|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
180.255.248.169
In Reply to: RE: Looking for inmate opinions about multichannel posted by Doktor Brahms on September 21, 2016 at 10:09:33
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!
Follow Ups:
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.
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: