 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.9.141.130
In Reply to: Yeah, but it still comes across as an overly expensive two-channel retro posted by Robert C. Lang on March 7, 2007 at 12:36:27:
Robert,What I think is that, since you are in the area, you really need to make the time and come visit me here in Dixon (close to Davis and Sacramento, up 80E).
This will answer many of your questions above.
Other than that, we can say million words here without any real effect or knowledge gain.
Regards,
Alex
Follow Ups:
I would certainly enjoy that as I have enjoyed immensely when half dozen or so inmates have come here over the years to enjoy music. And notwithstanding what I say below I would do so with an open mind (and ears).
And while I most certainly will take you up on your offer and I'm sure I will be deeply impressed with the sound of your audio system it would be difficult (impossible?) for me to parcel out proper credit to your modded decks vis-a-vis to the other (arguably more important components [including room]). And to that end I don't see a proper correlation between me listening to your system and the specific observations/comments I have offered in response to Quint's comments on his modded Esoteric and his system.
And to up the ante on the conundrum, what if your system was configured with comparable components as a two channel/multi-channel system in which your deck was playing some Michael Bishop mixes in which you could directly compare the two-channel mix with the multi-channel mix of the same recording? And that, really, was the point I was making to Quint. You take that two channel modded Esoteric and compare it directly in an otherwise comparable system to the same model multi-channel Esoteric (or better yet a *modded* multi-channel Esoteric) using those Michael Bishop discs and I'm demonstratively convinced based on considerable personal experience in several high end systems that the two channel playback would not standup sonically to the multi-channel versions of the same recordings in coming closer to replicating a live experience. Isn't that what this quest is all about?
One thing that many audiophiles have in common, which is a casualty of their devotion to medium, whether it is vinyl or digital, is that they are so stuck in stereo much like we as a group were so stuck in mono years ago. Most are completely missing the boat (many in a cavalier manner) to the virtues of well-done multi-channel SACD, of which there are now hundreds of releases. Like most of us I, too, hold on to for dear life to the technology to which I grew up on. I don’t dismiss technology simply because it is old. Nor do I embrace technology simply because it is new. Most often I’m guilty to holding on to it because it *is* old and tried. But to me a *comparable* SACD multi-channel system trumps two channel so (or can) soundly, including SOTA vinyl systems, that it is simply no longer an issue.
Oh, speaking of vinyl? I’m getting closer to making an upgrade in my vinyl playback. Do you have vinyl playback I can also audition?
Robert C. Lang
When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?I ask because on a friend's MCh rig the two-channel results are significantly different when the MCh speakers and overall MCh alignment are left in place and when the center and rear speakers are removed (on well-recorded material, the two-channel presentation fares much better in the comparison). In my two-channel system I hear a significant difference in playback when: (1) my Maggies are toed-in per the MCh alignment of the month and when they're in their (optimized) straight-out position (and I have to adjust seating position and room treatment for the changed first/second reflection profiles of each speaker configuration); and (2) when I "salt" the front center and/or rear positions with the (mute) stand-mounted Paradigm Mini-Monitors I use in my separate video system. Even with their relatively small footprint they compromise phantom-center imaging and overall ambience, partly, I suspect, because of suckout issues and partly because of their absorption/reflection profiles in the MCh positions. Removing them from the room opens up the presentation sufficiently to make a perceptible difference.
From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. Doing it right may be a pain in the neck (or other part of the anatomy) because of all that has to be moved and rearranged, but it's more revealing of what each mode is actually capable of.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
*******When you've done multichannel-vs.-two-channel comparisons on the same system, have you done the two-channel audition with the three additional MCh speakers removed from the room? And, if so, have you optimized the speaker positioning for two-channel listening or have you left the front left and right speakers in their MCh position during two-channel playback?*****
My front main speakers are optimized for two channel listening where they stand. Placement is for the best possible two-channel sound, both in accordance to the manufacturers detailed instructions and with my ears. I had my two channel rig before I added multi-channel. When I added the multi-channel speakers the two main speakers were not moved *one inch* from their previous/present position. In other words, there is no “MCh position for the main speakers. In fact, if I would have had to compromise two-channel speaker placement, in any way, I would have never taken the risk (and it is a risk because of the “room factor”) on multi-channel. I talk about this “Inmate Systems”. The two-channel sound today is as superb as I have ever experienced in my room.There is no evidence that in my room the other three speakers degrade the sound.
On the contrary, placement compromises, where they exist, are with the surround speakers. They are placed within ITU specifications, but are still not optimally placed. Nevertheless, with well recorded SACD multi-channel mixes (amazingly most are very well recorded), largely classical and jazz, the two-channel renditions almost always come up short in comparison multi-channel. The two channel is indeed very good, as good as ever. But the multi-channel, in direct, comparisons is even better.
The other issues you describe, I just don’t have perhaps because I am fortunate to have a large listening room. My front speaker are far from the walls (almost 6 feet from the side walls, more than 7 feet from rear wall). There is no furniture, audio gear, TVs, etc. between the speakers and the listening position. In the context of things the middle speaker is small with respect to cubic feet. But to be sure before I committed to multi-channel I placed a dummy speaker between my mains for listening tests. I was not about two screw up my two channel listening experience. There is no audible degradation caused by the middle speaker.
I should point out that before I opted for multi-channel I made the assumption, right or wrong, that what was good for two-channel was good for multi-channel (not necessarily the other way around), because most of what you directly hear comes from the front two channels. I truly believe that the best two-channel make for the best multi-channel, assuming, of course that the other speakers are placed correctly. Therefore, I was single minded in retaining superb two-channel sound without compromise before I added multi-channel.
*******From this experience I've concluded that simply switching from MCh to two-channel playback without modifying the overall placement configuration to fit the playback mode is not a valid comparison. ****To your credit you recognize that a comparison between multi-channel and two-channel cannot be done fairly in your situation. I have seen many reckless comparisons described in this forum that are done without regard to any criterion. Most often this is to the detriment of multi-channel.
Robert C. Lang
...to front main speaker placement for MCh. Our perceptions differ, however, on which way the reckless comparisons tilt--which you probably gathered from the content of my initial post. Different strokes, I guess.Thanks for the detailed response.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
Yeah, my reckless tilt, if I were to have one, would be in favor of two-channel reproduction. But in spite of any handicap that may exist against multi-channel it, nonetheless, almost always prevails when directly compared to two-channel.But what is really interesting is Michael Bishop’s recommended multi-channel set up. See link below. You might recall when Mr. Bishop caused quite a stir in this forum 9 months to a year ago, with this recommendation that deviates quite a bit from ITU rear speaker placement guidelines.
My set-up follows the accompanying diagram (see link) for the front three speakers. My surround speakers are more on the “wings” of the circle while Mr. Bishop’s recommendation calls for more rear placement of the surrounds.
I plan to experiment with the Bishop approach since I can far more readily accommodate the rear channel set-up that his diagram shows. It was really difficult for me to accommodate the surrounds at the optimum 110 degrees. I am currently at about 120 degrees (still within the ITU recommendations).
Robert C. Lang
the "ITU is oh so ninety's" remark and commented on it here at the time.Have fun with your rear speaker placement experiment. Once you've tried it out, would be interested in your comments on what you hear with Telarcs made using the "new" configuration and recordings that assumed ITU placement.
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
The diagram is useful. I see how Lang has his set up. How is your surround set up differently? How do you move things around for stereo?
...if you're still interested in a diagram, here's mine. :-)
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
Robert,It would be great if you can drop by for audition!
I am sorry to say but when I go to а live jazz or rock performances, the only thing I hear behind me is the noise from the audience, not music. So I'd like to stick with the "real" experience instead of being surrounded by instruments. The miltichannel would be a bit more realistic when it comes to recreating the actual concert hall acoustics/reverberation with classical recordings, but stereo is also not bad providing this ilusion since the orchestra is still infront of you.
The fact that not many Stereo systems are capbale of providing the "magic" is actually sad and may be the reason why many have gone to, in my opinion, more artifical but impacting multichannel sound. Also, when it comes to regular digital, reproducing massive orchestral passages is much more difficult with Stereo than it is with Multichannel. This is the other reason many prefer Multichannel over Stereo thinking the sound quality is better. This is all my opinion of course! I’ve heard many Multichannel setups which sounded very impressive but have never thought giving up my Stereo system for that.
Sure, I do have a vinyl setup for you to hear. Make sure to bring some LPs.
Regards,
Alex
*****I am sorry to say but when I go to а live jazz or rock performances, the only thing I hear behind me is the noise from the audience, not music.****
See the link below which capsulizes a recent experience I had at a jazz club.
While I am not into rock at all I have been to a few concerts as a videographer. And yes the musicians are in front of you-----most of the time. BUT the loudspeakers for amplification are all around you---they are everywhere! And guess what? Many venues I have been to (rock and non rock) the musicians venture out into the audience. The days of the McGuire Sisters where the artists are tethered to the stage are long gone. Music is far more dynamic than what it used to be. The science of multi-channel SACD helps to capture that dynamic realism far better than two channels. It is far more complex than “two ears…two channels”. Stereo dates back to 1953 science. The superior gear of today has done wonders to max it out, but maxed out it is.And while we are on the subject of music genre there is no question that the type of music one enjoys can influence whether or not they embrace SACD multi-channel. I note that Quint and my tastes differ markedly; there is almost no overlap. I listen to mostly classical (85%), jazz, and R&B. I don’t believe I have ever heard a rock SACD, CD, or vinyl recording on my systems. I understand that there are not many multi-channel SACD rock releases and the ones that do exist are not well done. So, it’s no wonder devotees of the rock genre are less likely embrace multi-channel.
On the other hand, classical music lovers who have multi-channel systems are almost flush with new and very well done classical SACD multi-channel releases.
****So I'd like to stick with the "real" experience instead of being surrounded by instruments. The miltichannel would be a bit more realistic when it comes to recreating the actual concert hall acoustics/reverberation with classical recordings, but stereo is also not bad providing this ilusion since the orchestra is still infront of you. ***
*Exactly* like a well done multi-channel SACD. That is, the majority of the music *is* in front of you. In a well done classical multi-channel SACD you will not hear specific instruments behind you (unless the score calls for that).
***The fact that not many Stereo systems are capbale of providing the "magic" is actually sad and may be the reason why many have gone to, in my opinion, more artifical but impacting multichannel sound. ****
There are exceptions, of course.I have owned systems (such as the Ohm F) or heard systems (MBL reference) that with only two channels come close to “providing the magic”. Others do it also. But such systems are few a very far between and don’t recreate a live type space as well as a comparable high-end multi-channel SACD system.
With regard to “artificial”, all of it, mono, stereo, SACD multi-channel, wear that label. It’s that I have learned that the latter *can* sound less so.
****Also, when it comes to regular digital, reproducing massive orchestral passages is much more difficult with Stereo than it is with Multichannel. This is the other reason many prefer Multichannel over Stereo thinking the sound quality is better. ***Very true. And this goes back to music listening preferences (classical vs. rock, for example). But all music that I have experienced can benefit enormously from well done SACD multi-channel.
***This is all my opinion of course! I’ve heard many Multichannel setups which sounded very impressive but have never thought giving up my Stereo system for that. ***That’s one of the wonderful virtues of multi-channel SACD. You can have your cake and eat it too. My two-channel reproduction has *never* sounded better than it does today. There is no need to give up your stereo.
Hope to see you soon.
Robert C. Lang
you can post this for him?"What I think is that, since you are in the area, you really need to make the time and come visit me here in Dixon (close to Davis and Sacramento, up 80E)."
Next time do it via Email please. It's even a little too blatant for my tastes.
Take care and behave, Chris
Chris,I have no idea what you call blatant in my post. I have no store front or show room at business location in Dixon, CA. It is my home I’m inviting Robert to.
I knew that Robert is somewhere in the Bay Area so I provided the name of the little town I recently moved to. Since not many know where it is, I also provided Davis and Sacramento as reference points.
Hope all is well!
Alex
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
