Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Return to Hi-Rez Highway


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

I owe BIS an apology....

192.91.173.36

Posted on August 27, 2014 at 08:35:38
Doktor Brahms
Audiophile

Posts: 611
Location: Southeast
Joined: November 25, 2004
I had my hearing checked yesterday, and the results were disconcerting to say the least. My left ear has falling sensitivity as frequency rises, not unexpected for someone in his 50s. For some reason, my right ear is significantly worse, and high frequency sensitivity drops off the table above 5000 Hz or so.

So what does this have to do with BIS? I’ve posted unflattering comments in the past about the excessive dynamic range on certain BIS SACDs, especially at the quieter end of the scale. I must now officially repudiate those posts because I now realize that I simply am incapable of hearing what’s going on when the dynamics drop below a certain level. My apologies to Robert von Bahr!

While contemplating the irony of finally being able to afford a stereo system that I can’t fully appreciate, I ask myself what comes next. A hearing aid? That would help with everyday conversation, but how would my stereo sound? Can even the most sophisticated hearing aid really get music listening right, especially with high-resolution SACDs?

Another (more radical) possibility: sell my current 2-channel system and go multichannel. The audiologist suggested that a multichannel system might provide a more immersive listening experience, thus ameliorating my compromised hearing (especially the imbalance between left and right ears). This would indeed be a crossing of the Rubicon; obviously, I’d need to listen to such a system to see if it really addresses my issues. Perhaps Kalman Rubinson can weigh in on this issue.

Fellow inmates: please disregard any of my recent posts about dynamic range. And if you have any advice, I’d greatly appreciate it.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 27, 2014 at 10:13:36
Posts: 26350
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since:
February 6, 2012
Doktor Brahms - very big of you to publicize and socialize the situation with your hearing. I admire you for it. (I must admit I did not know what you were talking about when you complained about the "excessive" dynamic range of BIS recordings in some of your earlier posts.)

With regard to multi-channel, I've written for years that, even with my own imperfect MC system (in the sense that my 5 main speakers do not match), I still find it more forgiving and more enjoyable than stereo, although, of necessity (with the more limited availability of multi-channel releases compared to stereo, not to mention the back catalogue of older recordings), I still do listen to the majority of my music in stereo. Even with regular stereo recordings however, most pre-pros and receivers can generate artificial surround if you're so inclined. (I used to use DTS neo:6 a lot when listening, since it did not change the sound of the FR and FL speakers.)

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 27, 2014 at 12:32:04
jazz1
Audiophile

Posts: 2891
Joined: October 30, 2000
Funny you should mention your perceived BIS problem but I have noted over the past year that you are not the only one.
Yesterday I posted on another forum that I really enjoyed the sound of
"Challenge classics" SACD's and noted that their playback levels seem higher
than labels such as BIS by +_ 3 DB's
Does it affect their dynamic range,thus the ultimate sound quality?? I do not know but I like their sound better than most BIS SACD's I own??
But my preferences could be due to other factors ??

 

There is a high probability......, posted on August 27, 2014 at 13:02:32
krisjan
Reviewer

Posts: 929
Joined: May 6, 2001
...that Challenge is employing a bit of compression to raise their average loudness level. BIS never compresses their sound (as per Robert himself) - you get the full dynamic range as delivered by the musicians and conductor.

 

How about Trinaural, posted on August 27, 2014 at 15:07:18
Jon L
Audiophile

Posts: 6057
Joined: April 6, 2000
It never seemed to have caught on, and I've had my doubts, but actually listening to a decent trinaural setup had impressed me greatly.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 27, 2014 at 17:12:36
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12430
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
I wish I had a direct solution but, imho, the suggestion of going to multichanel might help. However, only you can decide about that with a direct comparison between stereo and mch on your selected recordings (BIS?). Unfortunately, I have never(!) heard a convincing mch music demo in a store but only in a few private homes and a few show setups.

Of course, this will not compensate for your hearing loss per se but it might make for more satisfying and enjoyable listening. I have been dealing with for my son-in-law and he is finding new enjoyment with his updated mch system that incorporates HD MCH streaming and good room EQ. It sounds better even to me.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 27, 2014 at 20:17:59
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
No apology needed. Go to a season' s worth of live music and yout brain will recalibrate itself to reality.

 

RE: There is a high probability......, posted on August 27, 2014 at 22:25:35
jazz1
Audiophile

Posts: 2891
Joined: October 30, 2000
The lack of use of compression obviously does not guarantee better sound.
They could be many factors affecting the final results.
All I know is that many listeners over the years did complaint about BIS
low levels and few mentioned that it resulted in better sound.

 

RE: There is a high probability......, posted on August 28, 2014 at 10:28:56
krisjan
Reviewer

Posts: 929
Joined: May 6, 2001
There are only two ways to account for the average sound level of a recording being higher than other disks:
1. The orchestra/ensemble/performer is limiting their dynamics thus allowing the recording engineer to record at a higher average level, or
2. The dynamics are deliberately compressed during recording or in post production.

The first reason comes down to the artists' interpretation (e.g. a ffff marking in the score may be realized as ff or a pppp marking may be done at pp instead). If such is the case, one could argue that the performer/conductor is taking liberties with the score. At the end of the day, this is a subjective criteria and people will react differently to how this is handles.

The second reason is much more insidious in that it imposes a specific dynamic range on a recording over and above what the orchestra/ensemble/conductor intended. This is standard practice in pop/rock recordings in an effort to raise the average volume level as high as possible. The practice makes listening to the music in a noisy environment (like a car) more palatable but at the expense of the music's dynamics. BIS has been the only contributor (on the SACD_net forum) that says they do not use any compression for their releases. I could be wrong, but I don't recall reading similar statements from the other handful of labels that regularly comment on that site. It makes me wonder how pervasive that practice is in classical recording.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 28, 2014 at 10:30:47
flyingdutchman
Audiophile

Posts: 623
Location: Honolulu
Joined: January 25, 2003
Poor Disbeliever. He doesn't have anyone else to support him.

 

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha! (nt), posted on August 28, 2014 at 10:32:19
krisjan
Reviewer

Posts: 929
Joined: May 6, 2001
.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 00:09:03
Disbeliever
Audiophile

Posts: 1877
Joined: June 1, 2012
BIS dynamics, just some SACD,s are recorded at a too lower level compared with other brands causing constant volume level adjustment. Even Andrew McGregor on BBC 3 CD review once said re a BIS disc he was playing , turn up the volume slightly more, or words to that effect. This caused BIS owner to get McGregor to say that I misheard him or took his remarks out of context.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 06:57:13
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
You, of course, have clear, independent, documented evidence of a conspiracy between McGregor and von Bahr to support your vacuous claim that they are lying, you are right and everyone else is wrong, I assume.

Maybe the real issue is that your hearing, like dr_brahms, is shot, much like your feeble brain, which is stuck and distorted on this issue like a broken record.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 08:01:46
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
I have found, as have several other Mch friends, that I instinctively listen in Mch at a lower volume level than I did in stereo or lower than most other friends who play only stereo. My unsupported theory for this is we are subliminally looking for greater detail, envelopment and realism in stereo playback. We think unconsciously, to little avail, that higher volume will provide that, but it does not really work, of course. But, we do it anyway. Mch provides more detail, envelopment, etc. naturally due the the greater information it contains from the live event. The center channel, by the way, is very important in this.

The other thing is that by including a much more robust sense of spatial placement in Mch, we hear things that guide us to a better sense of the true hall perspective of the recording. Stereo lacks much of that information on playback, so there is no clear sense of what the recorded perspective is, row C or row L? Most of us might tend to dial in a closer perspective with our volume control in stereo. But, in Mch, it is clearer to us what the right volume control setting should be to achieve the spatial setting on the recording.

I also find that I as a listener do not have to "work as hard" on listening to Mch. To maximally enjoy a stereo recording, I found that I had to really concentrate, often with eyes closed, to hear some semblance of a realistic image of the performance at its best. Higher playback volume helped to block out distractions. Perhaps, this was necessary to make up for the lack of true spatial envelopment in stereo. With Mch, a plausible facsimile of a live image is just there, requiring less forced concentration on listening, yet retaining, improving actually, a sense of immersion in the music.

This is all about Classical music listening, of course, where my mindset is to have a home listening experience that approaches the live experience. I suspect that Mch rock, etc. listening might be different, usually without the ability to compare to a live concert, as they are mostly studio mixes. Also, rock, etc. live under decent acoustic conditions seems a rarity, so comparisons of recorded vs. live are difficult.

Hopefully, Mch could provide a better listening experience in spite of your hearing issue. In any case, Mch provides listening that is much closer to the sound of live music. With proper care in system selection and setup, I think you will be a happy man. Plus, as an SACD collector, you have already got many Mch discs to play.

 

Hearing Loss, posted on August 29, 2014 at 08:07:52
Daveslater
Audiophile

Posts: 1044
Location: UK
Joined: June 11, 2003
I too have been prescribed hearing aids, my issue is reduced hf response and tinnitus. The stereo sounds terrible through them toppy and sibiliant. I still listen and enjoy my audio system, more so now I am retired and have more time. I just play it a bit louder and still enjoy it. I can still discriminate and appreciate improvements such as changes to pickup cartridges so still enjoy the fiddling aspect of the hobby. I can still clearly discriminate between CD and SACD and hi res downloads.
So my advice is change nothing still enjoy your kit and your hobby just hold back on the derogatory comments and accept your limitations mean you should refrain from some comments.
Continue to enjoy the music.
Dave

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 08:13:14
Disbeliever
Audiophile

Posts: 1877
Joined: June 1, 2012
Did you listen to the BBC 3 CD Review Broadcast featuring
the BIS disc ? ha. Fortunately my hearing is still very good.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 10:40:49
flyingdutchman
Audiophile

Posts: 623
Location: Honolulu
Joined: January 25, 2003
You've been found wanting, Disbeliever. Every one of your so-called supporters, including Doktor Brahms now don't support your delusions. And, you did misquote McGregor and your diatribes against Robert are nothing but stupid.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 29, 2014 at 16:31:02
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
Sorry, my hearing is not good enough to have heard it across the Atlantic Ocean.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 30, 2014 at 00:31:37
Disbeliever
Audiophile

Posts: 1877
Joined: June 1, 2012
ha.ha.ha.

 

RE: I owe BIS an apology...., posted on August 30, 2014 at 06:44:00
tailspn
Audiophile

Posts: 264
Joined: January 25, 2002
Here ya go Carl, now you can enjoy the BBC Radio 3.

There's still two weeks left of the Proms, all live at 2:30PM East Coast time, and available for the following 30 days.

 

Lower Listening Volume, posted on August 30, 2014 at 09:48:13
Alan A
Audiophile

Posts: 110
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Joined: October 27, 2001
Most likely you listen at a lower volume because you have more speakers.

SPL calculations for a given speaker and amp combination will depend on the number of speakers. More speakers, the higher the spl for a given number of watts.

 

I don't think so., posted on August 30, 2014 at 12:09:32
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12430
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
If Carl says it is a lower volume, he is referring to the measured SPL in the room, regardless of the number of channels/amps/speakers.

 

RE: Lower Listening Volume, posted on August 30, 2014 at 13:58:52
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
Kal is right, as usual. It is the sum of all channels simultaneously that I am referring to. Yes, in the process, each channel in not driven as hard. But, it is disproportionate. The resulting total I prefer in Mch is less on average in total dB at the sweet spot than I used to prefer in stereo.

 

It is sad..., posted on August 31, 2014 at 00:30:32
akltam
Audiophile

Posts: 1057
Location: Hong Kong
Joined: September 29, 2002
It is sad to hear this. I am also in my 50's and I must say my hearing is also deteriorating. That is why I think I would try my last effort and surely some serious effort in this hobby before I give up hopefully in my 60's.

 

RE: It is sad..., posted on August 31, 2014 at 07:43:21
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
No need to be so pessimistic. I and several others I know are in our 70's and we are enjoying our music much, much better than ever before. Sure, our hearing is not what it was at 20. But, exceptional developments over the past 10 years or so, like hi rez Mch, DSP room correction, etc. have been startlingly obvious sonic improvements on playback, nonetheless. I would rather be here now, diminished hearing and all, than go back then.

 

Good encouragement. NT, posted on September 1, 2014 at 03:35:38
akltam
Audiophile

Posts: 1057
Location: Hong Kong
Joined: September 29, 2002
.

 

Hearing Loss protocol, posted on September 2, 2014 at 12:38:51
sbrians
Audiophile

Posts: 1455
Joined: March 4, 2002
For several years I have kept my tinnutus at bay w/ certain chemical inputs such as listed at the end of this article.
Hydergine is an important one which is not listed any longer for some reason.

 

Page processed in 0.041 seconds.