"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[Woochifer]

Feanor -

I totally agree with you about the virtues of multichannel. As Terrence and Kex have already mentioned, a good multichannel recording along with a properly timbre matched and calibrated multichannel system can reproduce specific facets of live performance that I have never heard properly reproduced by any two-channel system. In my listenings, much of this has to do with accurately rendering the hall ambience, specifically placing the seating location and conveying the size of the space, and stabilizing the side imaging and giving the front soundstage depth.

Doesn't matter how much people invest in a two-channel setup, there are specific things that two channels simply cannot do, and the limitations are evident by comparing a good multichannel mix with the two-channel mixdown of the same recording. For example, the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler series has been issued as 5.1 SACD/CD hybrid discs. As great as the two-channel mixes sound, the 5.1 tracks simply render an entirely different listening dimension that IMO is truer to how Davies Symphony Hall actually sounds (I typically attend 3-4 shows a year at Davies, and will go there again in two weeks for Mahler's Eighth [the epic Symphony of a Thousand]). From having attended one of those recorded Mahler concerts, I know that the mic position just forward of the podium. And accordingly, the 5.1 subjectively puts the listening on the stage at the conductor position, a perspective that two-channels simply cannot render.

With Mobile Fidelity's reissues of the Vox quad recordings done by Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickrenz, the capture of the hall ambience gives the listener a sense of space that the two-channel mixdown simply does not convey as deliberately or consistently.

I think a big part of the resistance to multichannel, aside from inertia and how strongly a lot of consumers associate multichannel only with movies and not with music, is simply the difficulty of finding a properly done demonstration setup. Optimizing a multichannel setup takes a lot more than simply placing the speakers on the floor and tweaking with everything by ear. In order to get multichannel alignment to sound optimal, you have to get the timbre match right, the angling has to be optimal and symmetrical (much more difficult to do with five speakers than with two), and the processor settings have to be accounted for, as do issues with the room acoustics and location. This entails measuring and using things like measuring tapes, SPL meters, and protractors to get the reference points consistent.

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music). The others used any number of different alignments (often just sitting on a shelf, or installed on the wall at an assymetrial alignment, or not timbre matched, etc.), none of which could properly render the full depth and imaging that multichannel mixes are capable of. And just in my time visiting store demo rooms, I've found that most of the receivers/processors are not set correctly, even at high end stores, because the customers will often tinker with the settings. If this is what people are using to judge multichannel audio, then it's no wonder they're so quick to dismiss its attributes.

Recording engineers are only beginning to learn what to do with the extra channels. Just as there are bad stereo mixes, you'll find bad 5.1 mixes as well. But, in order to get the multichannel playback right, there are simply more steps that require optimizing.

[musicman1999]

Wooch
You are completely correct on the point about the set up.It takes a lot of work to do a proper mutichannel setup.A proper music setup and a proper movie setup are usually not the same depending on the room of course.The problem i have in my room is the rear can't be set up for a proper multichannel music setup because of the lay out.The front end is set up pretty well for music however.

bill

[Mike Anderson]

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music).

And those stores were...?

As a fellow SF Bay Arean 2-channel lover, I'd be interested in checking them out.

[Bernd]

As for SirTTs mention off my uneducated post. So be it. I also think very highly of your writings.
Never been to a live event? Who me? I leave it at that.
As for hall ambience I agree that certain places have been designed to sound great. But how many have speakers placed behind you? I have never seen one. And then again I couldn't have as I have never been to a live event.
In my experience the sound is reflected from the side and the back of the venue and that is exactly what my 2 channel set up does, helped by correct room treatments. The last thing I want is a direct source coming from the sides or from behind me.
But as I said all along if that what people like good on them, just not for me. More is not always better.I easy can hear ambient information where they are.
And if you invest in really good equipment and two speakers in the first place you will not need half a dozen boxes. Also look at the cost issue in speaker cable. I happen to believe they make a difference. So if I use the same quality all round it becomes very very expensive. So again not for me.
Whatever sounds right to you and gives you that tingling feeling is the right set up for you.
So where did I put my maiden concert ticket.............

Peace

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for SirTTs mention off my uneducated post. So be it. I also think very highly of your writings.

Thanks for the compliment. Now to be clear, I didn't say YOU were uneducated, I think your post was stated off the cuff, and does not represent what really happens audio wise at a live event.

Never been to a live event? Who me? I leave it at that.

Well if you have, you would never know it by your post

As for hall ambience I agree that certain places have been designed to sound great. But how many have speakers placed behind you? I have never seen one. And then again I couldn't have as I have never been to a live event.

I think you are missing the point here. Concert halls do not have speakers in the rear of the hall. But it does have discrete reflections that come not only from the sides, but the rear and from above as well. A multichannel recording that seeks to pick up the sound of these reflections, (or hall ambience) will placed these reflections to the sides and rear of your listening room. A 5.1 audio system can properly placed these side and rear reflections in your listening room, a two channel stereo system cannot no matter how much it cost.

In my experience the sound is reflected from the side and the back of the venue and that is exactly what my 2 channel set up does, helped by correct room treatments.

Sorry, but your system, and no two channel system can properly place ambient cues in the right position. Since you only have two speakers in front of you, it is impossible for any hall ambience to be placed behind you. The reflections within your room are not part of the recording location, so they cannot be associated with accurate playback of ambient cues that are recorded by microphones placed out in the hall.

The last thing I want is a direct source coming from the sides or from behind me.

You really do not understand the idea of recorded ambience do you? The object is not to have direct sources behind you, but the ambient or hall reflections associated with the direct sound. If a live recording is going to sound really live, those reflections must be recorded with mikes placed out in the hall, and reproduced by speakers located to the sides and rear of your listening room. Once again, this is impossible with two channel stereo.

But as I said all along if that what people like good on them, just not for me. More is not always better.I easy can hear ambient information where they are.

You can hear ambient information were your two speakers place it. Behind the speakers, not behind you!

And if you invest in really good equipment and two speakers in the first place you will not need half a dozen boxes. Also look at the cost issue in speaker cable. I happen to believe they make a difference.

This is a fallacy that you two channel folks expouse so frequently, but is not really accurate at all. If you are going to properly place ambience where it belongs in your listening room, you need a multichannel system to do so. You can spend a million dollars on two channel equipment, and still not be able to place ambient cues in the right place. If there are no speakers to the sides or behind the listening seat, then it is impossible for the ambient cues in a recording to be placed there.

So if I use the same quality all round it becomes very very expensive. So again not for me.
Whatever sounds right to you and gives you that tingling feeling is the right set up for you.
So where did I put my maiden concert ticket.............

Peace

Bernd

When you go to that concert, check to see if you hear everything that is happening in the venue is only coming from the front of the room. I seriously doubt it.

Yes, a very good multichannel speaker system can, but not always be expensive. However, the price that two channel guys spend on their equipment would could be a nice budget for a nice multichannel system. Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?

[Bernd]

Thanks for all the suggestions so far.
Kex made some good points but DIY is out of the question as I have two left hands. I am not going to select equipment on AR members glowing report alone. I would just like a consensus so I can compare a decent MC set up to my own 2 Channel. As for parts that is all subjective. Take my Speakers. The Signature model is £4K more expensive than the base model. I auditioned them both and prefered the Signature. What was changed was the Crossover and the wires inside the box. Was the difference worth 4K ? Who can say. It was to me.

Sir TT, thanks for your reply and I take what you said on board. The reason for me doing this is I would like to find out for myself what all the fuss is about. And yes I do believe that most off the time the more expensive equipment gives you better performance.I worded the concert hall reflection in my listening room wrong and have corrected that with my answer to Feanor. What you put is exactley what I want to find out. Up to now my limited experience with MC has been not good. I just don't like active noise coming from behind me. I didn't like it with Quadrophonie and I havn't liked it yet. I can not see how integration with so many different speakers etc. can work.
So I have some suggestions of gear so far and hopefully I will get some more and I can start this project.

Peace

Bernd

[E-Stat]

Does one really need to spend $10,000+ for a two channel speaker system?

If you are addicted to music, value high resolution and choose wisely, the answer is yes.

rw

[Resident Loser]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

[GMichael]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

Uhm.. You may be spot on. But it's fun anyhow.

[Resident Loser]

Uhm.. You may be spot on. But it's fun anyhow.

...differing definitions of fun...

jimHJJ(...but that's why they make vanilla and chocolate...)

[GMichael]

...differing definitions of fun...

jimHJJ(...but that's why they make vanilla and chocolate...)

My definetion.

Fun: The act of doing something that makes me smile, or the hairs on my arms stand up.

Are we close?

[Bernd]

...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

jimHJJ(...as the bar gets lower...)

My sentiment exactely Jim. Couldn't have put it better myself. Hence the challenge.
How is everything your end?

Peace

Bernd

[Resident Loser]

My sentiment exactely Jim. Couldn't have put it better myself. Hence the challenge.
How is everything your end?

Peace

Bernd

...some folks can't see the forest for the trees and view all technological change as something good...

OK over here...absolutely beautiful day...yesterday's winds have given us a clear sky, some puffy clouds, low humidity and an AM temp of 45 degrees with an expected high only in the mid-60s...give me 365 days of this a year and I'd be a happy man...

jimHJJ(...it makes you feel alive...)

[Bernd]

...some folks can't see the forest for the trees and view all technological change as something good...

OK over here...absolutely beautiful day...yesterday's winds have given us a clear sky, some puffy clouds, low humidity and an AM temp of 45 degrees with an expected high only in the mid-60s...give me 365 days of this a year and I'd be a happy man...

jimHJJ(...it makes you feel alive...)

Mirror image weather wise here, just a bit cooler. But yes that's the right weather for 365.
Take it easy.

Peace

Bernd

[Woochifer]

And those stores were...?

As a fellow SF Bay Arean 2-channel lover, I'd be interested in checking them out.

Those would be Music Lovers Audio over in Berkeley, and a store along the Peninsula that went out of business a few years ago.

A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

As Kex pointed out, you're making a leap of logic here by automatically associating multichannel with mass produced. Plenty of specialty companies out there make both two-channel and multichannel separates, just as there are mass market companies that make both two-channel and multichannel products.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.

"Out perform" is a relative and highly subjective criteria. Like I said, there are things that multichannel can do that two-channel simply cannot. Those facets to my ears are important if the criteria relates to recreating a live event. All you have to do is compare the two-channel and multichannel layers on a decent SACD to hear how much more immersive the multichannel mix can sound.

If you prefer a tube-based sound, then all you have to do is add five channels of tube amplification to a tube-based multichannel passive preamp (I know that Conrad-Johnson makes one), and hook it directly to a multichannel SACD player.

No reason to come to a "consensus" or sell your two-channel system. Just give multichannel a fair listen before you deride it conceptually as "stupid and a great marketing ploy." Keep in mind that at one point stereo was considered by many mono purists as a gimmick as well, and that two-channel has reflected the limitations of the playback formats more so than any inherent technical advantage with that type of alignment (the early Bell Labs research concluded that three speakers were needed to accurately reproduce the front soundstage, and many classical recordings were recorded directly to three channels and unable to be played back as originally intended outside of a studio setting until SACD came along).

Then, of course, we have what I prefer to refer to as performance art, wherein instruments (not just their traveling artifacts) attack from all sides...smacks of ping-pong balls and locomotives of the earlier stereo demo discs and similar sonic wizardry of the quad debacle. Inverted theater-in the-round will take some time to catch on IMHO.

What multichannel music recordings have you actually heard that do this? You're talking a lot about multichannel, but I just wonder how much actual listening and/or hands-on experience with setting up multichannel systems went into forming these observations.

Among the better 5.1 studio recordings that I own or have heard in demos, the surround channels are there to render more precise depth perception and more solidified imaging to what you hear up front. The 5.1 mixes done by Eliot Scheiner (Eagles, Steely Dan, REM) are a good place to start.

[Resident Loser]

Those What multichannel music recordings have you actually heard that do this? You're talking a lot about multichannel, but I just wonder how much actual listening and/or hands-on experience with setting up multichannel systems went into forming these observations.

...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Re: the performance art aspect...some time ago there was a thread or two, suggesting MC might be useful in the scenario of a centralized listener surrounded by the performers...I disagreed with the concept then as I do now...I mentioned it in this thread pre-emptively.

Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...The trick was simply to continue the front hemisphere in an unobtrusive manner...judicious application of the processing was key...focus, localization, all improved (of course, it's only my strictly anecdotal opinion on that)...I'd still be using it today had the unit not malfunctioned and some of the internals gone MD...

So, in a nutshell, MC does little more than what that gear could do. Given the state of digital art, I'm quite sure a processor could have been devised that woud run rings around the 550 and not required any software reissues of that bought-and-paid-for catalog previously mentioned. I don't have a big problem purchasing hardware, it's the rendered-by-the manufacturer obsolete software that irk's me to no end. I have mono shellac and I have mono and stereo vinyl...home brew RTR tape...I have cassettes...I have CDs...each one supplanted by the next in the guise of technological improvement. More like pecuniary improvement for the industry if you ask me.

One other thing to consider: do we hear stereophonically or binaurally? There is a difference.

jimHJJ(...alas, we live in a world of uninspired remakes...teevee, movies, Broadway, plagiarised books...an artistic vacuum and a very proftiable one...)

[Woochifer]

...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Quite the contrary. While a lot of older recordings (e.g. Miles Davis' In A Silent Way) indeed don't provide enough channels to produce a more enveloping listening experience with a 5.1 setup, plenty of reissues DO incorporate the ambient cues in a very convincing way. To compare this with the old "electronically reprocessed for stereo" LPs is laughable if you actually get around to hearing what a multichannel reissue is capable of versus the degraded sound quality that those reprocessed mono recordings provided. The results are very different. Like I asked before, what recordings are you listening to that would lead you to equate discrete multichannel reissues with processed monophonic issues?

Another thing to consider is that a new multichannel mix also allows for big improvements in the sound quality, because the multichannel mix does NOT use the original two-track mixdown as the master source (there are plenty of two-channel SACD reissues that already do that). The original mixdown might have used inferior analog recorders that degraded the signal during successive mixing passes, and used a lot of signal processing (to create the phantom center stereo effect) and compression (to compensate for limitations of the LP medium) along the way. The multichannel Concord Jazz SACD reissues are great examples of how a new mix taken from the original multi-track masters can significantly improve the sound quality over the original two-track mixdowns.

Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...The trick was simply to continue the front hemisphere in an unobtrusive manner...judicious application of the processing was key...focus, localization, all improved (of course, it's only my strictly anecdotal opinion on that)...I'd still be using it today had the unit not malfunctioned and some of the internals gone MD...

HUGE difference comparing discrete multichannel with the old matrixed schemes. Matrix decoders can only do so much compared to the precision and accuracy that discrete surround channels provide.

Even the so-called discrete quad formats entailed so much processing and signal manipulation that I would highly doubt the transparency between the quad LP playback and the original four-track master. The multichannel Aubort/Nickrenz SACD reissues are taken from the original four-channel quad masters that were recorded with mic positions in the hall to capture the ambient cues. The SACD is really the first time that those master recordings have been heard as originally intended because the original quad release used matrix encoding. If you want a demonstration of what multichannel is capable, just do a comparison of the two-channel mixdowns of those recordings (which already sound great) with the four-channel discrete track. In my listenings with a variety of matrix decoders over the years, I've never heard anything that approaches the subjective realism that those four-channel recordings provide.

[Bernd]

So here is my experience on my first step on my MC journey.
I arrived at the guys house (a friend of a client of mine) last night to listen to his MC set-up.
Big TV between the two front channel. Not a good start. Anyway modernistic home (pebbles in glass bowl, etc).
He had the mentioned Copland CVA 306 and CVA 535. Very nice looking electronics.
Primare DVD-30 Universal Player and Proac Speakers Response 1SC,Response D15 Centre Cannel1 and a ER1 Sub. Never been a big fan of proacs floor standers but their Standmounts are very good. Cables were all by Chord Co.
So off we go.
The very first thing I noticed was an artifical low frequency reproduction I did not like and it almost stoped the trial there and then. I asked him to take the sub out as I will not use one in my home. No integration at all, if that is at all possible.
So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.
Anyway we carried on. Unfortunatly he had no TT. So all the comparisions were done with the silver discs.
Before I went to him I popped to the local Virgin store and bought 3 SACD.
Kraftwerk-Minimum Maxium
Moody Blues -Days of Future Past
Ian Shaw - Drawn to all things,the songs of Joni Mitchell
he had for my pleassure
The Eagles - Hotel California
and some Mike Oldfield

The Moody Blues piece I know very well as I have it on prestine Vinyl and it sounds superb. What I heard yesterday I did not care for very much. It was boring and confusing. I had sound coming from behind me and nothing seemed to hold together. Man this disc played on a decent TT with a good Moving coil cartridge into a Tube Phono stage into 2CH wipes the floor with the SACD.
It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying.
I can see how people will be impressed by this presentation and as a second system or to watch movies it is doing a good job. But for ultimate Music enjoyment it failed the test for me.
So the score is 2CH (one) - MC (nill).
But this will not be the only trial.I don't give up that easy. Next week I will try and listen to a Unison Research amp with Final Speakers and a Esoteric Silver disc spinner. Looking forward to it.
The Copland Combo found a place on my shortlist. I am sure with a better disc spinner and different speakers it can do a good job.

Peace

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So here is my experience on my first step on my MC journey.
I arrived at the guys house (a friend of a client of mine) last night to listen to his MC set-up.
Big TV between the two front channel. Not a good start. Anyway modernistic home (pebbles in glass bowl, etc).

I am really curious why a television sitting between the two L/R main speakers presents a problem?

He had the mentioned Copland CVA 306 and CVA 535. Very nice looking electronics.
Primare DVD-30 Universal Player and Proac Speakers Response 1SC,Response D15 Centre Cannel1 and a ER1 Sub. Never been a big fan of proacs floor standers but their Standmounts are very good. Cables were all by Chord Co.

Could the fact that you went into this listening environment with a dislike of his speakers effect what you heard?

So off we go.
The very first thing I noticed was an artifical low frequency reproduction I did not like and it almost stoped the trial there and then. I asked him to take the sub out as I will not use one in my home. No integration at all, if that is at all possible.

I am curious to what you consider "artificial", Was this person using something like a bass generator that adds an octave of information to the bass frequencies? Or are you so used to hearing system without subs that you consider a system that uses them sounds "artificial"?


So onwards.
The whole set up sounded very clean, nice but ultimately un-engaging, boring and somehow artifical to me and lacking in Soundstage and Detail.
However I really liked the presentation of the Coplands. So I reckon that the digital player and the Proacs where holding proceedings back.[/quote]

Could it have been the ROOM that held an exceptable sound from you? Was the room treated in any way? Was the system calibrated for equal distance and amplitude? Where were you sitting in relationship to the speakers, walls etc?

Anyway we carried on. Unfortunatly he had no TT. So all the comparisions were done with the silver discs.

After I read this, I knew that this was more about the fact the guy didn't have a turntable, than it was about actually evaluating what you heard. See below because this is a continuation of this thought process.

The Moody Blues piece I know very well as I have it on prestine Vinyl and it sounds superb. What I heard yesterday I did not care for very much. It was boring and confusing. I had sound coming from behind me and nothing seemed to hold together. Man this disc played on a decent TT with a good Moving coil cartridge into a Tube Phono stage into 2CH wipes the floor with the SACD.

What it sounds like to me is that you didn't really care for the mix, which is apparently a remaster from 2ch to multichannel. Hardly the stuff for evaluating MC the correct way. This has nothing to do with the carrier of the music (SACD) but more of the mix itself (apparently you are not used to artistic remixes of stereo material)

[quote]It progressed in a similar vein. Very nice but no excitment, and somehow very artifical and enoying./quote]

I would say that this was a poor choice of listening material. It is better if you want an honest evaluation of multichannel music to choose music that is recorded for 5.1, choose SACD that are recorded and mastered in DSD (not a reissue of catalog item), and listen on a system that does not use bass manangement of any post processing (post processing tools like delay and bass management forces the signals to be converted from DSD to PCM which detiorates the DSD signal)

I can see how people will be impressed by this presentation and as a second system or to watch movies it is doing a good job. But for ultimate Music enjoyment it failed the test for me.

What would you consider is the ultimate music enjoyment, 2ch stereo?

So the score is 2CH (one) - MC (nill).
But this will not be the only trial.I don't give up that easy. Next week I will try and listen to a Unison Research amp with Final Speakers and a Esoteric Silver disc spinner. Looking forward to it.
The Copland Combo found a place on my shortlist. I am sure with a better disc spinner and different speakers it can do a good job.

Peace

Bernd

It is tough for me to take this whole evaluation seriously. I probably would have if you didn't mention vinyl period. What this particular post became to me after reading it several times is nothing more than a bashing of MC just to prop up your taste for 2ch vinyl. One of the main things I find rediculous about 2ch vinyl lovers is there unwillingness to understand that vinyl is loaded with more distortions (especially after it is played a few times) and the distortions of the stereo format itself. However, they are most willing to bash MC and find everything they can to make it inferior to their almighty favorite.

If you are going to get anything out of this trial of MC, try to leave your personal biases out of the mix, and keep a truely open mind. If you walk in hating the speakers and DVD player, then the evaluation is useless. This becomes more about the electronic you hate, than a evaluation of the format itself.

I am glad to see that you will listen again. Based on what you posted here, I don't think you know enough about the evaluation system calibration, or how much the room played a role in what you heard. Just my 75 cents.

[Resident Loser]

(1)... plenty of reissues DO incorporate the ambient cues in a very convincing way.

(2)...To compare this with the old "electronically reprocessed for stereo" LPs is laughable

(3)... Like I asked before, what recordings are you listening to that would lead you to equate discrete multichannel reissues with processed monophonic issues?

(4)...Another thing to consider is that a new multichannel mix also allows for big improvements in the sound quality, because the multichannel mix does NOT use the original two-track mixdown as the master source (there are plenty of two-channel SACD reissues that already do that). The original mixdown might have used inferior analog recorders that degraded the signal during successive mixing passes, and used a lot of signal processing (to create the phantom center stereo effect) and compression (to compensate for limitations of the LP medium) along the way. The multichannel Concord Jazz SACD reissues are great examples of how a new mix taken from the original multi-track masters can significantly improve the sound quality over the original two-track mixdowns.

(5)...HUGE difference comparing discrete multichannel with the old matrixed schemes. Matrix decoders can only do so much compared to the precision and accuracy that discrete surround channels provide.

(6)...Even the so-called discrete quad formats entailed so much processing and signal manipulation that I would highly doubt the transparency between the quad LP playback and the original four-track master. The multichannel Aubort/Nickrenz SACD reissues are taken from the original four-channel quad masters that were recorded with mic positions in the hall to capture the ambient cues. The SACD is really the first time that those master recordings have been heard as originally intended because the original quad release used matrix encoding. If you want a demonstration of what multichannel is capable, just do a comparison of the two-channel mixdowns of those recordings (which already sound great) with the four-channel discrete track. In my listenings with a variety of matrix decoders over the years, I've never heard anything that approaches the subjective realism that those four-channel recordings provide.

Let's see if I can provide some conceptual continuity to my participation in this thread:

Here's the premise...

Post #30...I am of the opinion...that, with few exceptions, multi-channel (along with ever-changing media) is an industry-wide contrivance...engineered to render, on a regular basis, most hi-fi systems obsolete, behind-the-times, old school, whatever and to provide a plausible reason to repackage/reissue the paid-for (many times over) catalog of music already in the archives...Couple that last reason to the dearth of capable songwriters/performers and fact that most of the so-called new music is cr@p and you got yerself a fool-proof business plan...

Re: point (1)....I don't recall ever saying MCs couldn't be convincing, I did say however:

Post #66...My only objection... ...to multi-channel (other than those previously stated) is that for the most part it has little or no relationship to reality...

Post#72...just my point...since most of the catalog consists of either re-issues or newer recordings done with the tried-and-true methodology......

Re: Points (2)(4)(6)

Post #66...If you are starting from scratch, recording a smallish ensemble in a controlled environment, you might be able to translate it into a relaistic experience in playback...maybe.

Post #77...I'm not so much talking about MC as I am about stereo recordings and the applicable, contemporary SOTA...unfortunately, the MC re-issues seem to be simply, for the most part, a reprocessing of multi-track masters...Unless they include separate ambience information channels, there really aren't too much different from mono reprocessed into stereo IMHO...and yes, I know it's an oversimplification, but I don't want to venure too far afield

Again, if you start from scratch and record a normal presentation AND also the ambient info (room cues, etc.), that would be fine...we all know however, that ain't happnin'...In the case of the Mercury Living Presence 3-channel re-issues, at least the real-deal software is there (albeit not ambient info, rather center-fill) to accomplish it's purpose...I think this is a perfect application for the MC technology...Everything else is an also-ran, a further manipulation of an already over-manipulated and less-than-optimum source.

Re: point (5)

Post #77...Waybackwhen after the quad fizzle, ambience recovery was a hot thing in audio circles...no new software required, just a magic box, another amp and two more speakers, I purchase a Sound Concepts SD550 and the other required hardware and the results were quite convincing...

The 550 was not a matrix decoder...the software wasn't encoded ergo...As I understood it, it was more of an electronic embellishment of the Dyna-Quad concept with adjustable delay times and reverb levels...and it worked anecdotally well IMHO.

My apologies for going out of sequence, but it works for me...

Re: point (3)As mtry oftimes said..."stereo, I don' need no stinkin' stereo"...Why would I need to own the software or hardware to make any of the statements that I have posted, which in essence equates to the following:

I am of the opinion that due to limitations with regard to use of: close miking techniques resulting in virtually mono signals devoid of real localization cues, overuse of pan pots, overuse of reverberant contrivances to restore those sonic cues, that most of the older master tapes ( and even most of the more contemporary ones) are found to be lacking and that...

...MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud...

jimHJJ(...tol'ya'so, I knew I'd say it again...See my sign-off Post #66...)

[bobsticks]

RL-- I recognized that your further comments were not headed my way, and also was aware of the spirit of your general participation in this thread. Having read many of your previous posts in this thread and others I knew you weren't in attack mode. It is with a wry smile that I type that I would rather face a battalion of laser-totin' mechanical lizards unarmed than incur you wrath, sir.

Feonor--I suspect, no strike that, know that the effects that you ascribe to Kleiber are exactly what jim means in RL#72 by "tried-and-true methodology". I have a couple of the Silverline Series Classic DVDA (Tchaikovsky and Beethoven) and they'll be kickin' along pretty well with ambient cues in the back and invariably the next crescendo, WHAM, you've got violas crawling up your rear. Obviously disconcerting, and I believe to be derived from the "tried-and-true methodology" of two-channel mixdowns (probably R&R's insidious creep).
I haven't heard Kleiber, nor the Shostakovich, but I have heard theHaydyn and it is an excellent example of things done the correct way. I would probably add the Jarvi I mentioned earlier and Beethoven's 6th(Sony ss6012) as some shining examples of ambient cues done well. Unfortunately, conventional mix-downs and pan-pot antics do, to some extent, occur when the guys behind the board approach things, well, conventionally.
Admittedly, it can be a frustrating crapshoot at the checkout line. And those of us that have heard MC done subtly and tastefully would be remiss if we insisted that there aren't plenty of examples of outright unlistenable junk out there.

Bernd--I'm not surprised that under the conditions you listed that your experience was unfullfilling. These ears have never found any sub/sat combo to reach the heights to which this musical medium can perform--even less of a chance if you remove the sub from the equation. And no matter the esoteric nature of the speakers, I find this to be a constant. Maybe OK for movies, but not the tunes. I'm glad to hear that you journey will continue...

Alright I've got to get back to work or I may be forced to yell at myself...

Cheers all

[Woochifer]

Re: point (3)As mtry oftimes said..."stereo, I don' need no stinkin' stereo"...Why would I need to own the software or hardware to make any of the statements that I have posted, which in essence equates to the following:

I am of the opinion that due to limitations with regard to use of: close miking techniques resulting in virtually mono signals devoid of real localization cues, overuse of pan pots, overuse of reverberant contrivances to restore those sonic cues, that most of the older master tapes ( and even most of the more contemporary ones) are found to be lacking and that...

MC product is built on shaky ground...you can put a prom dress on a pig, but she'll still squeal in the mud.

Lot of interesting points, and in the end, you did finally answer my query about which multichannel recordings you listened to that support these conclusions. Thanks!

[Bernd]

Feanor -

I totally agree with you about the virtues of multichannel. As Terrence and Kex have already mentioned, a good multichannel recording along with a properly timbre matched and calibrated multichannel system can reproduce specific facets of live performance that I have never heard properly reproduced by any two-channel system. In my listenings, much of this has to do with accurately rendering the hall ambience, specifically placing the seating location and conveying the size of the space, and stabilizing the side imaging and giving the front soundstage depth.

Doesn't matter how much people invest in a two-channel setup, there are specific things that two channels simply cannot do, and the limitations are evident by comparing a good multichannel mix with the two-channel mixdown of the same recording. For example, the San Francisco Symphony's Mahler series has been issued as 5.1 SACD/CD hybrid discs. As great as the two-channel mixes sound, the 5.1 tracks simply render an entirely different listening dimension that IMO is truer to how Davies Symphony Hall actually sounds (I typically attend 3-4 shows a year at Davies, and will go there again in two weeks for Mahler's Eighth [the epic Symphony of a Thousand]). From having attended one of those recorded Mahler concerts, I know that the mic position just forward of the podium. And accordingly, the 5.1 subjectively puts the listening on the stage at the conductor position, a perspective that two-channels simply cannot render.

With Mobile Fidelity's reissues of the Vox quad recordings done by Marc Aubort and Joanna Nickrenz, the capture of the hall ambience gives the listener a sense of space that the two-channel mixdown simply does not convey as deliberately or consistently.

I think a big part of the resistance to multichannel, aside from inertia and how strongly a lot of consumers associate multichannel only with movies and not with music, is simply the difficulty of finding a properly done demonstration setup. Optimizing a multichannel setup takes a lot more than simply placing the speakers on the floor and tweaking with everything by ear. In order to get multichannel alignment to sound optimal, you have to get the timbre match right, the angling has to be optimal and symmetrical (much more difficult to do with five speakers than with two), and the processor settings have to be accounted for, as do issues with the room acoustics and location. This entails measuring and using things like measuring tapes, SPL meters, and protractors to get the reference points consistent.

Of all the stores I've visited in the Bay Area, only two of them demoed multichannel systems with the speakers in an alignment approximating the ITU-775 reference 5.1 alignment (which is what mixing studios use for multichannel music). The others used any number of different alignments (often just sitting on a shelf, or installed on the wall at an assymetrial alignment, or not timbre matched, etc.), none of which could properly render the full depth and imaging that multichannel mixes are capable of. And just in my time visiting store demo rooms, I've found that most of the receivers/processors are not set correctly, even at high end stores, because the customers will often tinker with the settings. If this is what people are using to judge multichannel audio, then it's no wonder they're so quick to dismiss its attributes.

Recording engineers are only beginning to learn what to do with the extra channels. Just as there are bad stereo mixes, you'll find bad 5.1 mixes as well. But, in order to get the multichannel playback right, there are simply more steps that require optimizing.

Wooch,

I can only speak for myself and I can assure you that I am not against progress, on the contary I welcome it, but not for change sake. If it is a genuine improvement I will go for it.
A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.
I also pledge to have it installed professionaly and after a decent long run in period I will hold listening sessions with both and with whoever wants to partake.
The room will be my office which is roughly the same size as my listening room (slightly longer, but not by much).
I would also need recommendations for the same music available on Vinyl and SACD,DVD-A, etc.
So lets see what we can find out.

I am thinking along the lines of these:
Pathos Cinema-X amp
Ayre C-5xe multi format player
ART Stiletto speakers

Peace

Bernd

[GMichael]

Wooch,

I can only speak for myself and I can assure you that I am not against progress, on the contary I welcome it, but not for change sake. If it is a genuine improvement I will go for it.
A couple of points:
I still can't see how a mass produced all in one multi channel amplifier and speaker can out perform a specialist product. If you look at the parts used I am certain you will not find any high quality parts in the mass market products. Therefore it is impossible to have a giant killer.

Which brings me to this point about my lacking education and a challenge to my multi channel friends.
I would like you all to recommend a readily available multichannel set up (for music only) that would out perform my 2 channel Vinyl Tube based rig and enhance my listening enjoyment over what I experience now.
Once we have a consensus I am pretty certain that I can get the gear on home approval (talked to a couple of dealer friends already), if not I will buy it, because if I have missed the multi channel digital boat I will keep it anyway and sell my 2 channel system.
I also pledge to have it installed professionaly and after a decent long run in period I will hold listening sessions with both and with however wants to partake.
The room will be my office which is roughly the same size as my listening room (slightly longer, but not by much).
I would also need recommendations for the same music available on Vinyl and SACD,DVD-A, etc.
So lets see what we can find out.

I am thinking along the lines of these:
Pathos Cinema-X amp
Ayre C-5xe multi format player
ART Stiletto speakers

Peace

Bernd

Ooooh A project. That's cool. As I'm only a mid-fi guy so far, I'm not sure that I can give out hi-fi advice. Actually, I'm sure that I can't. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot. I would love to hear a couple of Maggie 3.6's with MC1's as surrounds and a CC3 center.
But I do believe that I remember you saying that panels are not your cup of tea. Maybe my dream wouldn't work for you. Is there a budget we should stay in? Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea!

[PAT.P]

Maybe a new thread with all the rules. The multi channel challenge?
This sounds like fun Bernd. Great idea!

Bring it on For Music I had to try all morning and the Multi Channel in Stereo won .The room was more full from all point,and more imaging.I cant listen to music in this without my centre channel(the voice is so real) I got 2 more CC to add to this one and cant wait.Will give me 5 ft but dont have the nerve to bring my power amp in the living room(still hidden in basement) the wife will freak out