I just finished listening to Allman Bros 'Live at the Fillmore East" on SACD, 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.
I agree with Tvad, and Tbg. The System/Format that I described could be utilized to satisfy both 2-Channel enthusiasts as well as Mult-Channel. Its real benefit in Downmix 2-channel form would be to provide the Music that is missing from 2-channel Digital, regardless if it is CD, SACD, DVD-Audio. A Multi-channel Downmix to 2-channel would benefit all of these Formats. The extra Channels could be utilized to add the Harmonic content and decay that is often missing from Digital Recordings. It doesn't even have to be Surround Sound Processed, although that could be an alternative. Having Downmix capability, means more Music, better Sound Quality, and not needing additional Speakers/Amplifiers although that could be an option. Well, it was a nice dream anyways, Digital Recordings that could actually approach the Sound Quality of Analog Records, minus the pops and ticks. It was a nice dream..............unless........?
I agree with Tvad and Pettyofficer, and I certainly wished all of my recordings rivaled the very best, but I must say that what I am hearing on the worst and the best of my recordings has improved greatly in the last ten years.
I well remember my first hearing of a Sheffield direct to disc recording and still have thirty or forty direct to disc records, although I seldom listen to them. I have many Shady Dog, Island, half-speed master, etc. recordings and do listen to them occasionally.
Finally, I do wish recording engineers paid attention to having all of their mikes are in the same absolute phase.
Dear Mig007, Damn, wish I had a Username like that. I have always complained about the limitations of 2-Channel CD/SACD/DVD-Audio, in comparison to Analog Records. I never really was a big fan of Multi-speaker Surround Sound for Music either. I have heard DVD-Audio Surround Sound Downmixed to 2-Channels by a Pioneer DV-58AV. I don't get the nasty Surround Sound Effect, instead what I get is a Soundstage that approaches 95% of what I can get by Record. It almost sounds like a Record. It has Harmonic Content and Decay that seems to trail off into infinity. The images have a very real holographic, fleshed out sound approaching that of a good Record. If the 2-Channel Digital isn't getting the job done when compared to Analog Records, I certainly believe that Multi-Channel Digital Downmix to 2-Channels can provide whats missing. If utilized properly, this might be the way to get all of the Musical content that is missing from 2-Channel Digital. It won't be as good as a Record, but it could close the gap by leaps and bounds. I believe that it is certainly worth pursuing, regardless if you are Multi-Channel or strickly 2-Channel only.
I think 5.1/7.1 is great for movies and for hearing the audience clapping on concert DVD's. But for music, it is 2 channel more all the way. In addtion, I am in the camp that preaches do you prefer blondes, brunetts or redheads, who cares, I love them all.
I have gone both ways, and with pretty well set up 5.1 channel systems (all Wison, BMW, Totem speakers - obviously at different times - all speakers same brand). Various amps (all Krell, Theta Dreadnaught II [aweful for 2 channel], Contrad Johnson and others). Good pre/pros (latest Krell, McIntosh, others). Always REL subs. I guess I am saying that I really gave it an honest effort.
Sometimes, but rarely it was great, most the time it felt artificial. This probably has a lot to do with two things: the material/mixing/peformance and secondly my room. Movies were certainly entertaining, more so than with 2-channel movies.
But in the end, I decided to go back to 2-channel for a more pleasureable music listening experience - when I want to sit down and be immersed in the music.
I now have 2-channel in one room and 5.1 in the TV room (via inwall Polk Speakers, Pioneer Elite receiver and Oppos DVD player). The room looks a lot better, the performance is not as good, but I still enjoy it immensely for movies (which are few and infrequent by me, more common by the family).
Surround is great, occassionally, when it is set up right, but too often I found it less pleasing than with 2-channel.
So I see both points, but to me the greatest weakness in surround is still the lack of quality media.
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.
I have just read this thread and appreciative for the cogent thoughtful comments on many sides of the issue emerged and how they were expressed.
The realm of the blog does not accommodate one of the most important aspects of interpersonal relations, that of face to face contact, wherein participants can read body language, facial expressions, and important information that tempers individual response to what is being said.
What is said as a form of comedy or sarcasm is interpreted as personal insult, eventually leading to real personal insult.
I learned much from this thread for which I thank all the posters. It is just sad to me that it seemed to fizzle so bitterly.
The take away for me is that although multi channel CAN be an wonderful expansion on stereo, it is not so for everyone.
But more importantly what format will be supported in an ongoing fashion with manufactures? Will consumers brought up on cheap MC all of a sudden decide to switch to stereo? Or will the development of Bluray foment a higher quality MC experience that could lead to more audiophile inclusion of MC?
I heard the most incredible outdoor live MC performance last year at Coachella. Roger Waters and band performed the entire Dark Side of the Moon. There were immense towers of speakers in a large circular array surrounding the audience. Several numbers incorporated the array by sending signal to various parts of the array individually or by using a vortex effect making the sound circulate around the audience before returning to center stage. Truly an incredible effect, and wonderful. Trickery? Well yeah. The instruments were not actually around the audience. But a GREAT performance non the less. If I could repeat that in surround sound, I would in a heartbeat, notwithstanding the wonderful stage presence of my trusty Vandersteen 2 channel setup.
Mig007, I know better now than to take anything post seriously. I am surprised that you know the word retort.
I will not entertain you any more on this worthless discussion of multichannel versus two channels. Probably others who tried to contribute seriously, have long since left.
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.
Mig007,"I just finished listening to Allman Bros 'Live at the Fillmore East" on SACD, 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."
tbg, "I have had the final production version for two weeks now. I loved the first one I had and thought it out-imaged anything I ever had, while having neither a tube or ss sound. Then I got the new one. I was unprepared for how much better it was. There is a sonic hologram before me with realism I have never heard or even approached before. Roger Paul tells me that it will be weeks before it is at its best. Lookout for another even more rave review. In 28 years of audio experimentation, I have never heard more of an improvement by adding one component."
I am sorry, but it is you who cannot admit to intemperate language, such as you are in denial, or professor of intolerance. You need help with civility I'm afraid.
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.
'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??!!
Portnoy wanking off into liver purchased by his mother for the family's supper is most definitely Mch. Roth's affection for the lost art of hand-made leather glove making in the Newark of American Pastoral is vintage 2ch.
Mig007, now we have an arguement!! After a cursory reading of "Porney's Complaint" the partisan reader would of course come to the conclusion that Roth is a multichannel guy. But with an in-depth examination of "American Pastoral" his dedication to Stereo because tranparent.
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
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
That's only what I have kept. You can look at www.sa-cd.net to find more than 5000 SACDs (most of which are MCH). In addition, there are many DVDs and, now, hi-rez audio on BluRay and, coming on line, downloads.
having a multi channel system for movies and the limited amount of recordings that take use of it's full benefits
Sure, the number of mch recordings is limited but, as I have more than 2000 of them, I think my investment in a multichannel music system (or three) is justifiable. ;-)
One thing that many of you critics of multi-channel forget is that Mig007 has matched speakers...
IMHO, if you use different speakers that were not specifically intended and voiced (matching timbre) to work together in a multi-channel system then you generally get a dogs breakfast (what else could one expect?).
IMHO, if you also decide to poor boy surround speakers you get poor boy sound.
The biggest challenge with surround sound is the huge cost required to achieve similar quality as two channel and the limited amount of good material (there is so much more out there for two channel)
I have "Running on Empty" on both DVD-Audio and vinyl, and there is no comparison, the stereo vinyl is much better. Richer, deeper, more involving. Of course, I have a modest disc player now, and what I consider a very good turntable, so that may have something to do with it......
Surround is dead, buy some flowers, stock up on your Quadrophonic (oops sorry, SACD and DVD-Audio same thing) recordings and have a de-Nile party. The fat lady has sung......
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)
Mig007, after the thorough discussion, how can you not believe it? The reasons for and against have been well argued. Some will choose 2 channel while others will go for the multichannel. Let it go brother. BTW, who is this Kal character?
Funny Mig007, just this morning I was spinning American Beauty on early issue vinyl, which sounds pretty spectacular, thanks more to 2ch audiophile Owlsey Stanley than to subsequent remixers.
Mig007, I just cannot under stand, why some cannot understand why the cost of doing multichannel for the limited use it has. I heard some benefit in Kimber's presentation at CES with well over $200,000 worth of equipment using his most limited recordings. Sorry, I just not interested.
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.
You can do that if you are willing to switch interconnects around, or if your preamp has more than one six channel input. I actually considered doing exactly what you suggest so that a TV screen could be put between what, for music, would be the rear speakers. However, I found a different use for the second six channel input.
too bad you can't digitally 'rotate' the preference of the 5 channels. say you have smaller rears - get that cello and viola on your fronts and the violin in the rear
Actually, there are some Tacet discs in which the performer locations do change from movement to movement. I cannot check which ones now because I am not where I keep them.
As Kr4 says, the performer locations vary (but not between movements of a given piece). The text notes always describe the configuration used for each piece, and sometimes discuss the reasoning. I don't have any that are weird.
The Tacet discs have mic/player arrangements all over the map. They are extremely inventive and the audio perspective can vary from track to track. Many are marvelous (the Scherzo from the Mendelssohn Octet), some are thrilling (the opening of the Bach Motets) and some are simply weird.
Audiotomb...A word of warning...you will need surround/rear speakers to match your fronts. When I got these DVDA, and played them using my good but not excellent rear speakers I was disturbed by the fact that the cello, in the left rear sounded weaker than the viola in the front right. New rear speakers fixed the problem.
I'll have to check that label out. The engineers who get multichannel and create a "in the midst" type recording should be rewarded. Unfortunately most haven't truely exploited the medium
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
