|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.194.65.145
My music system is stereo only, but I've always been intrigued by the prospect of multichannel, especially since I already have a substantial collection of SACDs. Problem is, there's no good way to "test drive" a multichannel system in one's home. The conversion would be dramatic (and probably fairly expensive), and what if I hate the results?
(BTW, I've never had the opportunity to hear a demo of a serious multichannel rig, either at a dealer or in anyone's home. Is there a dealer in the Atlanta area that can demo discrete multichannel discs?)
So I'm curious to hear from other classical music lovers who have made the transition to multichannel. Did it transform the listening experience? Did you dislike it to the point where you went back to stereo?
Also, I'd be curious to hear opinions about multichannel sound synthesized from two channel recording, such as Yamaha's DSP soundfield modes or NAD's music modes. Are any of them worthwhile, or do they sound too phony to bother with?
Thanks for any input you care to provide.
Follow Ups:
I have a very great deal of respect for the opinions of Kal Robinson and his reply to your question needs careful reading. He said "It transformed my views of what is satisfying" For me that is it in a nutshell. Moving from 2 to 5 channels may provide a more 'atmospheric' and for some 'satisfying' listening experience but will not improve the fidelity of any system, how can it? Five channels of poor quality information cannot give more insight of tonal accuracy or precision to a musical presentation than Two.
I am lucky enough to have a very high end stereo system because it matters to me that I hear every instrument in its place and with highly accurate tonality and colours and the nuances and idiosyncrasies of individual players. Good quality stereo will create it's own hall effect in your listening room if properly set up and the room is carefully 'tuned' to your system. I never cease to be amazed by sounds off stage right or left that seem to originate from outside the system itself from a good stereo recording.
As a weekly concert attender, making subconscious aural comparisons of what you hear live and what you hear in your listening room becomes almost unavoidable. It can drive you crazy and as many on here will attest it can become 'unlistenable too'. As an extreme example, who in their right mind would listen to classical music on an MP3 player?
What you have to ask yourself is "Why change?" if you are mostly interested in The Music rather than the Technology, it is better to invest your money in better stereo equipment and enjoy the higher quality on offer than just briefly bask in the 'wow' factor of some artificial room filling effects.
Several thoughts. One is it seems clear to me that you have not heard a quality Mch system properly set up upon which to base your beliefs.
"Five channels of poor quality information cannot give more insight of tonal accuracy or precision than Two."
It is possible to infer from this that Mch recordings are somehow are of poorer quality than stereo recordings. But, since Mch is invariably in hi rez, that inference would, of course, be false. And, many Mch recordings are just different mixes/masterings of the same mike feeds as their hi rez stereo equivalents.
I do subscribe to the imperfect information theory that all recordings are imperfect in capturing all the information one hears live. But, it is also clear that 5 or more channels of information relayed to your listening room conveys several times more of the information from the live event than two. That is particularly true of spatial information, as Kal mentioned.
It has been shown empirically many times that most listeners in the hall hear a 360 degree sound field consisting of direct and reflected sound. Stereo is capable of reproducing about 60 degrees or so of the frontal sound field, occasionally slightly more as you suggest outside that arc. But, the notion that your room can resynthesize the diffuse sound field of the hall's reflections from just two channels is a fallacy going back to the Bose 901 speakers. I also say that having been unconvinced by coincident pair Blumlein, etc. stereo recordings, which require an unusual speaker layout and which have been unsuccessful commercially for many decades.
Why do you maintain that properly done Mch recordings produce nothing but a "'wow' factor of some artificial room filling effects"? Discretely recorded hi rez Mch is no more artificial sounding than stereo. Actually, it is less so IMHO, which gets back to my opening paragraph. What have you actually listened to that gives you this belief? Granted, there are artificial synthesis systems that do what you say from stereo recordings. Some listeners like those, but I do not, and I do not advocate for them.
The proof, as always, is in the listening. I have a circle of close friends, all with decades of experience with stereo in all media formats, all with very fine and costly systems, who agree that Mch comes closest to accurately reproducing the live concert event. I have also heard many, many very costly stereos. Some of those were heard with reviewer friends and inspired rave published reviews. But, no stereo I have heard equals high quality Mch. To me, it is not close.
I have heard Shawn Murphys surround system at CES
All Wilson speakers all driven by Krell Equipment
It was spectacular playng an Atlas rocket launch and other sound effects. When they switched to pop music it was really exciting. Finally they played some classical music and it was inferior to my 2 channel Maggie system. As you say it was "not even close". Mr. Murphy is one of the best film music recording engineers
Alan.
Not sure that proves anything. Rarely have I been impressed with demos at shows especially the few multichannel ones. Nonetheless, movie music is highly processed and quite different from music recorded and mastered to reproduce a real musical event/performance.
Mine NEVER sounds unnatural when playing music. As far as I can recall, I've never heard a discrete-multichannel recording sound even just average; they all sound at least very good and some are simply the best-ever reproductions of an orchestra in a concert hall.
Try to find 'Grieg Dvorak Elgar', TELARC SACD #SACD-60623, and pay particular attention to the Elgar Serenade for Strings o. 20. It is simply the very finest recording of a (small, in this case) orchestra in a hall I've ever heard. Its natural tonality, spaciousness, and TRANSPARENCY are unparalleled. It truly makes me feel as if I'm in the hall with these 30-or-so musicians, with NOTHING between me and them but maybe 20 feet of air.
And I too listen to LOTS of real music, orchestral and chamber, and have for about 50 years.
As for quality of 2- v. MC systems, one never gets excellence from either without lots of time and (relatively) lots of money. The 2-channel portion of my MC system sounds EXCELLENT, and it sounds even better playing in 5-channel.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
"(relatively) lots of money" The system I heard came in at $375,000
Alan
Obviously the Classical music chosen was not well recorded, what was it ?
I wonder if Rammiepie ( SACD.net) will post on this Forum, at least he will appreciate a system costing $375,000 for him only very expensive components sound any good .
Edits: 10/01/16 10/01/16
You only say obviously because it supports your opinion. Don't remember the exact recordings but they were on the Harmonia Mundi label
Alan
A Stereophile reviewer , Penguin & other posters on this thread do not agree with you.
Thanks for your comments and I do agree that the performance standards for the components and setup are the same. I disagree with your statement/question that multichannel "will not improve the fidelity of any system, how can it?"
Fidelity has many parameters. Considering the spatial domain only, the simulation of the "own hall effect in your listening room" created by stereo relies heavily on the acoustical contributions of the individual listening room. That simulation may be convincing but it cannot be accurate since it will be different in every good stereo setup.
The way in which good multichannel improves the fidelity over good stereo is in the spatial domain by substantially replacing the hall effect of your listening room with that of the performance space.
Satisfaction, of course, is in the mind of the listener.
I completely agree with Kal. Hired Fox has obviously not heard a high quality properly set up mch system. If he has only heard set ups by Ken Ishiwata (Marantz) & by Eric Kingdon (Sony) then his post partially makes sense, how these two so-called experts can produce such poor quality unlistenable demos is beyond me. When I tell them that I found the sound unacceptable they have plenty of excuses, first being room acoustics etc.
Edits: 09/29/16 10/01/16
I love hearing multi-channel if it doesn't affect 2-ch playback.
Unfortunately it means having to remove all participating m-ch equipments (both speakers and electronics in excess of the stereo system) out of the room when listening to just 2-ch system.
Any unused speakers in close proximity to the front 2 speakers can affect their soundstaging projection.
Don't ask me the theory behind this.
Simply do a test - put a single speaker nearby. You might try just a 8" woofer driver instead of the whole box if you wish not to have issue with additional reflections.
Try listening with the speaker driver's inputs open(1) and shorted(2), with its inputs connected to another amplifier but the amp being switched off(3) with and with the driver (and the second amp) removed from the room(4)
The choice of player is important:
Always remove the disc and refresh the player before playing the test track (best is if the test track is the first track)
For an oppo based transport/player, make sure the auto play mode is deactivated.
Always ensure the disc is removed before powering down and powering up again.
Do not use the remote.
After powering up, let the transport/player fully settle before opening the tray and inserting the disc. Then close the tray using the front panel buttons.
Do not use the remote.
Let the transport/player read the top and settle.
Then press play button on the front panel to play track one
Do not use remote. Everytime infrared signals is received at the destination sensor, it can disrupt the transport/player's power supply momentarily, leading to audible interference to the soundstaging projection.
Using this method to play a disc on an oppo will provide opened and spacious soundstaging.
But it will only sound like this for the first track.
Subsequent tracks will not sound like this.
That is the main reason why I do not recommend using oppo based transports/players.
There is no magnetic interference by additional Mch speakers that affects stereo playback. It is a myth with no proof either theoretical or empirical. There is insufficient stray magnetism from most speakers in a Mch setup, given the distance separating them. Mch speakers should never be "in close proximity" to the main front channels used for stereo.
Decades ago, Ivor Tiefenbrunn of Linn theorized that unused, additional speakers in the room affected playback, as in showrooms. But, that was based on the unused speaker drivers absorbing acoustic energy in the room via induced movement of their drivers, not magnetic interference. However, if the unused speakers are shunted - shorted across + and - terminals - the speaker drivers cannot move and they cannot absorb acoustic energy via driver movement any more than any other object in the room. It is elementary physics. Sure, any objects in the room might possibly affect room acoustics somewhat, whether they be unused speakers or ironing boards or potted plants. Careful about that watch on your wrist or the clothes you wear when listening. They might affect room acoustics, too.
If it is a concern though, connecting unused speakers to an amp in most cases accomplishes the same electrical shunt, though that may require that the amp be powered on even if delivering no signal.
Magnetic interference by stray magnetism from speakers caused a video issue only with old CRT displays because the sensitive CRT raster scan was magnetically controlled, But, that was true only if the speakers were magnetically unshielded and if they were placed in very close proximity to the CRT, as in right next to it. Usually, a foot or two of separation eliminated the problem. Modern video displays have no such problem.
So, this whole thing is like chasing unicorns. Stereo playback is perfectly fine even with Mch equipment in the same room.
Of course most people who have multi channel systems usually have a tv in the room which can effect sound. Cover the tv with a blanket to avoid this problem I have multi channel in a seperate room from my 2 channel system. I listen to a lot of classical music and do not like multichannel. The proble partly is because most mch disks (SACD) have not been done very well. It can be fun but not very realistic. If home theater did not exist mch would be a dead issue. Synthesized mch can again be fun but not very realistic sounding. Spend the money on improving your 2 channel system
Alan
I made the point in another post. But, classical music recording natively done in hi rez discrete Mch and intended for hi rez Mch media differs greatly from other genres. Many non-classical Mch releases are remastered, repanned engineering creations from analog or RBCD rez studio originals. In general, they lack a realistic sense of spatial accuracy, since that is not a priority in studio recordings, starting with mike and performer positioning. I am sure there are individual exceptions, including some jazz and rock or pop done in a live club setting.
Note that I am not snobbishly putting down anyone's music genre preferences. I am just describing typical engineering approaches.
These are among the reasons that classical albums hugely outnumber non-classical in Mch. I find classical Mch typically quite high in sound quality. To me, it is greatly preferable to stereo, and I prefer to use no artificial Mch enhancement schemes. Also, as I said before, I doubt that I would be much interested in Mch if my primary interest were not classical music.
Agreed, Mch music would be dead if it were not for HT. Fortunately, Mch HT is a large, successful commercial business that has also helped enable the move toward hi rez audio. It is not going away.
I personally only got into hi rez and Mch about 9 years ago with the advent of universal players capable of BD and SACD playback together with HT processors - AVRs and prepros - that supported those formats in hirez for both music and video.
However, today I have no HT-specific equipment in my system. I simply have a PC feeding a Mch DAC as well as my TV monitor, together with library/ player software on the PC. I also have thousands of classical Mch recordings in my library from which to choose.
Curious -- what DAC are you using?
There are many poor CD,s but far less poor SACDs A well recorded CD can sound almost as good as a well recorded SACD. However a well recorded mch SACD beats a well recorded CD any time. To put a blanket over the TV is total nonsense.I listen to mainly well recorded Classical. The Penguin Guide to 1000 Finest Classical Recordings states SACD has brought more realism. The back speakers can be very small,even hidden,for their purpose is only to add a subtle ambience to the recording. With small groups of artists this can bring a a subtle but tangible feeling of presence, with large-scale works, especially choral music, the result can be a very thrilling fourth dimension, and one really has the sense of sitting in the Concert Hall itself.
Edits: 09/27/16
a large, hard, reflective surface between the speakers.
Not between speakers BEHIND the speakers, Makes not the slightest difference in my room. best put blanket or carpet on rear wall.
My mch setup in no way affects my 2 -ch playback. I much prefer Sony to OPPO for both SQ & picture.
Edits: 09/24/16
I have a 4.2 / 2.0 multichannel / stereo transformable system in my living room. It is a m-ch system that can certainly show up any stereo laggards the error of their ways.
Front and back speakers are identical. And I've chosen not to have centre speaker for very specific reasons. When I'm not listening to m-ch, both pieces of subs are removed from the room, and the 2 rear speakers' positive and negative terminals are shorted to avoid any unnecessary magnetic fields interference. Its the reason why i opted not to have set up the centre channel. It is guaranteed your stereo sound reproduction will suffer merely by having a strong magnetic field presence in that space between your 2 front speakers!
One secret to having better seamless integration between front and rear channels is to have the rears positioned at 110 degree, but instead of them aiming at the listening ears in the sweet spot, they should be pointed more towards the front, focal point being slightly in front of the listener. This way i get holographic soundstage height that extend close to the ceiling with some m-ch music and movie recordings.
Yes, m-ch done well is a joy to savour!
I do not agree in most all respects. First, the center channel is important in conveying the Mch image. That is just as true for music as it is with HT. Listening to any of the old 3.0 recordings from RCA or Mercury vs. their 2.0 equivalents from the same SACD remaster makes this quite obvious.
Phantom imaging of the center channel, as in 4.0, is simply inferior. In discrete Mch recordings, there is unique information captured by mikes at the center that is not adequately reproduced via phantom imaging. And, most 4.0 remasters of quad-era music suffer from a hole in the middle effect compared to modern 5.0/.1 recordings.
I also do not think disconnecting or shunting unused channels is at all necessary when listening to stereo via a Mch system. Suffient shunt of the center and surround speakers occurs in stereo listening by virtue of their connection to their respective amps, particularly if they are left on in stereo listening. So, I think this notion is a wild goose chase based on completely mythological and unproven ideas.
"Listening to any of the old 3.0 recordings from RCA or Mercury vs. their 2.0 equivalents from the same SACD remaster makes this quite obvious."
The center channel was recorded to master mono recordings of the same session as the stereo.Mercury and rca never meant for all 3 channels to be listened to. If you do the center channel should be dropped down 6db. This is what they did when they mixed the 3 track to 2 track. Another reason they did 3 tracks was that the RCA recorder they used had three tracks. They easily could have accomplished the same quality using 3 mikes mixed down to 2 channels
Alan
I believe this issue was already addressed in the remastering of RCA and Mercury 3.0 SACDs. They sound better to my ears than the 2.0 counterparts on the same SACD. I do not perceive a center channel loudness issue. Nor, have I seen it in channel level meters.
The 3channel master tapes are not simply transferred to DSD but are re-mastered. Part of that process is proper adjustment of the levels.
I went on a multichannel SACD & DVD-A buying binge a decade or so ago, but ultimately decided that for equal money, I could get more satisfying sound by putting it into 2 channels. I have the room to accomodate a good mch rig, but the cost of multichannel is on another level.
In my opinion, multichannel is the way to do if:
1. You mostly listen to modern classical recordings
2. You have a relatively large room where you can place the speakers in the same horizontal plane at roughly the correct angles relative to the listening position. The distance to each speaker can vary assuming you have distance correction, but should not vary dramatically e.g. one speaker 4 ft. away and the rest > 8 ft.
3. As a listener, you value a bigger spatial presentation and feeling of being 'there' in the hall more than other sonic attributes. Or money is no object so you don't have to compromise.
As a listener, you value spatial presentation and feeling of being 'there' in the hall as much as other sonic attributes.
I prefer having the ability to enjoy both formats. Obviously multichannel serves two purposes for movies and music, and I value the full bodied, immersive, dynamic, captivating listening experience tremendously. Hellicoptors rotors spinning, floating overhead with side to side movement mirroring the picture on screen as action develops all around, this taken from the Blu-ray movie Predator. The sound of the forest all around the actors as a scene develops, immersive, lifelike, captivating.
I'll apply the above annalagy to multichannel music based material sacds, DVD audio or DVD and Blu-ray concerts.Take Fiona Joy Hawkins Blue dream sacd hybrid multichannel album. Beautifully mastered music that touches the soul, one continuous flow. Listening to this disc is every bit as captivating as the above statements minus the video yet addressing and cultivating different emotional responses for different times, it's all based on MY state of mind.
That being said the multichannel format has quality music recordings you just have to search them out, David Chesky recordings come to mind for classical. . I also enjoy many of the three channel rca classical recordings from the late 50s, not really a fan of anything other than the way in which it's been originally recorded.
I believe for that reason stereo will always have a place in my integrated system. Johnny Hartman with John Coltrane playing his saxaphone to those barritone vocals, or take the early rock years like Bobby Vinton's blue velvet as well as the whole classic rock era and the music from 1990s based Mazzy Star or Cowboy Junkies. Lucinda Williams has great concert Blu-ray discs done in multichannel as well as vinyl stereo, Bill frisells vast stereo catalogue as well as Tom Waits, such stuff like Closing Time on vinyl. You see its all about the music or/ and movies and what's important to you.
I, like Jeffrybeahr, have a Conrad Johnson met1 along with a oppo 105 and Plinius class a ss amplifiers that are IMO paramount to my systems performance yet I also have a Plinius M8 stereo pre-amp that's just as vital to stereo listening as my Conrad Johnson Met 1 is to my multichannel. Best of both worlds.
I hope this has been of help, and great comments from posters below.
Best of luck in your quest.
Regards,
/// Tim W. ///
Going Mch, which I did almost 9 years ago was absolutely, without question and by far the most significant and enjoyable sonic upgrade I have ever done. It changed my life in this audio and music hobby like nothing else. I was convinced in 30 seconds.
I am a classical music nut who goes to many live concerts each year. Nothing comes remotely closer to the sound of live music than hi rez, discretely recorded Mch. For those not into classical music, you have my sympathy. There are just not enough quality Mch recordings in rock, jazz, etc. to justify the medium, sadly.
But, I have over 3,000 discs, mostly classical Mch and I have never been happier. Not even close. I almost never listen to stereo anymore, and I prefer not to use stereo-Mch synthesizers. But, some of my friends like that with stereo, though they prefer discrete Mch.
I think there has got to be a dealer, probably many in your area whose HT setup will play SACDs. That might be a start for you. However, those setups might favor video over audio in subtle ways, and might not deliver the ultimate Mch music experience. I would say that a key thing is to find a 5.1 system where the surround speakers are behind your shoulders rather than straight to the sides. The ideal angular configuration is 0, +-30, +-110 degrees from the sweet spot. Those angles are not absolutely crucial, but the closer you get to them, the better the experience.
And, there is a long list of other dos and don'ts for Mch. It is not complicated, but there is not good documentation nor a good user manual for Mch music anywhere. There are enough of us here to help you, though, Kal included. So, if you get beyond the tire kicking phase and you want to know more, let us know. I will be happy to compile my list of things to think about, and others cam chime in, if you want to start getting serious.
How come those who love to be surrounded by sound are fine watching a flat 2 dimensional image. I would think there would be a push for something like cinerama
Alan
But 3D still requires glasses and my screen is as wide as the throw length permits.
I'm also stuck in two channel world. Can't say I'm happy about any of it. In fact, having heard some of Wendell Diller's compelling three-channel demos, most recently at THE, two-channel doesn't sound right to me anymore -- there's a big difference between the ethereal sound of the phantom image with its tonal distortion and the solidity conferred by a center speaker.
And concert hall recordings have never sounded right to me in two channel. With a good setup, the sense of imaging and depth is impressive, but it's like listening through a window. I can get much the same "hi fi" effect by cupping my ears in a concert hall. By the time you're a few rows back in a concert hall, you're in the far field and more than half of what you hear is reflected sound. Two channel just can't reproduce that -- it's fine for studio pop but I find it doesn't sound right for larger scale acoustical venues.
Guess you missed my point
Sound makes no images either
Alan
I predicted that 3D TV would fail, can not see any point for 4K either.
4K allows you to use a screen that subtends a larger part of your field of view. There's no advantage if you're watching at a normal viewing distance on say a 55" monitor, but with a larger display, you'll definitely see it.
3D will eventually happen but not until they start selling autostereoscopic displays -- I don't think most people are going to want to wear glasses for casual TV watching.
I listen to music. I don't really care about images, video, etc..
If you have a MC disc player and have two stereo systems at home you can hook up your secondary system to the MC player for the real channels and try a real 4 channel setup and see if you like it.
Not the real thing but awfully close in giving you, in your own music room, a taste of MC audio.
And, before anyone opens fire let me point out that with a setup like this you will have to struggle to deal with two independent volume controls but it is worth the hassle just to see if the resulting 4 channel audio makes any difference and worth the $$$ to get into.
Vahe
Yes, but it is fraught with possible problems due to volume mismatches. It might easily generate an unnecessarily negative opinion, because it is easy to screw up the sound.
It is important to calibrate a Mch system for equal volume all around on test tones. But, you will have a hard time keeping this in synch as volume adjustments are made on two systems to deal with program differences. Maybe, if both systems have a digital volume readout, you can calibrate the two systems more or less together in terms of relative dB difference.
I know some have tried this. One was Robert E. Greene who writes for TAS. I tried to tell him he was getting a totally wrong impression of Mch, which he certainly was, because he was messing with the approach you described. He got defensive and tossed me out of his forum for trying to help him see the error of his ways.
IMO it is total nonsense to have same volume from rear speakers as from the front. It is best to start off with equal volume from all speakers and then adjust rear speakers to suit your listening environment. Furthermore if using floorstanding speakers it is not very practical and unnecessary to have 5 speakers the same size.
My rear speakers and centre speaker are much smaller than front ones. rear speakers are at half volume level of the front ones. MCH SACD set up as I have described is excellent provided of course the recordings are first class. Economically buy a good mid price AVR that has a pre-out which can be connected to your stereo amp for front L & R speakers the receiver takes care of remaining speakers.
Edits: 09/23/16 09/23/16
Agreed. Although many authorities... will theorize volume levels, speaker size and settings ultimately you have to do what fits your budget and room layout/size accordingly for YOUR tastes. The guidelines are great tools for starters and perhaps some never see a need to change anything but I've always adjusted levels.
For instance my center is always a little higher than my mains, and surrounds are slightly lower than my mains, speakers set to full range.
And believe me when I say these are correlations that tie in well with both movies and music!
For me it was very important to have the largest center and surrounds I could get as I prefer to get the 3 subs crossover well below the recommended settings of 80 htz. as I firmly believe that their is audible mid-range information at that level. So full range speakers all around, for my tastes.
IMO you are also correct in having Pre-outs on the avr, if ones ever going to go the upgrade path it's a must! Also a very affordable way to test the waters and entertain going further.
When done to one's own satisfaction multichannel can be very rewarding, satisfyingly lifelike.
Regards,
/// Tim W. ///
I agree for music & HT centre channel should be slightly higher than main front speakers. I have never found it necessary to get involved with subs as I use excellent transmission line speakers that give adequate bass for me.
Edits: 09/24/16
I still think that it is something worth trying, the OP is primarily into classical and most high rez MC classical recordings avoid aggressive mixes, the rear channels are primarily for ambience and should to be just barely audible, what is so difficult in setting up a 4 channel setup just for MC demo?
Vahe
Besides lacking a master volume control, the setup you describe requires that the main and surround speakers be equidistant from the listener. That may be tough to do in most listening rooms. Otherwise strange artifacts occur.
Robt. E. Greene, again from my previous post, described hearing a second "little orchestra" in the rear. Obviously the timing of the image was messed up because there is no speaker distance correction with the two stereo system setup he was using. To him, that sounded terrible. He blamed the recording and Mch in general. But, it was a simple system setup issue that he did not understand, PhD in Math and Applied Acoustics though he is.
I know you mean well, but in dealing with someone who does not know a few basic, not so obvious fundamentals of Mch sound setup, I think it is nowhere as easy as you think. It is asking for trouble. It is not complicated, but to someone who understands only stereo, there are a few addition considerations they never thought of. That is epecially dangerous when you have someone like REG, above, who thinks he knows. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Best to hear some music on a Mch video setup at a dealership, where most common issues have been addressed.
"Best to hear some music on a Mch video setup at a dealership, where most common issues have been addressed."
I agree with the above but only if we are into pop & rock, for classical absolutely no way, a state of art HT with its MC audio is set up to impress, big boom booms, subterranean rattles that will get you dizzy. I have never experienced a HT music system that would work with classical.
With this i rest my case.
Vahe
Barely audible, in most cases, but that makes the level setting quite critical. You can fool with it by using uncoordinated components but it does require a lot of care.
It began for me in the late 70's with the good, old Hafler ambience extraction circuit which extracted an ambient rear channel signal by subtracting the L & R channels. Once I implemented that in my system, the increase in spatial aspects was so dramatic that I never went back to simple two-channel playback. I scrapped the Hafler approach years ago and now use a simple, modern AVR as a secondary amp that I feed the standard stereo signal from my preamp and set to surround mode to feed the two rear speakers. The AVR basically does what the Hafler circuit did (extracts the L-R signal) and amplifies it for the rear speakers. I have independent volume control of the rears and control of the delay time so I can set the effect to optimize the soundstage for any given stereo program. This approach has worked so well for me that I've never made the move to a discreet multi-channel system. The advantage is that it works with my very large stereo library of recordings as well as downloaded stereo files. I really have no desire to move to discreet m-ch since I get some much realism from this system.
I do agree, though, that a properly set-up discreet m-ch system is the best way to experience the advantages if one is starting from ground zero. Good luck!
I seldom listen in multi-channel. Some of the classical ones are pretty good but classical only makes up 10-15% of what I listen to. In a secondary system, I have some multi-channel DSD files I'll play a couple of times a year with an Oppo. So much depends on what you listen to. I can live without multi-channel but it may not be the same for everyone.
. . . much of my listening is still two-channel, just because the source material is two-channel. And, really, I don't mind two-channel at all. But, all in all, I think that moving to multi-channel is one of the most noticeable improvements one could make to a system. Listening in multi-channel makes music into a bigger, more emotional (and, perhaps paradoxically, more subtle) experience for me, especially in the way that it seems to liberate the music from the speakers compared to two-channel. (FWIW, your mileage may vary, and all that.)
BTW, unlike Kal, I've found some of the synthesized surround modes fun and enjoyable, and there are some that leave the original two-channel signals intact even as they generate the center and rear channels.
...unless that's the only format in which it's available*.I started my MC system decades ago by adding video to my audio system, then a MC processor, more (inexpensive, it turned out) monoamps**, and soon thereafter, built-in, full-range surround speakers in a dedicated room. I now have a much-improved c-j MET1 all-analog, 6-channel, vacuum-tubed preamp that sounds superb in two- and multichannel, excellent left/right-front amps and speakers, an excellent c-j MC poweramp, a humble-but-improved Vandersteen VCC-1 centerchannel speaker, a pair of Rythmik F15HP subwoofers on the back wall, and those same built-in surround speakers.
I don't use the '.1' channel, designating that in my Oppo '105D discplayer to be added to the main-front channels; I run my stereo subwoofers in parallel with the main-front channels.
Unless I were forced by an act of God to live in an 8-by-10-foot cell, I'd never revert to a 2-channel-only system, as MC recordings are LOTS more natural and spacious sounding than two-channel for the large-scale Classical music I love.
My c-j MET1 preamp has an Ambient Recovery Mode for 2-channel sources. When it's adjusted correctly, with the center and surround levels at moderate and low levels, respectively, it adds a touch of spaciousness that's close enough to the quality of MC originals that it's useful. Also, the ARM is excellent at creating a center-dialog channel from stereo TV broadcasts that sounds MUCH better than that dialog in only stereo.
I find that Classical-music lovers who listen to my system love its sounds, but they also seem SO dead set against doing anything to their beloved 2-channel setup that they stick with 2-channel. FWIW, I do NOT believe that one needs five identical speakers for effective MC sound, and I prefer diffuse surround sound rather than locationally specific surround sound.
Perhaps because it's most pervasive, I prefer SACD for MC sound over DVD-As or Blu-ray Audio discs, altho I think there's nothing wrong with the latter format--there's just not much available on it.
If you're ever in Phoenix, you're welcome to hear my system.
--------
* ...just as I don't buy DVDs either, if the source is available in Blu-ray.
** Marantz MA-500s, and I still have some on the retired-equipment shelf.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Edits: 09/26/16
All other things being equal of course, it would be be better to have identical speakers - but I certainly get along fine with my Magnapan and VMPS combo.
I guess I'm a bit less sanguine about SACD's and DSD than you and many other audiophiles are, although I acknowledge that many great DSD recordings exist (mainly Jared's recordings on the Channel Classics label). In any case, I find that, these days, I'm doing more and more downloads of hi-rez multi-channel files as my preferred "method of consumption".
If you're able to set up stereo speakers ideally, IMHO you get a goodly amount of imaging and depth.
Multi-channel takes it to a higher level, but personally, I didn't find it indispensable.
.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
1. Getting a decent demo is well nigh impossible as most dealers have multichannel video/HT setups only. Your best bet is to find some private individual with a MCH music system but, off hand, I know of no such person in Atlanta.
2. I made the transition when I was lucky enough to have Meridian set up a full-bore MCH system in my room for a review. It transformed my views of what is satisfying and I have not looked back.
3. I abjure all modes that synthesize more channels from stereo sources and that includes the Yamaha and NAD options as well as Meridian's (which are somewhat better, IMHO).
I read somewhere a discussion with an early recording engineer, perhaps with RCA's Living Stereo brand.
His point was that 2 channels = bi-naural. To truly listen to stereo recordings you should have 3 channels, to replicate how the recordings were being done.
In my own experiments with HT and music I can hear what's going on. First, there is a midrange loss with stereo speakers vs. a center channel due to head related effects (HRTF). A true center channel sonds more present and with more midrange. Toole wrote about this.
Next, Neo6 has a VERY nice music mode. It's available on Oppo players, so I encourage you to listen for yourself. I find the effects quite enjoyable. It doesn't change imaging as much as make center instruments less dark. If you notice that instruments placed to the sides seem bright, but once in the phantom seem dark, this may be why.
Still, I wouldn't say this is worth a crusade over. :) I would just encourage listeners to try out Neo6 and a center channel.
Also, random thought, an acquaintance brought over a muti-channel SACD, but there was hardly any center channel output at all. Dire Straights I think.
When I was using an HT prepro in my Mch front end, I experimented with a number of Mch from stereo synthesis modes. It had quite a number of them. Like you, I did get the best results with music from Neo:6 over Dolby and a slew of others. Some friends of mine recommend that, too.
I no longer have a prepro in my setup, and the JRiver software I use as a control center instead does not have Neo:6, although it does have JRiver's own stereo-Mch synthesis algorithm. It is quite good, but I just don't use it.
In any case, my bias is to try to hear something as close to what the mastering engineers heard as possible. > > 95% of the time, I listen to discretely recorded Mch. I do that in 5.1 if it is a 5.0 or .1 recording and in 7.1 for a 7.1 recording, again not synthesizing Back channels for 5.0/.1. I do not find 7.1 recommendable over 5.1. It adds little, even for the relatively few 7.1 recordings available, BD videos included. I should have saved my money and just stopped at 5.1 for Mch. Overwhelmingly, most Mch music is on SACD in 5.0/.1 anyway.
For the few 2.0 stereo recordings I listen to, I use 2.1, always using bass management and a sub, except when I listen in pure DSD, which is also rare.
I prefer Dirac room correction and bass management over pure DSD, even though there is a DSD-PCM conversion involved for those capabilities. Speaker distance correction is also not possible in my or most all other systems without DSD-PCM conversion. That is another strike against the supposed "Holy Grail" of pure DSD in my setup for Mch, even though my DAC supports it. No matter, though. I am the happiest I have ever been with the sound of music and video in my home.
Great follow up. :)
See, I wonder if in the old days the engineers were actually listening to 3 speakers in front of them?
Before I was aware of any possible causes, I was becoming aware of a darkened middle, or darkened phantom center. Makes it sound like a ghost story. :-) That is, in a 2 channel setup when you hear an instrument on the side, that same instrument in the center always seems darker. Converseley, instruments to the sides seem more present.
After reading and experimenting, I have become more convinced that the dark middle is a real after effect.
At the same time, I don't think it's worth a crusade over. :) Listen how you'd like to.
Best,
Erik
I do not know all the details, but both Mercury and RCA were recording classical music in the 50's with 3 mikes, including a Center. They were doing this before the standard for the stereo LP was agreed to. But, even after that, LPs were released for a number of years in separate stereo and mono versions. One story is that the center channel feed became the mono version. I tend to doubt that. Another story is that both the stereo and mono versions were mixes from all 3 mike channels.
Yet another story has the companies planning to release their recordings in "3 channel stereo" on mag tape before the stereo LP standard was finalized. It might be true that the only reason stereo as we know it has 2 channels is because that was all they could do on the LP, and the LP won out over mag tape because it was easier and much cheaper to manufacture.
All I know is that SACD remasterings of some of those old recordings are available with 2.0 and 3.0 channels on the same disc. The 3.0 version always sounds better to me.
I also think you raise valid points about the center channel. It makes a very worthwhile, positive difference. Some Mch setups think they can get away with 4.0/.1 playback - a phantom center with a mix of center information going to L and R. But, that never sounds as good to me with music. And, it is often a problem on dialog articulation with video.
"All I know is that SACD remasterings of some of those old recordings are available with 2.0 and 3.0 channels on the same disc. The 3.0 version always sounds better to me."
And for good reason. Regardless of what the original thoughts were for making three channel recordings, using all three to create a modern 3-channel playback medium was done with careful intent. I was fortunate to "sit in" on a bit of that process.
Heh, Yeah. I have quite a bit of experience in movie theaters. When I first considered the idea of a center channel for the home I though it was ridiculous. Motion picture auditoriums were a minimum of 20' wide, and to me the center was to ensure everyone got a good perspective regardless of their seat.
Having experimented with movies and music, I have to say my early theories were bunk. :-) 3 channels is significantly better than 2, but there's no reason to be religious about it.
Best,
Erik
It's been decades since I was involved with psychoacoustics and I have no experience with the recording industry, but true binaural requires listening with headphone to signals obtained with ear-positioned microphones in an artificial head. The effect is eerie. I've only heard this with live signals, but it could be recorded on separate tracks. Probably not something you'd want to do for music.
db
Not my preference, though.
My introduction to multichannel was a Corelli SACD that seems a shame to listen to in stereo, because of the sense of ambience that it captures. Kal has since suggested two more mch Corelli discs that I really enjoy. Kal and I differ on the need for a center channel, but I agree with his eschewing artificially derived mch.
If your stereo amp has pass-through capability, you could try a used moderately priced processor or even AVR for the surround channels to decide if it's worth the investment. I started with the front LR from a Cary Cinema 11a passed through my Parasound JC 2 BP to access a pair of JC 1 monoblocks. The 11a was replaced by a 12 then a Bryston SP3. The 11a is sitting in a closet and available if your interested.
db
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: