How loud do you listen?

[Feanor]

I've heard countless two way systems, and NOTHING significantly sounds more like live music than my system. However, EVERY high-end multichannel I have heard, simply sounds live in a way that even the best stereo one doesn't. Yes, IMO. ...

I agree about multi-channel.

..
BTW, TTT must have a huge listening room to hold all those speakers.

I think you can be sure of that!

[mlsstl]

Sounds like quite a recording, but I ask, what is the theoretical dynamic range of a vinyl LP? Also, there is a big difference between an average level of 70 dB and 85 dB.

It is difficult to find a turntable with a rumble spec more that -60 or -65 dB. (In fact, most of the really high end turntable don't list a specification for this, presumably due to the fact the numbers aren't impressively big enough.)

People also forget that LP production also requires a 40 dB adjustment to frequency response when the records are cut. To keep groove size manageable (and trackable), bass frequencies are cut up to 20 dB and highs boosted 20 dB. The playback curve corrects for this.

As a result, records are limited to about 15 minutes a side if you want full bass response at the LP's maximum volume level. (This is why records with long sides either lose bass, volume or both.)

And, as a side comment, the main problem with HT for an avid music listener is simply a dearth of material. I'd probably lose 99% of my collection if I were limited to that format.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And, as a side comment, the main problem with HT for an avid music listener is simply a dearth of material. I'd probably lose 99% of my collection if I were limited to that format.

You are looking at this from the wrong angle. You don't lose a thing with a multichannel system, you gain flexibility with it. Can you play multichannel recordings on your two channel system? The logical answer is no, you would be missing or folding the other channels. Not the optimum way to listen to multichannel. Can I play stereo recordings on my multichannel system? The answer is a resounding yes! The added benefit is that I can send all of the bass below 80hz to a subwoofer, which actually increases the dynamics of the main channels. This can't been done with a stereo system.

I am a lover of classical music, and classical music heard in high resolution is quite a different experience than with redbook CD. There are ton's of classical music recordings in the high resolution multichannel format. I have almost 800 titles on SACD, DVD-A, Bluray, and personal recordings.

[mlsstl]

I won't argue that you can't play 2 channel music on an HT system. In my case, I simply have no room nor the extra money for the calibre of equipment I'd want in expanding to an HT system. Also, no one in our household has the least interest in the genre of movies that seem to make the most use of multi-channel sound, so no justification there for me.

Even though you personally have a lot titles (though your "personal recordings" don't help me any more than the private items in my collection do anything for you), there's little new stuff being released SACD or DVD-A and not a whole lot of Blu Ray audio either. Looking at all 3 categories combined, we're talking a title inventory of maybe three-tenths of one percent of the total CD releases available.

So, no debate that it sounds great when you have that special recording, but acquiring the system is a lot of work and expense for a low-percentage experience. It all works a lot better when one also has a strong interest in Hollywood's current offerings, which I don't.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I won't argue that you can't play 2 channel music on an HT system. In my case, I simply have no room nor the extra money for the calibre of equipment I'd want in expanding to an HT system. Also, no one in our household has the least interest in the genre of movies that seem to make the most use of multi-channel sound, so no justification there for me.

While I understand that I cannot comment on folks personal spaces or finances, the idea that it takes more money to put together a good quality multichannel system that what some spend on a two channel system is ridiculous.

Even though you personally have a lot titles (though your "personal recordings" don't help me any more than the private items in my collection do anything for you), there's little new stuff being released SACD or DVD-A and not a whole lot of Blu Ray audio either. Looking at all 3 categories combined, we're talking a title inventory of maybe three-tenths of one percent of the total CD releases available.

I guess my audio priorities and your are quite different. I look for quality, not quantity. I would strongly prefer a small catalog of high resolution releases over a huge catalog of medium resolution releases.

So, no debate that it sounds great when you have that special recording, but acquiring the system is a lot of work and expense for a low-percentage experience. It all works a lot better when one also has a strong interest in Hollywood's current offerings, which I don't.

I do not agree with you here AT ALL. Putting together a multichannel system is no more(and one can argue even less) of a hassle than putting together a two channel system.

[mlsstl]

Guess we'll just have to agree our priorities are different. I'm very happy with my Spendor monitors and tube amp. There are very few other speakers I've ever heard that do voice the way they do and I'm not really interested in replacing them or trying to find compatible additional speakers for which I don't have placement spots. Just because it's not a hassle for you doesn't mean others are similarly blessed.

I'd hope that, when you look at your own list of equipment, you'd admit it is somewhat out of the ordinary and simply not practical for most.

As for the music catalog, there is simply far too much music that I love that isn't available in high res, be it 2 channel or more. I just don't buy that taking my Pablo Casals 1938 mono recording of Bach's unaccompanied cello suites and playing multi-channel games with it improves anything. I understand that "interesting" things can be done with digital processing, but a lot it comes off to my ear as the audio equivalent of colorizing classic B&W films. A lot of people like that, but it's not for me.

Simply put, a "small catalog of high resolution releases" simply loses too much music for me.

Sounds like we've found different ways to pursue our hobby that, while rewarding for our respective selves, would not be suitable for the other.

[Feanor]

...
I am a lover of classical music, and classical music heard in high resolution is quite a different experience than with redbook CD. There are ton's of classical music recordings in the high resolution multichannel format. I have almost 800 titles on SACD, DVD-A, Bluray, and personal recordings.

I've discovered this, albeit on a more modest scale -- maybe 3 dozen recordings. But no doubt m/c is ultimately a higher level of experience of classical music.

My very modest Sony Blu-ray plays SACD, converting DSD to PCM for output via HDMI. The fact that it's PCM permits my Onkyo AVR to provide its full DSP, that is, equalization and time delay. It's great.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Guess we'll just have to agree our priorities are different. I'm very happy with my Spendor monitors and tube amp. There are very few other speakers I've ever heard that do voice the way they do and I'm not really interested in replacing them or trying to find compatible additional speakers for which I don't have placement spots. Just because it's not a hassle for you doesn't mean others are similarly blessed.

Most folks make it more of a hassle than it really is. The only real hassle is the same hassle you have when you put together a two channel system - and that is the choice of speakers and sub. Positioning these speakers is well documented and achievable (even in small room via minimonitors), and calibrating and equalizing is just one push of a button via Audyssey room calibration.

I'd hope that, when you look at your own list of equipment, you'd admit it is somewhat out of the ordinary and simply not practical for most.

That is just one system. My smallest system is quite simple and does extremely well with high resolution multichannel audio(movies and music). It features a Onkyo PR-SC5508, Emotiva QPA-5 and 3, and seven custom upgraded mini-monitors with a H-PAS sub. A Oppo BD-93 handles the disc's.

As for the music catalog, there is simply far too much music that I love that isn't available in high res, be it 2 channel or more. I just don't buy that taking my Pablo Casals 1938 mono recording of Bach's unaccompanied cello suites and playing multi-channel games with it improves anything. I understand that "interesting" things can be done with digital processing, but a lot it comes off to my ear as the audio equivalent of colorizing classic B&W films. A lot of people like that, but it's not for me.

If this is your impression of high resolution multichannel audio, then I would say you are VERY inexperienced with the format. I would also add that recording techniques and quality have come a long way since 1938.

Simply put, a "small catalog of high resolution releases" simply loses too much music for me.

Sounds like we've found different ways to pursue our hobby that, while rewarding for our respective selves, would not be suitable for the other.

Once again, you don't lose anything with a multichannel audio system, you gain flexibility. You can play anything from your 1938 mono recording, to 2L reference multichannel recordings on it, so where is the loss? There are no limits to what you can play back on a multichannel audio system, but there is with a two channel system. So exactly where is the loss in this scenario? Your focus on the software side of things causes you to lose focus on the bigger picture.

[mlsstl]

Terrence, you seem to have a one track mind. What is so hard to understand that I simply do not have a place to put nor want five speakers and a subwoofer in my room, no matter how "easy" it is for you? I'm glad your multiple systems make you happy, but that's you, not me.

You also completely miss the point about the 1938 Pablo Casals recording. Sure, recordings have improved since then, but Pablo's been dead for almost 40 years. He isn't making any new records. The same thing is true about many artists who have performances that cannot be duplicated by any current artist (who may have fine recordings of their own, but those performances are not the same).

So we're back to the same thing I said last time. I'm not interested in spending more money on equipment that is ill-suited for my situation that does nothing for the bulk of my collection (even if it is nice enough to "allow" me to continue doing what I do now) , just so I can gain an advantage on a small percentage of modern recordings. To me, it's like building a system so the old Lincoln Mayorga Sheffield LPs were at their sonic peak - it still wasn't worth it as the music wasn't very good.

I know you're an avid HT enthusiast, but like anything else in life, opinions do vary. This reminds me of conversations I had some years back with a Martin Logan dealer. I've always heard poor integration between their electrostatic panels and the conventional woofer. His answer was always that I hadn't heard the latest model - that would change my mind. It never did; the "house sound" was always there, but that never prevented him from telling me that next time would be different. He was always looking for a story to make me like MLs and save me from myself.

Now, perhaps this is all due to my unsophisticated ear or inherent ignorance, but I've stated where I stand. Perhaps your time would be better spent aimed at a different prospect.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, you seem to have a one track mind. What is so hard to understand that I simply do not have a place to put nor want five speakers and a subwoofer in my room, no matter how "easy" it is for you? I'm glad your multiple systems make you happy, but that's you, not me.

I think I have made in patently clear that I respect an individual preference, but I do separate that from the benefits of a format. You may not have the budget or space to do multichannel, but it does not take away from the quality and flexibility of the software or hardware. I am simply saying some of your arguments are without merit on careful scrutiny. The amount of software is not tied to the flexibility of the hardware, and it is short sighted to look at this in that way.

You also completely miss the point about the 1938 Pablo Casals recording. Sure, recordings have improved since then, but Pablo's been dead for almost 40 years. He isn't making any new records. The same thing is true about many artists who have performances that cannot be duplicated by any current artist (who may have fine recordings of their own, but those performances are not the same).

And you have missed the point as well. It has been well documented that you get better performance from a dedicated speaker, than you get from phantom images placed in between them. Having a dedicated center speaker playing back mono recordings(based on the quality of the speaker) is far more an accurate presentation than phantom images between two speakers. THX and the Canadian Radio Society have both conducted measurements and listening test on this that have been published through AES and SMPTE. With all things being equal, a mono recording will sound better coming from the center channel of a multichannel audio system, than it would as a phantom image between tow speakers.

So we're back to the same thing I said last time. I'm not interested in spending more money on equipment that is ill-suited for my situation that does nothing for the bulk of my collection (even if it is nice enough to "allow" me to continue doing what I do now) , just so I can gain an advantage on a small percentage of modern recordings. To me, it's like building a system so the old Lincoln Mayorga Sheffield LPs were at their sonic peak - it still wasn't worth it as the music wasn't very good.

Can't argue with personal opinion can I? Everyone has their standards.....

I know you're an avid HT enthusiast, but like anything else in life, opinions do vary. This reminds me of conversations I had some years back with a Martin Logan dealer. I've always heard poor integration between their electrostatic panels and the conventional woofer. His answer was always that I hadn't heard the latest model - that would change my mind. It never did; the "house sound" was always there, but that never prevented him from telling me that next time would be different. He was always looking for a story to make me like MLs and save me from myself.

Let's not get this twisted, I am not interested in changing your mind, but responding to your inexperience and not so realistic perspective. I have absolutely no interest in changing a mind stuck in a vice grip.

Now, perhaps this is all due to my unsophisticated ear or inherent ignorance, but I've stated where I stand. Perhaps your time would be better spent aimed at a different prospect.

See above.....

[E-Stat]

Once again, you don't lose anything with a multichannel audio system, you gain flexibility.

Would you rather have a two channel system with the Dunlavys driven by the 28B or your small MC system?

There is absolutely no question as to which I would prefer for the vast majority of recorded music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Would you rather have a two channel system with the Dunlavys driven by the 28B or your small MC system?

There is absolutely no question as to which I would prefer for the vast majority of recorded music.

This is the wrong question to ask considering the Dunlavy's can not be optimized in the room the size of my small MC room sits in, and the small MC system could not be optimized for playback in a size room the Dunlavy's are optimized for. In that 12x15x10 room I would strongly prefer the MC system because it is properly scaled for that size room.

[E-Stat]

... the small MC system could not be optimized for playback in a size room the Dunlavy's are optimized for.

So you can lose something with MC.

Obviously, the real world question is what you could do with a given budget. Once again, there is absolutely no question in my mind what I'd do with any budget less than about $100k. For those who understand the level of performance available on the market today, you must necessarily compromise the component quality for five (or seven) channels as compared with only two.

It all depends upon what you'd rather sacrifice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you can lose something with MC.

It has nothing to do with MC as a format, but scaling the speakers properly with the room. If you don't properly scale the system to the room, you are going to have gross reproduction issues regardless of the sound format.

Obviously, the real world question is what you could do with a given budget. Once again, there is absolutely no question in my mind what I'd do with any budget less than about $100k. For those who understand the level of performance available on the market today, you must necessarily compromise the component quality for five (or seven) channels as compared with only two.

It all depends upon what you'd rather sacrifice.

Its a snip here to gain something there, and that goes for both stereo and multichannel. The price of the components alone do not equate to performance. What you gain in paying more per component with stereo, you lose in spatial accuracy and system flexibility. What you could potentially gain along the stereo axis, you lose down the center axis, and to the sides and rear. A little snip in ultimate performance gains you access to a better center, and side and rear axis. The trade offs is incremental increase in quality versus a more realistic playback spatially. As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo. At some point the pipeline chokes any quality gains afforded by the equipment quality. You can only squeeze so much out of two channels, and at 16/44.1khz

[E-Stat]

Its a snip here to gain something there, and that goes for both stereo and multichannel.

You've just rephrased my concluding comment.

As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.

Such is true - when factors like resolution, microdynamics, and coherence are unimportant to you.

At some point the pipeline chokes any quality gains afforded by the equipment quality.

It remains a shame that the music industry at large doesn't grasp that concept. Imagine finding all your favorite music available in hi-rez - instead of iTunes format.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You've just rephrased my concluding comment.

Fleshed it out would be more appropriate

Such is true - when factors like resolution, microdynamics, and coherence are unimportant to you.

If this was not important to me, I would not be talking about high resolution audio so much. How much of this do you think you are getting from 16/44.1khz audio when compared to 24/96khz or 24/192khz?

It remains a shame that the music industry at large doesn't grasp that concept. Imagine finding all your favorite music available in hi-rez - instead of iTunes format.

Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it. If you don't support something, then the industry does not think you are interested in it.

[Feanor]

...
Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it. If you don't support something, then the industry does not think you are interested in it.

I blame ageing audiophiles adherence to vinyl LP and prejudice against digital -- something I've never understood.

[E-Stat]

If this was not important to me, I would not be talking about high resolution audio so much.

First of all, there is no correlation between the resolution of the recording and the number of channels. What's really important, however, is system resolution. As in the sum of all of the parts. A hi-rez recording played back through lesser gear will still sound like lesser gear.

Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it.

The CD format became successful because the industry wholly supported a single format. It didn't confuse buyers by offering multiple formats for some, but not all content. Not to mention penalizing legitimate buyers from the convenience of ripping content for computer based audio. Clearly, Sony shot itself in the foot. You can buy hi-rez downloads on places like HDTracks, but you're limited to niche artists and remastered old stuff. BR Audio will remain a niche product like vinyl because buyers don't want to be limited to using a disk player.

[E-Stat]

I blame ageing audiophiles...

I've got news for you. The success or failure of anything having to do with the music industry has nothing at all to do with that tiny minority of the market called audiophiles.

Think back to the days when vinyl was the only game. How much content was recorded direct-to-disk or pressed in 12" 45 RPM?

[tube fan]

I love my stereo system (Dunlavy SCIV, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3, Auditorum 23 tranny, Audio Research SP8 or Mystere CA 21 preamp, Audio Research D70 amp, Audio Research PH3 phono). NOTHING I have heard, either at an audio show, or at a store improves on my system (yes, IMO). HOWEVER, I have heard three high end MC systems, and they all are VASTLY more realistic than my system. Conclusion: I need a bigger listening room, and a bigger audio budget!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, there is no correlation between the resolution of the recording and the number of channels. What's really important, however, is system resolution. As in the sum of all of the parts. A hi-rez recording played back through lesser gear will still sound like lesser gear.

I guess our views of the sum of all the parts is quite different. Your focus on the quality of the gear just like most audiophiles. My sum of all the parts begins with the room, then the equipment, and then the resolution of the source. What is "lesser" gear when everyone sound preference is quite different?. This sounds like subjective snobbery to me. My "lesser" gear opinion may be sombody else's idea of superior gear. So what decides "lesser" gear, our sound preference, cost? Surely you can't be saying that your idea, or somebody else's idea of good sound sets the mark for good sound, and the rest of us the might disagree surely has "tin"ears.

The CD format became successful because the industry wholly supported a single format. It didn't confuse buyers by offering multiple formats for some, but not all content. Not to mention penalizing legitimate buyers from the convenience of ripping content for computer based audio. Clearly, Sony shot itself in the foot. You can buy hi-rez downloads on places like HDTracks, but you're limited to niche artists and remastered old stuff. BR Audio will remain a niche product like vinyl because buyers don't want to be limited to using a disk player.

Upon close scrutiny some of your points fail. SACD's decline(not demise) started before computer based audio was widely talked about, or way people listen to audio. And the reason that places like HDTracks exist is because some people like high quality audio that might be too "niche" for places like Itunes. These same people do not like to listen to "lossy" highly compressed audio

SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels. And the reasons sited for this unwillingness(lesser qualtiy and cost) are just nothing more than excuses to justify their hanging on to two channel formats.

[Feanor]

...
SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels. And the reasons sited for this unwillingness(lesser qualtiy and cost) are just nothing more than excuses to justify their hanging on to two channel formats.

Without disagreeing I would added that SACD has always available in a stereo version; if I'm not mistaken, the earliest SACDs were stereo only.

At the time SACD was launched the vinyl revival had already begun. Many audiophiles had decided they didn't like digital based on early CD experience. Hence many hard-core audiophiles were biased against SACD only because it was digital. Add to that that the first SACD, (mainly stereo), players were relatively expensive and they stayed away in droves.

Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.

[Brett A]

So much if it has to do with the hardware.

I just bought my first universal player; a Marantz DV-8400. It was cheap enough to buy it out of curiosity. It plays Redbook CDs and SACDs well as DVD-As I don't have any DVD-As, but i do have several SACD (hybrids). I have found that my 12+ year old Rotel RCD-991AE playing a redbook CD sounds much better than the Marantz even when it's playing SACD.

Now I don't intend to make a blanket statement here, I'm just saying that the format, to a very large degree, is secondary to the hardware that's spinning it.

I've also found the further up the quality lines you go, the more the formats sound alike; CDs get warmer and smoother and LPs get clearer, more resolved and more open sounding.

EDIT TO ADD:

Oh, and BTW, I listen around 80db with peaks sometimes over 100.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Without disagreeing I would added that SACD has always available in a stereo version; if I'm not mistaken, the earliest SACDs were stereo only.

You are correct, and that was to appeal to audiophiles first. They would not even embrace that.

At the time SACD was launched the vinyl revival had already begun. Many audiophiles had decided they didn't like digital based on early CD experience. Hence many hard-core audiophiles were biased against SACD only because it was digital. Add to that that the first SACD, (mainly stereo), players were relatively expensive and they stayed away in droves.

Annd this is an aside to the fact that the first SACD stereo players cost about the same as a good turntable and high quality cartidge.

Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.

I agree, and never mind that vinyl is the least accurate as well. This is why the word "audiophile" has so confused me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So much if it has to do with the hardware.

I just bought my first universal player; a Marantz DV-8400. It was cheap enough to buy it out of curiosity. It plays Redbook CDs and SACDs well as DVD-As I don't have any DVD-As, but i do have several SACD (hybrids). I have found that my 12+ year old Rotel RCD-991AE playing a redbook CD sounds much better than the Marantz even when it's playing SACD.

Now I don't intend to make a blanket statement here, I'm just saying that the format, to a very large degree, is secondary to the hardware that's spinning it.

I've also found the further up the quality lines you go, the more the formats sound alike; CDs get warmer and smoother and LPs get clearer, more resolved and more open sounding.

EDIT TO ADD:

Oh, and BTW, I listen around 80db with peaks sometimes over 100.

The hardware does play a huge role, but the hardware does not make much difference if the software is flawed, and the room the hardware plays in is flawed. The software has to be of very high quality, and the room has to be treated to reduce it influence before the quality of the hardware really makes a huge difference.