The Ultimate Digital Format? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Digital Format?



O'Shag
07-29-2008, 06:59 PM
A few weeks ago, I was sitting with my son and we were listening to the hi-fi system. My son is a medical student. One would expect his tastes to be somewhat refined and broad but they're not I'm afraid. He does have an 'excellent ear' though. I like to try and get into the music he likes - I remember my Dad telling me in so many words that all the music I liked to listen to was garbage, and I don't want to be so closed-minded with my son.

That evening, we listened predominantly to his rap/hip-hop/and some decent grundge collection - he does take very good care of his CDs and carry's them around in a huge folder. He is always amazed at what he hears in a good system instead of his car stereo whcih is pretty good, at that.

One of his JZ albums which he had never heard, was actually a DVD. He'd had it for several months but had no way to hear it. We put it on and ran it through my multi-channel system.

I haven't really gotten into multi-channel music and have heard relatively little. Like many others, I suspect, I've let myself be convinced by much of the audiophile cognicenti that two-channel is the best. Well, with this dvd JZ played with this band Linkin Park (I think) - I'm not really into this stuff, but I sat there with my son enthralled at the performance which was bloody good it has to be said. The multi-channel system put us very solidly in the venue with the crowd. Also immediately evident was the complete lack of any compression at high SPLs. Close the eyes and you are there. It seems to make sense that there is just no way six or eight drivers set in two speakers in front of the listener can output the same level and amount of sound so accurately as say twenty or more dispersed around the listener.

For digital, is the ultimate sound reproduction experience to be had from multi-channel formats? What I heard that night was compelling evidence for me.

What is your experience with multi-channel music and how does it compare with your two-channel listening experiences?

pixelthis
07-29-2008, 11:59 PM
I hate to admit it but stereo on pro logic II in music mode sounds really great.
For one thing, these new receivers are meant to be played in five channel.
As for multichannel discs, I ENJOYED THAT FOR AWHILE ,
but after awhile it just seemed a gimmick, so now I listen to SACD in
two channel.
Which is convienent since my SACD has been relegated to my CD input, due to my new blu player with its 5.1 out.
Which brings up another point, mainly that SACD and dvd audio were premature.
I listened to the amazing DAVE MATHEWS at radio city music hall
in Blu ray, and it was amazing to say the least.
Mostly just him and tim robbins, but man what music!
This is probably the future of music recording, but the purist wants older stuff to be in stereo, which is what they were recorded in.
:1:

JSE
07-30-2008, 05:31 AM
A few weeks ago, I was sitting with my son and we were listening to the hi-fi system. My son is a medical student. One would expect his tastes to be somewhat refined and broad but they're not I'm afraid. He does have an 'excellent ear' though. I like to try and get into the music he likes - I remember my Dad telling me in so many words that all the music I liked to listen to was garbage, and I don't want to be so closed-minded with my son.

That evening, we listened predominantly to his rap/hip-hop/and some decent grundge collection - he does take very good care of his CDs and carry's them around in a huge folder. He is always amazed at what he hears in a good system instead of his car stereo whcih is pretty good, at that.

One of his JZ albums which he had never heard, was actually a DVD. He'd had it for several months but had no way to hear it. We put it on and ran it through my multi-channel system.

I haven't really gotten into multi-channel music and have heard relatively little. Like many others, I suspect, I've let myself be convinced by much of the audiophile cognicenti that two-channel is the best. Well, with this dvd JZ played with this band Linkin Park (I think) - I'm not really into this stuff, but I sat there with my son enthralled at the performance which was bloody good it has to be said. The multi-channel system put us very solidly in the venue with the crowd. Also immediately evident was the complete lack of any compression at high SPLs. Close the eyes and you are there. It seems to make sense that there is just no way six or eight drivers set in two speakers in front of the listener can output the same level and amount of sound so accurately as say twenty or more dispersed around the listener.

For digital, is the ultimate sound reproduction experience to be had from multi-channel formats? What I heard that night was compelling evidence for me.

What is your experience with multi-channel music and how does it compare with your two-channel listening experiences?

I'm not a rap/hip-hop fan by any means but the Linkin Park & JZ show was pretty amazing. A buddy of mine has the DVD and it's very well done. Great sound and it was well recorded. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

Feanor
07-30-2008, 05:36 AM
....

For digital, is the ultimate sound reproduction experience to be had from multi-channel formats? What I heard that night was compelling evidence for me.

What is your experience with multi-channel music and how does it compare with your two-channel listening experiences?

Although, (or maybe because), I listen mostly to classical music, I agree that M/C, well-done, delivers a greater sense of realism and involvement than stereo ever can. I have said it here before: M/C can move you from the back of the hall to first row, center.

Ajani
07-30-2008, 06:03 AM
For digital, is the ultimate sound reproduction experience to be had from multi-channel formats? What I heard that night was compelling evidence for me.

What is your experience with multi-channel music and how does it compare with your two-channel listening experiences?

I've heard a few tracks in multi-channel... the experience is certainly impressive... Much like with surround sound for movies, MC music has the ability to really make you feel like you are there... Like you are in the middle of a live concert event....

I think the real reason MC Audio hasn't been more sucessful is simply $$$$$$ and convenience..... Getting an 'audiophile' to stretch their budget to buy the most expensive 2 channel rig they can (sometimes can't) afford is common, but convincing them to either double/triple that budget for MC or to downgrade the quality of all their equipment to get more of everything (more speakers, processing and channels of amplification) is like pulling teeth.

let's take a real world budget for a 2 channel setup: $2K total (Maybe able to stretch by a $100 - $250)... with that I can buy a pair of Monitor Audio RS6 Towers ($1.1K), a Marantz PM7001 Integrated Amp ($0.6K) and a Marantz CD5001($0.3K)... that will give me a pretty decent entry/mid(depending on who you ask) level setup...

OR

I can get a MC setup of say a Denon/Yamaha/Marantz Receiver (approx $0.6K), a Multiformat player (Oppo etc..) $0.3K and now the really tough part... a full set of 5 speakers and a sub for $1.1K... oh and about triple the speaker wire/cabling as in the 2 channel rig.

So the question becomes: will MC music played through 5.1 speakers costing $1.1K sound better than stereo music played through $1.1K floorstanders (or bookshelves)??? That's a tough one to convince people of...

ALSO

Since for most people the majority of their music collection is Stereo, then is it really practical to optimize their setup for 5.1 at the expense of 2 channel performance?

E-Stat
07-30-2008, 06:49 AM
What is your experience with multi-channel music and how does it compare with your two-channel listening experiences?
This topic came up a couple of years ago wherein I weighed in with my opinion.

Multi-channel (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=144438&postcount=46)

rw

bobsticks
07-30-2008, 10:00 AM
Great topic Shaggy. I couldn't have predicted the BLU craze with all its fantastic concert vids but my set-up is geared for multi-channel SACD and therefore handles said with aplomb...at least for this week as my priorities shift like the tide.

I find that sometimes I need to shift my speakers a bit when listening in 2 channel direct mode but such trivial inconveniences are no big deal. I suppose it's a compromise but I don't have a great room anyway and the highpoints exceed the lows to such an extent that it's worth it.

Interesting, though I agree with your conclusion I'd have to take exception to your points of proof...love the aformentioned Dave Mathews and you should really hear the NIN Blu-Ray if given the opportunity, but I hated that JayZ/Linkin Park collaboration.
Of course, that's more a comment on the content and substance of the music than one of quality of product engineering. I thought those sissyass nu-boys really took the piss outta Jay. Just IMO.

O'Shag
07-30-2008, 11:32 AM
I've heard a few tracks in multi-channel... the experience is certainly impressive... Much like with surround sound for movies, MC music has the ability to really make you feel like you are there... Like you are in the middle of a live concert event....

I think the real reason MC Audio hasn't been more sucessful is simply $$$$$$ and convenience..... Getting an 'audiophile' to stretch their budget to buy the most expensive 2 channel rig they can (sometimes can't) afford is common, but convincing them to either double/triple that budget for MC or to downgrade the quality of all their equipment to get more of everything (more speakers, processing and channels of amplification) is like pulling teeth.

let's take a real world budget for a 2 channel setup: $2K total (Maybe able to stretch by a $100 - $250)... with that I can buy a pair of Monitor Audio RS6 Towers ($1.1K), a Marantz PM7001 Integrated Amp ($0.6K) and a Marantz CD5001($0.3K)... that will give me a pretty decent entry/mid(depending on who you ask) level setup...

OR

I can get a MC setup of say a Denon/Yamaha/Marantz Receiver (approx $0.6K), a Multiformat player (Oppo etc..) $0.3K and now the really tough part... a full set of 5 speakers and a sub for $1.1K... oh and about triple the speaker wire/cabling as in the 2 channel rig.

So the question becomes: will MC music played through 5.1 speakers costing $1.1K sound better than stereo music played through $1.1K floorstanders (or bookshelves)??? That's a tough one to convince people of...

ALSO

Since for most people the majority of their music collection is Stereo, then is it really practical to optimize their setup for 5.1 at the expense of 2 channel performance?

concerning cost, I think its much cheaper to set up a good-sounding surround system in some respects, as opposed to a 2-channel typical high-end system. Question is does it require the same level of electronics to get some important aspects of the same sound from M/C as two-channel?

Take electronics for example. My Yamaha RX-Z9, while very good in two-channel is not quite in the same league as my best two channel preamp and amp. However, the game changes when the Z9 is used for multi-channel - then its brilliant. strange, but the difference in performance is immediately obvious.

Same goes for speakers. For two channel there is a large gap in performance with the best speakers and modest ones. However, the difference in output quality is less noticable when listening to multi-channel. By sharing the load, the less capable speaker can operate more within its range. Of course high-end manufacturers would have us believe that we need top tier speakers for compelling multichannel performance but I've not found that to be the case.

Software - is that the limitation I wonder?

bobsticks
07-30-2008, 12:06 PM
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.

That says it all rather eloquently, wouldn't you reckon Shag?

BTW, that's from this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=17769) spitting match from the past.

O'Shag
07-30-2008, 12:06 PM
Great topic Shaggy. I couldn't have predicted the BLU craze with all its fantastic concert vids but my set-up is geared for multi-channel SACD and therefore handles said with aplomb...at least for this week as my priorities shift like the tide.

I find that sometimes I need to shift my speakers a bit when listening in 2 channel direct mode but such trivial inconveniences are no big deal. I suppose it's a compromise but I don't have a great room anyway and the highpoints exceed the lows to such an extent that it's worth it.

Interesting, though I agree with your conclusion I'd have to take exception to your points of proof...love the aformentioned Dave Mathews and you should really hear the NIN Blu-Ray if given the opportunity, but I hated that JayZ/Linkin Park collaboration.
Of course, that's more a comment on the content and substance of the music than one of quality of product engineering. I thought those sissyass nu-boys really took the piss outta Jay. Just IMO.

Bobs, I see your point, I was amazed though at the quality of the recording (or maybe thats just average quality for multichannel?). I thought Linkin Park done themselves proud once they got on stage, although it was clear they were too nervous around JZ during the commentary portion before the performance.

I'm sure there are much better examples of multi-channel recordings and I'll investigate further.

The blu ray hi-res multi-channel music I've not heard yet as I still have to buy a blu-ray player and I will do in the next month or so. Is it better than DVD for multichannel sound?

bobsticks
07-30-2008, 12:15 PM
Oooohhh, it's good m'friend...veddy good.

O'Shag
07-30-2008, 12:17 PM
That says it all rather eloquently, wouldn't you reckon Shag?

BTW, that's from this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=17769) spitting match from the past.

Yes, EStat has a very good point. But I was thinking solely about performance. If music choice comes into the equation then, well, most of it is digital 2-channel. But I strongly suspect that the multi-channel medium for digital music offers greater potential for achieving 'the absolute sound'. Given the challenge of trying to emulate a complex set of soundwaves accurately from two sound sources, isn't it reasonable to assume that five or seven sound sources would give much more flexiblity in accomplishing this?

bobsticks
07-30-2008, 12:34 PM
Well, this is just one man's opinion, but there is great potential. Again, this is predicated on a few things, suppositions and allowances.

I think in the reproduction of live music there is great potential for both good and bad, some of which I detailed in the linked thread. But to save time, in summary:

1) I have some discs in which the mixdown has instruments as having their primary point in the background. Now unless your seated amidst the ensemble this seems highly unrealistic. That is, IMO, an example of Bad multi-channel formatting

2) There are many recordings, SACD, DVD-A, DVD, and BLU, that have some well-thought out and artistic mixdowns...a massive, vortex-like wall of sound eminating from te front and spacial cues, ambience and crowd noise from the rear. This, to me, seems like Good or Proper multi-channel implementation.

Pat Metheny's "This Way Up!" and "the Jazz Channel Presents Earl Klugh" are a couple of titles on DVD that you might want to check out in regards to " the challenge of trying to emulate a complex set of soundwaves accurately from two sound sources".

Of course, none of these comments addresses the opportunities it permits artists for multi-point expression in non-live based works...the merits of which, or the lack thereof, I shall leave up for individual consideration.

Ajani
07-30-2008, 12:38 PM
concerning cost, I think its much cheaper to set up a good-sounding surround system in some respects, as opposed to a 2-channel typical high-end system. Question is does it require the same level of electronics to get some important aspects of the same sound from M/C as two-channel?

Take electronics for example. My Yamaha RX-Z9, while very good in two-channel is not quite in the same league as my best two channel preamp and amp. However, the game changes when the Z9 is used for multi-channel - then its brilliant. strange, but the difference in performance is immediately obvious.

Same goes for speakers. For two channel there is a large gap in performance with the best speakers and modest ones. However, the difference in output quality is less noticable when listening to multi-channel. By sharing the load, the less capable speaker can operate more within its range. Of course high-end manufacturers would have us believe that we need top tier speakers for compelling multichannel performance but I've not found that to be the case.

Software - is that the limitation I wonder?

That's a good point on cost... I've never really seen the need to spend a large amount for a HT setup (minus the TV)... since even a basic setup can deliver the MC experience convincingly... but the problem still remains that a cheap MC setup will sound extra bad, when trying to play the large collection of stereo music most people own... so unless you have 2 different systems (which still results in some sort of additional costs or compromising on quality), then you have to prioritize between putting together a setup tailored to your stereo collection or one tailored to MC...

pixelthis
07-30-2008, 10:09 PM
tHE MAIN THING ABOUT MC sound is the "gimmick" aspect.
MC would be great an appeal to more "purists" if teh "effects speakers
were used just for that, providing ambience to give the impression of being there, instead of "dancing" instruments and vocals.:1:

Wireworm5
07-31-2008, 05:00 PM
I was going to write a long story on the evolution of my MC system. Too many variables to consider.
I primarily listen in MC stereo. In my room MC stereo has a wider soundstage than having just two speakers, everything else being equal, which to my ears is more realistic and pleasant to listen to.
I'm willing to concede that in an ideal room having two really good speakers and components could accomplish what takes 8 speakers in my room.
However with multi-channel recordings such as dts or sacd. Played on a MC calibrated setup such as mine. It is no contest, MC trounces 2-channel stereo.

Ajani makes a good point. The cost to implement MC may be prohibitive. It cost me double to that of a 2 channel stereo of equal calibre would have cost. More amps, speakers, multi-channel pre-amp or av/reciever and IC's.

Oh, and let's not confuse Surround Sound with multi-channel music listening. Surround Sound is better applied for movies with special effects.

O'Shag
07-31-2008, 05:34 PM
I was going to write a long story on the evolution of my MC system. Too many variables to consider.
I primarily listen in MC stereo. In my room MC stereo has a wider soundstage than having just two speakers, everything else being equal, which to my ears is more realistic and pleasant to listen to.
I'm willing to concede that in an ideal room having two really good speakers and components could accomplish what takes 8 speakers in my room.
However with multi-channel recordings such as dts or sacd. Played on a MC calibrated setup such as mine. It is no contest, MC trounces 2-channel stereo.

Ajani makes a good point. The cost to implement MC may be prohibitive. It cost me double to that of a 2 channel stereo of equal calibre would have cost. More amps, speakers, multi-channel pre-amp or av/reciever and IC's.

Oh, and let's not confuse Surround Sound with multi-channel music listening. Surround Sound is better applied for movies with special effects.

I would think that the three front speakers are the most critical, and the rear channel speakers are far less so. I personally don't think the cost would be that bad to put together a high fidelity multi-channel system. Ajani likes Monitor Audio speakers, so lets take those for example. With a pair of RS6 speakers for the front, and the matching center channel (I've seen them go for a few hundred bucks on ebay) then that covers wide-range sound for the the front and most critical channels. Its also key to try and match speaker wire type and length. I don't think a sub is absolutely necessary as the RS6 for expample acquits itself admirably, although more bass power would be effective in the long run. For the rears, a small speaker will suffice, although I find bi-pole or di-pole speakers to be best for rear channel duty - but they're not neccesary for quality sound. Even for movies with a lot of heavy sound effects smaller speakers are ok. Finally a good receiver such as the Sony STR-DA7100ES (I think thats the model number) and bobs your uncle, excellent sound is to be had. Again in two channel not so good, but for multi-channel...excellent.

I do find that many dolby 5.1 movie soundtracks are of excellent quality. But DTS is superior for sure.

O'Shag
07-31-2008, 05:42 PM
Bobsticks is right about software making a lot of difference. Some early multichannel recordings tried too hard to incorporate the rear channels with 'glitzy around-the-room effects with the result that the performance in general loses focus and realism. I do have an early DTS Sting recording that suffers a bit from this, as do other recordings. But when its done right the performance sounds very realistic - something that 2-channel digital has to work harder to do. I think sound mixing engineers are cottoning on to this and production houses are using the rear channels to enhance ambience. Contrary to what I've read in one or two places, I think the center channel can really enhance performance. I think its quite common to find that three front speakers are used in studios for professional monitoring.

Wireworm5
07-31-2008, 06:16 PM
I agree having two good fronts and a center channel is the most important. The center channel in MC is matrixed and takes the place of a phantom image in 2-channel stereo. I also use the rear channel which isn't quite as good reflecting off the front wall. This makes voices sound fuller but only marginally.
Side or surround speakers don't have to be towers but should be at least a good bookshelf as they do put out equal signal in MC. I haven't tried dipoles so no comment. With Surround Sound movies small speakers would be sufficient as they're are just used for effects.

Then there's the problem depending on the speaker load of being too much of a load for a av/receiver. They may sound less than optimal thus requiring additional power amps. Then you want the power amps to be similar in sound character if using more than one, so that matching timbre speakers still sound the same.

The room would be the most important factor in determining type of speakers and speaker placement for a MC system.

O'Shag
07-31-2008, 07:03 PM
Good points.

With respect to timbre matching / balance etc. thats the beauty of the DSP autiomatic calibration that many receivers now incorporate. It does work very well for me. The supplied microphone puts out an extensive series of test tones and then sets about the balancing act. This seems to allow some degree of flexibility in terms of different speakers or an external amp to drive the fronts etc. The reason I find bi-pole/di-pole operation so effective for rears is that these speakers diffuses the sound very well I find

Wireworm5
07-31-2008, 07:34 PM
I heard dipoles briefly when I was demoing the center channel. I liked the overall sound in the room but couldn't justify getting them with 5 sets of speakers already.
They may work well in MC, I just haven't tried them.