|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
128.125.179.129
I have both setups. Although my stereo player is superior (marginally, I would say), I mostly listen in 5 channel.
Follow Ups:
..
By and large I like the engineering of the multichannel releases for classical. Usually surround only and spacious. The %22gimicky%22 ones I like too: Bach/Biggs is cool having multiple organ ranks around the room and the Bach Brandenburgs with instrumental groups around the room. Only found the Mahler/SFS recordings sounding artificial and %22vague%22. I must add that the most impressive sonic improvement in resolution and spacial distribution is the Beethoven/Barenboim on DVDA. (Sorry). My system is balanced for MC (same speaker types).
about it and listen to records, CDs, and a lot of FM in two channel. Mood and convnenience dictate the music source/music choice, but everything else being equal I turn to my multichannel collection (most of my SACD's and all of my DVD-A's).
Harry
That's all I got!
Rick
a
says that it's his younger prospective customers who are interested in multichannel. It's his older customers who prefer two-channel--and they're a shrinking breed. He also indicates that his video-related versus audio-only sales break out at about 60%/40%, which he says is a lower video-to-audio-only ratio than the reported A/V retailer average. At least some of the multichannel preference appears to be video-driven.
In my case (an oldster with a hefty system investment), it's not dollars per se that drive my two-channel preference, but priorities and a perception that in its current state MCH is a minefield of diminishing returns. There's still a lot of recorded music out there that I'd like to get my hands on, and the dollars I might consider sinking into MCH hardware would be much better spent on the music itself.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
I've yet to see one in a show room.
As far as I know, in the last couple of years I have visited every high-end salon in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have never seen a properly set up SACD multi-channel system. (I have seen a couple of loosely/poorly set up systems that are really HT systems). If you want to hear SACD multi-channel you have to *make it* happen much like two channel listeners went through when mono was king. You have to be knowledgeable going in and you have to be willing to put up with the rampant anti multi-channel snobby bias that runs deep in those shops.
Robert C. Lang
but he'll gladly adjust the setup for anyone who wants to hear MCH audio.
He does his own listening in two-channel.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
that multichannel is mostly attractive to young listeners who accept compromise because they cannot afford even a decent 2 channel system.
For the record, I'm nearly 50 and have better than $10,000 (nothing outrageous, I know) invested in a multi-channel audio system. As I stated, I prefer MCH as long as it's done well (and the overwelming majority are).
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
nt
Robert C. Lang
Most of the time, if the SACD has a MCH layer, that's where I go. Once you've heard Pink Floyd's DSOTM in glorious 5.1, there's simply no going back - that's the way that disc was 'meant' to be heard! To the detractors who state that they don't like being 'in the band', that is *not* the way that material sounds. Yes, the listener is immersed in sound, but it is *nothing* like being surrounded by four musicians on a stage.
There are a few that don't sound right (whatever I mean by that), and I prefer 2-ch on those. I was really concerned about what classical would sound like in that format, but the MCH classical discs I have do nothing with the rears except add ambience - now a full orchestra 'fits' in my living room.
Consider my vote in favor of MCH. LONG LIVE SACD!!!
"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
Your juxtaposition of multi-channel and "long live SACD" is significantly related.
As more and more listeners in *this* forum have opined that well done SACD sounds no better than well done Redbook it seems logical that, if this is true, there is no reason for two-channel SACDs to exist. This is certainly what the market seems to be saying.
So, it would seem that the best (only?) chance for SACD to survive is to capitalize on, exploit if you will, to the greatest extent possible its technical advantage to do what CD can't do, hi-rez multi-channel. I could argue that if SACD had not vigorously adopted multi-channel it would not be alive today.
Indeed, even those SACD supporters who do not support multi-channel should be thankful that multi-channel exists because multi-channel has truly raised the music reproduction bar and made SACD relevant.
For the record, I am not one who says that Redbook is the equal to or near equal to SACD. I own very few (probably 5 or 6) "recently recorded" (last 10 years) CDs so I really don't have an opinion on what is better.
I do know that, in my system, with two channel given an equal shot (actually preferential treatment and resources) multi-channel sounds *far* superior and is getting better all the time, while the quality level of two-channel is static.
Robert C. Lang
2 channel only now.got bored with gimmicks after a few years.
Please expand on that.
I custom-built a room that is primarily stereo-focused, but does justice to multi-channel music. I finished the major construction back in November of 2006, and after 6 months of changes and tweaking, I'm seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.
My two-channel setup is better, but the multi-channel setup is as close to it as the room and the budget will allow, and that seems to be plenty good enough. I still listen mostly in 2-channel, but there's some music that I listen to in multi-channel.
Source and cabling is better for 2 channel music plus I'm now using a tubed preamp for stereo.Nevertheless, I prefer MC with some music.
Now I'm dealing with possibly serious system tweaking (or separating?) because of the advent of uncompressed/lossless and seriously dynamic movie audio tracks.
oscar,i plan on trying my HD-DVD and Blue Ray players in my 2-channel room at some point to see how i like them. the Switchman III will do fine from the analog outputs of the players.
unless you get tired of "spaghetti cables... I could go the 2-chassis route (and may yet).
You have a display and a Switchman in your 2-channel room ?
oscar,sorry for the delay in my response.
yes, the Switchman is in my 2-channel room. i do not have (and don't plan on ever having) a display in my room. if i try to listen to the new Blue Ray and HD-DVD audio in the 2-channel room (now with 4.1 added) i will need to work out a way to navigate the new formats. it may involve a small display...who knows.
i have a separate HT room in the main house with a 10' wide screen......as well as 4 other HD flat screens around the house. the 2-channel room is a place where i want music only.
btw, i finally got things up and running with multi-channel on Wednesday except no subwoofer yet for the LFE channel. it has it's trade-offs with the 2-channel system but overall i really love it.
i have left the volume control in my 2-channel preamp in the signal path to allow easy quick front to rear balance in very small increments. it allows me to finely tune out rear channel prominence to the precise point where the rears only 'augment' the soundstage on naturally recorded multi-channel. i find that multichannel really adds naturalness and breath to classical music.
on the negative side i'm finding that everything is a bit softend and rounded a bit compared to the 2-channel. i'm not surprised since as good as the Switchman is it has to dumb down the signal compared to the dart pre. also; although i'm using the Nordost Valhalla interconnect on the front 2 channels i'm using some borrowed entry level Jena Labs interconnect (thanks to Ted Smith) on my center and rear channels. i would guess that the center channel is getting added warmth and a lower level of detail and immediacy compared to my front left and right. when the Switchman adds the center to the front left and right channels i am hearing the slight effect of that warmer, less immediate cable. i do notice on material without center channel info that the immediacy is more similar to 2-channel. is that the cables or the effect of the 'phantom center' circut? i won't know until i get another Valhalla interconnect to insert.
i actually prefer that the rear channels have a touch softer sound than the fronts as that allows them to 'support' the fronts rather than distract. we will see how my multi-channel listening opinions change over time.
like always; everything matters.
i love my choice of the Marten Dukes for the rears.....they integrate well with the Evolution Acoustics MM3's on the front.
mikel
Two Channel!
nt
Mark
But budget and room constraints put me in the two channel camp.
2 Channel, because I hate to sit on top of the piano when listening to a jazz combo.
Surround only puts you in the middle if the engineer wants you to be there. On great majority of recordings the musicians will be in front of you, not around. You will hear the same kind of sound stage that you are accustomed to in stereo. Only it is more three-dimensional and better defined.
5-channel would break the bank (which is pretty much broken already!!).
nt
nt
nt
Len
I use both 2 and 5.1 set up in my room. I have the EMM Labs ACD8 and DAC8 that I use with a Crane Song Avocet Surround Ed.
The source is either a Pyramix DSD Mastering system or my EMM Labs CDSD via optical ST.
I'm doing more and more SACD surround mastering now. Yes, it's that much better than Redbook. There's no turning back!
I do not have the space or money for 3 more speakers, plus all the amps and cables that go with them.
recently some changes to the 2-channel system have really improved the digital in my system and particularly 'supercharged' SACD to pull farther away from Redbook. also; a few months back i was exposed to Ted Smith's quite excellent 5.1 multi-channel.when i built my room i installed dedicated A/C outlets and cable conduit for rear channels, subwoofer and center channel. i had not taken advantage of that until now.
i have purchased an EMM Labs Switchman III and had the 'phantom center' option installed. i have also purchased rear speakers and amps. i am having long XLR cables constructed for the rears and sub; and am about to purchase a sub(s). it should be up and running within a couple of weeks in my 2-channel room.
the rears will be slightly further back than 110 degrees and will be smaller than the fronts; but other than that it should not be compromised. i am one who is distracted by musical content in the rear channels (with a few exceptions). i have really been enjoying SACD's of late; especially all the new classical recordings and am excited to hear them in multi-channel.
I believe you will be extremely pleased with multi-channel in general and your planned rear speaker placement specifically, even though (may be because of?) your speakers will be further back than 110 degrees.I have been recently experimenting with rear channel placement in line with Michael Bishop's controversial comments made here in this forum about a year or so ago. Mr. Bishop said, and I'm very loosely paraphrasing, "forget about ITU rear channel placement guidelines". And that he never uses them when he mixes multi-channel for Telarc. At the time I said Oh shi…. (expletive mostly deleted), as I had been really struggling to meet the ITU speaker placement. It ain’t easy in most rooms, particularly for the rears. I suspect that in most rooms moving the speakers back is easier to accommodate than the 110 degrees guideline.
In recent weeks I have moved the rears to somewhere between 120 and 125 degrees (I’m not sure) and may move them back a bit further to better accommodate a turntable stand. So far I have been *extremely* pleased. The move has allowed me to move my listening position further away from all the speakers, deeper into the “front to back” sweet spot benefiting both two channel and multi-channel enjoyment.
It’s tough for me to judge to a certainty as to what rear speaker placement is the “best” in my room. I’m still experimenting and am pleased to find that the flexibility can be both forgiving and enhancing. In any event, anything I’ve tried soundly beats two channel, especially for classical (almost all) and well done jazz music.
Robert C. Lang
The site listed has a description of multichannel speaker setup and it includes the admonition to use direct radiators, not dipoles.
I could interpret that two ways:
1. Dipole surround speakers that are direct radiators but set up to send sound in two directions (common early in HT setups)
2. Natural dipole speakers, like planars, for all speakers.
If 2, then how does the setup change for Maggies, Quads, etc.?
Every recommended set up I have seen for multi-channel (regardless of format) specifically says to use direct radiators speakers and to specifically to avoid dipoles. I have seen explanations as to why but those explanations escape me.
The admonition not to use dipoles is interesting because the very first SACD multi-channel demo that I had the pleasure to hear was at CES in 2003 and it used Maggies all around to very good effect (even though I very sure I could better it). Infact, it was that demonstration that made say, yes absolutely, there is much more upside with SACD multi-channel than with two channel (any two channel).
The only thing I can offer with respect to using dipoles in a multi-channel system would be to set them up the way that they had them set up at CES. That is, the Maggies were up against the walls (and the rears were actually mounted on the wall). Perhaps this was done to attentuate the dipole effect and make them act more like front only firing speakers. But to me that would be a waste of resources because then two-channel reproduction would be severly compromised because of the dipole requirement that the speakers be out from the wall. Of course, Maggies are easy enough to pull out from the wall for two channel listening and then pushed back for multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
The admonition to avoid dipoles does not really apply to Magnepans. The dipoles that you're supposed to avoid aren't front-to-back dipoles like the Maggies, they are HT dipoles which put the listener in a "null" and transmit sound to the sides.
Because the Maggie set-up I heard in my first multi-channel SACD demo was damn good.
Robert C. Lang
I have read in TAS that a five top-o-the-line Maggie system was one of the best MC systems they had ever heard. I would bet the farm though that the speakers were NOT against the wall. The system you heard with wall mounted speakers is the Maggie HT system desgined for maximum WAF. It's pretty easy to beat with standard Maggies (or other planars).
I am just wondering how the %22rules%22 (positions) vary for planar speakers.
For sure, the Maggie system I heard was definitely *not* their top line stuff. It may have also been designed for HT, but in this case it was an all SACD multi-channel demonstration at CES. I was able to arrange a private audition by arriving at the room an hour one morning before the doors were to officially open.
The demonstration, even though everybody was still learning about multi-channel, was good enough to give me a window as to the tremendous upside potential of SACD multi-channel. It was a small to medium sized system with what I recall was at a moderate price. I knew I could easily better it and I have. But that does not at all take away from the inherent quality of the system. It was a real trail blazer for me even though the demonstrators were really experimenting with rear speaker placement, levels, etc. I had never heard a multi-channel SACD system prior to that demonstration. The next one was more than two years later after I had purchased on all multi-channel components, except for the player when I auditioned the Meitner gear when I literally had to design and force a multi-channel demonstration out of the dealer myself. But the Maggie CES demo was the impetus for me to move forward along a two + year path of considerable time and investment to get a great sounding two channel/ audio only multi-channel system. It was *well* worth it.
Robert C. Lang
I'm at about 120 - 125 degrees for the rear speakers in my present home. However in my last house, 150 - 155 degrees gave me optimum sound. I also experimented with height. I had a vaulted ceiling in my last house so I raised my rear speakers, then angled them down towards the listener. Definitely not ITU standard, but this gave me a really great concert hall sound - better than I have in my new house.I spent quite a bit of time experimenting in both houses with speaker placement and found that variations in rear speaker placement had a surprising effect on the sound. Obviously, each of my listening rooms (past and present) have very different acoustics, resulting in differences in my final rear speaker locations. Like Robert, I would encourage you to experiment. YMMV.
I became interested in MCH sound when the first time delay units came out and I bought an Advent 5000. Over the past more than 20 years I've played around with lots of speaker placements and continued this with my SACD 5-ch system. Maybe the results depend on what kind of music you listen to, but I've found that rear placement can be pretty flexible for classical music provided you get the levels right and adjust for the speaker distance. I never hear the rear speakers themselves as a source of the music. In fact, I am not even particularly aware that there are any rear speakers, just that if you turn them off, the sound gets very different. It loses that wonderful sense of having had the walls of the room disappear, of being in a much more realistic concert hall. Right now I have my rear speakers at around 145 degrees, and I think they work as well there as at lower angles. Maybe I'm not critical enough. I adjust the level so that I can just hear them with the fronts playing, then back off a bit to be sure I can't hear them directly, and then maybe do a little final tweaking for ultimate realistic effect. I'm probably violating all the "rules."Joe
Just last week an audiophile acquaintance was extremely impressed with a multi-channel SACD that I played for him, but he was impressed from a two channel perspective. He said "wow" but then he said, seemingly nonplussed, that he was expecting to hear stuff from the rear and that, instead, he perceived that all the music was emanating in front of him and non from the rear.Well, the fact is that he *was* hearing music from the rear, lots of it, he just did not perceive it as such. A rough measurement with the Radio Shack meter on the particular piece I played for him shows when the front speakers rises to 100db the rears were putting out a not so subtle 87 db. But you would never know it unless pointed out...unless you switched to two channels; at which point the soundstage collapses before you to a traditional two-channel sound stage.
As far as making adjustments to my rear speakers after the initial level setting, I don’t. I adjust all the speakers with a level meter and pink noise so that they are all at the same level. I then go with what the mixing engineer/artist decided. If I don’t like what he/she decided I switch to two channels. This switch very rarely, if ever, happens with classical music. It does happen on some occasions with some jazz, even track to track. But 90% of the time I'm fine just like it is. The few R&B SACDs that I have, while mixed to the left of center (on the agressive side) are simply the best renditions I have heard compared to the two channel version.
2 channels on Sony SCD-1, multichannel on Philips DVDP720 (downsample in pcm).
Very often the 2 channels on Sony player produce MORE sound than the multichannel player... :-)
I agree that a Sony SCD-1 in a good system will produce higher fidelity than some multi-channel set ups. But a comparable multi-channel set up should/will sound superior. I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of "MORE sound" is, although you did say it with a smile :). But this seems to be an indictment of the Philips system. I have had my multi-channel player/dac and a Sony SCD-1 in the same system for two years now. I can give you my firm assurances that the multi-channel set up is vastly superior. So it depends.
Robert C. Lang
a credit check on me, so my playback remains stereo only. I didn't much care for the fabrics he offered anyway.
of "Charlie Brown" and "Yakety Yak" fame.The song is called "Shopping for Clothes". Toward the end of the song (the setting is in a men's clothes store) with the potenial buyer trying on a suit the tailor says that "suit is you", the buyer says "yeah and I want it too" The tailor says" "Let's see what we can do for you" The buyer says " That' fine, I wanna open up a credit line", the tailor says "let me do a little checkin' on you". After a short passage from the tuneful sax the tailor returns and says "I'm sorry my man but your credit didn't go through. The rejected buyer says "Um, um um. Pure, pure herringbone" The tailor ends with that's the suit you'll never own"
Robert C. Lang
has left me in stitches.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
Same here. I usually prefer the stereo on most things but give the multi-channel a listen.
Sometimes the 5.1 mixes are bad or fake (original stereo recordings that are processed to 5.1). I listen to these in Stereo.
Those for sure do exist. Which ones in particular do you reference that fit that category.For example, I fully suspect that the multi-channel SACD "The Marvin Gaye Collection" has been processed in this way. BUT every Marvin Gaye hound that I know prefer the multi-channel version far better than the two channel originals (even though the content of the SACD is pretty skimpy).
Robert C. Lang
HowdyI'm not sure that I know of any domestic SACDs that fall into that category. There are some essentially three channel discs whose rear channels were fabricated from time delayed filtered front material (Time Out, KOB, etc.)
That was my thinking. That is, I have not run into many (and really can't confirm any)original stereo recordings that have been processed to 5.1.I mentioned the "Marvin Gaye Collections" as a possible exception because it contains material that dates back to 1964 before the advent of Quad (I think). Now, the multi-channel Sam Cooke "Live at the Copa" was also recorded in 1964. But it like the Marvin Gaye SACD does not sound artificially processed in multi-channel and I have to wonder if it was done so originally. On the other hand the Membran series with materials going back to the mid fifties and before do sound less than authentic in multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
On why that is. Looking more closely into these MCH tracks and what is coming from the center and surrounds, I believe I know why.And BTW, how does one ascertain what really is on the MCH track before buying?
Forgot to add the following:For MCH:
IsoMike Recording - The Fry Street QuartetFor 2 Ch:
Blue Coast Collection - The E.S.E Sessions (not bad in MCH though)
MCH recordings where I feel I am sitting in the middle of the performance are ones I do not prefer. The MCH recording for DSOTM to me is gimmicky more than adding to the performance. This is something I listen to in 2 CH. I would put most of my Jazz and Pop SACD into this 2 CH category.I like MCH when the surround mix is done to add ambience to make you feel like you are sitting at a venue listening live. Most (not all) Classical pieces fit the "better" MCH category for me.
Here is a list of some SACD's that I recommend to people wanting to try SACD, but again this is from my personal preferences and not the end all of end all lists. Remember you also have to like the music to also appreciate these listed
Jazz, Pop, etc. - 2 CH SACD Listening is the best on these
Flim & the BB's - Tricycle
Steve Davis - Quality of Silence
Diana Krall - Love Scenes
Mark Knopfler - Shangri-la
Art Pepper - Art Pepper + Eleven
Chet Baker - ChetClassical - MCH Listening is the best on these
Britten/Elgar - Paavo Jarvi (Conductor)
Boston Symphony Chamber Players - Mozart Chamber Music for Winds & Strings
RCA Living Stereo - Sherherazade
RCA Living Stereo - Pictures at an Exhibition (Also the MoFi version)
Mozart Violin Concertos 3 & 4 - Julia Fisher (Pentatone Label)
Mozart Youth Symphonies 2 & 3 sound the best (but I like all 4)
Almost any SACD Telarc Label
I also like the Pentatone Classical SACD's
though for practical rather than any ideological reasons. implementing m/c would be too big of a concern for me in terms of area usability or functionality and financially. in other words, too much of a hassle (to get it right and do it right in the environment) and way too expensive (at the desired level) in comparison.
nt
Only two channel.I do not have and never had a 5 channel amplifier. I really do not like this audio configuration, i've tested many configurations but it's not for me.
I've upgraded this week my OLD amplifier and again i invested on a 2 channel configuration.
(nt)
just like Bleriot used to say that birds have two wings, so that he would not build biplanes.
Recurrent dumb response (unless you add a smiley).
Jokes apart, I concur in that multichannel may add to the pleasure.In real terms, properly arranging 2 channels in a usual living scenario (i.e. where I meet people, read, chat) may be far from easy. Having to arrange 5 inevitably adds (or, more properly multiplies) factors coming into play.
I do not discount the difficulties in transitioning from 2channel stereo to multichannel stereo as I did it in both houses over a period of years but I, also, do not discount the consequent enjoyment. Never going back (except for the few thousand 2 channel recordings I still own. ;-)
I really like that term. I believe it's most appropriate and accurately descriptive as I have long held that multi-channel is a logical and progressive extention of the two channel experience. I've said many times that good multi-channel is akin to the very best two channel that one can experience.
Robert C. Lang
You don't agree that given the proper equipment and recording that 5 channel would not surpass what one is capable of hearing in just 2 channel?
nt
"Music is love"
Teresa
nt
two channel amp, four speakers, barely perceptible unless real rear channel info it there in the stereo mix (a LOT is).
...regards...tr
I have dedicated stereo and surround systems. In my stereo system, I listen to them in stereo and in my multichannel system well I'm sure you can guess!
...depending on which room I'm in.
.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
Two systems, both SACD enabled, in different parts of the house. My dream is to upgrade the second system, which is in a more appropriate room, to multichannel.
I listen to about 80% multi-channel. Most newly releases seemed to be multi-channel, certainly classical releases are. The time may have come, or will soon come, where most available SACDs are multi-channel.My two channel and multi-channel player/dac are one in the same and are of equal quality (the manufacturer did not skimp with the multi-channel). My speaker/amp setup slightly favors the two channel with respect to being optimized, but the multi-channel, almost always sounds audibly superior.
An interesting (to some) side note, I install my SME 10 turntable set up tomorrow which should augment the two channel side of the ledger.
Robert C. Lang
I used to use multichannel only, when it was available. then I started to feel like it was too gimmicky. Most SACDs now I listen to in 2 channel and only 5.1 when I feel like playing around. funny, I listen to a lot of live music, especially Phil Lesh and Grateful Dead live recording and I much prefer the sound using Dolby pro-logic to synthesize ambience in the back channels. So maybe it's not 5.1 itself, just how a lot of these releases are mixed?
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: