"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[shokhead]

I said the same thing about Sony somewhere else and got the crap kicked out of me because others said,its not Sony who should be blamed. BTW,mostly everything we like are niche,dont you think? DVD-A,SACD,Dualdisc,DTS,HD,BlueRay,all that good fun stuff.

[superpanavision70mm]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! 2-channel is great and so is 5.1. It's purely up to the listener as to which one he/she likes. If you want to invest money in 2 channel than so be it, if you feel that surround information adds to the experience than go that route. However, here is the bigger question....which one allows you to do both? Ahhhh, now that's where it gets interesting.

I can play things back in 2 channel and 5.1/6.1, but someone who has a dedicated 2 channel setup...they are not able to go to 5.1 with a flick of a button. So I play stereo when I want the pure 2 channel sound of CD's or even some 2.0 SACDs. I then swith over to 5.1 when playing content with that information on it.

Ok, let's see if this debate still goes on and on........

[Bernd]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! 2-channel is great and so is 5.1. It's purely up to the listener as to which one he/she likes. If you want to invest money in 2 channel than so be it, if you feel that surround information adds to the experience than go that route. However, here is the bigger question....which one allows you to do both? Ahhhh, now that's where it gets interesting.

I can play things back in 2 channel and 5.1/6.1, but someone who has a dedicated 2 channel setup...they are not able to go to 5.1 with a flick of a button. So I play stereo when I want the pure 2 channel sound of CD's or even some 2.0 SACDs. I then swith over to 5.1 when playing content with that information on it.

Ok, let's see if this debate still goes on and on........

I think you missunderstood my intentions. I am not after to see which one is better. The same as you can't compare Apples with Oranges or electric guitar with an accoustic one.
I want to find out if it is possible, in a similar priceband, to get quality reproduction of the same high standard that I am used to with 2 CH, with MC.
So far my experience has not been so good. As I mentioned before if I have to split my Speaker budget from 2 to 5 I have to loose out somewhere on quality.
Also I am surprised how entrenched the two sides are when yet it is about enjoyment. I am only suspicious of the claims how much better MC is and I will try my best to satisfy my yearning, if I can solve the Speaker Issue.
I don't want a switch to select between 2Ch and MC. I am trying to build a dedicated MC system to compare. I will give it every chance and with a completely open mind.
Wooch thanks for some of the music recommendations. I could do with some more.
I will be loking at a Copland set up tonight (CVA 306 and CVA 535). Looks promising.
All advice and suggestions are welcome.

Peace

Bernd

[Feanor]

...
I don't want a switch to select between 2Ch and MC. I am trying to build a dedicated MC system to compare. I will give it every chance and with a completely open mind
....
Bernd

I agree with this because I think the skeptic will be persuaded of the inherent advantages of MC with a relatively modest setup (-- such as the one I suggested above).

Software is important however. As R.L. (I think it was) pointed out, reissues in MC that were not recorded with MC in mind are not, in general, going to convince. Seek out the latest, best classical recordings produced with MC in mind. I will provide a short list of ones I think are pretty good as soon as I can get to it.

[kexodusc]

I agree with this because I think the skeptic will be persuaded of the inherent advantages of MC with a relatively modest setup (-- such as the one I suggested above).

Software is important however. As R.L. (I think it was) pointed out, reissues in MC that were not recorded with MC in mind are not, in general, going to convince. Seek out the latest, best classical recordings produced with MC in mind. I will provide a short list of ones I think are pretty good as soon as I can get to it.

RL's point was a good one. MC isn't a lost cause for "old" recordings though. Many modern recordings are done in multi-channel, and there are more than few classic recordings that were done in the Quad era....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! What an amazing coincidence. I own it on vinyl, cd, and SACD. There is no comparison - hi-rez and tru multichannel. I am such a huge fan of this disc and Beethoven's 5th, that the decision to incororate MC audio into my setup was worth this masterpiece alone. Everything else is just gravy.

[Bernd]

[QUOTE=kexodusc] ....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! [ QUOTE]

I had no idea you are that old.

Peace

Bernd

[Feanor]

RL's point was a good one. MC isn't a lost cause for "old" recordings though. Many modern recordings are done in multi-channel, and there are more than few classic recordings that were done in the Quad era....Beethoven's 5th and 7th Symphonies - Kleiber on Deutsche Grammaphone is the pinnacle of this, IMO. SACD was the first time ever that this performance was reproduced the way it was originally intended!!! What an amazing coincidence. I own it on vinyl, cd, and SACD. There is no comparison - hi-rez and tru multichannel. I am such a huge fan of this disc and Beethoven's 5th, that the decision to incororate MC audio into my setup was worth this masterpiece alone. Everything else is just gravy.

I had another listen this morning to the 1st movement to reinforce my opinion. And that is that this DG SACD is a not an ideal MC demo, especially for those disinclined to believe in MC's inherent strengths.

To put it succinctly, there is too much instrumental content coming through the rear channels -- too easy for the skeptic to dismiss this as gimmicky.

In the same short audition I also listen to other, IMO, much more convincing SACDs:

• Shostakovich: Symphonies 5 & 9; Valery Gergiev / Kirov Orchestra. Philips 470 651-2; (recorded/mastered in 24 bit / 48 kHz PCM)
• Haydn: The Creation; VokalEnsemble Koln, etc. Naxos 6.110073-74; (mastered in DSD)

Both of these are excellent and use the rear channels purely for ambience. The soundstage and imaging are truly amazing, transcending anything possible in stereo, IMO. (The centre channel not doubt helps with the precise imaging, but I'm not sure its the whole explanation.) My impression is that the reproduction of crescendos with tympani or other bass, reaches a whole new level of impact unknown in stereo even when using a sub -- maybe this is merely the result of 6 bass drivers instead of 2 or 3, I can't say for sure.

On the issue of PCM record/master versus pure DSD, I have no opinion. Both of the above sounded great, but the Haydn perhaps better: this might or might not have to do with DSD vs. PCM.

[Resident Loser]

This whole argument is about as dumb as trying to compare electic guitars to acoustic guitars. Which one is better? BOTH! .

...it depends...are you playng Fernando Sor's "Variations On A Theme From Die Zauberflote" or the James Gang's "Funk 49"?

jimHJJ(...different tools for different jobs...)

[shokhead]

Man,just buy 3 more speakers and listen to MC.

[kexodusc]

Just to reiterate...Beethoven composed the music, Kleiber did a good job of ensuring a solid performance, but the goal of the recording that night was to capture the performance in that particular hall. And it did - mission accomplished.

Pretty sure Ludder (as I call him) would have been a multi-channel advocate too...

[bobsticks]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities. Much to his chagrin and much to my delight, it makes him backpeddle a bit---no matter how senseless the charge.
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanan as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers

[GMichael]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities. Much to his chagrin and much to my delight, it makes him backpeddle a bit---no matter how senseless the charge.
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanon as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers

One vote from me. I know that he wants more money in everyone's pockets. No hunger or war. And a pair of great speakers in everyone's living room.

[Resident Loser]

...but I think RL's comment was directed at me. For the record, I was in on the joke and was merely taking a poke at Bernd's more liberal sensibilities.

...as evidenced by his response (which pre-dates mine by mere minutes; both simply crossed in the mail), Bernd seems to have been under the same impression as I was...curious that...and no, my further comment was meant as a more general indictment...a closer reading of some of the posts will easily reveal my motivations...As I've said to others in the past, you'll know when it's personal...

jimHJJ(...as of yet, I see no reason for it to take that tack...)

[Bernd]

...
...For my next trick, I'll have Bernd running for a position in the English Parliament on the new, American-style "Neo Conservative Party" with Pat Buchanan as Issues Director and Ann Coulter as Chief Spokeswoman/Spokesperson...

Cheers

Thanks for proposing me. I have thought about it all night (another sleepless one, damn), and I must decline as I am not twisted enough to compete with the Scheisters of the moment. I am however standing, for money in everybodys pocket, no hunger, no war and a decent pair of speakers (if you want MC you have to spent some of that green yourself) in everybodys home. Now that's a start.

Peace

Bernd

[audio_dude]

wow, very good read!

[kexodusc]

I hope you don't stop sharing your thoughts Bernd. Some of us will just have to accept that it's very possibly your ears just don't like MC. It could be after decades of establishing familiarity with stereo, deviations from the "norm" don't appeal to you. Could be the room, equipment, or an irrational bias. Or it could just be that multichannel audio sucks to you.

That's fine. At least you tried and gave it an honest effort, which is more than most opponents I know have done.

I was in the same boat until 2 years ago. Now I've converted to the multi-chanel camp, but ironically enough I still listen to 2-channel stereo much more. Just a simple matter of owning 15 CD's/LP's for evey DVD-A/SACD I have.

One thing I've observed. It seems the multichannel advocates can thoroughly 2-channel stereo playback, but the stereo advocates can't enjoy multi-channel audio.

I sympathize with the cable subjectivist camp - I get quite frustrated when I read comments on web forums, or hear people in stores saying how stereo is better than multic-channel, when I know it isn't. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Florian]

I get quite frustrated when I read comments on web forums, or hear people in stores saying how stereo is better than multic-channel, when I know it isn't.

Kinda like me when i hear that a box speaker sounds neutral

[shokhead]

TV could do that if you have your mains in back of the tv,do ya?

[audio_dude]

haha, i get the thousandth view!

[shokhead]

Well have fun listening to all the good stuff. I think you'll enjoy the MC in a good setup.

[Feanor]

I just read Andrew Quint's article in The Absolute Sound, Issue 162, with the above title. Quint has hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

He says, "... I don't think it's the wider and more nuanced dynamics, the truer instrumental and vocal timbres, and the greater detail that high-resolution brings to the table".
...
Friends, forget vinyl. For that matter, for get tubes, kilobuck cables, and tweaks of minimal, not to say, imaginary benefit. For real improvement look to multichannel.

I guess it's all my fault from the beginning that this thread has degenerated into the usual squabble about SS vs. tubes and vinyl vs. digital. I shouldn't have mentioned them, though perhaps it would have made no difference.

Really, all I really meant to say was that MC is relatively a greater improvement than the difference betweens between these things. I didn't mean to imply that there were no SS/tube or vinyl/digital differences, nor that one was better than the other.

Hey, I suspect there are a few MC tube preamps out there, and tube amps are a dime a dozen, (in a manner of speaking). So if you must have tubes, it doesn't necessarily rule out MC.

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!!

[Florian]

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!!

I have 2 discs ;-)

[Bernd]

I guess it's all my fault from the beginning that this thread has degenerated into the usual squabble about SS vs. tubes and vinyl vs. digital. I shouldn't have mentioned them, though perhaps it would have made no difference.

Really, all I really meant to say was that MC is relatively a greater improvement than the difference betweens between these things. I didn't mean to imply that there were no SS/tube or vinyl/digital differences, nor that one was better than the other.

Hey, I suspect there are a few MC tube preamps out there, and tube amps are a dime a dozen, (in a manner of speaking). So if you must have tubes, it doesn't necessarily rule out MC.

As for preferring vinyl, well I guess you could track down a few of the Quadraphonic discs!!

Feanor my old buddy it is not your fault at all. A conversation is a living thing and to my mind it should explore other avenues. I think I am to blame as much as the next man(Woman) for taking threads of course. Otherwise just imagine how two dimensional it would become, and how would we gain knowledge. I for once have gained quite a bit of insight through E-Stats, Kexs, and Sirr TTs postings on this thread. Might not agree with all of them but thats life. It will certainly help me to evaluate my next two auditions into MC (to bring it back on track).
I only ever owned two Quadrophonic Discs (one was by Nektar-Remember the Future the other I can not recall). A great recording the Nektar one. I have got it now on Vinyl in the 2 CH. I even dabbled in the Quadrophonic in the 70s and I didn't like it then. Some Japanese amp I can't recall Revox Speakers and a Dual TT.
Have a good week.

Peace

Bernd

[E-Stat]

one was by Nektar-Remember the Future the other I can not recall)

Now there's a piece of music I haven't thought about in a while. Ages ago, I wore out my vinyl copy. Most folks wouldn't understand how you could combine yodeling and rock music!

rw

[Bernd]

I know. Allan "Taff"Freeman became quiet a famous DJ I think.
As I remeber right the Record came in two guises. One was done by the Passport Label and one I think by Bacillus, who also released the Quad version. The Bacillus cover also felt very different almost like brushed satin. I still have that one here.
Must play it tonight. I feel a prog evening at the horizion.

And with this I have Post # 1000

Peace

Bernd