Why stereo is the standard and not surround

[@andrewfurst5711]

Paul is so great - he gives an honest opinion, rather than pushing what he actually sells on the public. Of course that's part of why this channel has so many viewers and Paul is so beloved. Paul sells 2 channel audio products, and he says multi-channel is much better, wow. And yet he explains why multi-channel (beyond 2 channels) didn't happen. Thanks so much Paul, and keep being you!

[@JackMorris56]

I've been collecting multichannel recordings for over 17 years now. My system and room took close to 8 years to evolve into what I originally had envisioned as my surround listening room. This endeavor unfortunately is very time consuming and a costly task to get right, but boy O' boy I feel it was well worth it. At times some recordings are like you are in the studio surrounded by the musicians, but most create an auditory panorama where instruments and voices have the room to breathe. Just like all recordings, some are re-mixed, produced, and re-mastered significantly better than others, and some music not all, just lends itself to be explored in a much greater soundscape.

[@trog69]

So, when I got back into audio five years ago, I planned on making this a 5.1 surround system. However, I learned that the games I play on PC are those with incredible 2.1 channel sound and I didn't need to pinpoint directional sound cues that online players need, so I ditched the AVR and went with two-channel separates and I'm very happy with the results. My headphone setup has also been an eye-opener. Right now I'm sitting in front of a Topping stack; the stellar D70pro OCTO dac> A90 Discrete amp. This system has elevated all my headphones and the sound is glorious!. Much more detailed and lush than my vintage speaker setup, with the Topping A90D as preamp to the NAD 208thx power amp to a pair of aDs 910s. That's my systems. Tadaaaaa

[@steveurbach3093]

I'm one of those fools that went Quad.🤩. I went Open Reel , CD4 and there were some fantastic discrete mixes, Like many A/V products of the era, there were format wars that like military wars, end up with no real winners. I love your comment about 'its good enough' audio consumers. More BOOM and the are happy 😞

[@bryanwilliams3665]

Live Arena/ Large Hall Concerts are Mixed in Mono!...Why?..Hardly any audience can hear a stereo image.. Imagine the disappointment in going to (for instance) a Van Halen show, being seated stage right and Eddies guitar panned fairly hard left , as it is on early albums . .You wouldn't hear the guitar!. Maybe only hear a Lexicon Chamber Reverb patch. At big concerts , for EVERYONE to get the same mix, it has to be mixed in Mono..

[@vinylrules4838]

Unfortunately this also happens in small venues when there is no reason not to mix in stereo.

[@cunawarit]

I often point this out to diehard audiophiles who insist on only listening to recorded music in stereo, yet happily attend live performances where the sound is in mono.

[@duncan-rmi]

dave rat has a fix for this. man's clever.

[@omarfranco2077]

@@duncan-rmi who?

[@duncan-rmi]

dave's an experienced live-sound engineer who'd dug into the physics of sound-reinforcement & its challenges probably deeper than anyone else on yt. if you've been to a chilli peppers show, you'll have heard his work, but his ideas are now pretty widely adopted by others too. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHnNlZtji9CUY8k

[@HomeCinemaEnthusiast]

Great video , very informative and inspirational 👍👍👍👍

[@LarcR]

We have 2 ears. One channel of sound for each. The best reproduced sound I ever heard was binaural through really good headphones.

[@HenryMcLeod-y7z]

It started with mono! One of the earliest attempts at moving beyond mono was three channel audio by RCA Victor I believe. I have a couple of modern pressings of their recordings where the cover art talks about three channel recordings. My guess is it was simple economics that had us settle for stereo. Going from one speaker to three with supporting electronics was more expensive than from one to two.

[@DerekCordova-n9h]

I still use Pink Floyd DSOTM "Time" SACD 5.1 to demo my system for folks and it never disappoints. I collected ~ 100 SACD/DVD-a discs back in the day and I'll never part with them!

[@matthirn7858]

Thanks Paul. It would be nice to have a center channel. I am wondering if a separate stereo processor could be developed that could analyze the stereo recording and feed portions of the recording to a center channel to enhance soundstage and imaging without a dedicated three channel recording. That would be an amazing option to have.

[@T-cz3ur]

For many years there has been gatekeeping in high end audio. Vehicles and soundbars that support surround are become increasingly common akd higher quality as we've seen movies like Baby Driver, Bohemian Rhapsody, or The Eras Tour, offer great sound so we could be nearing a point more people push for surround audio content.

[@BilalTata]

Surround sound may technically be more accurate, but in my humble opinion, the illusion of the sound stage and imaging with only two speakers is what keeps us coming back to two speakers. The magic happens when the sound is enveloping you with height depth layering etc and there are only two sources of sound in the room.

[@SeanSecret]

How does this relate to Atmos? Don't know much about it but it seems to be growing.

[@joepostle3561]

I think the only implementation which seems to be a solution which has taken a hold in a small way is the sound bars which Paul mentions which has the atmos decoding (although to my ears it still sounds placebo), I believe the Apple buds have atmos possibly, otherwise it seems like the cinema is next in line. I could be wrong and will stand corrected.

[@joepostle3561]

Actually having said what I just did, I think Apple Music has some Atmos content so their earbuds must have atmos capability.

[@Mr09stang]

Apple music,Tidal, and Amazon music all have some music in Atmos multi channel. If you have an Atmos enabled home theater system it can sound great but only sounds great if they did a good job remixing the original into an Atmos format. Some have been remixed well and others not so much.

[@KellyL-m8l]

Is surround sound an accurate way to listen to music? If I’m listening to a live band, the sound is coming from directly in front of me. I’m probably hearing sound closer to the way it’s presented in 2 channel. Maybe the guitarist is playing on the speaker on the left, and the bass is coming from the right. I’m not convinced that surround sound would actually replicate live music; it would be weird to hear the drums behind, the vocals in front, the other instruments left and right. Thoughts?

[@T-cz3ur]

Does the music at a concert sound different as you move around? Do the properties of the building impact acoustics? I've heard the Beach Boys outdoors, in a concert hall, and in a stadium. All three sounded different, and none of them simply had music from the front or sides

[@curiousobserver4096]

Dolby Atmos mixing done well sounds heavenly, you can add a sense of space that is hard to achieve in a 2 channel setup. It is a different experience to listening 2 channel stereo or headphones. Just like we dont experience someone is playing in front of us when we listen to headphones, dolby atmos music can be something unique and not something that replaces traditional stereo. Artists can now think of creating immersive experiences with music using multiple speakers and sound effects. Apple music has been pushing really hard to make this work. On the downside you do need to shell out on more speakers and dedicate a room to setup home theatre.

[@xaviermontalban717]

Perbaps in a room setting. All the concerts where I've been to had speakers everywhere. Not only that, the sound also reflects in these places

[@Evil_Peter]

@@xaviermontalban717 That venues may have speakers everywhere isn't making the music sound any better, it's just there to accommodate the audience having tons of people everywhere so it doesn't sound as bad in the bad seats/spots. That in itself isn't something to strive for when searching for the optimal experience of the music, like we do at home where we always have the best seats.

[@Douglas_Blake]

Stop and think about the typical situation in a live performance... You are in an audience, the stage with all the musicians is in front of you. The sound reinforcement is generally on either side of the stage, usually as a pair of line-arrays. The most effective way to duplicate that in your living room is with stereo... there you are on your couch, the speakers are in front of you arranged to the left and right of your listening position. Panning in the mix can move the sound to play out across the speakers, just like on the live stage. Stereo persists, because it simply makes sense.

[@johnmarchington3146]

Chandos, BIS, PentaTone and other labels that release SACDs are almost all multichannel but my own personal feeling is that small or smallish rooms don't lend themselves to having numerous loudspeakers placed at a sufficient distance from the listener(s) to enable the desired effects to be created. I personally find stereo perfectly satisfactory, and i've been a regular concert-goer for many decades.

[@BobGeogeo]

Audio Visual Receivers, in my limited experience, can synthesize multi channel from 2 channel. Even with a just a center speaker, the sweet spot for listening is widened, especially if the main 2 speakers are in compromised locations. My AVR (c. 2005) has different acoustic presentations like concert hall and jazz club. I've been back to 2 channel for a while.

[@inabit1956]

I remember Decca's "Phase 4" records. Those LP's sounded pretty decent on a two channel stereo system.

[@daysofgrace2934]

I used to love listening to the quadrophonic of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells in SACD, missed the vinyl release... but since I retired the 5.1 and moved to 2.1 as you say speaker count...

[@geoff37s38]

I am showing my age but, as a youngster I remember the BBC broadcasting experimental stereo demonstrations. I think it was on Saturday mornings. One channel was on the B&W TV a the channel on AM radio.

[@okieburd]

God, it seems there was something like that here in the US; I'm having a hard time remembering! 🤔 It might have been something like a concert show that had one channel on the radio, or maybe it was just simulcast in stereo on FM radio... That's the problem: If you're old enough to remember this sh!t, you're too old to remember this sh!t! 😆

[@InsideOfMyOwnMind]

Out here on the west coast two FM stereo stations collaborated to demonstrate FM quad. Before that a test station demonstrated the two leading single carrier quad FM methods.

[@andyhanson5935]

There was also the famous surround sound Tomorrow's World broadcast. Also showing my age.

[@cp070476]

His thinking is sound.. The human voice is a single point source. It comes from one area in space not 2. So in theory a centre channel for vocals will always trump 2 channel for that reason. If not why have a centre channel for cinema sound.

[@jonl1034]

I'm going to approach it from a bit of a different angle. There are 2 considerations: 1) we have two ears. Whatever Creator engineered our ears set them up so they are very good at determining a lot of things - frequency, timbre, positioning (soundstage), loudness, distance, etc. 2) When we actively listen to music, we face toward it. Yes there are reflections of sound around us when we listen, but two very good speakers in a well-engineered system can do pretty much everything our ears need to hear, including the surrounding reverberations, to create a realistic sound experience. Remember that a recording is NOT a live performance - it is an "aural illusion" designed to trick our ears and brains into believing we are actually there. I haven't listened to a lot of surround sound, but I do remember when quadrophonic came out and I didn't think it did as good a job as stereo in creating a realistic experience. I have heard some good recordings in surround and I think the center channel is not as realistic as the "phantom" one I hear in my listening room with two speakers. It might seem that a 5-speaker system would do a better job of creating the aural-illusion of being there, but maybe it's the same thing as what's not happened in the cinema world. Why aren't movie theaters all IMAX or multi-screened? Maybe I'm old school, but I find those things "hyped" and not as realistic. For putting me "in the picture" of a movie, I think surround has its place, but when it comes to depth of quality for musical performance, 2-channel is the best in my opinion.

[@rogermuggleton8127]

Most of the concerts I go to (hundreds over the last few years) are performed by orchestras, sometimes with soloists, or just solo instruments or voices. These are not amplified (although there may be a little reinforcement in acoustically disadvantages ares). The sounds I hear will differ depending on my location in the concert hall. If I'm at the front near the cellos and double basses it will be a different sound should I listen from the other side, or from the back. (Some concerts feature off-stage musicians behind the listeners but it's not normal). So if you want to record in surround, how do you balance it? The sound of orchestral instruments may surprise some people. Instruments (other than huge pipe organs) don't generally shake the floor. The triangle is a tiny instrument with a quiet but penetrating sound. Orchestras can and do play very quietly and very loudly. I listen to the same music in my small living room, and in my small noisy car. Generally I like to listen to the music as I would in a concert hall, but this isn't really possible. Rear speakers might nicely place dropped wine bottles in the corporate boxes, but I am willing to forgo this. Movie music is mixed to impress, not to re-create the studio environment. Rock concert sounds depend on the folk at the mixing desk. But an acoustic orchestra or soloist need only a bit of stereo to give some ambience when the music is quiet. But I'm pretty old and my ears past their best.

[@stephenchen1420]

1:32 4-channel "kind of worked" or "sort of worked". In QS & SQ matrix systems, front-rear separation is around 2dB, 5dB for CD-4.

[@joesharkey1021]

CD-4 was better than that. It was "almost" like 2 lots of FM from an LP. Admittedly, you needed a cartridge that could play 40khz, like my ADC ZLM with suitable stylus.

[@stephenchen1420]

@@joesharkey1021 , you needed the "Shibata" or similar profile stylus. Frequency response extended to 50 kHZ & beyond. You're right about having "2 lots of FM". I suppose it is limited by the quality of the demodulator. For me the benefit is improved shapes for stereo reproduction, & I've been a beneficiary from it with the "Ogura" tip in 3 successive Lyra cartridges.

[@SuePaulErricker]

Steven Wilson produces some amazing Dolby Atmos albums, but generally its so limited. And, unless you are combining with a movie system, a surround sound music system is so expensive (processor/amps/speakers/subs). Unless a movie fan, then investing your budget in a stereo system is the way to go for now. I wonder what AI will eventually do for creating surround from stereo?

[@DddNnn-r2y]

I have an integrated amp/DDC question. My integrated amp has a built in dac using Optical as an input. Would a. DDC be of any benefit in sound hooking it up to the optical of the built in dac?

[@bikdav]

Didn’t KLIPSCH try to utilize a center channel scheme in the early days of 2 channel?

[@AndyBHome]

I wish three speaker would make a comeback. You didn't even need a third channel, just a center speaker with synthesized middle derived from the stereo recording.

[@ZeusTheTornado]

I wonder how a 2 speaker system would compare with a 3 speakers one, I know some people used to own them, Frank Sinatra had one in his home. That aside, many recordings from the 1950's and 60's done on 3-track tape are being reissued on SACD with their original 3 channels

[@slr12001]

I play my vinyl in Aura 3D through my Denon receiver and the sound is fantastic. Sounds coming from every direction in a 5.2.4 setup. Highly recommend it!

[@JosephM101]

To your point about there not being many songs mixed in surround, there apparently seemed to be a flood of new songs and some older songs being mixed in Dolby Atmos on services like Amazon Music and Apple Music. It's an interesting time for sure.

[@SpyderTracks]

There’s a big difference between being actually mixed in surround and simply digitally created as surround. Most of the Apple Music Dolby Atmos are simply digitally created with AI

[@pfunk34]

A great mid-fi solution is the Schiit Syn. It is ALL analog, takes a 2 channel signal, and I can listen L/C/R and 5.1; depending on my mood. I don't use the Syn in my main listening room because I do not want to buy an another speaker and amp; too expensive as Paul alluded. I use in another room for gaming as well as music when I am working. Sounds wonderfull! (and at a decent price)

[@joachimmagnusson3128]

Paul, what do you think about Cross Talk Cancellation which is a project/product "Bacch" which has been introduced to the market by Edgar Chouerie working at the Princeton University? If we think that 2 channel audio cannot provide anything near surround sound, than maybe we have to think again. But maybe the Audio Industrie is not ready (or try to avoid) this product. Would highly apreciate your take in this matter. By the way, i am a fan of your "down to earth" KZbin clips!

[@alex_stanley]

I listened to it at Axpona a couple years ago, and I was very impressed.

[@davidbartochowski7832]

I know Paul is not a fan of Klipsch, but Paul Klipsch was developing a third center channel in the 1950's for which he made the Hersey. Keep the great videos coming

[@duncan-rmi]

google frank sinatra's home hifi setup; he has a three channel system & a three channel tape deck

[@JosephM101]

I think the Dolby Home Theatre feature on my PC does a fair job of upmixing stereo audio on my 5.1ch Z906. Although there are times I turn it off because it can create weird delay effects with some sounds on the rear speakers.

[@lamecasuelas2]

I love surround sound music. Once you hear a good mix you wish you had EVERYTHING in surround. But nothis is perfect.

[@DmitriHiFi]

Please add support for multichannel DSD in your products! I have been enjoying multichannel music ever since SACD introduced it. And after listening to properly mastered multi channel music, it’s hard to go back to 2 channel, even as an audiophile. And multi channel doesn’t necessarily mean 5.1, some original RCA Living Stereo recordings were done in 3 front channels (with discrete center) and these vintage recordings sound wonderful on multi channel SACD.

[@JacobZirkin]

I absolutely love Apple's Spatial Audio setting compared to regular stereo when listening to anything! I know this is just "fake surround sound" but it's in my opinion the best we've got if we don't want to create an Atmos mix or use a 5.1 speaker setup.

[@jamesfarrow6752]

I get the reason why surround sound works with movies but not with music. When going to see a live performance, the audience is not surrounded by the performers so to me, stereo is the more authentic way to listen. Perhaps the question was more about having multiple speakers in front of the listener, although I think that 2 speakers are good enough in a system capable of conveying the soundstage.

[@xaviermontalban717]

Except the speakers are often placed everywhere at a concert

[@hartsickdisciple]

@@xaviermontalban717 The mains are generally just to the left and right of the main stage. At least that's been the case at 95% of the shows I've been to living in Austin for 15 years.

[@xaviermontalban717]

@hartsickdisciple firstly you're missing the huge stack of subs in the middle. Secondly. That doesn't matter. For some reason, people think that surround sound means having six channels that play the same. It is meant to recreate the atmosphere. If well done, I believe it can take the listening experience to a new level

[@PSA78]

Live music in large venues is usually mono for a lot of the people. Even something like a classic orchestra might rely on the acoustics of the room to amplify which at least to a degree blends it to mono.

[@lnielse1]

@@hartsickdisciple yes the mains are placed at the left and right, but speakers are elsewhere, including the roof and the back of many venues. as Paul rightly pointed out, it is more of a practicality thing. when I listen to music with a surround sound system, I prefer the rear speakers just for added ambience that imitates you sitting in the middle of a theater with the sound bouncing all around you as opposed to dedicating rear speakers for certain instruments...

[@harrykressl1251]

Hey Paul, is there on the upper right on the video the upcoming PS Audio Sub ???

[@1337sim1]

Surprised that Paul did not mention SACDs. Got a few albums in that multichannel format and it's pretty good! You should try it 😊

[@pimvanvliet2812]

I remember show report of Briston setting up three front channels with Magnepan speakers and the results apparently were very good. If you think about soundstage depth, just a tiny delay in the centre speaker can add enormous depth. I kind of know because at some stage I had my stereo sub woofers half baked installed and partially off phase (I wouldn't call it it out of phase) and I had a very deep soundstage. The problem with mine was that every recording had a deep soundstage so it wasn't natural, so I had to fix it. But what a great tool would i be if you had three speakers and a simple delay adjustment for the centre speaker on your remote control. Then you would be in charge of how it sounds. Not the mastering engineer.

[@perfidiousalbion5985]

That center channel is not the 'phantom' channel' rather it is there to help listeners understand the dialog of actors spoken. With modern 5.1 recording the sheer amount of distracting noise can literally drown out the dialog. Hence, the center channel was built into these systems to boost certain vocal frequencies and volume so that listeners can better understand their dialogs. Otherwise for pure audio stereo enjoyment the center channel really provides no benefit.

[@csimet]

Some receivers, like my older mid-80s JVC, offer modes that set slight delays on your second set of speakers... Dolby, Hall and Stadium modes. They actually work well if you place your secondary stereo speakers behind you, much like how home theater rear surrounds are placed. If their volume is not set too high, I find it creates a nice effect and "expands" the listening room a bit. It is the same playback as your mains, only slightly delayed and echoed. Also, I think stereo for music is perfect (2.1 or maybe 3.1)... think of it... music performers are in front of you vs. movies where they try and emulate sounds that come from all directions (5.1 or higher).

[@jamesa.4451]

Here’s a controversial opinion: Paul has talked a lot about great music that is recorded poorly. And he’s right. Man, nothing is more frustrating than playing a song you love on a high end audio system and it sounding like garbage. One solution I’ve found for this is using an AVR with all channel stereo. With a properly calibrated system, I’ve found that my 2 side surrounds and 2 height speakers (I turn off the center) really opens up the soundstage, while keeping most of the music (seemingly)coming from the 2 mains. I know a lot of people believe this is “not what the artist intended” and it “messes with the imaging” blah, blah etc. I couldn’t care less about that. It really helps make poorly recorded music more enjoyable to listen to. I don’t use this for great sounding recordings, which sound good in 2 channel.

[@joepostle3561]

In my opinion there’s not much material (music) which is detailed enough or enough ‘layers’ to require surround sound (5.1 or 7.1). I mean if you have a piece of music with drums, bass, a synth line or maybe two, a guitar line or maybe two and a lead vocal, is there enough source material to spread out in 5 or 7.1? Having that said years ago I heard a recording of Thomas Tallis’ Speim in Alium which is a 40 part choral piece of music which was in surround sound, wow it sounded fantastic with each part spread out across 5.1; each part could be heard separately and it also sounded complete as a whole sound. There’s also the argument historically whether people would setup the equipment correctly, I’m sure we all have the friend who has their 5 or 7 little cubes (meaning speakers) bunched up together under their TV! In my thinking, it’s one of those revolving door arguments, the hardware manufacturers don’t make the equipment because the music isn’t there, the music isn’t there because the hardware isn’t there. Apologies in advance if my hurried post is confusing, I will be happy to elaborate if I have been confusing in my explanation.

[@ptg01]

I remember the QUADRAPHONIC days of the 70's. That was weird. 5 Channel like Home Theater would be very nice and lots of SACD's have muti channel tracks that sounds wonderful even for a very inexpensive HT system.

[@bikdav]

I remember those days as a teenager. I caught the tail end of Quadraphonic. That makes me wonder. Has anyone tried to play quadraphonic vinyl in Dolby surround?

[@X19-k8n]

No reference to multi-channel SACD?

[@dicmccoy]

Somebody needs to learn that less is more and what you can achieve with 2 channel will blow your mind and trump a lot of multi-channel setups in linearity, tone, soundstage and imaging.

[@juliocesarpereira4325]

I have a 5x1 hometheater I intend to use solely to watch movies. I'm replacing its speakers for better ones. A friend of mine once played a 7X1 recording of a Jethro Tull album. It is impressive, although he would need to improve the quality of its speakers. But I still prefer the two channel configuration. My old DSP audio can also be used as a hometheater with 4 channels and I did that for some time connected to a pc sound card that had an option compatible with this configuration. Currently, I only use this old stereo system to listen to music in two channel configurarion with stereo subwoofers.

[@kenyackimec8341]

I was into Quad in the 70's, dropped it and forgot about it for a long while and then once DVD Audio and SACD started killing each other off the market I accumulated quite a few of those releases and set up a system again. It is quite equipment heavy to do that, but now I find that I listen to (well mixed) surround sound just to try and get back all the sounds I could so easily hear in stereo when I was eighteen. So partly I am trying to use technology to make up for hearing degradation, and with a well crafted surround mix of an older release, it is almost like hearing a classic for the first time again. Good feeling for an old Boomer!

[@seed_drill7135]

I continue to nurse my old OPPO and Pioneer Elite players that handle both. Going to be hard to replace them when they finally bite the dust.

[@kenyackimec8341]

@@seed_drill7135 I was lucky enough to get an Oppo 205 just before they stopped making them and I have an couple of 4 channel reel to reels for those type of tapes. Should be good until I go completely deaf!

[@raykuiper4979]

In the 60ties Harman Kardon had an amp, with a center channel. So it is not new. And as we know. Sir Ken Fritz made a system as well with a center channel.

[@robertfournier7050]

Back in the early to mid 70's I went to a sound show where a quadraphonic system was promoted in this incredible globe style audio acoustic setting. The sound was my question? They played a song on this turntable which yes it played the 4 channels. Who made this. It was designed by of all things the Japanese company JVC. WOW.

[@TheRollingStoness]

I embrace technology... I love enhancing 2 channel to get surround sound... Looking fwd for the next technology... I want to experience all i could before i go 6 foot under

[@DeAudiofilosyLocos]

Thanks Paul but you omitted a very important step in the history which was super audio CD and DVD audio developed by Bob Stewart. Meridian and other companies developed special audio systems for listening to purely music in multi-channel format. Not home theater. Thanks to depreciation I am now enjoying an amazing Meridian multi-channel system😊😊😊. They were just too ahead of their time...

[@duncan-rmi]

I live quad. if I haven't got stems or quad original, I decode stereo using a sony quad sq decoder. you'd be amazed how much of that phase & level info is in there without being explicitly encoded. I suspect that the bigger reason is cable management & box placement vs SWMBO.

[@genecase9464]

1) For music, I like whatever sounds the best to me. Sometimes it's stereo, sometimes it's 5.1. But virtually every concert dvd sounds better in 5.1 than in stereo. It just does. 2) I guess I'm not someone who is always looking for the live concert experience. Sometimes, depending on the 5.1 mix, it's really cool to feel like I'm on stage with the performers then in the audience. 3) In the early 2000's I knew a guy who put all 5 speakers on the front wall with the "surrounds" outside and above the mains. Again, sometimes it sounded great! Sometimes it didn't. Credit for trying something different. 4) I have a fairly large collection of 5.1 music discs on DTS CD (remember those?) DVD-A, SACD and BluRay. A 5.1 concert dvd in DD HD or DTS MA sounds incredible to me! But stereo sounds groovy to me as well. 5) When stereo first started to gain popularity in the mid sixties, Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) still recorded in mono as he felt 90 percent of the listening would be in the car...which still had mono systems. There's no right answer here. That's why we have (dwindling) choices.

[@garfieldsmith332]

My thought is two ears, thus two channels. For music that is. Surround sound 5+ channels is great for movies as you get all the background sounds to make the movie sound awesome.

[@jeffwalther]

My 20 year old DVR started having problems so I replaced it with my Sprout100. I'm not going back to surround sound now. The Sprout sounds much better then my old DVR for TV and music.

[@SuperMcgenius]

I have installed some three Channel live PA systems with really good results if the engineer is working properly. There are also numerous experiments with three channel through the years.

[@hippydippy]

If it ever happened "The Jimi Hendrix Experience - Electric Ladyland" should be the first done!

[@Spractral]

We have DSotM

[@paulburke9198]

@@Spractral LOVE SOUND , NOT A NERD , what's DsotM , ?

[@paulaj2829]

there is no way you should mess with history ?? When that came out it was the ultimate recording by a man who will never be forgotten ?? So I believe the original is the best way to listen to that album. End of...

[@paulburke9198]

@@paulaj2829 Mmm! dunno , I've listened thru' my 5.1 , not true quality seperation , but mighty bloody nice current evolving tech' could do interesting things , IMO.

[@esimms1889]

Electric Ladyland IS available for purchase in a 5.1 mix.

[@mikeables]

It comes down to women and kids. Teen girls want loud music but the day after you put the ring on it the fun stops. The speaker get smaller until they are operated by Bluetooth and fit in your pocket. This is by design so she can nag you. She needs to be able to walk past the room you are in and crop dust honey do lists from the hallway. By the time you are ready to respond she is gone. The only way you can listen to music when you are married is with head phones. Even then you have to tell her you are taking a course for two hours a day. Then you have to sit still, if she sees you wiggle, air drum or smile, the gig is up. Time to clean the gutters.

[@BlenderRookie]

Spatial music is available, it's just limited. It hasn't caught on yet because of the extra cost in production and the fact that most people listen to music in their cars where it's possible to have spatial sound, but nearly no cars are setup that way. That said, the demand for spatial sound music in the home environment is on the rise. But only a little bit. I would guess less than 5% of people even consider getting something like a 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos system and probably less than half of those will actually do it. Last year I finally stopped using a soundbar and went to a true 5.1 system. The sound difference was so astounding that I upgraded to a 7.1 system capable of Atmos. The difference between Atmos and 5.1 was also enough to where I am looking into a complete 13.1 setup. My point is simple, most people are fine with stereo or bad sound simply because that's what they know. Once they experience good spatial sound, it's hard to settle for less.

[@AMGOSUK]

The "only" fair comparison is between a Stereo Mix played back on a Stereo System AND a 5.1 Channel Mix (DTS being my favourite) of the same track or album played back on a 5.1 channel system AND then there are DVD-Audio and other multiple channel versions as well. As you note there are few tracks one can buy in DTS 5.1 or more - most of the 30 I own are remasters of studio tapes cut in the 1970s and 1980s -- which is great for me since this is the era I enjoy the most. What is important in DTS 5.1 -- the front 3 must all be of comparable quality and driven by equally capable gear (amp and cables). In my case I use the Celestion A3 pair and a matching centre channel. I also use Celestion A1 speakers in the other roles -- all have the same tweeters and mid-range drivers. Base is handled via the A3 and a pair of Celestion subs run L and R stereo. Playing the same track in pure stereo through just the mains feels flat compared to the same track in DTS played in 5.1 -- whole different level of immersion. By processing a Stereo Track in a surround sound processor and applying a surround sound mix can make most recordings far more immersive. I am in my mid 60s and so I really cannot hear as well as I could decades ago -- so yes I am sure I lose some purity, but my enjoyment is heightened for most of the music I listen to.

[@ElectricEarth]

I have a lot of surround sound albums is DTS-HD MA and FLAC 5.1 ripped from various sources including SACD and DVD-Audio. I also have a few Atmos albums. I play them all through HDMI from my PC. But there's a problem. My modernish graphics card (HDMI 2.1) sound is awful. I have an old HDMI 1.4a graphics card that supports DTS-MA and True-Hd but not Atmos and DTS:X and it sounds amazing. People claim that there is no difference in sound quality between different HDMI graphics cards but this is simply not true. High fidelity audio only HDMI cards do not exist. Incidentally, the HDMI output from my motherboard and Ryzen APU is somewhere inbetween the two graphics cards for quality. I am wondering what your take on this is, Paul? Any chance of building an audio only Atmos/DTS:X card for the PC?

[@PSA78]

I saw a comersial a few weeks ago from Mercedes featuring a musician (I think, might have been a producer) that talked about surround sound in the car, so something seems to be happening.

[@Fastvoice]

More and more luxury cars are equipped with Dolby Atmos.

[@Skibike69]

Interesting... I was expecting a different answer from Paul!

[@spacemissing]

Some stereo components from the 1960s have a "center channel out", and numerous "quad" components can be found as relics from the early 1970s. People just didn't buy those things in large numbers. You can easily experiment with a surround-sound receiver that has what Yamaha calls "sound field" modes (other brands use different names, but the functions are similar). For myself, I would like to play around with the concept, but I find that even stereo sometimes overcomplicates what comes out of the speakers.

[@a.o.424]

SACD and DVD-A were hi-resolution multi-channel products in the 1990s and 2000s that eventually fizzled out because, as Paul says, people don't want the extra speakers and amplifiers, and also because 2 channels are "good enough." We have 2 ears, so the theoretical ideal solution is stereo headphones, but they don't have deep bass, so we use stereo speakers as the best overall compromise.

[@wisehippo3072]

"We have 2 ears". What the hell does that have to do with anything? You also have 2 eyes but see the world in 3D.

[@a.o.424]

@wisehippo3072 Exactly. Two eyes allow us to see 3D, and two ears allow us to localize sounds in 3D. We don't need more than two channels to create a 3D soundstage in front of us. Multi-channel audio remains popular for home theater, but music purists find little to be gained with more than one channel per ear. 🙂

[@MarkThomas-hm3ju]

Maybe 2 channel can get ahead. Call it Matrix 2 channel whereby you can move the soundstage performers in space. You could keep the original configuration or you could move the performers as elements to different positions in space. An example would be to forward the vocalists or even space the vocalists back. The phase of the room it was recorded in could lead to a more holographic sound for your setup with matrix manipulation. It would be like you were remastering the recording.

[@janetyer7147]

Paul, I enjoy your videos, and apologize for disagreeing about this one. Early "stereo" included 3 channel audio. At its inception the word stereo was not synonymous with 2 channel. Rather than rely in my memory, a cursory Google web search returned the following. The first 3-channel stereo system was demonstrated by Bell Telephone Laboratories in the early 1930s, with the first notable commercial application being Walt Disney's "Fantasia" movie in 1940, which utilized a specialized 3-channel "Fantasound" system to create a more immersive surround sound experience in theaters; essentially marking the first widespread use of a 3-channel stereo setup.

[@cesarjlisboa7586]

I enjoy the stereo, for the only reason that we have two ears, and when we are in a live concert hall,the sound comes out from one stage (most of the time) the idea of multiple channels is valid, only if we virtually can emulate coming out for two. That’s my opinion.

[@vinylrules4838]

The John Eargle Delos surround sound recordings sounded great when I had a surround sound system set up in the 1990's.

[@arvidlystnur4827]

The answer is simple. Remember back in the sixties when there was a group, be it small, of audiophiles that argued that mono was better than stereo? A mono block amp that cost perhaps $200 sounded better than one $100. A loud speaker that cost $200 sounds better perhaps than a $100 model. You've got 400 dollars to spend. You've got a choice to buy two cheaper amps and two cheaper speakers, or one good amp and loudspeaker.

[@markreif1]

I still maintain the equipment and the source material to enjoy my DVD-audio and SACD multichannel disc collection.....

[@peterbigblock]

The speaker forest thing is a real impediment. It’s hard enough for most people to get the space for a decent two-channel system. Also, recording and mixing music properly for multichannel or Atmos is a LOT more work.

[@miltystu2004]

But Paul, you of all people, you absolutely have the ability to start doing surround hifi. Who else is in as perfect a situation as you? You have the recording studio and the equipment manufacturing capability. I have 100% faith that YOU could do it.

[@1Hiprascal]

home theatre and multi-channel audio are already in decline. This tech is headed to bye bye land.

[@Skye_the_toller]

I have a 7.2.4 system in the same “audio room” than my stéréo system. Always listen music in stéréo… new comers are always impressed how my music is good with the surround system…until I tell them that the music is strereo😂… they always stand up to try to put their ears on the center Chanel and realize that it does nos work…

[@tubefreeeasy]

Do you have a Nakamichi?

[@Totalplonker]

It's cost me a shitload getting my noise floor down to the same level as to what my stereo noise floor was when listening to my multi-channel (Atmos) set up Hence, multi-channel music is only appreciated when playing at medium to high volumes (my opinion, of course) From my experience, 80% of the noise floor can be lowered through entry-level shielded cables. It's the remaining 20% is where the big bucks come in (quality shielded cables)

[@martinolson761]

I'd love to see surround sound mixes come back. About 10 years ago DVD-A and SACD was gaining in popularity but the lack of supporting hardware out in the world hurt sales. Now DVD-A is dead and SACD is mostly classical music and it's not multi channel usually. Blu-Ray is great for us multi channel nerds tho. But more options would be nice...

[@rabit818]

Had home theater and reverted back to stereo even though I had multichannel audio

[@arcadepiano]

at the local threatre the front stereo speakers are set SO loud that we cannot hear the surround

[@joelowens5211]

Movies best for surround sound. 2 channel best for recreating live performances with singer and band in front of you. Concerts you go to all instruments and singers on stage in front unless they go out into the crowd and then the experience becomes omni-directional. That live performance element being there in a concert where the performer can up tempo and change what is happening in a split second just can't be re-created in a speaker room setting. With a movie you want to forget it's a movie like you are there so surround sound immerses yourself in that. With 2 channel the singer and band right in front of you like a dive bar. 2 totally different experiences. I used to have a very high end system do both home theater and listening with surround. On some tracks like Vanessa Willliams you could hear the wind whipping around the room so on certain tracks it can be cool to have surround sound but on some songs it would be more of a negative it depends how they were recorded with what effects. I have 2 separate rooms and systems now one for easy listening 2 channel stereo and the other a dedicate home theater room. If your budget can't afford that they make easy switchers between stereo and surround for same system where you can toggle on and off the stereo versus surround processing.

[@bilguana11]

Get the Beatles "Love" in surround on a DVD-A.

[@ernies8828]

Generally speaking, stereo is for music and surround is for movies. There is Dolby Atmos surround for music, but it is for artists and record labels that choose to master their music, whether old or new, in Dolby Atmos. I believe the cost is greater because you are paying licensing to Dolby. However, I was in a person's home recently who has Dolby Atmos with front, center and right, four ceiling height, side and rear surround speakers, plus two subwoofers. All speakers were the same brand and model, and tonally matched and seamless. He has media streaming and physical CDs with certain tracks which have Dolby Atmos mastering. I will say the music tracks sounded absolutely amazing, overall much better and more dynamic than the originals, which is obvious as to why. But even so, I do not think this will go mainstream across the board, just like with SACD, at least not right now. It requires a proper Dolby Atmos setup and music streaming tracks or CDs which have Dolby Atmos mastering. Most people listen to 2-channel stereo and have good to great sound. Most people don't have the funds or proper spaces for surround sound music and movies anyway. I agree with Paul, surround music is much better than just 2-channel, especially Dolby Atmos. Even Dolby Vision upscaling in my Roku streaming player to my TCL 4K television with Dolby Vision makes all video look better. Dolby has proven time and again how great they are. However, with that being said, this level of detail when played back is going to be new and eye-opening to people. It is moreover like night and day. The main point is to those people who live in apartments or don't have the money to get a decent Dolby Atmos setup, this is just not feasible. And like Paul said, there isn't a lot of music encoded this way right now, but that will probably change in the near future. It all depends on the market, streaming, digital file downloads, and physical media sales.

[@curiousobserver4096]

Agreed, dolby atmos music can be an awesome experience if the music is mixed right from the start to be a dolby atmos mix. Lot of artists are still trying to figure out how to create immersive experiences with surround, considering how small the home theatre market is, as compared to the traditional way of listening to music. Many of them are just not aware of the existence of home theatre market. Many production studios arent setup for dolby atmos mixing, if they have setup, the cost of production would become lot higher to make a small segment of the market happy. I think Billie Eilish & Finneas dolby atmos tracks sound amazing on apple music both on headphones and in a home theatre setup, as they were mixed for Atmos groundup. Pink floyd's 50th anniversary edition dark side of moon Blu-ray copy is the best I have ever heard, I had the opportunity to listen to this album on a 9.4.6 jbl synthesis home theatre system, it was just pure bliss. A massive difference in quality as compared to the same album on Apple music.

[@ernies8828]

@curiousobserver4096 - i can not recommend billie ellish because of personal reservations, and pink floyd similarly, but i agree with you 100 percent overall. Nice comments concerning the dynamics of Dolby Atmos and JBL Synthesis. Very good! Happy New Year!

[@stimpy1226]

A YellowBrickRoad question. Again… SQ versus relaxing and enjoying music. Paul’s answer is running true to course of how to continue making money. I don’t care if it sounds a whole lot better. I wanted to sound like real music when everybody else is looking for spectacular.

[@cunawarit]

Surround sound is undeniably better for certain experiences, and its future looks bright. With more affordable surround systems becoming available, the demand for surround music is likely to grow. That said, stereo and mono aren’t going anywhere. Mono will always have its place, especially as the purest way to experience live performances and environments where people are dancing together. Surround sound, however, has become so essential for movies that as more people experience it, they’ll start to want the same immersive experience for music. Meanwhile, stereo will continue to thrive, partly due to its loyal following among seasoned audiophiles, who may even help it become the 'vintage hipster' option over time.

[@NoEgg4u]

@1:16 "...the needle..." Stereos have no needles. It is a stylus.

[@clickbeetle2720]

🖤could an EV support a surround system after you put two 18" subs in the boot/trunk/body storage compartment..?🤔🤧

[@NathanStorer-RC]

I think the biggest problem with surround sound for "true audiophiles", even those with deep pockets, is the cost. Could you imagine the cost to set up and properly power 4 or 5 of PS Audio's FR30 speakers? I'm sure it would encroach on the one hundred-thousand-dollar mark to do it "properly". Obviously, PS Audio doesn't have multi-channel DACs, but you can buy Audiophile quality surround-sound processors from the likes of Crutchfield. Even then, you're still sacrificing some connectivity options (USB) and processing capabilities (best I saw was 5.6Mhz DSD). Most of us middle-class audiophile mortals with regular incomes settle for something far more reasonable with big box store speakers (Polk/Klipsch/Definitive Technology etc.) and a decent receiver rather than a DAC+Pre-Amp+Power Amp setup. You're not going to get the fidelity, power and dynamics of a dedicated DAC+Pre-Amp+Power Amp when using a surround sound receiver. As a result, most of us won't listen to music on these systems "just to listen to music", and will have a higher (mid-high?) quality 2 channel DAC+Pre-Amp+Power Amp setup as that's all that's feasible. All that said, this leaves little incentive for audio engineers to create music that capitalizes on surround sound. Obviously there are multi-channel music tracks out there, but they're the exception.

[@robmyers4512]

There is a growing libary of surround music

[@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez]

Could you recommend some great albums? Thank you.

[@sunnohh]

Refused the shape of punk to come is probably the only worthwhile surround mixed albums but even that is not what I would call a killer app

[@SpyderTracks]

@@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopezcheck out any of the Steven Wilson 5.1 mixes, all incredible, Purcupine Tree - Stupid Dream as an example

[@Jorge-Fernandez-Lopez]

​@@SpyderTracks I didn't know the album. I don't have a sourround system, although it sounded great in stereo. Thank you.

[@SpyderTracks]

@ I personally fully agree, I have zero issue with 2 channel on a decent system, don’t find I prefer multichannel for music

[@gwine9087]

I saw a poll, recently, where only 8% responded that they listen to music using even 2 speakers. The rest used some form of headphones. So, I worry about where the industry is going.

[@beauport]

Good point. But at the same time there are now more turntable manufacturers than ever before. Apple to oranges yes. But I have to think someone buying and playing vinyl records may also be using 2 speakers. Maybe not?

[@gwine9087]

@@beauport I gave my 18-year-old grandson my old Onkyo receiver and a pair of speakers. He looked at the receiver and had no idea what it was. He still hasn't hooked it up.

[@pedrodepacas4335]

For music, stereo delivers a fully immersive experience. Surround is unnatural more often than not.

[@charlasia3309]

@Paul I dont understand in music how this would work? How does the sound stage and depth work? Are all the speakers and amps tuned to still create the sound stage and depth where it is meant to be? Its not a movie right? So surely I cant have a piano, singer, percussion coming from behind me or in an unatural position. Pls explain. I dnt get it

[@ArnoldVroomans]

Atmos is doing great though…darko has a great interview with the no.1 remix guy

[@paulburke9198]

For me personally space is the huge issue , I Love surr'. sound ,and 5.1 is heaps good enough, but spkr. placement in a 4squr' space isn't practical really . will probably give it a shot at a future date tho' just because .

[@ronaldfernandes5697]

sir pls give us a diagram for high level in put subwoofer

[@ridirefain6606]

For me there is a very limited amount of music that I feel benefit from surround sound. Cliche', but an album from artist like Pink Floyd, is a lot of fun to listen to on that type of system, even as crappy old quad, is still a blast. Joan Baez in surround, not so much. A great point about the complexity, it is a pain to optimize placement for two speakers, that is if your listening space and/or spouse will even allow it, let alone five plus! For people in this day and age, what I am seeing is the age-old trend of convenience over quality, even the simplest of two channel systems are losing ground to a wireless sound bar and a stream from an i-Phone.

[@turboboost99]

Wow, you're really not paying attention, Paul. Surround music is exploding, especially in Dolby Atmos. Most existing recordings are in stereo, but remixing in 5.1/Atmos is growing exponentially. And by the way, you may not be aware that many classical music recordings were done in "3-channel stereo" back in the 50's and 60's, which utilize a discrete center channel. They can be heard on the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence SACDs that have been available for many years.

[@renedoucet6245]

Dolby Atmos music is somewhat available but I still prefer 2 channel music.

[@Badassvidsz]

Personally i believe that surround sound is perfect for movies , but for music a 2.1 channel stereo system is good for more than enough and why ? For me the reason why is that when we go to a live consert all musicians are in front of us they are not surrounding the audience unlike in movies TOP-GUN for example a jet fighter comes from behind us and only a surround system can reproduce it with precision What's the point in music to hear the musicians in our back left / back right side or above us or behind us ?? we don't see that in a live consert anyway , that's my opinion if someone have to reply for something real good i'll be glad to listen .