Multi-channel vs. Stereo

[TroyD]

OK, here it is.......you multi-channel freaks, make your case on the merits of multi channel.

As previously stipulated, higher resolution is a good thing, but that applies to stereo as well.

My contention is that when you listen to live music, it's in front of you. When would you ever sit in the middle of a band? Never, that's when.

Now, there are those that will say that most of the music we hear is reflected sound (or some variation to that theme) to which I would reply, that's essentially the same argument that Dr Bose used to justify the 901's. Having said that, when I listen to a recording of, say, the Cinci Pops, I want to hear the orchestra. I don't care to hear the sound of the Pops AND the hall they were playing in. My own room will provide it's own reflections etc. etc.

Anyway, let's hear it.

BDT

[mantis]

Allday,
without going into the cd/sacd/dvd audio formats history,I will give you all my opnion on what Iv'e listened to and what I think of all of this.If your looking for some history.....search the web,it's all over the place.....Sony's website is a good one for SACD......

Ok ,
I will start out with 2 channel, which is something I never really considered real important to me as I have been into Home Theater since it hit the home market.I still listened to 2 channel but built my systems around theater first.I have had a 2 channel only rig for a couple of months now and I enjoy the **** out of it.I must have listened to every cd I own on it by now......almost....When you sit and listen to 2 channel.....bare with some of my comments due to the fact my 2 channel experience has been lifted greatly,and I'm so juiced to own the Lsi 15's and Rotel combo..........ok,back to action......it's an incredible experience.I can sit for hours and just listen to song after song.I like to have a cold drink for the long haul.....maybe a blanket and a pilow if it's the end of the day and I'm tired from work....you get the idea.....2 channel recording's sound there best for the most part in 2 channel.....they where recorded this way and can really capture the moment......so 2 speak......

Now Multichannel music is the new kid on the block......it came around along time ago....some of you will remember Quad.........or not......well that failed for a number of reasons,but all in all if you got to experience it, it was a cool ass idea...Today it's back(multichannel that is) due to the growth of dvd and/Home Theater in the home.Customers purchase these systems and now want to use all the channels of speakers..........makes sence to some and wacky to others...

I believe it takes an open mind as all things new.It's fun and dissapointing all in the same sentence........I have owned multichannel dvd audio and sacd since the first day the Pioneer Elite dv47a hit the market.( I bought 1 of the fist 4 Soundex got in right off the Truck).I had some demo's in Tweeter and other places and I really wanted a new DVD player anyway,so I killed 2 birds with one stone..........so to speak.........

Before I go into the new formats,Id like to talk about one dsp mode that Denon uses......7 or 5 channel stereo.......it takes a 2 channel recording and puts it all over the system in a ...I will call it tastefull manor......I'm in no way shape or form a fan of dsp modes, but this one I have found use ..........from time to time.....like any new toy, you got to play with it to see if it's going to make it in the replay bin.I have mixed feelings about this dsp mode.It works out nice for some classical peices but horrible for alot of others........for one example,I liked listening to Star Wars Sound Track in 7 channel stereo.It filled the room with sound and it stayed consistant without all the tipical echo effects tipical of your common dsp mode.............

Now for SACD and DVD AUDIO........I also have mixed feelings about these 2.I own a couple of disk's and I have stopped for awhile looking for new ones, but now the market is starting to get flooded(maybe a bad choice of words but I will go with it for now)with software from both camps,I'm looking forward to a shopping trip.
DVD AUDIO seems to do multichannel better then SACD of which the titles I have heard.DVD AUDIO has more popular titles then SACD unless your heavy into classical and Jazz,then sacd would be your first choice in formats........I like em both and glad not to have to choose between the 2.....if you ask me what one would be better to own......Id still say both,they don't share the same titles so you can't honestly compare the 2 to each other.....but....................
DVD AUDIO does seem to do multichannel better then SACD as I said already.They seem to record it with less funky moving and weird soundstages.....I also havent seen a 2 channel dvd audio disk yeat.
SACD has both they started out as 2 channel high res format then went on to multichannel with a natural progression.They messed up some recordings by doing this..In my opnion that is.....like Alice in Chains......SACD in multichannel.it's funky to listen to at times.....I love Alice IN Chains, they are one if not my favorite bands to hit the market in a very long time.....Now 2 channel SACD is awesome with no equal.I'll leave that there and more open for debate later.

You know I can go on and on about the 2 formats..they are the new kids on the block........I would like them to both stay for awhile and see where they take us.........be open minded.....it's what it takes to except change..........for better or worse.....lets see what happens.I know for one I want them to shine because of the incredible detail,clarity,realism,airy,REAL sound they both can reproduce in the recording arts......Your speakers will sound at there best replaying the sounds of sacd and dvd audio.
The software is limited and growing everyday.I only own a few titles and like I said have mixed feelings right now....but I HEAR HOPE in the sound........I DO.........Do YOU???????

Here is a couple of disks to try out that I have found to sound really incredible.......impressive.
1)James Tayor SACD Multichannel Hourglass
2)Train SACD 2 channel Drps of Jupiter
3)Jerry Goldsmith SACD Multichannel London Symphony Orchestra
4)Queen DVD AUDIO A Night At The Opea
5)Oliva Newton John DVD AUDIO One Womens Journey
6)Cory Johnson/Zephyr DVD AUDIO The Larks At Heavens Gate Sings
7)The Fabulous Thunderbirds DVD AUDIO Live in concert

There's many more......

[shack]

I like the high resolution that SACD offers but after listening to a multi-channel SACD once or twice I find myself going back to the 2-channel layer because I just prefer it. I'm getting old and set im my ways I guess. The multi-channel mixes are technologically interesting and have a certain "WOW" aspect in a good surround sound system but IMHO it does not replace a well recorded stereo mix on a good system.

Multi-channel is the only way to go with movies because the object is to become immersed in the action with the sounds comming from around you. Most soundtracks are now designed that way and this is what you get when you go to the theater.

I agree with mantis obout the Denon's 5 channel stereo for one aspect. If you are casually listening to music while you are doing something else or have a group of people in the room this is a good DSP. It basically reproduces stereo around the room. I don't think you are getting 5 different tracks but the rear mimics the fronts.

This all may be a moot issue however. DVD-A and SACD have not been large scale sucess stories. The average music listener does not appreciate the higher resolution afforded by these formats and most CDs are still played in portables, mini shelf systems and cars. Do a man on the street type of survey and I bet less than 1 in 10 would have any idea what SACD or DVD-A is. These fromats may end up being much like vinly records are today. A niche market that caters to a hi-fi hobbyist that is willing to pay more for the high resolution. Sony has made noise about making all of their CDs hybrid...meaning that they could be played on either conventional or SACD players but you would have to have a SACD player to get the higher resoultion and the normal CD would not be multi-channel. I have'nt heard much about this latley and the Rolling Stones hybrid CDs were the last big thing to happen with that format. I think they have done ok but not spectacular.

I hope multi-channel succeeds because that means the industry is healthy, its another choice and I will still be able to get high resolution music. Will it become the "standard"?....probably not. I'm afraid the standard will become the downloadable MP3 stuff as soon as the industry finds a way to copy protect it. Peter Gabriel's new album "Up" can be downloaded on the internet for a price of $10 instead of going out and buying the CD. That may be where we are going.

[polkatese]

I agree with Shack, if the format survive as an alternative, then we don't have to choose. If they can make technologically feasible to coat the regular CD with the multichannel data, and price it more or the less as the current pricing scheme, then I think more people will adopt the format. mass production translates to better affordability, hence more adoption....

[Zero]

Warning: Newbie's response. ;)

I believe one of the biggest words that apply to this arguement is: change.

2 channel listening has been mainstream up until the 90's, and as such has carried with it an extremely loyal following. Multi-channel is only now beginning to mature and grow capabilities to appease the ever tenacious ears of a self proclaimed audiophile.

2 channel users often proclaim that there is a greater sense of realism, as in most performances the performing artist or artists are located somewhere in front of you. Unfortunately to obtain true real-to-life sound through electronics, you will need quite an expansive and seemingless budget. Although this applies to both 2 channel and multi, I believe that fact alone refute's the arguement of realism within the realm of most typical budgets.

As far as sound quality is concerned. Now that is primarily relevant to the quality of recording, how its formated, and what format its in. And as far as merits are concerned, some things simply cannot be explained eloquently:

Some people just love being enveloped by sound. It doesn't matter to them if its deminensions are fake. Honestly I believe its half-due in part to most people understanding that there is no band in the listening area.

Also, when positioned properly, sorround can give a seemingless sound and fill quite an expansive area full of music. Virtually every 2 channel rig changes sonic quality severly as you move about.

Like it or not, multi-channel is here and it only looks to be growing in popularity. Its diversity brings a very unique flavor to the audio world which I fully invite and welcome. Whether your a college or highschool student on a strict budget, or a multi-millionar looking for a true to life theater.... there is a system for you. 2 channel will never die, though it may have to subside to the presence of the ever-growing and ever-expanding aspect of multi-channel audio.

I for one, would take a good 2 channel rig over an "ok" multi channel any day. However, if I had the spare cash and the space, multi begins a new with me.

[HBombToo]

There is an expression I use in the Office Often. "It iis what iit iis..."

If it exists I want the enjoyment of experiencing it.
2 channel converted to multi... Good on ya is my thought.

HBomb

[rlw]

but my mono LP's still sound fine to me.

Seriously, though, what if you like big speakers? You gonna have 4 big speakers? How's that going to work in a given room?

I'd rather have 2 great channels, from speakers to amplification, than 4 lesser channels - and for a given budget point, that's the compromise you have to make, right? Unless you got one of the Inifinity-Fold wallets, you either get quantity or quality.

I won't even get into the setup issues. Takes me long enough to get 2 channels sounding their best to consider more.

[RuSsMaN]

Just a pet-peeve, lets quit calling anything more than 2ch 'stereo'. 5, 6, 7, 42 channel is not, and cannot be 'stereo'.

Cheers,
Russ

[rlw]

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Just a pet-peeve, lets quit calling anything more than 2ch 'stereo'. 5, 6, 7, 42 channel is not, and cannot be 'stereo'.

Cheers,
Russ

But Denon calls it 5 (and 7) channel [edit: that "s" word], right on their website. Gosh, if a manufacturer puts it on their website, doen't that make it reality?







;)

[mantis]

open minds want 2 know?

[F1nut]

Some people just love being enveloped by sound. It doesn't matter to them if its deminensions are fake.

And these would be the same people who gain their life experiences from video games and MTV instead of getting out in the real world.


Honestly I believe its half-due in part to most people understanding that there is no band in the listening area.

Hmmmm...when I close my eyes I could swear the band is in my listening area.


Also, when positioned properly, sorround can give a seemingless sound and fill quite an expansive area full of music.

But, it's unreal.



Virtually every 2 channel rig changes sonic quality severly as you move about.

Just as a live performance does.


ATC, I not ragging on you. It's just your statements exemplify my problem with multi-channel sound.

[jdavy]

I agree with the person who voted for multi for your movies and 2 channel for your music. I also think it is difficult to get one system for both with out a lot of money. I have my sony dvd/sacd player hooked up to both my home theater and two channel system.

[Zero]

F1, you are entitled to your opinion, no hard feelings :) However, I do have some things to say in regards to your response.


And these would be the same people who gain their life experiences from video games and MTV instead of getting out in the real world.

This is a horribly gross and quite inaccurate generalization F1nut, I would have expected a much more well-rounded view from you.

I for one can attest to knowing quite a few concert goers that simply love sorround sound in their own home. I know of QUITE a few (my own parents included) that like their sorround sound, who have attended concerts, and seldomly play video games or watch MTV. Note- all these people are in their late 30s-late 40s.


Hmmmm...when I close my eyes I could swear the band is in my listening area.

Hey, if you can do that with your system. More power to you. If thats what you like, great, so do I. Hell, its the ultimate goal of anyone wishing to experience "true" audio. I notice very few true audiophiles however. Most people I talk to about it fully understand that they cannot reproduce the sound of a live concert, nor do they have the financial means to do so. So they live with what they have, and enjoy it for what its worth.

Different strokes for different folks.

As for it being "unreal". Since when did seemingless and expansiveness equate to realistic sonic qualities? LOL! *uses klipsch as an example*

All in good fun..

[F1nut]

ATC,

Yes, it is all in fun :cool:

I do admit that I'm suffering sleep depravation and perhaps not thinking as clearly as usual. I honestly don't know of any friends that have or want to have surround sound rigs and perhaps I'm showing my age (forty something) with my opinions on this subject. I fully understand that there are lots of folks who like it for HT, but I tend to view it as a fad for 2 channel and a by-product of todays times. Hell, we never had a TV until I was about 10, not that the folks couldn't afford one, just that they wanted us to use our minds, to make us think outside the box. Hence my statement, which is, of course the rantings of this opinionated SOB.......:lol:


Goodnight

[Zero]

F1Nut,

The Multi-channel "theater in a box" systems are really beginning to appeal towards a wide audience. People love the idea of replicating big sound in a small cheap package. And most people never invest much interest in audio enough to explore in deph rigs. Usually those average joe type own a modest system, so when they decide to actually purchase the multi channel rig, it outshines what they previously owned completly. They are then in seventh heaven, with their music that seems so much more , well to them , "lifelike".

Working with installers for awhile, this fact shocked the hell out of me. I expected to find impressive systems, instead, most had little cubes or small speakers in the corners often playing music.

As I said, its just relative to many factors. I would have been the exact same way had it not been for owning the Polk 2000ps as my very first pieces of audio gear. Up until that point I thought the Bose Acoustimass 5 was the best thing since sliced bread.

hehe ohhhhh ignorance... sometimes its not bliss. LOL

[danger boy]

hey, i am not a freak. just because i like multichannel audio.. and it rocks! :p

so there, you two channel lump of oudated 16bit, stuck in the 80's, non hi resolution, flat sounding, no soundstage, I only want it from the front, puke. :lol:
(i'm only kidding here, don't get bent)

[danger boy]

Originally posted by TroyD
My contention is that when you listen to live music, it's in front of you. When would you ever sit in the middle of a band? Never, that's when.

Now, there are those that will say that most of the music we hear is reflected sound (or some variation to that theme) to which I would reply, that's essentially the same argument that Dr Bose used to justify the 901's. Having said that, when I listen to a recording of, say, the Cinci Pops, I want to hear the orchestra. I don't care to hear the sound of the Pops AND the hall they were playing in. My own room will provide it's own reflections etc. etc.

Anyway, let's hear it.

BDT
Where to begin?

As I sit here in front of the computer in a dark room listening to a new David Bowie CD i got tonight over and over. In two channel audio.... i'm thinking wow. how wonderful this would sound in 5.1 surround. But of course music like that would only appeal to very few of us. Most music companies wouldn't release something like that if you're only going to appeal to a niche target audience, just doesn't make business sense.

TroyD, true you would never sit in the middle of a band and listen to the music.. for one. you'd be deaf by now. Secondly your ears would or could not take in the different sounds from behind.. since your ears point forward.

You asked for us multichannel lovers to make our case for it. Here is it. It just sounds better. More life like. The two formats can co-exist in the same world.
You prefer two channel audio.. i prefer 6 channel audio. What would home theater and movie theater experiece be like today if we didn't have Dolby Digital or DTS? Remember those old theaters where they had one (or two if you were in a high tech theater) front speaker? I do. and it wasn't a very good movie experience. Same with multichannel audio. It just hasn't caught on yet. Whether is will or not only time will tell.

DVD-a and SACD have both done horrible jobs of promoting their formats. I go into my local Best Buy about once every two weeks. They have no DVD-a display at all. The SACD display is shoved away in the farthest corner of the store. Back where no one ever goes. It's hooked up to same cube type speaker set up. No one ever checks it out. If you want the masses to buy your product. you have to PROMOTE it. Simple enough.. look at Microsoft. They are good at promoting their products in mags, TV, radio, etc.

I know that if the companies who are developing this format for the masses don't give it a huge push soon. it will die along with the dinasaurs. It's to bad too. because this multichannel has a lot of potential still.

Yeah it's not for everyone. If you like your music in dos channels.... great. If you're like me and a few others and enjoy an option of listening to a multichannel at my choosing. I'm happy to have that option.

TroyD have you listened to a good multichannel audio set up? I'm not saying i have the best system.. by looking at what you all have on here. i have a low end system, but it's all I can afford right now. I don't have any Rotels, Carvers, Krells, Integras in my set up.. but the Marantz does okay for home theater and music.

Finally, last night ai had the house to myself for a few hours and just sat and listened to several different discs in both 2 channel and multichannel. They were Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, Riding with the King, BB King & Eric Clapton, Barenaked Ladies - Maroon, Diane Krall (DTS 96/24), and Eagles - Hotel California. Time and time again, i found that two channel audio "lacked" something. Clarity. It sounded muted.. even in hi resolution stereo. Something about having more speakers available to your ears that two speakers just can't compare with. Think of it this way. Sound mixed in two channels will not sound as full as sound from 6 speakers. Each speaker bringing something to the sound presence.

At least in my set up (800i's fronts, 400i center, 300i's rear, 350sub) the sound does not always come from the rear.. the rear channels just complement the front soundstage. Yes sometimes it sounds a little "hollow" or distant.. but i feel that adds to the unique openness to the music. All i'm saying is that i'm glad I have the option of listening to it in either 2 channel or multichannel. I have options available to me. Something I don't with with a old fashioned CD.

Hope this made some sense. I'm not here to agrue with you or anyone. I won't knock your 2 channel stereo likes if you don't knock my love for something better, multichannel audio. :lol:

wow this is long. it's bedtime now. later guys.

[madmax]

Originally posted by ATCVenom
Most people I talk to about it fully understand that they cannot reproduce the sound of a live concert, nor do they have the financial means to do so. So they live with what they have, and enjoy it for what its worth.

The setup I've been using recently really makes me wonder about the above statement. I have been to some live performances and recently have set in (just listening) on a rehersal with the full sound going. In the rehersal I closed my eyes and said to myself "this sounds just like I'm in my livingroom". After that I really tried to pick out anything that was different. I couldn't. When I got home I put in their CD. No difference! Wow! So, how much does this cost?

Jolida 302A: $355 used.
Luxman CD player: $105 used and 10 yrs old
SRS SDA Polks: $1200 used and over 10 yrs old
Tripplite lcr surge suppressor: $75 used
Cables: $75 used. Not very exotic

Total: $1725

Not much for a live representation! And BTW, these are not the best deals going. This is even using the SDA SRS, not the 1.2TL versions and if you look real hard you could probably find the 502A amp for about the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some musical passages are upgraded when you spend more, but... the quality of sound I'm talking about is probably far superior to what was referred to in the above statement.

madmax

[Paul Connor]

In my experience, multi channel is great for movies. I previously owned a Pioneer surround system which I played movies in the vhs format. The listening experience was great. I have demoed dvd systems and have a friend with a Krell/Thiel home theater rig and it is awsome to say the least. However, for music, I find that anything more than two speakers for music seems to wear on me and I find myself wanting to hear the sound coming from one direction. Even with the Pioneer system I owned, I would play music from just the front channels only. Down the road, (money currenly lacking) I plan on putting together a multi channel home theater, but I don't plan on replacing my two channel gear for music. My collection of music will not allow it, and I am more than happy with what I currently own. But then again, my granfather probably never envisioned replacing his Edison hand crank phonograph either.

[Zero]

MadMax,

Hey if you are content with your system. Great! I for one have almost unrealistic expectations, and well a few others do to.

Music to me is all about atmosphere. And when it comes to a live performance - I gotta *feel* the atmosphere around. I dont want to have to close my eyes, or attempt to convince myself of someone being there. I want this all to occur naturally, to where the music almost makes you feel the lighting (or sun), the people next to you, the conversation, the smell, etc..

What satisfies one person does nothing for the other. In the end, there is no generalization that can be made about this specific stuff. Its all opinion.

As for me? I got decent gear - no where near satisfied.

[F1nut]

ATC,

But, if you don't close your eyes then you're looking at your gear, be it 2 channel or surround. I, for one, find it impossible to "see" the band while looking at my gear. I do agree with your statement, "It's all opinion" and for sure we all have one.
Satisfied? Maybe when I get some mono blocks...lol.

[Zero]

Man F1Nut, I still kick myself for passing up some Marantz Mono blocks for one hell of a price! aaaaakkkkkk the closest I have come to temporary utopia! haha

Well I notice when it comes to the merit of multi channel, there is no true right or wrong feeling. Originally I was going to write this incredibly long response, and actually critique and proof-read *shudder the thought* hehe But man, multi is what it is, 2 channel is what it is..... you either like it or dont.

[madmax]

Originally posted by ATCVenom
MadMax,

Music to me is all about atmosphere. And when it comes to a live performance - I gotta *feel* the atmosphere around. I dont want to have to close my eyes, or attempt to convince myself of someone being there.


Well that's a good reply to someones post... My post in particular was about closing my eyes while the live band was playing to see if I could feel like I was in my livingroom. BTW, I did.

madmax

[TroyD]

Let me first begin by saying that I'm not per se against multi-channel nor do I think that those who embrace it are mentally challenged (except for danger boy, j/k), just so no one thinks that I'm scoffing at their preferences.

I don't have a DVD-A or SACD player, I've done a few demos of them and I have a number of concert DVD's. I'd say that I've got a fair multi channel setup (RTA12's/CS400i/R10's/Paradigm PDR10) and I'm just not convinced that music sounds better in multichannel. Having sound coming at you from all sides has a certain cool factor to it but it, IMO, it doesn't give you a realistic presentation of the material. The best adjective that I can come up with is 'contrived'. It would seem that the material is more dependent on the quality of the engineer than the band. This is true to a certain extent with stereo but is far greater with multichannel.

No soundstage? Non hi res? I'd invite you to come check out my 2ch rig!

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BDT

[HBombToo]

BDT, i think you give way more credit than whats deserved.

I'm trashed so what the Hell!

[madmax]

Originally posted by TroyD
I have a number of concert DVD's. I'd say that I've got a fair multi channel setup (RTA12's/CS400i/R10's/Paradigm PDR10) and I'm just not convinced that music sounds better in multichannel. BDT

I would be willing to state that concert DVD's are not a good comparison to multichannel SACD or DVD-Audio sound. In general most of the concert DVD's I have are not that good. Only the very few are. At least all the DVD-Audio discs I've heard have good sound quality. Too bad they don't know how to mix them properly.

I hate helping the other side :D

madmax

[mantis]

I agree with that.DVD music disk for the most part are ...I'll say ok at best.No compare to SACD or DVD AUDIO in sound quality.........Yeah gotta hear how clear and clean the recording sounds....any audiophile can at least respect that......I do .

[TroyD]

I agree with what your saying, I grant that the quality of the recordings are not equal but I'm saying that a concert DVD in stereo is better than in multi channel. The stereo version is more 'real' for lack of a better term.

As I said, I grant the higher resolution point.

BDT

[mantis]

I can see where your coming from,
I like most of my concert dvd's in stereo as well........maybe not talking heads...but Alice n chains I like better in stereo.....o **** ......I can't even do a shoot out anymore..........looks like I'm just gonna have to upgrade sooner then I expected to......:supermad: :D

[danger boy]

Originally posted by TroyD
.

I don't have a DVD-A or SACD player, I've done a few demos of them and I have a number of concert DVD's.
No soundstage? Non hi res? I'd invite you to come check out my 2ch rig!

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

BDT

TroyD, okay.. i appreciate your explantion.. as thin as it is.. but it's cool guy. no reason to beat each other up over something this trivial. we both just like different things.. you may like blondes, and i may like brunettes. Just a matter of what you prefer is what it boils down to.

You said you don't have a DVD-a or SACD player. but yet you have hi res stereo? How is that possible? You can't increase the res on a 16bit CD. If it wasn't recoreded in hi res 96/24 and above. it ain't hi resolution.

Oh yeah.. concert DVD's are not the same as SACD or DVD-a. concert DVD's are not mastered in 24bit/192KHz dvd audio standards. not all dvd's are created equal.

Anyway, just had to make this points and clear up some misinformation.

[danger boy]

I feel much better now. ahhhh :cool:

[jmasterj]

Ok Troy,

I'll be your" multi-channel freak" if thats what you want to call me.
However, I don't feel the need to"make a case on the merits of
multi-channel" to you or anybody else. Now what I will make a case on the merits of, is your evaluation of equipment you don't have. Now that I find interesting. Who is trying to convince you that multi-channel sounds better? Someone here on the forum? I
think not! Some choose to use 6.1, some 7.1 some only 2 channel I guess if we don't do what TroyD likes got to be freaks huh? Well
when TroyD starts paying for my equipment then I'll be concerned
with what TroyD likes, untill then ,personally I could care less...

[TroyD]

Uhhhhh, excuse me but I was just trying to stimulate some light hearted debate about the relative merits of each format. I am not bashing anyone, their gear or their preferences. If you construe it that way, I apologize.

BDT

[RuSsMaN]

Jesus, the peanut gallery is growing by the day. Lighten up Jam Master J, it's just audio...no one attacked you, your gear, or your preference in formats.

On a side note, I just want to be clear that no-one was kicking my gear or formats, because it is the best period, surpasing EVERYONE else's system here.... and I KNOW I'm right, so nanner nanner nanner.

Cheers,
Rooster

[madmax]

What really matters is "who is right". I think that would be me. Although my multichannel system is modest and my two channel system even more so I think I am the one everyone should follow without question. Two channel for music and multichannel for movies and wow factor demonstrations. I mean, the real determining factor is not how many channels you have anyway, it is how many channels you drive with tubes that really matters.
madmax

[F1nut]

dangerboy,

A suggestion for your new quote and I quote, "I only want it from the front." :D

[madmax]

I thought he liked it from the... No, I can't. I just can't finish the statement.

[jmasterj]

TroyD,

Apology accepted, It's not what you say, but how you say it! Sounded like an attack. Now I confess to being a freak but it's not related to music.

RuSsMaN,

Yours was the best. past tense. Somebody should have told you.

[danger boy]

F1nut & madmax001,
if you guys only knew for real how i like it.... front/rear, upside down. you name it.. :lol:
F1nut, i like your suggestion for a new quote. i'll keep in in mind. hee hee hee!

other quotes could be.. time to get your freak on!
It's happy hour somewhere in the world right?

new quote for TroyD, All i want for Christmas is my two front Polks. :lol:

i crack myself up some times.

[mantis]

Again,
thats just what they do...they word things that seem like an attack..and then say it's not.

anyway big guy it's like you want someone to prove you wrong or convince you that multichannel is better then 2 channel......I say they are both good...one being newer.Multichannel could be the way of the future.......who knows...it sells......I feel it's at least recorded cleaner......maybe not so pleasing sometimes as they still do weird things with it.......but who know maybe they'll get it right, make it pleasing for 2 channel and multichannel people so we all can enjoy.

Russ your always ready to add people to the peanut gallery.....I believe your the leader of the group....even if you didn't realize that.................good on yeah man;)

[RuSsMaN]

Isn't it about time for you to leave the forum again?

;)

Cheers,
Russ

[joe logston]

the last word is , they are both good

[TroyD]

thats just what they do...they word things that seem like an attack..and then say it's not.

Uhh, no Dan, that's NOT what I do. If I have something derrogatory to say I normally don't mince words. All I said was ' you multi-channel freaks' as in 'multi-channel enthusiats' not mutants or what have you. Other than that I don't see where anyone could misconstrue any of my words as any type of a personal attack. I do think it's interesting that if Russ and myself say anything of the type you are quick to point it out yet if it's liv4fam you don't seem to notice it.

It was said in another thread that we should have a separate thread on multi-channel / stereo debate so I started on. My comments about multi-channel are not personal in nature. Now, near as I can see, all the arguments for the new format seem to stem around the higher resolution of the material, which I have stipulated as being a good thing. What I haven't heard, is a compelling explanation of how adding more channels gives a better, more accurate presentation of the material. Now, having said that, if you like multi channel, more power to you. I'm just not sold on it yet, that's all.

BDT

[STUFFMD]

Troy,
My response is simple, yes the band is in front of you.........but then there are these things called walls, pylons and trees and even people,echos,that direct music torward you, behind you and in front of you all around you.........and I don't know many people who have a 30ft+. long stage to play their speakers on. I think the multi channel set up brings you much closer to a bigger sound stage..that is difficult to achieve in a say 10'by 15' room that can't be achieved with only 2 mains in my opinion, unless your mains happen to be several stacks of Marshalls in a theatre.....and yes I don't sit in the middle of a the band, that's why you calibrate your rears and most DSP settings Do Not send anywhere near as much volume to the rear speakers as do the mains......the sound is there for Effect.
My 2 Cents ..StuffMD

[danger boy]

ok, i've posted my thoughts and best arguments as to why i think multichannel is in my opinion better than stereo. so i have nothing left to say on the topic. And yes i made more of an argument than just saying it sounds better and with higher resolution it is better.
The only thing left to do is for those doubters is to take a listen to a multichannel setup and then decide if you still don't like it. We all have plenty of experience with two channel audio. but few of us have experience with multichannel music.. and i'm not talking a DVD concert or home theater 5.1 here.

Finally, i like to keep my posts lighthearted whenever possible.. yeah i get in an occasional jab here and there to those guys i think need a smackdown once in a while.. and i'll take my lumps along with you all too. I have no problem with that. We all know about the love/hate relationship that Russman and Mantis have going on. I can't take either sides on that.. but of you guys have good things to add to the forum.

so anyway. just keep an open mind when it comes to the world of audio.. if you dont.. you could be missing out on something really good. And with those of us in here who truely love audio in all forms..it would be a shame not to experience what is currently out there.

[TroyD]

Cool, and for the record, I think you guys make very cogent points about the benefits of multichannel..

Stuff, I agree in theory with what you are saying but here are my thoughts on what you are saying (which is similar to what Dr Bose uses for rationale) but IMO, I view all those reflections and so forth as distortion and something to be minimized or eliminated on the recording. My reasoning is that whatever venue that you use for listening will present it's own reflections etc. so why would you want to, in effect, compound the problem?

The whole soundstage thing, essentially the way I view it is that you are adding a center channel (which, theoretically I think could be a good thing) and rear sounds, can that more accurately recreate the soundstage? I would say that is more dependent on your equipment.

Anyways, I appreciate the thoughts you guys have, I think this is good stuff and makes for good debate.

BDT

[shack]

As someone who has both formats (SACD and Stereo) and has listened to both quite a bit I will tell you that I still prefer 2 channel for music. I just listened to one of the finest stereo SACD discs I have ever heard. Handel's Messiah from First Impressions Music. This was recorded live in a Swedish church in 1982 and I can't imagine having the voices and instruments coming from anywhere other than the soundstage created by this disc. When I find a multichannel recording that sounds this realistic I might change my mind.

But for now.......Give me movies in multichannel.... Music in 2 channnel....and I like redheads (although I tend to be flexible on this point)!

Oh...and I don't need to hear all this B/S about an old fart just not accepting change. I deal with change every day. I have always been one of the first to try and SOMETIMES embrace new formats. I been around music and electronics for a long time.

I minored in computer science in college in the 70s when Steven Jobs was still tinkering. Learned to write in COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC programming languages and punched cards to write programs. Helped my dad set up a computer system for a retail company for accounting, inventory and POS data and it filled up a 3000 sq ft room. Now I use a handheld PDA for my schedule and information that probably can process more data faster and fit in my coat pocket.


When I bought my first record album at 13 in 1967 it was a MONO Magical Mystery Tour LP by the Beatles. At 16 I had a nice 8 track system for the car. By the time I was 19 and in college I had a pretty nice Hi-Fi set up (vinyl and reel to reel). I bought a Quadraphonic system (hated It). As soon as cassettes came out I bought a recorder and copied everything to tape. I bought a CD player when every one said this was just a fad and it will never replace tape. I had one of the first vcrs , one of the first Laser disc players and one of the first DVD players. I've had multi channel HT since the early 90s. I've had SACD for a while.

So change or lack of acceptance of change as has been stated in a couple of posts has nothing to do with MY preference for 2 channel over multi channel. I have them both.....I listen to both.....but I prefer Stereo!

YOMV!

[STUFFMD]

Buuutttt Troy,
What I hear you saying and good old Amir saying is that microphones are placed all over the theatre??????? Very few have come up with that on a recording. Microphones are on the main stage very close to the instruments,thats why you don't hear people coughing, lighting lighters, and girls lifting their shirts, like you would on a boot tape, the DSP effects help create the reverb and bring the sound you like I believe you experience in a live show.....Yes you get echos and reverberation and that is what makes every hall and stage have it's own sound and personality...I don't think you get much of that on a recording. It has to be created in the home environment.....
I have yet to have anyone tell me that their Home System sounds Better than a live concert....with all it's distortion and reflections.........What I am getting from you and Dr. Bose is that you don't like live music much?????
Not trying to heat up a discussion...again just my 2 Cents....you are either a 2 channel man or a DSP person..all the talk in the world won't change that, sound is very personnel, that's why there are so many kinds of speakers in the world.The only thing I find in a lot of my experience is that people who don't like DSP don't take time to set up and tweek the settings and their speakers to get the desired effect, or you have 2 main speakers that are just that good and have such an awsome sound stage..(Dahlquist Dq-10's with the right amp come to mind)...but most people can't afford the amps or the esoteric speakers to achieve that. Some people are just afraid of technology.
Me I like to play with the settings and move things around....ask my wife............
Peace StuffMD

[mantis]

I say this Russ......whatever dude.......wasn't it your turn this time?
Troyd.........ditto.........

this is a good post none the less despite all of our differences and the way we perceive each others way/style of posting.

I said what I wanted to say about 2 channel and multiroom.......it's on you to experience it or disguard it.....I like both,all of the formats currently..I just hope they all co exsist.........It keeps my pockets full.........or empty depending on how you look at it.:p

[TroyD]

STUFF,

It's not heated at all, amigo. I certainly respect your positions and you make excellent points. As for me, I am a minimalist by nature so that would explain my gravitation to 2ch.

Agreed with the DQ-10's, any time you want a demo, c'mon by.

BDT

[TroyD]

BTW Dan, if you got something to say, c'mon, out with it. I'm tired of being pegged for **** that I don't do.

Troy

[mantis]

I got nothing for yeah Troy........you just do what you do.

I'm tired of arguing with you about it........

[TroyD]

Well, I would say this, I've insulted no one intentionally nor ridiculed thier gear or thier ideas and frankly, I'm tired of being accused of it.

IF you got a point, make it Dan.

Troy

[RuSsMaN]

Originally posted by TroyD
Well,
If you got a point, make it Dan.


After a year and a half, I'm still waiting for this... ;)

He just got into serperates in the past couple months, just give it more time. Dan has a good heart, he just needs time.

Cheers,
Rooster

[mantis]

Troy,
I don't know what you want me to say nor do I have a point to make,It's just the way it is around here with us,I learned to live with it, the way it is,i'm not going to battle with you ......you do what you do.........I'm used to it.Why are you so defensive?Relax man chill out.Go fire up the DQ-10's and Carver rig.....

Russ,
What would I need time for?I like seperates for alot of reasons,and I'm glad to get out from under the thumb of the receiver........ok that was alittle twisted sounding but ......that it in a nut shell.Thanks for the compliment Russ.:)

[STUFFMD]

Hey Troy,
Dad had a pair of DQ-10"s paired up with a complete Mac system, some ******* stole the whole thing....bigtime sad day...I can afford the referbished DQ's right now but unfortunately don't have the scratch for the proper amps........might take you up on the Demo...
Peace, StuffMD

[danger boy]

why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors? I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me.

[TroyD]

Stuff,

I have mine hooked up to a Carver m1.5t. Maybe not the last word in amplification but I'm not at all dissatisfied with it. If you are ever in Charleston, look me up!

OK, Dan, I got it......I'll do what I do and you can continue with the baseless accusations.

BDT

[HBombToo]

danger boy, Great question. I'll start an integration thread to see what kind of response we get.

HBomb

[shack]

why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors?

Copy Protection.


I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me

This is because you are not getting the higher resolution of DVD-A or SACD when you use the digital cable...just regular old redbook CD.

[danger boy]

you would think that there would be no difference in sound quality between the two. but there is. i guess with multichannel audio.. the player does the decoding and passes the signal to the receiver/amp with the 6 rca connectors so that there is no change in sound quality from the receiver. it's pure and untouched virgin sound straight from the player. ??

[phuz]

Originally posted by danger boy
why does DVD-a and SACD have to be hooked up using 6 analog RCA connectors? I switch between the 6 rca's and the digi coax cable.. and the analog inputs sound way better to me.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that it's because the player has to do the decoding - so it can only output a 6ch analog signal.

When you use the digital out, you are sending the signal to the receiver to handle the decoding. Which unless you have a receiver or other SACD decoder, is going to be a plain old 2ch redbook signal.

Onboard decoding, analog out. Remote decoding, digital out.

Someone please put my foot in my mouth if I'm wrong?

[rlw]

SACD/DVD-A players will not permit passing the encoded bitstream, purportedly to discourage piracy. Basically, it means that consumers will never be able to make digital copies of their media.

Note that there are a couple of exceptions: Pioneer Elite gear can pass a bitstream from player-receiver, but both pieces have to be Pioneer Elite. Likewise, Accuphase does the same thing.

[HBombToo]

Yes the 47Ai does this but the receiver handles the bass management. The Pioneer actually takes the six channels and modulates them onto the firewire then the receiver demods and provides the extra bass management feature and speaker out.

I don't desire a total upgrade so the question becomes how do we take care of bass management of a SACD/DVD-A player that does not include this feature.

HBomb

[hoosier21]

Outlaw has a 200.00 or so bass management unit. It goes between the Player and Receiver. It does the bass management in analog

[HBombToo]

I have been considering purchasing that unit along with the 47Ai. It seems pretty good and I'm real happy with my Oulaw 770 Amp. Lotta horsepower in that amp.