Interview with John Atkinson

[Ajani]

So I just listened to an interview with John Atkinson (the big boss at Stereophile) on the Ultimate AV blogs:

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/podcasts/

Podcast # 17

And I have to admit that I was impressed... They addressed so many contentious audiophile issues:

live vs. reproduced music,
2-channel vs. multichannel music,
vinyl vs. CDs,
tubes vs. solid-state electronics,
exotic audio cables,
high resolution music (music servers,SACD)
Why the iPod is the best thing to happen to music!

I hope they produce a transcript of the interview as I consider it a must read for audiophiles...

[poppachubby]

Why the iPod is the best thing to happen to music!



Hahahaha...ya.

[poppachubby]

You want an interesting audiophile with NO affiliations? http://www.high-endaudio.com/

[Ajani]

You might be very suprised at what JA says in the podcast...

[Ajani]

Hahahaha...ya.

LOL... he did have a very good point about the iPod though....

[Ajani]

You want an interesting audiophile with NO affiliations? http://www.high-endaudio.com/

Problem is that I can't take Arthur seriously as he makes so many accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up... and not having "affiliations" doesn't automatically make you credible.... Arthur's site competes for the attention of potential readers of all the mags he criticises... So it's in his best interest to claim that all of the major mags are dishonest, etc....

[poppachubby]

Problem is that I can't take Arthur seriously as he makes so many accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up... and not having "affiliations" doesn't automatically make you credible.... Arthur's site competes for the attention of potential readers of all the mags he criticises... So it's in his best interest to claim that all of the major mags are dishonest, etc....

Hey, if that's how you feel. His credibility comes through his experience. His opinions regarding magazines I take with a grain of salt. He was an integral part of the Toronto scene for years, and is certainly entitled to an opinion.

Perhaps disregard those negatives and look at things like his component list, or general opinions regarding high fidelity.

The problem with the magazine guys is they are generally shy to be too negative against any particular brand. Who knows where next months meal money might come from. not from a company that he has smeared that's for sure.

[Ajani]

Hey, if that's how you feel. His credibility comes through his experience. His opinions regarding magazines I take with a grain of salt. He was an integral part of the Toronto scene for years, and is certainly entitled to an opinion.

Perhaps disregard those negatives and look at things like his component list, or general opinions regarding high fidelity.

The problem with the magazine guys is they are generally shy to be too negative against any particular brand. Who knows where next months meal money might come from. not from a company that he has smeared that's for sure.

I take all opinions on audio (other than my own :biggrin5: ) with a grain of salt... Even assuming all reviewers are honest (let's just pretend for a second) then we'd still see just as much disagreement about which products are the best value for money, etc...

Arthur has some interesting points on his site, but it's very hard for me to trust the opinion of someone so intent on discrediting other audio mags...

As for the issue of advertisers; I probably don't see it as a major hindrance to writing honest reviews, because of the years I spent as an Auditor... I know the difference between how the public perceives all auditors/accountants as being pawns of the companies they audit and reality... Since audit revenue is very similar to advertising revenue in HiFi mags, I can easily see how you can provide honest service despite the money issue...

[Ajani]

Anyway, why I found the article interesting is that JA addressed so many issues and didn't necessarily give the answers people think he would:

He gave a proper scientific explanation of why Vinyl sounds better than CD... He also explained why High Resolution formats (SACD and Downloads) are better than Vinyl... He addressed why SS used to sound so nasty compared to Tubes, and how talented designers can now make SS that sounds like Tubes and Tubes that sound like SS (so generalizations about which is better are no longer applicable)... He even scientifically addressed why "some" cables sound different and made reference to DBTs he was involved in...

It was a fascinating interview IMO...

[JoeE SP9]

Thanks for the link Ajani. Very interesting listen. I've been around this field for a long time. I don't automatically discount magazines or the reviewers. Most of the reviewers are not full time reviewers. Only a very few like Mike Fremer do nothing but review gear. It might seem that they never write bad reviews. I believe that's because they choose not to review gear they don't like. I can go along with that because there is some gear I simply don't like. For example I don't believe I could give a fair review to any horn speakers.
Arthur Salvatore says a lot of things I agree with. However, he seems to have real animosity where the magazines are concerned. I read and research as much as I can and try to take everything with a grain of salt including the salt. Finding out for yourself after listening to everyone else is IMO the best way.

[E-Stat]

You want an interesting audiophile with NO affiliations?
Yes, I would but it would not be Salvatore.

Charles Hansen's observations. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=133075&highlight=Salvatore&r=)

rw

[Ajani]

Yes, I would but it would not be Salvatore.

Charles Hansen's observations. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=digital&n=133075&highlight=Salvatore&r=)

rw

Thanks for the link! That's why you should take all opinions with a grain of salt... Accussing everyone else of being corrupt/dishonest does not mean that you are honest... And many times some of the worst crooks are the ones who criticize everyone else...

[Ajani]

Thanks for the link Ajani. Very interesting listen. I've been around this field for a long time. I don't automatically discount magazines or the reviewers. Most of the reviewers are not full time reviewers. Only a very few like Mike Fremer do nothing but review gear. It might seem that they never write bad reviews. I believe that's because they choose not to review gear they don't like. I can go along with that because there is some gear I simply don't like. For example I don't believe I could give a fair review to any horn speakers.

Well yes, that is a point they bring up quite often... Why would a reviewer choose to spend months auditioning a product they don't like? So they usually opt for products that interest them.... Only mags like the UK ones, where they spend minimal time with gear before writing a review, are going to review gear they don't like...


Arthur Salvatore says a lot of things I agree with. However, he seems to have real animosity where the magazines are concerned. I read and research as much as I can and try to take everything with a grain of salt including the salt. Finding out for yourself after listening to everyone else is IMO the best way.

Yep, A.S. has some interesting points, but I trust him even less than I trust the major mags....

[poppachubby]

Thanks for the link! That's why you should take all opinions with a grain of salt... Accussing everyone else of being corrupt/dishonest does not mean that you are honest... And many times some of the worst crooks are the ones who criticize everyone else...

Crook? Did you read the thread? I think gross misconduct would be the worst charge here, if you believe all that's being said. Certainly breeching his own code of ethics would be alot of egg in the face, to say the least. Alot of mudslinging and accusations however...

Who wrote this?....


Problem is that I can't take Arthur seriously as he makes so many accusations with absolutely no evidence to back them up...

I made no mention of reviews or reviewers. What I was trying to get at with Atkinson is that his name is synonymous with Stereophile. With so much at stake, he must surely put the business interests ahead of his own opinions.

Salvatore hasn't had any meaningful connection to the industry in a while, at least that I'm aware of. His store is long gone. The magazine hatred is more or less cornered to one area of his site. I think most arrive there for info, not flag waving.

Personally, I remember his store as a boy. My dad would take me there occasionally. It was the "really boring store with nothing to touch".

[Ajani]

Crook? Did you read the thread? I think gross misconduct would be the worst charge here, if you believe all that's being said. Certainly breeching his own code of ethics would be alot of egg in the face, to say the least. Alot of mudslinging and accusations however...

Who wrote this?....



I made no mention of reviews or reviewers. What I was trying to get at with Atkinson is that his name is synonymous with Stereophile. With so much at stake, he must surely put the business interests ahead of his own opinions.

Salvatore hasn't had any meaningful connection to the industry in a while, at least that I'm aware of. His store is long gone. The magazine hatred is more or less cornered to one area of his site. I think most arrive there for info, not flag waving.

Personally, I remember his store as a boy. My dad would take me there occasionally. It was the "really boring store with nothing to touch".

I didn't call him a crook... I just said sometimes the worst crooks are the ones who criticize everyone else (it maybe extreme wording but it is meant to illustrate a point about not just trusting someone)... And the allegations are pretty deep in that thread.... assuming they are true (which of course they may not be).... But the issue still remains that I have a hard time trusting Salvatore.... His criticisms of the major mags seem more like he has a chip on his shoulder or personal vendetta against them... Also, I don't accept that his other contributing reviewers should be "anonymous" manufacturers and dealers... How do I know when one of them writes a glowing review for their own product? Or criticises a competitor's product in a review? (both of which are accusations in the link that stat provided). Should I just trust that he, Arthur Salvatore (as he constantly reminds us on his site) is maintaining the strictest standards of ethics and integrity?

[poppachubby]

Right. It comes down to just that, trust.

There is more to Salvatore than just angry ramblings about the industry. He has a ton of experience piecing systems together, and as a result has alot to offer. His reference list is great, tainted or not. Obviously I have a soft spot for him because he pushes analog, and has tried just about every outstanding combo of arm and table out there.

[Ajani]

Right. It comes down to just that, trust.

There is more to Salvatore than just angry ramblings about the industry. He has a ton of experience piecing systems together, and as a result has alot to offer. His reference list is great, tainted or not. Obviously I have a soft spot for him because he pushes analog, and has tried just about every outstanding combo of arm and table out there.

Perfectly understandable and if I was using analog, then I'd likely find some useful gear to audition from Salvatore's site... He no doubt has a wealth of experience to share with others...

John Atkinson's positions are clearly more in line with my own views on HiFi... He believes in listening, but doesn't discount the added value of measurements and understanding why something sounds better or different... He sees High Resolution Downloads as the future of HiFi... Doesn't hate the iPod - as it has changed the industry (in a positive way - High Res Music Servers are a direct result of the popularity of the iPod).... He's not so nostalgic about certain products/tech that he won't listen to anything else... He constantly acknowledges that there are very good sounding products available at just about any budget... So HiFi is not limited to only persons who can afford $15K setups as many audiophiles would claim...

[Ajani]

Anyway to get this thread back on topic: I know an hour long interview seems way too long to listen to, but it is truly an insightful piece as it covers so much ground... And even if you don't agree with everything JA says, you should find some interesting points that make you think....

[TheHills44060]

I read stereophile just to see whats new in the audio world. I take the reviews and chuck them out the window because they are worthless aside from the technical measurements. Once in a blue moon they will actually print a unfavorable review but then immediately recant their statements once the manufacturer gets pissy.

[Ajani]

Once again the purpose of this thread is to discuss an interview John Atkinson did... Not to discuss the reasons (real or imagined) why various persons don't read Stereophile... If you don't read Stereophile then feel free to start a thread about how much you dislike the mag...

For other persons, I suggest listening to the interview in my initial post and giving your thoughts on the topics discussed...

[hifitommy]

are the ones who get tied up in knots and spout vomit about other individuals. that charlie hansen remains calm and says "sue me" tells me he sits confidently and respectably on the right side of the arguement.

as soon as i saw how salvatore attacks others, i stopped reading his wordage in any form. i can learn from far better teachers than one who must insult others. he undermines himself.

[poppachubby]

No thoughts on the patriot saint of audio, John Atkinson? Tommy?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interesting comments from JA, some I agree with, some I absolutely do not.

His comments on live versus reproduced sound is spot on.

His comments on vinyl versus digital were also spot on, and he agreed with my experience with using higher bit and sample rates versus vinyl.

His surround versus two channel comments were right and wrong at the same time. While surround sound will not be a perfect capture of the live event, it is a lot closer than two channel is. Spatially it is more accurate than two channel, and it is more enveloping than two channel, and immersion is one of the parameters that fool our ears into thinking we are there. A live event is not a front loaded event unless you are listening out doors. In the concert hall it is a fully enveloping experience which surround seeks to mimic. I think Floyd Toole's comments are far more accurate on this subject.

[Ajani]

Interesting comments from JA, some I agree with, some I absolutely do not.

His comments on live versus reproduced sound is spot on.

His comments on vinyl versus digital were also spot on, and he agreed with my experience with using higher bit and sample rates versus vinyl.

His surround versus two channel comments were right and wrong at the same time. While surround sound will not be a perfect capture of the live event, it is a lot closer than two channel is. Spatially it is more accurate than two channel, and it is more enveloping than two channel, and immersion is one of the parameters that fool our ears into thinking we are there. A live event is not a front loaded event unless you are listening out doors. In the concert hall it is a fully enveloping experience which surround seeks to mimic. I think Floyd Toole's comments are far more accurate on this subject.

lol... I imagined you would disagree with his views on Multi-channel... Though if I interpreted his point correctly: it was not really that he thought 2 channel was better, but more that MC was not being used in more 'natural' ways apart from Classical genres... He talked about recording engineers putting a drum mix in a rear channel for Rock, etc... Which I suspect would just sound strange... So depending on how the recording was done, MC should be able to provide an even more realistic experience that 2channel.... Though of course he also got into the age old debate of expense: 2 higher quality speakers VS 5.1/7.1 lower quality speakers for the same price...

It was a very interesting discussion though...

[hifitommy]

i find him to be quite honest and given his tempered responses to the idiots that keep shouting :CONSPIRACY, i find him to be very respectable. if you read the AA critics asylum, you'll see what i mean.

he has the unique position of being both a musician and equipment reviewer. from that perspective, i respect his stance on sound. he has been in journalism for quite a while as well. that all adds up to equal quality.

as for surround, i depend on ambience extraction via Dynaquad. i will soon have enough channels of amplification for full sourround and i have an AVP which i wll connect the sacd player (sony) in discrete and maybe the dvda using the internal distribution (not enough sets of discrte inputs).

i have heard some ridiculous surround (eagles hell freezes over in dts) that oversteps sensibility like quadraphonic did with some of the SQ remixes from columbia. i prefer to hear the music as the audience does (as oposed to the stage mixes from AIX).

[Ajani]

i find him to be quite honest and given his tempered responses to the idiots that keep shouting :CONSPIRACY, i find him to be very respectable. if you read the AA critics asylum, you'll see what i mean.

he has the unique position of being both a musician and equipment reviewer. from that perspective, i respect his stance on sound. he has been in journalism for quite a while as well. that all adds up to equal quality.

Try reading the Stereophile forums as well... JA shows incredible patience there with persons who come on his site just to accuse him and Stereophile of all manner of things... I have to admit that in his position, I'd suggest some activities the conspiracy guys could do with their mothers and a goat... So I have great respect for someone who can keep his cool day in, day out under constant attack....

[Ajani]

i have heard some ridiculous surround (eagles hell freezes over in dts) that oversteps sensibility like quadraphonic did with some of the SQ remixes from columbia. i prefer to hear the music as the audience does (as oposed to the stage mixes from AIX).

I believe that was JA's point: for recordings like Classical, where the aim is often to recreate the live event, then MC audio has the best potential... But for ones like Rock and Pop, which are totally studio derived (usually) MC audio is often used in a gimmicky manner...

[poppachubby]

i find him to be quite honest and given his tempered responses to the idiots that keep shouting :CONSPIRACY, i find him to be very respectable. if you read the AA critics asylum, you'll see what i mean.



Thomas Roy...Stereophile employee? It goes back many years ago. Atkinson and Roy were in the Marines together, forming a bond that would last for life. As they went seperate ways, Atkinson to audio and Roy to the C.I.A., they kept in touch. Upon retaining his position at....

How's that for a conspiracy Tommy? My gear has been conspiring against my ears, as a result I moved a bunch of stuff. Check your email later, I have to consult with you...

[E-Stat]

I believe that was JA's point: for recordings like Classical, where the aim is often to recreate the live event, then MC audio has the best potential... But for ones like Rock and Pop, which are totally studio derived (usually) MC audio is often used in a gimmicky manner...
Agreed. I find my observations and opinions very much parallel that of JA. He points out that only 20% of Stereophile listeners are enthusiastic about multichannel. I was amused with the comment that MC is "aimed at people who don't care about sound quality (without a picture)". I've heard a number of classical MC recordings where there was a space and its acoustic to reproduce and it did so compellingly. With pop music, however, there is no such paradigm. It is simply a different artifice than two channel. and frequently done poorly to the extent of sounding downright hokey. He goes on to say that while he enjoys well done MC, his system (like mine) is a better executed two channel one that optimizes more of his musical collection. One necessarily must compromise quality over quantity of channels. And neither he nor I has any vested interest in that preference. Amen.

Floyd Toole speaks of the immersion provided by multichannel and I would agree that radiating rear ambience is certainly one quality of the live experience. It is not, however, the only one. I have yet to hear a theater based MC system (including the best recent IMAX flavors) that has ever fooled me into thinking I was hearing music played live. The illusion for me is immediately destroyed by the sub-par quality of the amp-speaker chain itself. On the other hand, I have gotten the spookiest sense of realism through hearing a spectacular two channel system (not mine!) that not only made the walls disappear, the resolution was such that I truly thought I was listening to the musicians playing in the space.

I also noted his comments about hearing a system using three different grades of Nordost cable from their entry stuff to Valhalla and finally to Odin. I, too have heard Valhalla and Odin in several exceptional systems and most certainly agree.

rw

[hifitommy]

but the flashing charges were dropped. i admit to having a drink with JA and eliciting a free Dr. John ticket for BWK from wes phillips, but the rest is just conjecture.

i was on the up and up that time and had purchased my own ticket to see rebennack. highly recommended btw.

did i ever tell you about my 'fear and loathing' trip to the jan '78 vegas CES?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

20% of Stereophile subscribers(or listeners) are an extremely small amount of overall MC enthusiast, because all MC enthusiast are not Stereophile subscribers. That makes his point meaningless. It just means that a majority of their subscribers "prefer" two channel listening because A) it is the way they are used to hearing it B) the dominate way of delivery when they were introduced to it, and C) have invested heavily in two channel equipment and sources. Not any of these reasons has anything to do with accurately creating a more spatially realistic listening environment. This is why I give more credence to Floyd Toole's explanation of MC than JA. It is more based on the science of listening rather than any other parameter.

His comments regarding MC folks not interested in music without pictures flies in the face of the current success(and reviewer acclaimed for audio quality) of the recent offerings of Surround and 2L record companies. Their classical works have no video, and have sold extremely well when compared to most two channel classical works. In many cases, Surround Records titles have often outsold their two channel products of the same work by 4 to 1. This shows how dated his comments are on this issue.

While I agree that there are artistic MC creations, it is not the dominating representation of multichannel music as a whole. An artistic MC creation is driven by different set of rules (or none) than a naturally recorded product. The art in artistic is not only instrumental, but spatial as well. Putting the listener in the center of the orchestra or band is just another perspective to hear music, and has nothing to do with anyone's reality or one persons ultimate spatial desire. It is part of the creative process, and what is ultimately created is as natural to the audio intent of the producer or mixer as a live performance. It may be a creation over time, but it is as natural as a single event, but driven by a different set of recording and mixing parameters.

A MC channel recording of a live event utilizes different set of rules. The spatial accuracy is based on exactly what happened in that live event. The placement of the instruments is directly correlated to where the instruments are placed during a the live performance, and the ambience is recorded and placed exactly where the specific microphones for that position where placed. There are no artistic decisions here, it is all about accuracy based on the live event. When one is open to MC, and not closed minded towards it, there is room for both kinds of MC products, both artistic creations, and accuracy based on the live events. If you are only open to one kind of MC, then your biases will push multichannel away as your preferred listening experience. This is where I place JA. He is only interested in one kind of MC experience, which leads him to not like more artistic expressions of MC, and preferring two channel.

I have a mutlichannel setup that employs a roll up screen that leaves the center speaker wide open to the room. With that screen rolled up, this is a MC music system, not a theater system. The constant references to theater system when describing MC music does not mention this kind of system which is optimized for both MC music and theatrical applications.

This same system also uses 7 Dunlavy SC-V's which I use to mix and monitor both music and soundtracks with. Does anyone really believe that two speakers which cost the same as 7 SC-V's would deliver a better audio presentation? This is why the "if all things were equal and point of diminishing returns" equations should be invoked into this argument. You do NOT have to compromise quality when choosing a MC system over a two channel system, it is a red herring of an argument. If I started off with a very high quality MC system, and a two channel system of simular cost was compared with that, you would still get a more accurate spatial presentation with the mulitchannel setup, and you would not have to give any ground on sound quality as well. The amount of air moved, and the sense of scale from seven slightly smaller speakers and a high quality sub can be greater than two larger speakers, that is a fact. Sometimes emotions are a driving factor for some comments made.

He made a comment that said that imaging from a multichannel system using a center channel is more narrow than a phantom image from just two channels. That is not true at all. If the mix utilizes the front channels(left,center,right) as one frontal soundstage, the three channels can convey a much wider(and accurate) frontal presentation than a two channel speaker system can - and from more seating positions as well. That is a fact proven by Bell labs back in 1934.

Using a IMAX sound system(or any theatrical sound system) in the context of this discussion is ridiculous. Comparing it to a high quality two channel home based system is even more ridiculous. Nothing there is equal which makes a comparison ridiculous. An "if all things are equal in quality" parameter was invoked, then the argument goes in the direction of multichannel.

At the software level a fair comparison is a mutlichannel mix, and a two channel mix of the same event, both optimized and compared over systems of equal quality in regards to pre-amps, amps, interconnects, speaker wiring and speakers. That is a fair comparison, not a comparison that pits two different recordings into two different quality systems designed for two completely different purposes. .

At some point your cost versus actual performance value diminishes considerably.

In the end, all of this is nothing more than personal preference and nothing more than that.

[Ajani]

20% of Stereophile subscribers(or listeners) are an extremely small amount of overall MC enthusiast, because all MC enthusiast are not Stereophile subscribers. That makes his point meaningless. It just means that a majority of their subscribers "prefer" two channel listening because A) it is the way they are used to hearing it B) the dominate way of delivery when they were introduced to it, and C) have invested heavily in two channel equipment and sources. Not any of these reasons has anything to do with accurately creating a more spatially realistic listening environment. This is why I give more credence to Floyd Toole's explanation of MC than JA. It is more based on the science of listening rather than any other parameter.

His comments regarding MC folks not interested in music without pictures flies in the face of the current success(and reviewer acclaimed for audio quality) of the recent offerings of Surround and 2L record companies. Their classical works have no video, and have sold extremely well when compared to most two channel classical works. In many cases, Surround Records titles have often outsold their two channel products of the same work by 4 to 1. This shows how dated his comments are on this issue.

While I agree that there are artistic MC creations, it is not the dominating representation of multichannel music as a whole. An artistic MC creation is driven by different set of rules (or none) than a naturally recorded product. The art in artistic is not only instrumental, but spatial as well. Putting the listener in the center of the orchestra or band is just another perspective to hear music, and has nothing to do with anyone's reality or one persons ultimate spatial desire. It is part of the creative process, and what is ultimately created is as natural to the audio intent of the producer or mixer as a live performance. It may be a creation over time, but it is as natural as a single event, but driven by a different set of recording and mixing parameters.

A MC channel recording of a live event utilizes different set of rules. The spatial accuracy is based on exactly what happened in that live event. The placement of the instruments is directly correlated to where the instruments are placed during a the live performance, and the ambience is recorded and placed exactly where the specific microphones for that position where placed. There are no artistic decisions here, it is all about accuracy based on the live event. When one is open to MC, and not closed minded towards it, there is room for both kinds of MC products, both artistic creations, and accuracy based on the live events. If you are only open to one kind of MC, then your biases will push multichannel away as your preferred listening experience. This is where I place JA. He is only interested in one kind of MC experience, which leads him to not like more artistic expressions of MC, and preferring two channel.

I have a mutlichannel setup that employs a roll up screen that leaves the center speaker wide open to the room. With that screen rolled up, this is a MC music system, not a theater system. The constant references to theater system when describing MC music does not mention this kind of system which is optimized for both MC music and theatrical applications.

This same system also uses 7 Dunlavy SC-V's which I use to mix and monitor both music and soundtracks with. Does anyone really believe that two speakers which cost the same as 7 SC-V's would deliver a better audio presentation? This is why the "if all things were equal and point of diminishing returns" equations should be invoked into this argument. You do NOT have to compromise quality when choosing a MC system over a two channel system, it is a red herring of an argument. If I started off with a very high quality MC system, and a two channel system of simular cost was compared with that, you would still get a more accurate spatial presentation with the mulitchannel setup, and you would not have to give any ground on sound quality as well. The amount of air moved, and the sense of scale from seven slightly smaller speakers and a high quality sub can be greater than two larger speakers, that is a fact. Sometimes emotions are a driving factor for some comments made.

He made a comment that said that imaging from a multichannel system using a center channel is more narrow than a phantom image from just two channels. That is not true at all. If the mix utilizes the front channels(left,center,right) as one frontal soundstage, the three channels can convey a much wider(and accurate) frontal presentation than a two channel speaker system can - and from more seating positions as well. That is a fact proven by Bell labs back in 1934.

Using a IMAX sound system(or any theatrical sound system) in the context of this discussion is ridiculous. Comparing it to a high quality two channel home based system is even more ridiculous. Nothing there is equal which makes a comparison ridiculous. An "if all things are equal in quality" parameter was invoked, then the argument goes in the direction of multichannel.

At the software level a fair comparison is a mutlichannel mix, and a two channel mix of the same event, both optimized and compared over systems of equal quality in regards to pre-amps, amps, interconnects, speaker wiring and speakers. That is a fair comparison, not a comparison that pits two different recordings into two different quality systems designed for two completely different purposes. .

At some point your cost versus actual performance value diminishes considerably.

In the end, all of this is nothing more than personal preference and nothing more than that.

Interesting points... Here are my thoughts:

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role... as the difference between a high quality (and relatively expensive) speaker like a Dunlavy SC-V and another pair of speakers for double or triple the price, is likely much smaller than the difference between a good quality $1K set of towers and a $3K pair...

So let's take a more modest budget: I have the option to assemble either a 5.1 setup with the Revel Concerta series or a 2 channel setup with a pair of Revel Performa F32s.... The Concerta setup would allow me to gain the additional ambiance of a live performance, but the Performa setup would be far more detailed and refined.... Are you certain that the additional ambiance of the Concerta series would outweigh the improved detail and refinement of the Performa? Also, even assuming it does, what about the fact that my entire music collection is currently 2 channel?

So MC audio has suffered from the fact that persons with a heavy investment in stereo music are going to be very wary of spending their money to optimize their setup for MC... and diminishing returns may kick in heavily at points well beyond their current budget.... If my choice was between a Performa MC setup and a stereo pair of Ultima Studio 2s then dimishing returns might be more of a factor....

As JA said, the sound quality of a set of HT in a box speakers for $500 will sound like crap, but you could get a very nice pair of small monitors for that money...

Also, persons who own a high quality MC setup very probably set that up primarily for HT... Persons who don't care about HT (but are interested in audio) probably already had a stereo rig... So IMO, that is where JA's comments about MC persons not being interested in music without pictures comes in... I doubt he actually meant that MC users can't listen to music without an image on the screen, just that those guys are probably already video nuts. rather than just audio nuts with a MC music setup...

[E-Stat]

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role...
If you really enjoy musical reproduction, I find that level is in the multi-hundred thousand dollar range. I've heard a $100k Magneplanar based system using Edge and C-J electronics driven by an EMM Labs player and Valhalla cabling. It is a very nice system indeed (mostly used for HT with its ceiling mounted Sony projector and 100" screen), but that reviewer's two channel system is far better, albeit more expensive. There is no contest as to which sounds more live to these ears on 98% of recordings. With the exception of a handful of well done classical cuts, one system makes the walls disappear with virtually every recording while the other doesn't.

Multi-channel has its place largely in the movie world, but it is obvious that the vast majority of the music world has little use for it. Yes, there are some very nice classical releases, but in the pop world, one finds remastered oldies (which have no inherent MC paradigm in the way they were originally recorded) and "live" concert replays that are video based. If you can suffer the performance, then you get to hear more realistic crowd noise. Precious few artists release new album content on any MC format. When you go to Amazon.com and search for "multi channel" in the music department, you get ten hits. Over at the audiophile site, Acoustic Sounds, you get far more - 2263 - but they fall into those two categories of classical, sprinkled with vintage remasters of Ray Charles, Roy Orbison, Moody Blues, Diana Krall and of course Dark Side of the Moon!

I searched for "blu ray music" and got lots of hits, but virtually all are video concerts if that's your thing. After looking at the first several hundred, I was able to find "The Essential Barbra Streisand" and Simon and Garfunkel's "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme" in what appears to be a music-only format of remastered stereo. :)

rw

[Feanor]

...

Multi-channel has its place largely in the movie world, but it is obvious that the vast majority of the music world has little use for it. Yes, there are some very nice classical releases, but in the pop world, one finds remastered oldies (which have no inherent MC paradigm in the way they were originally recorded) and "live" concert replays that are video based. If you can suffer the performance, then you get to hear more realistic crowd noise. Precious few artists release new album content on any MC format. When you go to Amazon.com and search for "multi channel" in the music department, you get ten hits. Over at the audiophile site, Acoustic Sounds, you get far more - 2263 - but they fall into those two categories of classical, sprinkled with vintage remasters of Ray Charles, Roy Orbison, Moody Blues, Diana Krall and of course Dark Side of the Moon!
...

rw
This is the crux of the matter: far too few (really good) MC recordings. Why invest much more money in an MC system when 95% of your music is stereo? Better to spend your spare cash on improving your 2ch setup.

I have quite a few MC classical SACDs. But a minoriy of them really do justice to MC, (or conversely, MC justice to them). Granted that those the get it right convey an astounding sense of a real venue that stereo simply cannot.

[Ajani]

If you really enjoy musical reproduction, I find that level is in the multi-hundred thousand dollar range.

Yep... For many audiophiles diminishing returns is well beyond their current budget (or any conceivable budget they will ever have), so it may never play a significant role in a Stereo VS MC setup decision for them...

[E-Stat]

Yep... For many audiophiles diminishing returns is well beyond their current budget (or any conceivable budget they will ever have), so it may never play a significant role in a Stereo VS MC setup decision for them...
But, don't get me wrong about the superiority of MC in its place. Four years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of having HP walk me through his selection of favorites that you find in The Absolute Sound sampler of MC stuff on Telarc. He begins the liner notes with these comments:

"This disc is my unabashed effort to put together a sonic spectacular that will rot your shocks, and to demonstrate the superiority of the DSD multi-channel system so convincingly that there will be no doubt about which high-resolution digital medium is the technological best".

Each selection was chosen to showcase some aspect of the medium and hearing it on his system was quite enjoyable (also got a copy of the disc). He finds that the center channel provides a unique ability to showcase the woodwinds. I certainly get all that especially with the in-person guided tour. For many folks like JA and me, it is a case of musical content over musical audiophilia. While HP has separate systems, he has always spent more time behind the spectacular two channel one whenever I've visited. For a mere $250k or so, he could convert it to an equivalent MC flavor. Now, that would be interesting to hear! :)

rw

[E-Stat]

This is the crux of the matter: far too few (really good) MC recordings.
And really zero that offer any *true* acoustical superiority in the popular vein where recordings are made in the studio, not in a concert hall. Engineers just get more sliders with which to pan and process all the studio miked sources. My first "surround" system consisted of Double Advents using a Dynaco Quadaptor back in '73. It was cool for a while, but I abandoned it in favor of a higher quality two channel system. About fifteen years ago, I purchased a surround processor to supplement the Acoustat 2+2s. It, too, was cool for a while and "enveloped you" with its simulated space, but ultimately I retired it as well.

Here's my idea of MC. That's Connie of Sound Lab seated in the back with Ray Kimber's statement system. 6 kW should satisfy those who like it loud, too.

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/3x06/denver/kimber.jpg

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interesting points... Here are my thoughts:

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role... as the difference between a high quality (and relatively expensive) speaker like a Dunlavy SC-V and another pair of speakers for double or triple the price, is likely much smaller than the difference between a good quality $1K set of towers and a $3K pair...

Agreed


So let's take a more modest budget: I have the option to assemble either a 5.1 setup with the Revel Concerta series or a 2 channel setup with a pair of Revel Performa F32s.... The Concerta setup would allow me to gain the additional ambiance of a live performance, but the Performa setup would be far more detailed and refined.... Are you certain that the additional ambiance of the Concerta series would outweigh the improved detail and refinement of the Performa? Also, even assuming it does, what about the fact that my entire music collection is currently 2 channel?

Based on the review of the F12 in Stereophile you lose very little going from concerta line to the performa line, so I would say what you gain by adding a center channel, and two surrounds would give you a more realistic presentation with the 5.1 system than the two channel system. So what you really have for an arguement is your last statement, your investment in your two channel collection. Still, that has nothing to do with getting a more "you are there" presentation, so we are back to preference.


So MC audio has suffered from the fact that persons with a heavy investment in stereo music are going to be very wary of spending their money to optimize their setup for MC... and diminishing returns may kick in heavily at points well beyond their current budget.... If my choice was between a Performa MC setup and a stereo pair of Ultima Studio 2s then dimishing returns might be more of a factor....

Exactly!


As JA said, the sound quality of a set of HT in a box speakers for $500 will sound like crap, but you could get a very nice pair of small monitors for that money...

Do you see how low a price point he had to go to make this argument?


Also, persons who own a high quality MC setup very probably set that up primarily for HT... Persons who don't care about HT (but are interested in audio) probably already had a stereo rig... So IMO, that is where JA's comments about MC persons not being interested in music without pictures comes in... I doubt he actually meant that MC users can't listen to music without an image on the screen, just that those guys are probably already video nuts. rather than just audio nuts with a MC music setup...

But then he leaves out those who system is optimized for both, and enjoy both. The bottom line is this is all about preference and nothing more. For those who have invested heavily in two channel equipment and software for whatever reason, do so as a preference. Those who have a high quality surround system and buy multichannel software to listen on their systems do so for the same reason....preference. You can go around the block five hundred times with various explaination, but it all boils down to preference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If anyone looks around and only finds concert videos under blu ray music, they have not been looking hard enough. Surround Records has released 35 titles on the market.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?studioid=51

2L has eight releases

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?studioid=93

And AIX is going to start releasing music only content on Blu ray as they have gotten their first check discs from their replicator.

The great thing about surround concert discs(especially classical) is that you can turn the monitor off and still enjoy the music. You do not have to look at the video to enjoy the music. I watched Asia in concert on Blu ray, and enjoyed it with the video and without it as well.

[E-Stat]

Surround Records has released 35 titles on the market.
Add those to the two I mentioned and you get 37! Of that number, 7 are sound effects recordings and only 8 of the remaining classical cuts even bother to mention the orchestra and performers. You'll find nothing on the cover. Huh? Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to know who I'm listening to. Great science projects there. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Add those to the two I mentioned and you get 37! Of that number, 7 are sound effects recordings and only 8 of the remaining classical cuts even bother to mention the orchestra and performers. You'll find nothing on the cover. Huh? Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to know who I'm listening to. Great science projects there. :)

rw

First, Alexander Jero recordings are not sound effect recordings, they are sound scape recordings of classical music transcribed to the synthesizer. I know, I own them all.

Second, when you buy the disc, all of the information about the artists and orchestra is in the liner notes. I know this because I have all 35 of surround records discs, and 6 of 2L as well.

Those two things aside, all of these recordings are of very high quality, with 2L's recordings done in DXD (32bit 358.4khz sample rate) with extremely high quality microphones, an ultra-tranparent mixing board, and downsampled to DSD or 24/192khz 5.1 using PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD.

Surround records are done in 24bit in 96 or 192khz 5.1. The CD might as well be MP3 when stacked against these two companies products. Neither of these two companies use any processing whatsoever in post production.

Once again, any concert video title can still be heard without the picture, it is not required for playback.

[E-Stat]

First, Alexander Jero recordings are not sound effect recordings, they are sound scape recordings...
My apologies for not recognizing the difference.


Second, when you buy the disc, all of the information about the artists and orchestra is in the liner notes.
Interesting marketing decision. How many folks will buy our obscure stuff cold without knowing in advance what they're getting until they open the package? I'm thinking the BR camp needs to find some meaningful content to get the format on the map. :)


Those two things aside, all of these recordings are of very high quality, with 2L's recordings done in DXD (32bit 358.4khz sample rate) with extremely high quality microphones, an ultra-tranparent mixing board, and downsampled to DSD or 24/192khz 5.1 using PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD.
It's a shame such is not the case for music folks actually want to hear.


Once again, any concert video title can still be heard without the picture, it is not required for playback.
I'll repeat: if you can suffer the performance quality, then go for it! Your experience may be different than mine, but I find that live pop concerts are always sonically compromised in one way or the other. Folks don't attend live concerts for the sound quality. They want to watch their favorite performers on stage. If you've already decided to compromise your equipment quality to provide more than double the number of amplification stages and speakers, then why not keep the tube on? JA was spot on about that. :)

rw

[Ajani]

Agreed



Based on the review of the F12 in Stereophile you lose very little going from concerta line to the performa line, so I would say what you gain by adding a center channel, and two surrounds would give you a more realistic presentation with the 5.1 system than the two channel system. So what you really have for an arguement is your last statement, your investment in your two channel collection. Still, that has nothing to do with getting a more "you are there" presentation, so we are back to preference.



Exactly!



Do you see how low a price point he had to go to make this argument?



But then he leaves out those who system is optimized for both, and enjoy both. The bottom line is this is all about preference and nothing more. For those who have invested heavily in two channel equipment and software for whatever reason, do so as a preference. Those who have a high quality surround system and buy multichannel software to listen on their systems do so for the same reason....preference. You can go around the block five hundred times with various explaination, but it all boils down to preference.

Diminishing Returns is best applied on an individual basis: So for some audiophiles a $100K pair of speakers might be their point of DR, while others might select $1K... Kal Rubinson found the Concerta F12 to be a low cost parallel to the Ultima Studio... Other Revel owners claim that there is a world of difference between the Concerta and Performa lines... and a comparison between Concerta and Ultima is unfathomable... So whether the MC experience adds more than it subtracts, at a given price range, is an indiviual decision (preference is probably still the right word even when talking about DR)...

So far we've discussed Videophiles who take advantage of their HT setup to listen to MC and Videophiles who have a setup optimized for both HT and MC... What about Audiophiles with just a MC setup (so no use for HT or maybe minimal HT use)?

If I was interested in HT and hence had invested in a HT setup, then MC would be a no-brainer.... I would buy the MC discs without a moment's hesitation... However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...

MC is associated so stongly with HT and being a videophile rather than audio... All the major proponents of MC (I can think of at the moment) are as much (if not more) videophiles than audiophiles and right or wrong, that does make selling the concept of MC as a superior audio format to stereo more challenging....

For MC to really take off with audiophiles (who are not also videophiles) the number of titles will have to increase dramatically and dealers will have to set up rooms optimized to MC... The best setup would be one that compares a MC setup with a Stereo setup of equivalent cost, playing MC and Stereo versions of the same music...

[E-Stat]

However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...
Don't forget that if the future of MC is Blu Ray oriented, then you must necessarily buy a video oriented processor that supports HDMI. Forget the majority of high end audio vendors. There is no bypassing the HT component when the source requires it.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

May I suggest that folks actually hear stuff before calling anything suffering or compromised in performance quality. Commenting before listening is not helpful, whether we are talking equipment or software.

You cannot compare what is heard through a PA system, to what is recorded on a hard drive or tape. The live event could sound terrible coming through the PA, and sound glorious on the tape. Any experience in recording tells you this.

I do not think anyone would call 7 SC-V's, 2 TSW -IV tower subwoofer systems powered by Bryston 28BSST amps a compromised system.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Diminishing Returns is best applied on an individual basis: So for some audiophiles a $100K pair of speakers might be their point of DR, while others might select $1K... Kal Rubinson found the Concerta F12 to be a low cost parallel to the Ultima Studio... Other Revel owners claim that there is a world of difference between the Concerta and Performa lines... and a comparison between Concerta and Ultima is unfathomable... So whether the MC experience adds more than it subtracts, at a given price range, is an indiviual decision (preference is probably still the right word even when talking about DR)...

So far we've discussed Videophiles who take advantage of their HT setup to listen to MC and Videophiles who have a setup optimized for both HT and MC... What about Audiophiles with just a MC setup (so no use for HT or maybe minimal HT use)?

If I was interested in HT and hence had invested in a HT setup, then MC would be a no-brainer.... I would buy the MC discs without a moment's hesitation... However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...

MC is associated so stongly with HT and being a videophile rather than audio... All the major proponents of MC (I can think of at the moment) are as much (if not more) videophiles than audiophiles and right or wrong, that does make selling the concept of MC as a superior audio format to stereo more challenging....

For MC to really take off with audiophiles (who are not also videophiles) the number of titles will have to increase dramatically and dealers will have to set up rooms optimized to MC... The best setup would be one that compares a MC setup with a Stereo setup of equivalent cost, playing MC and Stereo versions of the same music...

All of your points are correct. But I would like to offer this. MC music right now is being produced is of much higher quality than any vinyl and CD ever was. If listening to the high quality audio is what audiophiles are all about, then they should immediately ditch CD and vinyl, as both of them(based on JA words) are compromised, and JA also mentioned as bit and sample rates are increased, any issues with digital audio fade away.

I am left with the impression that audiophiles are more married to their equipment than listening to music recorded at the highest quality ever attained.

[Ajani]

All of your points are correct. But I would like to offer this. MC music right now is being produced is of much higher quality than any vinyl and CD ever was. If listening to the high quality audio is what audiophiles are all about, then they should immediately ditch CD and vinyl, as both of them(based on JA words) are compromised, and JA also mentioned as bit and sample rates are increased, any issues with digital audio fade away.

I am left with the impression that audiophiles are more married to their equipment than listening to music recorded at the highest quality ever attained.

I suspect that many audiophiles are more in love with a particular technology or their gear than music.... However, I think the real test of audiophiles will occur when more High Res material is available in both stereo and MC.... The market I'm watching is High Res downloads: it is still years away from being mainstream, but I just don't see another audio disc format becoming more than a niche market product.... Hate it or Love it: the iPod changed the game...

A number of high end manufacturers have embraced the music server concept and are attempting to jumpstart the high res download market (Linn and Naim being examples)... If MC ever truly takes off, I expect it to be as an offshoot of that market (not SACD or BluRay)...

It will be interesting to see if audiophiles still clutch their LPs with their dying breaths, even when a higher quality format hits the mainstream....

[poppachubby]

I'll repeat: if you can suffer the performance quality, then go for it! Your experience may be different than mine, but I find that live pop concerts are always sonically compromised in one way or the other. Folks don't attend live concerts for the sound quality. They want to watch their favorite performers on stage. If you've already decided to compromise your equipment quality to provide more than double the number of amplification stages and speakers, then why not keep the tube on? JA was spot on about that. :)

rw

No I don't agree Ralph. I have been slowly collecting a DVD jazz series put out by a company called Salt Peanuts. Each disc features different performances by the artist. Sure , not all of them are winners, but some performances are second to none. They have remastered them however, and some sound fantastic.

As Terrence said, I play some with no video. Chet Baker: Live in 64 and 79 has become my favorite recording to listen to of his.

[poppachubby]

It will be interesting to see if audiophiles still clutch their LPs with their dying breaths, even when a higher quality format hits the mainstream....

Spoken like someone with no analog experience.

[Ajani]

Spoken like someone with no analog experience.

No... You just missed the point... There is a good reason to use analog currently: sound quality... Take that out of the equation and what reason is there to hold on to it, other than nostalgia?

[E-Stat]

Sure , not all of them are winners, but some performances are second to none. They have remastered them however, and some sound fantastic...Chet Baker: Live in 64 and 79 has become my favorite recording to listen to of his.
I'm glad you've found some good musical content in those pre-multichannel oldies.

rw

[poppachubby]

No... You just missed the point... There is a good reason to use analog currently: sound quality... Take that out of the equation and what reason is there to hold on to it, other than nostalgia?


I haven't missed any point. As I said, you aren't aware of the difference that exists in high end analog. There is more involved than simple musical information.

Have you heard an LP 12 with several mods, or an equivelant table?

The reality is, digital is barely out of its diapers.

[Ajani]

I haven't missed any point. As I said, you aren't aware of the difference that exists in high end analog. There is more involved than simple musical information.

Have you heard an LP 12 with several mods, or an equivelant table?

The reality is, digital is barely out of its diapers.

So are you saying that high end analog is superior to High Resolution Digital? No one in this thread has disagreed with John Atkinson's statement that Vinyl is superior to CD, but High Res is superior to Vinyl....

[poppachubby]

I don't want to sound rude, but I couldn't care less what JA has to say. My own ears can tell me what I need to know.

I just think you should seek out some of the things you say are becoming obsolete, and listen for yourself.

I have a digital set up, although not the worlds greatest. I have the sound card with digital inputs and outputs. I have a DAC. I have a CDP. Infact, I've researched digital quite a bit and know what I like to hear. Beyond my own gear, I hear what's available at the local shops as it comes in.

Have you done the same with analog? Preferences aside, you may be in for a shock.

[E-Stat]

I am left with the impression that audiophiles are more married to their equipment than listening to music recorded at the highest quality ever attained.
So, all we need to do is leave behind a half century's worth of the world's finest music that is not available "at the highest quality ever attained"?

rw

[Ajani]

I don't want to sound rude, but I couldn't care less what JA has to say. My own ears can tell me what I need to know.

I just think you should seek out some of the things you say are becoming obsolete, and listen for yourself.

I have a digital set up, although not the worlds greatest. I have the sound card with digital inputs and outputs. I have a DAC. I have a CDP. Infact, I've researched digital quite a bit and know what I like to hear. Beyond my own gear, I hear what's available at the local shops as it comes in.

Have you done the same with analog? Preferences aside, you may be in for a shock.

Also not to be rude, but if you don't care what JA has to say then you are clearly in the wrong thread.... The entire discussion about MC versus Stereo is based on JA's comments in the interview...

I doubt I'd be suprised by Vinyl, as I expect it to sound at least as good as and more likely better than CD... I haven't used a turntable in about 15 years, but I still have good memories from my teenage years of using a turntable, CD player and cassette tape in my rig (I used to collect all 3 mediums at that time)... My lack of interest in currently using a turntable is about convience and lack of current music in that format, not because I am one of those hardcore digital lovers...

High Res music servers intrigue me because they have the potential to answer both mainstream and audiophile concerns: convenience and sound quality...

[poppachubby]

I am impressed with what digital has been able to do in the last few years. But honestly, it's a little bit like a cat chasing it's tail. It seems like every year, there is a new format or new method to take us into the next level.

I will sit back and see how it plays out. Eventually digital will have to fall on something long term that can be built upon.

Philips TDA 154x DACs are making a comeback in high end digital gear. This is my personal favorite. This situation is the point I am trying to make. They had something that sounded great, yet moved away from it in the name of "furthering" the technology. Now engineers, manufacturers and enthusiasts are realising the beauty of this ancient tech.

What's possible isn always what's best.

[Ajani]

So, all we need to do is leave behind a half century's worth of the world's finest music that is not available "at the highest quality ever attained"?

rw

Yep, sounds fairly reasonable to me... Who needs more than 37 albums anyway? :devil:

[poppachubby]

I haven't used a turntable in about 15 years, but I still have good memories from my teenage years of using a turntable, CD player and cassette tape in my rig (I used to collect all 3 mediums at that time)... My lack of interest in currently using a turntable is about convience and lack of current music in that format, not because I am one of those hardcore digital lovers...
.

Lack of current music? C'mon. As a hip/hop and reggae lover this is a surprising statement. Those two genres lead the way in vinyl releases. Anyhow, I bet some of the biggest gains in this hobby have been made in analog over the last 15 - 20 years. Cartridges alone are reason enough to reconsider...

I;m gonna get me some new shoes now...

[Ajani]

I am impressed with what digital has been able to do in the last few years. But honestly, it's a little bit like a cat chasing it's tail. It seems like every year, there is a new format or new method to take us into the next level.

I will sit back and see how it plays out. Eventually digital will have to fall on something long term that can be built upon.

Philips TDA 154x DACs are making a comeback in high end digital gear. This is my personal favorite. This situation is the point I am trying to make. They had something that sounded great, yet moved away from it in the name of "furthering" the technology. Now engineers, manufacturers and enthusiasts are realising the beauty of this ancient tech.

What's possible isn always what's best.

I think the biggest issue has been tying digital to physical media... CD, HDCD, SACD, DVDA or Blu Ray all need specific transports (and some are not designed to output a signal to a DAC)... High Res downloads use your computer/Music Server as transport... so all you need is software to play the different formats (and/or output them to your DAC).... So no need to buy a new player everytime a new High Res format is released... Just do a software update...

So different High Res (download) formats won't end up killing each other like DVDA and SACD did...

[Ajani]

Lack of current music? C'mon. As a hip/hop and reggae lover this is a surprising statement. Those two genres lead the way in vinyl releases. Anyhow, I bet some of the biggest gains in this hobby have been made in analog over the last 15 - 20 years. Cartridges alone are reason enough to reconsider...

I;m gonna get me some new shoes now...

Lack of current music relative to CD and downloads... I do see many current hip/hop and reggae albums available on Vinyl now (such a shame I can't say the same about SACD)...

[Ajani]

I;m gonna get me some new shoes now...

How did that clown manage to spam up the site so fast?

[poppachubby]

I think the biggest issue has been tying digital to physical media... CD, HDCD, SACD, DVDA or Blu Ray all need specific transports (and some are not designed to output a signal to a DAC)... High Res downloads use your computer/Music Server as transport... so all you need is software to play the different formats (and/or output them to your DAC).... So no need to buy a new player everytime a new High Res format is released... Just do a software update...

So different High Res (download) formats won't end up killing each other like DVDA and SACD did...

I still don't think that this is the full answer. With 24 bit, alot of machines and programs claim it, but only a handful can actually output in this resolution. Sure thay can read it, but some do a poor job at that also. For the ones that can actually output in 24b, not all of those do a great job. It's hardly the common mans tool for music enjoyment.

To fully realise the benefits of high resolution digital, money must be spent. Not much different than analog at this point.

[Feanor]

Lack of current music? C'mon. As a hip/hop and reggae lover this is a surprising statement. Those two genres lead the way in vinyl releases. Anyhow, I bet some of the biggest gains in this hobby have been made in analog over the last 15 - 20 years. Cartridges alone are reason enough to reconsider...

I;m gonna get me some new shoes now...
But lack of music is one issue I have with vinyl.

I listen to classical, (granted not everyone's main choice), but today the is ZERO classical music released on vinyl -- on the other hand quite a lot on SACD.

If I'd been more heavilty into acquiring music in the late '80's and most of the '90s I might have acquired a lot of good classical on used vinyl but I missed out on the big sell-off. Today there are very few bargains available for classical on vinyl.

Meanwhile classical on CD doesn't suffer the compression problems that afflict rock and other popular genres. And of course I'm not, nor ever was, one of those masochist who enjoy the rituals of the care and playing of vinyl. In fact today virtual all my listening is to computer files.

[Feanor]

I still don't think that this is the full answer. With 24 bit, alot of machines and programs claim it, but only a handful can actually output in this resolution. Sure thay can read it, but some do a poor job at that also. For the ones that can actually output in 24b, not all of those do a great job. It's hardly the common mans tool for music enjoyment.

To fully realise the benefits of high resolution digital, money must be spent. Not much different than analog at this point.
Hahaha!! :lol: There's the big advantage I have: I'm deaf above 10kHz so hi rez per se doesn't help me. True the average SACD sounds better than the average CD but -- at least for me -- the advantage comes not from the higher bit rate, but from the greater, and more audiophile oriented, care taken with the mastering.

In any case, 90+% of the sound quality of recordings comes from the recording and mastering, not from the distribution medium. In fact the big promise is from MC but that has yet to be realized in terms of quantity of music presently available.

[poppachubby]

But lack of music is one issue I have with vinyl.



It actually surprises me that there is no attempt to produce "audiophile" vinyl for classical. Of course, it would be ridiculously expensive. In fact alot of the high quality, new releases are stupid expensive.

I have to admit, I am becoming more and more curious about SACD. I know I am a little late, but I am presently quite satisfied with my digital set up. I would like to see how much farther I can go. The problem is, I am simply unwilling to spend the money on the discs.

I think where I will realistically end up is with a Marantz CD48/85/95 or Philips CD960/650. There is a great tube pro in town who has confirmed that he can modify it with a tube circuit. I have provided him with the working schematic.

http://www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/REFERENCES/SATCH/IMG_5501.jpg

[poppachubby]

In any case, 90+% of the sound quality of recordings comes from the recording and mastering, not from the distribution medium.

Yes, but what are you saying? My point is that you must have a machine that is capable of processing AND outputting ALL of the information. As i already mentioned, I think alot of people are mislead into thinking that because their unit can read 24 bit, it can also output it.

[Ajani]

Yes, but what are you saying? My point is that you must have a machine that is capable of processing AND outputting ALL of the information. As i already mentioned, I think alot of people are mislead into thinking that because their unit can read 24 bit, it can also output it.

Get a Squeezebox Touch for $300... Problem solved very cheaply...

[Ajani]

I still don't think that this is the full answer. With 24 bit, alot of machines and programs claim it, but only a handful can actually output in this resolution. Sure thay can read it, but some do a poor job at that also. For the ones that can actually output in 24b, not all of those do a great job. It's hardly the common mans tool for music enjoyment.

To fully realise the benefits of high resolution digital, money must be spent. Not much different than analog at this point.

To fully realise the benefits on any HiFi tech, money must be spent... However, excellent sound quality can still be derived cheaply:

A Squeezebox Touch is cheap way to get into High Res Music (and by all accounts its internal DAC is on par with many of the cheap DACs on the market)... However, if you want better sound, you purchase a higher quality DAC....

[poppachubby]

My soundcard is 24b capable. Some might say $300 is not cheap, although a good solution.

[Ajani]

But lack of music is one issue I have with vinyl.

I listen to classical, (granted not everyone's main choice), but today the is ZERO classical music released on vinyl -- on the other hand quite a lot on SACD.

If I'd been more heavilty into acquiring music in the late '80's and most of the '90s I might have acquired a lot of good classical on used vinyl but I missed out on the big sell-off. Today there are very few bargains available for classical on vinyl.

Meanwhile classical on CD doesn't suffer the compression problems that afflict rock and other popular genres. And of course I'm not, nor ever was, one of those masochist who enjoy the rituals of the care and playing of vinyl. In fact today virtual all my listening is to computer files.

It is silly that audiophiles have to split their music collection between SACD for Classical, Reel to Reel Tape/Vinyl for other genres (and still have to use CDs for everything else) OR stick with just the music available on their chosen format.... There are enough SACD players out there to justify more music being released in that format....

Anyway, I'll continue to pass on both SACD and Vinyl as I don't want multiple sources in my setup (that merely splits my financial resources into having several 'affordable products' rather than being able to have one higher quality one).... CD quality will have to do untill High Res is more ready available for music I listen to...

[poppachubby]

To fully realise the benefits on any HiFi tech, money must be spent... However, excellent sound quality can still be derived cheaply:

A Squeezebox Touch is cheap way to get into High Res Music (and by all accounts its internal DAC is on par with many of the cheap DACs on the market)... However, if you want better sound, you purchase a higher quality DAC....


This goes back to what I said, just because it can do it, doesn't mean it's giving full justice to the format either. The Squeezebox is a fine way to have improved bit rate, but it certainly needs help with its conversion. So then what? Mo money, mo bit rate...

I am quite happy with 16/44.1 which is done properly.

[E-Stat]

I do not think anyone would call 7 SC-V's, 2 TSW -IV tower subwoofer systems powered by Bryston 28BSST amps a compromised system.
What I find most illustrative about this comment is which components are not mentioned.

rw

[Ajani]

This goes back to what I said, just because it can do it, doesn't mean it's giving full justice to the format either. The Squeezebox is a fine way to have improved bit rate, but it certainly needs help with its conversion. So then what? Mo money, mo bit rate...

Sure... But the question (I'd love to test this one out) is whether a $300 Squeezebox Touch playing High Res will sound better than a $300 Turntable.... No tech will ever eliminate the need (desire) of audiophiles to spend more money for 'upgraded' performance... It's just whether one sounds better and is more convenient than the alternative....

Vinyl has a held a niche for around 2 decades or so, despite it's reported death at the hands of 'perfect sound forever' CDs... The reason (apart from tweaking, nostalgia and the general love of the Vinyl rituals) is that many persons prefer the sound quality of Vinyl to CDs... CDs became popular for convenience and are being slowly murdered by downloads and their respective players; which offer far greater convenience... Vinyl however continues to flourish (relatively speaking of course) because convenience is not why anyone uses it... Now if High Res downloads offer the convenience of lower res downloads plus sound quality better than Vinyl, then what would be the reason to consider setting up a turntable instead of a High Res system? Apart from nostalgia and the love of rituals?

Note: If you already have a $100K turntable, then I'd expect you'd probably keep it until you die (unless you were planning to upgrade it to something less cheap :thumbsup: )... But for those of us with more modest budgets, why buy a more expensive turntable or CD player when the upgrade bug hits? Why not invest in High Res?

[Feanor]

Yes, but what are you saying? My point is that you must have a machine that is capable of processing AND outputting ALL of the information. As i already mentioned, I think alot of people are mislead into thinking that because their unit can read 24 bit, it can also output it.
PC, basically my point is that 24 bits is irrelvant, at least to me. And that MC is more significant (even if the effective bits are only 16).

I'm not disputing that lots of unit that can handle 24 bit input can't exploit it since, e.g. noice floors are too high to permit it.

[E-Stat]

I'm not disputing that lots of unit that can handle 24 bit input can't exploit it since, e.g. noice floors are too high to permit it.
In the DSD world of SACD, everything is single bit anyway - just in a very fast stream. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I don't think I asked anyone to leave anything behind. Has anyone ever heard of the concept of ADDING it to what you already have? Well, maybe you can't when you are stuck with just two channels.

[E-Stat]

I don't think I asked anyone to leave anything behind. Has anyone ever heard of the concept of ADDING it to what you already have?
Really sorry dude there are those who choose to not compromise two channel quality to get cool "immersion" effects for 1-2% of our musical library. It would be nice sometimes if I had a pickup truck, but I enjoy exploiting the higher performance of my car far more frequently. Perhaps it has been a curse for me to have been exposed to the realism that the finest audio equipment can do (two channel and MC alike). It's that preference thing when it comes to the trade offs one must necessarily make with anything less than a multi-hundred thousand dollar budget for their system - which I do not have! I confess that I don't understand why you have difficulty comprehending that fact.

You mentioned the Bryston 28B amp earlier. I have a reviewer friend who gave it a great review. When I asked him whether I should replace my VTLs with a pair of them to gain some headroom or replace the GamuT CD-1 with an EMM Labs CDSA, the answer to him (and me) was obvious. It would be a quantity vs quality question where I choose quality. Similarly, I most certainly would not use your choice of DAC and linestage unless it were for the lesser HT duties for which it was intended. We most likely differ on cabling choices. But then you get your panties all in a wad when asked about your preferences there. :)

rw

[Ajani]

I don't think I asked anyone to leave anything behind. Has anyone ever heard of the concept of ADDING it to what you already have? Well, maybe you can't when you are stuck with just two channels.

Adding is fine (in theory), but consider this: Many Stereo lovers already maxed their budget for speakers and bought the best quality speakers they could afford... So to complete a 5.1 (worse yet a 7.1) setup would require more money than they spent on their mains... Also, if they are truly serious about MC, then they'd want 5 (or 7) of the same speakers, making the investment even more extreme... Plus they'd need to add extra amplification, a HT processor and source... So probably about triple what they already spent.... Even assuming they have that money, it's a lot to spend for the very limited selection of MC recordings available (assuming any of those fit their musical tastes)...

[Feanor]

In the DSD world of SACD, everything is single bit anyway - just in a very fast stream. :)

rw
Yes of course. DSC is 1 bit x 2822.4 kHz = 2,822.4 kbps (per channel). By way of crude comparison PCM is up to 24 bits x 192 kHz = 4608 kbps. Note that DVD-A allows for 24 x 192 for stereo but only 24 x 96 (2304 kbps) for 2.1 channels or more.

Personally I'm convinced that anything above 16 x 44.1 is wasted on me. I have no means to confirm or refute that other than listening to the RBCD and stereo DSD layers of SACDs in which case I personally hear no difference.

[Feanor]

Adding is fine (in theory), but consider this: Many Stereo lovers already maxed their budget for speakers and bought the best quality speakers they could afford... So to complete a 5.1 (worse yet a 7.1) setup would require more money than they spent on their mains... Also, if they are truly serious about MC, then they'd want 5 (or 7) of the same speakers, making the investment even more extreme... Plus they'd need to add extra amplification, a HT processor and source... So probably about triple what they already spent.... Even assuming they have that money, it's a lot to spend for the very limited selection of MC recordings available (assuming any of those fit their musical tastes)...
Bingo!! my brother.

Out of the question for the < 3% of my current collection which is currently MC, or the 10-15% of new purchases.that might be SACDs.

Another issue is room setup which is far more problematic for MC than for stereo.