Stereo versus surround sound

[skeptic]

I have read numerous discussions of the AR9 and there is certainly no consensus on that speaker - a lot of people are put off by its numerous phase poblems(too many crossover points) lack of treble response, lack of detail and some just complain that it's dull and lifeless.

Out of the box, I'd have to agree at least about AR9s lack of treble. It took 5 years before I had a clue as to how to fix it. I heard and saw Snell AIIIi, one of my all time favorite speakers at a trade show around 1989 and noticed that they had added an indirect firing tweeter. I decided to add a pair to my AR9s and then another and another. Rebalancing the system meaning using the crossover level controls and an equalizer has made a huge difference. I would say that as they sound now, no other speaker I have heard is nearly as accurate or beats it or even equals it in any important respect. It does everything right as far as I am concerned. I'm using the same approach with every other speaker system I own. A loudspeaker with a single direct firing tweeter is now unthinkable for me.

BTW, you can see that the treble has always been a bugaboo for Acoustic research. Every evolutionary step in their high end models has incorporated a major redesign of the treble while according to the in-the-know experts on the Acoustic Research section of Arsenal, the basic woofer design and performance hardly changed at all for about 40 years. This despite the measurements always showing flat on axis response right out to 20 Khz. Obviously, there is much more to subjective treble performance than on axis frequency response.

[skeptic]

The acoustic suspension design predated the 901 by about 15 years.

Dr. Bose had a unique twist on the acoustic suspension principle. Where all prior speaker designers had tried to get the lowest possible resonant frequency accepting the falloff below resonance as the effective lower limit of the speaker Bose did exactly the opposite. His small enclosure was designed to raise the in-box resonant frequency to 180hz. AR 12 inch woofers by contrast have a free air resonance of 19 hz and an in box resonance of from 28 hz in the large AR9 4 cu ft enclosure to somewhere in the mid 30s in the AR3/3A/ten pi/303A 2 cu ft bookshelf sized enclosure. Bose did this to raise the resonant point to where the associated phase shift was inaudible according to his reported test results and used the well known linear 6 db per octave falloff below resonance as the design criteria for a complimentary equalizer which increased output by the same amount, maintaining flat response to a very low frequency. Given sufficient electrical power, the original Bose 901 outperformed AR3 in bass response within their respective maximum loudness capabilities.

BTW, the later 901 ported design having a much steeper falloff below resonance could not come close to matching the original version in regard to bass response even with equalization.

[jbangelfish]

Wanting stereos to sound like concert halls, liking two channel stereo and old outdated equipment. Maybe I'm waiting for 9.1 to come out, then I'll rush out and buy the most expensive sonic turd that I can find. Then I'll go out and buy 9 expensive sonic turd speakers and replace all my albums and CD's with the new 9.1 SACD's or whatever they will be calling them. These other guys should have waited.
Where do you listen to a concert that it does not have a grand and large sound? Living rooms? A grand piano has a very big sound even if you're sitting and playing it yourself. Oh well, maybe this is why I don't call myself an audiophile. Now they don't even like AR9's and are content to refer to them as inferior in some way. Who cares?
I am perfectly happy living in the dark ages with LP's and other forms of two channel stereo. Many other people must be too or they would not still be making turntables that sell for 1.5k (for a midgrade high ender) to as much as 85k, or cartridges that run into several thousand. The most expensive amplifiers that I know of are either monoblocks or stereo amps and can run right up to 100k or so for a stereo pair. Does that equate dollars to sound, not necessarily but someone must think so and I don't think they'd shell out all that money for a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 receiver. I know I wouldn't.
They did manufacture 4 channel LP's for awhile as I mentioned earlier. It was not worth the difference to the masses to run out and buy all new equipment to accomodate them. The only 4 channel amps that I can remember were all receivers and I never heard one that really tripped my trigger. I still have never heard a receiver that I would care to own although there could be some out there. I'm not really interested.
Bill

[maxg]

So much information it is difficult to know where to start.

OK - surround sound - why doesnt it sound good for music most of the time?

Well for one thing if you are listening to DD5.1 or even DTS you are listening to a highly compressed file format. If you have DVD recording software - check out the file sizes when you use any DD format and compare it to using plain old PCM.

I have been playing with my DVD recorder a lot recently and made a number of remarkable discoveries (to me anyway).

Did you know, for example, that DVD Video supports 96Khz/24 bit in its original specs? Most players are not capable of playing it back in native form (actually most recording software isnt capable of creating it either - my current problem) - but some are - worth checking out next time you buy.

The funny thing is - that 96/24 recording ability is only available in 2 channel LPCM format - and according to the original specs - for high quality music. In other words if you want to listen to really good quality music do so in 2 channel mode (according to the orginal designers of DVD that is).

I dont think I have ever seen a DVD Video with 96/24 sound - the main problem is space. I just recorded 45 minutes of music to my hard disk at this resolution (?) and it took over 1.3 Gb.

Whilst many DVD players are not capable of 96/24 they all have to be capable of 48/16 (DAT quality). Many DVD recording software packages support this. Having played around I can confirm that my own findings are it is better than Dolby digital 2 channel soundtracks - but I cant hear any improvement over 44.1/16.

Of course if you are talking about surround sound from DVDa or SACD then none of the above applies.

I tend to agree with others here that the biggest problem with surround sound (on the above 2 media) is that engineers have still not got to grips with it. I have about 15 SS SACD's and the results are VERY variable.

This reminds me in many ways of the problems associated with Quadraphonic although there we had the added problem of some very inferior amplification knocking around as well.

In theory surround sound SACD or DVDa should be the way to go - assuming the engineers can eventually sort out the way to do it well.

In practice, however, very few people are really going to be able to get the real benefits due to a couple of minor problems.

The first minor problem is that your surround sound music system and your surround sound movie system need different speakers. Take a look at the specs for THX - this uses different types of speakers for centre channels and for rears. Compare this to the "perfect" SACD setup (according to Sony). All five speakers should be the same (I am ignoring the further options for 6.1, 7.1 and so on as well as the subwoofer).

The second problem is speaker placement. According to Sony the speakers should describe a circle around the listener and be in the same virtical plane - according to the THX standard you have effectively a flat line of speakers at the front and the rears should be closer to the listener (and I think - above them - firing down)

This basically means that however you do it if you have a single system for both it will be a compromise.

And now some notes on 2 channel vinyl:

1. Someone on here talked about a hole in the middle of the soundstage with a 2 channel playback system. Er...no. If the system is properly setup there is no hole.

2. There is an assumption here that 2 channel playback cannot create a realistic soundstage and sense of depth.

I would suggest you find a well setup vinyl system and a copy of Roger Water's - Amused to Death on vinyl - you are in for a huge shock. This recording was put together by a company called Q-sound. I have no idea how they have done it - but you will find voices and effects coming from behind you!! Scared the pants off me the first time I heard it at home - I thought someone was coming in from the balcony doors.

I should add that this record is not unique, although it is an extreme example. Other records that display this facet include - some recordings of DSOTM and Jeff Wayne's War of the World - again on vinyl.

3. Vinyl is compressed.

Well it can be - but it doesnt have to be. Try a classical recording from DECCA on one of their Full Frequency Recordings, or even Dutch, Philips recordings from the 1970's onwards. Alternatively (and I hate to recommend audiophile recordings - they are rather expensive) try Audo Analogue, Tacet, Living Stereo, RCA Red Seal or original Colombia Masterworks for classical, any Direct to Disk for Blues or Jazz, Dynagroove (from the 60's) for Jazz, some Riverside recordings are also worthwhile (especially for Sonny Rollins titles).

All of the above should sound massively sonically superior to any equivalent CD recording as long as the vinyl playback system is:

a. Reasonable.
b. Well set up.

The drawbacks to vinyl are many. It is a complete PITA to live with, requires way too much maintenance and can go out of tune in an instant. Records can deteriorate with time (note - can - there are plenty of records dating back to the fifties that are still in near mint condition - I know - I own loads of them).

The benefits are simple. It represents, to date, the best quality sound available in the home today at a reasonable price.

(Note : I added at a reasonable price as I have recently tried out the Accuphase DP85 SACD player. Sonically this is just about as good as any source I have ever heard - but at over $11,000 it should be!!)

OK - I will call it a day there.

[skeptic]

[QUOTE=maxg]OK - surround sound - why doesnt it sound good for music most of the time?

I tend to agree with others here that the biggest problem with surround sound (on the above 2 media) is that engineers have still not got to grips with it. I have about 15 SS SACD's and the results are VERY variable.

1. Someone on here talked about a hole in the middle of the soundstage with a 2 channel playback system. Er...no. If the system is properly setup there is no hole.
QUOTE]

As I said elsewhere, I have had just about 30 years of experience with surround sound systems, both my own concepts and those created by other people.

What your problem is with surround sound depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to be in the middle of bombs bursting in air, subway trains and jet planes going through you, you probably have a good shot at it. If you want to be in the middle of the band on stage with them, you may have a shot at that too. But if you are trying to recreate the beauty of sound the acoustics of Boston Symphony Hall add to the sound of the Boston Symphony Orchestra when you are sitting in the audience, the systems available on the market with today's technology are hopeless and there is no progress in sight on the horizon. Nobody knows how to record the reverberant components alone for the auxiliary channels separate from the direct sound. And the sound field from which that sound arrives comes from hundreds of directions which cannot be distinguished by the human brain, not two or four loudspeakers firing directly at you which you can easily spot blindfolded.

As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers unless those speakers disperse their sound by reflecting them off a large surface. That is for the same reason you can pick out the location of the auxiliary speakers in a surround system. Sound fields are VECTOR fields but are recorded as SCALAR fields. They have both magnitude and direction and it is easy to pick out the direction unless it is fairly well spread out because your ears and brain work like a very efficient direction finding dipole antenna. One small turn of your head and you know exactly where it is coming from (mammals evolved that way millions of years ago in order to survive.) And, the more high frequencies, the easier it is.

[maxg]

"As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers"

The degree of head movement allowable retaining the soundstage varies with speakers, room, distance from the speakers and so on.

In fact the size of the sweet spot varies dramatically with speakers in any given room.

For my setup you will get a strong centre image within about a 4 foot radius of where I sit. Moving outside of that leads to a gentle movement of the centre image towards the speaker you are nearing upto the point one speaker is dead ahead and all the sound seems to be coming from that speaker. YMMV

[skeptic]

Speakers with excellent high frequency dispersion and plenty of nearby objects to reflect those frequencies create many paths for them to reach the listener and therefore make it more difficult to identify the exact source. But is is impossible for two loudspeakers to reproduce the effect of 100 or more individual sources spread across a performing stage. And it is also impossible for 4 or 5 loudspeakers to recreate the auditory effect of the carefully designed diffuse reflective properties of a concert hall that took tens of millions of dollars to design and build and years for acousticians to tweak no matter what signal is fed into them. The human ear and brain are just too good to be tricked that easily.

[Woochifer]

You're presenting a lot of good information, but misinterpreting some of it.

OK - surround sound - why doesnt it sound good for music most of the time?

Well for one thing if you are listening to DD5.1 or even DTS you are listening to a highly compressed file format. If you have DVD recording software - check out the file sizes when you use any DD format and compare it to using plain old PCM.

In my listenings with concert DVDs and other sources, the DTS track compares very favorably to the LPCM track, even if the latter format is encoded at a higher resolution than the 44.1/16 resolution used with CD audio. Keep in mind that DD and DTS were developed more than a decade after the CD, so a lot of technological improvements occurred in the meantime.

Did you know, for example, that DVD Video supports 96Khz/24 bit in its original specs? Most players are not capable of playing it back in native form (actually most recording software isnt capable of creating it either - my current problem) - but some are - worth checking out next time you buy.

The funny thing is - that 96/24 recording ability is only available in 2 channel LPCM format - and according to the original specs - for high quality music. In other words if you want to listen to really good quality music do so in 2 channel mode (according to the orginal designers of DVD that is).

I dont think I have ever seen a DVD Video with 96/24 sound - the main problem is space. I just recorded 45 minutes of music to my hard disk at this resolution (?) and it took over 1.3 Gb.

Classic Records and Chesky, among others, have put out 96/24 resolution audio-only DVDs (they call them "DADs"), and the sound quality of these discs is uniformly excellent. (Keep in mind though that the companies that issue these discs pay a lot more attention to detail during the mastering processing than most recording companies did when they were transferring their backcatalogs to CDs; so the improvements in sound quality could have more to do with the transfer quality than the format itself) Most of these were released before SACD and DVD-A discs hit the market in large numbers, so it's basically an orphaned format right now. However, some DVD-As also include PCM tracks encoded at higher-than-CD resolutions that can play back on any DVD player.

The reason why 96/24 is only in two-channel for DVD-V discs has nothing to do with the original designers having a two-channel fetish. It's all about disc space. In an uncompressed format, it's impossible to squeeze six channels of 96/24 resolution audio into a DVD. That's why DVD-A is actually a compressed format. The difference between DVD-A and DD/DTS is that DVD-A includes the MLP protocol that restores discarded bits before the signal is processed.

The issue with 96/24 discs has more to do with finding a player that will output the digital signal or play it back without downconverting the signal. Some DVD players downconvert the 96/24 audio signal to 48/24 before playing it back or sending it through the digital output. This is partly because some 96/24 discs have copyright restrictions that prevent the signal from discs from getting output through the digital ports at full resolution.

In theory surround sound SACD or DVDa should be the way to go - assuming the engineers can eventually sort out the way to do it well.

In practice, however, very few people are really going to be able to get the real benefits due to a couple of minor problems.

The first minor problem is that your surround sound music system and your surround sound movie system need different speakers. Take a look at the specs for THX - this uses different types of speakers for centre channels and for rears. Compare this to the "perfect" SACD setup (according to Sony). All five speakers should be the same (I am ignoring the further options for 6.1, 7.1 and so on as well as the subwoofer).

The second problem is speaker placement. According to Sony the speakers should describe a circle around the listener and be in the same virtical plane - according to the THX standard you have effectively a flat line of speakers at the front and the rears should be closer to the listener (and I think - above them - firing down)

First of all, I think you're referring to THX's dipolar speaker specification for surrounds, and that spec is no longer a requirement for certification. IMO, the earlier dipolar speaker requirement was more appropriate for Pro Logic systems, and the THX Ultra 2 specs acknowledge this by allowing for bipolar and direct firing speakers to serve as THX certified surrounds. The THX specs though should not be regarded as gospel for home theatre as a whole, and even Dolby does not take a stance on THX's speaker certification requirements. Personally, I prefer direct firing speakers for both multichannel music and movie soundtracks, as do a lot of other home theatre owners.

The Sony diagram you're referring to is the ITU reference multichannel speaker placement standard. It was originally drafted as a studio monitoring spec for multichannel music mixing. But, I don't regard it as contradictory to the various placement recommendations with home theatre systems. The THX placement recommendations are not all that different, and FYI nobody I've read recommends that the surrounds be spaced closer to the listening position than the mains. If it happens, you need to compensate for differences in distance by changing the delay timing. Even if the L/C/R speakers are arranged along the same plane up front, the center speaker delay timing should be increased to compensate for the smaller distance to the listening position than the L/R speakers.

The main difference between movies and multichannel music is that movie soundtracks tend to have a lot more ambient sounds mixed into the surrounds, which you want to diffuse to some degree, but not necessarily to the level that dipolar speakers do. Differences in the optimal placement for music and movies have more to do with the height and toe-in angle of the surround speakers. The ITU placement standard works well with both movies and music. Optimal height for multichannel music is somewhat lower than with movie soundtracks, but still above ear level, and the toe-in angle would be pointed directly into the listening position. Dolby's suggested placement for systems that are used for both music and movies is to raise the surrounds about 2' above ear level and point them directly at one another, rather than into the listening position. I've tried many different placements and this one works very well with almost all sources (although my surround speakers are closer to 1' above ear level). It retains the pinpoint directionality and side imaging that you get with multichannel music (and increasingly, movie soundtracks as well, since more of them are mixing the music and front sound elements into the surrounds), while imparting sufficient diffusion for ambient cues. This is only a minor adjustment, and not a big compromise at all.

I would suggest you find a well setup vinyl system and a copy of Roger Water's - Amused to Death on vinyl - you are in for a huge shock. This recording was put together by a company called Q-sound. I have no idea how they have done it - but you will find voices and effects coming from behind you!! Scared the pants off me the first time I heard it at home - I thought someone was coming in from the balcony doors.

QSound is basically a DSP processor that some recording studios use (and it's been licensed for some video games and sound cards as well). Some of Sting and Madonna's albums have been recorded with this processor as well. It's very impressive, but does not give you the kind of total encirclement and stable side imaging that a well done 5.1 recording (like Steely Dan's latest DVD-A) can give you.

All of the above should sound massively sonically superior to any equivalent CD recording as long as the vinyl playback system is:

a. Reasonable.
b. Well set up.

The drawbacks to vinyl are many. It is a complete PITA to live with, requires way too much maintenance and can go out of tune in an instant. Records can deteriorate with time (note - can - there are plenty of records dating back to the fifties that are still in near mint condition - I know - I own loads of them).

I think that too many of the debates about CD versus LP don't take into consideration the quality of the transfer, and attribute all of the differences to the format itself. I own plenty of LPs that are superior to their CD versions, but I also have quite a few CDs that sound better than their LP counterparts. It all varies.

Taking a listen to the 96/24 DADs that Classic Records issues (they have a lot of Blue Note reissues and have also done a version of Alan Parsons Project's "I, Robot" which is an excellent recording), I've yet to hear an LP playback that betters those high res transfers. I think it's partially because Classic not only seeks out the original master tapes of those recordings, but they also look for a vault copy of the original vinyl issue as well as the production notes (which would include the EQ settings). Bernie Grundman does the mastering for them and his first step is to do a playback of the vinyl version, so that he knows what the original intent of the recording engineer was, and compares that to the master tape playback. Alan Parsons personally supervised the high res transfer of "I, Robot". I doubt that any of the big record companies went to this much trouble when they were making the CD transfers from their library, and much of the CD's bad reputation among audiophiles could very well stem from this more so than the format itself.

[RGA]

Wanting stereos to sound like concert halls, liking two channel stereo and old outdated equipment. Maybe I'm waiting for 9.1 to come out, then I'll rush out and buy the most expensive sonic turd that I can find. Then I'll go out and buy 9 expensive sonic turd speakers and replace all my albums and CD's with the new 9.1 SACD's or whatever they will be calling them. These other guys should have waited.
Where do you listen to a concert that it does not have a grand and large sound? Living rooms? A grand piano has a very big sound even if you're sitting and playing it yourself. Oh well, maybe this is why I don't call myself an audiophile. Now they don't even like AR9's and are content to refer to them as inferior in some way. Who cares?
I am perfectly happy living in the dark ages with LP's and other forms of two channel stereo. Many other people must be too or they would not still be making turntables that sell for 1.5k (for a midgrade high ender) to as much as 85k, or cartridges that run into several thousand. The most expensive amplifiers that I know of are either monoblocks or stereo amps and can run right up to 100k or so for a stereo pair. Does that equate dollars to sound, not necessarily but someone must think so and I don't think they'd shell out all that money for a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 receiver. I know I wouldn't.
They did manufacture 4 channel LP's for awhile as I mentioned earlier. It was not worth the difference to the masses to run out and buy all new equipment to accomodate them. The only 4 channel amps that I can remember were all receivers and I never heard one that really tripped my trigger. I still have never heard a receiver that I would care to own although there could be some out there. I'm not really interested.
Bill

The technical merrits and how pleasing something sounds is not the same. After all look at all the folks who don't just buy a receiver and cd player. And it seems a lot of us like speakers that were all designed or had their roots before 1980. If Sketpic's opinion is fact and everyone will think his speaker is the best in the world, then why should we buy into the technology since 1980. The halfwits from Harman and B&W, JBL and PMC obviously know nothing about designing speakers or they could at least equal a pre-1980 speaker and do it of 1/5 of the original price tag.

But guess what, the math was the same math it was in the 1960s and they knew how to do it they were limited by materials. Marketing drives much of the industry. I don't mean the marketing to sell your ware, I mean Marketing to HYPE junk and pass it off as something you can't live without.

The last time I was at a symphony or just listening to a musician playing the guitar...those instruments were in FRONT of me. The reverberant sound bounces off of walls.

If you look at those HUGE 100,000 seat outdoor Auditorioms in Greece, people in the back row could hear people TALK on stage at vast distances that would put a lot of our present day theatres to shame from an auditory standpoint and those Greeks were doing it centuries ago...so the math was there.

To presume you can't capture the live event is a limitation of the recording process, because what can be recorded from the FRONT can be reproduced by a set of 2 front speakers. You are not going to get the same sound in an 12x10 living room that you got in row 7000 in out door arena. You could hire an acoustics contractor to make your room sound like a great auditoriam...but then your stuck hearing it like that for everthing. Enter SACD or DVD A and surround speakers that can change to the recording. Some of it is pretty good, but some sucks. Right now it's not good enough for me to buy into but I can see where it's going and it might work.

The vast majority of pop/rock recordings are done in some room and everything is recorded separately and then re-integrated together. Which explains a little of the hopelessness of a lot of singers that sound pretty good on disc and can't hold a note to save their life when you see them LIVE. Frankly, for such performances I would rather NOT hear them live because their cd trickery sounds BETTER.

Classical music and spotting where things are is rather the point. When I close my listening to my system I want to know that that the brass is center left the winds center right triangle far left cymbol far center and singer center front etc.

The problem is that boxed speakers reverberate in the bass with most boxes and give away an unnatural sound and the treble response of most speakers always seem to say to me "High I'm a clannging teeter over here over here".

As for Bose, I never heard the original version, but the newer versions since the 1990s...well my friend(acqunence) listened to my old B&W 302s(a $300.00CDN entry) and sold his Bose 901s very shortly thereafter. Despite the DM 302s faults it sounded more "right" than the 901's.

Sounds like the original 901s were basically an entirely different speaker than the dungheeps currently available. It also sounds like the original AR 9 is a lot better than the dungheeps they and their followers are producing now. Audio Note bases their speakers off of the original Snells and that company after Snell's death began making an endless parade of junk(at least for the amount of money). And since most speakers today are total dpeartures from those 70s designs and yet those 70s designs are so well loved by so many today then AN's rip of new designs being fashion oriented over sound is not very far off IMO.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is only a few times in my posting history that I have seen so much misinformation that really stands correcting. Let me jump into this..First, Skeptic you are so on the mark that its not even funny, you raise some excellent points. Let me address one point.

[quote]I tend to agree with others here that the biggest problem with surround sound (on the above 2 media) is that engineers have still not got to grips with it. I have about 15 SS SACD's and the results are VERY variable.[\quote]

The reason for this variablity has nothing to do with the engineer, it has way more to do with the content that he(or she) has to mix. Mostly all SACD's released(and this goes double for classical music)has been reissues who's master tapes are of variable quality. You can only do so much to clean it up, eq it, and process it to make it suitable for the format. The releases that have been done with multichannel SACD in mind are of exceptional quality, and when heard on a quality system this cannot be argued.

[quote]As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers unless those speakers disperse their sound by reflecting them off a large surface. That is for the same reason you can pick out the location of the auxiliary speakers in a surround system. [\quote]

This is not true at all. Speakers that are time and phase correct will produce the exact waveform that is fed into it. That means both the direction and amplitude(this coincides with information from Skeptics post) Unless the microphone technique employed is flawed(or the speaker is suffering from severe beaming), the speaker will not introduce the hole in the middle effect at all, and if it is accurately performing it will do a reasonable job of recreating the entire frontal hemisphere in terms of soundstaging with a high degree of transparency. Accuracy is the key here.


[quote]Well for one thing if you are listening to DD5.1 or even DTS you are listening to a highly compressed file format. If you have DVD recording software - check out the file sizes when you use any DD format and compare it to using plain old PCM[\quote]

File sizes when talking about compressed audio is irrelevant. MLP(Meridan lossless packing) can compress a audio signal down to 1/3 of its normal size without any losses. While DD is not transparent at any of its data rates, Dts at 1.5mbps can do an extremely credible job of coding a signal with minimal loss of transparency. Dts 24/96 can code without any loss whatsoever. Considering how a compressive codecs work(DD is very extreme and cannot be used in this example) the only data that is being discarded is redundant and inaudible signals. What is left is being encoded at 20-24bit word depths(engineers choice). PCM is not a very efficient carrier of audio signals as it contains both redudant and inaudible signals alike.


[quote]Most players are not capable of playing it back in native form (actually most recording software isnt capable of creating it either - my current problem) - but some are - worth checking out next time you buy.
[\quote]

Most CONSUMER software is not able to record 24/96khz audio but professional software(protools specifically) can work with 24/192khz signals with any loss whatsoever.


[quote]The funny thing is - that 96/24 recording ability is only available in 2 channel LPCM format - and according to the original specs - for high quality music. In other words if you want to listen to really good quality music do so in 2 channel mode (according to the orginal designers of DVD that is). [\quote]

24/96khz is available in 5.1 DVD Audio. 24/192khz is only available in two channel not because of the recording technology, but because of the limitations of the DVD spec itself. It is only able to handle 9.8mbps which is not a high enough data rate to support high bit, highly sampled audio.I think you are mixing up the standards for CONSUMER recording with the standards of professional recording.

[quote]Take a look at the specs for THX - this uses different types of speakers for centre channels and for rears.[\quote]

THX standards only apply to movie sound, not high quality music. To even mention THX in the same sentence as high quality audio is a huge mistake. All THX systems having matching front speakers but use dissimular rear speakers, that doesn't make them bad for music, just not optimal


[quote]The second problem is speaker placement. According to Sony the speakers should describe a circle around the listener and be in the same virtical plane - according to the THX standard you have effectively a flat line of speakers at the front and the rears should be closer to the listener (and I think - above them - firing down)[\quote]


I think you need to take a second look at the THX standards. They have now been revised to reflect timing issues in regards to speaker placement. Sony is not who I would go to about speaker placement. Anyone who recommends that the surrounds and the front speakers should be on the same plane is insane. Any sound arriving from the front and from the rear simultaneously will totally confuse the ear/brain operation. The rear speakers should ALWAYS be elevated above the front speakers for just that reason. 99% of all recording studio's elevate their rear speakers for just this reason. THX does not recommend having the surrounds closer to the listening position than the fronts, they now recommend equal distance.

[quote]This recording was put together by a company called Q-sound. I have no idea how they have done it - but you will find voices and effects coming from behind you!! Scared the pants off me the first time I heard it at home - I thought someone was coming in from the balcony doors.
[\quote]

You are not hearing a fully mapped soundfield in this process, you are hearing signal fed to the front channels with vector crosscancellation processing applied to reduce crosstalk between the ears. This is NOT surround sound nor is it a FULLY mapped soundfield. They do it by applying a little bit of the left channel information into the right speaker out of phase to cancel the effects of head related transfer phenomina which can truncate the front soundfield. Polk use to use the same process on their older(and no longer made) SDA series of speakers. This is old technology and totally unecessary with DVD-A and multichannel SACD out there.

[quote]3. Vinyl is compressed.

Well it can be - but it doesnt have to be. Try a classical recording from DECCA on one of their Full Frequency Recordings, or even Dutch, Philips recordings from the 1970's onwards. Alternatively (and I hate to recommend audiophile recordings - [\quote]

All of the records you mention are very good sounding indeed but compressed because they are limited by the recording technology of the period, or the format itself. If you made any attempt to master vinyl records with the dynamic range found on today's recording, the needle would jump off the record and kill you!!
Also the headroom on older ampex recorders(Decca used these on their full frequency series) was not typically very high, so gain riding was a common practice in those days.

[quote]I am perfectly happy living in the dark ages with LP's and other forms of two channel stereo. Many other people must be too or they would not still be making turntables that sell for 1.5k (for a midgrade high ender) to as much as 85k, or cartridges that run into several thousand. The most expensive amplifiers that I know of are either monoblocks or stereo amps and can run right up to 100k or so for a stereo pair. Does that equate dollars to sound, not necessarily but someone must think so and I don't think they'd shell out all that money for a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 receiver. I know I wouldn't.[\quote]


I didn't think that anyone would buy an air conditioned dog house advertised in the Sharper Image several years ago, but people did. I didn't think that people paid 20k for a vintage car that would just sit in the garage, but they do. I was floored when I found out that men PAY for sex, but they do. People pay for what they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its a superior product. The fact that a person would pay from $1500 to 85k for a turntable does not mean the vinyl format is superior to those small shiny disc, it just means they are willing to pay top dollar for it good or bad. I think now that we know that the most expensive turntable with the most expensive cartride still creates distortion during playback(regardless to how clean it was mastered) shows that some people like distortion more than others. Another point is that there are no receivers on the market that costs $100k, and if there was, somebody would buy it just to say they own a receiver that costs $100k. That would certainly represent a better value than just amps that cost that much.

[RGA]

Sir Terrence

If SACD is typical(and I know it's not) like what I just heard today and what most average people hear then they may as well give up now and forget the whole thing. I have heard better but this rather big chain in Canada had the Denon 2200 DVD/SACD player running through Marantz 7300 receiver with Energy C series speakers all around. Disc was Hotel California. Why on earth anyone would want to hear guitars work coming from behind them and drums in front is totally bizzarre.

The salesman gives the usual pitch that well that's the way the Eagles want you to hear it. Maybe the Eagles should retire if that's the case. Utter crap for a lot of money. Salesman fiddled with the amp brought it back to the front - nevertheless it was no great shakes.

There is expensive 2 channel and people do in fact spend on a lot on turntables. That is more to get every drop out of that medium. Why it can't be done for 2k I don't know, but diminishing returns is present. Throwing more money at something doesn't mean you get better. I'll gamble that a 15k Honda civic will outlast the top of the line Cadillac at over $60K Thus providing me the better service of what a car is designed to do - get a person from A to B reliably.

What this particular store SHOULD be doing is showing off new releases that were recorded in surround sound not trying to convert 70s music into that atrocious disc I was listening to today. Lifeless heartless sound that almost seems geared to the video game crowd.

[Woochifer]

If you made any attempt to master vinyl records with the dynamic range found on today's recording, the needle would jump off the record and kill you!!

So, THAT'S what happened when I stuck that direct disc on the turntable all those eons ago. All this time, I thought some serial killer with bad aim was lurking abouts.

I didn't think that anyone would buy an air conditioned dog house advertised in the Sharper Image several years ago, but people did.

T-man, you're coming at it from the wrong set of priorities dude! Our house IS the dog's house, and any kind of air conditioning is for the dog to decide, and our privilege to enjoy.

I was floored when I found out that men PAY for sex, but they do.

Ah! So, that's what I was doing wrong all those years! Nookie to fund liquidity ratio is a direct rather than an inverse relationship. That damn stats prof, he was just pulling a fast one on all of us starving students. Now I'll need to change all my socioeconomic assumptions and change my political affiliation.

[jbangelfish]

And a lot of good points have been raised. I do believe that the technology is present to make music in the home better than ever. I don't know how much better it can be than 70's or 80's technology but there is always room for improvement, no matter how minute. It is even possible that good receivers are being made today, this just did not used to be the case, when compared to separates. I have not owned a receiver since 1975 so things could have improved since then. The fact that a 5 channel system gives each speaker section a smaller job could make a system more efficient with less power to each. A typical larger 5.1 receiver seems to be in the 100wpc area. I am more accostomed to having two channels with 200 to as much as 1000wpc which does liven up a pair of speakers.
I agree that some people will buy anything, no matter what the price just to say that they have it. I also think that these horribly expensive components probably sound as good as money can buy. For most of us, we can get excellent results by spending a lot less.
Someone mentioned the new vs old with 901's and AR9's and this is certainly true. When Bose ported the 901, they ruined it. I believe they did this in an attempt to make them more efficient. They also switched from butyl to foam surround which was easier to push with less power. Original 901's, series I and II were notoriously power hungry. I have not heard new AR9's but anyone with the old ones will tell you that they'll keep what they have.
As to the LP vs CD debate, I still haven't heard enough great CD's to prefer them over LP. I know that it is possible to make excellent CD's and I have said before, possibly even better than LP. The fact remains that I own a lot more great LP's than I do CD's. I do have 20 to 1 LP over CD which is at least part of the reason. When I hear a great CD, I'm just as happy to enjoy it as an LP.

[Woochifer]

If SACD is typical(and I know it's not) like what I just heard today and what most average people hear then they may as well give up now and forget the whole thing. I have heard better but this rather big chain in Canada had the Denon 2200 DVD/SACD player running through Marantz 7300 receiver with Energy C series speakers all around. Disc was Hotel California. Why on earth anyone would want to hear guitars work coming from behind them and drums in front is totally bizzarre.

...

What this particular store SHOULD be doing is showing off new releases that were recorded in surround sound not trying to convert 70s music into that atrocious disc I was listening to today. Lifeless heartless sound that almost seems geared to the video game crowd.

Actually, the problem is that the choice of material for the DVD-A and SACD remixes is typically NOT geared to the video game crowd, but rather aging baby boomers. I would love to see more new releases done up in multichannel, but SACD is the only format that can be released simultaneously for CD and multichannel mixes (essential for any kind of significant penetration into retail stores), and hybrid disc manufacturing capacity is totally booked right now doing reissues, so hybrid new releases are not feasible yet (the current issue of The Absolute Sound has a status report on SACD and DVD-A).

You're not the first one to complain about the Hotel California remix. There are bad surround music examples out there, just as there were a lot of bad stereo mixes in the beginning. Rather than generalize based on this one example, you should look for some of the better mixes done by the likes of Chesky, DMP, or Telarc, if all you want is something that sounds like a live performance. Chesky in particular has done some stunningly good work that virtually puts you into the same room with the musicians. Their two-channel mixes are also superb, but don't even come close to the depth and immersive effect that their surround mixes give you. Hotel California is a studio album, not necessarily intended to replicate a live performance.

Judging from some of the remixes that I've heard, a lot of older material is not necessarily a good candidate for surround remixing. The tracks needed to create a convincing envelopment and immersion effect simply might not exist. For example, the surround mix of Steely Dan's 1980 album "Gaucho" is awful. All of the instruments and vocals got discretely assigned to a particular channel, and it all sounds like five separate boxes with not a lot of good imaging qualities or spatial cues. On the other hand, their more recent "Everything Must Go" DVD-A is startling in how seamlessly all of the sound elements work together (both mixes were done by Eliot Scheiner, but Gaucho was the first one that he ever did six years ago, so obviously the state of the art has advanced considerably in the meantime; well, I believe he also did Hotel California, so that might reflect limitations in what he had available more than anything).

But, because a surround remix goes into the original multitracked master, it opens up all sorts of new possibilities to improve the basic audio quality, since as Terrence pointed out, two-channel mixes originally intended for vinyl required compression and all sorts of other tricks of the trade to get them to sound right in that medium. In a direct comparison, even the poor surround mix on Gaucho still yielded a noticeable improvement in the audio quality.

The other aspect of SACD and DVD-A that you didn't address is the remastering of the original two-channel source into high resolution, since EVERY SACD and DVD-A includes a high res two-channel mix. Even if you just have a two-channel system, the opportunity to remaster poorly done CD transfers is a welcome opportunity to correct past mistakes. I think a more valid way to assess the worth of SACD or DVD-A would be to compare the two-channel CD version with the two-channel high resolution track.

There is expensive 2 channel and people do in fact spend on a lot on turntables. That is more to get every drop out of that medium. Why it can't be done for 2k I don't know, but diminishing returns is present. Throwing more money at something doesn't mean you get better. I'll gamble that a 15k Honda civic will outlast the top of the line Cadillac at over $60K Thus providing me the better service of what a car is designed to do - get a person from A to B reliably.

Not another car analogy! The diminishing returns do exist, but the one thing about turntables is that approaches get more and more esoteric as you go further up the line, and the resulting components are not necessarily better sounding or even better built than the lower priced alternatives. The thing about that Civic versus Cadillac comparison is that the Caddy will haul more stuff, move faster, possibly handle better, provide more features, and have a quieter ride for that extra money. Whether or not one outlasts the other is irrelevant in a discussion of diminishing returns. It's an apples to oranges comparison since the performance aspects and physical dimensions are significantly different, and the top of the line Cadillacs have several performance advantages over the Civic, even if the Civic is more reliable in the long-run. But, an esoteric five figure priced turntable might not give you even a minor performance improvement over a more basic VPI or Well Tempered turntable.

[RGA]

Woochifer(Why are you not called Woofer?)

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.

Well it is certainly true that the car analogy is not the best, The Civic is cheaper to run, easier to park, easier to load(I'm thinking the hatchback models where you can put a 32 inch tv in the back where you can't in the Caddy due to the shape of the trunk), far better gas mileage, will maneuvre better(depends on your meaning of handling but at low speeds I should think the Civic is better for quick turns in and out of areas. Overall speed and Luxury accomodations goes to the Caddilac - assuming they actually work. It's a good analogy depending how you view it, a bad one if you view it another way. If you perceive the extra $50,000.00 to get you from A to B over a 10 to 15 year span to better spent on a Caddilac then that is of course one's choice.

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.

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.

[RGA]

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.

[stereophonicfan]

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!

[thepogue]

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...

[Woochifer]

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.

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).

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.

[jbangelfish]

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

[thepogue]

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!!!!

[jbangelfish]

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

[thepogue]

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!!

[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

[RGA]

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.