"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[Feanor]

I just read Andrew Quint's article in The Absolute Sound, Issue 162, with the above title. Quint has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

He says, "... I don't think it's the wider and more nuanced dynamics, the truer instrumental and vocal timbres, and the greater detail that high-resolution brings to the table". Well, I agree about that; in fact, whether it's my 60+ year old ears, or my mediocre system, I scarcely hear these advantages versus really good CDs. But multichannel is another matter: hear the advantages are immediate and obvious -- even though I currently have to listen to it on equipment that is a couple of notches down in quality for my stereo setup.

Sorry to draw the analogy from classical music but that is what I mostly listen to. With stereo I feel like I'm listening at the very back of the hall or a doorway; with multichannel I'm transported to a great, 10th row orchestra seat. (At least this is the case with the better recordings.) Let me reemphasize: this is with lesser equipment. Notwithstanding, with large scale orchestral and choral works, I absolutely prefer the multchannel.

Friends, forget vinyl. For that matter, for get tubes, kilobuck cables, and tweaks of minimal, not to say, imaginary benefit. For real improvement look to multichannel.
:16:

[JoeE SP9]

I can't agree with you Feanor. In my system 2 channel recordings sound better (to my ears) when played back using 2 channels. I have over the years tried a variety of devices from the Dynaco Quadaptor to the Benchmark and I have always returned to just the front 2 channels for playing 2 channel stereo recordings.:cool:

[Feanor]

I can't agree with you Feanor. In my system 2 channel recordings sound better (to my ears) when played back using 2 channels. I have over the years tried a variety of devices from the Dynaco Quadaptor to the Benchmark and I have always returned to just the front 2 channels for playing 2 channel stereo recordings.:cool:

A lot of people are going to agree with you, Joe. But I'm thinking, WOW! a multichannel Acoustat system: that must be great!

[shokhead]

I just read Andrew Quint's article in The Absolute Sound, Issue 162, with the above title. Quint has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

He says, "... I don't think it's the wider and more nuanced dynamics, the truer instrumental and vocal timbres, and the greater detail that high-resolution brings to the table". Well, I agree about that; in fact, whether it's my 60+ year old ears, or my mediocre system, I scarcely hear these advantages versus really good CDs. But multichannel is another matter: hear the advantages are immediate and obvious -- even though I currently have to listen to it on equipment that is a couple of notches down in quality for my stereo setup.

Sorry to draw the analogy from classical music but that is what I mostly listen to. With stereo I feel like I'm listening at the very back of the hall or a doorway; with multichannel I'm transported to a great, 10th row orchestra seat. (At least this is the case with the better recordings.) Let me reemphasize: this is with lesser equipment. Notwithstanding, with large scale orchestral and choral works, I absolutely prefer the multchannel.

Friends, forget vinyl. For that matter, for get tubes, kilobuck cables, and tweaks of minimal, not to say, imaginary benefit. For real improvement look to multichannel.
:16:

If you like classical,you should be all over SACD. My ears are abit younger then yours but i just cant listen to 2ch and the more SACD,DVD-A and DTS i listen to,the worst cd's sound. I hate to ask but have you sat down and listen to a good setup of SACD Classical?

[Feanor]

If you like classical,you should be all over SACD. My ears are abit younger then yours but i just cant listen to 2ch and the more SACD,DVD-A and DTS i listen to,the worst cd's sound. I hate to ask but have you sat down and listen to a good setup of SACD Classical?

My HT set up is far from SOTA but it's OK and good enough to appreciate what multi-channel SACD can deliver.

It consists of ...

Source: Samsung DVD-HD810
Receiver: Pannasonic SA-XR25
Fronts: Paradigm MiniMonitor V3
Center: DIY: Vifa MG18 + BGCorp Neo3PDR
Rears: Boston Acoustics A60
Very ordinary stuff, but still shows what multichannel has to offer.

[Bernd]

There is no way I would surround myself with 5,6 or 7 speakers and a boombox or two. I much rather take all the money and invest in a decent pair of Speakers and electronics, sort the room out and you will have all the holograhic imaging, dynamics, soundstage and an accurate ghost centre channel you can wish for. I do not need some noise coming from behind me.:incazzato:
I never understood why someone want to split all their hard earned into several boxes when a much higher quality can be had with higher grade components.
But I guess we all have different likes and wants and good luck to the Multi channel people.
So in answer to the question: Yes ,I think for great music reproduction, it's stupid and a great marketing ploy.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

Friends, forget vinyl.

:16:

I totally agree with my dear friend Feanor. :) So please if you don't mind sent me all your antiquated vinyl. I promise I look after it.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[shokhead]

There is no way I would surround myself with 5,6 or 7 speakers and a boombox or two. I much rather take all the money and invest in a decent pair of Speakers and electronics, sort the room out and you will have all the holograhic imaging, dynamics, soundstage and an accurate ghost centre channel you can wish for. I do not need some noise coming from behind me.:incazzato:
I never understood why someone want to split all their hard earned into several boxes when a much higher quality can be had with higher grade components.
But I guess we all have different likes and wants and good luck to the Multi channel people.
So in answer to the question: Yes ,I think for great music reproduction, it's stupid and a great marketing ploy.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Its no ploy.:16:

[Bernd]

Its no ploy.:16:

No? So what is it?:confused:
Surely not accurate music reproduction.

Don't get me wrong you have the right to have as many speakers as you want, but for me it's 2 channel for music.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[topspeed]

Hmmm...I'm kinda torn on this issue.

On one hand, I have to admit that I listen to music in 2 channel, no sub, almost 99% of the time. I don't have many SACD's yet (jeebus they're hard to find!), but from my limited exposure I have noticed that just because it's a MC mix, it most certainly doesn't make it automatically better. For example, I picked up John Mayer's "Heavier Things" because I wanted to compare the quality of the SACD versus the rbcd, already one of the cleanest, most unfussed with rbcd's out there. This is a multilayer disc with SACD 2 ch, 5.1 ch, and rbcd. Much to my chagrin, the mc mix was done with surprisingly little care which created a wholly unnatural level of ambience. The effect was that of having another complete band behind me. OTOH, The Eagle's "Hell Freezes Over" DTS concert is much more convincing with much more subdued levels of ambience. Like any other recording, whether 2 channel or MC, the listener is at the mercy of the engineer who can get it absolutely right or horribly wrong.

I will say that when the mc mix is done right, I enjoy it more than the 2 channel mix. The challenge of course, is finding the recordings where it is done correctly.

[shokhead]

No? So what is it?:confused:
Surely not accurate music reproduction.

Don't get me wrong you have the right to have as many speakers as you want, but for me it's 2 channel for music.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Why not be true and use single speaker mono? Now thats the way it is "true".

[Bernd]

Why not be true and use single speaker mono? Now thats the way it is "true".
I agree. That would be the way if you want mono. However as I am a child of the 60s and 2 channel stereo was what I grew up with, it is this what I use as a yardstick. I like the illusion created by my 2 channel rig. No multi channel, I heard, has come even close. I have listened to several set ups and to my ears it is just not real or pleasant, rather confusing. And I stand by the cost issue. You can buy so much better, for the money, on a 2 channel set up.
But as long each individual is happy with what they got, that's the way to go.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[superpanavision70mm]

For me ...I love both. I do not necessarily feel compelled one way or another. I will say that multichannel certainly has opened up a new experience for me with certain artists. I find them more interesting in 5.1 than in 2.0. Of course there are poor 5.1 mixes and there are poor 2.0 mixes, but I will gladly take a great 5.1 if I have the option over a 2.0 mix. I love 2.0 when that is all that there is to choose from....a la CD. SACD...I always prefer the 5.1 mixes over the 2.0 on the disc, if that's an option.

To say that music is suppose to be heard from the front only is preposterous. Sound is a 360-degree experience. The truly great cathedrals and other listening venues like music halls have invested some of the best money in architecture that enables that experience to happen. You don't just hear the music from the stage, but rather it's all around you and you are immediately sucked in. If you go to certain cathedrals you may notice some variety in the placement of a choir...some place them on the sides and others place them in the rear (perhaps the earliest ES discrete experience HAHA).

As far as 2.0 goes....I love listening to music this way as well...there is definitely separation that occurs here as well and I will always take direct stereo vs. pro-logic fake surrounds or other variations of such. So who wins the battle? Neither. Both are great, both are preferences and alot of my decision ends up in the favor of what it was intended to be like...or experienced. If the artist created the album with 5.1 in mind (The Flaming Lips YOSHIMI BATTLES THE PINK ROBOTS) than that's the way I love to hear it. On the other hand...if it was intended for 1.0 or 2.0 playback...that's the way I typically like to hear it.

Anyone else agree?

[shokhead]

I agree. That would be the way if you want mono. However as I am a child of the 60s and 2 channel stereo was what I grew up with, it is this what I use as a yardstick. I like the illusion created by my 2 channel rig. No multi channel, I heard, has come even close. I have listened to several set ups and to my ears it is just not real or pleasant, rather confusing. And I stand by the cost issue. You can buy so much better, for the money, on a 2 channel set up.
But as long each individual is happy with what they got, that's the way to go.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Grew up with stereo myself always using the Beatles as the stereo yardstick but i always wanted more. Guess thats why i like multi-channel.

[Feanor]

I totally agree with my dear friend Feanor. :) So please if you don't mind sent me all your antiquated vinyl. I promise I look after it.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd

I essentially never listen to my small vinyl collection of fewer than 200 discs and they take up fair bit of space. They are in very good condition and I might sometimes listen if my playback was half decent. Unfortunately my Radio Shack TT :o is not working well . I'd need a new 'table and cartridge, though my Apt Holman preamp might do; would probably cost >Cdn$1500 -- that won't happen.

So I would say it's anyone's for yard sale prices. Maybe $2 per disc if you take the whole lot, plus shipping.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is no way I would surround myself with 5,6 or 7 speakers and a boombox or two. I much rather take all the money and invest in a decent pair of Speakers and electronics, sort the room out and you will have all the holograhic imaging, dynamics, soundstage and an accurate ghost centre channel you can wish for. I do not need some noise coming from behind me.:incazzato:
I never understood why someone want to split all their hard earned into several boxes when a much higher quality can be had with higher grade components.
But I guess we all have different likes and wants and good luck to the Multi channel people.
So in answer to the question: Yes ,I think for great music reproduction, it's stupid and a great marketing ploy.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Very uneducated post. First two channel stereo is littered with spatial distortions when you exclude the room. It is unable to accruately place discrete reflections that are present in EVERY concert hall in the world. It using the rooms internal reflections as "spatial ques" which are neither present in the recording, or recording hall itself.

Secondly, based on your comments you have never visited any live musical event, because every venue (depending on how the acoustics are treated) has discrete reflections that eminate from behind the head, and can be spatially located with the ears, and can be accurately reproduced in a 5.1 system.

With a 5.1 system, audio engineers can spread the left and right channels to a greater degree than can be done with stereo thanks to the presence of a center channel. This makes information easier to hear, and imaging much more specific than with two channel sources.

Two channel CD has some difficulties with certain kinds of harmonics. A muted trumpet, a glock, cymbals, and a few other instruments with high intensity high frequency harmonics tend to distort, sound flat and unresolved when compared to a higher sampled mastered tape that has been downsampled to this format.

I cannot understand why someone would spend huge sums of money of a two channel format that cannot do something as simple as place a live audience in its proper spatial perspective, has no spatial perspective from the sides or rear which occur in live events, and cannot properly reproduce some harmonic of instrments accurately.

Anyone who thinks that two channel is the pinnacle of audio nirvana is simply fooling themselves.

[kexodusc]

Just to add to Sir Terrences excellent points:

The absolute worst argument I've heard in favor of 2-channel rigs is the "fewer components, but higher quality" notion.

Put simply, if someone has $5000 to spend on a rig, this argument suggests that 2 speakers of $2500 would offer superior performance to 5 speakers of $1000.
There are many problems with this assumption. First, as I'm sure everyone can agree, the sonic benefits of a speaker costing 2.5 times are real, but not directly proportional to the increase in cost. The old diminishing returns law.

The use of additional speakers can narrow the performance gap very quickly. Want proof, look at many a speaker company's product line. You're sure to find a small, 2-way bookshelf, and a larger model, with multiple drivers - possibly a 2.5 way with 2 woofers, a midwoofer-tweeter-midwoofer alignment, a 3-way speaker, or even models with far more drivers and greater complexity. Quite often the price jumps considerably as drivers are added...doubling even tripling the cost for the performance they provide.

Adding speakers in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup can not only reproduce the same benefits, but expand on them. In addition to the excellent points Sir T made on spatial cues, the addition of the center channel alone on the front soundstage reduces a tremendous amount of stress on the front left and right speakers. You'll find the speakers maintain superior linearity in performance, keep distortion lower, transient response a bit better - all real, measurable qualities that can produce higher fidelity.

The end result is a more effective, logical approach to reproducing audio, where the speakers are capable of doing "more with less". I won't suggest that a multi-channel approach is always better, or can always offer even comprable levels of resolution or detail or whatever buzzword you want to use. It can and does sometimes, but not always. And it's not that simple. Instead you'll have to think of the total audio reproduction as a basket of various characteristics. 2-channel rigs may offer slight improvments in the finer details of violin's harmonics. But multi-channel setups counter with improved imaging, separation, depth, soundstage and dynamics.

I have 2 rigs. My 2-channel audio setup costs about as much for me to build as my 7.1 system. Maybe a little less but it's close. On cd's there's no comparison. But on the SACD's I have, I almost always prefer to trade the small loss in speaker resolution for the multichannel benefits. What multichannel gives up, it more than gives back in the far more realistic immersive environment it creates.

The more you spend on a system, all the more it will cost you to make your next upgrade. Sooner or later it becomes more cost effective to upgrade to 5.1 (or 5.0, whatever) than to upgrade a 2.0 system to yield the same performance improvements.

Multichannel audio's been around for what, 5 years for 90% of us and it's already converted alot of audiophiles. I suspect in a few more years it'll win over even more.

[GMichael]

Put simply, if someone has $5000 to spend on a rig, this argument suggests that 2 speakers of $2500 would offer superior performance to 5 speakers of $1000.

.

I'm thinking, with $5000 to spend, I get two mains at $4000 a pair instead of $5000.
The other $1k gets spent on the other 3 or 5, at $300 for the center & $300 a pair on the surrounds & rears. No need for all 5 or 7 to be of the same quality as the mains & center.

[kexodusc]

I'm thinking, with $5000 to spend, I get two mains at $4000 a pair instead of $5000.
The other $1k gets spent on the other 3 or 5, at $300 for the center & $300 a pair on the surrounds & rears. No need for all 5 or 7 to be of the same quality as the mains & center.

I don't think there's a good rule of thumb for how much to spend on each speaker in a multichannel setup...people can decide that for themselves..I personally would want the front 3 speakers equal in sound, whatever that costs, then go from there. The surrounds can be a bit lower in cost/performance as long as they match the system well. Some people might want 7 identical speakers. I've done that, and have discovered it to be unecessary and not even optimal in my setup. In the end, personal preference will dictate, as always.

[superpanavision70mm]

I am personally a fan of 70.1 sound. Where you have 70 speakers placed 7 feet from all 360-degrees around you like a giant sphere with a subwoofer in the middle that acts as your seat. But maybe that's just me....anyone remember the Michael Jackson Cow sound test????

[musicman1999]

It is still a personal preference issue.It's like whats your favorite peanut butter,i have a favorite brand and i won't eat anything else,someone could point out that a different brand could have better ingrediants,less fat or less calories,but i will still go back to my favorite(Kraft smooth).On the audio side i do like my music in 2 channel format,my cd player is my best quality source and my system is well set up for cd playback.I do have a sacd player and it is set up for multichannel playback,i have about 15 sacd but only about 6 are multchannel,not a delibrate act,it just worked out that way.I have tried cd with various types of multichannel playback and it just did not excite me much.I found it very inconsistant,some material would be alright,some would be terrible.I did get best results using neo-6 music,but not good enough to sway me over.Just my opinion of course.

bill

[superpanavision70mm]

IN THE BEGINNING there was sound and God heard the sound and said it was good.

Then He declared that the sound be from all around, but only gave us two ears to hear the sound. Because there are two ears does not mean that the only way is to have two speakers. Thus saith the Lord.

[Woochifer]

Feanor -

I totally agree with you about the virtues of multichannel. As Terrence and Kex have already mentioned, a good multichannel recording along with a properly timbre matched and calibrated multichannel system can reproduce specific facets of live performance that I have never heard properly reproduced by any two-channel system. In my listenings, much of this has to do with accurately rendering the hall ambience, specifically placing the seating location and conveying the size of the space, and stabilizing the side imaging and giving the front soundstage depth.

Doesn't matter how much people invest in a two-channel setup, there are specific things that two channels simply cannot do, and the limitations are evident by comparing a good multichannel mix with the two-channel mixdown of the same recording. For example, the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler series has been issued as 5.1 SACD/CD hybrid discs. As great as the two-channel mixes sound, the 5.1 tracks simply render an entirely different listening dimension that IMO is truer to how Davies Symphony Hall actually sounds (I typically attend 3-4 shows a year at Davies, and will go there again in two weeks for Mahler's Eighth [the epic Symphony of a Thousand]). From having attended one of those recorded Mahler concerts, I know that the mic position just forward of the podium. And accordingly, the 5.1 subjectively puts the listening on the stage at the conductor position, a perspective that two-channels simply cannot render.

With Mobile Fidelity's reissues of the Vox quad recordings done by Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickrenz, the capture of the hall ambience gives the listener a sense of space that the two-channel mixdown simply does not convey as deliberately or consistently.

I think a big part of the resistance to multichannel, aside from inertia and how strongly a lot of consumers associate multichannel only with movies and not with music, is simply the difficulty of finding a properly done demonstration setup. Optimizing a multichannel setup takes a lot more than simply placing the speakers on the floor and tweaking with everything by ear. In order to get multichannel alignment to sound optimal, you have to get the timbre match right, the angling has to be optimal and symmetrical (much more difficult to do with five speakers than with two), and the processor settings have to be accounted for, as do issues with the room acoustics and location. This entails measuring and using things like measuring tapes, SPL meters, and protractors to get the reference points consistent.

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music). The others used any number of different alignments (often just sitting on a shelf, or installed on the wall at an assymetrial alignment, or not timbre matched, etc.), none of which could properly render the full depth and imaging that multichannel mixes are capable of. And just in my time visiting store demo rooms, I've found that most of the receivers/processors are not set correctly, even at high end stores, because the customers will often tinker with the settings. If this is what people are using to judge multichannel audio, then it's no wonder they're so quick to dismiss its attributes.

Recording engineers are only beginning to learn what to do with the extra channels. Just as there are bad stereo mixes, you'll find bad 5.1 mixes as well. But, in order to get the multichannel playback right, there are simply more steps that require optimizing.

[musicman1999]

Wooch
You are completely correct on the point about the set up.It takes a lot of work to do a proper mutichannel setup.A proper music setup and a proper movie setup are usually not the same depending on the room of course.The problem i have in my room is the rear can't be set up for a proper multichannel music setup because of the lay out.The front end is set up pretty well for music however.

bill

[PAT.P]

I am personally a fan of 70.1 sound. Where you have 70 speakers placed 7 feet from all 360-degrees around you like a giant sphere with a subwoofer in the middle that acts as your seat. But maybe that's just me....anyone remember the Michael Jackson Cow sound test????Thats alot of speakers 70.1 ,how big is your room?:ihih:

[Mike Anderson]

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music).

And those stores were...?

As a fellow SF Bay Arean 2-channel lover, I'd be interested in checking them out.

[Bernd]

As for SirTTs mention off my uneducated post. So be it. I also think very highly of your writings.
Never been to a live event? Who me? I leave it at that.
As for hall ambience I agree that certain places have been designed to sound great. But how many have speakers placed behind you? I have never seen one. And then again I couldn't have as I have never been to a live event.
In my experience the sound is reflected from the side and the back of the venue and that is exactly what my 2 channel set up does, helped by correct room treatments. The last thing I want is a direct source coming from the sides or from behind me.
But as I said all along if that what people like good on them, just not for me. More is not always better.I easy can hear ambient information where they are.
And if you invest in really good equipment and two speakers in the first place you will not need half a dozen boxes. Also look at the cost issue in speaker cable. I happen to believe they make a difference. So if I use the same quality all round it becomes very very expensive. So again not for me.
Whatever sounds right to you and gives you that tingling feeling is the right set up for you.
So where did I put my maiden concert ticket.............:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

Feanor -

I totally agree with you about the virtues of multichannel. As Terrence and Kex have already mentioned, a good multichannel recording along with a properly timbre matched and calibrated multichannel system can reproduce specific facets of live performance that I have never heard properly reproduced by any two-channel system. In my listenings, much of this has to do with accurately rendering the hall ambience, specifically placing the seating location and conveying the size of the space, and stabilizing the side imaging and giving the front soundstage depth.

Doesn't matter how much people invest in a two-channel setup, there are specific things that two channels simply cannot do, and the limitations are evident by comparing a good multichannel mix with the two-channel mixdown of the same recording. For example, the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler series has been issued as 5.1 SACD/CD hybrid discs. As great as the two-channel mixes sound, the 5.1 tracks simply render an entirely different listening dimension that IMO is truer to how Davies Symphony Hall actually sounds (I typically attend 3-4 shows a year at Davies, and will go there again in two weeks for Mahler's Eighth [the epic Symphony of a Thousand]). From having attended one of those recorded Mahler concerts, I know that the mic position just forward of the podium. And accordingly, the 5.1 subjectively puts the listening on the stage at the conductor position, a perspective that two-channels simply cannot render.

With Mobile Fidelity's reissues of the Vox quad recordings done by Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickrenz, the capture of the hall ambience gives the listener a sense of space that the two-channel mixdown simply does not convey as deliberately or consistently.

I think a big part of the resistance to multichannel, aside from inertia and how strongly a lot of consumers associate multichannel only with movies and not with music, is simply the difficulty of finding a properly done demonstration setup. Optimizing a multichannel setup takes a lot more than simply placing the speakers on the floor and tweaking with everything by ear. In order to get multichannel alignment to sound optimal, you have to get the timbre match right, the angling has to be optimal and symmetrical (much more difficult to do with five speakers than with two), and the processor settings have to be accounted for, as do issues with the room acoustics and location. This entails measuring and using things like measuring tapes, SPL meters, and protractors to get the reference points consistent.

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music). The others used any number of different alignments (often just sitting on a shelf, or installed on the wall at an assymetrial alignment, or not timbre matched, etc.), none of which could properly render the full depth and imaging that multichannel mixes are capable of. And just in my time visiting store demo rooms, I've found that most of the receivers/processors are not set correctly, even at high end stores, because the customers will often tinker with the settings. If this is what people are using to judge multichannel audio, then it's no wonder they're so quick to dismiss its attributes.

Recording engineers are only beginning to learn what to do with the extra channels. Just as there are bad stereo mixes, you'll find bad 5.1 mixes as well. But, in order to get the multichannel playback right, there are simply more steps that require optimizing.

Wooch,

I can only speak for myself and I can assure you that I am not against progress, on the contary I welcome it, but not for change sake. If it is a genuine improvement I will go for it.
A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.
I also pledge to have it installed professionaly and after a decent long run in period I will hold listening sessions with both and with whoever wants to partake.
The room will be my office which is roughly the same size as my listening room (slightly longer, but not by much).
I would also need recommendations for the same music available on Vinyl and SACD,DVD-A, etc.
So lets see what we can find out.

I am thinking along the lines of these:
Pathos Cinema-X amp
Ayre C-5xe multi format player
ART Stiletto speakers

Peace

Bernd:16:

[GMichael]

Wooch,

I can only speak for myself and I can assure you that I am not against progress, on the contary I welcome it, but not for change sake. If it is a genuine improvement I will go for it.
A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.
I also pledge to have it installed professionaly and after a decent long run in period I will hold listening sessions with both and with however wants to partake.
The room will be my office which is roughly the same size as my listening room (slightly longer, but not by much).
I would also need recommendations for the same music available on Vinyl and SACD,DVD-A, etc.
So lets see what we can find out.

I am thinking along the lines of these:
Pathos Cinema-X amp
Ayre C-5xe multi format player
ART Stiletto speakers

Peace

Bernd:16:

Ooooh A project. That's cool. As I'm only a mid-fi guy so far, I'm not sure that I can give out hi-fi advice. Actually, I'm sure that I can't. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot. I would love to hear a couple of Maggie 3.6's with MC1's as surrounds and a CC3 center.
But I do believe that I remember you saying that panels are not your cup of tea. Maybe my dream wouldn't work for you. Is there a budget we should stay in? Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea!

[Resident Loser]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

[PAT.P]

Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea! Bring it on :ihih: For Music I had to try all morning and the Multi Channel in Stereo won .The room was more full from all point,and more imaging.I cant listen to music in this without my centre channel(the voice is so real) I got 2 more CC to add to this one and cant wait.Will give me 5 ft :ihih: but dont have the nerve to bring my power amp in the living room(still hidden in basement) the wife will freak out:incazzato:

[GMichael]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

Uhm.. You may be spot on. But it's fun anyhow.

[Bernd]

Ooooh A project. That's cool. As I'm only a mid-fi guy so far, I'm not sure that I can give out hi-fi advice. Actually, I'm sure that I can't. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot. I would love to hear a couple of Maggie 3.6's with MC1's as surrounds and a CC3 center.
But I do believe that I remember you saying that panels are not your cup of tea. Maybe my dream wouldn't work for you. Is there a budget we should stay in? Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea!

I don't think the room will be big enough for Maggies, but it's good to have them in the mix. As for cost I would think it to stay within the cost of my 2 channel set up.
So go on give it a shot.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

My sentiment exactely Jim. Couldn't have put it better myself. Hence the challenge.
How is everything your end?

Peace

Bernd:6:

[Bernd]

Will give me 5 ft :ihih: but dont have the nerve to bring my power amp in the living room(still hidden in basement) the wife will freak out:incazzato:

Pat, are you man or mouse? Out with the power amp.:)

Peace

Bernd:16:

[GMichael]

I don't think the room will be big enough for Maggies, but it's good to have them in the mix. As for cost I would think it to stay within the cost of my 2 channel set up.
So go on give it a shot.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Can you give us a rundown of the costs?

Speakers:
Amps:
Processors:
Cables:
Acoustic dampening:
Misc:

[Feanor]

Ooooh A project. That's cool. As I'm only a mid-fi guy so far, I'm not sure that I can give out hi-fi advice. Actually, I'm sure that I can't. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot. I would love to hear a couple of Maggie 3.6's with MC1's as surrounds and a CC3 center.
But I do believe that I remember you saying that panels are not your cup of tea. Maybe my dream wouldn't work for you. Is there a budget we should stay in? Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea!

Much and all though I love my Maggie 1.6's, I wonder whether dipolars are the way to go. For one thing they take a lot of space as Bernd has pointed out. -- I don't have that kind of space in my HT setup.

The other thing pertains to dispersion and room reflectionss. I definitely don't agree with Bernd's original remark that rooms reflections can simulate concert halls; (Bernd, do you retract this?). I suspect that in an ideal MC setup you want to control room reflections even more than in a stereo set up -- any agreement there?? That being the case, perhaps you want limited/controls dispersion speakers, (say, studio monitor type), as well as room treatments. Controlled dispersion rules out dipolars, mains at least, IMO.

[Resident Loser]

Uhm.. You may be spot on. But it's fun anyhow.

...differing definitions of fun...

jimHJJ(...but that's why they make vanilla and chocolate...)

[GMichael]

...differing definitions of fun...

jimHJJ(...but that's why they make vanilla and chocolate...)

My definetion.

Fun: The act of doing something that makes me smile, or the hairs on my arms stand up.

Are we close?

[GMichael]

Much and all though I love my Maggie 1.6's, I wonder whether dipolars are the way to go. For one thing they take a lot of space as Bernd has pointed out. -- I don't have that kind of space in my HT setup.

The other thing pertains to dispersion and room reflectionss. I definitely don't agree with Bernd's original remark that rooms reflections can simulate concert halls; (Bernd, do you retract this?). I suspect that in an ideal MC setup you want to control room reflections even more than in a stereo set up -- any agreement there?? That being the case, perhaps you want limited/controls dispersion speakers, (say, studio monitor type), as well as room treatments. Controlled dispersion rules out dipolars, mains at least, IMO.

Oh, I see your point. I was thinking of my basement project. I guess we'll need a room size also Bernd.
Anything else I left out guys?

[Bernd]

Can you give us a rundown of the costs?

Speakers:
Amps:
Processors:
Cables:
Acoustic dampening:
Misc:

Not really. As I think that would be restrictive.Just recommend what you are happy with, what you own, or would buy and that it will surpass my 2 channel system and my enjoyment listening through it. That's the challenge.
Forget about room treatment in this, as I will take care of that separetly.
I just want to put this unwinable arguement to the test. Once we have jointly selected a system I will go ahead and get the components and then we will see.
Room size: 6m x 4.8m x 2.7m two windows on one long wall.
The things I do for this hobby.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

My sentiment exactely Jim. Couldn't have put it better myself. Hence the challenge.
How is everything your end?

Peace

Bernd:6:

...some folks can't see the forest for the trees and view all technological change as something good...

OK over here...absolutely beautiful day...yesterday's winds have given us a clear sky, some puffy clouds, low humidity and an AM temp of 45 degrees with an expected high only in the mid-60s...give me 365 days of this a year and I'd be a happy man...

jimHJJ(...it makes you feel alive...)

[Bernd]

Much and all though I love my Maggie 1.6's, I wonder whether dipolars are the way to go. For one thing they take a lot of space as Bernd has pointed out. -- I don't have that kind of space in my HT setup.

The other thing pertains to dispersion and room reflectionss. I definitely don't agree with Bernd's original remark that rooms reflections can simulate concert halls; (Bernd, do you retract this?). I suspect that in an ideal MC setup you want to control room reflections even more than in a stereo set up -- any agreement there?? That being the case, perhaps you want limited/controls dispersion speakers, (say, studio monitor type), as well as room treatments. Controlled dispersion rules out dipolars, mains at least, IMO.

I didn't mean that the reflections in my room are the same as in the recording venue. To that effect I'll retract that. I meant that with the right room treatment I can manipulate the sound, but I do not want an active source from behind my head- well up to now. We will see what this experiement does.
Thanks for pulling me up on that, still a bit fragile from too much Scotch last night.:(

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

...some folks can't see the forest for the trees and view all technological change as something good...

OK over here...absolutely beautiful day...yesterday's winds have given us a clear sky, some puffy clouds, low humidity and an AM temp of 45 degrees with an expected high only in the mid-60s...give me 365 days of this a year and I'd be a happy man...

jimHJJ(...it makes you feel alive...)

Mirror image weather wise here, just a bit cooler. But yes that's the right weather for 365.
Take it easy.

Peace

Bernd:5:

[kexodusc]

I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product.


I'm not sure how you went from the debate of multichannel audio (which I will refer to as MC to save me from typing) vs. stereo to automatically associating MC with "mass market" products.
There is no restriction on which products you buy when it comes to building an MC setup. Any reason why you would presume to limit MC as such? I could be wrong, but it would appear you're not even giving it a chance. I hope that's not the case.
The only thing "mass market" in my MC setup is my mid-fi a/v receiver. I use it strictly as a pre-amp/processor, as it is much cheaper than "higher end" pre-pros I've tested while giving up nothing I could hear in terms of sound quality. I don't associate all "mass market" with being bad, either...in this case, it was cheaper and better for me. Though I do think an even better pre-pro would slightly improve 2-channel playback on this system (which isn't primarily what I use it for - have a 2-channel rig for that).

There's no reason why you couldn't buy 3 more speakers to match the 2 you already have, if your budget supports it. My 2-channel rig cost me more than my 7.1 home theater setup, but I have to admit I find the multi-channel audio playback even on lower end, but capable equipment to be a more rewarding experience than my higher resolution stereo.

I'm sorry I can't recommend the speakers to you unless you want to build them, but I do believe these results can be replicated with retail models.


If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

I guess this depends on your definition of "high quality" parts. From someone who buys his own components to build speakers, I can say that higher quality parts don't always translate into perfromance improvements. I ordered one pair of my home theater's speakers with standard grade components. The second pair I built I made some changes -used 14 gauge inductors instead of 18, used metallized poly caps and film caps with 1% tolerances instead of 10% and 5% tolerances. Oddly enough, the 10% tolerance cap actually measured better than my 5% tolerance cap. At any rate, when I measured my speakers performance there was no improvement - I certainly couldn't hear an improvement. I went back to the less expensive parts for the next pair. (I'll admit I use the most expensive pair in the front l/r position though, just in case).

There's more and more small speaker companies starting up these days that use the same grade of componentry previously found only in much higher-end speakers. If smaller companies have the time to test and match each component themselves (instead of batch testing large production runs) lower cost components with less strict tolerance ranges can be used effectively.

Sometimes we just have to shop harder. http://tyleracoustics.com/taylo.html

Tyler Acoustics is one such company that offers great performance and value compared to a lot of big brand name companies I know. Small company, superior value. They only use quality drivers, components and cabinets.

Of course, you can buy a speaker kit of similar performance and the same parts with cabinets in a T-line system, designed by Dr. D'Appolito himself for for about 1/3 the cost of the retail versions, Tyler Acoustics offers.
http://www.madisound.com/thor.html
It requires some assembly on your part, the cabinets might not be as pretty. To each his own.

Just trying to make a point, good deals can be found if one looks hard enough.

[E-Stat]

For real improvement look to multichannel.
I have no doubt that multi-channel done right is superior to two channel. Certainly the work being done by engineers like TtT is providing real improvements.

Having said that, there are numerous stumbling blocks (as least to me).

1. 99% of my music library is two channel.
2. Unlike the vinyl to CD conversion, most of what I have is simply not available in MC.
3. There is definitely a qualitative compromise when the budget must be divided into far more pieces. Others may reasonably disagree. I have been accustomed to the ultra purity of full range stats for so long I can neither go back nor afford three more Sound Lab units.

I have heard HP's Super Maggie system which is definitely spectacular with movies. I confess I didn't hear a lot of MC recordings the last time I was there, but I was not as impressed with it as I am his main (killer) two channel system. He uses MG 20.1 mains, four Nola Thunderbolt subs, dual stacked CC-3 centers, and 1.6 rears driven by Edge amplification, Meitner SACD DAC / transport, Krell processor, with Nordost Valhalla cabling for signal and power alike.

If, however, I were to start out from scratch today - zero music library and no system, perhaps I would think differently.

rw

[Bernd]

Hi Kex,

I put the parts quality issue in as it was that mostly that got me started. I kept reading the glowing accounts of how much fellow AR Members enjoy their MC over the 2 channel set ups. And then I take a look at the equipment list used and it's nothing special and therefore I gather that no great parts are used. I am talking about parts from Hovland,Black Gates, Jensen, Muhndorf, Clarity,etc.
So please feel free to suggest what gear I should try out to get this project of the ground. That is the chance I will give to MC.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[shokhead]

Denon 2106
Yamaha C750
4-Axiom M22v2
Axiom VP150vs center
SVS 20-39pci sum

[PAT.P]

Pat, are you man or mouse? Out with the power amp.:)

Peace

Bernd:16:But Im up the creek without a paddle at moment.She paid all my credit cards,just brought in another pair of speakers in the house(freebee's)some Hungary Videoton Saphir 1?(never heard of them),bought a Sharp 20" LCD for Mother's Day for bedroom:ihih: She said no more spending until I pay her what I owe her:incazzato:

[Feanor]

I have no doubt that multi-channel done right is superior to two channel. Certainly the work being done by engineers like TtT is providing real improvements.

Having said that, there are numerous stumbling blocks (as least to me).

1. 99% of my music library is two channel.
2. Unlike the vinyl to CD conversion, most of what I have is simply not available in MC.
3. There is definitely a qualitative compromise when the budget must be divided into far more pieces. Others may reasonably disagree. I have been accustomed to the ultra purity of full range stats for so long I can neither go back nor afford three more Sound Lab units.
...
rw

Sadly it looks like SACD and DVD-A will remain niche products at best, so selection will tend to remain limited I dare say. Greed and marketing mistakes by Sony: so what else is new?

My collection is >90% CD too, (excluding my neglected vinyl). Certainly these factors work against my upgrading my MC setup as soon, and to the extent, I would like. DIY might help a bit, but I'll likely never match my stereo for component quality. :sad:

[shokhead]

I said the same thing about Sony somewhere else and got the crap kicked out of me because others said,its not Sony who should be blamed. BTW,mostly everything we like are niche,dont you think? DVD-A,SACD,Dualdisc,DTS,HD,BlueRay,all that good fun stuff.

[kexodusc]

Hi Kex,

I put the parts quality issue in as it was that mostly that got me started. I kept reading the glowing accounts of how much fellow AR Members enjoy their MC over the 2 channel set ups. And then I take a look at the equipment list used and it's nothing special and therefore I gather that no great parts are used.

Well, the level of their equipment really shouldn't be an issue...it's their point of reference that allows their points to remain valid. If they're giving their Paradigm bookshelf speaker/Denon receiver 5.1 setup a glowing review, and just came from a 2-channel system consisting of $150 Paradigm bookshelf speakers, and a $200 Denon stereo reciever, they've still experienced the benefits of going to multi-channel audio. It's all relative. Their point of reference might be lower than yours, but that doesn't invalidate their point that multichannel offers improvements over stereo.


I am talking about parts from Hovland,Black Gates, Jensen, Muhndorf, Clarity,etc.

Never used Mhndorf or Clarity, but in my experience Hovland, Jensen, Black Gates are decent enough. I think too expensive for what they offer but there's not exactly a lot of choice. I really can't say a $30 cap sounds 10 times better than a $3 cap...or that even sounds twice as good. Oh well, until Wal-Mart starts selling crossover parts I don't have much choice...I try to buy these parts when they go on sale if I can, but I like to use quality, but inexpensive generics like Solen or Dayton parts - usually they work just as well. The trick is to ensure the values are true and match what the design calls for. A good LCR multi-meter can do that. Inductors are usually fairly close, but I've had problems with inexpensive caps being far off spec. Hit and miss there. I avoid np electrolytic caps, they sound bad. I don't worry much about durability and longevity in speakers, they're cheap enough to refurbish every several years.
I try to match crossover parts cost with driver costs to a certain extent. $15 drivers found in $500 speakers don't benefit much from a $30 capacitor. $90 -$150 woofers found in $5000 speakers on the other hand probably do.

I really think companies use the higher grade crossover parts to save the time and worry about them being off spec more than sonic benefits, and also just to appease consumer demand and expectations....What? You used a $7 inductor in a $4000 speaker? Blashpehemy! I can't say a 4.7 uf film/foil cap sounds much different than a 4.7 uf metallized poly, but that's just me.

I can say I've heard a real difference in sound quality improving the quality of resistors. I like Mills resistors, but resistors are cheap anyway. I don't know what it is, the cheaper resistors measured to spec but the sound in the top octaves was noticeably better with the higher grade resistors - cleaner for lack of a better word. I've really rambled on too far off topic now.

For suggestions, well, you have a lot of options. Why not buy 5 Art stilettos and go from there? If you like the quasi wave-guide Peerless tweeter and coated paper Seas woofer, you might be a good candidate for a few Totem Acoustics models, the Rainmaker in particular. (I haven't heard the Stilettos, but I know the CA12RCY woofer well and use a very similar textile Peerless dome tweeter minus the horn face plate thing in my home theater speakers). Totem use a lot of Seas/Peerless drivers with solid grade crossovers, and excellent cabinetry (and actually veneer the interior of the cabinets because the designer believes it sounds better - go figure). If you're so inclined, there's some excellent speaker kits I could recommend that I think would approach your Art speakers in sound quality. Might make this project less of a burden financially.

An Arcam a/v receiver is a good starting point for power and processing. You could consider going with a mid-fi Denon/ Yamaha/Harman Kardon etc receiver and buy a decent multi-channel amp or a few stereo amps and probably save some money. Using the receiver as a pre-pro and maybe 2 surround channels lets you upgrade to better quality amplification in the more important channels (I do consider the front 3 much more important).

However, I would suggest rather than asking other people to recommend systems for you, why not give it the same honest effort all the multi-channel advocates gave. Only your ears know what speakers you find agreeable...give it a shot.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for SirTTs mention off my uneducated post. So be it. I also think very highly of your writings.

Thanks for the compliment. Now to be clear, I didn't say YOU were uneducated, I think your post was stated off the cuff, and does not represent what really happens audio wise at a live event.


Never been to a live event? Who me? I leave it at that.

Well if you have, you would never know it by your post



As for hall ambience I agree that certain places have been designed to sound great. But how many have speakers placed behind you? I have never seen one. And then again I couldn't have as I have never been to a live event.

I think you are missing the point here. Concert halls do not have speakers in the rear of the hall. But it does have discrete reflections that come not only from the sides, but the rear and from above as well. A multichannel recording that seeks to pick up the sound of these reflections, (or hall ambience) will placed these reflections to the sides and rear of your listening room. A 5.1 audio system can properly placed these side and rear reflections in your listening room, a two channel stereo system cannot no matter how much it cost.

In my experience the sound is reflected from the side and the back of the venue and that is exactly what my 2 channel set up does, helped by correct room treatments.

Sorry, but your system, and no two channel system can properly place ambient cues in the right position. Since you only have two speakers in front of you, it is impossible for any hall ambience to be placed behind you. The reflections within your room are not part of the recording location, so they cannot be associated with accurate playback of ambient cues that are recorded by microphones placed out in the hall.



The last thing I want is a direct source coming from the sides or from behind me.

You really do not understand the idea of recorded ambience do you? The object is not to have direct sources behind you, but the ambient or hall reflections associated with the direct sound. If a live recording is going to sound really live, those reflections must be recorded with mikes placed out in the hall, and reproduced by speakers located to the sides and rear of your listening room. Once again, this is impossible with two channel stereo.


But as I said all along if that what people like good on them, just not for me. More is not always better.I easy can hear ambient information where they are.

You can hear ambient information were your two speakers place it. Behind the speakers, not behind you!


And if you invest in really good equipment and two speakers in the first place you will not need half a dozen boxes. Also look at the cost issue in speaker cable. I happen to believe they make a difference.

This is a fallacy that you two channel folks expouse so frequently, but is not really accurate at all. If you are going to properly place ambience where it belongs in your listening room, you need a multichannel system to do so. You can spend a million dollars on two channel equipment, and still not be able to place ambient cues in the right place. If there are no speakers to the sides or behind the listening seat, then it is impossible for the ambient cues in a recording to be placed there.




So if I use the same quality all round it becomes very very expensive. So again not for me.
Whatever sounds right to you and gives you that tingling feeling is the right set up for you.
So where did I put my maiden concert ticket.............:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

When you go to that concert, check to see if you hear everything that is happening in the venue is only coming from the front of the room. I seriously doubt it.

Yes, a very good multichannel speaker system can, but not always be expensive. However, the price that two channel guys spend on their equipment would could be a nice budget for a nice multichannel system. Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?

[Bernd]

Thanks for all the suggestions so far.
Kex made some good points but DIY is out of the question as I have two left hands. I am not going to select equipment on AR members glowing report alone. I would just like a consensus so I can compare a decent MC set up to my own 2 Channel. As for parts that is all subjective. Take my Speakers. The Signature model is £4K more expensive than the base model. I auditioned them both and prefered the Signature. What was changed was the Crossover and the wires inside the box. Was the difference worth 4K ? Who can say. It was to me.

Sir TT, thanks for your reply and I take what you said on board. The reason for me doing this is I would like to find out for myself what all the fuss is about. And yes I do believe that most off the time the more expensive equipment gives you better performance.I worded the concert hall reflection in my listening room wrong and have corrected that with my answer to Feanor. What you put is exactley what I want to find out. Up to now my limited experience with MC has been not good. I just don't like active noise coming from behind me. I didn't like it with Quadrophonie and I havn't liked it yet. I can not see how integration with so many different speakers etc. can work.
So I have some suggestions of gear so far and hopefully I will get some more and I can start this project.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Bernd]

For suggestions, well, you have a lot of options. Why not buy 5 Art stilettos and go from there? If you like the quasi wave-guide Peerless tweeter and coated paper Seas woofer, you might be a good candidate for a few Totem Acoustics models, the Rainmaker in particular. (I haven't heard the Stilettos, but I know the CA12RCY woofer well and use a very similar textile Peerless dome tweeter minus the horn face plate thing in my home theater speakers). Totem use a lot of Seas/Peerless drivers with solid grade crossovers, and excellent cabinetry (and actually veneer the interior of the cabinets because the designer believes it sounds better - go figure). If you're so inclined, there's some excellent speaker kits I could recommend that I think would approach your Art speakers in sound quality. Might make this project less of a burden financially.

An Arcam a/v receiver is a good starting point for power and processing. You could consider going with a mid-fi Denon/ Yamaha/Harman Kardon etc receiver and buy a decent multi-channel amp or a few stereo amps and probably save some money. Using the receiver as a pre-pro and maybe 2 surround channels lets you upgrade to better quality amplification in the more important channels (I do consider the front 3 much more important).

However, I would suggest rather than asking other people to recommend systems for you, why not give it the same honest effort all the multi-channel advocates gave. Only your ears know what speakers you find agreeable...give it a shot.

Thanks.
The only reason I have asked for recommendations is that users of MC appear to be convinced that it is better than 2CH and since I have no experience with MC I was asking for a starting point to equipment that will do that.

I was going to go the ART Stiletto route and order 5, but then I had some doubts. Firstly I am used to a certain quality of musical reproduction. So as good as the Stilettos are (and they are superb) they are not in the same Ballpark as the Emotion signature. You get my problem? If I go for the Stiletto I will without a doubt loose out on the magic of the Emotions. So if I trade that, what do I gain? That is a big problem that needs solving.
Second, I could buy 5 Emotions signature and when my wife finds out I will be homeless.
Or I could use the Emotions as front channel and the Stiletto as back. But I do not believe in mixing speakers up, not even from the same manufacturer as they are voiced differently and I would loose continuety. Something to think about.
Once we solve that we will tackle the amp issue. I think Unison Research do a 5 ch amp. Again I might go that way as I know the sound well.
Anyway Speakers first, and as I am on Virgin territory with MC I would welcome comments on how to solve the Speaker issue.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Florian]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......


I am on Virgin territory with MC I would welcome comments on how to solve the Speaker issue.

Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-)

[Bernd]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......


Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-):idea:
:yikes: :yikes: :shocked:

[E-Stat]

Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?
If you are addicted to music, value high resolution and choose wisely, the answer is yes.

rw

[Bernd]

But Im up the creek without a paddle at moment.She paid all my credit cards,just brought in another pair of speakers in the house(freebee's)some Hungary Videoton Saphir 1?(never heard of them),bought a Sharp 20" LCD for Mother's Day for bedroom:ihih: She said no more spending until I pay her what I owe her:incazzato:

I hear you. It's the same the world over I guess.:ihih:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Jim Clark]

This has been an interesting thread and I'll be curious to see how it all ends up. I've been on record as being anti-multi channel in a similar thread in the HT forum. I'm a bit reluctant to take the exact same stance here since that was limited to multichannel playback of 2 channel sources and this seems to be focused on dedicated multichannel sources.

I would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

There are always going to be exceptions here and there but as a rule most recording sessions don't take place in a church, at least not the ones I spend the most time with. Classical music is also more than likely to be a big exception but since I don't listen to classical very often, it's yet another non-issue for me.

Since most of my purchases aren't available in SACD I have spent precious little time investigating it's potential. For that reason I've stayed out of the thread until now ( I can't help myself). What I do know is that the 2 SACD demos I've had contained a whole lot more than ambient cues in the rear channels. The sound was easily localized and nothing like any concert I've ever been too. "course I see mainly indie bands in small venues. Could be I'm entirely off base here, but regardless of the outcome my 2 purchases yesterday aren't available on SACD so I won't be jumping in anytime soon.

Regards,
jc

[Feanor]

...
I would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

There are always going to be exceptions here and there but as a rule most recording sessions don't take place in a church, at least not the ones I spend the most time with. Classical music is also more than likely to be a big exception but since I don't listen to classical very often, it's yet another non-issue for me.
...
jc

Jim, et al., my comments were certainly founded on my classical listening experience. In that case the benefits seem clear to me.

The I have a couple of jazz MCs were the effect is pleasant but non-essential; then again, these are remaster of very old material originally recorded with no thought to multichannel reproduction. I have exactly one rock SACD, (you guessed it, Dark Side of the Moon), and here the effect is novelty -- which you either accept on its own terms or dismiss as being unlike a live concert.

[GMichael]

Steps in..
Sees many audiophiles with much more experience than himself on both sides of the fence.
Wonders if his input is worth the time to type it.
Turns and leaves mumbling something about mud wrestling and beer.

[Feanor]

Ah Bernd my friend, you know what we will die listening to right? Dedicated 2 channel with Vinyl as the source. Like you said: "we are used to a certain kind of quality"......


Easy buy 5 crap speakers, a surround preamp (to replace your Unison) and pass your Anaog signal through a nasty digital receiver or preamp box and add a subwoofer for a booming adventure. ;-)

Were I starting over with the HT set up or was wanting to experiment with MC music on a moderate budget, I would look at something like ...

Outlaw 990 pre/pro
5 x Behringer B2030A or B2031A active monitor speakers
Behringer B2092A subwooferReferences ...

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/990.html
http://www.behringer.com/B2031P/index.cfm?lang=ENG
If I were a lot flusher I might upgrade to Genelec HT208B speakers.
http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/powered-monitors-4.html

[Bernd]

Steps in..

Wonders if his input is worth the time to type it.
Turns and leaves mumbling something about mud wrestling and beer.

Your input is always valid, but mud wrestling and beer? :) Can I tag along? This MC lark is wearing me out, I need a break.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[bobsticks]

...and look what you've gotten yourself into:) Bernd, my journeyman friend, I gotta respect the attitude of inquiry you've taken on this and I'm excited for you. I think you've gotten some great advice from Kexo and Woochifer. Inkeeping with the points of discussion regarding MC playback (from true MC recordings NOT 2 channel matrixed or NEO:'d) I would humbly add a few observations:
1) I'm backing the guys on the "ambient cues" issue because I've been there and heard it with my system. Sample Jarvi/Cinn Symph~Symphonie Fantastique Mov.5. I can hear, from the rear, violins. Not direct source mic pointed at a violin, I'm talking about a mic pointed at a wall picking up the reflections of notes played by a violin. Throw in a few muffled sniffles, baton taps, etc. and I'm in the 10th row.
2) This on my system which is decidedly mid-fi, I guarantee that on the caliber of system you're putting together you will hear these types of nuances.
3) I like the idea of using the ARTs or Sigs or at least something you are familiar with and like the sound (I mean its not that different). As an aside, MC generally downplays "holographic imaging" in the front a bit, in turn favoring a more "coherent and seamless soundstage" across the board. Knowing your taste to some small extent, I believe you may want to look for a speaker with very forward imaging so as to retain some of that quality through the processing.
4) I didn't start to enjoy MC fully until I had floorstanders in back. Sorry to the bookshelf/surround crowd but IMO that is how it plays out.
5) Like any other audio situation, source material is crucial. Yeah you can load up on classical (at least one or two for reference) but that's not really your bag. I'm thinking you've got to get Dave Alvin~Blackjack Davidand some Keb Mo on SACD. You'll be able to A/B vinyl v. SACD if you so desire.
6) You'll want a good sub
7) How about a tube SACD?

You are in the business if teaching a dog some tricks Bernd. It could be that MC will never unseat your analog 2 from first love status, but I would be willing to wager heavily that if implemented properly you will walk away with a newfound respect for the MC format. And, of course, the journey and the discovery is half the fun...


As always cheers to ya,
M

[Resident Loser]

...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a relaistic experience in playback...maybe.

However even if you use older, absolutely pristine masters with which to work with, there are problems translating them into a you-are-there moment:

1. Close miking is just that, close...no one I know of listens to live music a few inches from the performer...not even the performer...his or her vantage point is skewed relative to the audience...

2. Add to the above, the signal is most likely mono...no directional cues, no depth to speak of...things of that nature...

3. No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

4. Fixing it in the mix, by panning the various performers into arbitrary positions in the soundstage further exacerbates everything I have mentioned...the individual tracks, which may have been recoreded at different times, possibly in different places, are just plopped in place and artificial reverberations are added to convey a sense of space that just simply doesn't exist...deep down inside the brain knows this...

5. Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

This opens another can of worms...No two recordings are exactly alike in how these things are implemented...Given the arbitrary artifice presented, I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say this wire or this component produces this result, when the source material is so far removed from an actual performance, particularly when it comes to soundstage or those ephemeral inner details we so often hear about...

Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

jimHJJ(...I've said it all before, and I'll most likely say it all again...)

[Bernd]

Thanks Mark. The Voice of reason, and you're right, a fine mess I got myself into.:idea: However since I think that this arguement is unwinable by word alone I had to grasp the stinging nettle.
It was only ever going to be Floor standing speakers anyway. To be honest I do look forward to it, as the money for this project comes from the fund for the Zanden CDP. I had another encounter with this machine recently and it is quiet boring on second hearing and too safe for me. Great player though. I just have to solve the quality issue. If I do something I want to do it well, and it needs to be of a certain standard to compete with the 2CH. Otherwise it would be a pointless exercise, which after all is what it is. This is not my journey into conversion to MC. I want to have proof that MC is better than 2CH. And reading Jims posts he makes a lot of sense and puts into words what my reservations are.
But if this will open the doors to my musical horizion being widened so much the better. I am not adversed to Classical just have never started down that road in any great steps. I own about 150 LPs of Classical recordings. So I'll have a starting point.
It's an interesting thread and I will see it through.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[GMichael]

Your input is always valid, but mud wrestling and beer? :) Can I tag along? This MC lark is wearing me out, I need a break.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Sure you can tag along. But before you do, I feel that I should warn you. Sometimes I listen to music in 7 channel mode. Also I will put a DVD recorded in 5.1 on the 5.1 setting. But I do like pure direct (2 channel) mode also. Will this bother you while we watch babes in mud, and drink?

[Bernd]

That sounds like the ticket. And free research for my MC project to boot. I am on my way.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[kexodusc]

...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

Perhaps in your opinion this point is important. I'm not sure it really is. I'm not lying when I say multi-channel sounds closer to "real" than stereo to me. To many others. I'm not sure the recording/playback process has to be actually have a tremendous relationship with reality in order to paint a picture of reality. Two dimensional paintings might not have a strong relationship with reality either, yet some can be considered a more accurate, closer reproduction of reality. There are different techniques for creating the illusion of depth and dimension. They aren't real of course, but they fool us into thinking that it's closer to real...despite what the brain knows deep inside.



1. Close miking is just that, close...no one I know of listens to live music a few inches from the performer...not even the performer...his or her vantage point is skewed relative to the audience...

2. Add to the above, the signal is most likely mono...no directional cues, no depth to speak of...things of that nature...

3. No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

Would these not, then, also be problems in 2-channel reproduction? How do these points fit into the issue of 2-channel or multi-channel?


4. Fixing it in the mix, by panning the various performers into arbitrary positions in the soundstage further exacerbates everything I have mentioned...the individual tracks, which may have been recoreded at different times, possibly in different places, are just plopped in place and artificial reverberations are added to convey a sense of space that just simply doesn't exist...deep down inside the brain knows this...

Yes. And again, the 2-channel recordings receive the same treatment, except the medium is far more limited in it's ability to create a wide soundstage and solid imaging. Which are just as important as the degree "resolution" or "fidelity". Overcoming these limitations isn't a bad thing if it gets us closer to where we want to be.


5. Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

Agreed. I haven't heard any reproduction of music, 2-channel, mono, or multichannel that sounded like "the real thing". Now, I think the best systems I've heard only fall in the $200,000 to $300,000 price range, so maybe we just need to keep throwing money at it.
However, the reverb/delays/"ambient cues", whatever you want to call them - if it's the intention of the artist that we hear them behind us, or the goal of the recording is to capture the sound in a hall on a given night, then what's the problem?


This opens another can of worms...No two recordings are exactly alike in how these things are implemented...Given the arbitrary artifice presented, I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say this wire or this component produces this result, when the source material is so far removed from an actual performance, particularly when it comes to soundstage or those ephemeral inner details we so often hear about... Okay.


Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

You bring up a good point. So far this thread has been making points to the effect that 2-channel or multi-channel is closer to some arbitrary definition of the "reality" of a live performance. Why are we limiting the discussion to this? Multi-channel audio in the hands of an artist is just another tool to use in the application of their trade. Why does everything have to be front and center on a stage? Some of the most unique musical performances I've been to had musicians scattered throughout the venue. I guess new thinking may frighten some people who are use to centuries old tradition. Recordings offer a whole new world of possibilities for delivering music. Not a tired, old, immitated tradition of grouping everyone in one spot, almost always in front of the listener.

Is this whole debate merely trying to answer "which medium reproduces live performances better?" Or which can offer a more satisfying experience?

[Bernd]

The more satisfying experience is what I am after, let's see if the MC thing delivers. And I am not against new ways to express on the contrary, the more the better. So if we take that sentiment on board, then one can't be meassured against the other as there are two different ways of expressions.
So where does that leave this project?

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

Would these not, then, also be problems in 2-channel reproduction? How do these points fit into the issue of 2-channel or multi-channel?

...just my point...since most of the catalog consists of either re-issues or newer recordings done with the tried-and-true methodology...MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud...Recall what I posted earlier:


If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a realistic experience in playback...maybe.

Re: the performance art aspect...I dunno' when or if being surrounded by the musicians will be OK...I see a live performance and I want to see the performers, I want to see the dancers, footfalls from behind tend to make me edgy...I want to see the magician otherwise it's "Presto! A rabbit...take my word on it"...I'm apt to crane my neck outa' joint, turning to see what's happnin' anywhere around me...as an audience member it's always been an A/V experience and I want to see and know what's going on...from a musicians' POV, I want eye-contact, I strive to make it an inter-personal experience, my performance feeds off of the response...

jimHJJ(...besides how would that translate into HT?...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

would question Big T's position on "ambient cues". Seems to me that this would be a perfectly valid point on live recordings but to me would be rendered moot on studio releases where the venue is an entirely different animal. Since studio releases account for what, 99+% of releases, I fail to see how "ambient cues" really come into play that much in a recording studio. Seems pretty logical that all I'm trying to reproduce is the studio setting, not Carnegie Hall unless of course it was actually recorded there. Whether or not I"ve actually been to a concert is really immaterial, isn't it? Naturally he's been in a studio about a million times more than me so I'm more than willing to get educated myself.

Jim,
When I speak of "ambient" cues, I am talking strictly about live recordings done in conert halls, or live recording of events of every music genre in general. (jazz, gospel etc). Studio recordings are all artistic in nature, and have no acoustical nature whatsoever. However, with that said, there are creative ways that a studio recording can be made to sound natural in a multichannel setup.

You could choose a large studio and record the group live with diffusors on the opposite end of the studio from the players. Pick up the diffusion in microphones mixed to the surrounds and add a little delay if you choose. This is all natural with nothing added to the mix.

The non natural way invollves using soundfield generators which have become quite good a simulating thousands of different environments. In the hands of a very competent engineer, you will not be able to tell if it is artifical or not. In the hands of a incompetent engineer will guarantee garbage. I have gotten so good at it, that I have even fooled the musicians I am mixing for into thinking they recorded a song in a live event.

A "concept" 5.1 channel mix has no retraints on where anything can be positioned. It is just what it is.

The point I am trying to make is that even studio recordings can use the natural ambience of the studio if one chooses. Tracks laid down at different times in the studio can also be made to sound natural with some use of ambience or evironmental generators, and consistant production practices. These take more care than the average bear, but are often done in a very schlocky manner in most cases.

I know panning of instruments is a issue for some "purist", but in many cases it is totally necessary. Just because an signal is going through a pan pot doesn't mean the integrity of that signal has been compromised. A good engineer will place the instrument in the mix just as it was on the stage. No loss, no fuss.

Multimiking is also a necessary thing. Signal bleeding can make mixing (and mastering) a tough job. A good engineer can make a multimiked setup sound as natural as decca tree setup and a pair of spaced omni by just augementing the mix with ambience capture mikes. I do this all the time when recording film scores, live concerts, and live gospel and jazz. A good example of that is to use spot mikes on specific solo instruments, and spaced omni's for the entire ensemble. You can pan the solo instruments into place within the soundfield, or keep it up front and center.


Adding mutiple channels for sides and rears simply adds to the sonic confusion by adding more reverb and even longer delays...while it may work on certain things and may be pleasing it is not natural, no matter how well executed.

Jim(RL), this is not always the case. Lexicon makes a wonderful sounding ambience generators that sound so natural I have fooled quite a few folks with it. A lot of work has gone into producing much better sound than those old bucket brigade delays, and ambience generators of old. If you delay the sides and rear, it actually makes the front sound a little clearer by means of the precedence effect. As long as the delay isn't so long that it creates another "event" to the ears, it will sound perfectly natural in most cases. Sometimes there is no need for delay at all. Delay is only necessary when the fronts and rears are playing pretty much the same signals. That has never happen in any of the multichannel mixes I have produced or heard. If the ambience is recorded naturally, there is no need for any delay or reverb, its already in the mix.


No other instruments bleed into the others space...it is something to be avoided in most recording sitations, but unfortunately, that's not how we hear in a live venue...It's artificial, contrived, an expedient.

While I admit that engineers have done a poor job on this, its not always the case. One thing that has been overlooked is the skill of the musician. It used to be early in my audio engineering career that musicians balanced themselves by ear, and by cues from the conductor. These days multimking is necessary because the skill of balancing by ear is a completely lost art. Without some sort of mixing (i.e balancing) in post production, most recordings would not sound very good. Bleeding makes it almost impossible to correctly balance parts against parts, that it why it is isolation is necessary. By using individual delays from each mike to the mixer, you can preserve all of the timing issues that preserve depth in a mix. I learned this from Shawn Murphy who is by far one of the best scoring engineers I have ever heard.

While I agree that quite a few 5.1 music mixes haven't sounded very good, I also know that many are repurposed from stereo masters rather than being recorded with 5.1 in mind. The recordings that have been specifically recorded, and mixed for multichannel sound a whole lot better. There are alot of bad audio engineers as well as mediocre singers and musicians. Alot of the most hated recording practices were born out of dealing with mediocre singers and musicians who skills do not allow for unedited mixer to SACD or DVD-A recordings. Some engineers use great tools poorly. Almost all of the record companies refuse to spend the money on quality product which makes some of these "evils" necessary.

Multichannel recording is stil a very young practice for many audio only engineers. I started my engineering career in multichannel so the transition from film mixes, to sound recording in 5.1 was nothing for me. Many audio engineers are stereo guys learning how to do multichannel, so there is going to be a learning curve that has to take place. It really hasn't help that the record companies have not so far supported the format with quality product. I am hoping that Bluray or HD DVD will change that.

Some of the concerns and opinions stated here have already been addressed, and some other will never be because of listener preference. Multichannel well done sound far better than stereo well done, at least in my experience, with my ears, and on my system. Once you hear really good multichannel, stereo just doesn't cut it anymore.

Lastly, unlike stereo recordings, multichannel has standards for room acoustics (PM3 developed by THX) and multichannel surround systems and operation (AES TD 1001) which covers the whole gammit from recording to mixing, mixing room acoustics, speaker dispersion, frequency response etc. in great depth. This is unprecedented in recording history.

[Woochifer]

And those stores were...?

As a fellow SF Bay Arean 2-channel lover, I'd be interested in checking them out.

Those would be Music Lovers Audio over in Berkeley, and a store along the Peninsula that went out of business a few years ago.


A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

As Kex pointed out, you're making a leap of logic here by automatically associating multichannel with mass produced. Plenty of specialty companies out there make both two-channel and multichannel separates, just as there are mass market companies that make both two-channel and multichannel products.


Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.

"Out perform" is a relative and highly subjective criteria. Like I said, there are things that multichannel can do that two-channel simply cannot. Those facets to my ears are important if the criteria relates to recreating a live event. All you have to do is compare the two-channel and multichannel layers on a decent SACD to hear how much more immersive the multichannel mix can sound.

If you prefer a tube-based sound, then all you have to do is add five channels of tube amplification to a tube-based multichannel passive preamp (I know that Conrad-Johnson makes one), and hook it directly to a multichannel SACD player.

No reason to come to a "consensus" or sell your two-channel system. Just give multichannel a fair listen before you deride it conceptually as "stupid and a great marketing ploy." Keep in mind that at one point stereo was considered by many mono purists as a gimmick as well, and that two-channel has reflected the limitations of the playback formats more so than any inherent technical advantage with that type of alignment (the early Bell Labs research concluded that three speakers were needed to accurately reproduce the front soundstage, and many classical recordings were recorded directly to three channels and unable to be played back as originally intended outside of a studio setting until SACD came along).


Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

What multichannel music recordings have you actually heard that do this? You're talking a lot about multichannel, but I just wonder how much actual listening and/or hands-on experience with setting up multichannel systems went into forming these observations.

Among the better 5.1 studio recordings that I own or have heard in demos, the surround channels are there to render more precise depth perception and more solidified imaging to what you hear up front. The 5.1 mixes done by Eliot Scheiner (Eagles, Steely Dan, REM) are a good place to start.

[superpanavision70mm]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! 2-channel is great and so is 5.1. It's purely up to the listener as to which one he/she likes. If you want to invest money in 2 channel than so be it, if you feel that surround information adds to the experience than go that route. However, here is the bigger question....which one allows you to do both? Ahhhh, now that's where it gets interesting.

I can play things back in 2 channel and 5.1/6.1, but someone who has a dedicated 2 channel setup...they are not able to go to 5.1 with a flick of a button. So I play stereo when I want the pure 2 channel sound of CD's or even some 2.0 SACDs. I then swith over to 5.1 when playing content with that information on it.

Ok, let's see if this debate still goes on and on........

[Bernd]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! 2-channel is great and so is 5.1. It's purely up to the listener as to which one he/she likes. If you want to invest money in 2 channel than so be it, if you feel that surround information adds to the experience than go that route. However, here is the bigger question....which one allows you to do both? Ahhhh, now that's where it gets interesting.

I can play things back in 2 channel and 5.1/6.1, but someone who has a dedicated 2 channel setup...they are not able to go to 5.1 with a flick of a button. So I play stereo when I want the pure 2 channel sound of CD's or even some 2.0 SACDs. I then swith over to 5.1 when playing content with that information on it.

Ok, let's see if this debate still goes on and on........

I think you missunderstood my intentions. I am not after to see which one is better. The same as you can't compare Apples with Oranges or electric guitar with an accoustic one.
I want to find out if it is possible, in a similar priceband, to get quality reproduction of the same high standard that I am used to with 2 CH, with MC.
So far my experience has not been so good. As I mentioned before if I have to split my Speaker budget from 2 to 5 I have to loose out somewhere on quality.
Also I am surprised how entrenched the two sides are when yet it is about enjoyment. I am only suspicious of the claims how much better MC is and I will try my best to satisfy my yearning, if I can solve the Speaker Issue.
I don't want a switch to select between 2Ch and MC. I am trying to build a dedicated MC system to compare. I will give it every chance and with a completely open mind.
Wooch thanks for some of the music recommendations. I could do with some more.
I will be loking at a Copland set up tonight (CVA 306 and CVA 535). Looks promising.
All advice and suggestions are welcome.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

Those What multichannel music recordings have you actually heard that do this? You're talking a lot about multichannel, but I just wonder how much actual listening and/or hands-on experience with setting up multichannel systems went into forming these observations.

...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Re: the performance art aspect...some time ago there was a thread or two, suggesting MC might be useful in the scenario of a centralized listener surrounded by the performers...I disagreed with the concept then as I do now...I mentioned it in this thread pre-emptively.

Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...The trick was simply to continue the front hemisphere in an unobtrusive manner...judicious application of the processing was key...focus, localization, all improved (of course, it's only my strictly anecdotal opinion on that)...I'd still be using it today had the unit not malfunctioned and some of the internals gone MD...

So, in a nutshell, MC does little more than what that gear could do. Given the state of digital art, I'm quite sure a processor could have been devised that woud run rings around the 550 and not required any software reissues of that bought-and-paid-for catalog previously mentioned. I don't have a big problem purchasing hardware, it's the rendered-by-the manufacturer obsolete software that irk's me to no end. I have mono shellac and I have mono and stereo vinyl...home brew RTR tape...I have cassettes...I have CDs...each one supplanted by the next in the guise of technological improvement. More like pecuniary improvement for the industry if you ask me.

One other thing to consider: do we hear stereophonically or binaurally? There is a difference.

jimHJJ(...alas, we live in a world of uninspired remakes...teevee, movies, Broadway, plagiarised books...an artistic vacuum and a very proftiable one...)

[shokhead]

Man,just buy 3 more speakers and listen to MC.

[Feanor]

...
I don't want a switch to select between 2Ch and MC. I am trying to build a dedicated MC system to compare. I will give it every chance and with a completely open mind
....
Bernd

I agree with this because I think the skeptic will be persuaded of the inherent advantages of MC with a relatively modest setup (-- such as the one I suggested above). :thumbsup:

Software is important however. As R.L. (I think it was) pointed out, reissues in MC that were not recorded with MC in mind are not, in general, going to convince. Seek out the latest, best classical recordings produced with MC in mind. I will provide a short list of ones I think are pretty good as soon as I can get to it.

[kexodusc]

I agree with this because I think the skeptic will be persuaded of the inherent advantages of MC with a relatively modest setup (-- such as the one I suggested above). :thumbsup:

Software is important however. As R.L. (I think it was) pointed out, reissues in MC that were not recorded with MC in mind are not, in general, going to convince. Seek out the latest, best classical recordings produced with MC in mind. I will provide a short list of ones I think are pretty good as soon as I can get to it.

RL's point was a good one. MC isn't a lost cause for "old" recordings though. Many modern recordings are done in multi-channel, and there are more than few classic recordings that were done in the Quad era....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! What an amazing coincidence. I own it on vinyl, cd, and SACD. There is no comparison - hi-rez and tru multichannel. I am such a huge fan of this disc and Beethoven's 5th, that the decision to incororate MC audio into my setup was worth this masterpiece alone. Everything else is just gravy.

[Bernd]

[QUOTE=kexodusc] ....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! [ QUOTE]

I had no idea you are that old.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[kexodusc]

I had no idea you are that old.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

LOL.
I'll be honest, I'm not even 30 yet. But I had excellent music teachers (including my dad) and a father with a very large vinyl collection - fortunate enough to have developed an ear for good music I guess (though the old man questions many of my modern selections :rolleyes:)

[bobsticks]

I had no idea you are that old.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:[/QUOTE]

How old does one have to be to appreciate classical music? You aren't engaging in the age-old, time-honored, anti-PC stereotyping via age descrimination, are you friend Bernd??:)

[Bernd]

Not at all. No discrimination from these shores on anything
Just when Kex put that the 5th and the 7th sounded as it was intended I thought he had touched base with Ludwig von:thumbsup: way back when.........:yikes:
My wife constantly shakes her head at my music selection. She is a through and through musical and stage fan. Can't stand the stuff. But live and let live.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

I had no idea you are that old.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:16:

How old does one have to be to appreciate classical music? You aren't engaging in the age-old, time-honored, anti-PC stereotyping via age descrimination, are you friend Bernd??:)[/QUOTE]

...I think that was a joke...Bernd didn't know Kex and Ludwig were contemporaries...How would Kex know Beethoven's intentions..Oh...never mind...

jimHJJ(...whew!!!...)

[Resident Loser]

Not at all. No discrimination from these shores on anything
Just when Kex put that the 5th and the 7th sounded as it was intended I thought he had touched base with Ludwig von:thumbsup: way back when.........:yikes:
My wife constantly shakes her head at my music selection. She is a through and through musical and stage fan. Can't stand the stuff. But live and let live.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

...crossed in the virtual mail...

jimHJJ(...is it just me?...or is it hopeless around here?...)

[Bernd]

...crossed in the virtual mail...

jimHJJ(...is it just me?...or is it hopeless around here?...)
I know I know.
Just to divert slightly. When I went home to Berlin over Easter it was the first time in a long while I spent some time with my second youngest nephew. He is 14 years old and goes to a school for musically gifted children, but the weird thing is he dresses and looks like a Punk from the 70s yet is consummed by classical music (and heavy stuff at that) and that is what he listened to. Most unsettling when you see it.:confused:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[GMichael]

I know I know.
Just to divert slightly. When I went home to Berlin over Easter it was the first time in a long while I spent some time with my second youngest nephew. He is 14 years old and goes to a school for musically gifted children, but the weird thing is he dresses and looks like a Punk from the 70s yet is consummed by classical music (and heavy stuff at that) and that is what he listened to. Most unsettling when you see it.:confused:

Peace

Bernd:16:

Kinda know how you mean, unsettling. I remember when first I walked down the hall at IBM's TJ Watson Research Center and saw a guy in cut off jeans, a tie died t-shirt, long unwashed hair & beard. I turned to my new coworkers and asked why we were in suits & ties while he dresses like a hippy. Their reply: "He won a nobel prize. He wears what he wants."

Huh?!

[Resident Loser]

but the weird thing is he dresses and looks like a Punk from the 70s yet is consummed by classical music (and heavy stuff at that) and that is what he listened to. Most unsettling when you see it.:confused: Peace

...to do with that old saying about books and their covers...

jimHJJ(...can you say peer pressure?...)

[Resident Loser]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! .

...it depends...are you playng Fernando Sor's "Variations On A Theme From Die Zauberflote" or the James Gang's "Funk 49"?

jimHJJ(...different tools for different jobs...)

[Feanor]

[quote=kexodusc] ....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! [ QUOTE]

I had no idea you are that old.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd

I bought the Klieber on vinyl just after it was released. :lol: Today I own the SACD as well.

[kexodusc]

Just to reiterate...Beethoven composed the music, Kleiber did a good job of ensuring a solid performance, but the goal of the recording that night was to capture the performance in that particular hall. And it did - mission accomplished.

Pretty sure Ludder (as I call him) would have been a multi-channel advocate too...

[bobsticks]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities. Much to his chagrin and much to my delight, it makes him backpeddle a bit---no matter how senseless the charge.
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanan as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers

[GMichael]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities. Much to his chagrin and much to my delight, it makes him backpeddle a bit---no matter how senseless the charge.
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanon as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers

One vote from me. I know that he wants more money in everyone's pockets. No hunger or war. And a pair of great speakers in everyone's living room.

[Woochifer]

...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Quite the contrary. While a lot of older recordings (e.g. Miles Davis' In A Silent Way) indeed don't provide enough channels to produce a more enveloping listening experience with a 5.1 setup, plenty of reissues DO incorporate the ambient cues in a very convincing way. To compare this with the old "electronically reprocessed for stereo" LPs is laughable if you actually get around to hearing what a multichannel reissue is capable of versus the degraded sound quality that those reprocessed mono recordings provided. The results are very different. Like I asked before, what recordings are you listening to that would lead you to equate discrete multichannel reissues with processed monophonic issues?

Another thing to consider is that a new multichannel mix also allows for big improvements in the sound quality, because the multichannel mix does NOT use the original two-track mixdown as the master source (there are plenty of two-channel SACD reissues that already do that). The original mixdown might have used inferior analog recorders that degraded the signal during successive mixing passes, and used a lot of signal processing (to create the phantom center stereo effect) and compression (to compensate for limitations of the LP medium) along the way. The multichannel Concord Jazz SACD reissues are great examples of how a new mix taken from the original multi-track masters can significantly improve the sound quality over the original two-track mixdowns.


Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...The trick was simply to continue the front hemisphere in an unobtrusive manner...judicious application of the processing was key...focus, localization, all improved (of course, it's only my strictly anecdotal opinion on that)...I'd still be using it today had the unit not malfunctioned and some of the internals gone MD...

HUGE difference comparing discrete multichannel with the old matrixed schemes. Matrix decoders can only do so much compared to the precision and accuracy that discrete surround channels provide.

Even the so-called discrete quad formats entailed so much processing and signal manipulation that I would highly doubt the transparency between the quad LP playback and the original four-track master. The multichannel Aubort/Nickrenz SACD reissues are taken from the original four-channel quad masters that were recorded with mic positions in the hall to capture the ambient cues. The SACD is really the first time that those master recordings have been heard as originally intended because the original quad release used matrix encoding. If you want a demonstration of what multichannel is capable, just do a comparison of the two-channel mixdowns of those recordings (which already sound great) with the four-channel discrete track. In my listenings with a variety of matrix decoders over the years, I've never heard anything that approaches the subjective realism that those four-channel recordings provide.

[Bernd]

So here is my experience on my first step on my MC journey.
I arrived at the guys house (a friend of a client of mine) last night to listen to his MC set-up.
Big TV between the two front channel. Not a good start. Anyway modernistic home (pebbles in glass bowl, etc).
He had the mentioned Copland CVA 306 and CVA 535. Very nice looking electronics.
Primare DVD-30 Universal Player and Proac Speakers Response 1SC,Response D15 Centre Cannel1 and a ER1 Sub. Never been a big fan of proacs floor standers but their Standmounts are very good. Cables were all by Chord Co.
So off we go.
The very first thing I noticed was an artifical low frequency reproduction I did not like and it almost stoped the trial there and then. I asked him to take the sub out as I will not use one in my home. No integration at all, if that is at all possible.
So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.
Anyway we carried on. Unfortunatly he had no TT. So all the comparisions were done with the silver discs.
Before I went to him I popped to the local Virgin store and bought 3 SACD.
Kraftwerk-Minimum Maxium
Moody Blues -Days of Future Past
Ian Shaw - Drawn to all things,the songs of Joni Mitchell
he had for my pleassure
The Eagles - Hotel California
and some Mike Oldfield

The Moody Blues piece I know very well as I have it on prestine Vinyl and it sounds superb. What I heard yesterday I did not care for very much. It was boring and confusing. I had sound coming from behind me and nothing seemed to hold together. Man this disc played on a decent TT with a good Moving coil cartridge into a Tube Phono stage into 2CH wipes the floor with the SACD.
It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying.
I can see how people will be impressed by this presentation and as a second system or to watch movies it is doing a good job. But for ultimate Music enjoyment it failed the test for me.
So the score is 2CH (one) - MC (nill).
But this will not be the only trial.I don't give up that easy. Next week I will try and listen to a Unison Research amp with Final Speakers and a Esoteric Silver disc spinner. Looking forward to it.
The Copland Combo found a place on my shortlist. I am sure with a better disc spinner and different speakers it can do a good job.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities.

...as evidenced by his response (which pre-dates mine by mere minutes; both simply crossed in the mail), Bernd seems to have been under the same impression as I was...curious that...and no, my further comment was meant as a more general indictment...a closer reading of some of the posts will easily reveal my motivations...As I've said to others in the past, you'll know when it's personal...

jimHJJ(...as of yet, I see no reason for it to take that tack...)

[Feanor]

RL's point was a good one. MC isn't a lost cause for "old" recordings though. Many modern recordings are done in multi-channel, and there are more than few classic recordings that were done in the Quad era....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! What an amazing coincidence. I own it on vinyl, cd, and SACD. There is no comparison - hi-rez and tru multichannel. I am such a huge fan of this disc and Beethoven's 5th, that the decision to incororate MC audio into my setup was worth this masterpiece alone. Everything else is just gravy.

I had another listen this morning to the 1st movement to reinforce my opinion. And that is that this DG SACD is a not an ideal MC demo, especially for those disinclined to believe in MC's inherent strengths.

To put it succinctly, there is too much instrumental content coming through the rear channels -- too easy for the skeptic to dismiss this as gimmicky.

In the same short audition I also listen to other, IMO, much more convincing SACDs:

Shostakovich: Symphonies 5 & 9; Valery Gergiev / Kirov Orchestra. Philips 470 651-2; (recorded/mastered in 24 bit / 48 kHz PCM)
Haydn: The Creation; VokalEnsemble Koln, etc. Naxos 6.110073-74; (mastered in DSD)Both of these are excellent and use the rear channels purely for ambience. The soundstage and imaging are truly amazing, transcending anything possible in stereo, IMO. (The centre channel not doubt helps with the precise imaging, but I'm not sure its the whole explanation.) My impression is that the reproduction of crescendos with tympani or other bass, reaches a whole new level of impact unknown in stereo even when using a sub -- maybe this is merely the result of 6 bass drivers instead of 2 or 3, I can't say for sure.

On the issue of PCM record/master versus pure DSD, I have no opinion. Both of the above sounded great, but the Haydn perhaps better: this might or might not have to do with DSD vs. PCM.

[Resident Loser]

(1)... plenty of reissues DO incorporate the ambient cues in a very convincing way.

(2)...To compare this with the old "electronically reprocessed for stereo" LPs is laughable

(3)... Like I asked before, what recordings are you listening to that would lead you to equate discrete multichannel reissues with processed monophonic issues?

(4)...Another thing to consider is that a new multichannel mix also allows for big improvements in the sound quality, because the multichannel mix does NOT use the original two-track mixdown as the master source (there are plenty of two-channel SACD reissues that already do that). The original mixdown might have used inferior analog recorders that degraded the signal during successive mixing passes, and used a lot of signal processing (to create the phantom center stereo effect) and compression (to compensate for limitations of the LP medium) along the way. The multichannel Concord Jazz SACD reissues are great examples of how a new mix taken from the original multi-track masters can significantly improve the sound quality over the original two-track mixdowns.

(5)...HUGE difference comparing discrete multichannel with the old matrixed schemes. Matrix decoders can only do so much compared to the precision and accuracy that discrete surround channels provide.

(6)...Even the so-called discrete quad formats entailed so much processing and signal manipulation that I would highly doubt the transparency between the quad LP playback and the original four-track master. The multichannel Aubort/Nickrenz SACD reissues are taken from the original four-channel quad masters that were recorded with mic positions in the hall to capture the ambient cues. The SACD is really the first time that those master recordings have been heard as originally intended because the original quad release used matrix encoding. If you want a demonstration of what multichannel is capable, just do a comparison of the two-channel mixdowns of those recordings (which already sound great) with the four-channel discrete track. In my listenings with a variety of matrix decoders over the years, I've never heard anything that approaches the subjective realism that those four-channel recordings provide.

Let's see if I can provide some conceptual continuity to my participation in this thread:

Here's the premise...


Post #30...I am of the opinion...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...


Re: point (1)....I don't recall ever saying MCs couldn't be convincing, I did say however:




Post #66...My only objection... ...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

Post#72...just my point...since most of the catalog consists of either re-issues or newer recordings done with the tried-and-true methodology......


Re: Points (2)(4)(6)


Post #66...If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a relaistic experience in playback...maybe.

Post #77...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Re: point (5)
Post #77...Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...

The 550 was not a matrix decoder...the software wasn't encoded ergo...As I understood it, it was more of an electronic embellishment of the Dyna-Quad concept with adjustable delay times and reverb levels...and it worked anecdotally well IMHO.

My apologies for going out of sequence, but it works for me...

Re: point (3)As mtry oftimes said..."stereo, I don' need no stinkin' stereo"...Why would I need to own the software or hardware to make any of the statements that I have posted, which in essence equates to the following:

I am of the opinion that due to limitations with regard to use of: close miking techniques resulting in virtually mono signals devoid of real localization cues, overuse of pan pots, overuse of reverberant contrivances to restore those sonic cues, that most of the older master tapes ( and even most of the more contemporary ones) are found to be lacking and that...


...MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud...

jimHJJ(...tol'ya'so, I knew I'd say it again...See my sign-off Post #66...)

[Bernd]

...
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanan as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers
Thanks for proposing me. I have thought about it all night (another sleepless one, damn), and I must decline as I am not twisted enough to compete with the Scheisters of the moment. I am however standing, for money in everybodys pocket, no hunger, no war and a decent pair of speakers (if you want MC you have to spent some of that green yourself) in everybodys home. Now that's a start.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[bobsticks]

RL-- I recognized that your further comments were not headed my way, and also was aware of the spirit of your general participation in this thread. Having read many of your previous posts in this thread and others I knew you weren't in attack mode. It is with a wry smile that I type that I would rather face a battalion of laser-totin' mechanical lizards unarmed than incur you wrath, sir.

Feonor--I suspect, no strike that, know that the effects that you ascribe to Kleiber are exactly what jim means in RL#72 by "tried-and-true methodology". I have a couple of the Silverline Series Classic DVDA (Tchaikovsky and Beethoven) and they'll be kickin' along pretty well with ambient cues in the back and invariably the next crescendo, WHAM, you've got violas crawling up your rear. Obviously disconcerting, and I believe to be derived from the "tried-and-true methodology" of two-channel mixdowns (probably R&R's insidious creep).
I haven't heard Kleiber, nor the Shostakovich, but I have heard theHaydyn and it is an excellent example of things done the correct way. I would probably add the Jarvi I mentioned earlier and Beethoven's 6th(Sony ss6012) as some shining examples of ambient cues done well. Unfortunately, conventional mix-downs and pan-pot antics do, to some extent, occur when the guys behind the board approach things, well, conventionally.
Admittedly, it can be a frustrating crapshoot at the checkout line. And those of us that have heard MC done subtly and tastefully would be remiss if we insisted that there aren't plenty of examples of outright unlistenable junk out there.

Bernd--I'm not surprised that under the conditions you listed that your experience was unfullfilling. These ears have never found any sub/sat combo to reach the heights to which this musical medium can perform--even less of a chance if you remove the sub from the equation. And no matter the esoteric nature of the speakers, I find this to be a constant. Maybe OK for movies, but not the tunes. I'm glad to hear that you journey will continue...

Alright I've got to get back to work or I may be forced to yell at myself...

