|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
195.99.58.48
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 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.
Follow Ups:
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
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: