ng is done nasally and almost sound like a humm or ‘unggg’. There are some tips on RU-vid. I love 2 channel and multichannel tracks and think both of them can sound magical and produce that 3d experience. Given, 1- Apple (and many others) has (have) backed Dolby Atmos and 2- mixing studios are now mixing in Dolby Atmos regularly. I think we can expect the content to start arriving en masse. Historically the failure of MC has been due to content voids. Once the content is there I think it WILL happen. Until then I plan to enjoy my 2-channel stereo as much as possible and have it ready for multi-channel. Yes we can have our cakes and eat them too, cant we?

Paul, I think you are spot on with the ship having sailed as I recall a lot of high end brands entering AV with the real fear that one size fits all would be the way forward and music would be played through the multimedia system. I actually think the real problem was the promises weren't met and with those used to acceptable depreication of high end audio had a real shock when there £6k processor was now worth £1k if you could find a buyer. Technology and frankly marketing were moving to quickly. I agree with the 2 channel challenge with not being met when using a home theatre system in 99% of cases. I do use my system for music as well but its predominently lots of older 2 channel Hi-Fi anyway. There is a huge gap in the processor arena for a true high end processor. Trinnov/Storm are okay but we all know with one box a mass of processing and 16 channels and a computer its a compromise even at £16k+. I had an American Acurus ACT4 for 6m and went back to an old naim AV2 fed analogue out from a now heavily modified Panasonic 9000. There is nothing that is true high end in AV, Meridian have left, naim have left, Krell were never really there. I still think its possible but perhaps demand is no longer there

I was hoping you would tell us what those chassis were on the table. The Air Lens maybe. Looking forward to that one.😄

I agree with Paul. I have numerous DVD Audio, DTS Audio, Bluray Audio and SACD surround discs. Most of them (90%) are remastered and do not simulate live music. Example; the drummer is behind me, or a sax blurts out behind me, or the center sounds small. If the producers focused on making the music sound live, instead of swirling sound, it may have happened. However, that time has passed. One caveat, works nice for music like Floyd.

Short answer, probably not. Stereo works because of biology. We call the stereo image holographic because it creates an image in your mind. Cheers from Montreal.

I agree with Paul 100% on this issue. I have a high quality 7.2.4 home theater system in a dedicated room but was never satisfied with its reproduction of music. I later built a dedicated music room in a detached building for a very high quality 2 channel system. It blows the socks off the home theater for music. Granted, there are concert videos which are very entertaining in the home theater, but purely for the sound, the 2-channel system blows it away. Additionally, I have grown weary of the constant increase in the number of speakers in home theater, with the associated changes required of the electronics. My last couple of updates (going from 5 channels to 7 and adding 4 channels for Atmos) sounded great in the demos, but were very little improvement in watching real movies, in the rare occasion that the source material supports it. I think it has become a money grab by the big electronics companies. I am likely done upgrading the theatre and will just enjoy what I have.

I enjoyed both experiences. But they are different, 2-channel is like the main course or fine wine of the meal vs . Surround is like the fine wine to the main course (video). Sometimes, I enjoy surround more because I get to experience both even though my 2-channel system is much more sophisticated.

I have one SACD surround sound disc. DSOTM. I play it with a very early PS3 through a pretty high end, for it's day, Marantz 5.1 system. Floyd went back into the studio to re engineer it when 5.1 first became widely available. Original Floyd live concerts were surround sound events and this is what they wanted for Dark Side on disc. There are plenty more 5.1 discs, and now atmos, available I know but DSOTM will always be a special experience for me. Everything else I listen to is 2 channel.

Been listening to 6ch SACD's for around 15 years sounds amazing if recordered or remastered right adds a lot more atmosphere to the room whether you get the reverb effects of the studio, room or audiance, or be right in the middle of the stage.

My experience has “indicated” that far too many rooms cannot support a good surround sound experience. It also appears to be complicated.

When we get recordings that also record the room and put us right in the venue with its acoustics, then surround will surpass it for LIVE recordings. Maybe it can be crafted for regular albums, so you feel you're in some sort of venue.

Hi there Paul, your statement after the will it ever happen question ( "nah, not a chance" ) was a classic response from a true hifi stereo afficianndo. :_)

No one brings up the 3 channel wide stage stereo from the original Bell Labs audio work that Klipsch recommended back in the 1960's with a mono center channel about 3db lower in level than the left & right speakers. I heard this arrangement in the Klipsch factory demo room in 1971 set up on the long wall with a pair of K-horns in the front corners and a Belle Klipsch (home version of the La Scalla speaker) in the center. Excellent sound staging across the entire width of the room.

I think Paul is right - there is a fundamental difference between how engineers laid out the sound for surround sound vs stereo sound. While you can sort of combine the two - using a preamp with HT bypass like with PS Audio's own excellent preamps is a good way, it would lead to a compromise of sorts. Stereo systems reproduce depth and soundstage when the speakers are placed within the room usually far away from walls - behind and beside the speakers. HT systems create sounds that are locked to the action on screen and are ideally placed behind the screen. This creates issues with reproducing sound stage. For a while I was combining both - and burning through tubes on my preamp just for watching movies. The other issue was that for someone who values stereo playback, we often spend more $ on the amplifiers and speakers dedicated for the front left and right channels. If money were no object, we could quadruple or quintuple the budget to get the same speakers for the centre, surrounds and heights - but that would be exorbitantly expensive. Plus, it may make more sense to spend the 5x budget on even better stereo speakers and amplifiers. In the end, I separated the two systems - even though they are still in the same room. The home theatre speakers are just designed for HT use and with bass management in mind. They are so effective at conveying all the nuances of the on screen action but leave all the bass duties for the subwoofer. So they are also really sensitive and don't require crazy power amplification to sound good. In fact, I reckon the cheaper M&K S150 system sounds better than the speakers that cost me much more (that were voiced to match my main L and R) for surround. But when it comes to 2 channel music, my stereo system (with a lot of PS Audio gear) is just perfect and the surround system just can't beat that.

Thanks! I have 2 blu-ray's that were recorded with the 2004 Sony tech and I treasure them, but try to find them now? I am in that 1% who are in 7.2.4 as costs are a bit daunting for the average person. One has to choose a great A/V, Stereo, or the Swiss army knife for both and I chose the later.

How to play back Atmos music tracks correctly in stereo? Do stereo speakers suddenly sound worse when driven by a multi-channel AVR?

Using a sound bar, woofer and satellite speakers, you will never get your system to sound as good as a good stereo setup for music. I have large speakers for all channels in my 7.1 setup. Playing sacds, blu rays or dvd audio discs through this setup sounds incredible. There is something about being in the middle of the music which I really enjoy. But listening in stereo or even 7 channel stereo sounds great as well. I do agree that surround, for music, will never overtake stereo. Most people are focused these days on movies. Music sound quality is not as important as room rattling explosions.

No matter, if it’s to channel 11 channel or crazy custom configurations the end goal is the foot. She was close to what your attention is on period. Some people say if they’re looking at videos on TV they’re only looking at videos but now that’s wrong. If it was only about the visual, you will not have your surround system on your stereo system on they go hand-in-hand. The end goal of any formatted configurations in my opinion is to get you to where you want to be with either the music or content you’re consuming. I know I run a four-point to configuration and it definitely helps that to channel dramatically so I would just say surround is the evolution of stereo obviously but they go hand-in-hand to get to the shining goal each one of us in these hobbies persue be it stereo listening or home cinema.

we need recording, amp, speakers and consumers in the same page for surround sound. Like 4k tv, they still broadcast in 720p.

The problem for many people is the obvious one: trying to fit numerous largish speakers into one's living room - and expecting the wife to agree to it!! However, even if one has one's own 'den' the room has to be of sufficient size to have the speakers far enough away from one's listening position to create a true sense of space in all directions. I agree with Paul that plain stereo with the right equipment in the right room can still be an amazing experience with the right recordings.

I had this discussed yesterday. I’ve tried multi channel and it sounds unnatural. I mean when I am Listening to a concert I am not in the middle of the orchestra but in front. I feel that 2channel stereo reproduces a musical event more accurately

You know though, if you have two stereo systems.. suddenly you have surround.. yeah you can add the accessories if you need a center channel or subwoofer depending on your speakers you're set up etc.. I ended up getting into surround sound that very specific way.. and very specific requirements like multi-channel RCA receiver amplifier etc.. got very lucky in finding one given the tiny window those were manufactured, and then it was just a matter of finding rear speakers that match the sound profile of my stupidly rare but beloved front speakers.. which I did eventually, not as good.. but they match the sound profile which is exactly what I needed for 3D audio, and I have really good setup front speakers for my music. And should I need 3D audio, Dolby will take it under advisement as to whether or not I have enough DRM handshakes and then I may receive it.. sometimes I do sometimes I don't like I really couldn't tell you how or why.. who are we to question dolby's great magnificence.. all hail pro logic 2.. One of the biggest issues I've always had with by design surround audio, it it functions on a different scale and I think that's what Paul is getting at.. I'm not saying it can't function on a similar scale or even be better like this is speakers and audio equipment there's quite a significant array of various quality levels out there LOL.. but I do know that quadrophonic sound is really good coming from floor speakers with a full range and a good Ikea furniture bowing assortment of contraptions in order to plug it in.. makes me kind of want to go get a time machine and relive the properly supported Windows XP audio days when they actually tried to do 3D audio properly in video games, sadly the plug-in workarounds even on creative hardware or just they're just not the same.. windows just doesn't want it to happen sadly.. but as far as what's current LOL you're going to have that in spades. I couldn't say it would be cheaper this way.. but qualitatively cheaper for sure.. it's the difference between buying specialist equipment that targets a different base.. hence why also Hi-Fi audio is hyper expensive LOL as well.. but the bar is much higher in my experience anyways when it comes to this is kind of what Paul is talking about here.. also you can go vintage and, as long as you're not shopping at Goodwill LOL you can find really nice things for affordable prices.. like even if you're not getting thrift store Golden finds like just something well loved from the '80s, personally I actually prefer that sound profile by far to most modern.. but it's also the difference between a couple hundred dollars and a couple thousand dollars.. just make sure that you find a good receiver or you know all the other fun stuff however you want to play it.. the only downside is the conversion of analog to HDMI, which I happen to not have a problem with on the one end cuz I have analog input.. but I do certainly have a problem with it on the other end LOL on account of Dolby not liking the look of my seven or something in the chain DRM handshakes enough to get consistent surround streaming.. but I'm pretty sure that's just because I don't want to download their stupid app for the cell phone processor on my TV when I have a workstation computer for multimedia production. Most people would not have my particular problem LOL although obviously the price is going to go higher for your amplification receiving etc equipment as you go newer and become more compatible with.. apps? I have in the past run tube stereos stacked, for my quad channel out.. that sounded just fine, they weren't the best so what I have right now is an upgrade and kind of a unicorn from what I understand having 7.1 multi-channel RCA out and in.. but it can be done LOL, and if you're talking about streaming anyways outside of something like a Blu-ray which you wouldn't have this problem anyways cuz Blu-ray players play by the rules and are nice unlike streaming services.. but if you are talking about streaming you're definitely not talking about uncompressed anyways so I mean that's why God invented coaxial...

Great answer. I think it also comes back to how we listen to a performance. Almost always the musician(s) are in front of us. They do not surround us. Two microphones can reproduce the human experience of listening to a performance including the room effects of the venue. Sure, we do studio recordings and multiple mics to mess with the illusion. But until performances are done surrounding the audience, or we grow more ears, 2 channel makes sense. Also, it is hard to make a great 2 channel recording and even harder to make a system that can faithfully play it. More channels will just make it that much more likely to not sound natural.

Paul is probly right here. Still, that dont stop Dolby from trying! Their YT channel is jam packed with promotional material for producing music in Atmos. What intrigued me recently while reading ancient audio mags was music being produced in the OG "Dolby Surround" format in the late 80's into 90's. I had thought a break was taken between quadraphonic and when DTS 5.1 CD's started coming out.

I listen to all my 2-channel CDs on my home theater system using the Dolby Surround Upmixer. Sounds great to me.

Why are you all not on Rumble?

I have a Sony SACD DVD/CD spindle going through an Onkyo receiver. My SACD CDs play multi-channel very well - much richer than two channel. There's also a lot of opera etc on DVD and that's multi-channel too. I do wish those technologies are still being developed but streaming is wrecking the classical music world. But most of CDs are 2 channel and they sound very good indeed.

I watch my movies on my 2 channel system with 2 surrounds. I care about immersion, and my hi end system provides that even for 2 channel. However, with HT, I am more immersed in the video (110 inch projection screen) and dialog, and the music is support. With 2 channel, it needs to be much better in order to create an "experience" rather than just being background music. e.g. I could watch a 20 inch TV and be engrossed in what I am seeing. ie. The audio resolution for HT doesn't need to be great. However, for 2 channel, the resolution needs to be very high so that each instrument is placed distinctly in the 3d volumetric sound stage. Music production tools such as mixers tends to be 2 channel. The complexity of moving to more channels for music production probably isn't profitable as a lot of people music listeners just don't care.

I heard high end systems before that work magic so i believe you when u say its a system sound to die for

The Atoms rigs are pretty sweet...Who knows what that will turn into....The automobile is still a fairly new invention.

I think the answer to that question depends on what source material you are feeding your system. I have a Luxman c700u/m700u going into a pair of Magnepan 1.7s and the stereo image is magic. This is incorporated into a Denon AVC-X6700H Atmos 7.2.4 being fed by an Oppo UDP-205 bluray. Most of my music listening is in stereo through the Magnepans but when it comes to live concerts, the Denon is asked to help out. This I think is due to the fact that a lot of concerts aren't comparatively well recorded and mastered which the Maggies expose. A lot of the concert DVD/Blurays are bundled with a CD and when compared, "most" of the times, the CD in stereo, can't compete. This is probably due to the higher bit rate of the Bluray and the fact that my subs kick in, giving an immersive, "at a concert" vibe. Horses for courses, I guess.

A few major limitations to multi-channel audio: 1) Costs a lot more to provide the same level of quality for many channels of amplification plus speakers, vs two 2) Controlling greatly increased no. of problematic room interactions from multi-channel presentation becomes that much harder 3) The creation of great (and not gimmicky or otherwise mucked-up) multi-channel recordings is that much harder, and vast irreplaceable range of historical two-channel recordings out there exist without the capacity or funding to re-do all/most of them.

Quadriphonics and old school surround is so much different from spatial audio and processing capabilities today.

Never had your socks blown off by an expertly mixed Atmos movie soundtrack? If not I'd recommend listening to Dune Part 1 on a good home cinema system. Loving both music and movies I've been seeking out good surround recordings, usually of live gigs, for years. They do exist and are becoming more common. Current artists are also experimenting more with surround. The 20th of this month (Jan, 2023) sees the first (I think) simultaneous release of a new album by a contemporary band, Riverside, on stereo vinyl, stereo CD, and stereo 24bit high-def digital plus Atmos surround on blu-ray. My order is in, can't wait to compare the different versions.

It already has for the vast majority... just not the "audiophiles"...

how are the f30s highly resolving if they only have 85 db sensitivity at 1 watt per meter?

I asked this question in 2005. Sadly its "Rap Music.MP3" stored on iPods which replaced recorded music.

ATMOS won't go,away. I love mono. That being said, I believe emersive will be easy built in and everywhere. people will except it. Old Engineers and hifi enthusiasts are a different breed

Atmos is taking over, mainly due to it being used in headphone technology and this means music is now being routinely mixed in Atmos as well as stereo

As we get older audio stores become our amusement parks

Hello, How are you? I have a simple question hopefully you can answer it? What's the difference between Stereo Sound and Digital Sound? Thanks for your time.

Hi Paul I think the biggest problem would be the source material. I think my little system is pretty accurate and good source material sounds fantastic, poor recordings suck in various ways. If 2 channels are so hard to get right, imagine the snafus occurring with 5 or more. Most surround systems are kinda mediocre and are “nicely” coloured. Having an accurate system reveals more of the distortions of source material and the good stuff is in the minority. This is why I don’t think really transparent surround sound will ever work, it would sound terrible on most movies. As I use my system with the tv I’m occasionally treated to the sound of a great movie!😊

Was a very good question. I guess it is movie only now.

I have a good 2 channel system and this is great for approximating to a stage or performer in front of you but that’s nowhere near the feeling I get when playing in a band or orchestra. The problem is the majority of people don’t experience music from the performers perspective, so it’s not how we generally want to hear our music. Surround also has so much further to go than 2 channel to reproduce a realistic sounding performance.

Mass public wants a (boom, bang show in a box) for a set price with home theater. They want something to get loud and go boom. There are some more high end audiophiles that have systems double for home theater and stereo listening and those systems do a pretty good job ALTHOUGH they did not come close to dedicated only systems optimized for one function only. Way back about 30 years ago I had a dual function high end system. It was awesome but does not come close to my dedicated 2 channel. For the masses (good enough at a decent price) is what tends to drive their purchasing decisions. That's why all in one stuff won't work for the innovators, the creators, the visionaries who want to push sonic performance and development.

Ever ... is a LONG time! Based on the massive amount of material that is mono to two channel that we assume will be found of interest for a long long time,.... the ability to most accurately reproduce it will likely remain in a two channel system until the source material itself changes drastically. I am an analog vinyl fanatic that has sold bleeding edge electronic technologies for 50+ years. Living in Nashville and selling leading audio product to studios in the '70's to safelight uplink trucks to AI computers doing Terminator. So while I don't have a digital feed into my primary Audio system right now because the digital technology has not caught up to analog yet. That is changing. I predict that at some future point existing analog recordings will not only play back as good as they do as analog right now. But computers will be able to pull out each individual voice, instrument, .... as a solo. At which point we can do our own 3D mixdown. Fly through the performance. For now I promise and deliver Willie Nelson standing some feet in front of you singing Red Headed Strange to you personally.

What year is this? Haha.

2 channel + 2 subwoofers = 👌🏽

It only works if the music was recorded in multi channel around a seated position. There were some live recording done about 20 years ago that sounded as good as high end stereo and were played at some shows. Died due to demand.

Paul...I totally agree with your summation. However, using the term "elite" to describe audiophiles can be a real turnoff to some. I've known some high end audio sales people and audiophiles who were total snobs and not well liked, let alone influential about spreading the love of audio around. The less eliteness and snobbery we all exhibit, the higher the potential of converting music lovers to audiophiles...for what it's worth.

For nearly everyone whose primary interest is excellent sound for both music and movies/video, the best approach is to start with a good AVR for $1-2,000 and spend some $$ to get quality front mains, maybe as much as $3-4,000/pair. When you want to listen to 2 channel music, just use those mains in direct mode and leave the other channels off. Unless your real purpose is to fuss with lots of expensive gadgets, all the rest of the "high end" stuff is useless, unless, possibly, you are young, wealthy and in possession of an undamaged, exceptionally sensitive auditory perception path between your ears. Add a great display and all the small speakers and maybe a sub and you will have a stunningly good system for maybe $10,000, half that or less if you buy used.

With the rise of 3D positional audio... Surround sound is slowly taking rise in the music world as with 3D positional audio format (DTS:X and Dolby Atmos), the hell of mixing for surround sound has been diminished to only properly placing the speakers in the room. They have this "3D field" they can use to toggle around stems and the system takes care of panning and activating speakers according to 3D plane, so they no longer would have to mix specifically for "4.0" or "5.1" or "7.1" etc. System takes all of that for them and from the creator standpoint all they have to do is listen to the track and create soundstage like they would be mostly doing on stereo format. Also another big win for the 3D positional audio format is that you can also play it in stereo on headphones/earphones for convincing 3D positional space (of course the better headphones the more immersive it will sound) and that way all of the hurdles have been taken care of off the producers/creators of music and they can dedicate to creating unique soundstages and mixes instead of dedicating time to make the damn channel transitions work without breaking up/warping the surround image. There never hasn't been better time for surround music to succeed then now. Will it? Only time will tell. I sure am almost finished with my dolby atmos build at home and will surely be giving a listen to dolby atmos music (though what terribly sucks is that you can't upconvert stereo music without making it sound different and possibly warping the sound. So unless they get the tapes to remix the whole thing for the 3D surround, there will doubt be proper surround sounding oldies. But I can't wait to see what artists will develop for dolby atmos. Also pink floyd other side of the moon 5.1 version sounds freaking stellar. So much better then the stereo in my opinion. It has so much more breath and it plays around with sound effects to broaden them and give them more life.... So yeah can't wait what artists will come up with when developing new sonics on the dolby atmos.

In terms of music, Dolby Atmos music content is the future. Companies like Apple are heavily investing in this by providing music, both new and old, in Dolby Atmos on the streaming service Apple Music. It sounds astonishing, both on headphones and external equipment. And also, if somehow you do not like to listen Dolby Atmos encoded music, you can simply turn this feature off in settings on your Apple device. Logic Pro X (I use this DAW) has built in native Dolby Atmos rendering for music. You should try it out. Although music in Dolby Atmos (also concerts) is astonishing, if we compare any equipment available for consumers like amplifiers for example, the money you spend on an Atmos amp is of lower quality than a stereo amp of the same price. So it depends on what you prefer, need and do at home. If you’re a movie enthusiast, buy an Atmos amp and speakers plus active sub (2 at least), if you’re a casual listener, buy a stereo amp that fits your budget. Sure, I love quality equipment, but to be honest, in essence it does not matter on what device or setup you’re listening music on, it’s all about the emotion and songs that shaped your life that will lead to you to remember specific moments throughout life that touches your heart. ❤

I don't care about surround for movies, I care a lot about sound for music. When I am watching a movie I don't want all the loud noises and dialog I can't hear. As an audiophile for 50 years, I really don't care to much about the sound quality other than I want 60Hz to 15KHz flat range in stereo. So.... my audio system for my movies is: 1) Streaming movie through CAT5 Ethernet input to BlueRay hardware. 2) HDMI out of BlueRay to Insignia converting surround to 2ch stereo 3) Analog stereo out to a dual compressor with a sonic maximizer. 4) Compressor out to stereo amplifier, then near field studio quality speakers monitors. This configuration yields an even amp level without big volume changes, AND most importantly, has dialog I can understand on low volume. I live in a small apartment with 7 close neighbors, higher sound levels would get me kicked out.

I find it hard to locate excellent 2.1 mixes. There are so many things that can/do go wrong in the party chain. More channels? Nawh.

We have 2 ears, so the minimum number of speakers to create a sonically induced dimensional experience is 2. Having a basic understanding of psychoacoustics; coupled with 2 channels of quality equipment, = a transcendent experience!

Listening to music on multi channels doesn't sound natural to me. I understand wanting to be engulfed in the music, but I like some sense of direction. In real life I wouldn't have music coming from all around unless I was part of the band. Though some recordings I have heard were really cool, a little "trippy" or psychedelic, kind of a novelty. When recorded for it, it is a neat audio experience. My wife will put the AVR in all Channel stereo mode and it is great for just all around background throughout the house.

Unfortunately as much of the music is consumed in a mobile environment, that is to say on earbuds whilst walking or on public transport, in cars etc or in the background in the work or home environment, the amount of music which is listened to as a primary activity, let alone with a properly setup system is in the minority- sad though it is to put into words. I certainly remember there was a time when surround sound music was released in fits-and-spats during the late nineties and early 2000’s from some major artists, Pink Floyd of course (who occasionally❤ go back and release another album in 5.1), REM and Elton John to name a few. Unfortunately this doesn’t lead to much hardware being produced specifically for music surround sound. I believe this is one of the marketing failures of SACD, and that is a marketing failure and not a product failure which is the ability of SACD to be a carrier of surround sound and the interest in the majority simply isn’t there. Personally it really depresses me as I have many albums, classical, jazz and rock which would sound fantastic in surround sound as it would separate many of the instruments out to be heard properly and create a more spacious mix and atmosphere. Of course there are many albums where there isn’t enough instrumentation to separate, rock where there’s drums, bass one guitar and vocals for example which wouldn’t benefit from the additional channels, symphonic classical music certainly! There are several albums I would love to hear the surround sound mixes on a properly setup system, Dark Side of the Moon (of course), Pet Sounds and Goodbye Yellowbrick Road. I would love it if they finished the Brian Wilson Smile album in 5.1 as there are certainly enough layers of vocals and instruments to spread out. Apologies again for the long post. Don’t get me started on mono mixes (which are probably ideal of the car and maybe generally on the travel - why do people only wear one earbud??!! Rhetorical question…).

Thank you Sir for answering my question. Greatly appreciated. First name was correctly pronounced and I think she ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1jyB1K7UYic.html is spot on in pronouncing my last name. Will definitely pay a visit to your company if I am planning a trip down to the USA.

At least, a 2 channel setup is cheaper at the same quality than surround multichannnel, just because it needs only 2 channels. Also because of the room, not only its acoustical quality, but more common, the WAF, if you understand what I mean.

I have both, but 2 channel rules for music.

Speaker-listening audiophiles are already a tiny niche, surround sound is a niche within a niche. My guess is that cars are the only place people are able to experience anything even close to traditional hi-fi. Otherwise it's all bluetooth earbuds and cell phones.

Paul this is incorrect information. You certainly can achieve high end home theater sound as good as high end stereo. Anthem AVM processors and MCA reference amps certainly can do that. And on your second point, atmos is becoming more mainstream now and as many have said Steven Wilson is remastering stereo albums in atmos and that is the future. You really should go check all this stuff out. A local store here in Adelaide used the anthem gear with their speakers and atmos sounds phenomenal from Steven’s remasters

When most people just hears music in non dedicated equipment low-mid quality, a minority of "audiophiles" have dedicated high quality gear for their favourite music, surround is still and will be a very niche way of listening mostly to movies and videogames. Surround music, interesting but not enough. Many people tought that samplers an synthesizers would replace real instruments, and 35 years later we're still deciding.

I think since Paul basically invited him to come and listen PS Audio reference setup they should pay him flight tickets for his birthday 😅

I want it to be left channel systems only🤣. The crowd surrounds the artist who plays it in stereo.

I thought dolby atmos from apple would change my listening experience. Not even close.

Ng pronounce as Nang. In the Philippines its a common Chinese family name.

I knew a lady at work and her last name was Ng. She pronounced it “Ing”.

Better my sound system is upgrading, less surround music is interesting! As being part of a quite big orchestra… music is better in the hall than in the band… surround sound to give you the “echo”… while we try to build auditorium with less reverberation?…

Seems one reason Quad/surround never caught on is that it seems audio engineers or producers generally don't know what to do with the additional channels/speakers. They throw in some crowd noise, maybe some over the top effects (trains, helicopters, or a tone rotating around, etc.). It is hard to find a studio doing great two channel work, let alone more channels. Then considering that we'd be doubling the cost of a good system and wow, the price of admission becomes out of reach of most people, even audio enthusiasts. And hey, talk about needing even MORE room treatment....It all snowballs. Nah, give me a good 2-channels set up and I'll call it a day and be happy.

I think that multichannel sound from music would have to be divorced from movie sound. We currently don't have the technology and recording engineers to take full advantage.

For video (including live concerts) it's no contest. M/C all the way. For music I still much prefer M/C, if it done right. But not enough are in my humble un-knowledgeable opinion. Many surround mixes seem like they're trying to hard. Too gimmicky. But some, like Alice Coopers Welcome To My Nightmare and Gaucho by Steel Dan are wonderful. My Rival off Gaucho in DTS M/C is pure bliss! But I still love two channel as well. But I have to wonder what Al Stewarts Year Of The Cat album would sound like in M/C Master Audio. Or The Royal Scam by Steely Dan among so many others. On the other hand, If I had Paul's reference system in my living room, maybe I wouldn't care! My neighbors probably would though. (Turn that sh*t down!!) 😊

First, imagine the cost of a high end audio system with 5 or more channels. Second, would music really benefit from from surround sound? Would a recording of a band sound better if, for example, the main vocal appeared behind you? It might be good for adding some more ambience and "air" to a recording, but then that can be done with DSP's at the recording stage or on playback with a stereo system. A three channel system might be good though, with a centre speaker. You would then be able to have the main vocal central in the mix without it being smeared across two widely spaced stereo speakers with the attendant comb filtering and unequal delay for people not sitting exactly in the middle. That would work well I think, But equally unlikely to happen.

Agreed

I feel like, in theory, one could get very close in quality. It would be quite expensive, but one could incorporate mono amps for each of the surround channels, fed by an extremely high-quality surround processor. Once you have all that, your favorite speakers should sing as well as they would in a 2 channel system. This obviously isn't practical, but it is possible.

Never ask a 2 channel audiophile about multichannel music, they just don’t get it. Get 5 equal speakers around you plus a subwoofer or 2 and that is the best music reproduction you can get. The only downside to multichannel music is lack of content and the extra equipment you need.

could'nt you just have the best of both worlds? if you have a surround system and turn off just but 2 speakers you have stereo and with a magic wand you can engage all your speakers.

Sad to hear that answer. With all due respect, with that mindset you may be missing the opportunity to experience Dolby Atmos through Apple Music (or similar service) which is much more immersive and sometimes transformative. Also, enjoying music shows and movies such as A Star Is Born in full surround is truly engaging and can be deeply emotional because you feel like you're there in the middle of the crowd on a live concert. Also, Dolby Atmos is coming to cars so we'll get that kind of experience in more spaces aside our living rooms and theaters. I had a Bowers & Wilkins stereo setup for many years until I upgraded it to a full surround system. My only regret is I that I should've done that sooner! Full surround is not the future, it's the present, especially with so many wonderful surround mixes coming almost every week.

What about headphones, some of us love/have to listen on headphones. Until we evolve to have 12.1 ears we need those great stereo recordings.

Are we not "stereo beings"?

Surround ("quad") was defeated in the 1970s by the impracticality of having a room ful of big speakers. Today's surround sound is easier but still not for everyone. For me, stereo --- and sometimes mono --- is adequate for most listening. Stereo has more "magic" than surround does.

I was arguing the same point as Paul; however, it’s incorrect. It can be done and it is. It ultimately will come down to mixing and recording. A Sonos or regular surround sound home theater set up, using a DAC compatible for MQA multichannel atoms, will destroy 2 channel experience. Cables, Amps, interconnects are history. It kills me to say this because I have a >$100k two channel/home theater setup myself. With the right headphones, and TIDAL MQE or Atmos spacial audio recordings, is way more economical. You’re only missing the palpable bass.

For me, 2 channel audio with balanced front rear speakers is all I'll ever want. For movies, music ... whatever

Paul in other videos: "I hate countries and nationalism! We should only look at each other as individuals!" Paul in this video: "I love Singapore! What a great country!"