Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 135
  1. #26
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    so who is this chick?
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232

    Sacd

    Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    Sounds like your decision is made so enjoy the Marantz as I hear they're quite good for the money.I think you have to be realistic when considering these players that have multi-function as a selling point.To get a SACD player that is outstanding with redbook CD's you have to spend big bucks.There's going to be some sacrifice by the manufacturer somewhere when incorporating SACD technology into the same box unless the unit is very high end.It's obviously a budget related decision so there's no perfect scenario.In a perfect world you would have a dedicated player for each and I realize that's neither practical nor inexpensive.To me it's just like an Amp and Preamp combo usually sounding better than an integrated amp,and an integrated amp usually sounding better than a reciever.I suppose you get an investment return with the SACD playback though as the theory is the higher resolution of the SACD's should bring better sound,so maybe a $400 SACD player playing an SACD will sound as good or better than a $700 redbook player playing a standard CD.I just don't think it will sound as good playing the redbooks but that's just my opinion.Enjoy your new player as I don't think you could have made a better choice at your price point.
    You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.

    I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  4. #29
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    I use my marantz to play cd's... they sound good
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    You'd be surprised at how well a dedicated SACD player will handle regular CDs. For example, Sony's low end $150 SACD changer (as well as previous universal players from Pioneer and Toshiba) uses the Burr-Brown 1791 digital-to-analog converter, which happens to be the same DAC used in Arcam's $800 CD72 (which also uses a Sony transport). That DAC is capable of decoding the 1-bit DSD signals from SACDs as well as the 16-bit PCM signals from CDs -- the SACD player happens to use both capabilities, while the Arcam only uses the PCM decoding.

    I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
    I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.The component needs to sound musical and that is where the art of CDP design comes in.That being said there is always the law of diminishing returns as you start to spend big money on audio equipment so when saying a unit like the Sony sounds really good I can only assume you mean it's good for the $150 investment.I bought a Sony 5 CD changer for my secondary stereo and it's really quite awful even though it's paired with a decent amp and speakers.I bought it for the 5 cd playback capability and got just what I paid for.It's not the SACD model though so not apples to apples there.Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.
    Last edited by BillyB; 01-14-2007 at 04:35 PM.

  6. #31
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Nice insight

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    ...

    I don't think there's any "sacrifice" involved here, since there's so much shared circuitry involved. Because of the SACD format's higher resolution, even low end SACD players use higher rated circuitry in the signal path than typical low end CD players.
    Thanks, Wooch,

    This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.

    My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns.

    I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.

    But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.

  7. #32
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    2CH SACD is even better then rebook cds like the CCR SACD's,they are so good.
    Look & Listen

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Thanks, Wooch,

    This under scores how advances in techology have been used to great effect in mass market products -- regardless of the motives of the manufactures who are, admittedly, not targeting the audiophile fringe.

    My Sony SCD-CE775 is the immediate predeceasor of the Sony you alluded to, and is very good as a stock product. A bit of an industry sprung up modifying this unit whose goal was to bring it very close to high-end products. Note that the typical upgrades were maily to the analog chain, although some improved the clock. I passed up these mods because they would have tripled the total cost and I just didn't want to spend the case on them versus speakers and amps. This is about diminishing returns.

    I'm not above blowing a litte dough to get fine improvements. I recently bought a used Assemblage DAC 1.5 for $75. (I've mainly used it with my circa 1991 top-line Technics SL-PS70 which makes a nice transport.) I notice as subtle but, I'm reasonalby convinced, real improvement in resolution, especially for HDCD discs for which the Assemblage has the decoder. Now I'm going to spring another $220 or so to have Parts Connexion upgrade the op amps, wiring, and RCA connectors.

    But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
    For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.

  9. #34
    Demoted to Low-Fi Carl Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
    I think a lot of people will disagree with you on that one.... and I'm yet to be convinced that a mutlichannel set-up is inherently better than a 2 channel one.... keep in mind that for the budget spent on a crappy 5.1 setup you could easily get a good 2 channel setup (simple economics... since you're buying less than 1/3 of the number of speakers required for 5.1 you can get far better quality speakers for the money and the same applies for amplification as well).... so I really doubt that a modest mutichannel setup will outperform a quality stereo setup.... Good music is more about quality than quantity....

    I'm not saying that I don't think Mutlichannel SACD can sound better than redbook CD, but just that I really doubt that you will be able to best a quality redbook setup with a SACD setup costing less or even the same amount....

  10. #35
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Chill, 2-channel guys

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    ...
    But let's keep our eyes on prize, (or our ears anyway): reproduced sound that is more like the live experience. SACD bets CD because it is multi-channel. Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo.
    I'm not going to duke it out with you on the subject. Let me say I listen 90% to my stereo system which is hugely better than my multi-channel which is just a modest HT. And of course 90% of my music collection is 2-channel. But every now and then I trot downstairs with two or three SACDs and listen for a hour or two.

    With the best recordings, (and I'm talking classical music), the experience is strikingly different from stereo. It shows the M/C potential to me even though on my system the sound coming from each individual speaker is a good deal less good than my stereo system

  11. #36
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    I have to dissagree... but then again, I decided to build my system for 5ch+sub sacd's...
    had I only built a 2 ch system at the time, I would have used the same speakers... had I not been interested in 5 ch sacd's... I probably would have gone with different surround speakers.. (probably the 806 or 705 rather than the 716...
    now I know some of you have systems which play 2ch much better than my anthem/focal jm lab, but to me, it is what I like, and it plays 2ch and 6 ch sacd's better than my 2ch system in my room... (blame components)
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  12. #37
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory.Last I checked music was 2 channel and DVD/movie soundtracks were multichannel.If your home theatre plays back music better than your 2 channel stereo than you need a better stereo unless of course your A/V reciever is your stereo which in itself is a problem,so not having a killer Redbook CD player is the least of the problems.High fidelity audio playback has always been 2 channel audio which simply means playing back your music through 2 high quality speakers firing from directly in front of you not coming at you from 5 or 6 or 7 channels.I'm way too much of an audio purist for this thread so I will now leave you guys alone.
    HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?
    Look & Listen

  13. #38
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    To quote myself

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    For a modest multi-channel set-up to best a much better stereo means you think that playing back your music through an A/V reciever and home theatre speakers is a better overall sound than playing back 2 channel redbook CD's on an excellent stereo which is a bizarre theory....
    BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

    The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

    My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.

  14. #39
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    I hear this all the time regarding the inexpensive Sony's and other brand multi- Cd players as well as SACD players.There's a theory that the newer CDP technology has crept into even the low-end Cd players and there's no longer a need to spend big money to get a good CDP(Redbook or SACD).I would consider that only part true at best as there is still some logic to getting what you pay for .
    I think you're placing way too much credence in the value of the price tag in determining performance. The performance difference between digital components is far narrower than between analog components. In the analog era, you could safely say that you get what you pay for. But, with digital components where measurable differences are at best negligible, that same "logic" does not hold up quite as well. You're paying a lot for subtle differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    Companies like Toshiba and Sony mass produce their audio products and make their money through sheer volume as opposed to outperforming the competition.I don't doubt they sound OK and qualify as a good bang for the buck.I guess I'm just old school and have a hard time believing that the $150 player which uses the same DAC as the Arcam can compete with it for Redbook playback.Arcam doesn't bother with SACD and focuses it's research and development on redbook playback .
    What do you mean "can compete"? Of course, those lower cost CD players can compete. Since they measure almost identically within the audible range, any audible differences will be more subtle than obvious. Old school in the audiophile world IMO lies with analog components where the audible differences were obvious AND verifiable through measurements.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    They will never be confused with a Sony when listening to one.There's so many other factors in how a unit is built like the quality of circuit boards,capacitors,filters,power supply,etc.If you took a Sony and an Arcam apart the difference in build quality would be clear the minute you got the shell off.
    Have you actually done this for yourself? Or is this just speculation on your part? You seem to equate mass production with inferiority. Although Sony is clearly pricing their products at the mass market, one of the advantages of mass production lies with cost reductions through economies of scale. Even Arcam realizes this, otherwise they would not purchase their transports from Sony in lieu of developing their own.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    Serious CD player manufacturers don't even bother with multi cd changers(there are exceptions like some very good and expensive Marantz units) and there's a reason.They want to put their focus on things that effect sound as opposed to convenience features.Sony and Philips have always made some of the most reliable transports,but Sony will never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers.Their strength is their video products not their audio products.In fairness I would say they are the best of the inexpensive brands most people think of when they think of electronics.I consider them to be reliable but that's about it.I am aware that Sony has an ES line that's more high end but I don't have any experience with it.
    Here again, you're equating "expensive" with "serious." Marantz IS a mass market manufacturer. Until recently, they were one of Philips' nameplates. Now, they are in a conglomerate with Denon and Boston Acoustics (among others). Are their multidisc changers acceptable to you because they're more expensive? Or because you've actually compared them with other disc changers on the basis of their sound quality?

    When you say that Sony will "never be confused with any of the serious audio manufacturers" you ignore the many high end components that they do manufacture. They might constitute a small portion of their overall sales, but they do manufacture a sizable range of components that are obsessively spec'd and yes, very expensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    I didn't even realize there are enough CD's available in SACD format for it to even be considered a serious alternative to Redbook CD's but I listen to mostly older music so maybe that's why I'm out of the loop on that one.I would think if Redbook CD's still make up the majority of whats available then a very good redbook player is going to provide you more service than an SACD player that only sounds it's best when playing the few SACD's you may own.Of course if you are a collector of SACD's you obviously need something to play them on so I am by no means suggesting there's no place in the market for these SACD units,just that the better CDP manufacturers also don't bother with SACD with a couple of exceptions so there must be a reason they make this conscious decision.If they felt they could make their units to the same standards(without driving up cost significantly)or making "compromises" to their Redbook playback while including SACD playback I would think more would.The Arcam 72T(now the 73T which uses wolfson 7840 DAC)was considered a groundbreaking player at it's price point of around $700 so when I suggest a player like this to someone I still feel they are at a price point where the return vs investment is very high.
    For someone who purportedly cares about "serious" sound reproduction, I'm a bit surprised that you haven't taken a look at SACD or DVD-A and tried it out for yourself. For all of the features going into high end CD players, they cannot get around the fundamental 44.1/16 resolution of the CD format itself. With a digital recording, nearly all CDs require some form of downsampling during the mastering process. With SACD or DVD-A, the resolution of the source matches the playback format. Like I said before, the analog signal paths on dedicated SACD players are already spec'd higher than normal because they have to handle the wider range of the SACD format, and nearly all of that circuitry is shared. Without actual hands-on experience with these SACD players, you're speculatng quite a bit over the "compromises" that they incorporate, and what, if any, detrimental effect this has on sound quality with regular CDs.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  15. #40
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    HT speakers. 2CH speakers. Poop. Explain the difference between a set of 2CH speakers and the front mains in a HT? Is one speaker square or something?
    I have seen square ht speakers hehe
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  16. #41
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

    The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

    My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.
    This is a point that two-channel purists often miss -- that two-channels are simply not enough to reproduce a live event. Given the tenor of the typical comments I've read over the years, I also question how many of the negative comments about multichannel arise out of actual experience. If someone hears multichannel music through a HTIB or an otherwise improperly aligned and setup system, then they won't get the full impact of what multichannel is capable of.

    Even going as far back as Bell Labs' groundbreaking research into psychoacoustics in the late-30s, which indicated that at least three speakers were needed up front to properly render the front soundstage, the rationale for multichannel has always been there. The only reason why the audio industry standardized around two-channels was the technical limitations of the available consumer formats in earlier eras. Those limitations no longer exist.

    It doesn't matter how good a two-channel system is, multichannel is capable of things that stereo is not. This is evident even with a modest system, and if you use comparably high end components all the way around, then the contrast is even more striking.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  17. #42
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232

    SACD playback

    I know I really stoked the fire this time with my opinions on this matter so let me just say a couple of things in regard to the replies and then I'll do my best to leave this touchy subject alone.In terms of the live sound multi-channel SACD can provide that would obviously be of major benefit only when playing back live concert CD's which make up a very small percentage of most peoples CD collections.To stokhead I would simply say that the front HT speakers wouldn't be the weak link, the fact that you're using an A/V reciever to drive them is the problem.People love these A/V recievers for the works because you save all sorts of money on interconnects,no separate amp and preamp,HT and stereo in one,built-in tuner,etc. and it simplifies your life regarding source and connection issues.Does a high quality separate amp and preamp combo sound better for 2 channel stereo,of course they do.I totally understand people being defensive about their equipment being criticized as you guys don't want to hear your inexpensive SACD players aren't up to snuff any more than I want to hear my high end Redbook player and 2 channel set-up isn't superior in overall sound quality to a $150 CDP being played through a home theatre A/V reciever..I'm extremely particular about my 2 channel system and while I have a decent HT set-up using a separate A/V reciever the few times when my stereo has been out of commision and I've had to play back CD's through the home theatre I cringe at the overall sound quality and imaging of all those speakers playing at once.Of course you'll say that a multi-channel SACD that was designed to be played back in this fashion will sound much better,but is it really a better sound with proper imaging or just a lot of sound coming at you from all directions.I suppose you correct any sound problems with the A/V recievers speaker settings, but In my mind that is HT.not CD playback.If these SACD's are all they're cracked up to be then they will become a mainstream format that's more readily available including remasters of older non-SACD's(assuming that's technically possible which I wouldn't know).Obviously many older CD's were first mastered during the vinyl era and then remastered for digital CD's when that format became mainstream.Time will tell.As far as the quality of digital equipment like CD players being less of an issue than the older analogue equipment that's also very subjective.Obviously some people had $50 turntables and some people had $400 turntables.I'm sure the guy with the $400 turntable felt it was a better playing unit than the $50 model and his investment was justified.I have had CD players apart and the difference inside the box between the $150 players and the $700 players is quite striking.They don't even look that similar.If anything quality and design is even more important with a digital device like a CDP because CD's of course can sound very harsh and the better players are designed and built to reduce that weakness as it doesn't happen by accident.( the DAC and transport used are just the tip of the iceberg in CDP design)It's the result of R & D and you have to pay for that when you buy any product.At the end of the day the only thing that matters with this hobby is that the person listening to their equipment is enjoying their music regardless of what it cost so I don't want to sound like an Audiophile who bashes other peoples equipment based on cost or brand name,but at the same time don't think the extra money spent putting together a high end stereo doesn't equate to better results because if the equipment is properly mixed the results can be magical and worth every penny..System cost is nothing to get too caught about because no matter what you have there is always someone with deeper pockets who can afford a system that blows yours away.(I certainly include myself as someone with a limited amount of money to delegate to electronics)I am obviously very passionate about 2 channel stereo and will always feel that it is the most natural sounding audio format and the way music was intended to be listened to but that's just me and it shouldn't be a right or wrong kind of issue,but rather a matter of opinion and I do respect the input of fellow audio lovers regardless of whether we agree or not..The best of both worlds of course would be to have a great 2 channel stereo for Redbook playback and a good HT set-up that can also play your SACD's(2 channel or multi-channel) but I totally respect the fact that that is not within's everybody's budget.I believe woochifer mentioned that's how he gets around the format issue.When I can no longer tolerate the sound of my Sony standard 5 disk carousel player in my second system I will give serious thought to replacing it with one of these less expensive SACD players as my player cost $100 and at $150(entry level of course) or so an SACD player is not a huge investment.If it sounds way better playing SACD's than my current conventional Sony I will gladly admit it but it's not going to rival my Arcam 192T upsampling player and for what the 192T cost that wouldn't be a reasonable expectation.Enjoy your systems as my intention is not to offend.This stuff isn't personal but of course we get pretty hopped up about anything we really care about and that's not all bad.Take care.
    Last edited by BillyB; 01-15-2007 at 06:49 PM.

  18. #43
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Hey Billy B,

    Nothing wrong with being passionate about 2-channel. Man, have I heard some great 2C systems that made the listening experience a complete joy. With the right system synergy imaging and clarity can be wonderous.

    That said my own journey has taken me the path of Multi-Channel application. I think the most important thing to recognize is that it is a very non-traditional medium and probably cannot be thought of within exactly the same perameters as 2C. Yes sound is sound but the increase of spatial cues and ambience can be amazing. Admittedly, it takes some perseverance.
    I wanted to address a couple of things that I view as popular misconceptions. Not all MC is necessarily the exclusive product of receivers, and by that I mean that there are a few dedicated higher-end processors out there that supercede that. More in line with the current conversation, many receivers have pre-outs ( preamp outputs ) that can function as a line to an external amp. Many, if not most, have a "direct" mode which bypasses the processing for the purist.
    Also, not all HT speakers (?) are square boxes. . I would humbly submit my own system (photos in the gallery) as a counter-example to this. I have put together what I regard as a decent mid-level system and the shortcomings are indeed included in your argument. Would I like to upgrade the source and processing unit? Sure, and when the funds and opportunities become available I will. I will say that "opportunities means "deals" because frankly I am in very little hurry to make unecessarry changes. From this point on upgrades have to provide a distinct and substanative improvement.

    I bring these points up because while I agree that MC requires a degree of tweaking and unconventional thought, I have experienced to a greater extent the rewards and they are numerous and palpable. I hope you follow through with your proposal to experiment, at least with hi-rez music (SACD, DVD-A). Despite much of the catalog being skewed toward classical and jazz I am confident that you will find enough "old stuff" (Clapton, Beck, Elton John, The Zombies, etc.) to make it rewarding.

    Remember: There's room on the boat for everyone and, for God's sake, enjoy yer tunes.

    Peace

  19. #44
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    I know I really stoked the fire this time with my opinions on this matter so let me just say a couple of things in regard to the replies and then I'll do my best to leave this touchy subject alone.In terms of the live sound multi-channel SACD can provide that would obviously be of major benefit only when playing back live concert CD's which make up a very small percentage of most peoples CD collections.
    Au contraire. The ability to map the ambient soundstage from the room acoustics is but one of the benefits with multichannel. With multitracked studio recordings, multichannel allows the recording engineer to space the instrumentation into different channels. This can produce a cleaner and more coherent sound because the recording now eliminates a lot of the processing, compression, and extra downmixing needed to create a phantom center effect out of two channels.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    To stokhead I would simply say that the front HT speakers wouldn't be the weak link, the fact that you're using an A/V reciever to drive them is the problem.People love these A/V recievers for the works because you save all sorts of money on interconnects,no separate amp and preamp,HT and stereo in one,built-in tuner,etc. and it simplifies your life regarding source and connection issues.Does a high quality separate amp and preamp combo sound better for 2 channel stereo,of course they do.I totally understand people being defensive about their equipment being criticized as you guys don't want to hear your inexpensive SACD players aren't up to snuff any more than I want to hear my high end Redbook player and 2 channel set-up isn't superior in overall sound quality to a $150 CDP being played through a home theatre A/V reciever.
    You're making an awful lot of generalizations pertaining to AV receivers. In case you don't know, there's a rather sizable range of AV receivers on the market, with very different capabilities. And in my experience, the biggest issues with the majority of systems I've heard pertain to the speakers and the room acoustics, so you have no basis for definitively concluding that someone's system issues have more to do with the amplification than the speakers.

    The points have nothing to do with being defensive, they have to do with our hands-on experience not coinciding with the broad generalizations you're supporting.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    I'm extremely particular about my 2 channel system and while I have a decent HT set-up using a separate A/V reciever the few times when my stereo has been out of commision and I've had to play back CD's through the home theatre I cringe at the overall sound quality and imaging of all those speakers playing at once.
    Statements like this make me question any statement you might make about multichannel if you're playing CDs with "all those speakers playing at once." Simply put, CDs are intended for two-channel playback, and should be played that way. All AV receivers allow you to switch off the processing and go with straight two-channel playback with two-channel sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    Of course you'll say that a multi-channel SACD that was designed to be played back in this fashion will sound much better,but is it really a better sound with proper imaging or just a lot of sound coming at you from all directions.I suppose you correct any sound problems with the A/V recievers speaker settings, but In my mind that is HT.not CD playback.If these SACD's are all they're cracked up to be then they will become a mainstream format that's more readily available including remasters of older non-SACD's(assuming that's technically possible which I wouldn't know).
    Setting up a multichannel setup is a lot more involved than simply identifying whether the speakers are "LARGE" or "SMALL." It involves proper alignment (position, toe-in angle, and height), level matching with a SPL meter (matching "by ear" is not nearly accurate enough to simultanously match levels on five speakers at once), the delay timing (compensating for the different distances between different speakers), and properly setting up the bass management. That's something you do with movies and music alike. If you have not taken the time to properly set up your multichannel system or heard a properly done 5.1 setup, then you're in no position to argue the merits and dismerits of multichannel.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    Obviously many older CD's were first mastered during the vinyl era and then remastered for digital CD's when that format became mainstream.Time will tell.As far as the quality of digital equipment like CD players being less of an issue than the older analogue equipment that's also very subjective.Obviously some people had $50 turntables and some people had $400 turntables.I'm sure the guy with the $400 turntable felt it was a better playing unit than the $50 model and his investment was justified.
    Absolutely not true. With turntables, you could measure sizable differences in frequency response, dynamic range, wow & flutter, and acoustical isolation -- and those differences are clearly audible. With CD players, differences in the measured parameters are far narrower, if not nonexistent in most cases. So, this is not merely a subjective argument as you suggest, but rather a point that can be verified objectively as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    I have had CD players apart and the difference inside the box between the $150 players and the $700 players is quite striking.They don't even look that similar.If anything quality and design is even more important with a digital device like a CDP because CD's of course can sound very harsh and the better players are designed and built to reduce that weakness as it doesn't happen by accident.( the DAC and transport used are just the tip of the iceberg in CDP design)It's the result of R & D and you have to pay for that when you buy any product.
    I don't agree at all with your contention about the design and quality being more important with a digital component than an analog component. Like I said, CD players are working within a far narrower parameter. The harshness associated with CDs has not been as much of an issue for about the past decade with improvement to the filtering on the DACs. But, in many cases, the harshness is just part of the source material. A poorly mastered CD will sound bad no matter what you use to play them on.

    But, if you think the range of playback quality with CDs is every bit as audible as with turntables, I would challenge you to do some listening tests. Turntables (along with their variety of tonearm and cartridge setups, and audible variations resulting from the overhang angle, VTA, counterbalancing, etc.) have much more obvious sonic signatures, and there are plenty of bad combinations out there. On the other hand, there aren't any CD players out there that sound nearly as bad as some turntables can.

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyB
    At the end of the day the only thing that matters with this hobby is that the person listening to their equipment is enjoying their music regardless of what it cost so I don't want to sound like an Audiophile who bashes other peoples equipment based on cost or brand name,but at the same time don't think the extra money spent putting together a high end stereo doesn't equate to better results because if the equipment is properly mixed the results can be magical.System cost is nothing to get too caught about because no matter what you have there is always someone with deeper pockets who can afford a system that blows yours away.(I certainly include myself as someone with a limited amount of money to delegate to electronics)I am obviously very passionate about 2 channel stereo and will always feel that it is the most natural sounding audio format and the way music was intended to be listened to but that's just me and it shouldn't be a right or wrong kind of issue.The best of both worlds of course would be to have a great 2 channel stereo for Redbook playback and a good HT set-up that can also play your SACD's(2 channel or multi-channel) but I totally respect the fact that that is not within's everybody's budget.I believe woochifer mentioned that's how he gets around the format issue.When I can no longer tolerate the sound of my Sony standard 5 disk carousel player in my second system I will give serious thought to replacing it with one of these less expensive SACD players as my player cost $100 and at $150(entry level of course) or so an SACD player is not a huge investment.Enjoy your systems as my intention is not to offend.This stuff isn't personal but of course we get pretty hopped up about anything we really care about and that's not all bad.Take care.
    That's all well and good. I would hope that at some point you get a chance to explore what some of the better SACDs are capable of delivering.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  20. #45
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Saint James, NY
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Au contraire. The ability to map the ambient soundstage from the room acoustics is but one of the benefits with multichannel. With multitracked studio recordings, multichannel allows the recording engineer to space the instrumentation into different channels. This can produce a cleaner and more coherent sound because the recording now eliminates a lot of the processing, compression, and extra downmixing needed to create a phantom center effect out of two channels.



    You're making an awful lot of generalizations pertaining to AV receivers. In case you don't know, there's a rather sizable range of AV receivers on the market, with very different capabilities. And in my experience, the biggest issues with the majority of systems I've heard pertain to the speakers and the room acoustics, so you have no basis for definitively concluding that someone's system issues have more to do with the amplification than the speakers.

    The points have nothing to do with being defensive, they have to do with our hands-on experience not coinciding with the broad generalizations you're supporting.



    Statements like this make me question any statement you might make about multichannel if you're playing CDs with "all those speakers playing at once." Simply put, CDs are intended for two-channel playback, and should be played that way. All AV receivers allow you to switch off the processing and go with straight two-channel playback with two-channel sources.



    Setting up a multichannel setup is a lot more involved than simply identifying whether the speakers are "LARGE" or "SMALL." It involves proper alignment (position, toe-in angle, and height), level matching with a SPL meter (matching "by ear" is not nearly accurate enough to simultanously match levels on five speakers at once), the delay timing (compensating for the different distances between different speakers), and properly setting up the bass management. That's something you do with movies and music alike. If you have not taken the time to properly set up your multichannel system or heard a properly done 5.1 setup, then you're in no position to argue the merits and dismerits of multichannel.



    Absolutely not true. With turntables, you could measure sizable differences in frequency response, dynamic range, wow & flutter, and acoustical isolation -- and those differences are clearly audible. With CD players, differences in the measured parameters are far narrower, if not nonexistent in most cases. So, this is not merely a subjective argument as you suggest, but rather a point that can be verified objectively as well.



    I don't agree at all with your contention about the design and quality being more important with a digital component than an analog component. Like I said, CD players are working within a far narrower parameter. The harshness associated with CDs has not been as much of an issue for about the past decade with improvement to the filtering on the DACs. But, in many cases, the harshness is just part of the source material. A poorly mastered CD will sound bad no matter what you use to play them on.

    But, if you think the range of playback quality with CDs is every bit as audible as with turntables, I would challenge you to do some listening tests. Turntables (along with their variety of tonearm and cartridge setups, and audible variations resulting from the overhang angle, VTA, counterbalancing, etc.) have much more obvious sonic signatures, and there are plenty of bad combinations out there. On the other hand, there aren't any CD players out there that sound nearly as bad as some turntables can.



    That's all well and good. I would hope that at some point you get a chance to explore what some of the better SACDs are capable of delivering.
    Quite true regarding the range of A/V reciever quality because we mustn't forget that an A/V reciever is being asked to provide 6 or 7 X 90 watts per channel(amongst all it's other functions) which obviously is asking a lot out of any reasonably priced component.Is it logical to think that those channels are all putting out the same powerful clean signal that a dedicated 2 channel combo puts out.Unless you're feeding that source to an external power some of the improved sound you say the SACD's produce is obviously offset by the inherent weaknesses an A/V reciever has.If they built an A/V reciever that could do it all equally well very few of us could afford one.They can only fit so much in one box so even in 2-channel mode a reciever still has a limited amount of power to provide the scheer power that very good speakers require.I'm talking about your typical decent quality A/V recievers,not the outrageously good ones that most people can't or don't want to spring for that have completely separate dedicated sections inside them that do everything and do it very well.I['m sure we both realize we're not talking apples to apples here anyway as multi-channel and 2 channel couldn't be any more different.Where we do part ways is your theory that a $150 SACD player will more than suffice for someone with a critical ear in a high end 2 channel system and I know there are other people out there who own fabulous redbook CD players other than myself who would also beg to differ with you.You're right about me not tweaking out my HT system for optimum CD playback including SACD format but I still haven't heard anyone here say there is a wide enough selection of these disks to even justify the time and expense.To look at it as a Home theatre set-up that also play SACD's is certainly a logical and financially sound approach,but what happens when you're playing the other 80 or 90% of the available CD's that only come in Redbook format.Is there no compromise there.It's certainly a personal preference but I'd rather focus time and money on the Redbook set-up and leave the HT set-up to do what it was originally designed to do.I'm unsure how much priority you put into your 2-channel system in terms of quality to ensure optimum sound so It's impossible for me to know what you're comparing your SACD set-up to and that's as relative to this discussion as me not being an expert on SACD playback in 2 or multichannel format.If I'm hearing you guys right the multi-channel disks aren't even a given so now you're reduced to an even smaller segment of the incredible amount of music that is all available in Redbook.I'm so old school I don't even like sub-woofers for 2 channel stereo use as even though I know they are unavoidable with small speakers I believe the sound should all come from 2 high quality speakers that are capable of handling the bass and treble equally well for optimum imaging.I realize bass is considered virtually non-directional but I like my 2 speakers to be the only thing making any noise as I don't want any rumbling bass going on during music playback.While that's a discussion for a different day I'm just using it to help explain how particular I am in regard to music playback.I wouldn't even consider speakers that made a subwoofer essential for good bass.I just want to add that there couldn't be a more subjective issue to discuss and I'm far from the most knowledgable Audiophile on this site.We're talking about 2 approaches to music that couldn't be any more different in theory or application.The less is more principle is how purists approach 2 channel audio.This approach involves the least amount of speakers,the least playing with settings or calibrations or anything else that influences sound in any way.My Rotel RB-980BX 120W amp has an on/off switch.My Rotel RC-1090 pre-amp doesn't even have tone or balance controls as the theory is music should be played at a flat setting and eliminating these features reduces unwanted circuitry(that's Rotels theory and they make very nice components).The different inputs all have dedicated circuitry for each inputs playback or record modes.My Arcam 192T CDP is a single disc player that has virtually no bells and whistles, and all my sound comes from 2 well positioned bi-wired Quad 22l's that handle just my 2-channel audio playback.They are not the front speakers in my HT set-up as there is no perfect way to create 2 different sources for one pair of speakers(especially when bi-wired) so using them for both stereo/AV use isn't practical and I believe that one problem in itself is what makes these A/V recievers so alluring.They solve connection issues as I previously stated.I'm not oblivious to some of the newer ways of playing back music but rather unsure if they have enough major sonic improvements over high quality 2 channel audio.If I did set-up my HT system to play back SACD's the problem is I would then want a state of the art A/V reciever,killer HT speakers,and an above average SACD player because I know I would not be happy with multi-channel audio sound from a marginal HT system after listening to my Redbook set-up.That an awfully big second investment to listen to a selection limited format.We couldn't disagree more on this subject so I suggest we basically just agree to disagree and I will respect your counterpoints as I would hope you respect my opinions as they are not just general statements but rather statements based on basic audio approach.Enjoy both your systems as the way you use your 2 systems for the 2 different formats is the correct way to accomplish your goal and I did respect that enough to specifically mention that in my previous thread. .
    Last edited by BillyB; 01-16-2007 at 04:14 AM.

  21. #46
    Demoted to Low-Fi Carl Reid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    285

    I think this is the heart of the debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    BillyB, what I said was, "Multi-channel can do what stereo cannot, and this is evident even comparing a modest M/C setup with a much better stereo." I didn't say that a modest M/C was better overall than an excellent stereo.

    The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording). It moves you from the back of the hall to a 6th row, center seat. This is not the same as "better overall", however.

    My stereo is of much higher technical quality than my HT system. There is a trade-off between the two, and 90% of the time I rather listen to the former.
    Excellent clarification, since I think most of us took your original statement to mean that you think a modest M/C setup will sound better than a similarly priced 2 channel setup...

    I have NO problem with the idea that a properly setup M/C system would sound better than a 2 channel setup using the SAME quality components.... BUT this fails to take into account the substantial price difference between the two.... (Which is in IMHO why M/C has not totally crushed redbook CDs and may never really take off)....

    Let's say you have a budget for a dedicated audio system of $4000.... to buy a 2 channel setup you could spend $1500 on an integrated amp or an amp and pre-amp, $500 on a CD player and $2000 on Speakers....

    To do mutlichannel, You'd need to spend that same $1500 on a 5.1 receiver (which will be inferior in sound quality to a $1500 integrated or amp/preamp combo).... then you need to buy a $500 SACD player and finally 5 speakers and subwoofer for the remaining $2000.... (those 5 speakers & sub will also be of inferior quality than a $2000 pair of speakers)...

    (Note: I'm talking about products that are good value for the money, so we are comparing a good $1500 integrated with a good $1500 Receiver and a good pair of $2000 speakers versus a good set of 5 speakers and a sub for $2000)...

    So my question is: do you think that M/C is so inherently better, that the $4K M/C setup will sound better than a $4K 2 channel setup? I don't....

    However if you were to build a M/C setup of similiar quality to our $4k 2 channel setup, then I would expect the M/C to sound significantly better... but NOTE, to build a M/C of that quality would likely cost around $12K. (3 times as many speakers and 3 times as much amplification and processing)....

    So I do believe that M/C is better but just impractical for most audiophiles.... and what it has been aimed at is the HT crowd (since they already have the setup required to do basic M/C).... however much of the HT crowd are not audiophiles and will not see the benefit of buying SACD or DVD-A discs....

  22. #47
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    The modest M/C does convey a sense of place and presence that no stereo can regardless of quality, (assuming a good recording).
    I don't know about that. If your stereo system images properly, the Weavers Live at Carnegie Hall just leap out in front of you in a way that really needs to be heard to be believed.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  23. #48
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.
    Look & Listen

  24. #49
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    I have a heart live sacd which is very awsome! Having the crowd all around, it just sounds great!
    I have listened to the same sacd in 2ch mode, and although it still sounds very good, it is missing the feel of being in the middle of the crowd...

    for "non-live" sacd's, I have a police and a pink floyd which do sound good, but when I play in 2 ch mode, sound just as good... the difference, in multichannel mode, the instruments are separated more than 2ch mode...

    I have a couple others but they do not seem to impress me as much...

    on the 2ch note... I have a couple albums on both sacd and normal cd... with my setup, I can hear a difference, and prefer the sacd over the normal cd in all instances...
    these vary in music from a couple classical, a michael jackson (when he was still black), a couple george thorogood, and a billy joel...

    I must say I was disappointed with my denon and sacd playback (both 2 and multi channel) but 2ch with my B&K and both 2 and multi ch with my anthem are very nice...

    when I chose my speakers, I knew I didn't want to spend more than $500 / speaker, so had I only been interested in 2ch, I could have gone up to a "better" speaker for $2500 a pair... but 2ch was not my goal, and I am very happy with my system...

    it is all in what one's goals are... I think multichannel sacd's are great, but that is just me...
    others have goals for great 2ch, and others yet are all for ht...

    so perhaps multi channel sacd's are not for you, but if you do like 2ch, I would recommend trying 2 ch sacd's... esp if you did spend more than $1000 for a pair of speakers... most likely you will be able to hear a difference...

    back to work for me...
    Mike
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

  25. #50
    SuperPoser Rock789's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    608
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    Really,i need to know what the real difference is between a stereo receiver with 2 main speakers and a HT receiver playing in the stereo mode on its mains 2 speakers. It should be a very short answer.
    ht receiver has additional channels (and perhaps additional video processing)
    HT: Anthem AVM 50 / PVA-7; Focal JM Lab 4x Chorus 716 S, CC 700 S, 2x Chorus 706S; 2x 12s - Homebuilt Sub
    2CH: B&K PT3 s2, Anthem PVA-2, VonSchweikert VR-1
    Computer: Denon AVR 2805, Old Tecnic & Optimus Speakers
    2004 KTM 200 SX
    2003 Spyder
    2002 Single Cab, 3" cornfed lift, 34"LTB & 31" AT's
    ONLINE PHOTO ALBUM

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •