Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 126 to 148 of 148
  1. #126
    nightflier
    Guest

    Let's narrow down some factors here

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    I don't think you've thought this out very well...how much do you really know about these two formats? Both SACD and DVD-A offer hi-rez in 2.0 channel format. And guess what - it's available at an even higher maximum resolution than in 5.1!!!! But ya know what, there's a whole slew of us folk out there who've done our in-home a/b tests and come to the conclusion that 5.1 at the lower resolution is far superior to the 2.0 track of highest resolution.
    I guess I have some more listening to do then. My 5.1/7.1 setup is just via an average receiver, but my 2.0 setup is a whole lot more capable and getting even better (I'm still building it up). That said, I do think that we should narrow all the options down a little because there's a lot of questions here, folks.

    First of all, we need to throw out all comparisons between consumer grade 5.1 receivers and multi-thousand dollar 2.0 systems, because that comparison just isn't fair. So the comparison has to be on our surround systems, only, and using these to switch between the two formats. I know that won't please many, including me, because I consider my Cambridge CD player in my stereo system pretty good compared to my DVD player in my 5.1 system.

    The other painful thing about this is that we have to throw out vinyl and even RBCD's right away, because they are not available in multi-channel formats, and thus not available for comparison. Essentially we need hardware and software that is available (in resonably identical forms) on both formats only. So hybrid SACD/DVD-A disks are the only option.

    Hardware:

    On the 5.1 side, it should be an SACD/DVD-A player with discreet 5.1 analog outputs. No processing should be used so all the matrixed formats (PLII, Stereo-5, etc.) are out. Also, an effort needs to be made to simplify the system as much as possible, too, so any unused components should be removed from the systems.

    For 2.0, we'll also use the SACD/DVD-A player connected to 2-speakers with absolutely no software processing. Before we go on, we should determine if we include 2.1 in this comparison since we are using a sub on the 5.1 side, or would that constitute too much processing?

    I realize that much of the comparison will depend on the quality of DAC's both internal ones and seperate ones, but to keep the comparison reasonably manageable, we'll ignore these.

    Software:

    The next thing we need to hammer out is the music. We've been throwing all kinds of types into this debate. Live? Studio? Recorded for 5.1 and downmixed to 2.0 or visa-versa? So let's agree on several well regarded and representative recordings that are available on a hybrid multi-channel disk and that most of us are likely to own. It should be a good selection of music tracks with good representation in bass, mid's and highs. It should also cover several music genres such as classical, jazz, etc. as well as a good selection of instruments and voices.

    So there you have it.

    I propose we all decide on a these criteria for a fair comparison. Then we come back here and see what we have found. Our systems vary greatly, I know, but this way we'll get somewhat of a concensus. I think this would be a very interesting experiment. While many will immediately conclude that the multi-channel camp will win this (I can already see the vinylophiles boycotting everything from here on out), we need to keep in mind that most of the music we select here was written for 2.0 and re-engineered for 5.1 once multi-channel became popular enough. Ultimately, the crux of this debate is whether multichannel stays truer to the original music than stereo, or whether it is merely psychologically more pleasing on whatever level.

    One more thing, this forum is already 7 pages, maybe we should move it to a new discussion, too.
    Last edited by nightflier; 05-23-2005 at 12:36 PM. Reason: typos

  2. #127
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...
    I'm with you. I don't doubt the multi-channel theory - just am not impressed by and large by the execution for musical presentations. My reference is live unamplified music, most often symphony orchestras. Other than room ambience, I just didn't hear anything Friday night at the ASO from the musicians emerge from the balcony or the side walls. Regarding ambience and center fill, good mic-ing technique goes a long way, IMHO whether it's fifty year old Living Presence RCAs or more current Telarc stuff.

    rw

  3. #128
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I'm with you. I don't doubt the multi-channel theory - just am not impressed by and large by the execution for musical presentations. My reference is live unamplified music, most often symphony orchestras. Other than room ambience, I just didn't hear anything Friday night at the ASO from the musicians emerge from the balcony or the side walls. Regarding ambience and center fill, good mic-ing technique goes a long way, IMHO whether it's fifty year old Living Presence RCAs or more current Telarc stuff.

    rw
    How do you think your reference stands up to studio projects? It can't really because studio recordings have no reference. Live recording do. You were listening to a live concert in a live venue and that is the reference for that set. Studio recording are not live events, do not normally have all of the musician in the studio at the same time, and tracks are not laid in the same day. Trying to compare this to a live situation in real time is impossible.

    Some classical music score use antiphonal brass parts positioned in the rear or sides of the venue. If they are not recorded or panned into the rears or sides are we being true to the music? Too many folks use "stereo" as a reference for multichannel. That is a mistake of epic proportions. Multichannel wasn't concieved out of the limitations of the playback technology of this time, stereo was.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  4. #129
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...as I have said all along(and you could re-read my posts)...I have NO OBJECTIONS to multi-channel, per se...if used as an enhancement for traditional presentation techniques, whereby it helps localize the performers or provide more of the "you are there" factor. My argument centers of a "misuse" of the concept, which simply has guitars "flying through the head" for the sake of the "WOW!" factor, that sort of thing, you know impressing the easily-swayed "masses"...and I don't really have all that much of a problem even with THAT application...Zep, Kraftwerk, Floyd, etc. all have used it in stereo to provide the desired effect...the genres that use such devices, pop/rock or experimental/performance art, seem to rely more on production values than on quality of composition and are more of style than substance IMHO...These affectations(including any deliberately "misplaced" musicians) are done for effect and are, in general practice, the exception rather than the rule...particularly in a live venue.
    There is no such thing as traditional presentation techniques. It only exist if you compare multichannel to what has been done in stereo. Stereo by nature is a front loaded system. Everything is placed in front of you because the delivery mechanism is there. Our hearing system is not a front loaded system or our ears would be on our forehead. We hear naturally in 360 degrees. You are(as I have said constantly) thinking one dimensionally in a three dimensional process. There are live recordings, studio recordings, conceptual recording and mixing processes. Each requires a different principle when approaching mixing. No one size fits all.

    Over and over I have read you rather uneducacted musing regarding the "misplacement" of instruments and vocals. If you are creating a concept album, anything goes. You can place instruments and vocals anywhere in the soundfield if that is you concept. It is not wrong as you so often contend, but just another approach to recording and a different conceptual idea. The problem is you are stuck in old school, with an old mind, with a old concept of how mixing should be done. This is a new world with more channels and with more than one way to mix an album. Live recordings should paint an accurate representation of the performance done. But studio recordings are not the same as a live recording. There is no actual soundstaging in studio recordings, so you have to create it. Panning instruments into the rear speakers is not wrong, flashy, or done to create a (in a negative tone you take)wow effect, it is nothing more than another way of accomplishing a artist vision of what the desire. If you don't like it, that is one thing. To call it wrong just shows that you are stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward.

    Classical music and classic jazz do not require such manipulation.
    If the jazz is a studio recording, then it does require a different mixing technique. However the concept of recreating and event, and creating one is quite different from each other. Manipulation is aVERY poor choice of wording though.



    The quality of the MUSIC and performance transcends the medium, be it stereo, mono or my little finger-spinning execise. I defy anyone, anywhere to "improve"(and to whom it may concern, you know perfectly well what I mean, so let's not go off on some insipid tangent) on something like Miles Davis' "Birth Of The Cool"...originally twelve sides, released in mono...as 78s and re-mastered from the original studio sources(as opposed to the second or third generation disks used in other releases of this material) fairly recently by Rudy Van Gelder for release as a CD...It has depth and presence and it's still in mono...fancy that! Pool players have a saying "class beats @$$"
    While the quality of the music and performance is extremely important, the medium is also equally important. A good performance of good music can be botched up with a poor recording and mixing job. If you have the orginal tapes, anything can be improved. You can even convert a mono recording to VERY good stereo. Chace Studios does it all the time. Whether YOU like it or not is immaterial. Fans of Miles will judge the quality of the performance, music, and the recording based on how well something like this would sell. That opinion doesn't not rest on the shoulders of a person unwilling, and unable to move into the future.


    BTW, my experience as a performer, later as a field recordist and more currently as an educated and opinionated consumer, negates TtTs demeaning and highly insulting statements re: my "qualifications" to post on this or any other topic within my field of endeavor. It is misleading AND irrelevant to the issue and simply an example of a continuing "smokescreen". Should one chose to review the "to and fro" that has transpired within this thread, it should be painfully obvious who is actually the "spinmeister".
    Being a performer or a field recordist is quite different from being a studio engineer. Especially if you did both a hundred years ago. Times, formats, recording practices, mixing and mastering equipment, and how they are used have all changed, or is changing as we speak. It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today.

    If you felt demeaned or insulted by my comments, that simply means that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You just don't like you antiquated ideas regarding recording and mixing challenged. Well, its a new world RL, either you join us, or get left behind. As far as your feelings getting hurt, put a band aid on them and get over it.


    And to those who think we don't hear in "stereo", at least in the "audiophile" sense of the word...you are right, we hear binaurally...Our two(count 'em) ears have more acuity to determining sources and reflections than any system or format could ever possibly hope to represent in a sound reproduction situation. HOWEVER...the end mix pretty much consists of L&R...anything beyond that basic representation, any discrete sound sources we may hear at the live event, is due to bleeding of these sources...In the finished product, they would require a specific assignment in the "stereo" soundstage, via panning, to approximate what we hear binaurally.
    jimHJJ(...I hope that clarifies things a bit...)
    The end mix can be more than just L&R, it could just as easily be 5.1. Stereo is a format created out of limitation, it is not and never has been a reference format. The limitations of the equipment gave bith to stereo. To use it as the epitomy of sound reproduction is a huge mistake, and just plain rediculous.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  5. #130
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    How do you think your reference stands up to studio projects? It can't really because studio recordings have no reference.
    Agreed. For qualitative determinations, I avoid studio recordings for that very reason. Having said that, I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Some classical music score use antiphonal brass parts positioned in the rear or sides of the venue. If they are not recorded or panned into the rears or sides are we being true to the music?
    If the live venue has such an arrangement, then I would agree you would need a multi-channel system in order to accurately reproduce it. I have yet to encounter such, however, in thirty years of concert attendance. I'll go with the 95% solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Multichannel wasn't concieved out of the limitations of the playback technology of this time, stereo was.
    Independent of technology or preconceived notions, there are unavoidable economic concerns that come into play when you compare two channel to multi-channel. I have heard very good MC and it does some things very well. For a given (non-astronomical) budget, you must necessarily compromise the quality of the individual components in a MC based system. The question then boils down to performance compromises and individual preferences.

    I do enjoy my 5.1 HT system, but not for music.

    rw

  6. #131
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Agreed. For qualitative determinations, I avoid studio recordings for that very reason. Having said that, I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.
    Man!! Your sure are missing alot of music. Just because we have to pan instruments into position doesn't mean its bad! LOL


    If the live venue has such an arrangement, then I would agree you would need a multi-channel system in order to accurately reproduce it. I have yet to encounter such, however, in thirty years of concert attendance. I'll go with the 95% solution.
    I guess you don't listen to many requiems. Almost all of them require antiphonal parts whether in the brass or chorus. The last two concerts I attended freatured the Berlioz and Mozart requiem complete with perfect placed antiphonal parts. I guess I have had more opportunities to hear these kinds of things than you have.


    Independent of technology or preconceived notions, there are unavoidable economic concerns that come into play when you compare two channel to multi-channel. I have heard very good MC and it does some things very well. For a given (non-astronomical) budget, you must necessarily compromise the quality of the individual components in a MC based system. The question then boils down to performance compromises and individual preferences.

    I do enjoy my 5.1 HT system, but not for music.

    rw
    My system does well on both. I planned it that way. I do not believe you have to make a compromise on either music or movies just to put together a system that does both well. And it doesn't have to be as expensive as many of you seem to think.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  7. #132
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    Talking Brilliant

    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    As near as I can tell, for equivalent sound quality, the price per channel is more or less fixed. So good 5 or 6 channel sound will cost you 2.5 to 3 times the cost of good 2 channel sound. I for one, can't afford it.
    Neat eh? You can quote yourself, probably reduces disagreement.

    We went all the way around and back to page 1.

    In the end we talked about the quality of the musical experience and while multi-channel adds somthing two channel can not accomplish, for a given cost it seems many here would choose clean, good quality sound over more spatial information. I believe that reasonably answers the original posters question "Why do people like 2.0 channel so much???"

    If and when the multi channel cost drops to allow equivalent quality vs two channel with the same total cost, many will switch. I might switch sooner if that lottery number comes in.

  8. #133
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    I dont belive anyone would say,lets see,2.0 is cheaper so thats it for me. Sir T has it right,most HT does 2.0 just fine and just as good as a seperate 2.0 system.
    Look & Listen

  9. #134
    Forum Regular hermanv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    968

    HT vs dedicated stereo

    For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

    Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

    So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

    The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.

  10. #135
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by hermanv
    For my HT system I have a 5 year old NAD driving two Dahlquist fronts, the combined cost (of only the 2 channel part) was nearly centered in the 4 digit range so I didn't cheap out. This system in 2 channel mode doesn't pass muster compared to my main stereo system in sound quality (worse, it's not a hard call)

    Now my main did cost more admitted, but I tried quite hard to consolidate and simply could not afford the cash to add more channels without damaging the two I had. 5 years ago "cut through" pre-amps didn't exist.

    So I don't think I agree. There is the caveat that I most certainly have not heard every possible HT system available but the better processors are megabuck devices and the HT receiver/decoders I've heard just won't do the 2 channel job I've come to expect.

    The Dahlquists were "leftovers" from an upgrade helping my decision, but I assume we are talking about what someone should buy starting with no existing baggage.
    I don't think you have heard enough receivers nor are all good stand alone process all that expensive. You guys look at your 2.0 systems as investments, why wouldn't you look at a 5.1 system the same way. I did, and the cost of my system didn't break the bank either. If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  11. #136
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Man!! Your sure are missing alot of music. Just because we have to pan instruments into position doesn't mean its bad! LOL
    I'm confused TT. Here is what I said: I regularly enjoy listening to a wide range of multi-tracked music.

    Your point would be...what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I guess you don't listen to many requiems.
    That would be correct - not into requiems. Not ready for the heavy death thing yet. I'm more into Copland, Holst, Prokofiev, Ravel, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I do not believe you have to make a compromise on either music or movies just to put together a system that does both well. And it doesn't have to be as expensive as many of you seem to think.
    I guess we will just disagree here as we have different points of reference.

    rw

  12. #137
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    If you do your homework(listening) purchasing a good 5.1 system can be about the same price as alot of good high end two channel system.
    Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.

  13. #138
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Sir T is absolutely correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by Arturo7
    Don't really want to pick on you TT. You have brought up quite a few excellent points about MC that I have never considered. But I've got to call BS on this particular statement. Source equipment aside, let's assume you've got $10,000 to spend on the speaker/amplifier part of your system. 10 grand divided by two channels buys a helluva lot more quality than 10 grand divided by six channels.
    The idea that a good multi-channel system would cost more than a stereo system to acheive the same level of "performance" ignores two "truths" in audio, and is very incorrect.
    My stereo would cost about double the 5.1 system in my living room. Yet the multi-channel performance offers more enjoyment, a better experience despite it's relative difficiencies. There is a tradeoff, the highs and midrange are slightly less refined, but the added benefits of a more realistic 3-d soundstage, superior imaging, and much bigger and more dynamic sound, outweigh this IMO. It's more fun to listen to. I suspect if I was to invest the same amount into my 5.1 the overall results would be even more favorable.

    First, I have yet to meet an audiophile who disagrees with the notion of diminishing returns on "investment" in audio equipement. $10,000 speakers sound fabulous, but they certainly don't sound 5 times better than $2000 speakers...not even close. I'd argue thhey don't sound two times better than $2000 speakers...I know, it's difficult to put a number on it specifically, but I'm sure we can all agree that with each successive upgrade we're squeezing yet a few more percentage points out of our systems, not exponential improvements, but relatively minor leaps. Diminishing returns and all. It stands to reason you are more effectively allocating your resources buying "lower-end" gear for a 5.1 system.

    Second, after establishing the differences in performance aren't aren't directly proportional to the differences in price, it's important to understand that in a multi-channel system you DON'T NEED speakers of such high quality to achieve the same leval of performance in your 2-channel system.

    Off the top of my head I can think of a few reasons why. This is going to require rethinking the way you build your system however. Fortunately, many manufacturers have already begun to change the way they build speakers.

    In any speaker worth having, the drivers represent the largest cost of material - if they don't then this speaker wasn't built effectively. (notwithstanding the inevitable exception to this rule, but show me a speaker with $5000 invested in high grade electronic components and $1000 worth of drivers and I'll find you a much better one for $4000 in drivers and $1000 in higher grade electonic components) Most often, higher priced woofers AND tweeters cost more money to produce only to achieve a lower frequency of resonance. Lower response, but not better in the common ranges.
    The 0.1 channel of the multi-channel system allows a whole new and better topology for reproducing the audio spectrum. (not to mention providing superior flexibility in placing the bass reproducing speakers in the best location in the room, which is rarely where you'd place your main speakers). By dedicating a woofer (or two) to the lowest octave and incorporating a high-pass filter somewhere in the 1st or second octave, you either dramatically mitigate the loss of linear control in the remaining drivers by relieving them of the low frequencies at their limits of response (where they perform poorest), or you decrease the need for higher priced drivers that are required to overcome the dilemma of choosing between more low frequency response or superior performance in the remaining regions..

    This doesn't even take into consideration that a 5.1 system will not need the same level of refinement to reproduce the equivalent soundstage and imaging as a stereo system, just by virtue of having more speakers.

    It's not much of a stretch to see why a 5.1 system, with a more effective allocation of resources, could offer more satisfaction and performance than a 2.0 system. Furthermore by incorporating the cost of 2 separate systems (ie: E-stat/Kex's separate 2.0 stereo and 5.1 systems) into one system, you can have your cake and eat it too.

    To me the cost of the equipment is not a good argument at all. The remaining hurdles in the transtion to multi-channel audio instead remain with the continued struggle to find a universal mainstream medium to deliver the format. I also believe that for many people space and complexity might be a bit of a deterrent. Let's face it - 5 speakers in very small rooms is going to be tough. But if multi-channel fails it certainly shouldn't because of cost, or inferior performance.

  14. #139
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Great idea Nightflier

    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    Hardware:

    On the 5.1 side, it should be an SACD/DVD-A player with discreet 5.1 analog outputs. No processing should be used so all the matrixed formats (PLII, Stereo-5, etc.) are out. Also, an effort needs to be made to simplify the system as much as possible, too, so any unused components should be removed from the systems.

    For 2.0, we'll also use the SACD/DVD-A player connected to 2-speakers with absolutely no software processing. Before we go on, we should determine if we include 2.1 in this comparison since we are using a sub on the 5.1 side, or would that constitute too much processing?

    I realize that much of the comparison will depend on the quality of DAC's both internal ones and seperate ones, but to keep the comparison reasonably manageable, we'll ignore these.

    Software:

    The next thing we need to hammer out is the music. We've been throwing all kinds of types into this debate. Live? Studio? Recorded for 5.1 and downmixed to 2.0 or visa-versa? So let's agree on several well regarded and representative recordings that are available on a hybrid multi-channel disk and that most of us are likely to own. It should be a good selection of music tracks with good representation in bass, mid's and highs. It should also cover several music genres such as classical, jazz, etc. as well as a good selection of instruments and voices.

    So there you have it.

    I propose we all decide on a these criteria for a fair comparison. Then we come back here and see what we have found. Our systems vary greatly, I know, but this way we'll get somewhat of a concensus. I think this would be a very interesting experiment. While many will immediately conclude that the multi-channel camp will win this (I can already see the vinylophiles boycotting everything from here on out), we need to keep in mind that most of the music we select here was written for 2.0 and re-engineered for 5.1 once multi-channel became popular enough. Ultimately, the crux of this debate is whether multichannel stays truer to the original music than stereo, or whether it is merely psychologically more pleasing on whatever level.

    One more thing, this forum is already 7 pages, maybe we should move it to a new discussion, too.
    I agree, all processing would have to be "off"...the .1 channel I would suggest be left at the discretion of the individual for 2.0 music. Using a sub isn't really processing anymore than a 3-way crossover in a 3-way speaker is, but it's an integral componenent of DVD-A and SACD tracks. No processing at all, just a dedicated audio channel.

    I think this would be worth pursuing here, and if nothing else would at the very least expose people to multi-channel audio. Hopefully if we could get enough people on this site onboard, we could combine the knowledge and present "guidelines" for setup, etc, so the inexperience with multi-channel isn't a factor.

    PM me if you want to follow up on this...we could probably start a new thread to enlist some more volunteers, then formulate a strategy or rules for approaching this.

    Now you're thinking! Good job!

  15. #140
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Jeez Louise...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    There is no such thing as traditional presentation techniques.It only exist if you compare multichannel to what has been done in stereo. Stereo by nature is a front loaded system. Everything is placed in front of you because the delivery mechanism is there. Our hearing system is not a front loaded system or our ears would be on our forehead. We hear naturally in 360 degrees. You are(as I have said constantly) thinking one dimensionally in a three dimensional process. There are live recordings, studio recordings, conceptual recording and mixing processes. Each requires a different principle when approaching mixing. No one size fits all.
    When I go to a live presentation, the performers are in front of me...unless of course I'm facing the bar...As to the rest of your paragraph...again, I have no problem with trying to provide a "you-are-there" simulation. Why do you keep arguing against an non-argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    Over and over I have read you rather uneducacted musing regarding the "misplacement" of instruments and vocals. If you are creating a concept album, anything goes. You can place instruments and vocals anywhere in the soundfield if that is you concept. It is not wrong as you so often contend, but just another approach to recording and a different conceptual idea. The problem is you are stuck in old school, with an old mind, with a old concept of how mixing should be done. This is a new world with more channels and with more than one way to mix an album. Live recordings should paint an accurate representation of the performance done. But studio recordings are not the same as a live recording. There is no actual soundstaging in studio recordings, so you have to create it. Panning instruments into the rear speakers is not wrong, flashy, or done to create a (in a negative tone you take)wow effect, it is nothing more than another way of accomplishing a artist vision of what the desire. If you don't like it, that is one thing. To call it wrong just shows that you are stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward.
    QUOTE]

    Oh, puh-leese...give it a rest...my opinion is just as valid as yours...you keep repeating things about my "...uneducted musing..." or being of "... old school, with an old mind..." or that I am somehow "...stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward..." why is that? Feel threatened? Haven't any facts to back up any of your feeble arguments? Does your own sense of worth require that you to resort to some asinine assassination attempt in order to somehow "discredit" my opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    Manipulation is aVERY poor choice of wording though.
    I'm sorry, are you familiar with the definition of the word "manipulation"? You could look it up...and BTW, when your spelling and grammar improve, you may have cause to comment on MY choice of words...until then, kindly keep your comments to yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    That opinion doesn't not rest on the shoulders of a person unwilling, and unable to move into the future.It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today

    Being a performer or a field recordist is quite different from being a studio engineer. Especially if you did both a hundred years ago. Times, formats, recording practices, mixing and mastering equipment, and how they are used have all changed, or is changing as we speak. It is painfully obvious that you haven't kept up. What you did in the old days is quite different from what they do today.

    If you felt demeaned or insulted by my comments, that simply means that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You just don't like you antiquated ideas regarding recording and mixing challenged. Well, its a new world RL, either you join us, or get left behind. As far as your feelings getting hurt, put a band aid on them and get over it..
    Well, there you go again...and while you're at it, tell us all about those Niagra recorders...

    jimHJJ(...do tell...)

  16. #141
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA
    Posts
    42
    You make a very good point on the subwoofer covering the lower frequencies so the drivers don't have to. The same can be done with stereo and you've still got 3 more channels of value.

    The law of diminishing returns certainly applies to speakers. However, you still get higher quality at $5,000 per amp/speaker than $1,666 per amp/speaker. 3 times the quality? Probably not. 50% more? Probably, if not more. This is of course, highly subjective.

    Soundstage is only one aspect of a sound system's performance. Accuracy is another. I would rather have a violin sound like a violin than my room sound like a concert hall. Perhaps this preference is at the core of this thread's disagreement.

    So yes, cost is very much a part of this discussion.

    Then there's the issue of 60 years worth of recordings vs only a few.

  17. #142
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?
    Look & Listen

  18. #143
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Arturo7: Adding a subwoofer to a stereo isn't the same as using it in a 5.1 system. The information the sub receives from 5.1 is discrete, and mastered with the subwoofer in mind. A stereo requires digital processing, or a filter with a few more crossover and connection difficulties. While I agree a 2-channels system is improved with a sub as well, I believe the 5.1 system (or even a 2.1 system if it exists) uses it much better.

    Wow! 50% improvement from $1666 to $5000 ? In my honest opinion I've always reduced felt it to be more in the area of 15-25%, if that. Maybe a few years back, but $1000 speakers are sounding better and better these days, I haven't heard the same leaps and bounds in the more expensive models (yet). But I understand and can appreciate the subjective "values" we place on that last 10%. But I definitely do not hear 50% more music, 50% more frequencies, 50% more instruments etc, between a $1000 speaker and $5000 speaker. I'll respect your opinion though, I'm sure to some other people the difference is even greater (or less). Whatever subjective values you wish to place on it the point remains that 2 speakers are being fed a workload that 5 speakers of lower "performance" could handle at a comparable level once relieved of the burden. Perhaps not as "accurately" as you had said, but close. I'm quite sure I can listen to almost any $1,666 speaker and identify a violin sounds like a violin 100% as much as on a $5000 or $10000 speaker. Does the $5000 speaker sound better? Yes, at least to me, but the improvements become increasingly marginal. Enough that I believe the value gap can be easily overcome by amalgamating 2 separate systems into 1. Though, for those with no interest in home theater, I'll admit there would be less value in it. I concede, I spend no less than 1 hour a day (when I'm not on the road at work) listening to music on my system, often more. I spend at least 10 hours a week watching movies, or HDTV, (and even the odd video game) where the home theater side is important, so I'm probably in the 60/40 camp in favour of music. That makes it easier for me to value the multi-channel investment.

    I suspect if we were to define "accuracy" I suspect we'd get a number of criteria, "resolution and finer detail" as you seem to imply being one, 3-d soundstaging and imaging being another. What draws you in more? Which is more important? That's subjective, to me they're about equal I think - lack of imaging and staging sounds anything BUT real. A violin doesn't sound like a violin when it sounds like Cello, a cymbal, and a horn all at the same time. And I wouldn't care where a dull sounding harp was emitting sounds from if it was lifeless and flat. I don't think I could determine that one of these aspects draws me in more than the other. But we can both admit that some speakers are far better at one of these than the other...in a 5.1 system, with the imaging and soundstage by design being far superior (adding a great element of detail and resolution in itself), I would probably focus on a speaker that invested more design into the "accuracy" element than the soundstaging element to achieve similar results - back to the efficient resource allocation notion.

    I'm struggling with this decision now...tempted to move my main speakers and amp into my HT and slowly match the surround channels to it. But as I mentioned before, the space limitations (well, spousal-acceptance-factor) are interfering with this idea. And as good as my speakers in my 5.1 system are, I don't enjoy them nearly as much in 2.0 as my stereo speakers, so I'd hate to "downgrade" all the 2.0 music I have.

  19. #144
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    When I go to a live presentation, the performers are in front of me...unless of course I'm facing the bar...As to the rest of your paragraph...again, I have no problem with trying to provide a "you-are-there" simulation. Why do you keep arguing against an non-argument?
    The argument boils down to your rather narrow view of what constitutes a mix. You think there is only one way to do it, my experience teaches me that you are plain wrong. Simple as that. Your perspective is based only on live events, but recording audio extends well beyond that.


    Oh, puh-leese...give it a rest...my opinion is just as valid as yours...you keep repeating things about my "...uneducted musing..." or being of "... old school, with an old mind..." or that I am somehow "...stuck in the past, and unwilling to move foward..." why is that? Feel threatened? Haven't any facts to back up any of your feeble arguments? Does your own sense of worth require that you to resort to some asinine assassination attempt in order to somehow "discredit" my opinion?
    Why should I feel threatened by somebody who listens to music on a mono system? Or a person who has very limited multichannel listening experience(and doesn't even have a multichannel system) talking multichannel as if he were an expert on the subject. Mono is not even yesterday, it was last century. As far as facts go, I have presented enough just in this thread alone to write a book, just adjust those bi-focals and read.

    I don't have to discredit your opinion, you did a great job of that all by yourself. My sense of self worth is not apart of this topic. Your continued spinning is making me dizzy.

    I'm sorry, are you familiar with the definition of the word "manipulation"? You could look it up...and BTW, when your spelling and grammar improve, you may have cause to comment on MY choice of words...until then, kindly keep your comments to yourself.
    VERY familar online trick. When you have no facts to present, you attack grammar and spelling. This isn't about grammar or spelling. Stick to the topic and give the spin a rest.

    No need to look it up manipulation, I know exactly what it means. It doesn't apply to this topic at all, because that is not what audio engineers do. This word may work to forward your "record company trying to fool the consumers" theory, but in reality(where you have a problem living) it doesn't apply to mixing at all



    Well, there you go again...and while you're at it, tell us all about those Niagra recorders...

    jimHJJ(...do tell...)
    I would prefer that you talk about your great mono audio system. Must be state of the art!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #145
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well...

    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    So all you 2ch guys dont watch movies on 5.1?
    ...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

    I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

    All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

    Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...

    Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

    I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

    jimHJJ(...good listening...)

  21. #146
    nerd ericl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    908

    Chill!!

    Yo, Guys,

    CHILL OUT!!!!!

    alright? you're getting mighty personal in here, and its embarassing.

    don't make me shut this thread down!!

    your pal,

    Eric

  22. #147
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    ...as I said to E-Stat in another thread, I don't...got me a tee-vee, a VCR and a DVD player...if I had the gear to watch movies, why wouldn't I use it for music...

    I just asked.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again...it's all just so much hoo-ha! Someone, somewhere has sold the public a bill-of-goods...you can't live without it...the HT, the gonzo SUV, the designer clothes, the $6 dollar cuppa', the friggin' cell-phone...

    I dont own a SUV. Never been to Starbucks. Jeans and t-shirts for me. Never owned or even used a cell-phone. Shoots all that down the drain.

    All this cr@p is a smokescreen...if Marx thought religion was the opiate of the masses, I wonder how he would characterize all this consumer garbage...

    Look, and please follow me here...all this $h!t is stuff that trickled down from the folks who have more money than brains...rich folks have had their fancy cars and big houses, the projection TVs, didn't care if a cheezburger cost 'em 20 bux...if you convince enough of us mere mortals that these things will somehow make our lives "better" because we too can "have it all" it distracts us from the real problems...sooo, we have latch-key kids because both parents have to work to keep up the "lifestyle", more stress, $h!t food from Col. Macwendybelle because no one cooks, rampant obesity and health issues, reliance on prescription drugs to help us sleep or stay awake or deal with high blood pressure or stress...folks who don't think twice about $200 sneakers and continue to aid and abet the continuing upward spiral...the "average" family with an average CC debt of $7000...get my drift...it's a all big game...
    My sneakers are always on sale,hopefully under 70 bucks.

    Never,ever had a CC debt

    Before some yahoo takes me to task for being too far off-topic...I prefer stereo...further, I prefer vinyl and RTR tapes, not because they are better formats(which they very well might be) but because it has a ritual...it's more involving. Setting-up the TT/cart requires a certain ability some might find daunting, cleaning the disks is certainly ritual, being steps closer to the event is compelling, threading tape, cleaning and demagnetizing heads, feeling like an archivist or keeper of tradition is also a part of it. I have a theory that much of the wire hoopla and similar things are the result of the "digitizing" the sources, it fills a void...Yes, I do listen to CDs but they are even more "impersonal" than cassettes were...they're throwaways, it's all too easy...playing music isn't the "event" it is with analog, I feel less compelled to make it anything special or even bother to sit to listen...but, hey...it's fast becoming a disposable world for folks who can't grasp more than a sound-bite or so it seems...

    I have system requirements the newer stuff cannot fulfill...and, contrary to popular opinion, that fact does not make me less "educated" but more so...it requires more time, effort and energy to seek out gear that will meet my needs and discarding stuff that doesn't. In the process I am exposed to all the formats and gear at varying price levels...I learn what I can, and arrive at reasonable conclusions based on facts, not the premise of somehow improving my lot in life.

    jimHJJ(...good listening...)
    In the end,its ok that you listen to 2ch and its ok someothers use HT for both. Some of your thoughts are quite a loud of crap,imo of course. I could easily figure all 2ch users are fat,short slobs that wearout there chairs within 6 months but i dont think that at all.
    Look & Listen

  23. #148
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    And YOU talk about spin!!!...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    The argument boils down to your rather narrow view of what constitutes a mix. You think there is only one way to do it, my experience teaches me that you are plain wrong. Simple as that. Your perspective is based only on live events, but recording audio extends well beyond that.
    Still beating the dead horse argument-wise, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    Why should I feel threatened by somebody who listens to music on a mono system? Or a person who has very limited multichannel listening experience(and doesn't even have a multichannel system) talking multichannel as if he were an expert on the subject. Mono is not even yesterday, it was last century. As far as facts go, I have presented enough just in this thread alone to write a book, just adjust those bi-focals and read.
    Did I say I listen to a mono system? A little reading comprhension seems in order here...I said "I can" drop a 78 on my Heathkit/BSR changer with a crystal cart and feed it through my old SONY AM/FM/WB portable...the gist being the performance transcends the medium...still don't get it? That poor horse...a book...A BOOK...sorry books require many pages and paper a bit larger than the fortune in a cookie.

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    I don't have to discredit your opinion
    And yet to seem to relish the attempt at doing so...

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    My sense of self worth is not apart of this topic
    Oh, but it is...

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    Your continued spinning is making me dizzy
    It's your own pirouette that's responsible for that...

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    VERY familar online trick. When you have no facts to present, you attack grammar and spelling. This isn't about grammar or spelling.
    Nor is it about my poor choice of words...is it now? just a little tit-for-tat TtT...I seem to recall something earlier about dishing things out...

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    No need to look it up manipulation, I know exactly what it means. It doesn't apply to this topic at all, because that is not what audio engineers do. This word may work to forward your "record company trying to fool the consumers" theory, but in reality(where you have a problem living) it doesn't apply to mixing at all
    And just what do engineers do? Run a locomotive? Sit behind stacks of papers with a slide-rule...err, scientific calculator? Take some entity and change it to somehow fit a prescribed requirement? May not be using ones hands to beat a piece of iron into shape, but it's still "manipulation" in every sense of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by TtT
    I would prefer that you talk about your great mono audio system. Must be state of the art!
    Wish I actually had one, a nice Rek-O-Kut with a Pickering cart and some 16" transcriptions, a Wollensak or Ampex deck, a Fisher, EICO or Marantz front-end and a MAC or Scott amp powering a built-in infinite baffle with some E-V drivers...maybe wire in the old DuMont...but alas, I don't...so drag that horse back to the stable and let's concentrate on those Niagra recorders, shall we?

    jimHJJ(...slowly I turned...)

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. bi amping center channel using Y adaptor
    By lomarica in forum Amps/Preamps
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2005, 07:31 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-22-2004, 09:54 AM
  3. Kex to further discuss adverts.
    By RGA in forum Speakers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2004, 03:23 PM
  4. DVD Player question
    By Brian68 in forum General Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-13-2004, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •