Stereo versus surround sound

Also
Woochifer


Sony got rid of that damn cheap DVD/SACD player in Canada anyway. Hi-fitommy lucked out. It was going for $229.00 but they dumped it and the replacements at more money don't have SACD.

The cheapest SACD player here now is a 400 disc DVD/CD/SACD player at $799.00CDN. Which actually isn't that bad a deal considering it does everything and even more and I have been impressed with the the CDP 355 300 disc changer. It's actually quieter than a lot of carousel units. It's strange that something so big can cost $280.00CDN and yet some dinky Sony digital Camera is even more money. Well it's not strange I know why but still.

I've noticed that this thread is getting a little out of hand.

I've also noticed, like someone mentioned earlier that it's starting to get to much to read all.

A discussion started about full range speakers to replace multiple-way speakers. First thing that crossed my mind was the fact that in every design with full range drivers you have a significant loss of frequency range. Again I'm openminded about this but I can't ignore that fact. Getting the full range out of a single driver poses a significant technical challenge.

I read a post where stereosound was being defended and with a good argument. My view on it: if you want a concert sound, with cheers behind you and a band in front of you and a guy cursing on your right and chick flashing 'something', go see and hear the concert. Is it really worth it to go out and spend a massive budget on a surroundset just for those few music DVD's or SACD's you have. You nearly have to be a movie and concert DVD or SACD fan only. No music? If you rich, well then no problem! But the mass of people aren't, consider that.

The massive budget required to purchase a quality surroundset scare a lot of people, that's also the reason why cheap, small and ill powered surroundsets overwhelm the market. They have a cheesy sound and are usually driven by a inside-subwoofer-amplifier (or more likely a small powerdistributer, little or no coils, cooling or extra connections)
You also often require a lot of space for a decent surroundset, another luxury not many people have.

I also find the idea of a 9.1 channel system outrageous. I you really want to go that far, well than build your own theather to put it in. Don't come and tell me you would put a 9.1 system in your livingroom. Two problems: either weak units ill driven, cheap system; or well driven system but so much power you can never really use it a reasonble potential and if you do your neighbour will start to complain (if you don't have any good for you!)

I guess we won't be able to stop the excentric looneys. 5.1 is more than enough 6.1 and 7.1 is already pushing it to me!

And that receiver thing, pffff. I mean there are many good receiver, but have you encountered a lot with A-class operation, I sure haven't. It's also not interesting because it is a mainly a movie oriented product.

All you really have to do is make the choice;
-do I love movies and like music, then go for the HT-experience
-do you adore a smooth angellike sound in your life and a decent or no HT then go out and purchase that classic A-class operation goldpiece and a sturdy pair of speakers

Be reasonably crazy, you'll only be doing yourself a favor!

2 channel will go the way of the eight track....in 20 years or less. I don't like it either but I just can't buck the ball...what format will dominate is still a bit fuzzy but I'll keep looking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I was not attacking SACD though it sounded that way. No, I was attacking the store trying to sell people a new format and then to put on that Eagles disc is mind boggling. It is a bigger box chain though but still. Instead of having to hard sell people by giving them sales propaganda would it not be much easier to select some competant discs and let it sell itself?

If I'm running the store I'd be looking at discs from makers such as Chesky, Telarc, RR, Opus 3 etc. I realize 98% of buyers want top 40 and rock and roll but man there must be something better than that disc to choose. I have heard better systems, but many people hearing that may get turned off, certainly when you want over a grand for the player, and have to buy a bunch of speakers to impede one's living room to get sound that is pretty close to the already bad cd version.

Instead of reviving 70s music they should be trying to appeal to the 20 somethings or even teens who spend mom and dad's money. They're the one's filling the theaters to watch the ghastly movies being made and they're the ones ready to buy into anything with a COOL factor. Dare I say it but get Britney or Cold Play, or 50cent or some such music on SACD. Of course then I won't be going anywhere near it because the selection would make me nautious but hey I'm probably not their market. That's not really true everyone can be the market...but 70's music is probably not the best.

---

Sorry, in rereading the thread, I realize that I missed that point. You're right in that the stores should be demoing more of the mixes that were originally done with 5.1 in mind, rather than 70s recordings that got repurposed for surround. But, it could just reflect the taste of the people running the store more than anything.

The first batch of DVD-A and SACD releases included an awful lot of the exact same titles that were in the first group of CD releases (e.g. Billy Joel "The Stranger" Mike Oldfeld "Tubular Bells" Fleetwood Mac "Rumors"). I would think that pop music has evolved a little bit since 1982. It's only more recently that more current titles have gotten into the pipeline. Considering that the so-called "Gen-Y" consumers are the ones who do more MP3 downloading, I would've thought that the record companies would target them with all sorts of incentives to migrate them over to the copy protected DVD-A and SACD formats. In quite a few cases, the surround version opens a whole new world of sounds compared to the two-channel version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

The extra money on a turntable. Well I've never heard an esoteric turntable. The TT1 from Audio Note is the best turntable I've ever heard, and it's less money than some of the highly touted Linn's. I'm not sure about it's build quality, has a wierd floating chassis...but then judging it agains my table I'll trade - so maybe floating tables are good.

---

The isolation system on a turntable is very important, and potentially expensive. Unlike with solid state components or digital sources, the overall audio performance of a turntable depends a lot on the ability of the unit to minimize external intrusions. The spring suspended chassis is one of the more popular isolation designs out there. AR introduced it in the early 50s, and it's very effective. The Well Tempered decks use an ingenious fluid suspension system to dampen any vibrations from reaching the tone arm, and it's also very effective. A lot of the obsession with isolation designs that went into turntables got carried over into all sorts of products designed for amps, CD players, etc. but with those types of components I'm not convinced at all that they are necessary or particularly effective.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing turntables is that the cartridge is at least as important (but much more frequently overlooked), as is the setup (the VTA, overhang, tonearm balancing, etc. all need to be accounted for).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I have gotten lazy and generally prefer cds for their ease of use. With a chanfger I can sit in my chair for 6 hours and listen to anything in my collections without getting up. Lazy you bet but it's nice. Getting up to hear one song on an LP or every 20-25minutes to change records? Convenience vs sound. And good cds are just as good if not better than LP. It depends on the RECORDINGS not the medium.

One reason I support SACD is not the format but the recording. If they take a horrible recording and make it good...then that is reason enough to go SACD - the multi-channel is icing on the cake.

---

In some ways, the whole ritual involved with LP playback makes music not so much a matter of convenience and background, but more of an event and something that commands full attention.

You do find good and bad examples in any medium, and really the thing to watch out for is the quality of the transfer, not necessarily the original recording since we have no way of assessing that unless we have access to the original master tapes. The great thing about SACD and DVD-A is that they necessitate going all the way back to the multitrack masters. In the process of assembling the multichannel mixes, the flaws with the two-channel transfers are exposed, and in some cases a new two-channel master gets created. Or at the very least, the two-channel transfer can be tweaked so that it sounds the way that should for a high res digital format. In addition, having five channels available eliminates a lot of the congestion with multitracked two-channel recordings. Even a clean two-channel recording like Pat Metheny's "Imaginary Day" sounds much more open and natural in 5.1, and we're not even talking about the spatial cues which sound much more targeted and deliberate.

I still have no desire for 5.1 or any other multichannel system nor do have any desire to own a receiver. I do not listen to the radio unless I'm in the car. Putting sound behind me does not interest me in any way. The only thing that belongs behind me is applause and since I'm not fond of live recordings, is unnecessary. Besides, even if I do listen to a live recording, which is rare for me as most of them were poorly done, I don't find myself waiting for that wonderful sound of applause. If you like the sound of applause, you must have a 5.1 or better system.
I also said that I was waiting for 9.1 but I was joking, sorry, someone missed the sarcasm. I am happy with two channel. If you think that your stereo recording sounds better with a 5.1 setup, go for it but I think there must be something wrong with your two channel system. Most people here seemed to think that 5.1 for music was a novelty with little merit. Many people who have 5.1 systems will still listen to music in two channel as they feel that it sounds better. I choose to listen to something that was fully intended for two channel playback. Call me an old fashioned old fart, I don't really care.
5.1 or higher may be the way of the future but I have no intention of running out to buy 4,000 or so new 5.1 CD's to replace my old albums and CD's and a complete new system to play them on. There is already 6.1 and 7.1 so then what? Are we supposed to start over again with the whole process? Sorry, not for me, I don't care what they come up with.
All of the high end products that I am aware of are made for two channel stereo. This applies to speakers and every other component that you need from cartridges, turntables, amps, preamps and CD players. There is a reason for this and the reason is that two channel is capable of reproducing very high quality sound. Is 5.1 capable of doing the same? Probably so but for the reasons mentioned above, most of us are not going to buy into it. It might be interesting to see what the future brings but I see more vinyl being produced than has been in many years. There is a reason for that too and again it comes down to quality of sound. CD's seem capable of doing it just as well but too often they don't do it so us cantankerous old farts will keep buying the vinyl. And it's not because we like distortion, quite the opposite. I expect to enjoy two channel for the rest of my life, if I'm in the dark and missing something, so be it, I like it here.
Bill

you can stand on the rail and say no it ain't....but it is...to be sure.... and it will just get better and better as technology and money (investments) move forward... I really think there will always be a place to 2 channel but to suggest that 5.1 and the formats that follow have little musical merit well...lets just say the trains a coming...and she's a coming fast and hard! Now let me make clear that if that type of future/format (5.1 etc) is not in the cards for some...that's 100% cool with me and I fully understand.... I love the 2 channel, tube and vinyl thang! long live rock and roll man!....but if your suggesting that the only thing that can be heard from the rear of a 5.1 is hand clapping?...sorry, just not factual..the fact of the matter is that most shows I've gone to over the years have had plenty of sound coming from various angles (to include the rear) depending on the venue...am I suggesting that ALL 5.1 (and beyond) formats best 2 channel? Heck no! But to blow-off the power of the future is missing out IMO. Also I think just like any other changes in media the transition is always a slow one. Nobody ran out in dumped all their 8 tracks and reel-to-reel tapes the instant cassettes came on the market...same with LP's and CD's for that matter...so I wouldn't plan on dumping' your 4000 LP/CD collection anytime in the next 20 years.... in fact if you've got a passion for vinyl pass it on to your kids (but I think it's safe to say you can lose the 8 tracks now ;) One last point, most high end hi-fi makers are into the multi-channel market these days Theta, Verastarr, Proceed, Krell, Moon, Lexicon to name a few. And most high end speaker makers tout their wears for HT/multi channel music. In fact very few disregard this market. I guess my point is that a short trip down to a local "brick and mortar" tells the short and long of it all. They are making more money with HT/multi systems and custom installs and where the money goes...so does the market...and so goes the music industry..and the technology....and the quality...up, up, up...chooo choo...do I hear a train a comin'?..;) My guess is that multi-format IS the future and the future is now...as to buying a ticket to that train is a personal matter....I just hate walking. For the record I am strictly a 2 channel guy...I have an old pro-logic system for HT...and my 2 channel system blows me HT system away...but I'm just waiting for the champagne to be sold at beer prices. Cheers! All Aboard!!!!

In fact, I may just wait forever. As long as stereo vinyl and CD's are being made well, I'll be happy to listen to them. I still have never been to a concert with music behind me, when this happens, I may have to rethink my position but I don't expect this to occur anyway. Why on earth would it happen? To surround me with music? I don't know about the rest of the world but my ears seem designed for forward and maybe some listening to the side. I can live without the side effect unless we are referring to the side reverberation present in all concert halls. The walls of a listening room do this also and it's good enough for me.
8 track was a flawed medium from the get go and didn't stay long, good riddance. I am old enough that I saw it come and go and the same for cassettes. Cassette could be better and was OK but you don't see much if any of it around either. LP's and stereo CD's are still being made by the millions and as I said, more and more artists are offering their music on LP. This is because it has good sound and people have been willing to spend lot's of money to appreciate high quality stereo sound.
Some high end companies may be making 5.1 systems but I think it's just to jump on the bandwagon and to make money more than it is to give us high quality sound. The most highly regarded components and most expensive are still two channel. I also said that I don't doubt that the multichannel can be good or even great but I am not willing to start over and I consider it to be completely unnecessary.
Don't worry, I have no plans of getting rid of any of my collection or replacing with anything new unless it is two channel and I'm just replacing a worn out LP or CD.
Yes, boatloads of money are being dumped into HT systems but they have not convinced me to spend any of my money yet. Fine for movies but I am completely happy listening to music on a system designed only for music in two channel. The fact that everyone is buying into this crap doesn't make it better in any way. Everyone went the CD route too, myself included but I never let go of any vinyl and I'm very happy that I didn't get rid of my vinyl. Look around, you'll find many people who were unaware of how good home stereo could be until they heard a decent vinyl playback system. CD's continue to get better and it's a good thing or most audiophiles would be doing vinyl only. Critical listeners are a small group apparently as 90% of the world thought that every CD they ever had was good enough or they had no idea that it could be better. My vinyl passion has carried on to one of my sons but not the other. The one who prefers CD listens to Slipknot, Coal Chamber and other similar garbage for whatever that means. Have you heard that stuff? Man, it's bad.
No matter what happens, I don't see myself ever owning a subwoofer or a rear channel of any kind. I don't need it and I don't want it. I'm a stubborn old coot but two channel stereo is capable of being so good that I'll never want for more. Let the train come and let the train go, I have no intention of getting on. Let it run me over, I don't care. If 5.1 becomes the high end medium of the future, I will be very surprised but it will be interesting to see. It has to do alot better than what I've heard for me to be even slightly interested.
Bill

man you are a stubborn ole coot....God Bless ya!! Well if ya ever change your mind...this lil Krell will only run you 14K (that's just for the sub)!!! Enjoy the ride Bill!!

My old full range speakers reached 22 or 23 hz, depending on who you ask and my AR9's reach 18 hz. No sub needed. 14k? Ouch! Hope it sounds good. What is the frequency range?
Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbangelfish

My old full range speakers reached 22 or 23 hz, depending on who you ask and my AR9's reach 18 hz. No sub needed. 14k? Ouch! Hope it sounds good. What is the frequency range?
Bill

---

It's not about just reaching the note...volume also has a play in it.

The Audio Note E/D one can by for $2000.00Cdn new and will hit 12hz to 23khz (in a corner) with one 8 inch woofer and 1inch tweeter. The speaker is not huge as it is really a Stand-mount - not a floorstander. But then it basically uses the entire wall to create the sound so in a way your speaker is the size of the entire wall. Of course soince the majority of people can't hear below 40hz and 98% of music never goes under 30hz it's mostly a moot point unless you're a real huge fan of pedal organ...I'm not at all so I get to save money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stereophonicfan

What is your opinion?

lows however in a surround system are reproduced by a subwoofer. This device perhaps gives you all the bass and warmth you'll need but it's 'non-directional' sound. It doensn't really matter where you put the woofer, but is that really so? Is bass-sound non-directional?

---

Moving my sub just six inches in and direction greatly affects how it sounds. Currently I have it facing perpendicular to my speakers about 1 ft. away from the wall in on both sides. This seems to make the subwoofer less noticeable, that is I can't tell if the bass is coming from the sub or the speakers. Other tricks I have tried involve elevating the front tof the sub an inch higher than the rear, and placing the sub one foot behind the two front speakers.

The main problem with subs and music is that spekaers usually go down to about 35 Hz - 50 Hz. The sub then kicks in. The lowest note on a bass guitar is about 38 Hz. The lowest note on a piano is 28 Hz (I think). During musical passages a poorly set up sub can sound terrible. People tend to turn them up too loud and don't have the crossovers adjsuted properly. With my system if the sub is turned up too loud I notice that the lowest note on the bass guitar comes out on the sub, while the other notes come out on the main speakers. Sounds terrible.

As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go.

"As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go."

My take is that unless someone comes up with a downloadable MP3 like multi-channel format it will always be a minority interest product, not much larger than vinyl is today.

Apple have hit upon a mechanism that will allow the music industry to make money from downloadable music and it looks like it will stick. This may have a very dramatic effect on music sales, and not all of it bad.

I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.

Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.

DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.

(Interesting side note: I spent christmas in Manchester (England) and had a full day in the enormous shopping centre they have there. Whilst my wife attempted to buy every shoe and item of clothing ever made I sought sanctuary in a Sony store.

In the store there were innumerable portable players (MP3 and CD), DVD players, a new DVD recorder, an MP3 type jukebox with a 40 Gb disk, headphones, camera's, organisers, video cameras and all the rest of the Sony stuff, <b>except</b> SACD players. I did not see a single SACD player (either dedicated or DVD combo unit). Equally as surprising - they had 2 turntables on display, although to be fair one of them did look more aimed at DJ's than casual users).

I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.[Quote]

I agree. CD are to easily converted to mp3. Records companies can't make as much money on them.

Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.[Quote]

I disagree. I think multichannel will take over much the same way surround sound with video has. Just because music will be released in multichannel format doesn't mean you can't play it in stereo.(Ex. DVD)

DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.[QUOTE]

I agree, more speakers will be pushed. I think it is Parasound that sells a processor that has 7 channels, a sub output, another sub output for ultra low frequencies(to shake the room) and four additional programmable outputs for a total of 11 speakers and 2 subs. I think that for most people 5-7 is the most they will use.


As for releasing multichannel music an a mp3 type format that can't be illegaly downloaded, it would have to sound better or as good as RBCD/DVD-Audio/SACD for it to really catch on. MP3 sounds terrible compared to RBCD on a good stereo.

12hz seems mighty low for 8" but if Bose could reach 22 or 23 with a 4 inch, almost anything seems possible. You are right that nearly all music is well above this range but we are able to appreciate above and below what we can actually hear. It seems to change our perception of the music with low notes being felt, the highs seem more complicated but with speakers that are able to reach well above our hearing range, high notes seem more distinct. I can't really explain why I can hear a difference but it adds something.
I am a big fan of pipe organ and they do play very low (down to 8hz for a 64 foot pipe but these are rare). Some new bass guitars also reach quite low and some electronic sounds are also getting well below what many speaker systems are capable of. I like to get as much of the range as I can.
I believe Avantgarde claims 10hz for their big bass horns and I commend them for their efforts and innovations in horn design. They are quite expensive though.
Bill