[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
75.41.125.176
In Reply to: RE: "I find that surround tends to obscure tonal deficiencies" posted by Botanico92007 on June 13, 2007 at 17:15:36
It’s just that over the last 6 years that I have been on the forum I have heard a lot of detractors say a lot of stuff about SACD multi-channel. The audiophile rags have published numerous articles, pro and con, about SACD multi-channel. I have been reading and learning about SACD multi-channel as much as possible since 2001. But yours is the first mention I have read (I believe) that multi-channel tends to obscure tonal deficiencies.
In addition, for the last two years, I have listened to multi-channel for hundreds of hours, to more that two hundred multi-channel discs, often compared it to two-channel and I have never heard what you describe (except for, perhaps, on poor discs).
In fact, I listened to the Fischer Tchaikovsky disc this afternoon/evening, and found, that without doubt, that multi-channel *adds* (though admittedly, not much) stability and clarity. It seems (I’m not positive) that it is the center channel that helps to “anchor” the sound in a most positive way, for both the soundstage in general, and instruments being spotlight, in particular. (This is my understanding as to one of the primary purposes of the center channel, which was clearly understood before stereo was invented. (Stereo was originally intended for 3 channels, but developing a 3 channel cartridge, coupled with placing three speakers for a summed middle was not practical. Two channel was the resulting compromise). I would argue that in the case of the Fischer (and two other discs we compared) *more* clarity is added to the instrument and that multi-channel exposes the tonal deficiencies of the two channel. Seriously! If I had your experience I would have never opted for multi-channel in the first place.
Of course, the problem you describe I’m sure does exist in your experience, but I would wager that it’s 1) a set up problem (for example, rear speakers set too loudly or too close to the listening position). I have rarely encountered a multi-channel system that was given the attention to set up detail as given to a two-channel system) 2) a room problem where there is too much reverberation in the room) or 3) a problem specific to some poorly mixed discs. The problem you describe is most certainly is not inherent to SACD multi-channel, software or hardware.
Speaking of the history of two-channel “if additional speakers adds more ambient and reverberational information”, then so does stereo compared to mono. You may be right in that case because stereo has no center channel like its 3 channel (experimental) predecessor. I have not made a mono to two channel comparison.
Regarding the sound of a live quartet, I will have opportunities to record several more this summer, the first in about two weeks. I will listen for the deficiencies you raise in comparison to the Fischer Tchaikovsky. Keep in mind, however, I have done just that in then past, which I why I wrote my comments on the Fry Street Quartet (Haydn) at SA-CD.net (keeping in mine, of course, that I never lose sight that live will always be far superior to any recording digital or vinyl).
I do understand, now, what you meant by “roundness”. I was not familiar with that term. I have heard the phrase “keeping to scale” (to maintain proportional size of an instrument or orchestra) or “scaling” to describe what you described. I have found that my multi-channel system and others I have auditioned can do that better that two-channel.
Thank you for sharing your system. I recommend that you place your system description under “Inmate Systems”.
Robert C. Lang
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]