Cheers all

[Woochifer]

Re: point (3)As mtry oftimes said..."stereo, I don' need no stinkin' stereo"...Why would I need to own the software or hardware to make any of the statements that I have posted, which in essence equates to the following:

I am of the opinion that due to limitations with regard to use of: close miking techniques resulting in virtually mono signals devoid of real localization cues, overuse of pan pots, overuse of reverberant contrivances to restore those sonic cues, that most of the older master tapes ( and even most of the more contemporary ones) are found to be lacking and that...

MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud.



Lot of interesting points, and in the end, you did finally answer my query about which multichannel recordings you listened to that support these conclusions. Thanks! :cornut:

[Resident Loser]

Lot of interesting points, and in the end, you did finally answer my query about which multichannel recordings you listened to that support these conclusions. Thanks! :cornut:

...Where? You saw a conclusion? Conclusion, "...here boy!..." he pleads...(whistles, offers treats, whistles again)...No, no, no...you must be mistaken, no conclusion 'round here...just offering the premise of what I see as a legitimate argument and some solid technical reasons why most MC (generally speaking) and most stereo recordings are far from usable as an arbiter of realism or basis for claiming accuracy in ears-only test results...

Then, of course, there is the debate of stereophonic (an electronic contrivance) vs. binaural (the way we actually hear)...

jimHJJ(...luckily it's a three-day weekend so we won't get into that...)

[GMichael]

...Where? You saw a conclusion? Conclusion, "...here boy!..." he pleads...(whistles, offers treats, whistles again)...No, no, no...you must be mistaken, no conclusion 'round here...just offering the premise of what I see as a legitimate argument and some solid technical reasons why most MC (generally speaking) and most stereo recordings are far from usable as an arbiter of realism or basis for claiming accuracy in ears-only test results...

Then, of course, there is the debate of stereophonic (an electronic contrivance) vs. binaural (the way we actually hear)...

jimHJJ(...luckily it's a three-day weekend so we won't get into that...)

Wait. Don't leave for those 3 days yet. I want my treat first. Is it one of those biscuits I like? You know, the cheesy ones? Could I get some tea with that?

[Resident Loser]

Wait. Don't leave for those 3 days yet. I want my treat first. Is it one of those biscuits I like? You know, the cheesy ones? Could I get some tea with that?

...we got no cheez, the Velveeta box is empty, but in good time, all will be fine and they'll be crackers 'n' cheez a plenty...

jimHJJ(...for future reference will a semi-soft, rinded goat on toast points be OK?...)

[GMichael]

...we got no cheez, the Velveeta box is empty, but in good time, all will be fine and they'll be crackers 'n' cheez a plenty...

jimHJJ(...for future reference will a semi-soft, rinded goat on toast points be OK?...)

Yick! I'd rather eat a milkbone. Pass.

Have a great weekend.

[Resident Loser]

Yick! I'd rather eat a milkbone. Pass.

Have a great weekend.

...wouldn't touch that fermented curd with a 10ft. baguette my own self! And Milkbones aren't half bad...Alpo Snaps are pretty good...

Now some Stilton and walnuts...yuuummmm...or maybe a nice Cheez-waffie...

jimHJJ(...I am a man of eclectic and diverse tastes...back atcha...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So here is my experience on my first step on my MC journey.
I arrived at the guys house (a friend of a client of mine) last night to listen to his MC set-up.
Big TV between the two front channel. Not a good start. Anyway modernistic home (pebbles in glass bowl, etc).

I am really curious why a television sitting between the two L/R main speakers presents a problem?


He had the mentioned Copland CVA 306 and CVA 535. Very nice looking electronics.
Primare DVD-30 Universal Player and Proac Speakers Response 1SC,Response D15 Centre Cannel1 and a ER1 Sub. Never been a big fan of proacs floor standers but their Standmounts are very good. Cables were all by Chord Co.

Could the fact that you went into this listening environment with a dislike of his speakers effect what you heard?


So off we go.
The very first thing I noticed was an artifical low frequency reproduction I did not like and it almost stoped the trial there and then. I asked him to take the sub out as I will not use one in my home. No integration at all, if that is at all possible.

I am curious to what you consider "artificial", Was this person using something like a bass generator that adds an octave of information to the bass frequencies? Or are you so used to hearing system without subs that you consider a system that uses them sounds "artificial"?


So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.[/quote]

Could it have been the ROOM that held an exceptable sound from you? Was the room treated in any way? Was the system calibrated for equal distance and amplitude? Where were you sitting in relationship to the speakers, walls etc?



Anyway we carried on. Unfortunatly he had no TT. So all the comparisions were done with the silver discs.

After I read this, I knew that this was more about the fact the guy didn't have a turntable, than it was about actually evaluating what you heard. See below because this is a continuation of this thought process.


The Moody Blues piece I know very well as I have it on prestine Vinyl and it sounds superb. What I heard yesterday I did not care for very much. It was boring and confusing. I had sound coming from behind me and nothing seemed to hold together. Man this disc played on a decent TT with a good Moving coil cartridge into a Tube Phono stage into 2CH wipes the floor with the SACD.

What it sounds like to me is that you didn't really care for the mix, which is apparently a remaster from 2ch to multichannel. Hardly the stuff for evaluating MC the correct way. This has nothing to do with the carrier of the music (SACD) but more of the mix itself (apparently you are not used to artistic remixes of stereo material)


It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying./quote]

I would say that this was a poor choice of listening material. It is better if you want an honest evaluation of multichannel music to choose music that is recorded for 5.1, choose SACD that are recorded and mastered in DSD (not a reissue of catalog item), and listen on a system that does not use bass manangement of any post processing (post processing tools like delay and bass management forces the signals to be converted from DSD to PCM which detiorates the DSD signal)

[quote]I can see how people will be impressed by this presentation and as a second system or to watch movies it is doing a good job. But for ultimate Music enjoyment it failed the test for me.

What would you consider is the ultimate music enjoyment, 2ch stereo?


So the score is 2CH (one) - MC (nill).
But this will not be the only trial.I don't give up that easy. Next week I will try and listen to a Unison Research amp with Final Speakers and a Esoteric Silver disc spinner. Looking forward to it.
The Copland Combo found a place on my shortlist. I am sure with a better disc spinner and different speakers it can do a good job.

Peace

Bernd:16:

It is tough for me to take this whole evaluation seriously. I probably would have if you didn't mention vinyl period. What this particular post became to me after reading it several times is nothing more than a bashing of MC just to prop up your taste for 2ch vinyl. One of the main things I find rediculous about 2ch vinyl lovers is there unwillingness to understand that vinyl is loaded with more distortions (especially after it is played a few times) and the distortions of the stereo format itself. However, they are most willing to bash MC and find everything they can to make it inferior to their almighty favorite.

If you are going to get anything out of this trial of MC, try to leave your personal biases out of the mix, and keep a truely open mind. If you walk in hating the speakers and DVD player, then the evaluation is useless. This becomes more about the electronic you hate, than a evaluation of the format itself.

I am glad to see that you will listen again. Based on what you posted here, I don't think you know enough about the evaluation system calibration, or how much the room played a role in what you heard. Just my 75 cents.

[GMichael]

Just my 75 cents.

Inflation?

[shokhead]

I am really curious why a television sitting between the two L/R main speakers presents a problem?



Could the fact that you went into this listening environment with a dislike of his speakers effect what you heard?



I am curious to what you consider "artificial", Was this person using something like a bass generator that adds an octave of information to the bass frequencies? Or are you so used to hearing system without subs that you consider a system that uses them sounds "artificial"?


So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.

Could it have been the ROOM that held an exceptable sound from you? Was the room treated in any way? Was the system calibrated for equal distance and amplitude? Where were you sitting in relationship to the speakers, walls etc?




After I read this, I knew that this was more about the fact the guy didn't have a turntable, than it was about actually evaluating what you heard. See below because this is a continuation of this thought process.



What it sounds like to me is that you didn't really care for the mix, which is apparently a remaster from 2ch to multichannel. Hardly the stuff for evaluating MC the correct way. This has nothing to do with the carrier of the music (SACD) but more of the mix itself (apparently you are not used to artistic remixes of stereo material)


It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying./quote]

I would say that this was a poor choice of listening material. It is better if you want an honest evaluation of multichannel music to choose music that is recorded for 5.1, choose SACD that are recorded and mastered in DSD (not a reissue of catalog item), and listen on a system that does not use bass manangement of any post processing (post processing tools like delay and bass management forces the signals to be converted from DSD to PCM which detiorates the DSD signal)



What would you consider is the ultimate music enjoyment, 2ch stereo?



It is tough for me to take this whole evaluation seriously. I probably would have if you didn't mention vinyl period. What this particular post became to me after reading it several times is nothing more than a bashing of MC just to prop up your taste for 2ch vinyl. One of the main things I find rediculous about 2ch vinyl lovers is there unwillingness to understand that vinyl is loaded with more distortions (especially after it is played a few times) and the distortions of the stereo format itself. However, they are most willing to bash MC and find everything they can to make it inferior to their almighty favorite.

If you are going to get anything out of this trial of MC, try to leave your personal biases out of the mix, and keep a truely open mind. If you walk in hating the speakers and DVD player, then the evaluation is useless. This becomes more about the electronic you hate, than a evaluation of the format itself.

I am glad to see that you will listen again. Based on what you posted here, I don't think you know enough about the evaluation system calibration, or how much the room played a role in what you heard. Just my 75 cents.

I thought the tv inbetween the L&R speakers was odd also. Its more odd if it isnt.

[audio_dude]

wow, very good read!

[Bernd]

I am really curious why a television sitting between the two L/R main speakers presents a problem?



Could the fact that you went into this listening environment with a dislike of his speakers effect what you heard?



I am curious to what you consider "artificial", Was this person using something like a bass generator that adds an octave of information to the bass frequencies? Or are you so used to hearing system without subs that you consider a system that uses them sounds "artificial"?


So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.

Could it have been the ROOM that held an exceptable sound from you? Was the room treated in any way? Was the system calibrated for equal distance and amplitude? Where were you sitting in relationship to the speakers, walls etc?




After I read this, I knew that this was more about the fact the guy didn't have a turntable, than it was about actually evaluating what you heard. See below because this is a continuation of this thought process.



What it sounds like to me is that you didn't really care for the mix, which is apparently a remaster from 2ch to multichannel. Hardly the stuff for evaluating MC the correct way. This has nothing to do with the carrier of the music (SACD) but more of the mix itself (apparently you are not used to artistic remixes of stereo material)


It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying./quote]

I would say that this was a poor choice of listening material. It is better if you want an honest evaluation of multichannel music to choose music that is recorded for 5.1, choose SACD that are recorded and mastered in DSD (not a reissue of catalog item), and listen on a system that does not use bass manangement of any post processing (post processing tools like delay and bass management forces the signals to be converted from DSD to PCM which detiorates the DSD signal)



What would you consider is the ultimate music enjoyment, 2ch stereo?



It is tough for me to take this whole evaluation seriously. I probably would have if you didn't mention vinyl period. What this particular post became to me after reading it several times is nothing more than a bashing of MC just to prop up your taste for 2ch vinyl. One of the main things I find rediculous about 2ch vinyl lovers is there unwillingness to understand that vinyl is loaded with more distortions (especially after it is played a few times) and the distortions of the stereo format itself. However, they are most willing to bash MC and find everything they can to make it inferior to their almighty favorite.

If you are going to get anything out of this trial of MC, try to leave your personal biases out of the mix, and keep a truely open mind. If you walk in hating the speakers and DVD player, then the evaluation is useless. This becomes more about the electronic you hate, than a evaluation of the format itself.

I am glad to see that you will listen again. Based on what you posted here, I don't think you know enough about the evaluation system calibration, or how much the room played a role in what you heard. Just my 75 cents.

Thanks for your 75 cents.
First off, I do not hate anything or anybody-period.
All I said was that I am not a fan of the Proac Floorstanding Range. They are however a decent speaker.
I have no TV between my speakers as the Reflection will destroy the centre Image. Might be ok for movies but that is not what I am after.
The sub issue. I have no sub in my system. My Speakers reach low enough for me and I am finding out that integration is a very difficult goal to achieve if at all. And would I really want a Trailer behind a Ferrari.Those fart boxes are 10 beats behind the music.
The Room had no treatment to speak of. Just two sofas and a deep pile rug in the centre. For christ sake the guy was kind enough to let me listen to his system maybe I should have told him off.
His system was set up by the dealer.
I listened from the centre sofa and I did not meassure the distance from the walls. Didn't think it was appropriate to bring a tape meassure into his home.
As for the TT. I said unfortunatly as I would have liked to have had a listen to a record through his system.
I agree that the music might not have been the ideal choice, but I live in the real world and want to enjoy that what I like not what has been recorded for a certain system. And I have to start somewhere.
As for enjoyment. For me it's still my 2ch and Tube system that does it for me.
Last night I listened to Vinyl to a couple of the discs we played the night before and it was to my ears very much more enjoyable.
It was never my intention to bash MC. I seriously want to find out if MC can for similar outlay provide me with the same enjoyment. I am well aware of the drawbacks of Vinyl but for me the organic quality of sound outways the processed digital reproduction by some margin. But we are all entiteld to like what we want. I would never generalize that 2CH is better then MC, just that for me until now my 2CH is more enjoyable.
However I think I will stop sharing my journey on here as it was intended for information and hopefully getting some helpfull advice. I did not put it on here to voluteer for a bashing from the MC fanclub or for having my shared experience microscopicly dissected.As I said before this arguement can not be settled by words alone, hence my trial.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Florian]

Wow, a huge thread and i am not in it. Well, time to get back to the live music.....in 2 channel of course :-)

[kexodusc]

I hope you don't stop sharing your thoughts Bernd. Some of us will just have to accept that it's very possibly your ears just don't like MC. It could be after decades of establishing familiarity with stereo, deviations from the "norm" don't appeal to you. Could be the room, equipment, or an irrational bias. Or it could just be that multichannel audio sucks to you.

That's fine. At least you tried and gave it an honest effort, which is more than most opponents I know have done.

I was in the same boat until 2 years ago. Now I've converted to the multi-chanel camp, but ironically enough I still listen to 2-channel stereo much more. Just a simple matter of owning 15 CD's/LP's for evey DVD-A/SACD I have.

One thing I've observed. It seems the multichannel advocates can thoroughly 2-channel stereo playback, but the stereo advocates can't enjoy multi-channel audio.

I sympathize with the cable subjectivist camp - I get quite frustrated when I read comments on web forums, or hear people in stores saying how stereo is better than multic-channel, when I know it isn't. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Florian]

I get quite frustrated when I read comments on web forums, or hear people in stores saying how stereo is better than multic-channel, when I know it isn't.

Kinda like me when i hear that a box speaker sounds neutral :6:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

.
I have no TV between my speakers as the Reflection will destroy the centre Image. Might be ok for movies but that is not what I am after.

This is bull. I have a huge 65" television sitting in between and slightly behind my L/R mains, I get a very solid center image when I listen to two channel sources. As a matter of fact, you could sit off center to each side and still get a VERY strong center image. I have heard this argument before from a "audiophile". It holds up well in theory, but in practice it doesn't fly. Did you know that that television breaks up any side to side resonances?


The sub issue. I have no sub in my system. My Speakers reach low enough for me and I am finding out that integration is a very difficult goal to achieve if at all. And would I really want a Trailer behind a Ferrari.Those fart boxes are 10 beats behind the music.

More bull. Who ever told you that integrating a subwoofer was so difficult has a brain the size of a mosquito. I have two very large transmission line subs that sit it my system. Most times you cannot even tell they are there until they are called for. Widescreen review has one of the finest souding systems for both music and film. They have two giant subwoofers in their system, perfectly integrated. Many multichannel folks have subs in their systems, I have never heard this crap about subs being ten beat behind the music. I have heard way too many acousticians and speaker builders say this whole rant by so called "audiophiles" is a bunch of rubbish.


The Room had no treatment to speak of. Just two sofas and a deep pile rug in the centre.

So the room COULD have been at fault rather than the equipment, or even the multichannel music itself!. Wherever there are reflections both early and late, your perception of imaging will be altered. Audiophiles love equipment, they have a hard time dealing with the room it sits in though.




His system was set up by the dealer.
I listened from the centre sofa and I did not meassure the distance from the walls. Didn't think it was appropriate to bring a tape meassure into his home.

Dealers are great at installing equipment, they are usually very lousy at calibrating correctly.


As for the TT. I said unfortunatly as I would have liked to have had a listen to a record through his system.

Such dedication to vinyl. Such dedication that it often predjudices any venture away from the old stale two channel mold. Techonology has moved on, so should a great many people.


I agree that the music might not have been the ideal choice, but I live in the real world and want to enjoy that what I like not what has been recorded for a certain system. And I have to start somewhere.

What does living in the real world have to do with wisely picking material for listening audition? And since when do people record for a CERTAIN system? Scoobie says HUH??





As for enjoyment. For me it's still my 2ch and Tube system that does it for me.

Great, so sonic purity and accuracy is not as important to you as warming over your already warmed over audio. Tubes are sonic equalizers at best, but they are not the pinnacle of accuracy. I use microphones with tubes in them to get a CERTAIN sound, not a ACCURATE sound. I however respect the choices folk make on their sound, different strokes for different folks. Notice how I didn't say better, just different.




Last night I listened to Vinyl to a couple of the discs we played the night before and it was to my ears very much more enjoyable.

You like the sound of vinyl and tubes, great. If you are going to so a serious evaluation on MC, then you need to put any comparison between the two away. If you don't, you will walk away learning nothing about the MC format. It will always come back to my tube and vinyl. People often find it very difficult to let go of what they are used to.


It was never my intention to bash MC. I seriously want to find out if MC can for similar outlay provide me with the same enjoyment. I am well aware of the drawbacks of Vinyl but for me the organic quality of sound outways the processed digital reproduction by some margin.

Did you know that vinyl is also processed?? Ever heard of tracking error, or wall noise. Or how about poor cutting during mastering? You actually like the sound of pops and clicks. How musical, I am sure all of this was in the original recording (sarcasm off) In reality digital is no more processed than vinyl or analog.





But we are all entiteld to like what we want. I would never generalize that 2CH is better then MC, just that for me until now my 2CH is more enjoyable.

Great, I am glad you like 2ch


However I think I will stop sharing my journey on here as it was intended for information and hopefully getting some helpfull advice. I did not put it on here to voluteer for a bashing from the MC fanclub or for having my shared experience microscopicly dissected.As I said before this arguement can not be settled by words alone, hence my trial.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Presentation is everything a chef once told me. You didn't "present" this post as a infromational magnet. You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music. Most of this was you own fault for poorly choosing the music you use for a listing audition. And then you announced a score which looks more like a competition than a listening evaluation or a search for information. No one has asked you not to share your experience, just be open minded. Your mind (at least demonstrated by your choice of words) was not open during this evaluation. One can clearly see that by your choice of words.

All I did was try and present another perspective. You can ***** and moan about it, you can fail to share you experience because of it. You will learn nothing about what constitutes as a good multichannel experience if all you can think about is 2ch vinyl.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, a huge thread and i am not in it. Well, time to get back to the live music.....in 2 channel of course :-)

Sorry Florian, live music is binaural, not two channel

[Florian]

Sorry Florian, live music is binaural, not two channel
You seem to be on a rampage. Well, i personally wouldnt talk about integration, center image etc..if i where you. Fact of the matter is that a large TV will mess up the time arivals, introduce distortion, vibration and unwanted reflections. Subsoowfer integration with box speakers might not be a problem since they are colored and resonant from the beginning. But you will have a mighty problem with speakers that lack this ability. May they be electrostatic, planar magnetic or ribbon. Time delay erros, phase shifting etc...

Respectfully

-Flo


You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music.

The exact same thing has been said to me many times, just because i do not agree with the masses. And as faith will have it, we see the same with Bernd who is also way up the ladder of 2 channel reproduction. Tis critics come from the general masses with the typical general masses knowledge and equipment.

[shokhead]

TV could do that if you have your mains in back of the tv,do ya?

[audio amateur]

This is bull. I have a huge 65" television sitting in between and slightly behind my L/R mains, I get a very solid center image when I listen to two channel sources. As a matter of fact, you could sit off center to each side and still get a VERY strong center image. I have heard this argument before from a "audiophile". It holds up well in theory, but in practice it doesn't fly. Did you know that that television breaks up any side to side resonances?



More bull. Who ever told you that integrating a subwoofer was so difficult has a brain the size of a mosquito. I have two very large transmission line subs that sit it my system. Most times you cannot even tell they are there until they are called for. Widescreen review has one of the finest souding systems for both music and film. They have two giant subwoofers in their system, perfectly integrated. Many multichannel folks have subs in their systems, I have never heard this crap about subs being ten beat behind the music. I have heard way too many acousticians and speaker builders say this whole rant by so called "audiophiles" is a bunch of rubbish.



So the room COULD have been at fault rather than the equipment, or even the multichannel music itself!. Wherever there are reflections both early and late, your perception of imaging will be altered. Audiophiles love equipment, they have a hard time dealing with the room it sits in though.





Dealers are great at installing equipment, they are usually very lousy at calibrating correctly.



Such dedication to vinyl. Such dedication that it often predjudices any venture away from the old stale two channel mold. Techonology has moved on, so should a great many people.



What does living in the real world have to do with wisely picking material for listening audition? And since when do people record for a CERTAIN system? Scoobie says HUH??






Great, so sonic purity and accuracy is not as important to you as warming over your already warmed over audio. Tubes are sonic equalizers at best, but they are not the pinnacle of accuracy. I use microphones with tubes in them to get a CERTAIN sound, not a ACCURATE sound. I however respect the choices folk make on their sound, different strokes for different folks. Notice how I didn't say better, just different.





You like the sound of vinyl and tubes, great. If you are going to so a serious evaluation on MC, then you need to put any comparison between the two away. If you don't, you will walk away learning nothing about the MC format. It will always come back to my tube and vinyl. People often find it very difficult to let go of what they are used to.



Did you know that vinyl is also processed?? Ever heard of tracking error, or wall noise. Or how about poor cutting during mastering? You actually like the sound of pops and clicks. How musical, I am sure all of this was in the original recording (sarcasm off) In reality digital is no more processed than vinyl or analog.






Great, I am glad you like 2ch



Presentation is everything a chef once told me. You didn't "present" this post as a infromational magnet. You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music. Most of this was you own fault for poorly choosing the music you use for a listing audition. And then you announced a score which looks more like a competition than a listening evaluation or a search for information. No one has asked you not to share your experience, just be open minded. Your mind (at least demonstrated by your choice of words) was not open during this evaluation. One can clearly see that by your choice of words.

All I did was try and present another perspective. You can ***** and moan about it, you can fail to share you experience because of it. You will learn nothing about what constitutes as a good multichannel experience if all you can think about is 2ch vinyl.

Holy crap that was sexy "in your face" stuff:ciappa:
Pretty impressive Terrence

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You seem to be on a rampage. Well, i personally wouldnt talk about integration, center image etc..if i where you.

Well why not, my system seems to excel in these areas, why wouldn't I talk about it? It does so even with a huge television sitting in between it.





Fact of the matter is that a large TV will mess up the time arivals, introduce distortion, vibration and unwanted reflections.

Yes, that is probably true if the speakers where sitting behind the television. However. almost everyone that is into HT knows that the speakers should be in front of any televsision. Mine sit approximately 1.5ft in front of my display. I would rather have the reflections which are relatively easy to deal with as I use sound absorbers to deal with them. Reflections at lower frequencies have a longer integration time, higher frequency reflections which effect imaging is taken care of by very thick damping foam.

However with speakers in the absence of television in between, especially the ones you like allow room resonances ans strong to flourish, as there is nothing to break them up. A setup with no television in between require vast amounts of acoustical foam at least 4" thick to tame late and early arriving reflection to the listening seat. Neither has a benefit over the other, each has to have some control at high frequencies.



Subsoowfer integration with box speakers might not be a problem since they are colored and resonant from the beginning.

Not all box speakers are colored and resonant, just like not all ribbon or electrostatic speakers have linearity , frequency response, and time arrival problems. You are making a global statement on specific items.



But you will have a mighty problem with speakers that lack this ability. May they be electrostatic, planar magnetic or ribbon. Time delay erros, phase shifting etc...

If yiou were talking to someone stupid, they may actually believe you. However I know better, there is no one speaker design that trumps another unless you have strong biases (which mean a narrow mind) or you are uneducated in the area of speaker design.



The exact same thing has been said to me many times, just because i do not agree with the masses. And as faith will have it, we see the same with Bernd who is also way up the ladder of 2 channel reproduction. Tis critics come from the general masses with the typical general masses knowledge and equipment.

Florian, you know for a fact that I am not as stupid and gullible as those folks that are impressed by you. Just because I am in the MC camp doesn't mean I agree with the masses. My equipment choices lean towards custom, not mass marketed items. That especially pertains to my choice of speakers and subwoofers. Anyone who understands that history of audio knows that 2 channel is a compromise to conventional audio wisdom, and not a benefit to it. Anyone who has read bell labs 1932 study knows that it takes at LEAST three channels up front to map a soundstage. Two channel was developed because of limitations of the technology at the time. That time is over. Now because of MC, when can fully realize at least the minimum benefits of that study, which is something the two channel can never live up to.

Your biases are well noted, but they are not necessarily educated or knowledgeable biases. I respect your choices of planar, ribbon or electrostatic speakers. They however are not my cup of tea as they are too limited in what they can do over a wide variety of uses.

[Bernd]

A thank you for the positive and encouraging PMs I have received. Just to make it very clear. My posts where intended to report MY findings not as a competition between 2CH and MC. Maybe I underestimated how deep the passion for some runs. I should have known as it is also my passion and my hobby but not a matter of live and death nor do I aproach it with a Anorak mentality. And I couldn't care less if somebody criticises Tubes or Vinyl. Very often Vinyl is singled out by users of very basic Vinyl playback systems. And if there is a little surface noise now and then or a crackle or a pop-so what. Life is noisy.Sorry this isn't analogue-digital.
I will carry on and find out for myself if MC fits the bill for my enjoyment, and if my findings are not welcone so be it. I will press on regardless nobody has to read it. I tried to lighten the findings a little with some light hearted comments and maybe through lack of a sense of humour by some this led to a missunderstanding.
Got a phone call last night and I can go and listen this evening to a Unison Research Unico SEI amp, a Teac Esoteric universal Disc Player and some Final Speakers, don't know what Pre. is being used. Look forward to that. Next week I have booked two dealer demos on the same afternoon. One in a chain store, just to see what they will come up with, and one with a specialist HT/MC dealer. All I have told him is the budget available.
Just one final point. I don't mind being critised personnaly but to be critical of my findings is wrong as it was only me who was there and listened. And I will not report what I don't hear or feel. Maybe Kex is right that MC is not for me.
Have a great Sunday.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[audio_dude]

haha, i get the thousandth view!

[shokhead]

Well have fun listening to all the good stuff. I think you'll enjoy the MC in a good setup.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A thank you for the positive and encouraging PMs I have received. Just to make it very clear. My posts where intended to report MY findings not as a competition between 2CH and MC. Maybe I underestimated how deep the passion for some runs. I should have known as it is also my passion and my hobby but not a matter of live and death nor do I aproach it with a Anorak mentality. And I couldn't care less if somebody criticises Tubes or Vinyl. Very often Vinyl is singled out by users of very basic Vinyl playback systems. And if there is a little surface noise now and then or a crackle or a pop-so what. Life is noisy.Sorry this isn't analogue-digital.
I will carry on and find out for myself if MC fits the bill for my enjoyment, and if my findings are not welcone so be it. I will press on regardless nobody has to read it. I tried to lighten the findings a little with some light hearted comments and maybe through lack of a sense of humour by some this led to a missunderstanding.
Got a phone call last night and I can go and listen this evening to a Unison Research Unico SEI amp, a Teac Esoteric universal Disc Player and some Final Speakers, don't know what Pre. is being used. Look forward to that. Next week I have booked two dealer demos on the same afternoon. One in a chain store, just to see what they will come up with, and one with a specialist HT/MC dealer. All I have told him is the budget available.
Just one final point. I don't mind being critised personnaly but to be critical of my findings is wrong as it was only me who was there and listened. And I will not report what I don't hear or feel. Maybe Kex is right that MC is not for me.
Have a great Sunday.

Peace

Bernd:16:

My final comments on your posts are this. If this is not a competition, no need to keep score or it is a competition.

Secondly choose material that is designed from the recording to playback for 5.1, not some reissue from a 2 channel source.

Try and find a system that does not force an audio conversion from DSD to PCM. No bass management or delay, or you have already compromised the listening test.

Subwoofers are absolutely necessary. This idea of using speakers with limited bass range comes from the fact that tubes do wonders in warming up analog sound (which is not exactly accurate), but they are lousy at controlling cone movement, which is probably why you like you tubes with limited bass speakers. SACD has far more bass in it than vinyl does. Unless you have extended range main speakers, you will be over driving your speakers in the bass range.

Go in with an open mind, not a mind of comparison. If you find that you would prefer to stick with your 1846 techonolgy, then so be it. Nobody going to hate you.

My sense of humor is irrelevant, and is not the topic of this discussion.

Alot of us MC lovers came from 2ch. Never assume that we never owned a good analog rig. Myself personally I had a very expensive TT and a very high end pre-amp. All of that was no good if once the needle hit the vinyl. No matter how much you tweaked and cleaned, any mechanical instrument that touches the media will lead to losses and noise (i.e tape players, TT etc) Maybe some of got sick and tired of the pops and clickes, excessive maintainence just to care for the vinyl. I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up. That is not what I call accurate audio.

If you want a one way post, then set up a website and post to yourself. When you put your thoughts and experiences on a public forum, it invites comments from others. You don't like the comments, don't post your thoughts on a public forum.

When posting your comments, choose your words carefully so you don't paint a picture you didn't mean to paint.

[E-Stat]

I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up. That is not what I call accurate audio.
You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others. :)

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

[Florian]

You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others. :)

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

Not to mention the colorisation introduced by the cone drivers, cabinets, room etc... The coloration of the tubes (which is a false stereotype and a design fault rather then the tubes) is much less then all the other ones.

-Flo

[E-Stat]

Not to mention the colorisation introduced by the cone drivers, cabinets, room etc... The coloration of the tubes (which is a false stereotype and a design fault rather then the tubes) is much less then all the other ones.
I think what TtT was referring to is that most tube amps having a relatively high source impedance vary their frequency response when confronted with the roller coaster impedance curves presented by most conventional speakers. Many speakers, however, like mine do not have that problem.

Tubes are inherently more linear and require less (problematic) feedback. Their sins sit right smack in the middle of the human auditory blind spot unlike the typical high order distortion components of most SS designs.

For me the question has never been the superiority of multi channel done right, but rather the decided sonic compromises required with a given budget to exploit the profound minority of such recordings available. I am far more of a music lover.

rw

[Florian]

I think what TtT was referring to is that most tube amps having a relatively high source impedance vary their frequency response when confronted with the roller coaster impedance curves presented by most conventional speakers. Many speakers, however, like mine do not have that problem.
Same here, stable from 2.7 to 4.2 across the whole range.



For me the question has never been the superiority of multi channel done right, but rather the decided sonic compromises required with a given budget to exploit the profound minority of such recordings available. I am far more of a music lover.

rw

I am much more of a music lover too instead of the latest buzz words in the digital realm with 5 or more speakers which people place with complete disregard to the very little amount of music truly recorded with multiple microphones (and mixed). Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. 99.999% of all my music is recorded on 2 channel and 75% on Vinyl.

-Flo

[E-Stat]

Same here, stable from 2.7 to 4.2 across the whole range.
Well my Sound Lab U-1s are pretty linear for about eight octaves. The impedance rises at the bottom octave and drops at the top octave, but for the most part is more linear than typical multi-way speakers.


Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. 99.999% of all my music is recorded on 2 channel and 75% on Vinyl.
Don't discount the ultimate potential of a well done multichannel system. I would likely be quite happy with Ralph Glasgal's vision of multi-channel. What's better than using two of the lowest distortion transducers on the planet? Using twenty four!

http://www.ambiophonics.org/images/AInst-HiAng_00324.jpg

http://www.ambiophonics.org/PhotoPage.htm

rw

[Florian]

Now while i certainly am a fan of 2channel i am willing to accept that a over the top system like the one you mentioned with the right recording will be mighty impressive the problem remains is this. Most people on here are below a Onkyo 989 with lets say 7 B&W 800D's and some subwoofers. And that is a system neither of us would touch and listen to music too instead of our Soundlabs, Apogees or ART's. And the argumment about this 2 channel vs. MC is meaningless since Bernd, You and I come from systems past the 20K border and argue with members comming from 5K or below MC systems that have never heard and personally experience a higher end realm of 2 channel reproduction.

-The above is not meant as a downcutting, and i would gladly choose a 5K MC over a 5K Stereo systems simply because true high fidelity and the full exploitation cant be heard in that budget area-

[E-Stat]

Most people on here are below a Onkyo 989 with lets say 7 B&W 800D's and some subwoofers.
The irony is that the real advantages of multichannel will be lost on 99% of the market (as determined by classical music sales). They are likely as much concerned with the inherent tradeoffs to resolution and timbre found on less capable MC systems.

Effects driven movies and pop recordings will survive.

rw

[Florian]

The irony is that the real advantages of multichannel will be lost on 99% of the market (as determined by classical music sales). They are likely as much concerned with the inherent tradeoffs to resolution and timbre found on less capable MC systems.

Effects driven movies and pop recordings will survive.

rw

Exactly! And for the Entire Lord of the Rings series i love a good MC Home Theater! But for nothing else

[Feanor]

...
I am much more of a music lover too instead of the latest buzz words in the digital realm with 5 or more speakers which people place with complete disregard to the very little amount of music truly recorded with multiple microphones (and mixed). Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. ...
-Flo

I guess we are entitled to our own choice of buzzwords. Yours associated with tubes and vinyl, mine are something are a different set. But pull-ezz don't don't give us the line that all and only because you're a music lover, (implying that those who disagree with your equipment choice are not). On the contrary, the point of my post was all about what conveys the most realistic sound.

Further, contrary to equipment elitists like yourself and E-Stat, (yes, you are alike in that: only the particular choice of equipment varies), a modest MC configuration, reasonably well setup, with appropriate software is quite capbable of illustrating the strengths of MC. Better is better of course, but modest will prove the point.

[E-Stat]

Exactly! And for the Entire Lord of the Rings series i love a good MC Home Theater! But for nothing else
Well, I won't say nothing else, but for me the price to achieve such is not affordable. Converting my two channel system to five channel (since the mains do 24 hz, I'll pass on the sub) would cost me around $40k. Given the dearth of recordings in my collection that would benefit from such, I'll pass.

I have a separate 5.1 HT system that works fine for movies. Having helicopters fly around my head is cool when I'm watching a Clancy novel.

With my budget, I can never imagine having a multi-channel system that I would ever use for both music and movies. If, however, I had around $100k to spend...

rw

[E-Stat]

IFurther, contrary to equipment elitists like yourself and E-Stat, (yes, you are alike in that: only the particular choice of equipment varies), a modest MC configuration, reasonably well setup, with appropriate software is quite capbable of illustrating the strengths of MC. Better is better of course, but modest will prove the point.
It is a matter of individual priorities. I have a modest MC system (around $4k) and have heard Harry Pearson's Super Maggie system ($100k or so). I greatly prefer his and my separate two channel system for playing music.

Playing movies on HP's system, however, (with a Barco 8" projector and 100" screen) is quite impressive though!

rw

[shokhead]

Well, I won't say nothing else, but for me the price to achieve such is not affordable. Converting my two channel system to five channel (since the mains do 24 hz, I'll pass on the sub) would cost me around $40k. Given the dearth of recordings in my collection that would benefit from such, I'll pass.

I have a separate 5.1 HT system that works fine for movies. Having helicopters fly around my head is cool when I'm watching a Clancy novel.

With my budget, I can never imagine having a multi-channel system that I would ever use for both music and movies. If, however, I had around $100k to spend...

rw

Really? That doesnt make any sence to me at all. I cant imagine having 2 seperate systems as you can have a fine 2ch/5.1 system for less the the 2 cost,easy.

[E-Stat]

Really? That doesnt make any sence to me at all. I cant imagine having 2 seperate systems as you can have a fine 2ch/5.1 system for less the the 2 cost,easy.
I was exposed to the world of really nice stuff by a couple of reviewer friends about thirty years ago. For example, I use Sound Lab U-1 speakers:

http://soundlab-speakers.com/u1.htm

My wife summed up their performance quite succinctly: they're simply not there. Sonically if not visually. They can hang a voice in mid air in a way you just don't hear that often.

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/audio/u1_system.jpg

The MC system is quite modest using Polk speakers and a NAD T763 receiver to match the 61" Samsung HD monitor:

http://home.comcast.net/~ralphwallace/audio/ht.jpg

rw

[Bernd]

Thanks Flo and E-Stat for putting what I wanted to find out so elegantly. I have used my ears only, for the last 30 years, to build my system.So your input was very welcome.
That over the top HT/MC will no doubt sound very fine, and what E-Stat has done, with his second system, is what I try to accomplish with this experiement. But so far have not found what I was looking for.
I went to listen to my next set up last night. Wasn't bad, but wasn't good either.

Now to all the missguided lines from Sir TT. I asked myself if I not waste my time replying to his rantings, but here goes. First off. Have you ever heard my Tube amp with my speakers and TT in my room? If not, what are you talking about then? You're not generalising are you?
Second. When I auditioned my amp there where a handful of people at the same dealer for a blind listening (the electronics were in another room) to this amp, a Pathos hybrid pre-power and one of Naims higher offerings. Guess what happened. All of us picked the Unison Research every time. It has PRAT to compete with Naims best, but with the added audio performance we so requiere and without any of the SS harshness. So do yourself a favour and get an audition with the Performance or listen to some Art Audio, VTL or Manleys before you come out with that nonsense about tubes. Poor design and poor tubes will sound poor. And one final word to the "tubes can't time brigade".Actually,two words, the second one being ".... off".
I would also like to know please what high end TT,cartridge,Phonostage and RCM you used and grew tired off.
The score I posted was purely for fun, but maybe I have hit a raw nerve. Sorry if it upset you and I will not do so again. I am sad that this thread turned into this, but I can't stand by any longer and read your ill informed lines. At least I tried to find out for myself. And as for your saying you came from 2ch to mc. All I see in your list is mainly below average standard equipment. Just did a quick search and the sum total of your electronics do not even cover the cost of my Cartridge.I am not usually into comparing equipment cost issues, but this is so blatantly unbalanced that I couldn't help myself. I mean please.
Not sure if you have ever experienced real high quality performance.If you have then it surely was lost on you, because usualy it leaves a lasting impression and drives music lovers to attain a higher level of performance. I have no doubt that many people are very happy with their choice, be that 2CH or HT/MC or a hybrid and I completely understand Kex's point and how he put it. He can see both sides and he did even shake hands with Ludwig.:)
So Sir TT (TT ironic really isn't it) take yourself down to NYC, 1221 Lexington Avenue into Lyrics Hi-Fi and take a listen to a similar set up as there is at Sea Cliff. Maybe then you will understand.
I met a guy in January who has been to Sea cliff and listend to HPs system.I asked him about it and he said that it's very hard to describe. I understood. Try and explain what a Passion fruit tastes like to somebody who has never sampled it.
So wishing you all a peaceful day.

Bernd:16:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others. :)

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

I could throw an equal amount of reputiable names that agree with me. So name dropping doesn't really solidify a point.

Most speakers including high end ones do not allow for tube amps to control one set of drivers, and SS to control others. If you find those that can, this makes installation unecessarily complex.

[E-Stat]

I could throw an equal amount of reputiable names that agree with me.
That all tube amps are highly colored? C'mon!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That all tube amps are highly colored? C'mon!

rw

Be careful that you do not put words in my mouth that I didn't say. My point is that tubes are not perfect, as SS aren't either. A good SS design well implemented can sound as good or better than tubes, are alot more reliable, cost less to maintain, and can have measureably less distortion. Just because it includes tubes doesn't make it better that SS.

[E-Stat]

Be careful that you do not put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Let's take a look at your earlier comment.


I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up.
My earlier point is that ZERO of the designers I mentioned would agree with your assertion (insult really) that their intention is to color the sound.


My point is that tubes are not perfect, as SS aren't either.
Absolutely! Choose your set of compromises.


A good SS design well implemented can sound as good or better than tubes...
Back to the preference question. Yes, but precious few in my experience.


...are alot more reliable
Not in my experience, either. If that were the case rock bands would not use them universally.


cost less to maintain...
Most definitely! Retubing on a regular basis is a must.


and can have measureably less distortion.
Lumped THD is irrelevant to the human auditory system. Listen to an ultra low distortion Crown some day if you don't believe me!


Just because it includes tubes doesn't make it better that SS.
Did anyone say that?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks Flo and E-Stat for putting what I wanted to find out so elegantly. I have used my ears only, for the last 30 years, to build my system.So your input was very welcome.

We all use our ears, or hearing would be very difficult.


That over the top HT/MC will no doubt sound very fine, and what E-Stat has done, with his second system, is what I try to accomplish with this experiement. But so far have not found what I was looking for.

Some of us have taken our hometheater much past what E-stat has done(no offense to E-stat). Some people have HT system that reproduce film soundtracks AND music at a high level. No need for two systems when one works just excellent for both. Anyone who believes it is not possible is floating in a river called de-nile.



Now to all the missguided lines from Sir TT. I asked myself if I not waste my time replying to his rantings, but here goes. First off. Have you ever heard my Tube amp with my speakers and TT in my room? If not, what are you talking about then? You're not generalising are you?

Calling my opinion rantings doesn't make it less legitimate. Just like calling your opinion biased doesn't make yours less legitimate. I don't really care about your system, that is not the emphasis of this thread or post. What is the point is dealing with all of your biases and strange misconceptions regarding MC.



Second. When I auditioned my amp there where a handful of people at the same dealer for a blind listening (the electronics were in another room) to this amp, a Pathos hybrid pre-power and one of Naims higher offerings. Guess what happened. All of us picked the Unison Research every time.

This is great. I had one of my good friends who knows more about amps, both tube and SS than many will ever learn in a lifetime customize my amps. You ever heard of John Curl?



It has PRAT to compete with Naims best, but with the added audio performance we so requiere and without any of the SS harshness. So do yourself a favour and get an audition with the Performance or listen to some Art Audio, VTL or Manleys before you come out with that nonsense about tubes.

Not all SS have harshness. just like not all tubes sound perfect. This is the crust of my responses, too many generalizations and emotional opinions, not enough facts or science.

Never assume I have not heard well designed tube amps. I have, alot of them in my system I have large subwoofers in my main L/R speakers, and tube amps have a terrible time controlling them. I cannot trade excellent low bass control for some mysterious magical etherial felling that audiophiles get from tube electronics. If it cannot do both well, then it doesn't belong in my system. Never assume, especially if you are going accuse somebody of doing the same.


Poor design and poor tubes will sound poor. And one final word to the "tubes can't time brigade".Actually,two words, the second one being ".... off".
I would also like to know please what high end TT,cartridge,Phonostage and RCM you used and grew tired off.

This response is the pinnacle of maturity....or not. The answer to the next part of your response is NOYDBKO. Back at ya


The score I posted was purely for fun, but maybe I have hit a raw nerve. Sorry if it upset you and I will not do so again.

No worries, you are just a name on a board. I never get mad at faceless names on any public forum.




I am sad that this thread turned into this, but I can't stand by any longer and read your ill informed lines

So far you have not proved any ill informed lines, however I have shot enough holes in your to double as a lawn sprinkler.



. At least I tried to find out for myself. And as for your saying you came from 2ch to mc. All I see in your list is mainly below average standard equipment. Just did a quick search and the sum total of your electronics do not even cover the cost of my Cartridge.I am not usually into comparing equipment cost issues, but this is so blatantly unbalanced that I couldn't help myself. I mean please.

First it is more than stupid of you to just believe that you can look up my components, and then degrade them without even hearing a signal played through them. If you know anything about me, nothing that starts off in my system ever remains the same. I have had my amps completely upgraded by John Curl who knows much more about amps than you'll learn in a lifetime. Since my speakers are not mass market, but completely customized, you have no idea about these at all. All of my speakers alone probably costs the same or as much as your entire system, but I am not interested in a pissing contest with a faceless wonder. When you actually compare measurements of noise and frequency response of my receiver (used only as a pre pro) it measures as well or better than some so called high end pre-amps. Only a idiot judges a system based on cost alone.
My audio/video processor is a pre-production model I am testing for Thompson Electronics destined for the high end HT crowd. Did you look that up too? Its a $10,000 processor that costs alot more than your little needle does. Since you have no idea of what my system actually costs, save your comments for stroking your own ego. .

You are playing a very stupid game here. If you don't actually have facts instead of your emotions, just either attack the poster, or his system. Sorry, but this is two year old stuff, and boring at best.





Not sure if you have ever experienced real high quality performance.If you have then it surely was lost on you, because usualy it leaves a lasting impression and drives music lovers to attain a higher level of performance.

Lets see, Krell amps, DCS digital conversion and 5 Dunlavy SCV's were my music mastering system before I tore down my recording studio to prepare for a rebuild. Custom Klipschorns, SR-71 surrounds, cinepro amps, and DCS digital conversion were just some of what made up my mixing/screening room. Aerial acoustics HT speaker system, with Krell amps, preamps, and DVD player, and DCS conversion for my 5.1 mutlichannel music reference system. All of these sat in my old post production facility, and will sit in the new one when its completed in early 2008. So I have alot of experience dealing with high end equipment. All of this equipment would be nothing if I didn't spend alot of money dealing with room acoustics, something you so far have not even mentioned yet, but most important of all.





I have no doubt that many people are very happy with their choice, be that 2CH or HT/MC or a hybrid and I completely understand Kex's point and how he put it. He can see both sides and he did even shake hands with Ludwig.:)
So Sir TT (TT ironic really isn't it) take yourself down to NYC, 1221 Lexington Avenue into Lyrics Hi-Fi and take a listen to a similar set up as there is at Sea Cliff. Maybe then you will understand.

Thanks for the invite, made in complete ignorance, and with no idea of my experience in audio. I understood long before you made your first appearance on this board. Thanks, been there done that!


I met a guy in January who has been to Sea cliff and listend to HPs system.I asked him about it and he said that it's very hard to describe. I understood. Try and explain what a Passion fruit tastes like to somebody who has never sampled it.
So wishing you all a peaceful day.

Bernd:16:

Not into passion fruit thanks. I have sampled far more than you know, I just perfer equipment that can do many things well instead of stuff than can only do one thing well. Different strokes for different folks, right?

Let's face the facts. There have been many credible DBT listening test comparing good tube, with good SS amps. VERY experienced listeners could not tell which was which when both were operating comfortable within their design parimeters, not clipping, have identical group delay and frequency response. The even make SS amps that can emulate a tubes sound. John Murphy created one while heading the audio engineering department at Carvin electronics.

Armed with the knowledge of the existance of these DBT test, one can conclude that audiophiles bias towards tubes is nothing more than a personal bias, not a factual scientific based decision. I find myself amused when so called audiophiles (AKA narrow minded, snobby, biased, golden eared chumps) make the broad generalized statement that tubes sound better than SS. With all things being equal, neither has an advantage sonically, and all becomes a subjective choice. When you bring in the cost of maintaince, tube costs, value and availability, then the advantage swings toward well made SS designs.

[Bernd]

"Different Strokes for different folks" is the truest thing you said in this thread. And by you reeling off all that you know,tasted,own or have done it's purely unsubstantiated writings and has nothing to do with me trying to find out about MC. Like the studio is ready in 2008. That's two years, what are you building?
Maybe we just hear differently and if it wasn't raining right now I would attach a garden hose and go sprinkle the Lawn.:cornut:
You will never convince me that black is white and white is black, I will have to find out for myself. And as for time served on here, what has that got to do with anything?
Have fun with your system and your future studio and a good day to you.:)

Bernd:16:

[E-Stat]

Some of us have taken our hometheater much past what E-stat has done(no offense to E-stat).
None taken. I have, however, heard some very nice ones.


No need for two systems when one works just excellent for both. Anyone who believes it is not possible is floating in a river called de-nile.
Sure it's possible, limited only by your budget and priorities.


You ever heard of John Curl?
Indeed. I remember vividly when the Mark Levinson JC-2 came out back in '75 or so. Wonderful preamp. Within the past month, I've heard both the Parasound JC-1 monoblocks and Richard Schram's prototype of the (new) JC-2 preamp driving Sound Lab U-1s as well as the new nine foot tall Majestics. The amps represent a great bargain and are very nice sounding with plenty of power, but...

I find it quite interesting that John's goal is to "emulate the best qualities of tube electronics with solid state".

Some more of JC's comments on tubes:

"I now appreciate why so many audiophiles have returned to tube electronics, as it is usually the best way to get to the essence of the musical experience...

Still, I respect tube reproduction, and attempt to get my sold state equipment sounding like the best in tubes...

The problem with FET's and bipolar transistors is that they are NOT as linear as a vacuum tube.

I doubt that we will ever completely replace tubes with solid state, but we can come darn close in most ways..."

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=37111&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=149265&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=4372&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My earlier point is that ZERO of the designers I mentioned would agree with your assertion (insult really) that their intention is to color the sound.

Just how much of the market do this designers represent? Even amoung the high end?
I am willing to bet it is not very much. From my experience (since that is where you are coming from) there are alot more bad tube designs than good ones. And I know many maufacturers of tube amps that market their product as a product that makes the "sterile" sound of digital more analog. Isn't that a signal enhancement/manipulation device, and not so much a amp? I know of no manufacturer of SS that position their product in the that way on the market. It is widely known that most speakers made today are not designed to work with tube amps. Every designer of amps and speakers I have talked to agree with this.




Absolutely! Choose your set of compromises.

Agreed. But this runs counter to Bernd consistant comments of harshness in SS designs.



Back to the preference question. Yes, but precious few in my experience.

Maybe in your experience, but not in mine. Maybe we are just looking for different things.



Not in my experience, either. If that were the case rock bands would not use them universally.

Rock bands use them universally for their reliabity. At least on the PA side. This I know for a fact. However, they do use tube amps for instruments just for the coloration they provide, and because they soft clip in a more elegant way than transistors do.





Most definitely! Retubing on a regular basis is a must.

Pretty expensive and time consuming isn't it. Would rather be enjoying my system instead.



Lumped THD is irrelevant to the human auditory system. Listen to an ultra low distortion Crown some day if you don't believe me!

I wouldn't use a professional amps in a consumer setting. So I wouldn't consider crown amps to be part of the equation.



Did anyone say that?

rw

No one has to say it directly, but they can ellude to it frequently as Bernd has. To him SS amps are inferior to tube amps, which I argue may be his personal taste, but not reality.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

None taken. I have, however, heard some very nice ones.


Sure it's possible, limited only by your budget and priorities.


Indeed. I remember vividly when the Mark Levinson JC-2 came out back in '75 or so. Wonderful preamp. Within the past month, I've heard both the Parasound JC-1 monoblocks and Richard Schram's prototype of the (new) JC-2 preamp driving Sound Lab U-1s as well as the new nine foot tall Majestics. The amps represent a great bargain and are very nice sounding with plenty of power, but...

I find it quite interesting that John's goal is to "emulate the best qualities of tube electronics with solid state".

Some more of JC's comments on tubes:

"I now appreciate why so many audiophiles have returned to tube electronics, as it is usually the best way to get to the essence of the musical experience...

Still, I respect tube reproduction, and attempt to get my sold state equipment sounding like the best in tubes...

The problem with FET's and bipolar transistors is that they are NOT as linear as a vacuum tube.

I doubt that we will ever completely replace tubes with solid state, but we can come darn close in most ways..."

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=37111&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=149265&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=4372&highlight=tube+John+curl&r=&session=

rw

Yes these are his quotes, But talking to JC in person is much different than reading his musing on a audio board. His pride and joy is still SS amps, and that can easily be seen in the fact that is mostly what he designs. He often talks about the virtures of tube amps on the midrange, but is less glowing about their low bass, and extended treble response. I personally would rather have very good wide bandwidth performance, than just a highlight on the midrange.

[Bernd]

Sir TT just a point of correction. I don't think I ever said that Tube amps are universally better than SS. I could easy live with Sugden amps or Pathos Hybrids. To my ears however lots of solid state amps add a hash, glare and brightness to the sound I do not much care for. I am looking for, the best I can put it is "Organic", presentation. It's the midrange where I find my enjoyment with tubes. I am very happy with what I have at present and can't honestly see it changing any time soon.
As for Tube changing the best part of 10 min. Finding great NOS that is the problem. I just have not heard a Solid State amp that plays music more convincing and involving then a Tube amp. Thank God ,or whoever, for choice.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[E-Stat]

Just how much of the market do this designers represent? Even amoung the high end?
Nearly all of it, I would say. The companies I mention are those with twenty or thirty year's experience. I don't disagree that there are some upstarts born of the digital era that have emerged who may peddle that approach.


And I know many maufacturers of tube amps that market their product as a product that makes the "sterile" sound of digital more analog.
Do tell. Would you care to mention one?


Agreed. But this runs counter to Bernd consistant comments of harshness in SS designs.
I don't share that feeling. While some SS designs are harsh at the top and overly lean at the bottom, the best SS does fine at both extremes. It is the critical middle where tubes are superior, IMHO.


Rock bands use them universally for their reliabity.
That was my point. Tubes are not inherently unreliable.


However, they do use tube amps for instruments just for the coloration they provide, and because they soft clip in a more elegant way than transistors do.
There is a vast difference in the way Audio Research and Marshall amps are designed and sound.


I wouldn't use a professional amps in a consumer setting. So I wouldn't consider crown amps to be part of the equation.
I was merely pointing out that your "can have measureably less distortion" observation is meaningless when one is talking about musical reproduction.


To him SS amps are inferior to tube amps, which I argue may be his personal taste, but not reality.
Naturally, such a conclusion can only be determined in light of one's particular budget and priorities. I have not found a $10k solid state amp that I would prefer over my tubes. At $25k to $40k, yes. The ASR Emitters, Edge Signature Reference and Pass Labs XA series amps are superb. But then at that price point, that brings in a new class of tubes. I would love to hear a pair of Pass Labs XA-200s vs VTL Siegfrieds in my system. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

He often talks about the virtures of tube amps on the midrange, but is less glowing about their low bass, and extended treble response. I personally would rather have very good wide bandwidth performance, than just a highlight on the midrange.
Therein lies the preference factor. My VTLs do not have to deal with the back EMF issue presented by cone woofers and exhibit superb harmonic richness in the bottom octaves. While I could hear the ultrasonic burglar alarm in the hi-fi shop where I worked in the 70s at age 18, my hearing at age 49 cuts off above about 15k or so anyway. For me, it is all about the middle eight octaves!

I bought a Threshold Stasis 3 amp back in 1981 (that still soldiers on driving double New Advents in my vintage system). It was universally praised in its day as performing very well at both frequency extremes. Back then, I really had no idea what Harry Pearson meant when he said that the Audio Research D-150 was superior in the midrange. The midrange? Doesn't every amp do OK there? With far more musical experience and maturity, I finally understand that the answer is NO.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Different Strokes for different folks" is the truest thing you said in this thread. And by you reeling off all that you know,tasted,own or have done it's purely unsubstantiated writings

When someone actually owns the stuff, how unsubstantiated is that? After all, weren't you the one who blew out the line that your cartridge costs more than my entire system, sight unseen, ears unheard, and without any background whatsoever of any modification or upgrades? Weren't you the one who assumed I know nothing of high end audio. don't be upset that your ignorance led you to assume so much, but know so little about my audio history, or system.



and has nothing to do with me trying to find out about MC. Like the studio is ready in 2008. That's two years, what are you building?

A post production facility for both film and music mixing and mastering. Its to replace the one I owned for more than ten years.


Maybe we just hear differently and if it wasn't raining right now I would attach a garden hose and go sprinkle the Lawn.:cornut:

Your a hoot


You will never convince me that black is white and white is black, I will have to find out for myself. And as for time served on here, what has that got to do with anything?
Have fun with your system and your future studio and a good day to you.:)

Bernd:16:

Can someone explain to me when I ever mentioned shades as opposed to audio? If you are going to evaluate equipment, make sure the room is not the problem. If you are going to evaluate software, make sure you pick software that is appropriate to a 5.1 evaluation, not a 2ch repurpose to multichannel. This is all I have stated from the very beginning.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Therein lies the preference factor. My VTLs do not have to deal with the back EMF issue presented by cone woofers and exhibit superb harmonic richness in the bottom octaves. While I could hear the ultrasonic burglar alarm in the hi-fi shop where I worked in the 70s at age 18, my hearing at age 49 cuts off above about 15k or so anyway. For me, it is all about the middle eight octaves!

I bought a Threshold Stasis 3 amp back in 1981 (that still soldiers on driving double New Advents in my vintage system). It was universally praised in its day as performing very well at both frequency extremes. Back then, I really had no idea what Harry Pearson meant when he said that the Audio Research D-150 was superior in the midrange. The midrange? Doesn't every amp do OK there? With far more musical experience and maturity, I finally understand that the answer is NO.

rw

Since my hearing does not cut off at low as your, the mids and upper octaves carry equal weight, becuase I not only do I like the clairty of the mids, but I like the air and open qualities an extended high end can have on the audio signal.


My amps have a high damping factor in the Low bass. I am not experienced enough in speaker building to fully explain how transmission line subs work. All that I know is that I can see with a accelerometer that my drivers exibit little to no overhang after the signal stops. The designer of my subs and main speakers (or redesigner if you will) specifically recommends amps with a high damping factor in the LF to enhance the performance of his sub designs. My listening test with tube amps(regardless of price), and the subs in my mains shows that the bass is flabby, ill defined, and not controlled when compared to my regular amps. That is why I have chosen SS amps over tube amps for my setup. Bass is the foudation of music, if it is not well done, then it doesn't matter if the mids are sweet.

[E-Stat]

My amps have a high damping factor in the Low bass. I am not experienced enough in speaker building to fully explain how transmission line subs work. All that I know is that I can see with a accelerometer that my drivers exibit little to no overhang after the signal stops. The designer of my subs and main speakers (or redesigner if you will) specifically recommends amps with a high damping factor in the LF to enhance the performance of his sub designs.
No doubt that conventional dynamic woofers benefit from a low source impedance amp. Actually, the Onkyo M-501s have only fairly moderate damping factor (df=60 according to their website) which is a good indication that they didn't go overboard with NFB. As opposed to the horrible sounding pro amps with DFs in the thousands.


My listening test with tube amps(regardless of price), and the subs in my mains shows that the bass is flabby, ill defined, and not controlled when compared to my regular amps. That is why I have chosen SS amps over tube amps for my setup. Bass is the foudation of music, if it is not well done, then it doesn't matter if the mids are sweet.
Beginning with your speaker of choice and finding a suitable amp is the way I went as well. Our outcomes are different due to the nature of our speaker choices and likely, our musical tastes. My preferences do not rule out tube amps as did yours. My amps possess a multi-layered dimensional magic with voices, woodwinds, brass, and percussion I just do not hear with comparable SS designs.

Vive la difference!

rw

[Feanor]

I just read Andrew Quint's article in The Absolute Sound, Issue 162, with the above title. Quint has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

He says, "... I don't think it's the wider and more nuanced dynamics, the truer instrumental and vocal timbres, and the greater detail that high-resolution brings to the table".
...
Friends, forget vinyl. For that matter, for get tubes, kilobuck cables, and tweaks of minimal, not to say, imaginary benefit. For real improvement look to multichannel.


I guess it's all my fault from the beginning that this thread has degenerated into the usual squabble about SS vs. tubes and vinyl vs. digital. I shouldn't have mentioned them, though perhaps it would have made no difference.

Really, all I really meant to say was that MC is relatively a greater improvement than the difference betweens between these things. I didn't mean to imply that there were no SS/tube or vinyl/digital differences, nor that one was better than the other.

Hey, I suspect there are a few MC tube preamps out there, and tube amps are a dime a dozen, (in a manner of speaking). So if you must have tubes, it doesn't necessarily rule out MC.

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!! :ihih: :cornut:

[Florian]

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!! :ihih: :cornut:

I have 2 discs ;-)

[Bernd]

I guess it's all my fault from the beginning that this thread has degenerated into the usual squabble about SS vs. tubes and vinyl vs. digital. I shouldn't have mentioned them, though perhaps it would have made no difference.

Really, all I really meant to say was that MC is relatively a greater improvement than the difference betweens between these things. I didn't mean to imply that there were no SS/tube or vinyl/digital differences, nor that one was better than the other.

Hey, I suspect there are a few MC tube preamps out there, and tube amps are a dime a dozen, (in a manner of speaking). So if you must have tubes, it doesn't necessarily rule out MC.

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!! :ihih: :cornut:

Feanor my old buddy it is not your fault at all. A conversation is a living thing and to my mind it should explore other avenues. I think I am to blame as much as the next man(Woman) for taking threads of course. Otherwise just imagine how two dimensional it would become, and how would we gain knowledge. I for once have gained quite a bit of insight through E-Stats, Kexs, and Sirr TTs postings on this thread. Might not agree with all of them but thats life. It will certainly help me to evaluate my next two auditions into MC (to bring it back on track).
I only ever owned two Quadrophonic Discs (one was by Nektar-Remember the Future the other I can not recall). A great recording the Nektar one. I have got it now on Vinyl in the 2 CH. I even dabbled in the Quadrophonic in the 70s and I didn't like it then.:ciappa: Some Japanese amp I can't recall Revox Speakers and a Dual TT.:confused5:
Have a good week.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[E-Stat]

one was by Nektar-Remember the Future the other I can not recall)
Now there's a piece of music I haven't thought about in a while. Ages ago, I wore out my vinyl copy. Most folks wouldn't understand how you could combine yodeling and rock music!

rw

[Bernd]

I know. Allan "Taff"Freeman became quiet a famous DJ I think.
As I remeber right the Record came in two guises. One was done by the Passport Label and one I think by Bacillus, who also released the Quad version. The Bacillus cover also felt very different almost like brushed satin. I still have that one here.
Must play it tonight. I feel a prog evening at the horizion.

And with this I have Post # 1000

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Resident Loser]

...and hails of derisive laughter...

Stereo, multi-channel, tubes, solid state, box speakers, planars...

It's all very well and good...too bad your software s*cks...with a capital s*ck...

And Florian, you still act like a pompous, ego-centric, twit...a status you seem to relish ...well, you certainly got something for your vast expenditure...Out of curiosity, O! music lover, have you ever picked up an instrument (musical that is) and and created something?

And as TtT rightly points out it's not 2-channel, it's binaural...

jimHJJ(...I think I'll rest now...all this foolishness takes a lot outta' ya'...)

[Florian]

LOL and you lower yourself again.....do you ever stop?
I played the Xylophon for a while and visit many concerts. Propably the reason why i seek good equipment that can come close to sounding real while your still in the mud puddle cutting down people who can spend more money on good equipment that you watch with envy eyes....

I enjoy your posts...

PS: By the way, your still to stupid to correct the spelling mistakes in your quote....

[Resident Loser]

LOL and you lower yourself again.....do you ever stop?
I played the Xylophon for a while and visit many concerts. Propably the reason why i seek good equipment that can come close to sounding real while your still in the mud puddle cutting down people who can spend more money on good equipment that you watch with envy eyes....

I enjoy your posts...

PS: By the way, your still to stupid to correct the spelling mistakes in your quote....

...myself?


...Most people on here are below a Onkyo 989 with lets say 7 B&W 800D's and some subwoofers. And that is a system neither of us would touch and listen to...

I come from systems past the 20K border and argue with members comming from 5K or below MC systems that have never heard and personally experience a higher end realm of 2 channel reproduction...

Xylophone eh? A real hep cat...NOT!

I have "visited" many concerts myself...although I actually attended them from start to finish and not merely visited them...in fact performed on well over 200 occasions, playing at various times: guitar, bass, keyboards and harmonica...I'm guessin' my ear is fairly well attuned to what is "real"...both from the perspective of listener AND performer...

FWIW, IMHO approx. 92% or so of the so-called reality available on commercial recordings can be had with 2-channel systems valued at around $1k...the limits are only in low-end extension and volume levels...very little else...

Does it make you feel more self-important to believe that there are those who envy you or your hi-fi? Don't flatter yourself...I myself couldn't shive a git...

I have around $4k invested in my 2-channel, primarily vinyl-based system...and for me it's quite satisfyingly sufficient to present that compromised, stereophonic version of reality captured whithin those gooves.

Adolph or Adolf, who really cares; it's the quote that counts...I suspect it irritates you and that's priceless...Oh and BTW, remedial English time: it's too stupid not "to stupid"...

jimHJJ(...unless, of course, someone were to be addressing something specifically to you...)

[Bernd]

Great Speakers for a really good price. I am tempted......:cornut:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9731586999&indexURL=0#ebayphotohosting

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Feanor]

Great Speakers for a really good price. I am tempted......:cornut:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=9731586999&indexURL=0#ebayphotohosting

Peace

Bernd

They look good to me!

I like the quasi-horns on the tweeter; I suspect controlled dispersion is valid for multichannel in particular.

[Bernd]

Hi Guys,
I think I will post an update as my MC journey is over for the time being.
I listened to several set-ups from basic budget and bad to pretty expensive and sounding alright. However as for now MC has not convinced me.
First off what I thought would be a stumbling block turned out to be just that. I am used to a certain quality presentation from my Speakers and I find it difficult to experience the same presentation with lesser models. And I can't justify buying 5 ART Emotions. Which would not happen anyway as the second hurdle to overcome was the sound from behind. I can't get used to it, but I now have an understanding, I think, why MC users enjoy it so much.
But the biggest problem was this, I am an old fashioned Vinyl addict and to my mind the two (MC and Vinyl) just don't go. I might try again at a later date as it was enjoyable and informative and has lead me to my latest addition.:6:
On my travels I came across a most incredible CDP.:) I borrowed it and took it home and needless to say I ordered one and it got installed last night. It wipes the floor with my Ayre CX-7. It is the most musical CDP:5: I have ever owned. All the qualities of the Zanden without being too safe and boring. The wide gap between a CDP and my TT has just shrunk a little bit.
The new machine is the "Electrocompaniet EMC1-UP 24/192".
Thanks to all for your input it was a fun project. But most of all enjoy whatever musical path you have chosen.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

[shokhead]

Bummer for you.

[Feanor]

Hi Guys,
I think I will post an update as my MC journey is over for the time being.
I listened to several set-ups from basic budget and bad to pretty expensive and sounding alright. However as for now MC has not convinced me.
...
But the biggest problem was this, I am an old fashioned Vinyl addict and to my mind the two (MC and Vinyl) just don't go. I might try again at a later date as it was enjoyable and informative and has lead me to my latest addition.
On my travels I came across a most incredible CDP.:) I borrowed it and took it home and needless to say I ordered one and it got installed last night. It wipes the floor with my Ayre CX-7. It is the most musical CDP I have ever owned.
...
The new machine is the "Electrocompaniet EMC1-UP 24/192".

Thanks to all for your input it was a fun project. But most of all enjoy whatever musical path you have chosen.

Peace

Bernd

I agree: lots of vinyl is a problem!! (Just kidding.) :wink5:

Congrats on your new CDP. Boy, oh boy, I wish I could afford a posh unit like that but it will never happen :sad: Of course, it still doesn't do MC.

Keep enjoying the music in any case.

[Bernd]

I agree: lots of vinyl is a problem!! (Just kidding.) :wink5:

Congrats on your new CDP. Of course, it still doesn't do MC.

Keep enjoying the music in any case.

That could be the reason why it is so musical!!!:ihih: :6: :5: :17: :23:

I enjoyed the trip though. Very interesting.

Have a great weekend.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[bobsticks]

Hey B,
Congrats on the new equipment. That is an absolutely beautiful unit!
Well, the journey is over for now, and I suppose the results were predictable. I would, however, give you all the credit in the world for doing what most folks can't or won't do;most find it easier just to pick a side and dogmatically support it without ever having seen how "the other half lives". Most importantly, I'm glad you had fun...

Cheers and good listening,
M

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hi Guys,
I think I will post an update as my MC journey is over for the time being.
I listened to several set-ups from basic budget and bad to pretty expensive and sounding alright. However as for now MC has not convinced me.
First off what I thought would be a stumbling block turned out to be just that. I am used to a certain quality presentation from my Speakers and I find it difficult to experience the same presentation with lesser models. And I can't justify buying 5 ART Emotions. Which would not happen anyway as the second hurdle to overcome was the sound from behind. I can't get used to it, but I now have an understanding, I think, why MC users enjoy it so much.
But the biggest problem was this, I am an old fashioned Vinyl addict and to my mind the two (MC and Vinyl) just don't go. I might try again at a later date as it was enjoyable and informative and has lead me to my latest addition.:6:
On my travels I came across a most incredible CDP.:) I borrowed it and took it home and needless to say I ordered one and it got installed last night. It wipes the floor with my Ayre CX-7. It is the most musical CDP:5: I have ever owned. All the qualities of the Zanden without being too safe and boring. The wide gap between a CDP and my TT has just shrunk a little bit.
The new machine is the "Electrocompaniet EMC1-UP 24/192".
Thanks to all for your input it was a fun project. But most of all enjoy whatever musical path you have chosen.:cornut:

Peace

Bernd:16:

Somehow deep inside of me I knew this would be the outcome. It takes an OPEN mind to journey out of your comfort level. It also takes a desire without all of the audiophile blather that can often fog up ones mind. For some old schoolers this jouney it just to difficult to make because they just cannot let go of old familiar technology, and try to embrace a new one. They throw up consistant and persistant aruguement and judgement values that in reality mean nothing, but to themselves justifies staying completely within their comfort level. The price of the speakers and or electronics is always the excuse, if it is not high enough, or of a certain level in price, it is just not good enough for me. The price concious always think this way. The reason I know, because I used to be one of them. Now the price has to transfer to the ears, if not, its just overpriced equipment. I don't know, as bad a price snob as I was, I guess I was ready to get pass that, and enjoy being closer to live concert reality rather than just buying more expensive two channel stuff.

When you take a journey of discovery, you have to take it without predjudice. You were not ready for this journey, which is why your never arrived passed comparisons to your own rig. Good luck to ya, I hope you stay right where you are until you are truely ready to move forward.

[superpanavision70mm]

holy kaneekiwa. what an interesting thread this has been to read....almost as much fun as having explosive diarrhea. It would appear that there is no resolution to this great debate, nor will there ever....2ch will be on that side of the fence and multi-channel will stay on this side of the fence. Uh oh. Let's debate ...maybe 2ch will be on this side and multi-channel will be on that side....we better argue to see who is on this and who is on that side of the fence...that might produce more results than the original argument.

[teledynepost]

PS: By the way, your still to stupid to correct the spelling mistakes in your quote....

I know you're not a native English speaker but...
Remarkable.

[GMichael]

holy kaneekiwa. what an interesting thread this has been to read....almost as much fun as having explosive diarrhea. It would appear that there is no resolution to this great debate, nor will there ever....2ch will be on that side of the fence and multi-channel will stay on this side of the fence. Uh oh. Let's debate ...maybe 2ch will be on this side and multi-channel will be on that side....we better argue to see who is on this and who is on that side of the fence...that might produce more results than the original argument.


Yuck.

I'll continue to enjoy both.

[shokhead]

I nice read on the back page of S&V about MC and The Beatles.

[Bernd]

Somehow deep inside of me I knew this would be the outcome. It takes an OPEN mind to journey out of your comfort level. It also takes a desire without all of the audiophile blather that can often fog up ones mind. For some old schoolers this jouney it just to difficult to make because they just cannot let go of old familiar technology, and try to embrace a new one. They throw up consistant and persistant aruguement and judgement values that in reality mean nothing, but to themselves justifies staying completely within their comfort level. The price of the speakers and or electronics is always the excuse, if it is not high enough, or of a certain level in price, it is just not good enough for me. The price concious always think this way. The reason I know, because I used to be one of them. Now the price has to transfer to the ears, if not, its just overpriced equipment. I don't know, as bad a price snob as I was, I guess I was ready to get pass that, and enjoy being closer to live concert reality rather than just buying more expensive two channel stuff.

When you take a journey of discovery, you have to take it without predjudice. You were not ready for this journey, which is why your never arrived passed comparisons to your own rig. Good luck to ya, I hope you stay right where you are until you are truely ready to move forward.

Thank you Doctor!
You talk like it is some form of a scientific trip. Audio is fun and brings enjoyment to me, and that how it will stay. If something sounds good to me I will keep it. Nothing to do with a closed mind. Your post reads more as if you are stuck in acomfort zone and have fallen hook, line and sinker for the latest marketing ploy. Or you're just so superior with your enlightened listening (as you should, owning and building a Mastering Studio). Amazing with such a time consumming project on your hand how much time you have giving out advice here. And what is so wrong with me liking Vinyl,Tubes and two channel that you get so excited.I am not alone in that.I apologise that my findings don't agree with your believes. That's life. I tried something and it didn't work out for me.And when you didn't agree with my findings you come out with some nonsense about closed mind and not being ready for the journey. Honestly, do you really think that I have so much time to waste as to spent hours driving getting to and listening to some MC set-ups when my mind has already been made up. Get real. So long my MC friend, but most of all enjoy the music.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[markw]

PS: By the way, your still to stupid to correct the spelling mistakes in your quote....
I know you're not a native English speaker but...
Remarkable.pot,kettle,black?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you Doctor!
You talk like it is some form of a scientific trip.

Oh really. is having a open mind a scientific trip, or a necessity when exploring other formats?




Audio is fun and brings enjoyment to me, and that how it will stay. If something sounds good to me I will keep it. Nothing to do with a closed mind.

Based on what you have posted, if its not two channel, its not very good to you. That is what I call classic closed mind. For a person to claim that they attend live concerts, but have a problem with sound coming from behind you, you are contadicting yourself. In live concerts sound comes from not only the front, but from the sides and behind as well. Do your ear hear this, or do they just ignore it?



Your post reads more as if you are stuck in acomfort zone and have fallen hook, line and sinker for the latest marketing ploy.

I was into multichannel long before multichannel music even came along. Remember film soundtracks? Its a little ignorant of you to think that everyone who enjoys MC is a victim of some marketing scheme. Would it be fair for me to consider you stuck in yesteryear unable to change?



Or you're just so superior with your enlightened listening (as you should, owning and building a Mastering Studio).

Or you could be inferior because of your lack of enlightenment. Never thought of myself as superior to anyone. Different? Definately, but not superior.


Amazing with such a time consumming project on your hand how much time you have giving out advice here

Its called delegation, multitasking, and efficiency. While I supervise quite a bit of the planning of my studio, I delegate others to do many things I cannot. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I type 95wpm.

.
And what is so wrong with me liking Vinyl,Tubes and two channel that you get so excited.

Actually been there done that, next! So the proper word would be bored as opposed to excited.



I am not alone in that.I apologise that my findings don't agree with your believes

Actually you had no findings. Just a failure to open your mind and REALLY discover what multichannel software has to offer, not a critique of ones equipment. You spent more time talking about the people equipment than you did about the software. You took your vinyl loving two channel sensibilites into the multichannel world which is a recipe for failure. Have you ever heard of a open mind and a clean slate?



. That's life. I tried something and it didn't work out for me.And when you didn't agree with my findings you come out with some nonsense about closed mind and not being ready for the journey.

I really do not care if anyone agrees with me about anything. Everyone has a right to their opinion. However, you didn't even scratch the surface of MC, and you already have given up. You let your own shortsighted perspective get the best of you, and that's okay, it happens to the best of us sometime.


Honestly, do you really think that I have so much time to waste as to spent hours driving getting to and listening to some MC set-ups when my mind has already been made up. Get real. So long my MC friend, but most of all enjoy the music.

Peace

Bernd:16:

You went to listen to setup of which you hade absolutely no background on. One setup had no acoustical control or a TT, and had speakers you didn't like. You listened to multichannel music that was repurposed from 2 channel stereo, which is also a compromise. You made no effort to carefully choose you music wisely, you know, a recording actually recorded for multichannel reproduction in either SACD or 24/96khz 5.1 PCM. You made no effort to track down a system and room that actually has been optimized for 5.1. You did none of this(which really does require some effort) and think you came to a educated conclusion. Right, and I am causcasian and extremely wealthy.

No matter how far you drove, the reality is you put very little effort into this. That is something you should face and own up to. I real effort requires more than just driving to someone's house. Your approach to this guaranteed failure.

[Bernd]

Oh really. is having a open mind a scientific trip, or a necessity when exploring other formats?























.

No matter how far you drove, the reality is you put very little effort into this. That is something you should face and own up to. I real effort requires more than just driving to someone's house. Your approach to this guaranteed failure.

That's how much you know about me and how many set ups I have listened to. I sure have spent some time at a specialist dealer. Just haven't posted it here as I was tired of your all knowing all better then anybody elses ramblings. And I had a busy week earning some money. And as I stated before one couldn't really argue without hearing the results. I have heard and I really don't care if my effort doesn't fit in with your expectations.Tough.Chill out Spartacus.:ciappa:
Yes the room was optimised and we had ML speakers all around. Close but no cigar.
Sounds coming from behind at concerts. You are absolutly right on that one. But not direct sound.
As for your delegating skills. I don't rate them very much if it takes you over two years to build your "Mastering Studio". In fact it smells like incompetance to me. I bet you had MC in the 60s.
But seriously. The ML set up was very nice and if that what somebody likes -great.I don't.
And it's very tiresome to go over the same stuff again and again. Listen TT-MC IS NOT FOR ME!

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's how much you know about me and how many set ups I have listened to. I sure have spent some time at a specialist dealer. Just haven't posted it here as I was tired of your all knowing all better then anybody elses ramblings.

Well we are pretty much equal here, because I am just as tired of your uneducated weak and tired comments on MC, and other people equipment. Only weak cowards cannot stand criticisms of their posts.



And I had a busy week earning some money. And as I stated before one couldn't really argue without hearing the results. I have heard and I really don't care if my effort doesn't fit in with your expectations.Tough.Chill out Spartacus.:ciappa:

What effort? If you really made a effort, then why are you so scared to post it. Afraid of what I might say? You shouldn't be, its just my observation of your so called "effort", or lack of it.


Yes the room was optimised and we had ML speakers all around. Close but no cigar.
Sounds coming from behind at concerts. You are absolutly right on that one. But not direct sound.

Doesn't really matter if it is direct or reflected, you still cannot reproduce it in two channel anyway. Once again, you made no mention of software in this supposed room that was optimized and used ML all around. MC is about the software not the equipment, why is that so tough for you to understand? A poor MC source will sound poor on a hig end system, no matter how good the acoustics in the room are. The same goes for a poor two channel source. Only the quality of the source will tell you when to pass out cigars.



As for your delegating skills. I don't rate them very much if it takes you over two years to build your "Mastering Studio". In fact it smells like incompetance to me. I bet you had MC in the 60s.
But seriously. The ML set up was very nice and if that what somebody likes -great.I don't.

Peace

Bernd:16:

A cheap shot from a coward, not unexpected and not surprised.

When you are trying to do things at a very high level, and trying to do it right the first time, it takes alot of time. When is the last time you designed and built a 5-6million dollar post production facility? Probably never and that is why your comment sounds so stupid and juvenile So much for your sense of smell. This was all about the equipment to you, not about MC software at all. Equipment reviews tell nothing about MC music at all. Talk about barking up the wrong tree, you were on the wrong planet in this case.

[E-Stat]

Listen TT-MC IS NOT FOR ME!
From a primarily two channel guy, this past weekend I really experienced what MC can do with good software AND exceptional hardware. I had business in the NY area and spent a couple of days with HP in Seacliff. Aside from hearing his superb Nola Exoticas based two channel system, I specifically asked for him to also play his "Super Maggie" MC system and convince me of the merits. He uses the latest Meitner transport / SACD dac, Conrad-Johnson MC (tube) preamp driving a five channel (500 watts each) Edge amplifier into Magneplanar 20.1s on the front, dual MC-1 centers, 3.6Rs in the rear and four Nola Thunderbolt subs. Naturally, he demonstrated using his own sampler released by Telarc (SACD-60011).

As I see it, the key to getting MC right is moderating the rear level so that it is NOT heard prominently as a primary source. Harry began with two cuts from an ASO recording of Orff's Carmina Burana. I'm going to have to eat some words here I previously stated regarding this particular system: in MC, the vocalists on the stage are more distinct and there is simply more "hall ambience" - not players in the rear like the hokey flavors. The Martinu cut was equally impressive. I then asked that we play the same cut on one of the two channel systems. In this case, it was using the EAR player through Burmester electronics into some new ceramic speakers he is currently evaluating. In all cases, he is using Nordost Valhalla ICs, speaker wire, and power cords. The image specificity on the (numerous) choral voices was just not there, nor a subtle touch of the hall's character.

I'm convinced.

The issue (for me at least) is that only a tiny fraction of my musical library could ever do this. This format is clearly the future, but there is so much two channel musical past that is part of me.

rw

[shokhead]

And i think you hit the nail on the head about the surrounds. To many think if i got them i'd better hear them which is fine unless you "hear them" if you know what i mean.

[Florian]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

[superpanavision70mm]

Sir Terrence and Bernd should have a dance-off to see who will win this debate....let's see who can get SERVED! Haha!

[Bernd]

Sir Terrence and Bernd should have a dance-off to see who will win this debate....let's see who can get SERVED! Haha!

This can only be won by Sir TT. As I have two left feet no sense of hearing and never designed and build a 6 million dollar mastering studio. And with that much money at stake I certainly wouldn't have the time to spent on here.

I like E-Stats post. I trust his judgement and if it sounded convincing to him I believe that. I however have not heard that. The last mc system I auditioned was not bad, but I still prefered my 2 CH. And of course I know about the short supply of decent Software and the importance of that. And if the only music available on a decent 5.1 mix is Toones I don't like what would be the point in investing. Most of my collection will never see the light of day in such a mix I am sure. That's the reason I used to audition with my CDs or Records. If it doesn't perform to my liking, with my music, again, what would be the point in buying that.And it didn't.I posted what equipment was used because that was what was used. I couldn't care less who makes it if it does do the job. But this is an Audio Forum (all in) not just MC and correct 5.1 mixes. Or am I wrong with that one?
This whole trial was done for fun and not to settle something once and for all. I wanted to find out for me, and I have for the time being. I think Sir TT you have missunderstood my intentions. Or maybe my wording wasn't right. Who knows?
So let's put this to bed and let's hope we're all satisfied with our choices.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

Florian,
There are plenty of excellent sounding titles out there. Not only in SACD but in DVD-A as well. So this VERY FEW titles is a crock. Secondly you do not need even a 20k system to enjoy the higher resolution that MC can bring. I've heard MC through a 5k Revel Concerto speaker system with about 3k in electronics and it sounded very realistic with outstanding timbre and soundstaging. I have also heard MC through a system that costs in excess of 100K. While the experience of the 100K system was superior to the 8K system, it wasn't 92K worth of improvement. When you judge a system by price alone, diminishing returns comes very quickly.

The issue is not whether a two channel speaker system is better than a MC speaker system, but does MC recording bring you closer to live sound than a two channel recording.

[shokhead]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

I think you might be suprised.{and shocked]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This can only be won by Sir TT. As I have two left feet no sense of hearing and never designed and build a 6 million dollar mastering studio. And with that much money at stake I certainly wouldn't have the time to spent on here.


Please realize that you have no idea what it takes, time or otherwise to build a post production facility. It is not something I have to work on personally everyday of my life. I am working with a group of great interior designers, signal flow specialists, other audio engineers and general contractors. I also freelance doing sound design and mixing, and have a 32 hour a week regular job. I can do all of that, march in Drum Corps, hang out with my boys, build hometheaters, and post on audioreview. My life is busy, but having a laptop and surrounded by a wi fi network makes it easy to just sit down get online and have fun. There are stretches of time that I am not here, and that means I am moving too much to be online. By the way, this is my second studio and things are a little easier to do this time around. Experience is a wonderful thing.


I like E-Stats post. I trust his judgement and if it sounded convincing to him I believe that. I however have not heard that. The last mc system I auditioned was not bad, but I still prefered my 2 CH. And of course I know about the short supply of decent Software and the importance of that. And if the only music available on a decent 5.1 mix is Toones I don't like what would be the point in investing. Most of my collection will never see the light of day in such a mix I am sure. That's the reason I used to audition with my CDs or Records. If it doesn't perform to my liking, with my music, again, what would be the point in buying that.And it didn't.I posted what equipment was used because that was what was used. I couldn't care less who makes it if it does do the job. But this is an Audio Forum (all in) not just MC and correct 5.1 mixes. Or am I wrong with that one?
This whole trial was done for fun and not to settle something once and for all. I wanted to find out for me, and I have for the time being. I think Sir TT you have missunderstood my intentions. Or maybe my wording wasn't right. Who knows?
So let's put this to bed and let's hope we're all satisfied with our choices.

Peace

Bernd:16:

Its not really important that anyone wins or loses behind this thread. I just hope that when you are ready to TRUELY explore MC, you will put a little more interest in what drives MC, the software not the hardware. I personally think that it is difficult for some to move away from what is familar, and maybe there isn't enough material in the genre of music you like. But in all of your post only in the first one did you mention the actual music, everything else you have posted has been about the equipment. Its the software AND equipment together, not just one.

Maybe I did misunderstand your intentions. But from what I read in your posts, your intentions seemed pretty clear.

[Bernd]

If there is a next time I will try harder. I promise.:ciappa:

Peace

Bernd:5: