|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.234.203.18
Hello inmatesIt´s an enigma to me how some members disrecard multichannel SACD in favour of 2-channel SACD. Listen to stereo after have experienced good multichannel music is no way I am going. Listen to a multichannel record is analog of looking at a map that is unfolded. Listen to 2-cannel is like looking at map folded. It´s like looking at a landscape through a keyhole. To experince this you must of course aligne your system optimally. Listen to Pink Floyds "Dark side of the moon" in multichannel sacd is just fantastic. There are good and less good multichannel records. Some Telarc SACD´s are very good.
Follow Ups:
..I like others have found a well setup 2-channel system in an acoustically treated room can yield a very realistic sound stage in terms of instrument position in 3-dimensions. Focusing on a 2-channel system also allows me to maximize the quality of my equipment which reproduces more realistic instrument timbre. Lastly a 2-channel setup doesn't present as many equipment positioning constraints.
Len
I have been trying for the last 30 years or so improving my 2-channel system regarding soundstage and 3-d capability. This by switching gear och modifying the system. I think that I have succeeded somewhat. There were minor steps towards the goal. Then came multichannel systems and in a quantum leap my goals were achieved. So when listening to records in 2 channel where I have the multichannel versions (SACD) to compare whith it is not listenable. I do though listen to cd´s and vinyl still but never for example Pink Floyds “Dark side of the moon” or “Love and Theft” by Bob Dylan. Its gives me nearly nothing.To achieve this goal of mine it craves much work by settings levels, aligning speakers and so on. I have built my own speakers and can alter filtersetting and soforth at wish. There are as you mentioned several more components to experiment with. But you will be higly rewarded when you succeed.
I am now experimenting whith 11 speakers and it´s getting better all the time and as I wrote before it will need much experimenting and work to achieve the goal I have set up and multichannel has taking it far closer.I do think that the 2-channel community is very conservative. I was one of them. Some have invested much money on their system and therefore will not and can not go multichannel. But is the goal as mine I don´t understand it.
I think that's an accurate statement. We are also defensive when surround-sound lovers proselytize too vigorously.
Regards,
Geoff
I can get pretty offensive.
Thanks for your article and photo of USS Turner Joy on your geocities site. Very interesting.
Regards,
Geoff
One of these days I'll get around to fleshing out the commentary.
I would much rather have quality reproduction in two channels than mediocre in multi-channels.
Bob Woods of Telarc"In hindsight, every effort that Sony & Philips made from the marketing side was doomed. Why? Because DSD three-dimensional audio is experiential. You can talk about it all you want, come up with clever ads (there were none), but what was really missing are places to go to hear what it's really all about. The thought of those crappy demo displays in Best Buys and Circuit City was laughable. Also, since we really lack the wonderful "mom and pop" high end stores that were around during the late 70s (for our digital LPs - how we launched digital), and then for CDs in the early 80s, they don't exist except for a handful. Audio Concepts in Houston is the one singular place I know, perhaps there are a couple more, who really know music and have dedicated serious time effort and bucks to allowing their customers to experience SACD in all of its glory. After that, it has been up to the daring audiophiles who have figured this stuff out on their own and are spreading the word slowly and surely with those who will come and listen to the experience. And I suspect the larger majority of SACD consumers are still playing two-channel only, not multi--it's expensive (unless you're clever) and not easy to set up in most homes, but that will change over time."
For the entire article taken from "Audiophile Audition" see link below
Robert C. Lang
Norm,Were these SACD multi-channel demonstrations or were these home theater multi-channel demonstrations? Home theater demonstrations, mostly not very good that I have heard, are very easy to run across or to arrange.
SACD multi-channel demonstrations, especially good ones, are *very* difficult to find, especially one that is well administered. So I definitely know what you are talking about. In the realm of high end multi-channel audio has only recently began to be taken seriously and probably only because of products like EMM Labs that the high end respects (due in part because of profit margins?). In terms of respect and emphasis, without regard to sound quality I think vinyl is still #1, CD is #2, HT #3, SACD a very distant #4 and and multi-channel SACD (which many mistakenly lump in with HT) is barely on the radar.
In order to get a good demonstration its like getting a demo for two channels only much more so in that you have to educate yourself first then have a dealer arrange a demonstration with you specifying what you want to hear. I know that sounds backwards. But I have found if you really have to know more than the salesperson about multi-channel SACD to get a top notch demo. Two years ago when I was in the market most of the sales staff really did not know or did not make a clear distinction between multi-channel audio and HT. They put their collective noses in the air even though I was auditioning an EMM Labs deck. That attitude probably has not changed that much.
I can sometimes find it difficult enough to get an exceptional *two channel* demonstration. SACD multi-channel is far more difficult.
Regarding the expense, there is no question that an exceptional sounding SACD multi-channel system will cost more, probably significantly more, than a comparable two channel system. Also, I agree a good two channel system is superior to just an OK multi-channel system. But if you really love your two channel system as is then you can save significant bucks by building around it.
There is no question that good multi-channel SACD is not an easy sale.
Robert C. Lang
If SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward?
If SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward I would take a closer look at DVD-A. Otherwise, I would give equal opportunity to the other two-channel formats, including CD (that I come to realize can sound extremely good at its best), vinyl (I have a large collection and have purchased ½ dozen so far this year), and SACDs.I do find two-channel SACDs to be superior to CDs and in this hobby where *any* improvement is "huge", that is important to me.
But with all due respects to two-channel SACD, until multi-channel SACD came along (and I’m sure multi-channel DVD-A as well, which I have not heard to good advantage), on the software and electronics side, there have been no clear cut tangible improvements in audio since stereo was perfected (as far as it goes) in the 60s and 70s. That includes CD and two-channel SACD at their zenith.I also believe that SACD is still alive *because* of multi-channel and *not* because of two-channel. The vast majority of audiophile/consumers don't buy that SACD sounds better than CD. Even in this forum there has been a lot of wavering on this issue among those who were staunch SACD devotees. But, at a minimum, those that have heard both, agree, unamiously, that SACD multi-channel is greatly *different* from CD. And in some forums, such as rec.audio.highend, many anti-SACD listeners do acknowledge that multi-channel (SACD/DVD-A) is an improvement over two-channel, even if they have no intentions of buying in because of room limitations, costs, etc.
In other words, I believe, that if SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward that would spell the final end for SACD as a consumer format. If SACD ever throws in the towel I believe it will be as a two-channel/multi-channel format.
Robert C. Lang
Had SACD or DVD-A at their inception been launched as multichannel formats for automotive surround, the format would probably have reached a large market & achieved critical mass. Hi-rez audiophiledom could have travelled on the coattails of 1000W systems in ghetto low-risers and Mercedes & Caddys with Levinson surround systems. But now it's too little too late for SACD & SACD Mch formats, and SACD Mch is relegated to a tiny niche-within-a-niche in the diminishing market for classical music. No doubt though that SACD sounds great with or without Mch.
...a semi-retired bachelor with a great multichannel system (designed for music, not movies) in a room that allows me to approximate the ITU spacing for multichannel. In any case, I much prefer multichannel....when listening to jazz, for example, I always feel a little discontent when playing "shuffle" and a two-channel disk comes in...even more so when a two-channel CD comes in. Even when I am reading and using the music as background, I am aware of it.That said, in the past, the two times I had dedicated listening room I was able to set the room up (using homemade room treatment) to use the first response echos and later echos to create a "holographic" image that gave great satisfaction. That same satisfaction and more is provided by multichannel, and frankly room acoustics and furntirue placement viz-a-viz the speakers are not nearly so critical, since the spatial cues are provided largely on the recording, rather than having to be created by room integration. Another feature of multichannel, rarely mentioned, is that if done with five full range speakers, bass performance is greatly enhanced. Not only is there a 3+db gain in the deeper bass, but the bass standing waves in the room are smoothed to a considerable degree, since speaker placement is taken out of the situation leaving only inherent room nodes. The result on both pop and symphonic music is a deep, powerful bass hard to obtain with the same speakers (Thiel 2 2s, 3.5's in my case) in stereo mode.
Harry
****Another feature of multichannel, rarely mentioned, is that if done with five full range speakers, bass performance is greatly enhanced. Not only is there a 3+db gain in the deeper bass, but the bass standing waves in the room are smoothed to a considerable degree, since speaker placement is taken out of the situation leaving only inherent room nodes. The result on both pop and symphonic music is a deep, powerful bass hard to obtain with the same speakers (Thiel 2 2s, 3.5's in my case) in stereo mode.*****Excellent observation and one that can't be ignored with even limited comparison experience of two-channel and multi-channel of the same performance. I refer to it as having more "real estate". When producing bass demanding passages of any music genre having 5 or 6 woofers gets the job done audibly better in handling the workload. This provides for more "weight" to performances that is commonly missing (but what we learned to accept over the years as "life") with two-channels.
In addition, with more speakers it is less likely that any of them will be driven to distortion because they are working less hard at any given volume level. This can translate into greater transparency. As you point out you have 3 db (probably 3db+) gain in the bass (and all around). This translates into more dynamic range, which I deemed long ago as the Achilles hill to a life like experience in home music production.
And I don't know the math, and I cannot vouch for it, but it is my understanding that a SACD multi-channel recording has inherently more resolution than the same two-channel recording.
So you have more bass, less distortion, more weight, more transparency and more dynamic range.
Sounds Familiar? It's very much like the arguments given for two channels during the transition from mono.
By the way, I suspect you're more than lucky. Obviously you put of lot of thought and care into your system
Robert C. Lang
..music rather than sound effects...realistic in-home sound reproduction has been a lifelong avocation for me...so I do take care. One result, in part because of my limited budget and fixed income as a retiree, is that I use high quality but not terribly high-priced gear, much of it used, and optimized for audio. That includes a Sony XA2000ES SACD player operating in direct mode (no pcm bass managment), three high quality preamps that are similarly voiced (the front an ARC SP6Brc), five Outlaw monoblocks, and five Thiel full range speakers. So the system has that effortlessness that in autos we used to associate with big, high-torque V8's. When power is demanded, it is just there, effortlessly. With no crosstalk or strain. It makes for a very fine listening experience on all types of music.
Harry
I see this is your first post. So, welcome!I comment frequently on the merits of Multichannel SACD in comparison to two channel (of any format). A few threads below are comments I posted fostering multi-channel SACD just a few days ago. Since you are new to the forum I have provided the direct link below.
Of course, one's room, that is, one's ability to provide the multi-channel system an adequate environment for it to blossom is probably even more important than with two speakers.
And one can easily compile a "Top-10" list for not opting for multi-channel. I know I did before I eventually made the move.
Robert C. Lang
if the two-channel system has been set up with due attention to speaker and listening chair placement and to room acoustics. With decent recordings in such a setup, you get a map that not only unfolds but presents its contours in bold relief. My listening suggests that not a little of the instruments-and-vocalists-are-fleshed-out sensation that gives multichannel its cachet relates to the listener's ability to perceive spatial and decay cues forward of the speaker plane. It also suggests that that's doable to a greater or lesser degree in two-channel playback (again, assuming care in setup and an appropriate listening space), depending on the acoustic of the recording venue and the mike selection, placement, and mixing decisions of the artist/producer/engineer. And you don't have to contend with the colorations inherent in the rear-channel playback equipment.
And you don't have to contend with the colorations inherent in the rear-channel playback equipment.
or is yours perfect?
My system has all kinds of compromises.The question is a larger one. IMO you have probably come close, with your room treatments, in duplicating what MCH is designed to do - create a concert hall ambiance. In doing so you have have removed a lot of "room-associated" coloration.
Although additional speakers may add coloration, a well-designed MCH system probably overprints any additional room-associated coloration with discrete ambient signal.The result is less AUDIBLE coloration - not more. Admittedly, this is not a purist approach. Many have argued in this forum that the more speakers, the more problems. However, that has not been my experience or the experience of many other MCH listeners. It did take a lot of time to correctly position my speakers, both rear and front. But the result is vastly improved sound over equivalent 2CH recordings.
On another subject, Norm mentions that his experience in listening to MCH sound has not been postive. I think that are a lot of HT systems out there that people use for music. IMO there is a huge difference between an HT systems and one set up properly for music. Speaker positioning is totally different and most HT subwoofers are horrible when it comes to music reproduction. HT bass management almost guarantees bad sound. I could go on but you get the point. I really wonder how many people have ended up with a negative opinion about MCH due to listening to it through an HT system.
The primary goal of treating this room to reduce its colorations has been to increase perceived playback resolution, and in that regard I rank it as equivalent to the Richard Kern mods to my SCD-777ES. One benefit of that effort has been to reveal more of the beyond-the-plane ambience present in some recordings. I hesitate to call it "concert-hall", since a number of those recordings, many of them symphonic or other large ensemble presentations, have been recorded in venues, including studios, hotels, and other sites, that we wouldn't normally go to for a live concert. It's also difficult to know how much, if any, of that ambience has been "created" in the mixing process. Be that as it may, the end result has been a more corporeal fleshing out of instrument, voice, and the recorded (or inserted) space, a better rendering of overall dynamics, and the sense that what emerges from the more-dimensional soundstage isn't confined to the oft-invoked two-channel "window".The "overprint" was not even a "probably" in an instance I cited here some months back when just a pair of tube traps placed along the side walls reduced a reflection coloration audible in five-channel playback through a friend's five Paradigm 100 v2's (initially set up in ITU configuration, and moved around when we discovered, before Michael Bishop's revelation, that for some recordings, ITU was "oh so nineties"). The discrete ambient signal did not mask the room coloration, so whatever the theory, in that instance it didn't hold.
Apart from other issues concerning my system, I like to read while listening to music. In order to read with comprehension, I need at least some walnut-sized lump of gray matter to the rear detached from the music.
There's no doubt there are some nice multi-channel discs. That being said, I still prefer about 85% of what is my collection in 2 channel.
Quite frankly I am lucky to have two separate systems, one in a specially built room for two channel as well as a HT sytem that has the ability to play SA-CDs via multi-channel. There is no question that the cost of the "stereo" system far exceeds the HT system and possibly in another environment I may find multi-channel more satisfying, but my two-channel system floats my boat to an extent that, so far, multi-channel does not.It still shocks me when in my dedicated room I get a sound coming from behind me, doesn't happen often but it certainly unnerves me.
To me, whatever you like - so be it, but to be judgemental is just wrong.
HowdyBut cost is an issue for many as well as how many MC discs you have vs. how many two channel (including CD and vinyl...) I have so many MC SACDs that I don't mind if I compromise my two channel system a little in favor of MC. Others with fewer MC disks (compared to their two channel selections) might make different choices.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: