"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[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!

[Resident Loser]

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!

...Where? You saw a conclusion? Conclusion, "...here boy!..." he pleads...(whistles, offers treats, whistles again)...No, no, no...you must be mistaken, no conclusion 'round here...just offering the premise of what I see as a legitimate argument and some solid technical reasons why most MC (generally speaking) and most stereo recordings are far from usable as an arbiter of realism or basis for claiming accuracy in ears-only test results...

Then, of course, there is the debate of stereophonic (an electronic contrivance) vs. binaural (the way we actually hear)...

jimHJJ(...luckily it's a three-day weekend so we won't get into that...)

[GMichael]

...Where? You saw a conclusion? Conclusion, "...here boy!..." he pleads...(whistles, offers treats, whistles again)...No, no, no...you must be mistaken, no conclusion 'round here...just offering the premise of what I see as a legitimate argument and some solid technical reasons why most MC (generally speaking) and most stereo recordings are far from usable as an arbiter of realism or basis for claiming accuracy in ears-only test results...

Then, of course, there is the debate of stereophonic (an electronic contrivance) vs. binaural (the way we actually hear)...

jimHJJ(...luckily it's a three-day weekend so we won't get into that...)

Wait. Don't leave for those 3 days yet. I want my treat first. Is it one of those biscuits I like? You know, the cheesy ones? Could I get some tea with that?

[Resident Loser]

Wait. Don't leave for those 3 days yet. I want my treat first. Is it one of those biscuits I like? You know, the cheesy ones? Could I get some tea with that?

...we got no cheez, the Velveeta box is empty, but in good time, all will be fine and they'll be crackers 'n' cheez a plenty...

jimHJJ(...for future reference will a semi-soft, rinded goat on toast points be OK?...)

[GMichael]

...we got no cheez, the Velveeta box is empty, but in good time, all will be fine and they'll be crackers 'n' cheez a plenty...

jimHJJ(...for future reference will a semi-soft, rinded goat on toast points be OK?...)

Yick! I'd rather eat a milkbone. Pass.

Have a great weekend.

[Resident Loser]

Yick! I'd rather eat a milkbone. Pass.

Have a great weekend.

...wouldn't touch that fermented curd with a 10ft. baguette my own self! And Milkbones aren't half bad...Alpo Snaps are pretty good...

Now some Stilton and walnuts...yuuummmm...or maybe a nice Cheez-waffie...

jimHJJ(...I am a man of eclectic and diverse tastes...back atcha...)