Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
never mind top grade vinyl, which based on my system capabilities ... still renders SACD SQ ... "digitally compromised".
Look ... I've heard horrendous sounding SACDs, and beautiful sounding SACDs ... although the same can be said for any format. Like everything audio, the common denominator is the mastering quality. Given top grade mastering, an excellent CD will ALWAYS trounce a poorly recorded LP or SACD, despite the fact that CD is the least capable format in absolute terms.
No doubt, the very best DSD based recordings sound truly excellent. However, within my system ... I've yet to hear even any SACD match my best vinyl in terms of portraying that "there feeling" ... that pseudo live performance ... with wide realistic dynamic contrast & extended freq. control ... and believe it or not ... my very best vinyl (hardware related) has far superior low level detail retrieval & noise floor characteristics.
With analog, you can hear music below the noise floor, with digital you cannot. So it's not hard to believe that your very best vinyl and hardware has far superior low level detail retrieval & noise floor characteristics.
Of course the extremely low noise floor of SACDs are a big advantage for the quietest passages of classical music. And to some extent you want a noise floor that will filter unnatural noises from musical instruments or distracting breath noises from vocalists.
Some may have been conditioned to and therefore prefer low level noise on playback. Having heard it both ways, I prefer it without the mechanically and electronically generated audible noise floor, which is how I would hear it live. I also think there is no comparison in dynamic range compared to live, especially given the bass excursion limits and compression necessary to keep a stylus from flying out of the groove. Ymmv.
There is often mechanically generated noise at live concerts due to HVAC equipment, nearby subways, etc. There is also thermal noise from random motion of air molecules hitting our ear drums. Unless deliberately edited or gated out during production, there is thermal noise from microphones that comes from the motion of air molecules as well as thermal noise from the microphone preamplifiers. This noise is quite apparent when listening to a live microphone feed and can often be heard with some analog tape formats and many digital formats, both PCM and DSD. Many digital recordings edit out this background noise (and even the dither noise associated with the recording format) in the gaps between tracks on a disk. IMO, this is a poor practice that only draws attention to these natural aspects of a recording. If a background noise is intermittent, e.g. an occasional subway rumble or audience cough, then editing out these distracting noises can improve a recording, but this must be done with caution because one can produce a recording that sounds good when a few seconds are heard and creates an unconscious sense of unease and artificiality when listened all the way through.
I try to listen to recorded music that has the precise original dynamics as performed by the musicians, something possible with just about any digital recording. Analog mastered recordings will generally have a few dB less dynamic range even if no compression, limiting, or gain riding was used in the recording due to saturation of magnetic tape. The typical dynamic range that one would observe in a live symphony concert performing large scale works such as Mahler symphonies is approximately 45 to 50 dB, comparing the loudest fortissimo passages against the start of the quietest pianissimo passages. There are quieter musical portions in most live recordings due to reverberation from the venue. Enjoying these recordings requires a powerful system (especially for organ recordings) and a quiet listening room.
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"With analog, you can hear music below the noise floor, with digital you cannot."
Complete BS. It is possible to hear music well below the noise floor in all digital formats. This is easily proven with a simple test of digital recording equipment, even equipment such as the PCM-F1 used in the 1980's to make some early digital recordings.
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > It is possible to hear music well below the noise floor in all digital formats. < <
I've heard far too many digital systems SUDDENLY loose minute details permanently lost behind some form of digital hash/fog. That lost information was often associated with venue, obviously limiting it's dimensionality.
In all those cases, musical information was curtailed at what I perceived as the "digital noise floor" of said player. Ironicly, some of the worse offenders I've heard were so-called ?higher-rez? SACD players.
At one point in digital history, not that long ago, ALL digital offered a 2 dimensional sound, with little to no dimensionality. Digital has since improved ...
Certain digital players offer superior low level detail retrieval with much deeper image quality - leading to a far more dimensional & dynamic presentation ... something the very best vinyl routine accomplished decades ago.
I "only" use an Oppo 93 via HDMI, but I will be darned if I have any idea what you are talking about with regard to digital hash/fog, especially on SACD. Maybe some players exhibit this, but I have never heard one. Yes, there has been a tendency for CD players to exhibit a certain brittleness, brightness or digititis. But, it is simply not there with SACD in my experience.
Actually, the main complaint I have heard is how everything fades to blackness with digital. With CD, reverberations tails may get cut off, not by noise, but by the total absence of it. But, that is certainly not an issue, again, with SACD or 24 bit PCM, which have way, way more dynamic range to accomodate low level detail than vinyl or even mag tape can ever dream about.
Some are comforted euphonically by the constant noise on analog, especially vinyl. I never was, and it always bothers me when it hear it. Yes, some low level signal can be heard within limits into the noise, which is at a much higher residual level than even CD. But, it has a masking effect, as well, so I do not find audible residual noise to be a good thing. And, we have not even talked about the inevitable ticks and pops, groove tracking distortion, pre echo from print through on the master tape and so many other issues that have annoyed me about vinyl for decades. And, I made a fetish about cleaning and storing my disks pristinely. Glad there is something better, so those days are behind me, as well as tweaking and adjusting the turntable. Better to have a nice digital player whose works do not get contaminated by dust operated via a click of the remote.
As to depth, soundstage imaging, etc., you ain't heard nothin' until you have heard correctly done hi Rez Mch. The depth of image frontally is far superior to anything in stereo, including vinyl. I say this having heard a considerable number of stereo and vinyl systems costing hundreds of $thousands. That plus natural hall ambience enveloping you as it should, instead of being artificially redirected at you from the front in stereo, where it does not belong. No, your own room cannot possibly add back a natural sense of hall ambience from stereo speakers. It is simply much too small, and it generates reflections which artificially color and distort the sound with its own sonic signature.
> > Yes, there has been a tendency for CD players to exhibit a certain brittleness, brightness or digititis. But, it is simply not there with SACD in my experience. < <
I've heard countless SACD players/compromised sounding SACD disks, sound dreadful ... with a CONSISTENT "brittleness, brightness or digititis" that is well below the musical caliber of my own 16/44 player.
> > Actually, the main complaint I have heard is how everything fades to blackness with digital. < <
Certainly not a natural blackness, far more like the venues harmonic details suddenly disappear into a background fog ... much more grey and certainly more noxious in nature.
> > Some are comforted euphonically by the constant noise on analog, especially vinyl. < <
Another common and silly generalization - put forth by the inexperienced or totally uninitiated.
I've proven this easily wrong on countless occasions. I can take a digitally recorded LP, re-record it to LP-CDR, then compare it to the originally released CD ... and NOBODY has been able to tell the difference on a constant basis.
That's because the CD and the LP sound virtually identical ... therefore no so-called inherited euphoric vinyl addition was added or it would have been easily noticeable.
> > As to depth, soundstage imaging, etc., you ain't heard nothin' until you have heard correctly done hi Rez Mch. The depth of image frontally is far superior to anything in stereo, including vinyl. I say this having heard a considerable number of stereo and vinyl systems costing hundreds of $thousands. < <
I've heard many excellent MC systems, and the LAST thing they did well was provide vast front to back dimensionality.
> > That plus natural hall ambience enveloping you as it should, instead of being artificially redirected at you from the front in stereo, where it does not belong. No, your own room cannot possibly add back a natural sense of hall ambience from stereo speakers. It is simply much too small, and it generates reflections which artificially color and distort the sound with its own sonic signature. < <
So very wrong ... when you see a live band, the music is generated at the stage - in front of you - and is naturally reflected/redirected within the confines of THAT venue ... which also can ... "artificially color and distort the sound with its own sonic signature" ... depending on the venue itself.
Certainly, THAT is a much more natural occurrence than faking hall ambiance via additional channels.
We are all entitled to our opinions. But, all of our experience is bounded in some way, including mine and yours.
I do not want to get into whether one form of music is "better" than another. Your preference is apparently for rock. Mine is for classical. I respect some of rock for its artistic creativity, and I have nothing against your preference on musical grounds. But, I think this makes for a rather dramatic differences in our entire listening results and priorities. I cannot say that I have much listening experience to rock, nor you, apparently, to classical, either recorded or live. How many live classical concerts do you go to? And, how many classical recordings have you used in your evaluations?
First, there is not that much rock on SACD in comparison to classical, especially not in Mch. It is a constant complaint at sa-cd.net.
Second, most rock is recorded in relatively dead studios with one (or more) mike per performer, usually with vocalist in a booth with headphones. Each instrument is essentially in its own space on a searate track for final mix down. The final result is an engineered mix that creates an artificial sense of the musical event, often quite skillfully. But, there is no singular live event that was recorded in real space.
The exception may be rock concerts, typically in large venues that are not acoustically particularly good without gobs of amplification. This creates a major disparity in sound for comparisons of live vs. recorded music. The rock concert is inevitably miked much more closely than any audience member can experience, in order to steer clear of the effects of the Hall's amplifying sound system.
And, third, rock is mostly performed on electronically amplified instruments, whose sound tends to vary much more under different circumstances than acoustic ones. Even, live acoustic rock is usually done in even small venues with mikes and amplification. Different mikes and amplified speakers vary the sound from venue to venue, from instrument to instrument.
Not much of this is true with classical recordings, with extremely rare exception, at least not nearly to the same extent. Again, I am not saying which is the superior musical form. The classical standard is unamplified acoustic instruments playing in a hall with reasonably good acoustics, creating a unified live musical event. The recording engineers can go into the hall and hear the singular event for themselves, and seek to reproduce that in their final product. That is usually not possible with rock, especially not the studio recordings, which predominate.
There are likely thousands of well engineered classical SACDs and Blu-rays that provide in Mch a unified replica of the live event in the hall. They do not use artificial ambience or reverb in the mix, unlike much Mch rock. Yes, the hall is filled with reflections that color the sound, but most decent classical halls have more similarities than differences. Unamplified outdoor concerts sound pretty crappy by comparison. The point is that music sounds natural to classical music listeners with the effects of a hall, its reflections and colorations. Ideally, we want recorded music to reproduce a sense of that, with the performers up front and the sense of hall reflected energy enveloping us, as in a live concert. There are countless of successful examples of that in hi Rez Mch recordings that give the illusion of sitting in a very good center seat.
Perhaps the key difference between you and I is that I can go to a live concert, as I do often. Then, I can go home and expect a reasonable facsimile of that sound. Rock just does not have that opportunity in abundance. I honestly do not know what rock listeners can use as a standard for judging their sound systems. But, it surely is not the sound of live acoustic music.
Sorry, if you have had a bad experience with SACD players, especially in comparison to CD. While some claim to hear no difference, you are the first to claim that CD sounds consistently better than SACD. I do not know anyone else in my circle of friends, even rock listeners, who agrees with you. But, then we have no idea which recordings you are talking about. It certainly is unlikely to be classical recordings.
The higher residual background noise of LP is unmistakeable to everyone I know in any system, including some quite superlative ones. I am at a loss to understand why your comparative listening has failed to reveal it. Certainly, measured technical specs confirm it to be there.
You are revealing your total inexperience with live vs. recorded Mch when you claim that Mch is fake. With classical recordings, Mch is picked up by actual discrete mikes in the hall. Again, we have no clue as to what you were listening to.
The addition of a discrete center channel plus surrounds is definitely capable of phantom imaging the sound much more into the room toward the listener vs. stereo. The frontal depth of image is enhanced quite naturally, as a result. But, it needs proper source material to be able to hear it. Mch classical recordings do just that, but I do not think there is much rock material that exhibits the same effect.
So, we disagree quite sharply on a number of issues. Our differing musical preferences clearly play a major roll in that. But, you are entitled to like what you like, as am I. But, there is not need to be hostile and bitter about it.
> > Perhaps the key difference between you and I is that I can go to a live concert, as I do often. Then, I can go home and expect a reasonable facsimile of that sound < <
Hmmm, lets see, I've attended this year alone, Van Halen, Roger Waters, Prince, (& musical plays such as The Lion King) and a slew of much smaller venue acts (mostly blues based or jazz based musicians). My bucket list, this year alone, includes Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen.
Look, I don't want to turn this into some silly competition, but trust me, my exposure to live music, acoustic or not, and how it gets reproduced within my system, should not be your concern.
> > Rock just does not have that opportunity in abundance. I honestly do not know what rock listeners can use as a standard for judging their sound systems. But, it surely is not the sound of live acoustic music. < <
Well, Rock is generally an amplified experience (although not always), but then again ... EVERY TYPE OF MUSIC PLAYED BACK ON ANY AUDIO SYSTEM is amplified!
Therefore ... criteria is somewhat IDENTICAL!!!
Look, although my equipment choices (and unique refinement) has much to with my luv for reproducing R&R, it's hardly reflective of what my system can accomplish on complete musical whole. In fact, just the opposite is true, my system includes superb frequency extension & wide bandwidth (esp on top), is designed to include a truly low noise floor (rare in most systems, regardless of cost), and it can parlay a very wide dynamic contrast without distress at any particular frequency over it's entire bandwidth (a major problem for most systems regardless of cost), while remaining quite tight, controlled & transparent. It does not introduce compression (like most systems do) and remains harmonically consistent even during very difficult passages in which the vast majority of systems smear, morph and/or complicate instrumental impact.
Trust me, because it does R&R quite well, it does not mean it can't do justice to other forms of music. Oh contrare ...
Some history, I grew up with a step brother who was an acoustic guitar phenom. He was so well versed and naturally talented, that he was frequently asked to play at surrounding venues & school concerts. I grew up with him practicing that damn guitar nearly every night. Trust me, I know what LIVE 6 or 12 string acoustic guitar sounds like, with any system. Obviously I used that experience & criteria (along with others) to build and refine my specific system.
So lets not get too caught up in format choices based ONLY on musical genre. That said, I will admit that if I was only into classical, I'd definitely be looking into SACD, so I can totally understand that requirement to a point.
> > I honestly do not know what rock listeners can use as a standard for judging their sound systems. < <
I isolated the above statement again, only because it's truly ignorant of ALL MUSICAL requirements. I won't go into the specifics (they are VERY obvious) but believe it or not, R&R is actually a true form of music. Yes, it has musical requirements related to REAL INSTRUMENTS, w/real instrumental impact, w/the ability to separate real instruments within a 3 dimensional field, keeping them separate from each other even during difficult passages, much like the requirements of other types of music and sound systems. In fact, one could say that R&R has some unique requirements all it's own.
> > Sorry, if you have had a bad experience with SACD players, especially in comparison to CD. While some claim to hear no difference, you are the first to claim that CD sounds consistently better than SACD. < <
I'm certainly not the "first" and/or last!!!
And I've never said that CD sounds consistently better than SACD. In fact, I've often stated the superiority of SACD is obvious with well recorded DSD material (believe it or not, the best sounding CDs are also related conversion, or lack of). But as I've always stated, SACD does not win by simple default (which many SACD fanatics consistently imply, much like some MC fanatics here). SACD requires the EXACT same criteria that CD or LP requires in order to sound good, and it is just as dependent on hardware as any format.
As for my "bad" experience ... certainly not ... it was simply just a matter of comparing equipment and software ... in which most (not all) SACD players I've owned or auditioned came a consistent 3rd to my current sources. Far more educational than bad.
> > The higher residual background noise of LP is unmistakeable to everyone I know in any system, including some quite superlative ones. I am at a loss to understand why your comparative listening has failed to reveal it. Certainly, measured technical specs confirm it to be there. < <
Perhaps you're at a loss, simply because you've never heard otherwise. Until you've had the luxury of hearing a highly refined vinyl based system with a truly superb noise floor, you'll most likely never understand. And I don't expect you to understand either, especially with the amount of myths you've implied about vinyl in this thread. Even though you've claimed to have heard such a beast, well, obviously ...
> > The addition of a discrete center channel plus surrounds is definitely capable of phantom imaging the sound much more into the room toward the listener vs. stereo. The frontal depth of image is enhanced quite naturally, as a result. But, it needs proper source material to be able to hear it. Mch classical recordings do just that, but I do not think there is much rock material that exhibits the same effect. < <
A fine recording, w/any music, played back on my system not only has the ability to make my two speakers disappear, it makes my back wall disappear ... recreating a 3D type soundstage that should be reminiscent of the recorded venue. Certainly, it does not require additional channels to do what it routinely has accomplished - for years.
> > I do not know anyone else in my circle of friends, even rock listeners, who agrees with you. But, then we have no idea which recordings you are talking about. It certainly is unlikely to be classical recordings. < <
How do you know that I don't use classical?
Why are you making such an assumption, simply because your bias towards those who luv R&R?
The fact is, I have a specific set of music that I use for evaluation, and classical (Reference Recordings HDCD mostly) is included.
Again, lets not pretend that because I luv R&R, I don't understand the requirements of other types of music, or live acoustic instruments in general.
Your reply is choke full of simplistic generalizations - which are dismissive & ignorant of my (or anyone's) musical based experiences. Contrary to what you "think", classical lovers are certainly not the only audiophiles who understand instruments & musical reproduction.
First, I think I was the first to emphasize rock as your primary music reference (based on your Inmate Systems description). It was not intended be a negative. Unfortunately, it became a huge and unnecessary distraction to the discussion.
That said, the vast majority of my SACD collection is classical and jazz but I’m sure I own more than 100 multi-channel SACD rock, pop, R&B and some rap, too. Some of the best produced are from Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Earth,Wind & Fire (taken from live performances) that were *originally* recorded in multi-channel and where the original band members were actively involved in the multi-channel mix to create a production that met the *intent* of the artists. Almost all are more compelling than their two channel equivalent also on the same disc.Unlike with classical music, for example, the “creativity” quotient as well as the audio quality can soar.
That doesn’t mean you (not you personally) will like it. But what is it not to like unless excessive gimmicks are employed (like early stereo)? Like all multi-channel recordings I am able to switch between the two channel content and the multi-channel content “on-the-fly”, a most compelling comparison that you can find in hi-end audio. What can I say, in almost all instances the multi-channel content simply sounds astonishingly better, far more “open”, vastly larger sound stage, more impact, more creative, etc. sorta like “man this was what the artist was trying to do all along”. Or in the case of the Earth, Wind, and Fire SACDs the reproduction sounds far closer to what I actually heard live.
I understand that you have a difficult time fathoming that a system, especially among Inmates in this thread, can be even close, equal to, or heaven forbid exceed what you have described in your system. You have made that patently clear. The inference being “I don’t need no stinkin’ multi-channels” because what you have does everything that *any* multi-channel can do but only better. But your system is not without equal or is unparalleled even within the confines of this forum. But to the point *every* strength you have written about your system can be improved upon.....dramatically.
But also, everything you have mentioned about your system or what you have shared in Inmate Description (perhaps an update is in order) has limited relevancy to a meaningful two-channel/multi-channel comparative discussion. Although I personally subscribe to the belief that the better your two channel mains the better the overall system potential, not all multi-channel listeners subscribe to that belief. Otherwise, the notable attributes of your system are merely important ingredients to the recipe of an exceptional multi-channel system.
******my system includes superb frequency extension & wide bandwidth (esp on top), is designed to include a truly low noise floor (rare in most systems, regardless of cost), and it can parlay a very wide dynamic contrast without distress at any particular frequency over it's entire bandwidth (a major problem for most systems regardless of cost), while remaining quite tight, controlled & transparent.****
Yeah but, how does it sound? Just kidding, of course. I’m sure it sounds fabulously.
Certainly yours is a very high bar but your system is not singular in this regard. There are other systems among Inmates, including yours truly (even in two channel) that exhibit those same traits. My system will exhibit those virtues in 2 channel from 15hz (potentially lower because it’s a sealed system) to 40kHz. But so what? It does it better, more effortlessly with 5 channels. Why? Heck. I don’t know for sure. Perhaps, in part, because there is more “real estate” (speakers) of comparable quality to handle the workload. In that regard its like going from 8 cylinders to 12. Years before this thread I detailed the very traits that you describe in Inmate Descriptions.
***It does not introduce compression (like most systems do)***
Unless I am misunderstanding you I’m sure every system has it limits. It’s a rare event, but I have experienced it, most likely with my large pipe organ collection played at excessively loud levels when sub 20hz notes kick in. But whatever the limits my system may have had/has with two speakers those limits are extended in multi-channel. This would be true of any system.
**** and remains harmonically consistent even during very difficult passages in which the vast majority of systems smear, morph and/or complicate instrumental impact.*****
Again, this a hallmark of my system (even with two channels), too, and others I have heard here in the Bay Area. The point is no matter how good it is I’m sure your system *can* get better; way better.
****Until you've had the luxury of hearing a highly refined vinyl based system with a truly superb noise floor, you'll most likely never understand.***
One does not preclude the other. Why not have both, especially since the software overlaps very little.
*****A fine recording, w/any music, played back on my system not only has the ability to make my two speakers disappear, it makes my back wall disappear ... recreating a 3D type sound stage that should be reminiscent of the recorded venue.****
You don’t think this is unique? This is old hat. Any speaker system I have owned since the 80’s, such as my Ohm Fs, could pull off this illusion in broad daylight. And it has only gotten far better since then. Any hi-end speaker/system worthy of the name should be able to do the same thing otherwise I would not consider it. In my experience when hi-end systems don’t do or don’t do it well its usually (not always) the *room* that is the culprit more than the *gear*. Or the source will give the speakers away. There are situations where one source renders the speakers completely “invisible” but the next source will not permit that degree of transparency.
Regarding “**makes my back wall disappear**, this is a commonly expressed two-channel paradigm. Again that is not unusual, in fact it’s the norm, in my experience even with two channels. But with well implemented multi-channel this is far less of an issue because all walls disappear. The perceived sound stage is not limited to the size of the room because you are “transported” to the venue. The venue itself, figuratively speaking, becomes your room. Instead of experiencing a “3D *type* experience as you said, you have a full 3D experience. Huge difference.
But again the only relevancy I see with any of our (yours and mine) stellar system virtues in a comparative discussion of two channel and multi-channel is that the latter simply makes it better.
Robert C. Lang
So therefore, we have very different ways of accomplishing our goals, and vastly different ways of building a sound system ... and therefore our experiences within that context cannot be compared. To that end, although we are talking the same audio language, I know that our understanding of this hobby is based on a completely different experiences and accomplishments.
The bottom line, we are arguing the same argument, but from completely different angles.
> > First, I think I was the first to emphasize rock as your primary music reference (based on your Inmate Systems description). It was not intended be a negative. Unfortunately, it became a huge and unnecessary distraction to the discussion. < <
Not your fault Robert, when certain people generalize and improperly assume - then - it becomes "unnecessary distraction to the discussion."
> > Certainly yours is a very high bar but your system is not singular in this regard. There are other systems among Inmates, including yours truly (even in two channel) that exhibit those same traits. My system will exhibit those virtues in 2 channel from 15hz (potentially lower because it's a sealed system) to 40kHz. But so what? < <
Well, you might be surprised, certainly I was ...
This is not about specs, because if it was, near every system would sound identical. This is less about theory, more about experimentation, failure, success, and practicality.
I'll provide an example ...
I've had some pretty good amps over the years, and although I thought that they all brought their own mix of musicality to the class, I really didn't consider the importance of amplification as critically as the above source based components (well, in some regard, I still don't). All these amps were excellent, they all accomplished that required-by-audio-law 20khz to 20hz criteria on paper, and to a degree in practice, they all did just that ... that is ... until I heard amps that redefined that one specific criteria.
Example: I've heard very few amps (and overall systems) that reproduce a cymbal properly, especially a very hard hit cymbal. The true power and shimmer always gets lost, furthermore it diminishes accordingly when a system is required to multitask ... in other words ... to recreate an entire band (or orchestra) with many other instruments all struggling for individuality, tonality, true instrumental power, ambient space and bandwidth.
I "thought" I understood what 20 to 20 meant, I thought I understood extended bandwidth (esp as it relates to dynamic power)... but I didn't ... not until I got the DR3's.
> > Again, this [harmonically consistent even during very difficult passages] a hallmark of my system (even with two channels), too, and others I have heard here in the Bay Area. The point is no matter how good it is I'm sure your system *can* get better; way better. < <
Nope, not that I've heard!
Actually, this is one area in which R&R music is a good test bed. My biggest issue with recreating my stereo system (not just R&R) was based on the criteria above. In the vast VAST (irrespective of cost) majority of systems, when the music builds, becomes more & more dynamic, most start to sound louder, but they close in, they compress the extremes, very few actually expand and become even more powerful & realistic. In those cases, I quickly reach for negative volume.
That's because nearly every system adds it's own form of distortion & compression during peak periods, especially when it's required to recreate many different instruments at full tilt, with all their individual characteristics & power (and R&R is all about emotional power). Very few really can duplicate a live R&R experience.
Robert, to that end ... I've rarely heard ANY system do R&R like mine. Instead of sounding "louder", it builds upon itself, adds power ... very much like a live event. In fact, a great system should INVITE VOLUME. (equipment limitations aside, my system can (and has) destroy speakers/drivers with relative ease - if I'm not careful)
But again ... my system is unique, and it should be better than most, simply because of the amount of refinement it has relieved over many years which were specifically meant to meet specific sonic criteria.
Therefore, as stated in an earlier thread, this is not a case in which I add three extra channels & "additional" equipment ... and then suddenly ... by default of MC ... it would INSTANTLY sound superior.
Without reservation, in my case, it certainly wouldn't, at least not until it was further refined in a matter befitting the rest of my system.
That is why, like I said earlier, I'd build a MC system from scratch.
Most of what you have said about your system I (and many others) have said about my two channel system (including many visitors from this forum), but now even more so with multi-channel. But that really misses much of the point I have attempted to emphasize, especially in the last few posts of this discussion. That is, the emergence of stellar multi-channel software is what makes it incontrovertibly more palpable than with comparable 2 channel systems. The gear is what it is. The higher quality the gear the more it enhances home audio reproduction whether, especially in a hi-end system, multi-channel or two channel. But as I have stressed in previous posts it’s the *software*, far more than the *gear* which is the game change that is taking music reproduction potential in the home to unmatched pinnacles never before attained.
< < The point is no matter how good it is I'm sure your system *can* get better; way better. < <
You then said:
***Nope, not that I've heard!***
Within the context of a top tier system/room (regardless of the number of channels) I truly do believe you.
Your statement, however, reminds me of the history of the revered Porsche 911 (since you used a car analogy earlier, allow me). Beginning with its introduction in 1963 Porsche had done everything technically possible to improve the 911 with weight reductions, cutting edge cylinder bores, horsepower increases, SOTA fuel injection implementations, turbo charging, and literally *hundreds* of other improvements, large and small. But by 1968 Porsche had completely maxed out its flat 6 air-cooled 2 valves per cylinder engine. (Actually, the handwriting on the wall was first acknowledged in the 80s when an official corporate decision was made to phase out the 911 in favor of the 928. But heavy demand saved the 911). It is said that by 1998 Porsche could not eke out even a single additional horsepower from the platform. They had stiffly turned a nose up at new technology (which was not so new anymore) and, I dare say, even though it was the best Porsche 911 *ever* it had begun to fall behind the competition, including, I dare say, Honda. The technology Porsche spurned was 4 valves per cylinder.
But it was not 4 valves per cylinder technology Porsche actually spurned. The problem was far more fundamental. You can't add two additional valves per cylinder to an air-cooled engine. An engine must be water cooled (or in the case of my BMW motorcycle, oil-cooled which is far less effective in a stifling hot closed-in engine compartment) to accommodate 4 valves per cylinder. Porsche would have to swallow an entire new paradigm. It would have to scrap its fabled air-cooled engine and essentially start from scratch (the engine, not the entire car or concept) and develop a water-cooled 4 valve per cylinder design. This represented a completely different (and mega expensive) paradigm but opened the door to entirely new vistas that allowed the Porsche 911 (and Porsche itself) to not only to survive but also to thrive. The Porsche 911 would have withered away by now. Of course, that has not prevented the air cool purists from grumbling incessantly to this day.
This is certainly an imperfect analogy, especially since unlike with the 911, almost all technology from two-channel systems is fully and wholly transferable to a multi-channel system. And while two channel has begun to wither (although less so among audiophiles) its not going away anytime soon. Nevertheless, it was not until Porsche broke free of the air-cooled shackle and embraced new technology that the 911 was able to reach the pinnacle it has attained today.
It is understood that for you, personally, there is limited incentive for change, especially given the dearth of software of your preferred music choices. But understand also that for others here there is a substantial number of excellent multi-channel SACDs.I certainly have far more than a thousand, including more than 50 this year so far.(By the way, I have also purchased 7 or 8 remastered Lps and a bunch more than that at an estate sale, not to mention 2 channel SACDs during this time period).
Robert C. Lang
Robert, your are absolutely right that software is the key. But, the disconnect still exists between genres. The are just under 5,000 titles in classical at sa-cd.net, with a high proportion being in Mch. Meanwhile, there are about 600 in rock/pop, with a much lower proportion in Mch. At least, that is what I see. So, it is quite clear that classical is where the predominant emphasis is for Mch recordings, and for SACD, in general.
Then, we get to the engineering differences between rock and classical in terms of what they are trying to accomplish with Mch. Classical mostly tries to capture the natural ambience and space of the hall in live performances. Rock tends to use Mch for engineered effects on studio recordings, with instruments panned into the rear channels. The exception is the occasional closely miked live rock concert. Again, for tbone's benefit, this has nothing to do with the music and is not a put down of rock. I am not saying one is better than the other. It is just a description of what is.
So, as a practical matter, I fully understand that rock listeners may prefer stereo to Mch, and I do not think there is any convincing him or others. What he hears with rock and what we hear with classical are two entirely different things, beyond the music, even, given the engineering tendencies of the recordings. And, neither his findings from listening to rock nor ours to classical are truly universal. But, you and I know quite well that against the standard of classical live performance, Mch is exponentially better at capturing the sound of the live event than is stereo. That may also be true for the small numbers of jazz recordings in Mch.
I believe that SACD and SACD multi-channel have missed the boat with the paucity of this genre to the detriment and demise of the format itself. For sure classical music listeners have always benefited first and most from cutting edge audio technology. Classical music ushered in LP, CD, and SACD and SACD multi-channel. But Sony screwed up big time by giving short shrift to rock, pop, and R&B when launching SACD. The Sony catalog alone is flush with these entire genres much recorded during the multi-channel (quad) era. All music lovers, including classical music lovers have been collateral victims of this miscalculation.
While I am a classical music listener foremost my formative music experiences are firmly rooted in R&B with generous helpings of jazz, pop, and some rock. And as a videographer I have been to numerous rock concerts and rock venues. I will be attending one on July 31 in support of my son’s best friend who is a drummer in an up and coming local hard rock group.
Classical music listeners benefit most from multi-channel due to the more realistic capturing and reproduction of an actual venue “space”. The same applies for jazz......big time. I think rock’s chief benefit, though, from multi-channel is from the “artist creativity” aspects of the final product. Multi-channel unleashes the creative shackles, for better or for worse, of the artist and the engineer. We both appreciate the huge difference in the listening experience between stereo and multi-channel classical music. But it pales by comparison when talking about a rock recording. I have done on-the-fly A/B comparisons with much, if not all, the MC rock in my collection and the differences are astonishing.....for some listeners maybe too much of a good thing. And this is usually done without “abusing” the technology. So, artistically, you get the sense that this (MC) was what the artist was attempting to do all along but could not pull it off in stereo. But sonically, there is, too, a tremendous upside with multi-channel rock. It is simply far more “open” than that same disc could possibly be when played in the same system.
Capturing a live event whether rock concert or classical music concert have far more spatial similarities than differences. And so multi-channel unmistakably enhances the palpability of a live R&B or rock concert. A few years ago I submitted a review at SA-CD.net of a live Earth, Wind and Fire concert, “Gratitude” which at the time gave me the most “you are there” experience of any disc I had heard to date.(Whoa! I see that the asking price for that SACD is $181.12 used at Amazon.com).
So, I can’t see how a rock listener would “prefer” stereo over multi-channel when listening to the same disc in the same system., just as they would not prefer mono over stereo. Sure, there may be individual discs where the listener my disagree with what the artist and/or engineer intended, but on the whole 5 channels is *far* superior than 2 in the same system that is implemented to do both well. Of course, given the dearth of rock titles I understand why most rock listeners have voted with their feet and left SACD.
Robert C. Lang
I have no interest whatever in Rock or Pop music but the economics means that they dominate marketing considerations. So, unless those genres and their fans are incorporated and successful, efforts at new formats will fail (as they have been).
I also have no interest in Rock & Pop and wonder why you are bothering to review Patrica Barber latest BD disc due to rave comments of PB I bought 'cafe blue'found it to be a load of rubbish and a waste of money I suppose you assume that if the PB BD disc gets a rave review this will help to subsidise Classical recordings ? I see now you are only doing to compare various formats ,what a waste of time.
I was asked to contribute comments on the sound quality of the Patricia Barber BD as an adjunct to a more complete music review because, perhaps, the music reviewer does not have a suitable multichannel system or as much multichannel experience. All this is to provide information to our readers, some of whom like and enjoy the music.
You can dismiss this as a waste of time but your perceptions are not shared by everyone.
I do not think many rock & pop enthusiasts would appreciate mch SACD ,or stereo only SACD especially as most people have never heard of it.The problem is as told to me by the manager of a large HMV record store in Oxford St London long ago is that Rock & Pop etc is financially supporting Classical recordings however Robert C Lang is correct when he says Sony's failure to support an abundance of Rock etc on SACD is the cause of the problem of SACD missing the boat.
I am incompete agreement with Fitzcalrado apart from BIS and the IMO very poor sounding Oppo 93 compared to Sony BDP 1000ES for superior BD sound especially when HATS is employed for reduced jitter which Fitzcalrado dismisses without even hearing it.
Gee, Gerald, I am suprrised you did not also include our disagreements on Noel Keyworth, center channel speakers, subwoofers and a host of other things. But, thanks, I guess, for the lukewarm and conditional encouragement anyway.
Carl, Many thanks for completing a long list, also include panel speakers. Its suprising that at least we completely agree on mch SACD/BD sound compared to Stereo & vinyl despite using different methods & components to achieve it.Happy Listening.
Severely compressed excessively loud music (in your case, rock), often distorted, where musicians, many using "fake" instruments, are recorded on 24+ track tape, in widely scattered venues, some not even having met each other, during widely scattered time periods, in a "fake" venue and "fake" space, to generate "fake" sounds and "fake" noises, fake ambiance, all to create a discombobulated whatever that has *nothing* to do with a live venue. It *all* "fake" and you know it!
Let me tell you what else is "fake", vinyl's RIAA equalization that is the most severe and "faking" in the all of audio recording. Come on, how could 50s, 60s, 70s, technology undergo the brutal RIAA compression/expansion sausage making process and come out the other end without an audibly distinct signature? It can’t! And that is before the tone arm and stylus jump into the fray. If you don’t know that or more aptly, *hear* the colorful distortions then it is explicitly clear that *vinyl*, not live acoustic music, is your reference, it which case no recording format will ever challenge your vinyl standard.
Look, there is no denying that vinyl can sound damn great; that is not the issue. And I would never challenge your contention that it sounds better or more realistic to you than SACD in your system. But you have very limited knowledge about hi-end SACD multi-channel. It is abundantly clear by every post you have made in this thread that your experience with high-end SACD multi-channel is deplorably deficient (given that you have chosen to pontificate on it and make authoritative claims). You clearly don't have the requisite in home or in system experience to make anything other than misguided and erroneous conclusions about the format. This is especially true when conversing with audiophiles who are proficiently experienced with both high end vinyl and high-end multi-channel in the same system in a decent room (the room matters). Your “faking” pronouncement with regard to muti-channel make this all too clear.
Your reference with multi-channel seems limited to Home Theater (which is not SACD), based on your posts, and is not meaningful. That's OK. But for the record, just because a quality multi-channel recording utilizes 5 (or minimal) microphones to create 5 discreet channels, (instead of your likely reference of 20-30 microphones squeezed into two channels) make it "faking" hall ambiance.
Robert C. Lang
> > Severely compressed excessively loud music (in your case, rock), < <
In my case, just Rock?
Do you really believe that I'm basing my entire opinion on musical reproduction on compressed R&R .. no live recordings, no jazz, no blue grass, no acoustic music, no classical or ...
> > If you don't know that or more aptly, *hear* the colorful distortions then it is explicitly clear that *vinyl*, not live acoustic music, is your reference, it which case no recording format will ever challenge your vinyl standard. < <
I guess it doesn't matter that I came from a musical family, that I still witness perhaps 10 major live events a year, perhaps 20-30 small events annually ... in venues huge, big and small ... in venues known for awesome live musical reproduction ... such as Massey Hall ... you know(?) ... where Neil Young recorded his live 1971 album which is all the rage with audiophiles because it SOUNDS LIVE!!!
Or are you SIMPLY dismissing my opinion, based on the convenient assumption that I don't KNOW WHAT LIVE MUSIC SOUNDS LIKE!!!!
> > This is especially true when conversing with audiophiles who are proficiently experienced with both high end vinyl and high-end multi-channel in the same system in a decent room (the room matters). Your "faking" pronouncement with regard to muti-channel make this all too clear. < <
OK, not only am I supposedly insufficient at understanding live music and how it pertains to musical reproduction, now I'm "faking" my knowledge of SACD & MC also?
Robert, do you want to debate my knowledge? Fine, I'm not as experienced in SACD or MC as you. I could point out that what I have heard isn't easily dismissed simply because you have more experience, or claim so. Chances are, I'm farrrrrrrrrrrrrr more experienced with high-end 2 channel systems (and the building of hi-end audio in general) than the vast majority here, including you. I already know my system is nothing that you've EVER heard before. And I'm probably just as, if not more experienced with live music as you.
Trust me, I can make the necessary connections which equate live vs reproduced, in 2 ch or MC formats.
You may "think" you can put all THAT in question simply because I disagree with your silly and over-hyped SACD-MC bullshit. You can try and trump me with insinuation, you can even spin the subject matter with "fake" bullshit. If you simply wish to dismiss me in such a convenient manner, perhaps the real question is ... who's really being fake?
I am sure that you and your system are worthy of the accolades and credentials you have bestowed on you and it ever since you parachuted into the thread. But there is nothing you have posted that would suggest that you have the experience and the knowledge to offer meaningful input on high-end SACD multi-channel or to offer a meaningful comparison to the two channel experience. Your comment on "faking hall ambiance" underscores that explicitly.
Robert C. Lang
I said ...
"So very wrong ... when you see a live band, the music is generated at the stage - in front of you - and is naturally reflected/redirected within the confines of THAT venue ... which also can ... "artificially color and distort the sound with its own sonic signature" ... depending on the venue itself.
Certainly, THAT is a much more natural occurrence than faking hall ambiance via additional channels."
I said "THAT" in accordance to my prior statement, in which the venue itself is responsible for the reflected acoustics, and adding THAT ambiance via two extra channels is not going to replace THAT reality, nor is it going to effectively omit your own room's reflections from the mix.
Either way, perhaps my choice of the word "fake" was silly, but certainly my point is that any good audio room introduces it's own ambiance, much like any good venue. And in both cases, they have 1 thing in common ... being that the sound originates from the FRONT stage and therefore anything you hear to the side or behind you (except the audience)... is based on reflections.
Therefore, any good audiophile room using a superb 2 ch system will provide near the exact same experience as most live concerts because they share the exact same attributes.
Adding two extra channels, in theory may seem to provide some of that reality, but in actual practice ... it's always sounded "fake" to me.
Look, I'm trying to turn down the temperature a bit and I will. But what you have said has been debunked so much so often. I have not heard that argument in about 6 years.
Look, any attempt that an audiophile makes to recreate a live performance in their listening room, regardless of the number of “channels”, is going to sound “fake” in comparison. Neither of our rigs can close that gap.
So as an audiophile who always wears his “audiophile cap” when I attend or record (I am a professional videographer) an event, I figured out long ago there is *always* room for improvement in this hobby. And I’m not talking about some lilliputian short term improvement that audiophiles have a tendency to fall all over themselves about (power cords, interconnects, dedicated AC lines, or even speakers or amps or larger sound stages, etc.). Great multi-channel transcends all that stuff. I’m talking major *fundamental* improvement like going from great mono to great stereo or black and white TV to color. That’s what properly implemented SACD (hardware and software) and other hi-rez multi-channel can (and does) bring to the audio experience. Even beyond current SOTA multi-channel there is immense room for advancement to further close the gap between what I experience at the concert hall and *any* audiophile experience that I have yet been apart of. Trying to "explain" it get's loss in translation.
So, unless you experience it for yourself you will never know. It is not enough to say that because you (not you personally) have not experienced it that it does not exist or that it doesn’t “work” or that it is a matter of “taste” (at the dawn of stereo many mono adherents argued that stereo was a matter of “taste”...and it was with poorly done sources). The bottom line is, that unlike some of us here, who have also excellent two channel rigs (yours truly) and rooms, and who have discovered a pathway to an unprecedented advance in sound quality, you have never experienced a pronounced improvement over your own current system or two channel technology. You have never experienced that revelation and you really do believe that two channel is as good as it can possibly get in recreating a live experience in the home. No! No! No! Well, I’m rootin’ (not proselytizing) for you to have that “celestial” like revelation that I and others have experienced.
Robert C. Lang
I've been debating SACD here for a very VERY long time ... against "those" who's understanding of audio reproduction in general is questionable at best. I knowingly knew I was going against the grain here, and took those initial anti-SACD "flaims" kinda like water of a raincoat ... because the beauty of time and experience ... is that it will eventually prove you ...
> > The bottom line is, that unlike some of us here, who have also excellent two channel rigs (yours truly) and rooms, and who have discovered a pathway to an unprecedented advance in sound quality, you have never experienced a pronounced improvement over your own current system or two channel technology. You have never experienced that revelation and you really do believe that two channel is as good as it can possibly get in recreating a live experience in the home. No! No! No! Well, I'm rootin' (not proselytizing) for you to have that "celestial" like revelation that I and others have experienced. < <
I'm game ...
Actually, I've had that "celestial like revelation" with my two channel setup on quite a few occasions. I'm not talking about mere improvement, I'm talking about having been re-education, a complete changing of ones mind-set.
But you've been "there" too ... right????
Most recently, my latest turntable setup (just a year ago) provides much more of a master-tape experience ... with CD, the Ikemi was (and remains) a true revelation ... my mono Classe DR3, unlike my prior amps, taught me all about proper frequency extension, how the dynamic envelope should encompass the entire bandwidth (something that must be heard to be appreciated) ... with speakers, cabinet bracing and complete rigidness plus a move towards xovers that contain far superior signal transmission characteristics ... and certain, vibration isolation measures totally opened my ears & eyes to the concept of the noise floor characteristics ... but perhaps the biggest revelation in that aspect, past actual equipment, was NOT ONLY when I discovered electronic isolation & but more importantly ... how to control & limit grounding (a lesson in overall transparency that I'd never thought possible).
Fact is Robert, even ardent long term audiophiles who've heard my unique 2ch system near always leave with a much MUCH different perspective on stereo recreation - as a pseudo live event.
But, certainly, I've been around ... I understand your point of view. The thing is, I'm insinuating that you've never heard any 2 ch system like mine, and you're insinuating that I've never heard any MC system like yours. Perhaps the truth is somewhere down the middle ... since obviously you've heard you're fair share and vise-versa.
Personally, recreating a pseudo live event is less about adding extra channels and more about capturing the information proeprly, much in the same way that many mono recordings can heighten the emotional aspect of music in ways many stereo offerings can't. (Fitzcaraldo215 lack of comprehension skills will probably cause him to make the totally incorrect assumption that I'm claiming that mono is ABSOLUTELY superior to stereo, much like he's done through-out this thread).
As we both agreed, the room is one obstacle, and can determine the environmental nature of sound for any venue, stereo room or studio. Yes, perhaps you may get a better understanding or feel of the hall or venue by adding it's "nature" to the mix via additional channels, but that aspect of "recreation" is not essential in recreating a pseudo live event, not by any means.
OK, I say that with caution, since it's slightly hypocritical of me as an audiophile. Case in point, when I play "natural" recordings I want to hear the actual venue, especially if I have experienced that same venue (trinity church or massey hall in toronto) before. When I listen to such recordings, I want to hear some form of recreation with that experience.
Yet, I achieve exactly that with my present 2ch system. The fact is (this is very important to understand) ... if I added more channels/equipment to my current 2ch system, within it's dedicated room, I will definitely fck-up what took me years to accomplish.
That is why I'll never change the makeup of my current system, although as stated, I'd have no issue building a MC system in a separate room HT based room. Look, I've heard some very good MC systems, (mostly PCM based, but lets not get into the silly PCM vs DSD debate) esp with well mastered live recordings, and they can sound amazing. Better than my 2ch system, well ... that's a matter of perspective ... but I can tell you something for certain, my 2ch system is more highly refined, and hence, has the capacity to be much more emotionally driven.
Robert, I appreciate all the "rootin" ... even it's condescending tonality.
I have been perusing the Audio Engineering Society (AES) site and it is probably a bit like the Bible in that you can find whatever it is you’re looking for depending on what side of the argument your own. But one thing that is clear the issue of what delivers superior sound quality, two-channel or multi-channel, seems long settled as far as I have been able to find. In some way it was settled in the 50’s when the first massed produced “stereo” recordings where done in three channels. Fairchild and others were unable to produce a satisfactory 3 channel cartridge and the rest is history.
More recently this issue was put to rest about 10 years ago. In numerous places in the AES site you find statements like: it is “well understood that the listener envelopment (I hate that word) is an essential component of good concert hall acoustics”. Or “The audio engineering community has long determined that multi-channel is superior in the recreation of the concert hall experience in the home”. The debates have not been two channel vs. multi-channel, but instead, what multi-channel configuration works best.
I’m not at all wedded to the paradigm that 5.0 or 5.1 are the best multi-channel configurations. Some of the more interesting that I have seen, including what I have seen at AES include the use no center channel with multiple speakers forming a semi circle arc around the front and sides. There are dozens of other schemes out there.
Also, of interest is that while most recording studios are equipped to handle just stereo recordings the vast (more than 80 percent, especially the major labels) number of commercial releases are actually recorded in multi-channel even if they are released as stereo because CD is restricted to two channels. The chances are fairly great that many of the recent recordings you have purchased were originally recorded in multi-channel and better reflect the artistic *intent* of the recording group and recording engineers.
In some respects this is what happened at the dawn of stereo. Back around 1953-54 stereo recordings (including a wealth of 3 channel) were made….but few actually made it out of the studio to the public. It was not until a decade or more later that stereo began to supplant monural (with many mono guys kickin’ and screamin’ to hold on to the “superior” mono format.
Likewise, today there are many recordings, originally recorded in multi-channel but released only in stereo, that are “born again” as newly released multi-channel SACDs sometimes 30 and 40 years later. As I mentioned in a previous post I have a fair number of classical and non-classical recordings that fit exactly this scenario. The multi-channel content (the stereo is also on the disc for direct comparison) is absolutely the bomb. It’s like the shackles have been ripped off and the *real* performances are allowed to shine through for the very first time. I gotta think that if Mark Knofler, or David Gilmour, or Maurice White (Earth, Wind, and Fire) were to tell you that some of their greatest recordings are for the first time able to be heard in multi-channel the way they were *intended* to be heard in the first place that this must get you attention. (No matter whether or not you like these particular artists or not; I think you get my point). Well, guest what? That is *exactly* what they have said. It seems to me that as a music lover, although not necessarily as an audiophile, this is an offer that must deeply move you. It sure the hell moves me and is a paramount reason why hi- rez, hi-end, multi-channel is not optional.
Again not proselytizing....just some other points of interest
I have to say this from time to time....I in *no way* compromised my *excellent* two channel system to accommodate multi-channel. I do fully understand most would be unable to accomplish this.
Robert C. Lang
This is an example of a fundamental misunderstanding of the audio reproduction: "Therefore, any good audiophile room using a superb 2 ch system will provide near the exact same experience as most live concerts because they share the exact same attributes."
They do not share the same attributes because two-channel fails to provide the spatial characteristics (as well as the tonal characteristics) of the ambiance of the original performance site.
"... it's always sounded "fake" to me" equals "Bah, humbug," not evidence.
> > They do not share the same attributes because two-channel fails to provide the spatial characteristics (as well as the tonal characteristics) of the ambiance of the original performance site. < <
no, you misinterpreted my original post ... they (venue & room) share the same attributes in that both the venue and the room have reflections issues related to the music coming from the front of the stage. Does not mean that the spatial characteristics of the recorded venue are re-captured or duplicated via a 2 ch system (or even a MC system for that matter) with any such room (every room, like every venue would be different).
Please re-read my posts.
I am with Kal and Robert on this.
Thanks for proving further insight into the basis for your distorted views on the nature of sound, acoustics and recordings. You have made it clear that you lack an accurate understanding . You are not going to get that by arguing defensively for your sophomoric point of view. Listening to people with much more experience, like Kal and Robert, might help.
Also, listening to a wider range of live music, systems and recording might help too. But, so far, you have also have asserted that CD's sound better than SACD's, that CD's are indistinguishable from vinyl, and that you can get a good sense of recorded vs. live sound from rock concerts. You claim to have listened to classical recordings, but avoided the question of whether you have also attended live classical concerts to know what they are supposed to sound like. You also claim that your room can sucessfully recreate the sound of a live performance venue in stereo. You further claim that you have heard Mch - with what systems and recordings we don't know - and imply that you now know all about it, including that surround sound is faked, which may be true of many rock recordings, but not classical ones. As I said often before, it is not about the music, it is merely about the sound vs. a live standard, the recording venues and engineering practices. But, you assert that is classical snobbery and that those differences do not matter.
As always, you are entitled to your opinions. The rest of us will have to decide whether they have any credibility or usefulness. So far, I do not think you have a good track record.
> > But, so far, you have also have asserted that CD's sound better than SACD's, that CD's are indistinguishable from vinyl, and that you can get a good sense of recorded vs. live sound from rock concerts. < <
I never said any of those items on an absolute level, in fact all you've done is read snippets, made general assumptions ... and came to the wrong conclusions.
> > But, you assert that is classical snobbery and that those differences do not matter. < <
No, no "assertion" ... simply ... I questioned snobbery.
Honestly, you really need to work on your comprehension skills.
> > Thanks for proving further insight into the basis for your distorted views on the nature of sound, acoustics and recordings. You have made it clear that you lack an accurate understanding . < <
"they (venue & room) share the same attributes in that both the venue and the room have reflections issues related to the music coming from the front of the stage. "
Right but that is only a portion of the entire picture. We do not listen only to signals impinging on us from the front. When you begin to consider the contribution of the listening room, the differences grow considerably.
> > Right but that is only a portion of the entire picture. We do not listen only to signals impinging on us from the front. When you begin to consider the contribution of the listening room, the differences grow considerably. < <
Well, at least YOU understood my meaning.
Well, ... obviously sound travels ... and obviously we do not listen only from the front ... and I've already mentioned that reflections make rooms and venue sounds quite different ... so therefore their "contributions" would influence each accordingly ... hence the same attributes.
".... and I've already mentioned that reflections make rooms and venue sounds quite different ... so therefore their "contributions" would influence each accordingly ... hence the same attributes."
I think I get what you mean but I believe it is only tenuously relevant. You seem to be saying that they would have the same parameters, e.g., a direct sound (relatively similar) and a site-dependent ambiance (decidedly not the same). That is like saying that a red apple and a green apple have the same attributes (OK) without acknowledging how they differ in the value of one of the significant attributes (color).
The ambiance of the original performance site, contained on the recording and improperly conflated into the direct sound, would, on playback, be added to the ambiance contributed by the listening room which is irrelevant to the performance. This imposes a difference which can be ameliorated with multichannel recording and suitable acoustical treatment in the listening room.
I think this is enough logic-jousting for me on this topic.
> > This imposes a difference which can be ameliorated with multichannel recording and suitable acoustical treatment in the listening room. < <
Matter of perspective, based on my experience, you're still quite a distance from recreating that actual "live" venue within the confines of your room, and that alone is not what I'm after ... but if THAT aspect of reproduction is ones main goal, well ...
> > I think this is enough logic-jousting for me on this topic. < <
Yes, no sound system or format is perfect. None of us has proclaimed that to be true. But, some are better than others. I do not think you are denying that, which is self evident. And, from a lot of experience with both stereo and Mch reproduction, several of us here and elsewhere consider Mch reproduction to be quite a significant leap in the direction of more closely capturing the sound, and hence, the musical experience of the real thing live.
Remember, our Mch systems also play in stereo, too. So we can and have done our own careful comparisons of Mch vs. stereo. For Robert, Kal and I, that is measured, admitedly imperfectly and subjectively, against our considerable live concert going experience with classical music, sometimes with the same orchestras in the same halls as the recordings. Occasionally, we were there when a recording was made live before an audience. At least, I have had that experience on several occasions. And, all that factors into our collective assessment, which greatly favors Mch over stereo in terms of delivering an obviously better sonic replica of the live experience.
As I said, over and over, it it not about the music genre. I respect rock and its creative spirit. And, I have been to more rock concerts than you might expect in both large and smaller venue situations. But, the simple, verifiable fact is there are many, many more successful Mch recordings in the classical genre than there are in any other. I honestly do not think that Mch can be fully appreciated without using classical music and live concert experience with it as a basis for comparison. But, those who prefer other musical genres may well prefer stereo, as there is a very limited set of recordings and live listening opportunities under decent acoustic conditions in those genres to be able to appreciate Mch's sonic capabilities. The genres differ considerably in the technical possibilities and goals of sound engineers to capture a certain sonic experience.
So, if you have truly signed off, I wish you well and happy listening with the music and sound you prefer.
> > Remember, our Mch systems also play in stereo, too. < <
Well, that's like claiming that a Ford Exploder is a great rear powered vehicle in 2w drive ... AND ... it's even better as a 4x4.
I've done the comparison ... despite what you claim ... a finely tuned, highly refined, dedicated 2ch system offers distinct advantages over the vast majority of MC/HT systems in 2ch mode.
> > Occasionally, we were there when a recording was made live before an audience. At least, I have had that experience on several occasions. And, all that factors into our collective assessment, which greatly favors Mch over stereo in terms of delivering an obviously better sonic replica of the live experience. < <
Nice, a requirement that I fully understand and appreciate.
That said, my need for recreating all the details of a specific venue are ONLY equal to the limited amount of software which I possess that were recorded in such proper fashion. The majority of my software does not qualify. But as a true audiophile, certainly, I favor software that was recorded well/live ... and I wish to recreate that event within the confines of my room. As far as the rest of my software, my "tuned" room/environment will supply it's own qualities, much like the Rogers Centre in Toronto supplied Roger Waters his own ... ummm ... "ambiance". (please don't assume I'm claiming that my room = the Rogers Centre)
Hells, bells, why would I want to recreate that specific event within my room, when I can simply play my best-mastered The Wall ... and melt into a pseudo live performance - one that my system provides on a routine basis.
> > As I said, over and over, it it not about the music genre. I respect rock and its creative spirit. And, I have been to more rock concerts than you might expect in both large and smaller venue situations. But, the simple, verifiable fact is there are many, many more successful Mch recordings in the classical genre than there are in any other. < <
Fine, then simply state that next time. Instead, you attempted to minimize my musical taste (of which you were not truly aware) simply as a tool to trump my experiences.
> > But, those who prefer other musical genres may well prefer stereo, as there is a very limited set of recordings and live listening opportunities under decent acoustic conditions in those genres to be able to appreciate Mch's sonic capabilities. The genres differ considerably in the technical possibilities and goals of sound engineers to capture a certain sonic experience. < <
Exactly, as I stated above ... but please note: any highly refined system that offers specific superior attributes, based on any musical genre, such as R&R, will also exhibit those same advantages with other forms of music.
Look, the thing is ... I'd much rather own a great highly refined 2ch system than own a very good off-the-shelf MC system ... but that's just me(*).
((*) well, in the perfect tb1 world, I'd own both)
TBone says, "Exactly, as I stated above ... but please note: any highly refined system that offers specific superior attributes, based on any musical genre, such as R&R, will also exhibit those same advantages with other forms of music"
Never having been to a live R&R concert in a hay field/similar environment or listening to a band through a PA system, I will never know about reproducing those sonic characteristics in my living room. I suppose stereo is more than adequate since there is no back/side of a hall to reflect anything (sort of like an anechoic chamber (SMILE)).
Stereo will never accurately reproduce multiple room acoustics (real four walls/ceiling) IMHO. Regards. Peace.
> > Never having been to a live R&R concert in a hay field/similar environment... < <
Actually, I have been to outdoor concerts (without walls) but that's neither here nor there ... especially considering that the quote you used above was taken completely out of context (I wasn't referencing acoustics).
But I left it since there is at least one unique thought.
BTW: I agree with you, but I am not impartial.
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
> > But I left it since there is at least one unique thought. < <
Ed, although we are very different audiophiles, you are just as "unique" as I.
No need for apology.
I have made similar arguments in this forum for years. Well done 2 channel is well done two channel. It is hamstrung by the limitations and restrictions of 50 year old technology which has been maxed out for a couple of decades. We can do better.
Robert C. Lang
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: