"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[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...)

[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.

[GMichael]

Just my 75 cents.

Inflation?

[shokhead]

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



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



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.

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?




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.



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)

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)



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



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.

I thought the tv inbetween the L&R speakers was odd also. Its more odd if it isnt.

[audio_dude]

wow, very good read!

[Bernd]

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



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



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.

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?




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.



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)

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)



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



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.

Thanks for your 75 cents.
First off, I do not hate anything or anybody-period.
All I said was that I am not a fan of the Proac Floorstanding Range. They are however a decent speaker.
I have no TV between my speakers as the Reflection will destroy the centre Image. Might be ok for movies but that is not what I am after.
The sub issue. I have no sub in my system. My Speakers reach low enough for me and I am finding out that integration is a very difficult goal to achieve if at all. And would I really want a Trailer behind a Ferrari.Those fart boxes are 10 beats behind the music.
The Room had no treatment to speak of. Just two sofas and a deep pile rug in the centre. For christ sake the guy was kind enough to let me listen to his system maybe I should have told him off.
His system was set up by the dealer.
I listened from the centre sofa and I did not meassure the distance from the walls. Didn't think it was appropriate to bring a tape meassure into his home.
As for the TT. I said unfortunatly as I would have liked to have had a listen to a record through his system.
I agree that the music might not have been the ideal choice, but I live in the real world and want to enjoy that what I like not what has been recorded for a certain system. And I have to start somewhere.
As for enjoyment. For me it's still my 2ch and Tube system that does it for me.
Last night I listened to Vinyl to a couple of the discs we played the night before and it was to my ears very much more enjoyable.
It was never my intention to bash MC. I seriously want to find out if MC can for similar outlay provide me with the same enjoyment. I am well aware of the drawbacks of Vinyl but for me the organic quality of sound outways the processed digital reproduction by some margin. But we are all entiteld to like what we want. I would never generalize that 2CH is better then MC, just that for me until now my 2CH is more enjoyable.
However I think I will stop sharing my journey on here as it was intended for information and hopefully getting some helpfull advice. I did not put it on here to voluteer for a bashing from the MC fanclub or for having my shared experience microscopicly dissected.As I said before this arguement can not be settled by words alone, hence my trial.

Peace

Bernd

[Florian]

Wow, a huge thread and i am not in it. Well, time to get back to the live music.....in 2 channel of course :-)

[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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

.
I have no TV between my speakers as the Reflection will destroy the centre Image. Might be ok for movies but that is not what I am after.

This is bull. I have a huge 65" television sitting in between and slightly behind my L/R mains, I get a very solid center image when I listen to two channel sources. As a matter of fact, you could sit off center to each side and still get a VERY strong center image. I have heard this argument before from a "audiophile". It holds up well in theory, but in practice it doesn't fly. Did you know that that television breaks up any side to side resonances?

The sub issue. I have no sub in my system. My Speakers reach low enough for me and I am finding out that integration is a very difficult goal to achieve if at all. And would I really want a Trailer behind a Ferrari.Those fart boxes are 10 beats behind the music.

More bull. Who ever told you that integrating a subwoofer was so difficult has a brain the size of a mosquito. I have two very large transmission line subs that sit it my system. Most times you cannot even tell they are there until they are called for. Widescreen review has one of the finest souding systems for both music and film. They have two giant subwoofers in their system, perfectly integrated. Many multichannel folks have subs in their systems, I have never heard this crap about subs being ten beat behind the music. I have heard way too many acousticians and speaker builders say this whole rant by so called "audiophiles" is a bunch of rubbish.

The Room had no treatment to speak of. Just two sofas and a deep pile rug in the centre.

So the room COULD have been at fault rather than the equipment, or even the multichannel music itself!. Wherever there are reflections both early and late, your perception of imaging will be altered. Audiophiles love equipment, they have a hard time dealing with the room it sits in though.

His system was set up by the dealer.
I listened from the centre sofa and I did not meassure the distance from the walls. Didn't think it was appropriate to bring a tape meassure into his home.

Dealers are great at installing equipment, they are usually very lousy at calibrating correctly.

As for the TT. I said unfortunatly as I would have liked to have had a listen to a record through his system.

Such dedication to vinyl. Such dedication that it often predjudices any venture away from the old stale two channel mold. Techonology has moved on, so should a great many people.

I agree that the music might not have been the ideal choice, but I live in the real world and want to enjoy that what I like not what has been recorded for a certain system. And I have to start somewhere.

What does living in the real world have to do with wisely picking material for listening audition? And since when do people record for a CERTAIN system? Scoobie says HUH??

As for enjoyment. For me it's still my 2ch and Tube system that does it for me.

Great, so sonic purity and accuracy is not as important to you as warming over your already warmed over audio. Tubes are sonic equalizers at best, but they are not the pinnacle of accuracy. I use microphones with tubes in them to get a CERTAIN sound, not a ACCURATE sound. I however respect the choices folk make on their sound, different strokes for different folks. Notice how I didn't say better, just different.

Last night I listened to Vinyl to a couple of the discs we played the night before and it was to my ears very much more enjoyable.

You like the sound of vinyl and tubes, great. If you are going to so a serious evaluation on MC, then you need to put any comparison between the two away. If you don't, you will walk away learning nothing about the MC format. It will always come back to my tube and vinyl. People often find it very difficult to let go of what they are used to.

It was never my intention to bash MC. I seriously want to find out if MC can for similar outlay provide me with the same enjoyment. I am well aware of the drawbacks of Vinyl but for me the organic quality of sound outways the processed digital reproduction by some margin.

Did you know that vinyl is also processed?? Ever heard of tracking error, or wall noise. Or how about poor cutting during mastering? You actually like the sound of pops and clicks. How musical, I am sure all of this was in the original recording (sarcasm off) In reality digital is no more processed than vinyl or analog.

But we are all entiteld to like what we want. I would never generalize that 2CH is better then MC, just that for me until now my 2CH is more enjoyable.

Great, I am glad you like 2ch

However I think I will stop sharing my journey on here as it was intended for information and hopefully getting some helpfull advice. I did not put it on here to voluteer for a bashing from the MC fanclub or for having my shared experience microscopicly dissected.As I said before this arguement can not be settled by words alone, hence my trial.

Peace

Bernd

Presentation is everything a chef once told me. You didn't "present" this post as a infromational magnet. You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music. Most of this was you own fault for poorly choosing the music you use for a listing audition. And then you announced a score which looks more like a competition than a listening evaluation or a search for information. No one has asked you not to share your experience, just be open minded. Your mind (at least demonstrated by your choice of words) was not open during this evaluation. One can clearly see that by your choice of words.

All I did was try and present another perspective. You can ***** and moan about it, you can fail to share you experience because of it. You will learn nothing about what constitutes as a good multichannel experience if all you can think about is 2ch vinyl.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, a huge thread and i am not in it. Well, time to get back to the live music.....in 2 channel of course :-)

Sorry Florian, live music is binaural, not two channel

[Florian]

Sorry Florian, live music is binaural, not two channel

You seem to be on a rampage. Well, i personally wouldnt talk about integration, center image etc..if i where you. Fact of the matter is that a large TV will mess up the time arivals, introduce distortion, vibration and unwanted reflections. Subsoowfer integration with box speakers might not be a problem since they are colored and resonant from the beginning. But you will have a mighty problem with speakers that lack this ability. May they be electrostatic, planar magnetic or ribbon. Time delay erros, phase shifting etc...

Respectfully

-Flo

You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music.

The exact same thing has been said to me many times, just because i do not agree with the masses. And as faith will have it, we see the same with Bernd who is also way up the ladder of 2 channel reproduction. Tis critics come from the general masses with the typical general masses knowledge and equipment.

[shokhead]

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

[audio amateur]

This is bull. I have a huge 65" television sitting in between and slightly behind my L/R mains, I get a very solid center image when I listen to two channel sources. As a matter of fact, you could sit off center to each side and still get a VERY strong center image. I have heard this argument before from a "audiophile". It holds up well in theory, but in practice it doesn't fly. Did you know that that television breaks up any side to side resonances?



More bull. Who ever told you that integrating a subwoofer was so difficult has a brain the size of a mosquito. I have two very large transmission line subs that sit it my system. Most times you cannot even tell they are there until they are called for. Widescreen review has one of the finest souding systems for both music and film. They have two giant subwoofers in their system, perfectly integrated. Many multichannel folks have subs in their systems, I have never heard this crap about subs being ten beat behind the music. I have heard way too many acousticians and speaker builders say this whole rant by so called "audiophiles" is a bunch of rubbish.



So the room COULD have been at fault rather than the equipment, or even the multichannel music itself!. Wherever there are reflections both early and late, your perception of imaging will be altered. Audiophiles love equipment, they have a hard time dealing with the room it sits in though.





Dealers are great at installing equipment, they are usually very lousy at calibrating correctly.



