2 channel vs. multi-channel [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 2 channel vs. multi-channel



GMichael
05-31-2007, 09:58 AM
This thread is not meant to stir up another fight between the 2 channel and multi-channel fans. I'm just looking to find out how many of each we have here. Do you strictly listen to 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1? Do you do some of each? Are you just a music person or do you HT as well. Maybe you only use your system for HT and never listen to music. Step up and be counted.

kexodusc
05-31-2007, 10:17 AM
I find multi-channel far superior to stereo, so much to the point that MC can sound better and more real to me on lower grade equipment than a good stereo mix.

Problem is, there's just not enough of it, and a great sounding stereo can be purchased for a lot less than a great sounding multi-channel rig, IMO. There's more stereo music out there, and it's still "pretty darn good".

I would have thought with the HT boom that MC audio would really make more noise than it has but I guess maybe it's just too much effort for today's "I want it now" society. Seems there's less focus on a good stereo sound and more on convenience, portability, etc. MC audio is going well against that trend by adding complexity and cost instead of reducing it.

Oh well...I can get into good music listening to it on my $20 clock radio - MY 5 DIY speakers and sub, and decent entry level A/V receiver and SACD/DVD-A player would run you well over $2000. MC really allow me to enjoy it 100 times more? Probably not.

basite
05-31-2007, 10:17 AM
all my music is played in stereo, 2 channels 4 speakers baby :)

for movies (on the HT system upstairs) It's 5.1, for games (on the pc, here in my room) it's also 5.1

but stereo music in 5.1? no way.

who were the others who voted?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Feanor
05-31-2007, 10:17 AM
This thread is not meant to stir up another fight between the 2 channel and multi-channel fans. I'm just looking to find out how many of each we have here. Do you strictly listen to 2.0, 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1? Do you do some of each? Are you just a music person or do you HT as well. Maybe you only use your system for HT and never listen to music. Step up and be counted.

GM,

I voted 2.0 for music, multi for HT because that's the way my actual listening works out. However I am an advocate of mult-channel for music: a good M/C recording can produce a level of reality that 2C just can't challenge.

I listen to 2C for music almost exclusively because (a) the HT set is very often being used by other family members for TV viewing, and (b) the quality of my HT set up is much inferior to my stereo.

Feanor
05-31-2007, 10:32 AM
I find multi-channel far superior to stereo, so much to the point that MC can sound better and more real to me on lower grade equipment than a good stereo mix.

Problem is, there's just not enough of it, and a great sounding stereo can be purchased for a lot less than a great sounding multi-channel rig, IMO. There's more stereo music out there, and it's still "pretty darn good".
....


I agree here, Kex.

For the same buck spent on either, M/C is the way to go, though of course the 2C will be inferior channel-for-channel basis. Then again there aren't enough good M/C recordings for me seriously want to equal my stereo investment on the M/C side.

Nevertheless when buying new recordings, I strongly favor the SACD version, not so much for the hi-rez sound as for M/C. As classical listener, this is especially true for large-scale orchestral and choral works.

Rich-n-Texas
05-31-2007, 10:34 AM
:biggrin5:

BTW, you speeled leave wrong.

Rich-n-Texas
05-31-2007, 10:37 AM
Seriously though, I'm purchasing more and more DVD-A's these days, any movie I rent/buy has a multi-channel mix, and since I want to hear all of my speakers all of the time, multi-channel gets the nod.

GMichael
05-31-2007, 11:03 AM
who were the others who voted?


Bert.

6 replies (2 from Tex), 5 votes.
Not sure if I can figure that out.

Resident Loser
05-31-2007, 12:11 PM
...no mono? The Rudy Van Gelder re-issues I have are all mono...as is my vintage copy of Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday...I mean unless it's recorded as binaural or some X-Y/Blumlein variant in real time, it's all just multiple mono recordings anyway...simply processed for effect...Stereo/schmereo...

jimHJJ(...how's that for dissent among the ranks?...)

GMichael
05-31-2007, 12:33 PM
...no mono? The Rudy Van Gelder re-issues I have are all mono...as is my vintage copy of Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday...I mean unless it's recorded as binaural or some X-Y/Blumlein variant in real time, it's all just multiple mono recordings anyway...simply processed for effect...Stereo/schmereo...

jimHJJ(...how's that for dissent among the ranks?...)

That would fall into "Did I leeve an option out? " Yeah yeah, it's leave. Just a typo.
Hope you voted that way.

coastrat
05-31-2007, 01:40 PM
I have a 2 channel stereo.

I have a television.

Uh, what was the question?

When receivers/AV rigs started looking like life support systems, that's when I tucked tail and ran.

JohnMichael
05-31-2007, 01:55 PM
2 channels only but my tv is mono.

PeruvianSkies
05-31-2007, 02:16 PM
My vote is for .1 LFE. I am surprised no one else said this yet, but I prefer to listen to all my music and movies with no speakers involved except the .1 LFE sub channel. It get's a little hard to hear what they are saying in movies at times, but some guys with deep voices sound pretty sweet coming through the sub.

bobsticks
05-31-2007, 04:47 PM
The guy behind the board is calling the shots.

StevenSurprenant
06-01-2007, 05:10 AM
I use two channel stereo for now, but someday I would like to go surround.

The problem is that great two channel is hard to come by and can get very expensive. Sometimes it takes years of equipment matching and tweaking to get it tight, but when you do, the results are outstanding, far better than any surround system that I've personnally heard. This of course applies to music.

However, when it comes to movies, there is a certain amount of magic to be had from surround sound that a two channel system cannot match. You can use much lower quality speakers and still get a thrill.

My thoughts are that if you design a great two channel, you can duplicate what you have to the other channels and that would result in the ultimate system. I really don't know if this is the right path, but it seems like it should work.

The problem I have with surround music is that sometimes they put instruments and singers behind you. This goes against the being there experiance and is distracting. If the surround channels are only used for ambiance, I might change my mind on multi channel music. Take this paragraph with a grain of salt. I have very little experiance with multi channel music.

Another thing I've learned is that all of us think our system is very good. I can't tell you how many times I've thought this and then after changing something in the system realize how bad it sounded before. It's all a matter of reference and preference.

So for now, it's two channel all the way.

Resident Loser
06-01-2007, 05:45 AM
That would fall into "Did I leeve an option out? " Yeah yeah, it's leave. Just a typo.
Hope you voted that way.

...now that you have clarified things I have (voted, that is)...

I do have a stereo tee-vee, but it's a 20in. Philips/Magnavox and the speakers are roughly a foot apart...So much for any sort of soundstage, may as well be mono...Maybe I should replace the internal wiring with some directional, PTFE-insulated, silver stuff and see if it improves anything...Although, once in a blue moon (program dependent) some vestige of a noise or effect comes from somewhere "over there" where it has no business to be...Very disconcerting...

And to confound popular opinion, I bought a Samsung 19in. LCD job for my wife's b'day, but it didn't work out...It sounded like absolute cr@p and the digital hash it spawned cause havoc with my new Panny VHS/DVD recorder (part of the b'day gift)...so it's analog CRTs in the meanwhile...

BTW, the Panasonic is pretty cool...Analog/digital tuner so newly available HD channels provide a great picture. It records in almost any mode including DVD-RAM, which seems to have many of the functions of a hard-disc recorder...And third time's a charm...the first two (gotten at el Waldo) cr@pped out within days and hours respectively...The third (from Target) seems to be so-far-so-good, but my fingers are crossed...Panasonic CSR support thinks it was a bad batch and suggested a different retailer...Hmmmmm...

If I ever wind up with a flat-screen of some sort, and if they all sound so chitty, maybe I'll get one of those Bose 1-2-3s...

jimHJJ(......that should suffice...)

GMichael
06-01-2007, 06:12 AM
...now that you have clarified things I have (voted, that is)...

I do have a stereo tee-vee, but it's a 20in. Philips/Magnavox and the speakers are roughly a foot apart...So much for any sort of soundstage, may as well be mono...Maybe I should replace the internal wiring with some directional, PTFE-insulated, silver stuff and see if it improves anything...Although, once in a blue moon (program dependent) some vestige of a noise or effect comes from somewhere "over there" where it has no business to be...Very disconcerting...

And to confound popular opinion, I bought a Samsung 19in. LCD job for my wife's b'day, but it didn't work out...It sounded like absolute cr@p and the digital hash it spawned cause havoc with my new Panny VHS/DVD recorder (part of the b'day gift)...so it's analog CRTs in the meanwhile...

BTW, the Panasonic is pretty cool...Analog/digital tuner so newly available HD channels provide a great picture. It records in almost any mode including DVD-RAM, which seems to have many of the functions of a hard-disc recorder...And third time's a charm...the first two (gotten at el Waldo) cr@pped out within days and hours respectively...The third (from Target) seems to be so-far-so-good, but my fingers are crossed...Panasonic CSR support thinks it was a bad batch and suggested a different retailer...Hmmmmm...

If I ever wind up with a flat-screen of some sort, and if they all sound so chitty, maybe I'll get one of those Bose 1-2-3s...

jimHJJ(......that should suffice...)

I do so love reading your posts. Even when I have to re-read them several times to figure out WHAT THE HECK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. But fun anyhow.
Bose 1-2-3 huh? Bet ya can't eat just one.

Bernd
06-01-2007, 06:28 AM
....for me. Having dipped my ear into the MC thingy last year, and even though I heard some great sounds from a MC rig, I am sticking by choice with 2 Channel. A large Vinyl collection does not really lent itself to MC and I am a very simple signal path kind of guy.

Peace

:16:

kelsci
06-01-2007, 07:51 AM
Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music setting can be very affective in creating a 5.1 surround sound effect. Most think that there is some magical audio mumbo-jumbo going on. Far from it. Once you are dealing with a 2.0 stereo track, the potential for multi-channel sound exists if a circuit can recover spatial ques that are imbedded in that stereo track whether deliberately put there or not. That is what Dynaquad did and that is what DPL-2 music does. Your source material must be 2 channel which encompasses all 2.0 stereo recordings meaning tape, VINYL, etc... Intentional multi-channel sound would be found on quadraphonic recordings. In one case, on the stereo vinyl album, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF(the play), the stage was right in front of my eyes sounding quite weird and better left listening in stereo. I had a vinyl direct to disc from Radio Shack years back that had stereo but absolutely no surround information to be reproduced. In another case of vinyl, the first LP that I ever bought in 1962 (IMPACT by Woody Herman) had the most stunning unintentional multichannel sound one could possibly hear, such that I think whoever mixed this disc must have been aware of what he or she was doing. If you are using DPL-2 music, try the circuit on your 2 channel recordings and judge for yourself. If you use DPL-2 music, be sure to tweak the dimension and width and leave panorama off. If you shoot stereo sound with a camcorder, try the DPL-2 music mode on that as well. You may be surprised what you hear.

2chAlex
06-02-2007, 08:16 PM
Quad, Dolby Pro-Logic, Dolby Digital yet I always seem to come back to 2ch. I find with decent components and speakers with good presence and soundstage, TV and movies are to me still quite enjoyable in 2.0. Besides I'm more likely to have music on. Gee for some of us it probably doesn't seem that long ago buying that Y cable to hook the VCR into the stereo (stereo VCR's were expensive when introduced). I was the odd one out though, had a laser disc player. No worries about the rewind thing on rentals.

PeruvianSkies
06-02-2007, 09:40 PM
Dolby Pro-Logic 2 music setting can be very affective in creating a 5.1 surround sound effect.

I somehow have a hard time believing this, and for that matter why let Pro-Logic do all the work, rather than make a proper 5.1 setup and listen to discrete 5.1 material. Or, for that matter listen to 2-channel music w/ a properly setup 2-channel system.

kelsci
06-03-2007, 12:37 AM
Hi Peruvian; OH I do listen to discrete dvd 5.1. Oh Yes. Pro-Logic 2 music is used to bring out those ques in a 2 channel track that are really there whether they were deliberately put there or not. In the era of quad, they were delibertely put there, but what quad needed in the era of quad was the type of surround systems we are using today with the DPL-2 music decoding. The good thing is that your current discrete 5.1 set-up can work well with DPL-2 music but it is necessary to do some tweaking on the dimension and width adjustments to get it to sound right. DPL-2 movie does not have those adjustments and just makes it "worthless" to use. I use the DPL-2 music mode to listen to two channel Dolby Surround movies that I still have on stereo tape. Many movies take on a rather awsome surround sound quality using this mode sounding "similar" to in some cases a D.D. 5.1 discrete EX sound track. Discrete gives a cleaner sound, but this matrix fig-a-ma-jig is not bad at all.

emorphien
06-03-2007, 06:33 AM
Whatever it was recorded in.

My music listening is done mostly on my stereo, which is a much better system than my home theater anyway. I would like to get a DVD-A/SACD player for my stereo though, most of the listening I do with those discs is done on my home theater.

I've done the Pro Logic II music mode thing, it's interesting but far from ideal for a lot of music. It depends on what you're listening to, some of the definition and separation gets lost but for some music that doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. (calling it music might be a stretch since I find DPLII works best for modern/electronic technoish stuff). If you've got a good pair of stereo speakers the DPLII doesn't really add anything but if you listen to the right stuff and your speakers aren't that great, I can imagine it might be mistaken for a better more spatially "detailed" image.

adam mcd
06-03-2007, 08:46 PM
dts neo 6 music sounds great im some instances, but it depends on what speakers are being used and how they are laid out. i used to scoff at surround sound at music but id say thats the only surround sound music mode i dont mind. but yea, 2 channel all the way. hell, simulated dolby digital (forgot what its called, EX?) even sounds good with 2 nice fronts when playing dvds, but id do 3.1 at that point.

Rich-n-Texas
06-04-2007, 04:30 AM
6 replies (2 from Tex), 5 votes.
Not sure if I can figure that out.

I only voted once, which was an attempt at humor (which obviously I failed at), but I'd vote for multi-channel, hands down, if I could do a do-over.

Feanor
06-04-2007, 04:37 AM
I only voted once, which was an attempt at humor (which obviously I failed at), but I'd vote for multi-channel, hands down, if I could do a do-over.

I voted 2C music, MC for HT, but that leaves the wrong impression that I don't favor MC for music.

Now hear this: MC sound from a good recording is much more real than stereo.

GMichael
06-04-2007, 04:55 AM
I only voted once, which was an attempt at humor (which obviously I failed at), but I'd vote for multi-channel, hands down, if I could do a do-over.

HAHA I was replying to someone's question as to who had voted so far. I thought your joke was fine.
It's good to see so many diverse answers.

radtech13
06-08-2007, 09:43 AM
For music I preferr two channel. Multi channel really does nothing for me. It is not bad when listening to a live M/C recording, but that is about it. For H/T it good, but even then it depends on what type of movie is being viewed. It does nothing for a comedy!

PeruvianSkies
06-08-2007, 12:54 PM
Well, this is a close race for sure!

GMichael
06-08-2007, 01:46 PM
Well, this is a close race for sure!

Well, let's see. We have 5 for 2 only and 12 for 2.0 for music. I will put these two together for 17 total.
Then, 3 for multy, 2 for 50/50 and 9 for whatever it's recordered in. (I know that it seems that this could be added to the 2.0 as well but IMO the 2 only folks would never ever buy a multi track. So, this is multi for me)
Make that 15 for multi.

I forget what the two "others" were.

Yeah, kind of close. That explains why there have been so many arguments in the past. The sides are too even.

PeruvianSkies
06-12-2007, 11:08 AM
While this poll started out pretty strong, just like other polls, after a few days they die off. I wish there was a separate section just for POLLS that was more visual and interesting and might engage people to do more voting.

GMichael
06-12-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm happy with the 37 votes. It was a good turnout.

westcott
06-12-2007, 01:08 PM
From a theoretical stand point, the more speakers the better to accurately produce sound. From a reality standpoint, tough to get good recordings in any format. I voted multi although I still have a dedicated two channel system.

E-Stat
06-12-2007, 06:36 PM
From a theoretical stand point, the more speakers the better to accurately produce sound.
You might find this (http://www.ambiophonics.org/) guy's ideas interesting.

rw

PeruvianSkies
06-12-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm happy with the 37 votes. It was a good turnout.

Probably from the 37 of us 'regulars' on here.

Sedan Delivery
06-13-2007, 02:05 AM
2 channel before dishonor :6:

Rock789
06-17-2007, 07:25 AM
My vote is for .1 LFE. I am surprised no one else said this yet, but I prefer to listen to all my music and movies with no speakers involved except the .1 LFE sub channel. It get's a little hard to hear what they are saying in movies at times, but some guys with deep voices sound pretty sweet coming through the sub.
ROFL!!!
thats too good!

Rock789
06-17-2007, 07:26 AM
I voted whichever it was recorded...
but given an option, I like multi channel...

PeruvianSkies
06-17-2007, 02:40 PM
When this poll first appeared I wasn't sure what type of outcome there would be, but now looking back and see the responses and the results it's nothing really that shocking, in fact the results pretty much conclude exactly what happens on this forum and is essentially a good summary of the people who are here and such. If you think about the results and compare them to many of the threads/arguments/discussions over the course of time it's no wonder we have a variety of opinions, but the most common one always seems to be between dedicated 2-channel and 2-channel w/ multichannel capabilities, which essentially boils down to 'what it was recorded in' for most folks.

kexodusc
06-17-2007, 04:02 PM
If this poll was representative of the population, I'd say it was a major coup for multi-channel music. Considering the decades stereo has had to establish itself, and the overwhelming edge it has in numbers still today, for multi-channel music to enjoy the support it's received here is really saying something.

Most people have little knowledge about good stereo sound, and only a fraction of that would be familiar with multi-channel music. Think it's safe to assume even fewer would have experienced a well set up mulit-channel system for music only (not home theater). Too bad, really.

I went into a BestBuy recently to buy some DVD-A's/SACD's, since this thread started. I asked 2 guys there where the DVD-Audio's were and both directed me to the concert DVD's. I can say with great certainty that the majority of the time I mention DVD-A, people think concert DVD's. With SACD's it's not much better.

Not sure what else to add to this thread that hasn't already been said.

Rock789
06-17-2007, 05:46 PM
I went into a BestBuy recently to buy some DVD-A's/SACD's, since this thread started. I asked 2 guys there where the DVD-Audio's were and both directed me to the concert DVD's. I can say with great certainty that the majority of the time I mention DVD-A, people think concert DVD's. With SACD's it's not much better.

Not sure what else to add to this thread that hasn't already been said.
the Best Buy's around Ohio have done away with their SACD and DVD-A sections!
it's crazy!
I use ebay mostly for my SACD purchases now ;o)

filecat13
06-17-2007, 06:50 PM
I chose the 50-50 option, since it was the only thing that sort of represented my position.

I think some of us have more than one system, some with both stereo and MC. I try to have the best I can afford of each, though the MC ultimately costs more.

I've got a bunch of money (well, in my world, anyway) invested in the MC set, and the 2 channel set is quite special, but they both have different personalities. So in many instances it depends on the room I'm in and the mood I'm in and the music I'm listening to...

Almost all music sounds great in MC through PLIIx-M, but my DVD-As sound great in the two channel room, too.

If I could only have one, then I'd choose MC, because when I put that system in two channel mode, I get excellent stereo, too.

PeruvianSkies
06-17-2007, 08:16 PM
If this poll was representative of the population, I'd say it was a major coup for multi-channel music. Considering the decades stereo has had to establish itself, and the overwhelming edge it has in numbers still today, for multi-channel music to enjoy the support it's received here is really saying something.

Most people have little knowledge about good stereo sound, and only a fraction of that would be familiar with multi-channel music. Think it's safe to assume even fewer would have experienced a well set up mulit-channel system for music only (not home theater). Too bad, really.

I went into a BestBuy recently to buy some DVD-A's/SACD's, since this thread started. I asked 2 guys there where the DVD-Audio's were and both directed me to the concert DVD's. I can say with great certainty that the majority of the time I mention DVD-A, people think concert DVD's. With SACD's it's not much better.

Not sure what else to add to this thread that hasn't already been said.


I asked a guy one time at Best Buy (actually I wasn't planning on asking anyone a question, but he asked me if I was looking for anything and he was the 3rd person in about 2 minutes that asked me, so I obliged and asked my question) where the SACD's are and he lead me on an adventure over to the blank media and handed me some CD-r's, which I laughed in his face for a second and then asked how long he had been working there, to my shock...5 1/2 years. I then proceeded to explain what an SACD is and he then directed me to a few titles that he could find....guess what....they were DualDiscs. I walked out a few minutes later empty handed.

emorphien
06-17-2007, 08:25 PM
My local best buy has had a 3'x3' section of display shelf dedicated to the multichannel discs. I check it once in a while, there are some things there I want to get but I just haven't gotten around to it. I've never tried asking if any could show me to where they are.

kexodusc
06-18-2007, 03:33 AM
BestBuy's have been an invaluable source of MC music for me - every few months they seem to dump all the crappy titles that don't sell - including oddball formats. I routinely find DVD-A's and SACD's on the cheap there.
2 Widespread Panic DVD-A's for $15.98 last time. Woo hoo.
They don't know much about the, don't display them, and they barely sell them, but thank heaven the monkeys at BB command keep sending SACDs and DVD-As to the stores. :D

Rich-n-Texas
06-18-2007, 06:07 AM
I asked a guy one time at Best Buy (actually I wasn't planning on asking anyone a question, but he asked me if I was looking for anything and he was the 3rd person in about 2 minutes that asked me, so I obliged and asked my question) where the SACD's are and he lead me on an adventure over to the blank media and handed me some CD-r's, which I laughed in his face for a second and then asked how long he had been working there, to my shock...5 1/2 years. I then proceeded to explain what an SACD is and he then directed me to a few titles that he could find....guess what....they were DualDiscs. I walked out a few minutes later empty handed.

That's funny PS, but it's pretty much representative of the retail stores I've checked into around my area. I have to admit though that one time when I went to a BB, it only took two store *clerks* to get me pointed in the right direction. And like Kex pointed out, the rack was filled mostly with off-the-wall titles.

I really think some of these retailers just don't get the MC concept, because it seems like for one thing they're not pricing these based on the disk's resolution or capabilities, at least that was the case at my local BB store, and the employees for the most part don't have a clue about this technology (What ever happened to the "know your product" sales approach?). This is just another reason to buy from the Amazons and CD Universes of the world, where all you have to do is plug in DVD-A or SACD into a search box and with a little refining, you'll get right where you need to be. I get a lot of free shipping deals, no sales tax, and some fuel cost savings to boot. But to cloud the matter even further, DVD-A's aren't following any particular content layout standard. I've got five DVD-A's now, two are layed out in "group" fashion, the two Genesis disks are layed out more like a conventional DVD with a separate DVD-A disk, and Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos set with a "bonus" DVD which has the MC mix as well as a documentary, which I assume is also a DVD-A (nothing on the disk label to indicate that).

GMichael
06-18-2007, 06:21 AM
That's funny PS, but it's pretty much representative of the retail stores I've checked into around my area. I have to admit though that one time when I went to a BB, it only took two store *clerks* to get me pointed in the right direction. And like Kex pointed out, the rack was filled mostly with off-the-wall titles.

I really think some of these retailers just don't get the MC concept, because it seems like for one thing they're not pricing these based on the disk's resolution or capabilities, at least that was the case at my local BB store, and the employees for the most part don't have a clue about this technology (What ever happened to the "know your product" sales approach?). This is just another reason to buy from the Amazons and CD Universes of the world, where all you have to do is plug in DVD-A or SACD into a search box and with a little refining, you'll get right where you need to be. I get a lot of free shipping deals, no sales tax, and some fuel cost savings to boot. But to cloud the matter even further, DVD-A's aren't following any particular content layout standard. I've got five DVD-A's now, two are layed out in "group" fashion, the two Genesis disks are layed out more like a conventional DVD with a separate DVD-A disk, and Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos set with a "bonus" DVD which has the MC mix as well as a documentary, which I assume is also a DVD-A (nothing on the disk label to indicate that).

You should have seen what I went through trying to find an IMAX DVD. It took 5 Salespeople to figure out that IMAX really existed. Then finally one said, "Oh, you mean those nature type movies. We have those Discovery movies in that isle." I ended up buying on-line.

Abex
07-09-2007, 07:37 PM
I got off the merry-go-round a few years ago and will someday get back into it since I have been trying to each some kind of sound which I do not need to worry about upgrade wars.

It seems that is what makes the cos. money is the upgrade fever.

I have the speakers I will live the rest of my life with.The only thing left is getting the playback that I do not need to keep changing units out for.

I sold a great system a few yrs. ago in favor of Panasonic Class-D .but I wish I had not now as the best system I owned was using a Passive Pre and a SS amp.

I have a vinyl collection I want to listen to again,but I will not own 2 systems in order to do so. I am not into MP-3's and all the changing formats. SACD seems to have burned many and now there is Blu-Ray or whatever they are calling it.

I do watch more TV and Movies ,but I also love Music and there seems to be trade-offs for everythiing.

Pure Digital has come a long way,but I still love vinyl.The early CD recording sucked wind and it took a decade for engineers to get the most from that format.Now MP-3's have ruined purist audio due to compression.People and the younger people don't seem to realize what they are missing when having a great system. To me it's almost a sexual ,senstional experience rather than muddled sound.Some say they hear no difference.I do!

When you have a good reproduction system then you can hear the subtle differences in playback. With a good system just changing cables will make a difference. Listening to something like Guns & Roses one can hear just how bad their recordings were.

There are many things which I have on vinyl which I cannot get on CD's. That is why I like vinyl beside the fact that the soundstaging that vinyl has is better in some instances than Digital.

To get Digital right one has to spend 1000's maybe 10's of 1000's to equal it IMO.I got great Digital playback for a few 1000 ,but one has to know what to get and what synergy is concerning their choices.

Hey that's just my opinion though and I am glad to be off the merry-go-round for awhile.Atleast till I build my house with a dedicated entertainment room designed to get the most from my speakers.

Good luck on the hunt!

Feanor
07-10-2007, 05:36 AM
I got off the merry-go-round a few years ago and will someday get back into it since I have been trying to each some kind of sound which I do not need to worry about upgrade wars.
....
I have a vinyl collection I want to listen to again,but I will not own 2 systems in order to do so. I am not into MP-3's and all the changing formats. SACD seems to have burned many and now there is Blu-Ray or whatever they are calling it.
I...
There are many things which I have on vinyl which I cannot get on CD's. That is why I like vinyl beside the fact that the soundstaging that vinyl has is better in some instances than Digital.

To get Digital right one has to spend 1000's maybe 10's of 1000's to equal it IMO.I got great Digital playback for a few 1000 ,but one has to know what to get and what synergy is concerning their choices.
...
Good luck on the hunt!

Abex,

You're not the first person to suggest that they or others have somehow been hoaxed or exploited by SACD. But it's a line of logic I just don't follow. How were you (or they) burned? Did you buy hardware and software on the basis that SACD was the trend of the future, and you are disappointed that it remains a niche product?

Regardless of any insinuation to the contrary, I'm convinced that Sony and other prime players never expected or wanted SACD to go mass market. Indeed, their intention was, (and is), to make it a niche market product, that is, a market stratification product, designed to skim those who are able and willing to pay a little more than the typical consumer. Are they disappointed that demand has been as slight as it has and the selling price differential so small? Maybe, nevertheless they aren't really surprised.

Roughly half of all SACD titles are classical, even though classical music comprises a much, much smaller portion of the overall market. This is no surprising in light of the its niche status. Classical listeners are more decerning by the nature of the music they listen to; they are the elite of listeners and audiophiles. Most of us know that SACDs (by virtue of their niche appeal) are better produced that run-of-the-mill CDs. Also, we know that multi-channel sound, properly produced and played back, can deliver a realism that 2 channel cannot -- what you will never get from vinyl or CD.

O'Shag
07-17-2007, 02:43 PM
I wimped out and put 50-50. truth is I do listen to two-channel for music a little more because of vinyl.

I believe many people get disillusioned with multi-channel music because they use conventional direct radiating speakers for the rear channels. This can cause sensory confusion, with too much information beamed directly at the ear from the rear. I've found that for MC to work best, then one must use bi-pole/di-pole for the rear with a broad non-focused dispersion pattern. My MC SACD/DVD-A/DTS system can sound aboslutely amazing. For me though, when I put a record on - say an original 40+ year old record of Mose Allison live at the Lighthouse in Hermosa Beach CA., - played on my Musical Fidelity M1 turntable through my MC Reference Prototype preamp, the music comes alive in such a way that the air sizzles with the energy - I am transported to that little jazz club one night in the 1960s.

O'Shag
07-17-2007, 02:57 PM
Westcott, I see you have a pair of Altec Valencias. I love those speakers. What are you driving them with??

O'Shag
07-17-2007, 03:48 PM
Feanor,

I do agree with what your saying with regard to SACD being a niche product, and it is certainly higher fidelity than CD. For example, I listen to 'Oscar Petersen and Friends' on regular CD running through my Musical Fidelity trivista DAC 21 (an excellent DAC), and it sounds very good. I then listen to the same Oscar Petersen and Friends via SACD. The SACD is better. Even though it is only a two-channel SACD, its immediately evident that there's more 'there'. The music has much more sparkle and sizzle - not in a bright tizzy way, but more the way of the real thing. Symbals have a more real brassy ring and attack. Drums have more wieght and texture. The midrange is more present, and in this particular recording the space and air is more evident. This particular preformance from the late 60's using rather crude recording gear - one can even hear the microphone amp distorting here and there. The MC SACDs I have do, in general, sound fantastic.

I don't feel however that SACD is better than vinyl. At its best Vinyl has an open natural quality that gets closer to the real thing. Air and space are not 'created' so much as existing naturally by virtue of the direct analoge format. When listening to a well-recorded LP, its easier to place instruments, and easier to differentiate from one instrument/voice to the next because vinyl doesn't sound at all compressed. Also, vinyl is better when it comes to instrument textures. Finally the soundstage of vinyl is generally superior despite it being a two-channel format. Of course all this depends on the phono stage, which determines the amount and accuracy of information being presented to the amplifier....

Feanor
07-17-2007, 04:10 PM
Feanor,

I do agree with what your saying with regard to SACD being a niche product, and it is certainly higher fidelity than CD. For example, I listen to 'Oscar Petersen and Friends' on regular CD running through my Musical Fidelity trivista DAC 21 (an excellent DAC), and it sounds very good. I then listen to the same Oscar Petersen and Friends via SACD. The SACD is better. Even though it is only a two-channel SACD, its immediately evident that there's more 'there'. The music has much more sparkle and sizzle - not in a bright tizzy way, but more the way of the real thing. Symbals have a more real brassy ring and attack. Drums have more wieght and texture. The midrange is more present, and in this particular recording the space and air is more evident. This particular preformance from the late 60's using rather crude recording gear - one can even hear the microphone amp distorting here and there. The MC SACDs I have do, in general, sound fantastic.

I don't feel however that SACD is better than vinyl. At its best Vinyl has an open natural quality that gets closer to the real thing. Air and space are not 'created' so much as existing naturally by virtue of the direct analoge format. When listening to a well-recorded LP, its easier to place instruments, and easier to differentiate from one instrument/voice to the next because vinyl doesn't sound at all compressed. Also, vinyl is better when it comes to instrument textures. Finally the soundstage of vinyl is generally superior despite it being a two-channel format. Of course all this depends on the phono stage, which determines the amount and accuracy of information being presented to the amplifier....

Perhaps it's because of the limitations of my hearing -- I go deaf somewher between 10kHz and 12kHz and I suffer from tinnitus -- but I don't hear hear the alleged superiority of vinyl, nor do I hear the superiority of SACD over CD in stereo. Where the superiority of SACD is clear is in multi-channel that, when done properly, can convey a sense of realism that stereo cannot equal.

Of course there are lots of very, very poorly produced CDs that provide the ammo for the attacks on this medium, but a medium must be judged to the best examples, not the worst. The best CDs give away nothing to vinyl, nor to (stereo) SACD, that my modest ears hear.

O'Shag
07-17-2007, 04:51 PM
Granted CD at its best is very good. I can't lay claim to having the best CD source but I have heard top players in friends' systems. My own CD source presently is the Denon DVD 3910 as transport feeding the Trivista DAC 21 via Purist Audio digital cable. The trivista DAC feeds the signal to the preamp via Transparent MusicLink Ultra cables. I have just bought and have yet to receive the California Audio Labs Alpha transport, and I'm interested to see if it improves on the denon as transport. I didn't get the Delta DAC as I know the Trivista DAC 21 is superior - I do own a California Audio Labs Tempest II CD player (six tubes), which despite its attributes is trounced by my denon/Trivista DAC 21 combo.

With software availability considerations aside, I hear quite plainly that; SACD, DVD/A, DTS 96/24, and HDCD all in two-channel played on the Denon 3910 or Sony DVP-NS9000ES are clearly superior formats sonically. I would agree with you that the MC does add a dimension to the music. MC when mixed properly is superior to two-channel.