|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.245.3.219
In Reply to: RE: Synthesized center, or re-created center? posted by erik_sq on October 04, 2016 at 09:34:05
When I was using an HT prepro in my Mch front end, I experimented with a number of Mch from stereo synthesis modes. It had quite a number of them. Like you, I did get the best results with music from Neo:6 over Dolby and a slew of others. Some friends of mine recommend that, too.
I no longer have a prepro in my setup, and the JRiver software I use as a control center instead does not have Neo:6, although it does have JRiver's own stereo-Mch synthesis algorithm. It is quite good, but I just don't use it.
In any case, my bias is to try to hear something as close to what the mastering engineers heard as possible. >> 95% of the time, I listen to discretely recorded Mch. I do that in 5.1 if it is a 5.0 or .1 recording and in 7.1 for a 7.1 recording, again not synthesizing Back channels for 5.0/.1. I do not find 7.1 recommendable over 5.1. It adds little, even for the relatively few 7.1 recordings available, BD videos included. I should have saved my money and just stopped at 5.1 for Mch. Overwhelmingly, most Mch music is on SACD in 5.0/.1 anyway.
For the few 2.0 stereo recordings I listen to, I use 2.1, always using bass management and a sub, except when I listen in pure DSD, which is also rare.
I prefer Dirac room correction and bass management over pure DSD, even though there is a DSD-PCM conversion involved for those capabilities. Speaker distance correction is also not possible in my or most all other systems without DSD-PCM conversion. That is another strike against the supposed "Holy Grail" of pure DSD in my setup for Mch, even though my DAC supports it. No matter, though. I am the happiest I have ever been with the sound of music and video in my home.
Follow Ups:
Great follow up. :)
See, I wonder if in the old days the engineers were actually listening to 3 speakers in front of them?
Before I was aware of any possible causes, I was becoming aware of a darkened middle, or darkened phantom center. Makes it sound like a ghost story. :-) That is, in a 2 channel setup when you hear an instrument on the side, that same instrument in the center always seems darker. Converseley, instruments to the sides seem more present.
After reading and experimenting, I have become more convinced that the dark middle is a real after effect.
At the same time, I don't think it's worth a crusade over. :) Listen how you'd like to.
Best,
Erik
I do not know all the details, but both Mercury and RCA were recording classical music in the 50's with 3 mikes, including a Center. They were doing this before the standard for the stereo LP was agreed to. But, even after that, LPs were released for a number of years in separate stereo and mono versions. One story is that the center channel feed became the mono version. I tend to doubt that. Another story is that both the stereo and mono versions were mixes from all 3 mike channels.
Yet another story has the companies planning to release their recordings in "3 channel stereo" on mag tape before the stereo LP standard was finalized. It might be true that the only reason stereo as we know it has 2 channels is because that was all they could do on the LP, and the LP won out over mag tape because it was easier and much cheaper to manufacture.
All I know is that SACD remasterings of some of those old recordings are available with 2.0 and 3.0 channels on the same disc. The 3.0 version always sounds better to me.
I also think you raise valid points about the center channel. It makes a very worthwhile, positive difference. Some Mch setups think they can get away with 4.0/.1 playback - a phantom center with a mix of center information going to L and R. But, that never sounds as good to me with music. And, it is often a problem on dialog articulation with video.
"All I know is that SACD remasterings of some of those old recordings are available with 2.0 and 3.0 channels on the same disc. The 3.0 version always sounds better to me."
And for good reason. Regardless of what the original thoughts were for making three channel recordings, using all three to create a modern 3-channel playback medium was done with careful intent. I was fortunate to "sit in" on a bit of that process.
Heh, Yeah. I have quite a bit of experience in movie theaters. When I first considered the idea of a center channel for the home I though it was ridiculous. Motion picture auditoriums were a minimum of 20' wide, and to me the center was to ensure everyone got a good perspective regardless of their seat.
Having experimented with movies and music, I have to say my early theories were bunk. :-) 3 channels is significantly better than 2, but there's no reason to be religious about it.
Best,
Erik
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: