5 channel music [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 5 channel music



Mr Peabody
07-18-2009, 06:34 PM
I guess sometimes I should be more open minded or not so conservative. My opinion of 5-channel music was I didn't want any part of it, it's not natural, the band isn't all around you at a concert etc. This is still true to an extent if only wanting to feel you are at the show, so to speak. And, we know, good things can be done with 5-channel to enhance this experience as well in terms of ambience and spacial cues. I was at a friends house who is into 5.1 music and he played a couple DVD's by BT and Flaming Lips. This is just another type of listening experience. Something I thought I was against but found to be a lot of fun. If we can enjoy movie special effects, why not music special effects? On one of the Flaming Lips songs the guitarist strummed and each strum went to a diferent speaker, it made a pattern to the time of the music. It was interesting and I can see how this could become an art form of sorts. The accompanying video was interesting as well and gave me the feeling that psychodelia is still alive. The BT was interesting as well with sounds coming from the different speakers with inter-play.

I did a search and couldn't find a dedicated thread where we discussed 5-channel music. I know we've talked a lot about it, I just couldn't find it. So maybe if any one else is into this just add what multichannel music you've enjoyed to the thread and maybe this could become the official 5-channel music thread.

Feanor
07-19-2009, 03:06 AM
...

I did a search and couldn't find a dedicated thread where we discussed 5-channel music. I know we've talked a lot about it, I just couldn't find it. So maybe if any one else is into this just add what multichannel music you've enjoyed to the thread and maybe this could become the official 5-channel music thread.

Let's talk about. I'll preface my remarks by saying that I listen mostly to stereo for reasons I'll mention. But I believe that multi-channel music has the potential -- and I've heard it -- to convey a sence of real presence, a realistic concert hall abience, that cannot be delivered by stereo.

Let me say with strong emphasis this is not about delivering "artistic effects", (although of course that can be done), but realism. No, the band/orchestra is playing just in front of you but, let's remember, the sound comes from all around. A pair of speakers cannot convey the full experience. Sound bouncing of the walls, ceiling, etc. just isn't the same thing; (though as a dipole planar listening, I'll say that that technology can reals enhance the soundstage).

I'm a classical listener mostly and the analogy I like to use is that a good recording moves you from the back of the hall (or a doorway looking into the hall), to fourth row seat, (or 1st or 6th row depending producer's intent). This really makes a difference for large scale orchestral and, in particular I find, choral music. It can be wonderful.

Now for the reasons I don't listen to more multi-channel:

Excellent stereo recordings are seemingly hard enough to produce; it's got to be harder to make good M/C, accordingly they are rare. A contributor to this, obviously, is the relatively poor reception the SACD and received (and DVD-A if you like) which means the engineers and producers have not had incentive to refine their techinques. The relative scarcity of good M/C is a disincentive to do anything especially in light of the following factors.
Obiously equipment quality is important, and to provide 5 channels of high quality is inevidably more expensive than 2. That said, and although the SACD standard prescribes five equal speakers, I don't thing you need the same size and power all round.
It can be difficult to set up 5 channel room. In my case my main music area is pretty impractical for multi-channel setup. My HT room is pretty good, but I don't usually listen there because other family members tend to use it for movies and TV.

Mr Peabody
07-19-2009, 11:43 AM
Feanor, I believe we are in agreement here, I just may not have been clear. For lack of better, or no terms, 5-channel could be used very well to enhance a "traditional" otherwise stereo recording. This and the other 5-channel listening are just two different approaches or uses of the extra channels. Really to recreate the original recording has good potential not only with the ambience but the additional bass from the .1 channel. I thought I wouldn't like the "artistic" use of 5-channel for music but surprisingly I found it entertaining. I suspect there isn't going to be much of it to choose from though. More artists, are, putting out Blu-ray. I guess only time will tell.

pixelthis
07-20-2009, 12:09 AM
Feanor, I believe we are in agreement here, I just may not have been clear. For lack of better, or no terms, 5-channel could be used very well to enhance a "traditional" otherwise stereo recording. This and the other 5-channel listening are just two different approaches or uses of the extra channels. Really to recreate the original recording has good potential not only with the ambience but the additional bass from the .1 channel. I thought I wouldn't like the "artistic" use of 5-channel for music but surprisingly I found it entertaining. I suspect there isn't going to be much of it to choose from though. More artists, are, putting out Blu-ray. I guess only time will tell.

Funny, but two out of three blu music discs are two channel(the Carey concert
has both 2 and 5.1 channel uncompressed LPCM).
I had high hopes for DVD-A and SACD when they came out, but it was mostly
"dancing instruments", a bad flashback to the quad days.
I think thats why dvd-a basically died and SACD lived on (even on life support),
because the the greater reliance of dvda on multichannel.
And talk about a marketing snafu, the main selling point of these two formats was to "audiophiles"(the rest of the world downloading cheap MP3) while at the same time touting something audiophiles hate , five channel unnatural sound.
The greatest thing for an audiophile to "get " is that image of performers in front, to be able to place them where they are supposed to be on stage, a horn dancing around behind you kinda defeats that.
Anyway I now have no choice, with my BLU in the 5.1 multi in, I HAVE to use 2 channel on my dvda player.
And I find I like it a lot better.
5.1 is great for movies, but until engineers stick to ambience for back channels,
I think I will stick to 2 channel for music.:1:

nightflier
07-21-2009, 09:55 AM
Well, I think Mr. P. has a point when he said that good multi-channel music is hard to find. It is, but that shouldn't be an indictment of the whole medium. I'm mostly a classical listener, and I can also say that there is a significant difference when hearing a full symphony in 5.1 sound than when trying to emulate that sense of envelopment with just two speakers.

I also don't agree Feanor's assumption that because it is harder to engineer a good surround sound album, that therefore it is less likely to exist. True there are some dogs out there, and I've bought my share of them, but there are also some extremely well done pieces, and not just in classical. Roger Water's live album certainly comes to mind here, with a very good you-are-there feel to it. Of course, there's DSOTM, the well reviewed Allman Brothers @ Fillmore East, and Roxy Music's Avalon, just to name a few. Generally SACDs are well done, and the dogs are an exception, at least that is what my experience has been.

I also have to add that SACD is not CD. While I'm not technical enough to describe the differences in detail, I can tell you unequivocally that SACD can sound much better than CD, if engineered well. Granted there are some great CDs out there, but the average SACD will still be comparable. A simple test of this is to compare the 2-channel SACD layer to the CD version of the same album. I happen to have DSOTM on LP, CD, and SACD (I think I have a cassette of it somewhere too, LOL) and they are all very different, with the most impressive one being the SACD.

I don't know what BluRay has in store for surround sound, but SACD is here now and it's, IMO, a very worthwhile investment. Also consider that used/discontinued pricing for previous generation top-flight universal players (like the Denon 39xx/59xx series and the Sony players) is not much more expensive than a mid-level DVD player. Just add this to your HT setup, and enjoy a whole new dimension in sound, literally.

As far as needing 5 identical speakers, that is true, if you're looking for the most ideal SACD setup. But a well tuned HT setup should be fine for most people. I have my pre/pro configured with very different settings for SACD and that does help as well, but again not a necessity. You can get 95% of SACD's performance with a decent HT setup. That other 5% is for those obsessive-compulsive types, who really should have separate HT and SACD systems, and thus the budget for such extravagances as well. That probably does not represent most of us; and if it is, then good luck to you.

filecat13
07-22-2009, 11:59 AM
On the main floor, I have a dedicated MCH 5.1 set up. Since the rooms there are on an open floor plan with variable high ceilings (about 10,000 cu. ft.), there's very little opportunity for early reflections. The sonic experience can be quite breathtaking.

I have many DVD-As and SACDs, as well as some of the DTS discs. Clearly some are amazing and some are like bargain bin PC shovelware software. There are still DVD-As being manufactured to very high standards by small companies.

One of my favorites is http://aixrecords.com

It must be pointed out that calibration of a MCH system is vastly more important than in a two-channel system. There's much more room for error and for irregular, unwanted sound as you add more speakers and channels.

Naturally I learned this the hard way by going years with a simple, one mic calibration done at the listening position. When the JBL tech came to do the calibration on my recent Synthesis® install in the downstairs cinema, his six mics, two laptops, and the DACS unit needed to set the networked parametric EQ/processors seemed ridiculously over-wrought. Four hours later my jaw was on the floor as I was literally stunned by the improvement. :yikes:

Then I had to have the MCH music system done as well. Suffice it to say, I cheaply cheated myself out of a superior experience with my existing equipment by not doing this much sooner. :frown2:

Auricauricle
07-22-2009, 03:31 PM
My listening experience does not include 5.1, but I have had a few friends who were interested in rear channels for ambience (including one who used Klipsch La Scalas in the front and Heresies in the rear). Personally, while intriguing the idea seems somewhat contrived: When you see a performance (generally) the action is before you. The ambience is created by some speaker placement beside and around you, but it is the aarchitecture of the hall that provides much of what you hear and discern (right?). By the same token, instead shouldn't folks put more stock in treating their rooms or finding a way to process signals (DSP?) than putting speakers everywhere? I use two mains and a sub, and while the set up is far from ideal, toeing in and tilting down has served my purposes rather well.

At the same time, I agree: there aren't many albums recorded in true multichannel format (I reckon). Remember when Quadrophonic was all the rage? What happened to that hallowed thing?

E-Stat
07-22-2009, 04:07 PM
By the same token, instead shouldn't folks put more stock in treating their rooms...
That has been my experience, too for listening to a wide range of musical recordings. Home theater is a different animal. MC jmusic can be better, but unless one's budget is extraordinarily high there are always compromises. On the other hand, I'd really like to hear this (http://www.ambiophonics.org/PhotoPage.htm) ambisonic system!

rw

Mr Peabody
07-22-2009, 06:44 PM
I believe the BT and Flaming Lips DVD's I referred to were DTS recordings and definitely a nontraditional approach to 5.1. The Flaming Lips would have made Timothy Leary proud, if the audio effects weren't enough, one of the songs video was just colored balls falling. BT was instrumental and Techno type music. If you are open minded and into a new 5.1 experience you should check out one of these.

Mr Peabody
07-23-2009, 11:42 AM
Read the "Editorial Review" it explains better than I.

http://www.amazon.com/This-Binary-Universe-BT/dp/B000G8OZ16/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248376282&sr=8-1

check out a sample and you can only imagine 5.1

Auricauricle
07-23-2009, 12:49 PM
With John Diliberto endorsing it, it's gotta be interesting....

nightflier
07-23-2009, 02:26 PM
While most performances are indeed "out in front" the fact is that recreating a concert-hall type of experience in a small room is pretty darn hard. Five speakers can do this better than 2 speakers and room treatments/DSP (although I'm sure Meridian would disagree). To put it another way, that is also why 2 subs are better than one: because it's easier to set up. In short, it's a lot easier to get enveloping sound from speakers all around you, then to rely on reflected/re-directed sound from just two speakers. And it's probably a lot cheaper too.

Then there is the music that is specifically designed for surround sound. I haven't heard the BT and Flaming Lips albums, but my guess is that they were designed to do this from the onset. This doesn't necessarily mean that this is realistic or natural music, nor does it try to emulate a concert hall, but instead it seeks to provide a whole new dimension in music, purposefully placing the listener inside the 360 degree space. This is the same thing that is done in movies where the producers seek to place the viewer/listener in the middle of the action.

Now I know that there isn't much music out there that specifically does this, but there are a few titles worth seeking out (perhaps a topic for a new discussion, here?). Some of us also believe that surround sound music was hobbled by the way that SACD/DVD-A were marketed and made to compete with each other. Had there only been one format and a less fickle marketing campaign, who knows how much more prevalent it would be now? In any case, there's definitely room for something new in 2-channel music, and I, for one, actively seek out artists and music that makes a concerted attempt at using the latest technologies to stand out from the crowd.

Perhaps SACD will eventually be supplanted by BR, but for now, the SACD catalog is quite impressive. What it has going for it is that it doesn't have a video component at all, so there is no wasted resources/energy on providing additional video content on the disk. SACD is strictly a music format and as such, it is IMO, still the best sounding dedicated surround format out there. I have a few DVD-As as well, but I do think that's a format that is dying off very fast.

Considering that you can now purchase a very good SACD player with bass management and channel calibration for around $300 from Cambridge, NAD, Marantz and others, why not give it a try? If you have to replace your DVD player anyhow, and you're not quite ready to take the BR plunge (those movies are still considerably more), then there's little reason to get a player that does not include SACD. Try it, you may like it a lot more than you thought you would. And if you don't, then you've still upgraded to a very decent DVD player and you can resell those few SACDs you bought to try out, on eBay.

Woochifer
07-24-2009, 06:22 PM
There were plenty of multichannel music discussions back when the major labels were still issuing new SACD and DVD-A titles.

I'm pretty much on the same page as Feanor on this topic. The advantage of multichannel music is in how it stabilizes the imaging and conveys spatial aspects that simply cannot be done with two speakers.

I decided to buy a SACD player because of the SF Symphony's Mahler series. I bought the first couple of releases and thought that they sounded so good in two-channel that I had to try them out in 5.1. Those recordings were originally done using DSD, and I frequently go to Davies Symphony Hall for concerts.

I can tell you that for the Mahler series in particular, the 5.1 mix gives you that "you are there" sensation far more effectively than the excellent two-channel mix does. Since I go to Davies Hall, I know how the orchestra actually sounds in that space. The 5.1 mix captures how the sound comes off the stage at Davies Hall. It's not always pretty, since Davies Hall's acoustics leave a lot to be desired, but it's an accurate representation of the live experience.

By comparison, the two-channel mix might actually be a "prettier" sounding mix. But, that's more of a caricatured version of what the real hall sounds like. I can see how some people would prefer the two-channel mix, but it's a less accurate representation of the live event.

With other mixes, it really varies. Many 5.1 mixes significantly improve upon the two-channel mixes, while others are more gimmicky and/or sound worse. Among the mixes that I like, Concord Jazz's 5.1 SACD mixes are incredible in how much they not only use the extra channels, but in how much they clean up the original recordings.

With many of Concord Jazz's two-channel mixes, the engineers used a heavy application of processing to create the phantom center effect. On the new 5.1 mixes, the engineers went back to the original multitrack tape, and remixed it without much of the processing. The result is a much cleaner sound, with greater fidelity and differentiation between the different sound elements.

Criticaster
08-12-2009, 01:43 PM
I am in agreement with most everyone and especially appreciate Woochifer's points because it emphasizes the comparison to live music and brings up an appropriate composer in Mahler, who has french horns playing from other areas of the hall. Corlilgano symphony has individual horm players stationed at points all around the concert hall behind the majority of listeners in the orchestra section with staccato bursts of sound. It's great live and I am looking for a DVD-A or SACD of this work. But these two works certainly bring home the idea that "multichannel" is part and parcel of the live listening experience in more than just ambience, fill, harmonics and sound reflections.

I think of this issue as being indicative of the marching forward of technology and its gradual assimilation into everyday life and the home. Of course, these things happen much faster now. Take when CD came out - it took the recording engineers a long time to truly understand the different techniques necessary to use digital to best effect - this is why some early cd's sounded harsh - it wasn't "digital" as we now fully understand, it was how it was utilized.

In fact, much content now is better in its production than what is being recorded - but that is a different gripe that reveals my stodginess - Where I was going is that the processing power to compute millisecond delays to 5 or 7 speakers took a while to reach the level necessary for recordings to sound musical in the home and not gimmicky. Likewise, the other half of the equation, the engineers, again had to accumulate new skills for the multichannel environment - a process we are only at the beginning of.

I would respectfully suggest that multichannel will insinuate itself into most of our lives at an incremental but ever increasing rate. After all, most of us can only afford one "High Fidelity" set-up, if that. But have you noticed how the price of PrePros keeps dropping? It's all in the chips. Meanwhile, solid state amps are also less expensive than they used to be per watt, leaving speakers as the main obstacle to higher end multichannel for everyone.

It is probably unfortunate that development of multichannel is driven by movies rather than music but music soundracks will ultimately lead back to pure music recordings, I hope.

Anyway, I have large LP collection, some of which are mono and these are not going to be replaced just because I go 7.2. In fact, I will probably change to into "bypass" mode and listen in stereo to many musical pieces, but having the ability to listen in true multichannel for the immersive and accurate effect it will have in recreating the concert hall or the jazz club (save me from the stadium, please) is what I am looking forward to.

Last note - looking forward because altho I now have my 7.2 speakers, and amplification for the 9 channels, I am waiting for the release of the PrePro I intend to use, the Emotiva XMC-1.

Don't flame this noob too hard, I beg you.

JoeE SP9
08-12-2009, 04:16 PM
Flame you, of course not. I use a Lexicon for surround sound. The SP-9 and my regular 2 channel setup is used for conventional stereo. Frankly, it sounds better than the Lexicon when it's running in 2 channel mode. I set my SP-9 for unity gain and use it as a pass through for multichannel sources.
This way I get pure 2 channel and surround from the same system. I have no center channel or side speakers. 4 large ESL's and 3 subs are enough. I get real nice bass though.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2009, 03:34 PM
Personally I agree with Wooch and Criticaster, but I would like to add this as well and clear up a few points that are not quite accurate.

Coming from a audio mixer who has mixed both multichannel and stereo music and film soundtracks, it is infinitely harder to do a stereo mix than a multichannel mix. This is especially so when a lot of instruments, singers, or tracks are in the process. Stereo requires a tremendous amount of EQ to flesh things out in the final mix. There is just no room in stereo to make every instrument clearly rendered, and the soundstage is not wide enough to spread things out without tearing the center of the soundfield. There is no way to accurately render ambience without washing out the dominate mix. There is no way to properly place ambience for envelopment(in back of you) so it is incorrectly placed behind the performer instead. I've recorded several Requiems for several composers. These are very difficult to record, and sometimes have instrument placement instruction desired by the composer. One I did had instructions that required a small choir in the rear, a big one in the front, some brass situated in a left/right side balcony, along with a huge orchestra and organ in the front. My first notion was to use a decca tree left/center/right setup with two spaced onmi on the left and right front of the stage, and two spaced onmi out in the seating area to capture any side and rear performers. This did not work out because the church we recorded in had far too long a reverberation time to keep the recording clean and distinct. The setup that actually worked required far more mikes, and a delay unit to line all of the input to the console accurately in the time domain. The two channel mix was a mess spatially, was unfocused(before post) and required a great deal of EQ to get the same clarity as the 5.1 mix The 5.1 mix was so accurate and clean that it required very little to no EQ, and it exactly portrayed the spatial nature of the live event. You are able to spread the soundfield out to the edges of the speakers and beyond thanks to the center channel. You are able to capture ambience in its proper space, and that is behind you.

There is a difference between a "artistic" studio created mix, and spatially correct live mix. The approach to recording, and listening to them is not the same, and it is not supposed to be.

The attention to calibrating a 5.1 setup is tantamount to accurate reproduction of a 5.1 source, regardless if is music only, or a film soundtrack. Filecat addressed that nicely, and the way his installer calibrated his theater is the old fashion tried and true way I prefer to calibrate but I have the equipment to do that. Not all folks do, so there are really great auto-setup system like Anthem proprietary system, Trinnov, and Audeyssy's system come to mind. The require you to take measurement from several positions in the room(all you have to do is choose the places, and move the mike), and the processor does all of the calculation that flatten the frequency response, set bass crossover points, check phase, and line up the arrival time of the speaker system to the ears. It takes as little as 15 minutes to as long as 30 for the processor to do this, significantly less time than the old fashion way(and a bit less accurate as well, but well into the ballpark).

I am unique in that I learned to record and mix in two channel and multichannel while in school, and I learned from the best of both. The concept and approach is much different between the two. I cut my teeth early in my career mixing film scores in multichannel, so I knew how to use all of my speakers(including the center) very effectively for music. Most music oriented audio engineers gained their experience in two channel only, and never learned the concept of using the rear(or center rear) and center channel effectively. They required a learning curve, and their early projects in multichannel showed. Also a lot of audio engineers have no idea how the ear and brain functions and interprets sound coming from several directions.They created mixes that served to confuse the ears, and distract the listener. Too many swirling audio effects can confuse the brain which detracts from the listening experience. They learned that after the mix was mastered, and it was too late to correct. Artistic multichannel mixes can be very effective as long as they are done carefully and conservatively. Alan Parson's work is a good example of that. I think the learning curve problem has largely been tackled, as there are only a few masters at mixing in multichannel in the recording field, and they are doing the bulk of the multichannel releases out there.

Let's face it DVD-A and SACD have a fork stuck in them(SACD or DSD less so as there are still new releases to the format, and even included on some Bluray music as well). Our next biggest chance for high resolution music whether it be stereo or multichannel lies in the Bluray format. This is further boosted by some significant advances in digital recording, mixing and editing. SACD/DSD never had the editing tools necessary to get the best out of the format. You had to convert the DSD stream to PCM to edit, EQ, and tweak levels and then transfer the audio back to a DSD stream. This killed any audible advantage it had over PCM, and in some cases audibly degrading the signal. Thanks to DXD this is no longer the case, as you can record, mix and edit at 32 or 24/352.8khz bit and sample rates(yes that is double the sample rate of 176.4) and downconvert to any sample rate from 44.1 to 192khz without any audible loss at 192khz and slightly perceptible loss at 96 and 88.2khz(there is significant degradation at 44.1 and 48khz) when compared to the DXD original file and the 192khz file. The Bluray format is capable of supporting 8 channels of 24/192khz audio. Surround Records uses the 7.1 and 5.1 Dts-HD master audio format and does most of the encoding at 24/96khz with an occasional 24/192khz in 5.1. They release both traditional mutlichannel mixes, and tastefully done artistic ones as well. 2L utilizes the DXD format exclusive and has one release that includes a 24/192khz PCM track, a SACD track, a Dolby TrueHD track at 24/192khz, a Dts-HD master audio audio track at 24/192khz, and lossy Dts and Dolby digital tracks. This allows you to compare the different audio formats side by side, and hear a tremendously well done mix as well.

While two channel mixes are still the number one way of delivering audio to the masses, mostly all recording and archiving is done in multichannel now. Most stereo presentations are mixed downs of the multichannel masters, and are not created from scratch like they used to be. It is still optimized and tweaked for the two channel format, but still are fold downs from a multichannel master. Looking forward and evaluating recording and archiving trends, multichannel is the way to go. Two channel is already the red headed stepchild of a multichannel mix, and that is not going to change in the future.

Mr Peabody
08-27-2009, 04:27 PM
Personally I agree with Wooch and Criticaster, but I would like to add this as well and clear up a few points that are not quite accurate.

Coming from a audio mixer who has mixed both multichannel and stereo music and film soundtracks, it is infinitely harder to do a stereo mix than a multichannel mix. This is especially so when a lot of instruments, singers, or tracks are in the process. Stereo requires a tremendous amount of EQ to flesh things out in the final mix. There is just no room in stereo to make every instrument clearly rendered, and the soundstage is not wide enough to spread things out without tearing the center of the soundfield. There is no way to accurately render ambience without washing out the dominate mix. There is no way to properly place ambience for envelopment(in back of you) so it is incorrectly placed behind the performer instead. I've recorded several Requiems for several composers. These are very difficult to record, and sometimes have instrument placement instruction desired by the composer. One I did had instructions that required a small choir in the rear, a big one in the front, some brass situated in a left/right side balcony, along with a huge orchestra and organ in the front. My first notion was to use a decca tree left/center/right setup with two spaced onmi on the left and right front of the stage, and two spaced onmi out in the seating area to capture any side and rear performers. This did not work out because the church we recorded in had far too long a reverberation time to keep the recording clean and distinct. The setup that actually worked required far more mikes, and a delay unit to line all of the input to the console accurately in the time domain. The two channel mix was a mess spatially, was unfocused(before post) and required a great deal of EQ to get the same clarity as the 5.1 mix The 5.1 mix was so accurate and clean that it required very little to no EQ, and it exactly portrayed the spatial nature of the live event. You are able to spread the soundfield out to the edges of the speakers and beyond thanks to the center channel. You are able to capture ambience in its proper space, and that is behind you.

There is a difference between a "artistic" studio created mix, and spatially correct live mix. The approach to recording, and listening to them is not the same, and it is not supposed to be.

The attention to calibrating a 5.1 setup is tantamount to accurate reproduction of a 5.1 source, regardless if is music only, or a film soundtrack. Filecat addressed that nicely, and the way his installer calibrated his theater is the old fashion tried and true way I prefer to calibrate but I have the equipment to do that. Not all folks do, so there are really great auto-setup system like Anthem proprietary system, Trinnov, and Audeyssy's system come to mind. The require you to take measurement from several positions in the room(all you have to do is choose the places, and move the mike), and the processor does all of the calculation that flatten the frequency response, set bass crossover points, check phase, and line up the arrival time of the speaker system to the ears. It takes as little as 15 minutes to as long as 30 for the processor to do this, significantly less time than the old fashion way(and a bit less accurate as well, but well into the ballpark).

I am unique in that I learned to record and mix in two channel and multichannel while in school, and I learned from the best of both. The concept and approach is much different between the two. I cut my teeth early in my career mixing film scores in multichannel, so I knew how to use all of my speakers(including the center) very effectively for music. Most music oriented audio engineers gained their experience in two channel only, and never learned the concept of using the rear(or center rear) and center channel effectively. They required a learning curve, and their early projects in multichannel showed. Also a lot of audio engineers have no idea how the ear and brain functions and interprets sound coming from several directions.They created mixes that served to confuse the ears, and distract the listener. Too many swirling audio effects can confuse the brain which detracts from the listening experience. They learned that after the mix was mastered, and it was too late to correct. Artistic multichannel mixes can be very effective as long as they are done carefully and conservatively. Alan Parson's work is a good example of that. I think the learning curve problem has largely been tackled, as there are only a few masters at mixing in multichannel in the recording field, and they are doing the bulk of the multichannel releases out there.

Let's face it DVD-A and SACD have a fork stuck in them(SACD or DSD less so as there are still new releases to the format, and even included on some Bluray music as well). Our next biggest chance for high resolution music whether it be stereo or multichannel lies in the Bluray format. This is further boosted by some significant advances in digital recording, mixing and editing. SACD/DSD never had the editing tools necessary to get the best out of the format. You had to convert the DSD stream to PCM to edit, EQ, and tweak levels and then transfer the audio back to a DSD stream. This killed any audible advantage it had over PCM, and in some cases audibly degrading the signal. Thanks to DXD this is no longer the case, as you can record, mix and edit at 32 or 24/352.8khz bit and sample rates(yes that is double the sample rate of 176.4) and downconvert to any sample rate from 44.1 to 192khz without any audible loss at 192khz and slightly perceptible loss at 96 and 88.2khz(there is significant degradation at 44.1 and 48khz) when compared to the DXD original file and the 192khz file. The Bluray format is capable of supporting 8 channels of 24/192khz audio. Surround Records uses the 7.1 and 5.1 Dts-HD master audio format and does most of the encoding at 24/96khz with an occasional 24/192khz in 5.1. They release both traditional mutlichannel mixes, and tastefully done artistic ones as well. 2L utilizes the DXD format exclusive and has one release that includes a 24/192khz PCM track, a SACD track, a Dolby TrueHD track at 24/192khz, a Dts-HD master audio audio track at 24/192khz, and lossy Dts and Dolby digital tracks. This allows you to compare the different audio formats side by side, and hear a tremendously well done mix as well.

While two channel mixes are still the number one way of delivering audio to the masses, mostly all recording and archiving is done in multichannel now. Most stereo presentations are mixed downs of the multichannel masters, and are not created from scratch like they used to be. It is still optimized and tweaked for the two channel format, but still are fold downs from a multichannel master. Looking forward and evaluating recording and archiving trends, multichannel is the way to go. Two channel is already the red headed stepchild of a multichannel mix, and that is not going to change in the future.

Who is this masked man?
:shocked:

Feanor
08-27-2009, 05:15 PM
Who is this masked man?
:shocked:

There we have it. The sage has spoken to provide some rationale for what I've heard with my own ears from M/C: a greater sense of presence and realism than stereo can possibly deliver.

poppachubby
08-27-2009, 05:24 PM
Hey Peabody, check out a CD copy of Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love". The psychadelic break in the middle of the song comes through 5.1 in a way 2 channel could never do....the guitar effect "spins" around the room from speaker to speaker...killer...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2009, 05:26 PM
Who is this masked man?
:shocked:

The same masked man you have known(and hated) for years LOLOLOL.

Mr Peabody
08-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Is there a 5-channel version of Zep II, or do you mean listen to the CD in something like Pro Logic 2?

Have you heard that 5-channel mix of Flaming Lips?

Mr Peabody
08-27-2009, 06:26 PM
I have Audessy but have not used it yet. Is the purpose of the multiple microphone positions to get the lay out of the room or to note where people will be sitting? I mean should I put the mic where I sit and where my wife sits etc. or just put it in various places in the listening room more randomly? As soon as it cools some and the air can be turned off I plan to run the auto set up to see if it does better than the ole SPL meter in the listening position.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-27-2009, 07:11 PM
I have Audessy but have not used it yet. Is the purpose of the multiple microphone positions to get the lay out of the room or to note where people will be sitting? I mean should I put the mic where I sit and where my wife sits etc. or just put it in various places in the listening room more randomly? As soon as it cools some and the air can be turned off I plan to run the auto set up to see if it does better than the ole SPL meter in the listening position.

The object of the multiple positions is to average out the response for different seating positions. It combines the frequency response derived from those different positions to create a flat response over many listening seats. If you only measure from one point in the room, and equalize for that one point, other positions will not be optimized and will sound worse. Its called spatial averaging, and the Audessey is very good at it. It also is very good with early arriving reflections, something that trips up lesser auto setup software.

The audessey software is for those who do not have access to, or do not know who to use multiple microphones connected to a multiplexing device, which is then connected to a RTA(handheld or PC based). This takes hours to do, but is a bit more accurate than auto setup software.

It is far more accurate and precise than using test tones and a SPL meter. It can accurately measure and correct the bass response without a correction chart. LOL

poppachubby
08-28-2009, 01:47 AM
No Peabody, no crazy mix of Zep 2, I was at a mates place sometime ago...all he had to listen through was a cheap DVD player through a 5.1 system. We put Zep 2 in....when that bit came on we couldn't believe the effect, all of the guitar track was moving from speaker to speaker in a "spinning" way around the room...also Mercury Rev's album "Boces" comes through quite crazy on a 5.1. It's a good auidophile album on any system. I use it to rate new headphones, check it out and let me know what you think...by the way I am presently seeking a copy of the Lips you speak of...I'll add my thoughts to this thread...

poppachubby
08-28-2009, 02:14 AM
Peabody, I know that the purpose of your thread has already been lynched by gearheads, so I will use it too...I am new on here. My primary interests lie in analog and headphone gear (so simple, no?). You seem to be the most objective poster on here so I want to ask you a couple of questions. What type of headphones do you wear? Also, if you have an opinion on Grado phones....can you please share it with me? PM me if you don't want to muddy up your thread any further...greetings from the dog sled nation of Canada....the Chubby1.

Worf101
08-28-2009, 04:17 AM
I have Audessy but have not used it yet. Is the purpose of the multiple microphone positions to get the lay out of the room or to note where people will be sitting? I mean should I put the mic where I sit and where my wife sits etc. or just put it in various places in the listening room more randomly? As soon as it cools some and the air can be turned off I plan to run the auto set up to see if it does better than the ole SPL meter in the listening position.
Last time I used Audessy it blew the tweet in one of my ADS 1290's. Not "great" speakers but vintage. Took two weeks to get it repaired. Use Audessy but make sure your speaks can handle the range, volume and impact of the test tones.

Da Worfster

GMichael
08-28-2009, 05:10 AM
Last time I used Audessy it blew the tweet in one of my ADS 1290's. Not "great" speakers but vintage. Took two weeks to get it repaired. Use Audessy but make sure your speaks can handle the range, volume and impact of the test tones.

Da Worfster

Sadly, you are not the first person to have this issue.

Mr Peabody
08-28-2009, 05:32 AM
Poppachubby, I am a Sennheiser fan boy. I have yet to hear anything better. There are people who love Grado but I am not one, I found the bass terribly bloated and just didn't care for the sound. I have an old pair of 240's and I preferred them over the Grado, I compared them to Grado up to the 225's. Either Sennheiser HD580 or 600 is vastly better then the 240's in every way. A word of caution on evaluating any Sennheiser they require several hours of break in before they begin to sound the way they were intended to. This held true on my HD600's all the way down to my PX portables. I'll usually plug them in just to see what they sound like then let them play over night to start, you'll notice a significant improvement.

Thanks for your kind words.

Mr Peabody
08-28-2009, 05:37 AM
Thanks for the warning Worf, that's crazy.

nightflier
08-28-2009, 01:20 PM
Not to hijack the thread either, but what about multi-channel on headphones? I remember that there were companies advertising this in Stereophile some time ago, but how does that really sound? I'm not talking about processed & simulated sound, but rather when they put several drivers in large cans. Is it worth the trouble? Did that technology just die off? It certainly would be something for me for late-night movie watching.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-28-2009, 01:34 PM
Last time I used Audessy it blew the tweet in one of my ADS 1290's. Not "great" speakers but vintage. Took two weeks to get it repaired. Use Audessy but make sure your speaks can handle the range, volume and impact of the test tones.

Da Worfster

Wow Worf. I used it on two of my 7.1 hometheaters that used the ADS L300's, and absolutely no damage to any of the speakers. I use the PC based professional version exclusively when I calibrate hometheaters and I have never had this happen, or heard of it happening. I use it to tune ALL of my hometheaters, I have never experienced a blown drivers during its use. I am surprised!!!

poppachubby
08-28-2009, 04:44 PM
Poppachubby, I am a Sennheiser fan boy. I have yet to hear anything better. There are people who love Grado but I am not one, I found the bass terribly bloated and just didn't care for the sound. I have an old pair of 240's and I preferred them over the Grado, I compared them to Grado up to the 225's. Either Sennheiser HD580 or 600 is vastly better then the 240's in every way. A word of caution on evaluating any Sennheiser they require several hours of break in before they begin to sound the way they were intended to. This held true on my HD600's all the way down to my PX portables. I'll usually plug them in just to see what they sound like then let them play over night to start, you'll notice a significant improvement.

Thanks for your kind words.


Yes I have avoided Grado's for a long time as well. The comfort factor being the biggest reason. I am a Senn man as well. Lately, the allure of Grado's is tempting me into the SR60 for my portable...I suppose I can always dump em on Ebay...I found for old analog, records, etc, the Grado sound has a nice open quality, very natural with nice detail. My friend lent me a pair of RS1's, however after a couple of hours they became uncomfortable. You can wear Senns all day long and never tire....anyhow...chat later Pea-doggy...