"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[markw]

PS: By the way, your still to stupid to correct the spelling mistakes in your quote....

I know you're not a native English speaker but...
Remarkable.

pot,kettle,black?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you Doctor!
You talk like it is some form of a scientific trip.

Oh really. is having a open mind a scientific trip, or a necessity when exploring other formats?

Audio is fun and brings enjoyment to me, and that how it will stay. If something sounds good to me I will keep it. Nothing to do with a closed mind.

Based on what you have posted, if its not two channel, its not very good to you. That is what I call classic closed mind. For a person to claim that they attend live concerts, but have a problem with sound coming from behind you, you are contadicting yourself. In live concerts sound comes from not only the front, but from the sides and behind as well. Do your ear hear this, or do they just ignore it?

Your post reads more as if you are stuck in acomfort zone and have fallen hook, line and sinker for the latest marketing ploy.

I was into multichannel long before multichannel music even came along. Remember film soundtracks? Its a little ignorant of you to think that everyone who enjoys MC is a victim of some marketing scheme. Would it be fair for me to consider you stuck in yesteryear unable to change?

Or you're just so superior with your enlightened listening (as you should, owning and building a Mastering Studio).

Or you could be inferior because of your lack of enlightenment. Never thought of myself as superior to anyone. Different? Definately, but not superior.

Amazing with such a time consumming project on your hand how much time you have giving out advice here

Its called delegation, multitasking, and efficiency. While I supervise quite a bit of the planning of my studio, I delegate others to do many things I cannot. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I type 95wpm.

.

And what is so wrong with me liking Vinyl,Tubes and two channel that you get so excited.

Actually been there done that, next! So the proper word would be bored as opposed to excited.

I am not alone in that.I apologise that my findings don't agree with your believes

Actually you had no findings. Just a failure to open your mind and REALLY discover what multichannel software has to offer, not a critique of ones equipment. You spent more time talking about the people equipment than you did about the software. You took your vinyl loving two channel sensibilites into the multichannel world which is a recipe for failure. Have you ever heard of a open mind and a clean slate?

. That's life. I tried something and it didn't work out for me.And when you didn't agree with my findings you come out with some nonsense about closed mind and not being ready for the journey.

I really do not care if anyone agrees with me about anything. Everyone has a right to their opinion. However, you didn't even scratch the surface of MC, and you already have given up. You let your own shortsighted perspective get the best of you, and that's okay, it happens to the best of us sometime.

Honestly, do you really think that I have so much time to waste as to spent hours driving getting to and listening to some MC set-ups when my mind has already been made up. Get real. So long my MC friend, but most of all enjoy the music.

Peace

Bernd

You went to listen to setup of which you hade absolutely no background on. One setup had no acoustical control or a TT, and had speakers you didn't like. You listened to multichannel music that was repurposed from 2 channel stereo, which is also a compromise. You made no effort to carefully choose you music wisely, you know, a recording actually recorded for multichannel reproduction in either SACD or 24/96khz 5.1 PCM. You made no effort to track down a system and room that actually has been optimized for 5.1. You did none of this(which really does require some effort) and think you came to a educated conclusion. Right, and I am causcasian and extremely wealthy.

No matter how far you drove, the reality is you put very little effort into this. That is something you should face and own up to. I real effort requires more than just driving to someone's house. Your approach to this guaranteed failure.

[Bernd]

Oh really. is having a open mind a scientific trip, or a necessity when exploring other formats?























.

No matter how far you drove, the reality is you put very little effort into this. That is something you should face and own up to. I real effort requires more than just driving to someone's house. Your approach to this guaranteed failure.

That's how much you know about me and how many set ups I have listened to. I sure have spent some time at a specialist dealer. Just haven't posted it here as I was tired of your all knowing all better then anybody elses ramblings. And I had a busy week earning some money. And as I stated before one couldn't really argue without hearing the results. I have heard and I really don't care if my effort doesn't fit in with your expectations.Tough.Chill out Spartacus.
Yes the room was optimised and we had ML speakers all around. Close but no cigar.
Sounds coming from behind at concerts. You are absolutly right on that one. But not direct sound.
As for your delegating skills. I don't rate them very much if it takes you over two years to build your "Mastering Studio". In fact it smells like incompetance to me. I bet you had MC in the 60s.
But seriously. The ML set up was very nice and if that what somebody likes -great.I don't.
And it's very tiresome to go over the same stuff again and again. Listen TT-MC IS NOT FOR ME!

Peace

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's how much you know about me and how many set ups I have listened to. I sure have spent some time at a specialist dealer. Just haven't posted it here as I was tired of your all knowing all better then anybody elses ramblings.

Well we are pretty much equal here, because I am just as tired of your uneducated weak and tired comments on MC, and other people equipment. Only weak cowards cannot stand criticisms of their posts.

And I had a busy week earning some money. And as I stated before one couldn't really argue without hearing the results. I have heard and I really don't care if my effort doesn't fit in with your expectations.Tough.Chill out Spartacus.

What effort? If you really made a effort, then why are you so scared to post it. Afraid of what I might say? You shouldn't be, its just my observation of your so called "effort", or lack of it.

Yes the room was optimised and we had ML speakers all around. Close but no cigar.
Sounds coming from behind at concerts. You are absolutly right on that one. But not direct sound.

Doesn't really matter if it is direct or reflected, you still cannot reproduce it in two channel anyway. Once again, you made no mention of software in this supposed room that was optimized and used ML all around. MC is about the software not the equipment, why is that so tough for you to understand? A poor MC source will sound poor on a hig end system, no matter how good the acoustics in the room are. The same goes for a poor two channel source. Only the quality of the source will tell you when to pass out cigars.

As for your delegating skills. I don't rate them very much if it takes you over two years to build your "Mastering Studio". In fact it smells like incompetance to me. I bet you had MC in the 60s.
But seriously. The ML set up was very nice and if that what somebody likes -great.I don't.

Peace

Bernd

A cheap shot from a coward, not unexpected and not surprised.

When you are trying to do things at a very high level, and trying to do it right the first time, it takes alot of time. When is the last time you designed and built a 5-6million dollar post production facility? Probably never and that is why your comment sounds so stupid and juvenile So much for your sense of smell. This was all about the equipment to you, not about MC software at all. Equipment reviews tell nothing about MC music at all. Talk about barking up the wrong tree, you were on the wrong planet in this case.

[E-Stat]

Listen TT-MC IS NOT FOR ME!

From a primarily two channel guy, this past weekend I really experienced what MC can do with good software AND exceptional hardware. I had business in the NY area and spent a couple of days with HP in Seacliff. Aside from hearing his superb Nola Exoticas based two channel system, I specifically asked for him to also play his "Super Maggie" MC system and convince me of the merits. He uses the latest Meitner transport / SACD dac, Conrad-Johnson MC (tube) preamp driving a five channel (500 watts each) Edge amplifier into Magneplanar 20.1s on the front, dual MC-1 centers, 3.6Rs in the rear and four Nola Thunderbolt subs. Naturally, he demonstrated using his own sampler released by Telarc (SACD-60011).

As I see it, the key to getting MC right is moderating the rear level so that it is NOT heard prominently as a primary source. Harry began with two cuts from an ASO recording of Orff's Carmina Burana. I'm going to have to eat some words here I previously stated regarding this particular system: in MC, the vocalists on the stage are more distinct and there is simply more "hall ambience" - not players in the rear like the hokey flavors. The Martinu cut was equally impressive. I then asked that we play the same cut on one of the two channel systems. In this case, it was using the EAR player through Burmester electronics into some new ceramic speakers he is currently evaluating. In all cases, he is using Nordost Valhalla ICs, speaker wire, and power cords. The image specificity on the (numerous) choral voices was just not there, nor a subtle touch of the hall's character.

I'm convinced.

The issue (for me at least) is that only a tiny fraction of my musical library could ever do this. This format is clearly the future, but there is so much two channel musical past that is part of me.

rw

[shokhead]

And i think you hit the nail on the head about the surrounds. To many think if i got them i'd better hear them which is fine unless you "hear them" if you know what i mean.

[Florian]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

[superpanavision70mm]

Sir Terrence and Bernd should have a dance-off to see who will win this debate....let's see who can get SERVED! Haha!

[Bernd]

Sir Terrence and Bernd should have a dance-off to see who will win this debate....let's see who can get SERVED! Haha!

This can only be won by Sir TT. As I have two left feet no sense of hearing and never designed and build a 6 million dollar mastering studio. And with that much money at stake I certainly wouldn't have the time to spent on here.

I like E-Stats post. I trust his judgement and if it sounded convincing to him I believe that. I however have not heard that. The last mc system I auditioned was not bad, but I still prefered my 2 CH. And of course I know about the short supply of decent Software and the importance of that. And if the only music available on a decent 5.1 mix is Toones I don't like what would be the point in investing. Most of my collection will never see the light of day in such a mix I am sure. That's the reason I used to audition with my CDs or Records. If it doesn't perform to my liking, with my music, again, what would be the point in buying that.And it didn't.I posted what equipment was used because that was what was used. I couldn't care less who makes it if it does do the job. But this is an Audio Forum (all in) not just MC and correct 5.1 mixes. Or am I wrong with that one?
This whole trial was done for fun and not to settle something once and for all. I wanted to find out for me, and I have for the time being. I think Sir TT you have missunderstood my intentions. Or maybe my wording wasn't right. Who knows?
So let's put this to bed and let's hope we're all satisfied with our choices.

Peace

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

Florian,
There are plenty of excellent sounding titles out there. Not only in SACD but in DVD-A as well. So this VERY FEW titles is a crock. Secondly you do not need even a 20k system to enjoy the higher resolution that MC can bring. I've heard MC through a 5k Revel Concerto speaker system with about 3k in electronics and it sounded very realistic with outstanding timbre and soundstaging. I have also heard MC through a system that costs in excess of 100K. While the experience of the 100K system was superior to the 8K system, it wasn't 92K worth of improvement. When you judge a system by price alone, diminishing returns comes very quickly.

The issue is not whether a two channel speaker system is better than a MC speaker system, but does MC recording bring you closer to live sound than a two channel recording.

[shokhead]

No offense but to keep the back channels quieter then the fronts is basic HT101. You should also see what E-Stat really wrote. The setup he listend to is well above 30K and even then it only has a VERY FEW titles which are done right. E-Stats speaker are quite a bit better then the Maggie 20.1 and a full blown U1 setup with electronics, not to mention room acoustics will set him back a WHOLE bunch.

Does the format have potential? Yes! But does this mean that MC systems are better then 2 Channel? No!

To SirT--- "no comment"

I think you might be suprised.{and shocked]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This can only be won by Sir TT. As I have two left feet no sense of hearing and never designed and build a 6 million dollar mastering studio. And with that much money at stake I certainly wouldn't have the time to spent on here.

Please realize that you have no idea what it takes, time or otherwise to build a post production facility. It is not something I have to work on personally everyday of my life. I am working with a group of great interior designers, signal flow specialists, other audio engineers and general contractors. I also freelance doing sound design and mixing, and have a 32 hour a week regular job. I can do all of that, march in Drum Corps, hang out with my boys, build hometheaters, and post on audioreview. My life is busy, but having a laptop and surrounded by a wi fi network makes it easy to just sit down get online and have fun. There are stretches of time that I am not here, and that means I am moving too much to be online. By the way, this is my second studio and things are a little easier to do this time around. Experience is a wonderful thing.

I like E-Stats post. I trust his judgement and if it sounded convincing to him I believe that. I however have not heard that. The last mc system I auditioned was not bad, but I still prefered my 2 CH. And of course I know about the short supply of decent Software and the importance of that. And if the only music available on a decent 5.1 mix is Toones I don't like what would be the point in investing. Most of my collection will never see the light of day in such a mix I am sure. That's the reason I used to audition with my CDs or Records. If it doesn't perform to my liking, with my music, again, what would be the point in buying that.And it didn't.I posted what equipment was used because that was what was used. I couldn't care less who makes it if it does do the job. But this is an Audio Forum (all in) not just MC and correct 5.1 mixes. Or am I wrong with that one?
This whole trial was done for fun and not to settle something once and for all. I wanted to find out for me, and I have for the time being. I think Sir TT you have missunderstood my intentions. Or maybe my wording wasn't right. Who knows?
So let's put this to bed and let's hope we're all satisfied with our choices.

Peace

Bernd

Its not really important that anyone wins or loses behind this thread. I just hope that when you are ready to TRUELY explore MC, you will put a little more interest in what drives MC, the software not the hardware. I personally think that it is difficult for some to move away from what is familar, and maybe there isn't enough material in the genre of music you like. But in all of your post only in the first one did you mention the actual music, everything else you have posted has been about the equipment. Its the software AND equipment together, not just one.

Maybe I did misunderstand your intentions. But from what I read in your posts, your intentions seemed pretty clear.

[Bernd]

If there is a next time I will try harder. I promise.

Peace

Bernd