 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.112.106.190
In Reply to: The difference between SACD and really great redbook posted by Sordidman on May 9, 2006 at 11:09:06:
HowdyHaving heard a lot of the players you mention, I have a different opinion. Both in that the difference that multichannel offers and that the sound of DSD vs Redbook SACD on players which don't convert to PCM (e.g. the Meitner) is quite real to me and definitely worth it. I'll agree that the difference on the players that convert DSD to PCM is less (e.g. the Esoteric.)
I do enjoy Redbook, but I'll always choose MC or stereo SACD when available.
-Ted
Follow Ups:
On the APL, I have the ability to go DSD or to convert to PCM. Converting to PCM sounds much better. Neither sounds that much different. But, - on the Meitner, - the difference between SACD and redbook is more dramatic; but that doesn't mean that I'm saying that the difference in the Meitner is dramatic. It's my opinion that a good Redbook remaster, and a good SACD recording are still darn close. For me, - close enough to not bothering to spend the extra dough on the SACD that I can't take over and play on my bedroom system.Yeah, = a good multichannel recording will probably be a lot huger than a good 2 channel redbook recording. But aren't those even more rare??
Cheers Ted,
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
HowdyThere are a lot of great MC recordings.
A lot of music that was recorded in quad is becoming available. Some of it might be termed gimmicky by some, but others consider it immersive.
There are also a lot of minimally processed acoustic recordings which sound quite real: e.g. applause comes from behind you while the performance is in front of you :)
=Ted
"There are also a lot of minimally processed acoustic recordings which sound quite real: e.g. applause comes from behind you while the performance is in front of you :) "That would be the ONLY kind of multichannel that I would find of value. And, as you mentioned, the two possible associations, 1. Home Theatre, and 2. Quad; are the things that scare the living bejesus out of, I'm sure, more than just me...
But, then again, I'm finding some Talking Heads, PG, Bjork, and Portishead things on video that utilize multi-channel as though you're there, - with very little coming through those rear channels... But, - put on those Tubular Bells, and Sordidman runs from the room screaming....
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
You probably have limited listening experiences to live classical performances or even live jazz. Otherwise you would think quite differently of multi-channel in either genre. Have you listened to SACD multi-channel in either classical or jazz, but especially the former. If so, what recordings?Also, I can't speak to hard rock, but I can say with authority that many soul concerts have had "surround" type feel since at least the 70's. The performers may be in front of you but the music (speakers projecting the music) is everywhere. Also, it is not unusual for performers these days to play their instruments literally into the audiences down the aisle. Until down the presentation of their music on CDs and LPs has been severly handicapped by two channel limitations.
In modern concerts musicians just don't sit like bumps on logs like in days past. The show is *very* dynamic. The days of Kate Smith, Patti Page, and the McGuire Sisters are long gone. But even their music would have benefited immensely from SACD multi-channel.
I recommend that you listen to some multi-channel SACD on a correctly configured system before you paint it with the broad and inaccurate brush of "Home Theater" and "Quad".
Robert C. Lang
Although I have to admit that I sometimes jerk the knees and fire that shotgun from the hip....I'm talking about the barrier of entry, and the confusion inherent with the average consumer and the value of the product, and what the industry is doing to promote the system.
If all we have is Tubular Bells, and the Blue Man Group, - we have a novelty, - that not a long term, viable, representation either of what it's like to go to a "real" show, - or make a product that is not annoying over the long term: hence the "Quad" analogy.
Even at CES, - that utterly wretched Von Schwiekert/Dartzeel fiasco probably set (what I, and many would agree with me), MC back considerably, - perhaps years? All my friends walked away from that crap shaking their heads in amazement at how unbelievably bad it was.
Now from Kal Rubinson's many great articles, I hear that there are more and more wonderful MC classical recordings coming out all of the time, - with much more realistic information coming from ALL of the channels, but again, classical music is dying, and can't be relied upon to support MC. Bjork, Goldfrapp, Train, Counting Crows, Dixie Cihicks, Simple Plan, Stones, even Herbie Hancock and Sting need to save MC.
I still stand by the fact that given the expensive point of entry to high end multichannel and the antithetical GOALS of HT and Quad: multichannel audio should've presented itself as 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I agree that the paucity of rock releases and/or the lack of good quality rock releases has been damaging to multi-channel in general and to SACD as a format. I am not a rock fan at all, but I have always recognized its value to SACD and have staunchly rooted for more rock releases because of its importance.Using the same reasoning I believe every SACD advocate should, at a minimum, root for the success of multi-channel, whether they like it or not, because for most music listeners multi-channel is the only real difference between SACD and CD. Even in this forum more and more of us say we can't hear the difference. And the chorus has been growing louder. (I can't comment on that because I have so few new generation CDs). Even in rabid anti-SACD forums such as Rec. Audio High-End when you introduce multi-channel into the equation in the middle of a SACD bashing thread it can take the wind out of the bashing. Because even they recognize that multi-channel *is* a clear difference between CD and SACD where few (most will say no) other differences otherwise exist. In other words, multi-channel, like it or not, is the last and only hope for SACD. Fortunately, the manufactures understand that which is probably why it is almost impossible to buy a new recording that does not have a multi-channel program on it.
I agree that classical music is a shrinking pond. But I am glad to see that the retreat has seemly halted judging by ticket sales at the symphonies around the country and that record sales (according to "Bill Board") have actually shown a slight increase. But you are correct there is no way that classical music devotees can carry a format like it ushered in CD 23 years ago. (Although, classical music has carried SACD on its back for the last few years). And actually that too bad with respects to multi-channel because that's where it can really close the gap between a sound system and live music.
I also agree that the costs for high-end entry into multi-channel are over the top. This can cause a catch 22 because of the high cost and difficulty in setting up a system even close to correctly. For practical reasons many listeners will just piggy back their SACD multi-channel with their Home Theater systems and then have a poor experience which they then report back to the group.
Regarding the suggestion of 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener, that might be appealing visually, but if the science behind 5.1 is any where close to being good science (and it may be flawed) then either the semi-circle would not work very well or (and this I believe is more likely) the channels in the semi circle arrangement would have to be mixed in such a way to "sound" like 5.1 is today.
Robert C. Lang
In that, "Using the same reasoning I believe every SACD advocate should, at a minimum, root for the success of multi-channel, whether they like it or not, because for most music listeners multi-channel is the only real difference between SACD and CD. Even in this forum more and more of us say we can't hear the difference. And the chorus has been growing louder."That is a very good point. And, one which really has got me thinking.
Kal and others have also pointed to specific, great, MC recordings that really have a way of putting you there that other 2 channel systems simply do not. It is unfortunate that I haven't yet had the opportunity to really experience this first hand, and should. It's also too bad, that given my current feelings about high dollar audio, and the level of musical satisfaction it brings, my personal entry point into MC doesn't even get close to justifying the cost. As, I'm actually thinking more and more about downgrading my current system to something even cheaper.
Anyway.. thanks for those thoughtful comments...
"The men who own the city make more sense than we do: their actions are clear, their lives are their own"
I'll let you know I started out in 2001 listening to SACD utilizing the Sony 9000ES SACD/DVD player. It was a vast upgrade from the NAD CD player and the current DVD player I was utilizing at the time so I was killing two birds with the stone.I then found myself becoming more the music listener fanatic than a HT movie watcher. I sold the Sony 9000ES, picked up the Sony XA777ES and bought a cheaper DVD player.
All well and good but my CD collection far outweighed my SACD collection. The sound of redbook on the XA777Es was quite good and also I my became quite interested in classical music which lead me to the 1000s of CD recordings available for that genre.
I basically abandoned SACD for about a year or so I would say except perhaps for some of the LS recordings. I started listening to some of those in three channel and by picking up some recommendations here for other classical SACDs which had a good multichannel track. It has rekindled the fever I first had with the SACD format. I'll add I only have a Denon AVR3803 which goes for about a grand. I'm not looking to downgrade my system whatsoever. Rather recently, I upgraded all my speakers. Next, it will be the amp to hear that much more from these wonderful MCH classical recordings!!
I would always (well, any number of times) plead with Teresa that it served no useful purpose to incessantly launch silly civil wars between two channel and multi-channel listeners, especially since they (two-channel and multi-channel) are not mutually exclusive within the format and, in fact, are tied to each other for existence.Now if I believe that some vinyl guys are attempting to hijack *this* forum I'll be all over them like white on rice, my support for vinyl not withstanding.
Robert C. Lang
HowdyI'll argue a little with you about "multichannel audio should've presented itself as 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener..."
There's more than one kind of music and I value the contributions of music/ambiance from the rear on many recordings whether it's a simple acoustic recording or a high tech extravaganza. Without the rears much of the feeling of being there is gone.
On the other hand four five or six channels (with at least two in the front, two in the back...) already taxes the delivery media tho I'm sure that will change, but not quickly.
Three speakers in the front gets most of what you'd get from six at 1/2 the cost of everything.
-Ted
"Three speakers in the front gets most of what you'd get from six at 1/2 the cost of everything*.One can slowly build the system by concentrating on the three speakers in the front to start. I strongly believe it would be a much better experience in 3 channel than two which I witness in the LS recordings where applicable. I however would not want to be without the rears with lots of these MCH SACD recordings. Without the rears as you stated, much of the feeling of being there is gone! I totally agree.
the DV-50, DV-50s and the new SZ-1 and UZ-1 Ted - none of which convert to PCM. (Of course, a moot point when your Esoteric is out for repair.)
HowdyI don't know their product names, but I was under the impression that their killer 5 box solution converted to PCM.
-Ted
Ted, you can't remember the future - some of this stuff is brand new.
HowdyI guess I'm confused about your post.
Am I understanding you that Esoteric is headed towards purer DSD for DSD, e.g. the AD1955 DAC? Or are you saying they were already there in the unit I heard?
-Ted
I think that with the newest boxes and ES-Link enabled it is pure DSD.
HowdyYep, the newest ones use DSD dacs and a sane clock interconnect topology.
I just don't know if what I heard were the newest ones and I misunderstood (or was misinformed) or if I heard older ones.
Oh, well, at least things are going the right direction IMO :)
-Ted
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