Such dedication to vinyl. Such dedication that it often predjudices any venture away from the old stale two channel mold. Techonology has moved on, so should a great many people.



What does living in the real world have to do with wisely picking material for listening audition? And since when do people record for a CERTAIN system? Scoobie says HUH??






Great, so sonic purity and accuracy is not as important to you as warming over your already warmed over audio. Tubes are sonic equalizers at best, but they are not the pinnacle of accuracy. I use microphones with tubes in them to get a CERTAIN sound, not a ACCURATE sound. I however respect the choices folk make on their sound, different strokes for different folks. Notice how I didn't say better, just different.





You like the sound of vinyl and tubes, great. If you are going to so a serious evaluation on MC, then you need to put any comparison between the two away. If you don't, you will walk away learning nothing about the MC format. It will always come back to my tube and vinyl. People often find it very difficult to let go of what they are used to.



Did you know that vinyl is also processed?? Ever heard of tracking error, or wall noise. Or how about poor cutting during mastering? You actually like the sound of pops and clicks. How musical, I am sure all of this was in the original recording (sarcasm off) In reality digital is no more processed than vinyl or analog.






Great, I am glad you like 2ch



Presentation is everything a chef once told me. You didn't "present" this post as a infromational magnet. You used your 2ch vinyl mentality to basically bash everything from the owner setup, to the music. Most of this was you own fault for poorly choosing the music you use for a listing audition. And then you announced a score which looks more like a competition than a listening evaluation or a search for information. No one has asked you not to share your experience, just be open minded. Your mind (at least demonstrated by your choice of words) was not open during this evaluation. One can clearly see that by your choice of words.

All I did was try and present another perspective. You can ***** and moan about it, you can fail to share you experience because of it. You will learn nothing about what constitutes as a good multichannel experience if all you can think about is 2ch vinyl.

Holy crap that was sexy "in your face" stuff
Pretty impressive Terrence

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You seem to be on a rampage. Well, i personally wouldnt talk about integration, center image etc..if i where you.

Well why not, my system seems to excel in these areas, why wouldn't I talk about it? It does so even with a huge television sitting in between it.

Fact of the matter is that a large TV will mess up the time arivals, introduce distortion, vibration and unwanted reflections.

Yes, that is probably true if the speakers where sitting behind the television. However. almost everyone that is into HT knows that the speakers should be in front of any televsision. Mine sit approximately 1.5ft in front of my display. I would rather have the reflections which are relatively easy to deal with as I use sound absorbers to deal with them. Reflections at lower frequencies have a longer integration time, higher frequency reflections which effect imaging is taken care of by very thick damping foam.

However with speakers in the absence of television in between, especially the ones you like allow room resonances ans strong to flourish, as there is nothing to break them up. A setup with no television in between require vast amounts of acoustical foam at least 4" thick to tame late and early arriving reflection to the listening seat. Neither has a benefit over the other, each has to have some control at high frequencies.

Subsoowfer integration with box speakers might not be a problem since they are colored and resonant from the beginning.

Not all box speakers are colored and resonant, just like not all ribbon or electrostatic speakers have linearity , frequency response, and time arrival problems. You are making a global statement on specific items.

But you will have a mighty problem with speakers that lack this ability. May they be electrostatic, planar magnetic or ribbon. Time delay erros, phase shifting etc...

If yiou were talking to someone stupid, they may actually believe you. However I know better, there is no one speaker design that trumps another unless you have strong biases (which mean a narrow mind) or you are uneducated in the area of speaker design.

The exact same thing has been said to me many times, just because i do not agree with the masses. And as faith will have it, we see the same with Bernd who is also way up the ladder of 2 channel reproduction. Tis critics come from the general masses with the typical general masses knowledge and equipment.

Florian, you know for a fact that I am not as stupid and gullible as those folks that are impressed by you. Just because I am in the MC camp doesn't mean I agree with the masses. My equipment choices lean towards custom, not mass marketed items. That especially pertains to my choice of speakers and subwoofers. Anyone who understands that history of audio knows that 2 channel is a compromise to conventional audio wisdom, and not a benefit to it. Anyone who has read bell labs 1932 study knows that it takes at LEAST three channels up front to map a soundstage. Two channel was developed because of limitations of the technology at the time. That time is over. Now because of MC, when can fully realize at least the minimum benefits of that study, which is something the two channel can never live up to.

Your biases are well noted, but they are not necessarily educated or knowledgeable biases. I respect your choices of planar, ribbon or electrostatic speakers. They however are not my cup of tea as they are too limited in what they can do over a wide variety of uses.

[Bernd]

A thank you for the positive and encouraging PMs I have received. Just to make it very clear. My posts where intended to report MY findings not as a competition between 2CH and MC. Maybe I underestimated how deep the passion for some runs. I should have known as it is also my passion and my hobby but not a matter of live and death nor do I aproach it with a Anorak mentality. And I couldn't care less if somebody criticises Tubes or Vinyl. Very often Vinyl is singled out by users of very basic Vinyl playback systems. And if there is a little surface noise now and then or a crackle or a pop-so what. Life is noisy.Sorry this isn't analogue-digital.
I will carry on and find out for myself if MC fits the bill for my enjoyment, and if my findings are not welcone so be it. I will press on regardless nobody has to read it. I tried to lighten the findings a little with some light hearted comments and maybe through lack of a sense of humour by some this led to a missunderstanding.
Got a phone call last night and I can go and listen this evening to a Unison Research Unico SEI amp, a Teac Esoteric universal Disc Player and some Final Speakers, don't know what Pre. is being used. Look forward to that. Next week I have booked two dealer demos on the same afternoon. One in a chain store, just to see what they will come up with, and one with a specialist HT/MC dealer. All I have told him is the budget available.
Just one final point. I don't mind being critised personnaly but to be critical of my findings is wrong as it was only me who was there and listened. And I will not report what I don't hear or feel. Maybe Kex is right that MC is not for me.
Have a great Sunday.

Peace

Bernd

[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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A thank you for the positive and encouraging PMs I have received. Just to make it very clear. My posts where intended to report MY findings not as a competition between 2CH and MC. Maybe I underestimated how deep the passion for some runs. I should have known as it is also my passion and my hobby but not a matter of live and death nor do I aproach it with a Anorak mentality. And I couldn't care less if somebody criticises Tubes or Vinyl. Very often Vinyl is singled out by users of very basic Vinyl playback systems. And if there is a little surface noise now and then or a crackle or a pop-so what. Life is noisy.Sorry this isn't analogue-digital.
I will carry on and find out for myself if MC fits the bill for my enjoyment, and if my findings are not welcone so be it. I will press on regardless nobody has to read it. I tried to lighten the findings a little with some light hearted comments and maybe through lack of a sense of humour by some this led to a missunderstanding.
Got a phone call last night and I can go and listen this evening to a Unison Research Unico SEI amp, a Teac Esoteric universal Disc Player and some Final Speakers, don't know what Pre. is being used. Look forward to that. Next week I have booked two dealer demos on the same afternoon. One in a chain store, just to see what they will come up with, and one with a specialist HT/MC dealer. All I have told him is the budget available.
Just one final point. I don't mind being critised personnaly but to be critical of my findings is wrong as it was only me who was there and listened. And I will not report what I don't hear or feel. Maybe Kex is right that MC is not for me.
Have a great Sunday.

Peace

Bernd

My final comments on your posts are this. If this is not a competition, no need to keep score or it is a competition.

Secondly choose material that is designed from the recording to playback for 5.1, not some reissue from a 2 channel source.

Try and find a system that does not force an audio conversion from DSD to PCM. No bass management or delay, or you have already compromised the listening test.

Subwoofers are absolutely necessary. This idea of using speakers with limited bass range comes from the fact that tubes do wonders in warming up analog sound (which is not exactly accurate), but they are lousy at controlling cone movement, which is probably why you like you tubes with limited bass speakers. SACD has far more bass in it than vinyl does. Unless you have extended range main speakers, you will be over driving your speakers in the bass range.

Go in with an open mind, not a mind of comparison. If you find that you would prefer to stick with your 1846 techonolgy, then so be it. Nobody going to hate you.

My sense of humor is irrelevant, and is not the topic of this discussion.

Alot of us MC lovers came from 2ch. Never assume that we never owned a good analog rig. Myself personally I had a very expensive TT and a very high end pre-amp. All of that was no good if once the needle hit the vinyl. No matter how much you tweaked and cleaned, any mechanical instrument that touches the media will lead to losses and noise (i.e tape players, TT etc) Maybe some of got sick and tired of the pops and clickes, excessive maintainence just to care for the vinyl. I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up. That is not what I call accurate audio.

If you want a one way post, then set up a website and post to yourself. When you put your thoughts and experiences on a public forum, it invites comments from others. You don't like the comments, don't post your thoughts on a public forum.

When posting your comments, choose your words carefully so you don't paint a picture you didn't mean to paint.