How can you not have multichannel system

In the world of hi-fi, stereo is considered the basic sound setup, and from there up, it is multichannel. As a rough analogy, when the automobile was invented it was first referred to as a horseless carriage, in deference to the then basic form of transportation, the obvious horse-drawn carriage. Now, the automobile is the base form of transportation, and succeeding forms of transportation are the airplane, spaceship and the like. No one makes reference to horse-drawn carriages although they exist (see Amish communities) as no one truly uses monophonic hi-fi systems. Hence, stereophonic is not multichannel.

Tvad, you are correct and I am not advocating shoe horning multichannel system into spatially restricted rooms.

Sorry Usblues for boring you with subjects discussed in the past, but maybe buried under hundreds of succeeding threads. Other readers, however, were interested enough to post their thoughts. Maybe next time I'll start a thread debating the sound quality of blu-ray music discs.
Didn't mean to sound arrogant, but always liked Reggie Jackson's comment about being the straw that stirred the drink.

Elevick, I did try the vinyl route when it was making a surge in the late nineties (and continuing today), and assembled a decent front end, but could not get over my sensitivity to the crackle, pop side effects. In fact, I always been sensitive to those unrecorded noises and transferred my music to first, reel to reel tape, then beta tape and finally replaced my music in total to digital with all its pitfalls. I respect vinylophiles' opinions, but cannot join them because of that hearing sensitivity.

Eldartford, ironically you have described my experience. My sound system is located in what many would consider small. Yet, I employ Martin-Logan CLS IIz speakers in the front and Martin-Logan SL3s in the rear. Because the listener's seat is approximately 8 feet from the speakers, a nearfield sound effect is created, and it does exactly what you describe, especially with the right recording like the Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore East cd.

Dweller, I have yet to see it on dvd-audio. I tried the DTS one and that was a disaster. Have the deluxe edition version which is ok, but the sacd disc is without doubt the best, excluding the lp, which I originally had and made me mad seeking an equivalent in sound quality on digital.

I believe all music issued as stereo can be reissued as multichannel because of the original process of recording multitracks and then down mixing them into two tracks. For example, the Live at Filmore East was originally released in stereo, and with the advent of sacd and higher resolutions, the original multitrack tapes were, so to speak, taken out of the vault and re-engineered using the new formats. I believe any recordings that originated from multi tracks can be transformed as well, although, some recordings lend themselves more to the surround effect like live concerts. As to those recordings not revisited one has to use the different processes that have been included in surround sound processors such as Trifield, Dolby Prologic IIx, and Lexicon's. Although, not discrete, those processes extract enough surround sound to expand or fill in without destroying the soundstage. It's more subtle, but its analogous to listening to 256kb mp3 sound vs 364(?) mp3. A well setup multichannel system (meaning quality of the processing and matching of rear and front speakers, but not necessarily cost) is extremely important to realize the sound effect. Those who prefer 2 channel may do so because the quality of their front speakers maybe is so great as to render any rear speaker other than those of similar make unable to seemlessly integrate. For example, although price is not a primary concern, Wilson speakers or those of similar cost and unique design could be hard to match. Take a Vandersteen or Audio Physics, although well designed, is easier to integrate if not with the same make but with similar design.

If i may add to the above, the emphasis is to integrate the surrounds with the fronts, and that is mostly in the hands of the sound engineers. The dts version of Allman Bros Live at the Fillmore East is virtually unlistenable either because of the dts process or mediocre sound egineering, or both. Take the sacd version, using the same tapes, and its sound quality is universally acclaimed. Take the deluxe version in stereo form, but remastered, and quality processes such as Trifield can extract those ambient sounds and render a superb surround experience. I believe different personnel were used in making those three versions.

Your comment is incorrect and suggests you have not heard certain multichannel sacd recordings. Blood on the Tracks was released in the mid 70's; Live at the Fillmore East released in the early 70's. Both released in stereo format only. Yet, both were re-released this decade as multi-channel sacd discs. Listening to the front and surround channels one hears 4 discrete channels. Obviously, the original sound engineers could not foresee the successful creation of multi-channel recordings as represented by sacd and dvd-audio. The latter were not processed from the stereo releases. To achieve those 4 or 5 discrete channels sound engineers had to gather all the tracks originally put down by the musicians and then re-mixed to create those extra multichannels (meaning more than the then stereo final mix). How can you say that is an illusion when the engineers recombined the original 4 or more tracks to create 4 or 5 discrete channels instead of two. Are you saying the surround channels contain music not originally recorded and somehow are mutations of the stereo release. If so, your comprehension of how multichannel discs of older music are made is sorely lacking. That multichannel sacd disc of Blood on the Tracks is more of a faithful reproduction of the music than anything else you can hear on any other recorded medium of the same. It is no different than using a video card with 128kbs and comparing it to a video card employing 512kbs. Obviously, you are going to see many more colors, and shadings of those colors on the monitor using the latter video card. Based on your analysis, the colors on the 512kb card are illusionary.

Sorry Mrtennis, but you lose 40 love, or 3 sets to none with your doubles partner, tvad, on knowledge of multichannel setups and music. Furthermore, what you described with four speakers in a stereo system is a two channel preamp split to send the same stereo signal to four channels. That same result can be duplicated by a multichannel preamp sending the stereo signal to the surround channels and call it simply 5 channel music, or, as some manufacturers have named it, party mix. The stereo channels are redistributed in toto to the surround channels with no effort to extract ambient sound.

In my opinion, the video analogy is right on, if you understand multichannel re-mixing of stereo discs. What is so hard to understand that when you take the original tracks and remix them over 5 channels instead of two, the instruments and vocals are going to sound fuller and more distinct, as opposed to remixing all the instruments and vocals over two channels. Isn't a highway with 4 lanes less congested than a highway with 3 (unless you live in Los Angeles). Actually, forget about the stereo disc. The sacd engineers will build on the intent of the original engineers and use the additional tracks to allow the sounds greater space. Not every multichannel sacd or dvd audio recording is a success. Again, its based on the talents of the sound engineers and the original tracks, garbage in garbage out.

Well, I read the various replies and appreciate Eldartford's well-written replies, but continue to be amazed at the lack of understanding, willingness to understand the process of producing multichannel sacd (dvd audio) discs. If any reader wants to grasp or learn how multichannel music is recorded please run a google search, 'sacd remixing'. The first two or three hits give a good primer on the subject. But to those who insist that sacd multichannel music of previouly released discs is just a matter of using 'voodoo' to extract three additional channels from the stereo should not even venture forth any opinions. Ignorance is not a virtue. As to the writer who asked me about the difference between the stereo and multichannel Blood on the Tracks album, I am waiting for a universal player to replace my current one that decided to skip on sacd multichannels (its a plot), and I will spend some time listening between the two and report my impressions as to what music is present in the rear channels.

Here is a review of the album as 5.1 sacd. Found this over on Amazon. Thought this would provide some insight other than my own. "Blood on the Tracks, an already classic album, just got better with this SACD hybrid version. The 5.1 surround mix is wonderfully clear, revealing lots of previously hidden details, especially in the numbers Dylan recorded with Eric Weissburg & Deliverance. The vocals are crisp and fill the room like never before. The overall experience is like hearing this album again, but in the studio, sitting in between the musicians as they play.
The only thing is that the packaging, though much better than the original CD version, is not up to the same standards as Sony's own Legacy re-issues. A song-by-song analysis (like the ones for the Byrds, for example) would've been nice--and that goes for most of the classic albums of this Dylan re-issue series, unfortunately.

Still, it's a must-have, if you're any kind of Dylan fan at all... "

Again, another consumer's review on the contributions of sacd multichannel, "The SACD/CD 2003 version features a new CD remix and a 5.1 surround remix that keeps Dylan's voice (and "Blood on the Tracks" is his best-sung album) up front where it belongs, but adds some separation for the guitars, bass and drums. It's nice for surround fans, but it is the music that makes this Dylan's most timeless work. It could have been cut on wax cylinders in 1900 and it would still be an all-time classic. "

Again, another consumer review, with his/her insight as to the difference. "Blood on the tracks has been reviewed so often, I just wanted to say this 5.1 mix is amazing. I've heard this album a hundred times and with this mix, I'm hearing instruments I never noticed before. Really amazing." That result is not from trickery or the like. Busted!

And music reporter's take at: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-10-09-dylan-master_x.htm

Even the Communist Chinese understand and appreciate what multichannel sacd brings to the music (see the following site, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288700.htm). I could go on and on and if some of you naysayers properly researched the subject, you will ultimately find the site that plainly penetrates your neanderthal minds, that multichannel sacds are re-mixed from the ORIGINAL TAKES, AND NOT FROM THE released STEREO MIX. It is no wonder to me, after reading the posts under this thread, that the Chinese are on the ascent and we are on the descent. Have a good day, and be smug with your two channel systems. OUT

Tvad, I decided to help you along and with my incredible research skills (having honed them at the Library of Congress)I found an interview with the chief engineer of the multichannel sacd Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. He goes into every detail that you are seeking.

www.avrev.com/home-theater-news/music-software-news/dark-side-sacd-engineer-speaks-on-remix-of-album.html

Please copy and and paste and report back with your impressions.

Mr. Smuck, no, I won't attempt to cook your steak, but nice 'Vegas' effect with your system, or were you trying to imagine what a hi-fi system would look like on the 'Enterprise'.

Tvad, I will try to find that primer and get back to you with it; at least you've made an effort to understand it.

Tvad, try this one, its a sacd primer (for two channel only), done by the engineers for the Rolling Stones sacds. Its a technical site for mixing so if that doesn't work, possbly they can refer you to another one.

http://mixonline.com/internet/newformats/audio_satisfaction/#nogo

[Captain's Log] We're fast approaching the planet Vinylphilia where the inhabitants, Vinylphiliacs are reporting a crisis with its turntables suffering from unstable platter rotation. [Capt Kirk to Spock] Are we closer to a solution? [Spock], no, captain, but I have been running simulations of the problem on Ensign Smuck's system, and I believe it is related to the 'Fremer' affect where speakers not costing at least $20000 a pair can produce instability among lower priced equipment . . . [Kirk to Scotty] I need full warp speed . . . We need to reach Vinylphilia before their turntables suffer catastrophic failure, and the inhabitants will have to use back up cd players. Perish the thought.

Here is another sacd article where the reviewer lists her favorite 2 channel and multichannel sacds. Along the way she sheds some light, but not right on the nose. Worthwile if you want to try a few discs, even if 2 channel.

Oops, here is the site
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/sacd.htm

For the technical or engineer, a schematic:
http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/dsd/SACD_FormatOverview.pdf

I appreciate Audioholik's excellent research; he found several contributors whose reasons for praising multi-channel sacds were better articulated than mine. All the naysayers keep referring to timbre as the holy grail,or being able to tell instruments apart, but my experience and those of others who directly state, or made reference to, hear the instruments better and thereby easier to distinguish while listening to sacd mc. If done right, sacd multichannel music will best stereo counterparts, every time, hands down. Those who say no have not truly tested that proposition, either listening to the wrong music at the wrong location (i.e., Best Buy), or with the wrong equipment, or refuse to even try it, dismissing it out of hand.

Are you two joined at the hip? I don't remember being called any names and I don't remember calling anyone a name other than stating those who don't like mc music are Luddites, but I didn't single out anyone. I would call the use of the word resent strong and almost begging for a reply, especially given the underlying hypocricy of the poster. One goal I set out for when I started this thread was to provoke people who don't like mc music to post their reasons. And I care about mc music, because using other methods to extract surround sound short of remixing is a matter of trickery. To take stereo recordings and put them through dsp is not the same as remixed mc music. And I see the industry basically allowing sacd and dvd audio to die a slow death, leaving a cavernous hole for us audiophiles who believed mc music was the next great advancement for sound quality and experience.

Amen to that John z, it was a 565 that got me going in mc music.

I found this posting over on Audio Asylum in the Hi-Rez forum:
"By all means, you should keep an open mind. And you or anyone else in this forum who is curious about multichannel has a standing invitation to hear my system. I am quite serious about this. I would welcome the opportunity to get your impressions. Just PM me, and we will make the arrangements. I live comfortably in downtown Philly (home of the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies)in a townhouse with a nice, large music room, 4 blocks East of the Kimmel Center, and I can provide free parking.

Just consider me a multichannel evangelist, because I think audiophiles and music lovers need to know about this. For the past year or so, I have been experiencing reproduced sound that is well beyond anything I thought possible in my 50 years as an audiophile. I started my hobby by building Dynakits in high school. I agree that well setup Mch systems are very hard to find for audition. Dealers have totally dropped the ball, as have audiophile magazines, except for Kal in Stereophile. Actually, pretty much the whole high end is out to lunch on this, which has given me a serious credibility problem with many high end manufacturers and magazines. Most (some exceptions) are just continuing to polish what they have been doing for years, as if stereo reproduction is as good as it gets. It isn’t, in my opinion, not compared to live performance. While stereo ever so slowly and incrementally approaches the asymptote of inherent performance limitations, hi rez Mch is a game changer in terms of realistic sonic reproduction. It’s not perfect, but it is way beyond any stereo I have heard regardless of price. I have heard quite a few systems that are many times more expensive and prestigious than my own.

Yes, music selection in stereo is orders of magnitudes greater than in Mch, but not in hi rez. For the past 5 years or more, most hi rez releases have been in Mch. For classical music (not other genres) there is a decent selection of very good Mch SACD’s – thousands – and new releases keep coming. Maybe we will see a lot more once Blu-ray music gets cranked up. So, right now I am enjoying the thrill of rebuilding a disc collection in the Mch format. Though I have over 1,500 CD’s and 2,500 LP’s, stereo just has no more appeal to me. I no longer buy it and seldom listen to it. It just does not satisfy me anymore for serious listening, great as many performances in stereo are.

If you are curious, my system is:

Oppo 980 Universal player (evolving soon to Oppo BDP-83 on the early adopter program) via HDMI

Integra DTC 9.8 controller with Audyssey Pro 3.0 EQ

Krell KAS-2 monoblocks

Bryston Powerpac 120

2 Parasound Halo A23’s

Martin Logan Prodigys, Claritys, Script i’s and a Stage

JL Audio Fathom f113 sub

Phono via Oracle Delphi, ET 2, Benz Ruby, PS Audio phono stage through Mark Levinson 380S line stage

PS Audio Powerplant Premier

Oh, yes, there is a Sony hi def TV, but 85% of my use of the system is with music, 95% of that classical.

I have also been in correspondence with my old friend Andy Quint, music reviewer for TAS. He is also heavily into Mch, and I am curious as to his high end, analog-centric Mch setup. Mine is, as you can see, based on a digital controller. Yes, it is a home theater piece, but I have discovered to my chagrin that our snobbish, high end attitudes toward home theater sound and Asian mass market gear are now totally wrong-headed. I used to be that way myself for a long time with justification. But, time marches on. Those home theater guys have made such rapid sonic progress in the last couple of years that it puts the high end utterly to shame, except perhaps in speakers and amps. And, price-wise what they can do for very little money is astounding. Anyway, Andy and I will also be exchanging listening sessions on each others’ systems in the near future.

Send me a PM. I’d really like to show you what I’ve got and how it sounds. It could change your life, as it has mine. Then again, it might not. You have to be the judge."



Great post, Fitz - Preach on, brother! (nt), posted on January 6,

Tbg, did you have a big grin on your face when you posted that last reply. Because your new best friend, Tvad, called multichannel an example of trickery. I wonder what he would say about your system with all those magical tweaks you spent thousands of dollars on. AVM anti-resonance paint??!! Come on, paint?? And those monorail trusses. Nothing makes a system sound more like a million bucks as does wires in the sky, or is that pie in the sky. Hope that grin is still on your face.

Fitz pretty much summed up my view and did a much better job. Also, his credentials are impeccable. You naysayers should take up his offer to audition his system if in the area. He and I are 'joined at the hip'.

Your comment makes no sense. If a concert had those speaker banks behind and around the audience, it would be a chaotic experience. You cannot take the scenario and reproduce it in the a/v room and say its the same.

Klaudio, go forward with me and we will smote the philistines

And only an IQ of 2 -- one for each ear

My IQ is about a buck two eighty

I don't know if I'm smarter than you, but I do know that I am more progressive. You're comment of so few words speaks volumes about your personality. If and when you have medical issues, tell the treating physicians you prefer they not use any medical procedures that were invented after the early 70s.

I just finished listening to Jackson Browne's 'Running on Empty' on dvd audio . . . (Kal is my master, he is telepathing these multichannel discs to me and I then post)

I just finished listening to Grateful Dead's 'American Beauty' on dvd audio, and cannot believe the 2-channel 'Luddites' who have shunned multichannel sound. They probably shun fuel injected engines as well. Oh well, their loss, but Kal has it right.

Troglodytes, you've not heard multichannel music until you listen to Talking Heads, 'Speaking in Tongues'!!!

The truth?! You want the truth?! You can't handle the truth!!!!

The following famous people favor multichannel music systems: Leonardo DiVinci, JFK, Thomas Edison, Alfred Einstein, Alfred E Newman, Howard Hughes, Hugh Heffner, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Moses, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Brian Wilson, Queen Elizabeth I, Phil Jackson, Martin Luther, Nikita Khruschev, Duke of Wellington, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Leonard Bernstein, Neil Young, Harry Truman, Frederick the Great, Socrates, Alexander the Great

The following famous people favor stereo only music systems: Dwight Eisenhower, George Bush, George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, James Buchannan, Xerses, Queen Elizabeth II, John Lennon, John Rockefeller, Lenard Breshnev, Winston Churchill, Bernard Montgomery, Napoleon, Charles Lindbergh, Yoko Ono, Charles Heston, Marilyn Monroe

I'm with you on your writer selections. Philip Roth would be a multichannel type.

Macdad, I left many names off the list because I couldn't get a 'read', so I will defer to your familiarity with Roth

Ouch!!

'Can any pre-amp be better than the final H-Cat?' Hmmm, the spirit of that message tone sounds alot like the opening thread that you resent. Tbg, you are an incredible hypocrite. And you are a professor!!?? Of what -- intolerance??!!

That last reply was belated response to Tbg's comment on or about 1-6-09

Yeah, both comments mirror each other in tone and intent. We both had experiences where we felt nothing else could compare to our listening experiences due to, in your case a preamp, and in mine, the multichannel music. Our comments were tinged with exuberance bordering on what some may perceive as arrogance. The only difference is I can admit to it, but you are in denial.

Sure, if you leave out the title of your thread which is the culprit and the subject of my retort. My subject matter also is more divisive and known, and could be articulated in that vein. Intermperate language? You must be a prisoner in one of those ivy towers, and rarely get out into the mainstream population.

As the originator of this thread I appreciate your thoughtful criticisms and comments. The ending although it may seem bitter, was not, as it was somewhat out of order, and basically, representing two tired voices. I believe the debate died a natural death with both sides admirably articulating their respective positions until there was nothing more to say. I also believe you are correct as to the insertion of sarcasm in a debate online when the parties involved do not face each other.