I just purchased an Esoteric DV-50s. The unit is fantastic in the sense that you can hear every detail very clearly in most recordings. Here is the thing, does it make for an enjoyable musical expereince? With this type of equipment, you can actually tell who can actually sing and who can really play. Some artist who I have really enjoyed in the past come across as, how shall I put it, not as talented. This causes almost a loss of enjoyment in the music. Which comes to my Vinyl curiousity. I dont own a single record, but I have been curious why so many have kept the LP's (and tubes for that matter) alive for so long after the digital revolution and now I am thinking it is probably has to do with LP's being more laid back and maybe even more musical. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Would someone recommend going back to Analog. I was thinking of getting a entry level player like a Scout Master.
You Know as I do that the word record is slang for Phonograph Recording. A recording is a moment in time frozen to be recreated and enjoyed by the listener in their own environment at their own convienence repeatadly as they will. 78's ep's, 45's, and 33 & 1/3 recordings or another slang term Albums are concieved to represent that moment in time.
Now Digital recording has been established long enough to expose its own warts and wonders much like any other studio instrument ie Microphones, producers, and the mastering process. And this information can be stored digitally or as analog information and then pressed as vinyl or compact disc with any amount of processing in the chain along the way.
A purists point of view can be kept ambient and use only period instruments from the age of enlightenment, next tubed electronics with ribbon microphones is another choice, maybe ala Walter Carlos and Robert Moog with synthesized generated waveforms. We even can thank Lou Reed for Metal Machine Music in BInaural Sound (I can't believe thats been reissued!)
Whether it has been a wire recording of Memphis Minnie, a cassette of Reverend Gary Davis or an eight track of Derek and the Dominoes; the thing is it is a collection of recordings of a performance that can Never no Never be repoduced to the same effect as sitting in the last row of the Fillmore East. Having the train rumble underneath your feet at a Stravinsky concert at Carnigie Hall, seeing Lou Reed sing with his back to the audience while he recorded Rock and Roll Animal at the Academy of Music, or hearing horns that where not there upstairs at Max's at a Big Star concert while Alex Chilton sings Bang a Gong and the sound slaps off the wall and hits you on the back of the head. Now close your eyes and think about being at the Lennox Lounge and sitting across from Lady Day as she waited to go up and sing with the Prez while he stepped into that last riff of Perdido and tell me if you care if its digital or analog or MemoreX or a wire recording that scratches like a hundred a day Jones.
Listening to Earth Wind and Fire Gratitude Live Columbia Original Vinyl
"I believe it's up to individuals to inform themselves on the merits and then make a personal value-judgement as to how much (extra?) time and money they're willing to allot to a particular pursuit. And no one else should question their decision."
Nsgarch - We are in agreement on this point. It should also be noted the in order to make the best overall decision, one should be willing to examine both sides of the "fence." If your decision is analog, then great. However, if you decision is analog because: 1)digital is not the audiophile way, 2) I can't completely comprehend digital as I can analog, or 3) a bunch of audio guys said I should do analog because they don't care for digital; then there is something wrong.
Its all about making the best, educated decision based on the full scope of things, not just one side. This requires one to look past the warm glow, welcoming rhetoric or lack of understanding. This further requires one to investigate the pros and cons of all aspects of both sides. Without this, its just follow the lead or Simon says.
Well since my original post it seems that a lot has changed. We now know that there seems to be this division between analog and digital. But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog.
Since I am currently taking a Black and White photography class and yes I am processing and printing my film and photographs. I guess that puts me in a position to judge this debate as I also have moved on to a Digital SLR.
When printing lint is the enemy it leaves these ugly white spots on your prints. Oh I almost forgot one must be sure and clean your negative thoroughly before printing. Sound familiar. We can use what is called dodging and burning on our prints to make them look better. But remember the utmost care must be taken when handling a negitive you don't want to scratch it.
Now we have digital, now my camera shoots in 4 different digital densities, RAW, Fine JPG, Medium JPG and Low JPG. So lets see that would be CD or .WAV, FLAC or ACC, MP3 128k and MP3 32k. And lets not forget photoshop for all those touchup duties.
Ok lets see I have hard work, dedication and schooling to be able to take, process, and print film.
For digital I put in auto mode (Only because I am still learning hot to use my camera) point and shoot a little touchup with the prefered photo shop and I am done.
So which is Better Film or Digital. The conclusion I have come to is I like both.
And for those of you that are curious my film camera is a Nikon as well as my digital SLR. You can take that for what it is worth as my DX lenses are Nikor and my manual film lenses are Nikon, couldn't afford Nikor ar the time.
So I think we finaly have an answer as to wether Digital is actually better than Analog. :))
"But we still don't know if Digital is actually better than Analog."
Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary.
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion"
How bizarre. It is unfortunate that folk's appreciation for music is subjective?
Clearly you want us to like digital, but sadly I don't. I sincerely apologize. I strongly suspect my preference for analogue is because I attend recitals very frequently, and since I am intimately familiar with natural music, I want my system to match said music in the most accurate way possible.
I guess had I no reference to what natural live music sounds like, I would have been a happy clam with a surround setup ... Man, I am really losing out due to the fact that familiarizing myself with real music.
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
This statement should not be taken partially or out of context. It is a complete statement. Referencing one part without the other is even more unfortunate.
"Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.
Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre!
11-11-06: Cdwallace "Unfortunately, according to this thread and many of its analog contributors, its a matter of opinion. Its what makes analog, analog. Facts are just secondary."
For the record - to keep the statement in proper context, its unfortunate that the question couldn't be resolved with an answer, just an opinion...that is according to the analog experts. This is the intended context of the statement, and shouldn't be misconstrued in any other manor.
Sad you need to make sure your statements aren't twisted the wrong way. Even more bizarre! Cdwallace (Threads | Answers)
It's also what makes digital, digital. For you haven't come up with any proof that digital sounds better.
So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?
JMC - I'm gonna need you to review all three pages of the thread, because "digitals" answers are all there. Just for starters, review the posting submitted by D_Edwards. Once you're done, then review the rest. Our postings are facts, no name calling or rhetorical fillers. Just meat and potatoes.
I just perused all of D_Edwards 'digital answers' and found no facts, simply published opinions. Seems the meat and potatoes are simply a cardboard photo.
So again I ask....what is the point of this meaningless excersize in futility?
“scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it.”
Fact
“Harvard University School of medecine (early 50's)NEJM Bell Labs MIT USC repeating Harvards study---THX A few more that have simply confirmed earlier Bell Labs findings in the 1940's
Scientifically proven. Its the information that motivated serious companies to spend serious money to try Quadraphonic, the boat anchor of home audio.Â’
Fact
counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers. And there are other factors that profundly affect 2 channel playback of digital in a very negative way.
Fact; read the MIT paper posted by Nsgarch it is quite thorough at explaining how our current two channel setup is flawed.
draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise. That noise is disproportionately high harmonics thus hi frequency, shift the balance of the recording.
Fact
The number of recordings that use no compression is incredibly small, like .001%. Compression is a signal to noise reality that must be addressed and not ignored.
Though the numbers may vary slightly from what I posted, that is a FACT.
You guys started in on me about digital and surround , and as you have demonstrated this area of audio is not your forte.
Fact
Mcgrogan; not being aware of the facts or refusing to acknowledge the facts does not make them opinions. This is the problem all along. I have studied and researched for 15 years. I am a film major, I have worked on feature films, I have recorded bandsÂ…etc. Believing another thing does not change the facts. Life is not that simple. In my opinion IÂ’ve never heard an analog two channels system that even comes close to a high quality surround system. And there are many surround systems that qualify. My opinion.
Too me two channel is a joke, fact.
DoesnÂ’t matter if its analog or digital
Keep it straight dudes, IÂ’m not anti analog, give me seven discrete analog channels on an open reel tape deck and IÂ’m happy.
“scientifically proven adding rear channels is the best way to do it”
Proven to do what? Reproducing a mono source?
““Harvard University School of med[e]cine (early 50's)NEJM Bell Labs MIT USC repeating Harvards study---THX”
URL? I suppose your ‘facts’ are published on the web? I would like to see where the say surround sound is the most accurate way to reproduce a recital.
“counting on phantom speakers will never give consistent results like having real speakers”
Phantom speakers? What is a phantom speaker?
“draw a circle then draw a line dividing the circle in half, if the circle represents the "echo" effect on a drumstick strike your stereo system can only recreate half of the circle the rest of the circle collapses into noise”
So listening to a live recital, the piano can only create “half a circle” and the rest “collapses into noise”? Or by your definition, only a quarter circle, since a recital is mono. Will 4 Pianos will then have no noise, as it creates “the full circle”?
I am not sure if surround is currently better than two channel for music but I don't doubt it will eventually surpass. I think the engineers are not all able to put out consistent stuff for music at the moment. Multi-channel should give engineers tighter control on "ambience" & reverb.
What I have observered, so far, is that movie surround sound, particularly stuff coming out of major studios with a big budget (productions from skywalker sound and the like) are absolutely SUPERB. Far better dynamic range and recording quality than the majority of CD's. These multi-channel sounds (voice, music, or SFX) are some of the most realistic available today from any speaker system.
Part of the reason may simply be due to the adherence to standards of recording level in movie multi-channel. Twenty years ago, Lucas did a lot to promote one set of standards and these appear to be sticking. (Something sorely lacking in the music industry where there are sadly NO recording level standards!).
Another reason may simply be budgets (movies get to spend a lot more on sound quality)
Dear Cdwallace/D_edwards: It is clear that you are in love with multichannel and digital technology in a fanatical way. I like your passion for what you believe, well done. I respect both of your opinion, as I respect any other single opinion here.
Now, I'm not a fanatical about any technology: digital or analog, tube or SS, two channel or multichannel. I'm a music lover and a fanatical of MUSIC: live music and this is my reference.
Through your post I can't see/understand yet which is your reference: live MUSIC or technology/audio devices?
I'm in the analog and digital electronic design for many years and I can talk of facts on either technology for " years ". But the experiences are part of those facts and I want to share with you some of those experiences:
more than a year ago, in a business trip to Seattle, ( by coincidence ) I had the opportunity to heard the best of the best in multichannel systems ( at least I never heard something better till today ), this was with a dealer there ( Definite or Definitive Audio ), one of the dedicated room ( multichannel ) had all Wilson speakers and Halcro electronics and I think that the processor was Meridian or Lexicon, I can't remember, the room conditioning ( I think ) was designed and build by Rives Audio or some at that level. The front speakers were the MAXX2 and the surrounded WattPupy7. In the past I had the opportunity to heard a few multichannel systems but nothing near this 500K all asault system!!!
From the very first musical note the sound was impressive, for say the least, I can't belive what I'm hearing!!! I'm sure that with this very high quality level of demo many of the people that attend that time were " catched " and bring that technology to their homes.
The sound was impressive but something ( for me ) was not right: why I been exited but not emotional?. Then I return to my reference ( live MUSIC ) and how I percieve it in a live event:
I attend every week at least at two live events, classical/jazz,. I sit in the classical hall in the 4-6 center row: in all of the more than 20 years that I attend to concertos I never experienced the impressive " fake " of that multichannel demo or at least I never had the capacity to heard it: the sound in the hall ( where I sit ) is direct, there is a little ambience but nothing near the multichannel ( i don't want to use the " fake " word and I don't know other one ).
Now, when I attend to a Jazz club ( that normally has not avery big space ) the musical experience is more dramatic than in a big classical hall: you have the MUSIC in " front " of, what I say? not only in front of you: the musical notes hit/crash over you, you can't heard the musical ambience or it is at very low level over the direct sound.
All my MUSIC live experiences tell me that till today the best way to hear the music at home is through two channel, this is the way that put me near the live event. May be in the future the multichannel could be less " impressive " and could put me nearest to the live event and could give me the " emotions " that the two channel do.
Of course that the " music power " has no barriers of any kind and when we heard a song/melody/tune that we like it, it does not matters if we are hearing in the car, at home or by headphones we feel how grow-up the emotional feeling in all our body and this FACT is all about!!!!
I assume that you ( both ) feel in a better way those " music feelings " through the technology that you support and that's what counts to you.
Now, I agree that digital technology has a very good future but the analog technology too, let me explain it:
one of you posted that the analog technology have no advances in the last 30-40 years. I think that you don't have the right know-how about. We can take any analog area/stage: TT/tonearm/cartridge/phono stage/etc and I can prove to you that the analog technology has a very good advance ( with out any manipulation ) and in some areas a great advance today against 30-40 years ago.
Now take a look to the digital ( per se ) technology: TILL TODAY IT IS THE SAME ONE THAT WHEN START: 16/44.1 !!!!!!
this 16/44.1 was and it is the Aquiles heel of the digital technology. There are many facts against why the digital technology is so far away of the live music, I'm only give you one of them: the frequency response stop at 22.05kHz against the analog technology that goes in a more natural music way a lot higher than that. All the digital manipulations that that technology was suffer over the years ( to be near the analog sound and in this way to be near the live music ) like the up-sampling: 24/192 ( Redbook ) helps this technology to be accepted for real music lovers ( like me ).
Now, unfortunatelly the SACD/DVDA digital technology, that is a real quality sound improvement over the " glorious " Redbook, was " killed " from the very first moment that was created and was killed for their creators. This fact is a very sad one because the SACD/DVDA technology is very close to analog in some areas, even in others and is superior in other ones.
It is clear to me that in today audio/music stage the analog is a different and superior way to hear the MUSIC.
Well fellows this is my humble opinion about, just an opinion.
Raul, my goal is zero compromise, you should talk to the several hundred people who have my systems about what music sounds like to them, they disagree with you and many of them are musicians.
Want to know "what's wrong" with CD wallace? He heard my little receiver system and despite going to all the stores in DC and Baltimore, not one store has a two channel system that is as musical. So like many of my visitors they are isolated with an experience that is unique to all of you. Sorry you all can't come over. --------------------------------------------------------- The sound was impressive but something ( for me ) was not right: why I been exited but not emotional?. Then I return to my reference ( live MUSIC ) and how I percieve it in a live event:
Hey Raul, why didn't you go make some adjustments till it did sound like live music to you?
LOL! buddy that's all I have to say. Surround is not analog you're not stuck with what it is you initially hear!!!!!!!!
I have owned great LP playback systems and still do, so I know what LP's can do. Lack of knowledge and experience is never going to be the right answer, so you guys need to quit going there.
Building a phonostage is not rocket science, I can do that too AND have. So Raul buddy, next time you have the chance ask the people to adjust the surround to your tastes.
"exited but not emotional"
As for your emotional response and involvement, that's a psychological problem when everything you thought you knew evaporates in an instant. Being wrong is not conducive to feeling good.
I have guys who don't talk to me after their little revelation, and the way that I get them is I have them listen in surround when they think they're listening in 2 channel, then I switch the surround off.....blatt, all of those nice things they had to say suddenly change. I wasn't emotionally involved....please, like you can get emotional at a dealers showroom?
Sorry nice try raul but I'm not even working up a sweat over your assessments. they're not even new.
Shadorne if i came to your house and adjusted your system, you wouldn't have time to write on here anymore :)
You're a Meridian processor away from eternal audio bliss. love your speakers.
So listening to a live recital, the piano can only create “half a circle” and the rest “collapses into noise”?
Dude learn to read a little closer, your commenting on a excerpt that is talking about the 360 modeling used in creating digital effects used in all modern digital processing , delay and reverb etc.
BUT any room noise and reflected sound arriving back at the microphone out of phase will be compressed into the stereo soundfield (effecting its spectral balance) as noise when played back in (unprocessed) two Channel.
Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively, you're going to have to read some stuff and experiment(tvad). You're looking for a easy way to dismiss what i'm saying but your comments do not seem to project that you grasp what i'm talking about.
The information is not on the web, THX will gladly charge you for the course and NEJM will be at your university libraries. What I don't appreciate is you feel you can engage me with so little information. I would think you would have read these papers/articles for you to be so strongly opinionated. We are not discussing my mis-representation or misinterpretation of the facts of these studies. You are telling me they don't exist!
PS: Pauly why don't you read the MIT paper Nsgarch posted a link for and tell me what you think. Lets start there. Tell me if that is what needs to be done to two channel audio to get it to work like a surround system.
A. Why bother, when you can use the natural decay of your listening room to reproduce the natural decay on the recording already.
"Where did you get that silly notion that sound reflection and refraction should occur naturally when you can have it done artificially? ;-)"
I can extract that from your comments.
B. Why does so much information require deletion, and how is this similar or dissimilar to what i propose the rear channels do in our current Prologic 2 setup?
Dear D_edwards: +++++ " my goal is zero compromise " +++++
This is not a serious statement when you are talking of digital technology. Period!.
+++++ " He heard my little receiver system and despite going to all the stores in DC and Baltimore, not one store has a two channel system that is as musical. " +++++
Not big deal, very often the audio dealers have a wrong set-up. Period!!.
+++++ " Hey Raul, why didn't you go make some adjustments till it did sound like live music to you? " +++++
because it can't sound like live music, it does not matters your personal opinion. Period!.
+++++ " . Lack of knowledge and experience is never going to be the right answer " +++++
till you prove you have it. Period!.
+++++ " Want to know "what's wrong" with CD wallace? " +++++
yes, but I want to know from him not from you. Period!.
+++++ " Building a phonostage is not rocket science, I can do that too AND have " +++++
of course it is not a rocket science, but there are some " differences " between design and build a " simple car " and a Ferrari. Period!.
+++++ " that's a psychological problem when everything you thought you knew evaporates in an instant " +++++
fortunatelly my thoughts are stronger than your opinion. Period!.
I was wrong when I assume that you were a knowledge mature audio/music person digital oriented, but no you are like so many thousands and thousands of people that think that have the " bible " on its voice and forgot that they are only " one single person " with great limitations ( like you ) and that God ( yes, you certainly are not God. Not even the audio God. ) is far far away from them. Period!
Btw, I ask you which is your sound reproduction reference and your answer was: dead silence. Period!
I give you one FACT ( there are many of them ) of the today ( two channel or multichannel ) digital limitations: 16/44.1 with a limited real frequency to 22.05kHz, your answer about: dead silence. Period!
Mike, give you other facts like: " continuous. no gaps ". Anwser: dead silence. Period!.
These dead silence answers tell me that you are not really serious or knowledge about for I or any one can take its time with you. Period!
Been there done that. I went through the multi-channel phase several years ago, didn't like it. It doesn't properly represent a live orchestra. It felt like I was sitting in the middle of the orchestra instead of sitting in the 10th row. Listening from the audience is a more natural experience, fact.
FWIW, feel free to hype how great your receiver sounds all you want. I'm glad it makes you happy, fact. It is however still a receiver, with all the limitations of a receiver, fact. I'm sure you opinions would be much better 'received' on Audioreview.com, fact.
“BUT any room noise and reflected sound arriving back at the microphone out of phase will be compressed into the stereo soundfield (effecting its spectral balance) as noise when played back in (unprocessed) two Channel.”
Economical with the truth arenÂ’t you Eddie?
1. The very same signals you refer to is present in all recordings, mono, stereo or surround. Multiple pickups in recording simply exacerbates the problem (And no, reflected signal the cannot be ‘mixed’ away as you seem to elude to - the same way sibilance cannot be removed without harming the original signal)
2. Out of phase signals are not necessarily noise, they occur naturally and nobody on this planet has ever heard sound without some out of phase signals and harmonics mixed in. If fact, sound would be unpalatable without said signals
3. Reflection, reverberation and refraction occur at both time of recording AND reproduction i.e. artificially creating a “Hall Effect” does not prevent the refraction occurring naturally to your listening room - at the very best you can try and ‘drown out’ naturally occurring reflection with an overly loud out of phase signal to create the effect. Sorry lad, my ears are not fooled by that.
4. Signals more than .4 sec out of phase is perceived as an echo. Shorter than that, they can be quite pleasing to the ear, and can add a richness to the fundamental. Since sound travels at 1130 feet per second, my room physical dimensions and absorption levels prevent harmful reverberation very well.
“Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively”
That is quite obvious ... what is also patently obvious is that you have little familiarity with live music.
“The information is not on the web”
Why am I not surprised by this admission? Of course it isn’t, because your interpretation of said document is more than likely patently ‘unique’.
“Tell me if that is what needs to be done to two channel audio to get it to work like a surround system.”
I think herewith lies the difference between us. My audio system is put together to reproduce live performances as closely as possible. It is not designed to impress or who people. Non audio folks are not impressed.
Obviously youÂ’re big on impressing and small on realism - no problem, each to his own.
Pauli and all, I still contend that the question of superiority of digital over analog is not only undecidable, but is likely meaningless and a false one. I grew up in Milan with the live music of the Teatro Alla Scala. I have listened to live music. I have performed live music. I have been in modern concert halls, in big and small theaters, in cathedrals, in country churches, in school cafeterias, under mideval porticos. I have sat on the banks of the Cam, while Handel's Water Music was performed on a barge. I have listened to acoustic music in piazzas and in private parlours and coming from the bandstand of Blackrock park in Dublin while I was sitting on a bench in the rain. Now, as an audiophile I own a high end digital system, but have also listened to a lot of analog gear. Under no circumstance, I have heard any system -- analog or digital alike -- that can be deemed 'life-like'. What I have listened to is a wealth of atrocious music reproduction, from both types of front ends. And a few marvellous music systems, from both types of front ends. However, even the 'marvellous' ones, do not sound like live music. They sound different, both somewhat worse than those live venues that I have attended, and simultaneously a lot more musically satisfying than those same live experiences. Certain features of the music remain depressed or are slightly distorted, while others -- equally crucial ones -- are enhanced. In some sense, the most musically satisfying reproduction system is hyperrealistic, rather than simply realistic.. This may sound like anathema, but if our goal were to create beauty, instead of mimicking some narrow minded perspective of physical reality--the current rarely high achievements of both analog and digital--if admittedly different--are not bad at all.
“BUT any room noise and reflected sound arriving back at the microphone out of phase will be compressed into the stereo sound field (effecting its spectral balance) as noise when played back in (unprocessed) two Channel.”
Economical with the truth arenÂ’t you Eddie? Economical with the typing
1. The very same signals you refer to is present in all recordings, mono, stereo or surround. Multiple pickups in recording simply exacerbates the problem (And no, reflected signal the cannot be ‘mixed’ away as you seem to elude to - the same way sibilance cannot be removed without harming the original signal) ++++Thanks for making my point, it can't be mixed away but it can be separated from the front stage with an algorithm, funny we seem to agree . That sibilance thing is unrelated, tell your friend.+++++
2. Out of phase signals are not necessarily noise, they occur naturally and nobody on this planet has ever heard sound without some out of phase signals and harmonics mixed in. If fact, sound would be unpalatable without said signals +++++No but information like the crowd clapping and shuffling, long hall delays that are uncorrelated in a live or large soundstage recordings are not out of phase but actually real sound that is uncorrelated. When only two channels are used, they get smashed in the main presentation. Please include digital/artificial heavy reverb and delay times used on vocals etc in the recording process. This information is distorted by the two channel system. To me this is a big culprit to the bright or sterile sound digital typically has in two channel, when you add it to the absolutely flat response of a digital source it does not take much to tip your spectral balance to the lean side.+++++
3. Reflection, reverberation and refraction occur at both time of recording AND reproduction i.e. artificially creating a “Hall Effect” does not prevent the refraction occurring naturally to your listening room - at the very best you can try and ‘drown out’ naturally occurring reflection with an overly loud out of phase signal to create the effect. Sorry lad, my ears are not fooled by that. +++++Well actually, in like the 70's that's how you might do it, but your assessment of how the multi-channel system performs in room is a bit pedestrian and oversimplified. Fact is multiple speaker do create multiple reflections BUT their differential placement and the fact that each individual speaker has lower acoustic output minimizes the effect we perceive on the "direct" sound found coming from front stage.+++++ +++++A two channel sytem based on my own measurements has a much higher ratio of reflected sound than direct sound at the listening chair, but I moved before I could really nail it down scientifically.++++ +++I was researching swamping the room’s reverberant tone/field? with the surround system. I need that Bob Hodas measurement tool he uses, to measure the "room" with the resolution I need to get a room signature. BTW My idea of surround is not relocating the soundstage as you might hear it on a two channel system, I'm just talking about moving some information around that is not necessarily key to the recording to give the sound the rich and real life sound like an LP has and you enjoy...so i still don't understand what the problem is for wanting that? In this argument everyone goes for what digital does bad, but sometimes what is bad maybe because of an attribute it does well. LP's have terrible channel separation, thus they give you a denser center image with only two speakers...stuff like that. A bad trait, being good for the sound.
4. Signals more than .4 sec out of phase is perceived as an echo. Shorter than that, they can be quite pleasing to the ear, and can add a richness to the fundamental. Since sound travels at 1130 feet per second, my room physical dimensions and absorption levels prevent harmful reverberation very well. ++++feet per second at 70 degrees sea level..... And what is the point here? is this my small room acoustics lesson 101. Everest is the man!!!!!! LOL+++++
“Pauly, what i'm talking about is not something you're going to "get" intuitively”
That is quite obvious ... what is also patently obvious is that you have little familiarity with live music. Really, and you've been watching me? So the guys at Telarc are just frivolous and arbitrary, because they don't know what live sound is. I've been to many live concerts and recitals, its not that hard and I'm not afraid to go. And lets not forget my piano lessons. So I have easy access to all of your "qualifications"...btw ever hear of the Peabody Conservatory? ....
“The information is not on the web”
Why am I not surprised by this admission? Of course it isn’t, because your interpretation of said document is more than likely patently ‘unique’. You shouldn't be surprised, the research was done in the 60's....you can't even get Ngarchs MIT '65 paper on the web. Why don't you take the THX class? So don’t make it my fault that you don’t know this stuff already and have to look it up to see if it exists. You’re the ones who’s got no backup.
_____I think herewith lies the difference between us. My audio system is put together to reproduce live performances as closely as possible. It is not designed to impress or who people. Non audio folks are not impressed.______
First of all can you tell me what exactly is so impressive about adding rear and a center channel to a system? Why in your mind am I trying to impress people, wouldnÂ’t a big plexiglass turntable on top of my riack do a much better job for the WOW factor? Oh before you answer, the turntable works everytimeÂ… My system is designed to play the recording accurately no matter what the subject matter, do you see the graphs on my cheap system? My little crappy system is +/- 4 dB with 8th octave resolution 30hz to 20khz.. With DSP correction my ATC system was +/- 2dB at the chair. At 100dB! Actually more a room acoustic pat on the back. --- as we have already discussed my two-channel system is atleast equal to your system. And since you have no surround system it looks bad for you when it comes to integrity on this matter. I can't even tell you what I'm doing so you can try it. How dishonest is that? My system is designed to impress me, that is lot tougher than some audiophile or non-audiophile.. The names Doug; and that's it. Get a surround system and we'll talk, otherwise I'm just debating someoneÂ’s who's speculating and guessing about something he doesn't have well atleast you have some help with basic acoustics.///.
I am surprised by the vehemence of the arguments against surround sound. It is patently obvious that surround can create the ambient sound of a real venue better than two channel. Two channel can add cues using special techniques in the mix but it is just not as convincing as surround. If the majority of the sound is coming out of the left, right and center channels it will be close to stereo anyway. I think most audio engineers are more comfortable and still better at producing two channel stereo mixes.....but it is only a matter of time before they become as good at multi-channel as they are with stereo....and then multi-channel will begin to consistently surpass stereo for music, IMHO.
If surround was not more convincing than stereo, then big movie theatres would never have adopted these expensive systems...
congratulation on pleasing the frustrated crowd, your arguments and then attack are very amusing. A little contrived but none the less funny.
Your complete dismissal of digital isn't going to look to rational when this debate gets broken down. I think you slid past common sense there buddy.
Once again i'm not having a fight about analog and digital my fight is surround versus 2 channel. And you have no real experience with that Raul, so i don't know what you're so fired up about?
See if you read your post you have to assume that I'm somehow effected by your bluster and stuff, but your focus on digital versu analog really isn't my concern. My surround system is better than my LP playabck system, no contest. You could say that in your case its the opposite but you don't have a music surround system. So I'm afraid till you get one, you're going to have to take my word for it. Its very musical and live sounding.
If surround was not more convincing than stereo, then big movie theatres would never have adopted these expensive systems... Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)
I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies. It's just not for music.
In some sense, the most musically satisfying reproduction system is hyperrealistic, rather than simply realistic.
That is a marvellous way of putting it (IMO, YMMV, etc, all politically correct injunctions). I would add that the flavour of hyper-realism can and does vary to a certain extent from one audiophile to another -- but particularly with fashion/latest trend in reproduction.
GregM, you are absolutely correct. As the intrinsic goal is not realism, but hyperrealism, there will be of necessity be as many optimal versions of it as there are audiophiles, or at least broad schools of audiophiles.
"I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies. It's just not for music."
Explain the difference? If the movie is about the Doors and or Beethoven, why don't they switch off the surround sound when the music is playing if music is more "realistic" or live in two channel? I know filmmakers and if this was true they would do it. What say you?
"Stereo is so much easier, " yes it is...and the conceptual root of this debate.
"Been there done that. I went through the multi-channel phase several years ago, didn't like it. It doesn't properly represent a live orchestra. It felt like I was sitting in the middle of the orchestra instead of sitting in the 10th row. Listening from the audience is a more natural experience, fact."
Should have learned to actually use the equipment so you could listen from the 10th row, fact is you never came to fully understand all the adjustments you can make.
All I have to say is if you buy a proceed PAV you get what you paid for and its not a music surround processor.. As for your surround music experience according to you, you never had it running so "been there done that" is a stretch. Saw it bought that, then sold it...that's more accurate
"It is however still a receiver, with all the limitations of a receiver, fact."
You really think your VA's and BAT gear are THAT much better than my surround receiver? How's that Judas Preist song go? "tell you right now, you got another thing comin'" I KNOW my system can play orchestral music as well as your two channel system. maybe i'd have to use the $1500 receiver just for a safe discerbable margin. You own BAT gear and all the limitations of that BAT gear...fact
So please refrain from acting like you have any serious experience with surround.
It's just not for music." JMcGrogan2, Raul and everyone, for that matter - This is whatÂ’s wrong with me. This very statement and those like it. This statement concludes that itÂ’s just not possible. In fact, many have said it in previous threads. However, this statement is a matter of opinion. Nothing against that, at all!
My argument is "what if it can be for music; what if it is for music? What if you can configure the system and processing to accurately reproduce the music to match the original recording?" I have yet to hear anyone ask how! Ok, so you donÂ’t care, but what about those who do? What if some other than yourselves wanted to learn something new or just see what the stir is all about? What if someone wanted to honestly give surround a shot?
On the flip side, what happened to trying to answer the original question? Then again, I guess IÂ’m getting side tracked. Go figure.
My problem is I've had the opportunity to hear a surround system, valued at approx $6K, namely D_Edwards', that brings out the best in 2 channel music, every single CD and digital track it played. So much that it surpassed multiple $150k+ LP systems, and numerous other high end 2ch systems that played a different version of the same recording. These systems where just like system many of you own. Many also exceeded your systems. I have nothing against those systems. Again, to each his own. But whatever happened to listening for yourself? Whatever happened to taking the time to listen? IsnÂ’t that what the hobby is all about?
Sure I only have my opinion that surround is better. But my opinion isnÂ’t based on opinion. So then why not find out to see why "I'm wrong." OK, so you donÂ’t care, but, again, what about those who do? Instead, the name calling and attempts at mud slinging begins. WHY? What was the point? What did it accomplish?
Truth is gentlemen, the research has been done. If you choose not to accept it, that’s fine. But that doesn't negate the fact that it was done. Another truth is the information is in front of everyone, available to be tested and investigated individually. You may have to do you’re your own research. However, no one has made an effort to do this. This is one of the many sad parts. Is anyone prepared to listen? Is anyone prepared to test D_Edwards’ thoughts and findings for themselves? Is anyone even willing? If not, then how can you say “your wrong and I’m right” until you all are willing to prove why and how? Otherwise, audio is chasing its tail for the next 5-10 years.
IÂ’ve been serious about audio for about 3 years now. Yes, only three years and no IÂ’m not so new that I donÂ’t know anything or any better. IÂ’ll establish my point further in a minute. Anyway, IÂ’ve been researching hard and met a guy who hipped me to DIY. He was my reference for a while. I learned so much from him. Then I meet another guy who introduces me to D_Edwards. Since then, IÂ’ve been forced to think outside the box and for myself. IÂ’ve been forced to conduct trial and error and been shown what to do and why, all at the same time. This led me from 2CH initially (yes, I did start out with 2CH) to MC surround. This forced me to pursue the truth of audio, not just an opinion.
Gentlemen, I apologize for allowing my enthusiasm to overtake me at times, but this is who I have become. An isolated, pursuer of audio truth within the realm of audio reproduction, be it 2Ch and MC. ThatÂ’s my problem!
This is one of the many things IÂ’ve learned in 3+ years.
“What is a phantom speaker?”
ItÂ’s the room. How? In the shortest way, your speakers emit full range frequency from both the front and rear. There are speakers that emit so much that the rear cabinet frequency reflection, combined with the rear wall, reverberates the reflection around the room. Many times, causing the reflection to bounce off of the opposing rear wall, so much that it gives the illusion of rear channels/speakers. This explains why many 2Ch guys say that they can achieve the same results as a MC system, from only 2CHÂ’s. But from a technical/theoretical outlook, arenÂ’t you listening to 3 speakers? ; )
On that note, let the rebuttals and name calling begin! Happy Listening Gentlemen. This time, I am really done!
I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies. It's just not for music.
What is the difference between movie sound and music sound? Many movies contain up to 50% music. If it is realistic for a movie than why not for music. Have you listened to Amadeus in 5.1?
I will grant you that there is a drawback to surround....it is extremely expensive to get the same level of quality as in two channel. This is very simply because you need FIVE high quality speakers (and sub) instead of two.
To me this is the crux of the problem with surround; it is roughly three times as expensive to maintain the same quality timbre matched speakers compared to a stereo setup. If a good set of main speakers are $10K, then a similar quality surround system will be at least $30K. Most people compromise and don't even get matching speakers (or sub) and, no surprise, they find the comparison of surround to stereo is unfairly biased towards stereo. Our ears are not fooled...you need the same quality matching surround speakers to get the full advantage of surround....or else all you get is special effects.
I'm not real bright but it seems to me that the means of reproducing the music should be the same as the recording. I do not mean by that digital v. analog(remember that question?). Movies are recorded in Surround Sound while music usually is not. There are newer notable exceptions.
Taking a Doors tape and mixing in in 5.1 does not change how it was recorded. Music can be gimmicked to sound surround when it really isn't... No one is fooled by this kind of compromise!
All things being equal, I still think speakers are the least important link in the chain.
11-13-06: D_edwards "I'm all for surround in my HT system, it's great with movies. It's just not for music."
Explain the difference?
Seems that struck a nerve, so I'll explain. I do find that surround sound helps to place me in the movie scene better. I'm on the beach in 'Saving Private Ryan', etc. However, I always found it uncomfortable when listening to music. I went through the surround sound phase for a year or so about 6 years ago. Trying high end pre/pro's from Proceed, Classe, Anthem, etc. Yet the music just didn't sound right. Maybe if you are trying to recreate the sound of a Dance club and be 'in the middle' of it, this is the way to go. If trying to recreate a live orchestra, it doesn't work. I want the orchestra performing in front of me, not all around me. I also found the center channel to throw off imaging, not inhance it.
The biggest hurdle though was tonality. No, I have never heard a receiver, or pre/pro for that matter, recreate the natural tone sound of an instrument as some high end stereo gear. I also find that vinyl is better suited at recreating this natural tone than digital. Strings are the best example of this. To me, massed strings sound congested and edgy through even $10K+ digital systems. A receiver or pre/pro may not be revealing enough to show this though, as many of them digitize the signal anyway. FWIW, Digitally Mastered LP's also suck at recreated massed strings and instumental tonal colors, IMHO.
You really think your VA's and BAT gear are THAT much better than my surround receiver? How's that Judas Preist song go? "tell you right now, you got another thing comin'"
While I'm honored that you are researching my equipment, I guess I must admit that no, there isn't THAT much of a difference if Judas Priest is what you're listening to.
I KNOW my system can play orchestral music as well as your two channel system. maybe i'd have to use the $1500 receiver just for a safe discerbable margin. You own BAT gear and all the limitations of that BAT gear...fact
This doesn't even require a response. If your receiver sounds good to you, you are fortunate indeed, LOL. 'nuff said.
When watching a movie, I find myself distracted by the video screen, so musical tonality is not as big an issue here. Especially since music tends to be digitized and in the background of the dialog in the movie.
If digital, receivers and pre/pro's make you happy, count your blessings. I have friends who are perfectly happy drinking a Budweiser. I much prefer a good micro-brew. It would be great if a Bud tasted just as good to me, it would save me a few pennies.
You, Cd and Shardorne are welcome to your opinions, as long as I'm entitled to mine. It does seem as though you are lost in this forum though. You may have an easier sell with the surround/digital package of ideas in the digital and/or video forums as opposed to the analog forums.
I normally write IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) in my responses. I stopped doing that in this thread because you all haven't quite grasped that yet. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but don't try to force your opinion on others by calling it a fact. Published DBT results don't mean much to those that don't belive the method is valid, and no I won't get started, it also is a waste of time to debate this.
I find it hard to believe that you cannot see how pointless this all is. You will not convince me that digital/surround is better anymore than I can convince you that analog/stereo is better. Obviously neither one of us is a weak minded sheep. So again I ask, what is the point? I almost feel like I'm back on Audioreview.com arguing cables, DBT's and other meaningless nonsense. Not that your opinions, or mine, are nonsense. It's just that the argument never ends, and no one changes their mind. It just seems to me like a dog chasing his tail. I'm done chasing my tail, feel free to try and convert analog purists to your digital/surround philosophy. Let me know how you make out. :)
Sure, there are some that can sell snow to the Eskimo's, but you three aren't the ones.
Taking a Doors tape and mixing in in 5.1 does not change how it was recorded. Music can be gimmicked to sound surround when it really isn't... No one is fooled by this kind of compromise!
This is such a true statement....gimmicked sound is not good, Depending on the master tapes it may be difficult to get something decent in 5.1 if the studio recording was not planned that way (for example you don't have all the separate tracks for each instrument/microphone).
However, not many people realize the amount of "gimmicking" going on in order to produce good stereo sound and a good stereo image. Artificial reverb and the like is almost always added to certain tracks. Voice is often doubled. Check out Sergeant Pepper on Wikipedia for an example of severe messing around in stereo....
Coming from a recent vinyl convert here is my limited opinion. I recently purchased a vinyl rig which cost total (cartridge, phono pre, and table/arm) less than half of what my digital rig (marantz SA-14) cost. Not that it necessarily matters but my vinyl rig is the marantz tt-15s1 for comparison. Anyhow here are my thoughts about your question. Before I purchased my vinyl setup I was looking for a new preamp. While in several different high end shops I decide to listen to a few turtables. The first time I sat down I listened to dire straits money for nothing. I got goosebumps. I have NEVER had this reaction to any equipment I have auditioned. Needless to say I quickly decided that I must get a vinyl set up. It is now about 8 months later and I am still extremely happy with my decision. Direct CD to vinyl comparisons in my rig always lead me to the same conclusion, that the vinyl is just more real and lifelike. I will say this. The vinyl is MUCH more work. In other words the records themselves really seem to very in quality as far as the recording itself. So you have to spend some time learning about labels, early pressings, 1/2 speed masterings, etc.., etc.. these make a huge difference in sound quality. You will need to clean your albums, much more maintenance than CDs. My suggestions would be if you don't mind the search/research on albums and don't mind cleaning and maintaining the vinyl then go for it, I think you will be rewarded with the effort. If on the other hand you want to just pop in a CD and listen to the music then stick with the CDs. I have no problem enjoying either format tremendously, but given a quality recording on vinyl you just can't beat the goosebumps that I still get IMO anyhow.
Why don't you tell us what exactly is needed to make a system sound live.
Give us the information that will allow us to experience what you experience.
I need to know which cartridge on which arm and which turntable you can assure me this experience will happen for me.
Live sound is the reference so it should be quite easy to design a system to do this. What are important speaker characteristics that you feel is essential to reproducing live music in the home.
Which record labels produce viable recordings.
Explain to me what makes and amplifier more musical for the REAl music lover like myself?
Raul where I come from the source is the reference and I hear enough live music and real instruments to be an expert like you so my piano lesson and season tickets to the Baltimore Chanber Orchestra etc. have served me well. As you know now that its 2006 its hard to find performances that are not amplified and or do not use electronic instruments. Please from now on don not assume I am deficient, I am an audio professional, not a hobbyist.
Here's my current two channel system tell me where I need to change components and why please; Cause its not better than my surround system based around the same speakers.
ATC Anniverary 50 ATC Concept 4 subwoofer Lake Contour crossover ATC SCA2 or Motif MC7 with black gate ps upgrade and modified input impedance circuit EAR834P resistors trimmed to match tubes .1% Roksan Xerxes X, with Benz Micro M2 Custom made cables Cartridge aligned with oscillascope
...what exactly is needed to make a system sound live
A reasonable simulation would be very low noise floor & very high dynamics... ...but, OTOH, I don't expect a system to sound like live music. Live music would not be my reference (as it isn't yours). Rather, reproducing the medium would be a better /more reliable and palpable reference point.
In the rare cases where a reproduction is such that it creates spontaneous involvement, there is some magic. Sometimes, when the Gods are smiling, there is a lot of energy coming out of my spkrs (relatively speaking, of course) and the effect of a live recording (even average recordings) is lovely.
To those debating multi-channel and 2-channel, would it not depend entirely on the recording anyway? If I have a piano and a cello playing in a small room similar to the one I sit in, the instruments resemble the point sources of my speakers, in which case, if the recording is close-miked, my listening point in my room will resemble the place I might sit in the room with live music. In which case the reflections of the performance room match those in my room, which means I have duplicated the live experience quite faithfully using a two-channel set-up. And if my room is bad, then I have listened to a stellar live performance in a really bad venue, I won't necessarily do much better with the same thing in my room.
By the same token, I like the concept of multi-channel for the idea that reproduction of the ambient reflections offers spatial cues to give you a "you are there" feeling. That said, it would obviously work best on recordings where there is non-negligible ambient/reflective sound, and is probably best reproduced listening nearfield in an anechoic chamber. As I am neither convinced that most 2-channel recordings contain equal ambient cues, nor do I happen to have an anechoic chamber at home, I will stick with my humble 2-channel digital and analog system which pleases me just fine... though I am sure I could use some bass traps... :^)
As you can imagine I have a motive for my question and I appreciate what you have to say. Maybe your post will help me clarify what I want from my question. I want the fundamentals on how I can buy a "live" real music lovers system. When you say low noise floor what's the signal to noise ratio 50DB, 100dB, and high dynamics what dB do you suspect would cover "high dynamics" in a medium sized room. Because I need to be able to shop for that "low noise floor" and "high dynamics" as Raul pointed out you can't even trust a dealer with a $500,000 system to do it correctly. So it would be great to eliminate some of the possibilities before I go shopping.
As you highlight I think it is erroneous to think a recording will sound "Live" with out manipulation in someone's listening room. But what is that magic manipulation? Raul's got it and I, m hoping he will share to elevate me to his level. I need to be told what to do with my system to make it a Real music lovers system, I think I have a pretty decent two channel system but i could be doing it all wrong.
"A reasonable simulation would be very low noise floor & very high dynamics..."
Would you feel comfortable saying that the equipment I have listed would or would not achieve this?
Hey Matt54321: Thanks for that. I have to put the hobby on hold for awhile because I moved into a new place, of course good old Security Deposit and first months rent has crippled the finanaces for this month. I was talking to one guy who told me not to go to Vinyl because he asked me how many new releases are being released onto vinyl and he also told me that with records, every time you play a song, it puts wear on the record which affects the sound quality. I guess he meant that the needle wears out the record a little everytime you play it? , dont think I have heard of this before? Has anybody else?
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.
