"Does any one else have any pleasent multichannel experiences?"
I got a whole bunch of them and more every day.
See www.stereophile.com/musicintheround
Kal |
Care to indulge us with some of your memorable systems and experiences?
Tell us about you own personal system? |
I will not indulge you with my experiences since I have written about them in the column and those about which I have not yet written I will eventually. As for my system, it changes slowly and regularly. Currently, I have two systems:
System 1:
Paradigm Studio/60v3 (three for L,C,R)
Paradigm Studio/20v2 (two for surround)
Paragigm Servo15 with Velodyne SMS-1 EQ
Meridian 861 pre/pro
Bryston 9BST amp
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Siim Moon Orbiter Universal player
Fujitsu P50 PDP
System 2:
B&W N802D (three for L,C,R)
B&W N804S (two for surround)
JL Fathom 113 Sub
BelCanto Pre6 MCH preamp
BelCanto REF1000 amps (x3)
Classe C3200 3channel amp
BelCanto S300 amp (stereo for surround)
Sony XA9000ES SACD player
BelCanto PL-1A Universal player
AudioVox 5.6" LCD display (for menus only)
But the really interesting stuff
Kal |
I will not indulge you with my experiences since I have written about them in the column and those about which I have not yet written I will eventually. As for my system, it changes slowly and regularly. Currently, I have two systems:
System 1:
Paradigm Studio/60v3 (three for L,C,R)
Paradigm Studio/20v2 (two for surround)
Paragigm Servo15 with Velodyne SMS-1 EQ
Meridian 861 pre/pro
Bryston 9BST amp
Sony XA-777ES SACD player
Siim Moon Orbiter Universal player
Fujitsu P50 PDP
System 2:
B&W N802D (three for L,C,R)
B&W N804S (two for surround)
JL Fathom 113 Sub
BelCanto Pre6 MCH preamp
BelCanto REF1000 amps (x3)
Classe C3200 3channel amp
BelCanto S300 amp (stereo for surround)
Sony XA9000ES SACD player
BelCanto PL-1A Universal player
AudioVox 5.6" LCD display (for menus only)
But the really interesting stuff are the recordings. ;-)
Kal |
CDW,
Your dogma is static measurement. That's OK, but it's been proven time and again that we're not measuring enough or we measure the wrong things, for measurement to reflect what a component sounds like. I have a preamp in my stash that is one of the lowest-distortion preamps ever made, and it measures ruler flat. Its square wave performance is exemplary. In its day it was an advance for solid state. No one thinks it sounds better than a huge range or worse-measuring devices of same function available today. Even you certainly prefer worse-measuring gear to this preamp.
But knock yourself out.
Bandwidth certainly is related to the sound of an amplifier, including the ultrasonic harmonic components that affect perception even if they cannot be pinpointed by most people. Extension to 34kHz isn't among the worst nor best. But on a comparative basis, it's pretty good. 115kHz is fully top tier. Yet few people would choose either because of these measurements, and neither did I. Both however prove your assumptions about tube amps are dated and wrong.
I don't have any exclusive attachment to SET amplification. I just happen to have a few SET amps that are exceptionally good. Many SET amps do not meet my approval. But it is really difficult to find one that sounds bad, unlike most other topologies. In any case, there are a few transistor and tube push-pull amps I'd be happy to have. I just don't need them right now.
The Cary 805 does, by the way, kind of sound like it tests. Not entirely. The test suggests a behavior and that behavior can be more or less heard. But under dynamic conditions into real speakers, there are bigger variables. In any case, my 845 amps sound appreciably better, certainly more accurate, and yes, they produce their power. These are among the reasons I own them and do not own Carys. Note however that the Carys are very well built.
Nevertheless, it's well known that an SET amp has its imperfections. They are just aren't amusical, a problem suffered by a variety of ruler-flat components. Every electronics designer knows this. They simply elect to use a topology that balances the imperfect factors to produce the best semblance of actual music sounds. SET has been embraced once again by some of the most talented and aware designers in audio. It needs no defense.
You will notice that the MC1201 square wave performance measured virtually perfect in the Stereophile test, which I recall as being your chief criticism of autoformer amps. It's frequency response at 8 ohms, where I'd be using it if I had a pair, is fine, only showing significant softening at 2 ohms as expected. Anyway, it's a great amp. You should listen to a pair (or more).
"Rich" in the case of the Denon does not imply a fixed EQ correction, it describes the cartridge's ability to reveal and extract information. Its information density is exemplary. It's frequency response is not rolled off. It's superior to CD, for that matter, if the info is in the vinyl.
I respect Bob Stuart's engineering acumen. Unfortunately, his speakers are sounding worse. Knowledge and application are different things. He'd get better results if both coincided. Nevertheless, I grant that his contributions to digital, acoustic and waveform understanding have been significant in hifi, and others have benefitted to the point of getting better results than he has lately.
Yes, an MC system is subverted by multiple drivers and certainly by crossovers, multipled over multiple loudspeakers -- and then further drained of fidelity by processing. If you are simulating multi-channel through a 2C system, then number of drivers becomes moot over 2C, but the processing remains a problem. If you are adding discrete channels, you can't get away from the deleterious effects of multiplying the instance of the speakers you've chosen. I've accepted that my single FRD Druids have a purity that the dual FRD Definitions give up a trace, in order to deliver more scale and definition. That's why I have both. I surely wouldn't want to multiply that small compromise further with an MC implementation. If you can't hear this problem, well...sorry.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I like the SF Amati, but they never made my list. You have in any case acquired data, but you haven't organized it into knowledge. If you like MC, that's your call. I have no issue with that. You asked originally what other people think. But don't try to sell the illusion that you like MC because of some "education" foundation about audio. So far, you're making all the mistakes typical of newbies who have amassed data without deriving understanding. Good luck with that.
Phil |
Well...looks like I got some sterophile reading to do then. Thanks for the post Kal!!! |
Phil...you've talking yourself in to a circle of a wurlwind for long enough. You've made...tried to make your point. Thanks for the effort, but I think its time to move on. There are more mystical chipmunks waiting in line to post. ;)
So Kal...when did you discover MC listening? |
I was fascinated by it in the early 70's when I played around with the Hafler circuit. Earlier than that, as a child, I was influenced by a neighbor who had a 4 channel system back in the 50s(!). He used R2R stereo tape and set up the system in duplicate stereo with a speaker in each corner of the room.
My modern entry into it was when I was given a full Meridian Reference system for review (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/201/index.html) and, from there, there was no turning back.
Kal |
Phil,
As I mentioned it has been fun and I have been learning a great deal from you but I must inform you that much of what I say from a technical standpoint is being confirmed by someone with a great deal more experience than I. As you ramble on many times incorrectly, my guy points out where you are not being precise.
I've been cheating but what is interesting is his prediction of what you will say and do next. That is the part that shocked me the most. He knows your religion, he knows your dogma and he underestands and can predict your behaviour. Scary how accurate he has been. Right down to you not understanding what is important in what measurements determine what amplifier sounds like. I never said frequency response had much to do with the "sound" of an amplifier. The Cary's sound is more profoundly effected by other parameters. Something at three years I understand and have heard demonstrated to me. Your assessment of the McIntosh is incorrect it's square wave is slow in its rise time. And that does affect its sound along with some other slight issues. Am I saying that the McIntosh is a bad amplifier? absolutely not! I just brought that to your attention that it still exhibits characteristics that color its sound slightly versus other amplifiers in its class. This I have heard and it conforms with your management of the highs in your system. IE. Its a coloration you tend to like.
So you should get over the 15 to 1 experience difference and up your game a little. I understand that you're a superior audio being to me so I will accept my limitations in not being able to understand that what is ok for you, is not ok for me. And like I said I know you own all the best equipment there is to buy, so if I want fidelity I have to buy what you have.
To me this last post is just a veiled attempt to belittle me personally. There is nothing new in it same stuff different day, just a slightly more aggressive attack on me and my information. Well all you have proven is that were I have chosen to get my information from is clearly out of your league. You don't understand amplification and you love your speakers despite the fact they don't come up to your standards and philosophy. And lets not forget you're a superior audio being. At 25 years old, I have
Bat like hearing compared to you, so take your little esoteric pet complaints that you use to increase your self-importance and move along.
Its over I'm not convinced you know what I'm talking about. And your Zu's are a novelty item, just like the Sonus's. You should have kept your quads and built dipole subs for them. You'd been better off. Cause like your 7 channel Zu's the quads are multichannel too. |
Would anyone else care to post about thier Multichannel experiences or has this thread officially be shut down by the powers that be?
The other "not so obvious" point this thread was to hopefully help those who have or are at least are willing to try multichannel, but have run into a few bad experiences. Believe it or not, everyone who claims to know or owns a HT/Music store, really doesn't know how to get it right. Not to say I am the end all guru of multichannel. Not by a long shot! But I, and many others like me have seen it demonstrated, thoroughly explianed, and have done it ourselves. We are here to help...if you want it.
Personally, I think many of the 2CH guys are scared. Scared of the fact that there is a chance that I among other may be right. That MC...done correctly, may completely baffle thier knowledge, won't listen to their ears, and will dismiss MC because they don't understand how it can pick up where 2CH leaves off. Thats why so many call it a gimmick, other than they couldn't do what MC has done without spending at least 3/4 of thier salary. No fish oils or $500 .5 meter cables here, people!
May be its the visually effects of glowing objects while listening. Maybe..just maybe...if I can think of a way to make my mystical chipmuck to give off a warm soothing glow. Wait...I think I'm onto something! |
It is my opinion you are not an audiophile if your not a two channel guy, period. Multichannel is for movies, nothing more, nothing less. I use a quality surround sound receiver for movies and it does a darn good job there but it sucks for music. The only thing connected to it is a DVD player. I don't even have an antenna attached for FM. |
In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior. I am not surprised since some local hifi dealers reserve more room for multichannel products then they do for two channel, trying to sell as many boxes as they can. Why not, multichannel requires more dollars invested & the majority of Americans are satisfied with mediocre sound. Audiophiles represent a small segment of the population and most are right here on Audiogon. It is obvious that some of you have bought into this fiasco, contributing to the demise of two channel, may regret this later. Support your local two channel dealership, keep multichannel where it belongs, movies only. |
Phd: "In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior."
Time proves nothing nor do such assertions as yours. 2 channel has, since its beginning, been a compromise accepted only because of technical limitations. Now, if you want to assert that, for a given expenditure, you can get higher quality stereo componentry than if you spread that expenditure over 5+ channels, that's logic.
BTW, there's nothing to prevent one from playing stereo discs as two channel on ones multichannel system.
Kal |
To summarize my view, in order of importance...
1..A center channel does wonders for imaging of the very-important soloist, vocal or instrument.
2..Surround channels give new dimension (pun) to two types of music.
a. Intimate classical chamber music, or Jazz, where the sonic perspective is that the performers are in the room with you. (As opposed to you being in their room).
b. Antiphonal music (composed for two or more separate choirs or orchestras). There was a lot of this composed in the past, but it fell by the wayside because stereo cannot reproduce it properly.
c. Ambience.
d. Improved sound (especially bass) because the speakers are driven less hard for a given room SPL.
. |
Agreed, Eldartford. Some people hear but won't listen.
Kal |
Phd -
Thanks for your post but you've accomplished nothing but proving one of many points I've made before. Audiophiles have somehow convinced themselves that Multichannel is a gimmick; only to keep from realizing they have needlessly spent far too much money on product that can't accomplish what a system half its price can do effortlessly. Beleive it or not, audiophiles..in thier infinite psuedo-wisdom...can be wrong too.
"Multichannel is for movies, nothing more, nothing less. I use a quality surround sound receiver for movies and it does a darn good job there but it sucks for music."
Clarify..if you will. Are you referring that YOUR quality MC receiver sucks for music. Sounds like user error to me. Care to explain how you have your system setup? If we tackle the basics then maybe we can help you out with your music problem. That is unless you've been an audiophile too long to learn something new!!
"In addition some of you are buying into more channels is better than less when time has proven that two channels for music is superior."
Tell that to people who listen in MONO! Thats like saying a Mercedes Gulwing coupe is superior to a '06 Mercedes Benz SL600. The two can't compare. The Gulwing was the flagship....in its day! This was due purely to technological and other limitations. It couldn't out-anything the Benz of today. But as time progressed and limitations were overcome, the Benz has transformed into the beauty it is today. But the 600 does just about everything the Gulwing did and then some...20x better. Same goes for 2ch v MC. 2CH was the flagship and has been for a long while now. But just as the Gulwing, it was superior in it's day. Many people still chase after the Gulwing for nestalgic purposes and the same goes for 2CH. When coupled with a SET amp, turntable and 2500+ vinyl albums, you have an audiophiles dream. But lets face it, its all nestalgic. MC does everything 2CH did...much better.
"Support your local two channel dealership, keep multichannel where it belongs, movies only."
Glad everyone doesn't have that mindset. We'd still be living in the 50's.
"Why not, multichannel requires more dollars invested & the majority of Americans are satisfied with mediocre sound."
Have you invested more than $6000 in the 2ch system? If so, then your 2ch investment was more then what a MC system requires. BTW, I thought you said your MC reciever does a darn good job?" You wouldn't be implying that YOU'RE satisfied with "mediocre sound", are you?
"I am not surprised since some local hifi dealers reserve more room for multichannel products then they do for two channel, trying to sell as many boxes as they can."
Isn't that what dealers do...sell prodocts...? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what forums like this are for? Helping those who have audio related problems, in the event they have any? Or are we so caught up in name dropping, speaker designer worshiping, and declaring how much and how long we've been an audiophile!!
--------General Statement----not for PHD only-------
"you are not an audiophile if your not a two channel guy, period."
This is the number one reason why I refuse to be an audiophile, even if I have ultra high end tube and 2ch equipment. Here's my take on some audiophiles. These particular audiophiles are the ones who never got picked for kickball, never was popular in school, always picked on, and have now emast so much knowledge and few have degree's to back it up, they have isolated themselves from everyone else.
Let me apologize to each of you, who ever you may be, for being picked and bullied as a child. It was wrong!!
Now that these parcticular audiophile have become adults, they've created this exclusive club, only for those of thier kind, to help releave the inferiority complex they've gotten when they were kids.
Let me further explain. That comment was NOT intended to offend for one particular person. Thats why I chose my words very carefully. It's NOT even my intention to offend audiophiles. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to cram it on your foot!!!! However...if for some reason you have taken offense to this, there is a high probability this "particular audiophile" I was refering to...is you. If that is the case, I apologize in advance. My intended purpose for the comment was not to offend, but to point out the ones who: 1) have or potentially have ruined it for people who may have thoughts about getting it the hobby, and 2) have made it difficult for everyone else to explain to others why this hobby is so great. This "particular audiophile" is the number one reason why I refuse to become one...even with a $20k 2ch SET/speaker system. To be perfectly honest, It ain't that serious!!!!!
Oh...before I forget, I've almost completed my glowing mystical chipmuck...for those who may be interest. However, it's only for 2CH SET systems. ;) |
CD...
Here is a definition from Merriam Websters dictionary.
Main Entry: au·dio·phile
Pronunciation: 'o-dE-O-"fI(-&)l
Function: noun
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction
Notice how this does not differenciate between 2 channel, multichannel, mono, or even ipod headphones...
You seem very enthusastic about your multichannel high fidelity sound reproduction so I hate to be the one to break it to you, all bulling aside (lol), but in every sense of the word you have become an AUDIOPHILE.
Ps...I found your posts more informative when you were selling the virtues of Multichannel. Not when you have tried to debase other peoples beliefs that differ from yours. An eye for an eye so to speak.
These forums are full of people trying to sell their product and beliefs, Multichannel, two channel, transistor radio...what does the medium matter as long as the music brings a smile to your face.
If you want the people of the world to know, embrace, and maybe convert...sell your ideas, and let the idiots go on with their delusions.
Just my $20.00 worth (adjusted for inflation) |
Dave...you've truly given me a reality check! Some people get it and some don't. Sad to say, but you may be right...I am and audiophile. Just not THAT kind of audiophile. It gets frustrating to hear such mumbo come from people who have many more years in the hobby than I. Then when I make my case, I'm told I don't know what I'm talking about because I have only 3 years under my belt.
You're right though!! I should revert my passion in another direction.
I already know the answer but I can't help but to ask myself "why won't they at least give it shot?" I'm not the type to put someone down because they were wrong. I'm happy if someone corrects the error.
I was told I would be the one of the only few who chose to take the red pill over the blue!!
PS- Thanks for the great deal on your thoughts. |
Cdwallace, I'm not offended at all with comments & your general opinion of audiophiles or where you stand on multichannel verus two channel. The forums are full of opinions including mine. There was a thread started some time ago about what audiophiles do for a living. Many are highly educated folks from all walks of life. You started this thread and I offered my thoughts on the subject then you became unglued.
Anyway my reference to mediocre sound is my what I think that most of the general public will accept till someone can show them what they have been missing and some don't care as long as the gear does its job.
Anyway I have before enthusiasticly embraced multichannel/surround sound. I purchased several power amps of the same brand & power, coupled to a two channel preamp with theater pass through with an external processor. All my speakers are very large except for the center. I enjoyed my movies tremendously & with this setup, music was satisfying as well. Over time I lost interest in this type of setup wanting to go back to two channel only and put my dollars there. I recently purchased just the receiver for multichannel playback which is seldom used. That is my priority and for anyone else, you can do whatever turns you on. |
Maybe this will help a little.
--------Question primarily for 2CH'rs-----------
Are you aware that the very essense of MC is durived from the same principles of 2CH? Here's the easiest and most practical way I can explain it. Its like getting the same stereo magic between each of the 5 speakers. You know how when a 2Ch setup is locked in, the sound stage is detailed, deep and wide? Now imagine, if you will, this same phenomenon taking place, when done correctly, 5 times over. The results are truely amazing, not a gimmick.
Not only that but the purpose of the five is to really perform like one! Lost you didn't I. You see, when the 5 have been setup and calibrated properly, it creates a 360 degree soundfield. This is just as if your hearing the instrument or voice in front of you (in its orginial intended placement) and the reverb, echo attack and decay, ect...all around you. As if the performance was taking place in the room with you.
I'm really starting to see that people don't understand what I and other are getting at. It can be a tough concept to grasp at first. Trust me it was tough for me too. But when someone with more experience and complete understanding took me through the process, it clicked. Then I was able to replicate this same thing myself...on my system. My system has its limitations, more than what my mentor's system had. But the same principles apply. The results were still similar. Similar enough to know I knew what I was doing.
I have a long ways to go, but I'm on the right track. |
Phd - my humble appologies for becoming unglued. I'm the result of 3 years of ridicule by other 2ch audiophiles. If I read something that reminds me of what I went through with other, I have a tendency to become a bit abrasive. It was not intended for you...the post just brought back a few memories, thats all. Like everyone else, I truely respect your opinion and thank you for your insight.
IMHO, I think you may have given up on MC prematurely. Not that it was even your fault though. Few have the first hand understanding to be of any help. Many tend to be more of a hinderance then anything. I think if you gave it another shot, may be with a little help, you may consider coming back to MC.
You have your priorities though, so if expanding from your receiver isn't one of them, then go with what works for you.
Like 883dave put it, if it brings a smile to your face, then what does the median matter?
My focus should be to help educate, not deliberate. Thats what an audiophile SHOULD be all about, agree? |
CDwallace, I agree. We all find our poison in the end as you have mentioned. |
If its OK with everyone, please refer back to the question I posted yesterday. It would be interesting to hear everyones views.
Thanks |
After giving it some thought, maybe some are confused as to the location of the previously posted question. Either that or many are still processing the very basic explanation. So...that being said I've copied it below.
-------Question primarily for 2CH'rs, but all are welcome to answer-----------
Is everyone aware that the very essense of MC is durived from the same principles of 2CH? Here's the easiest and most practical way I can explain it. Its like getting the same stereo magic between each of the 5 speakers. You know how when a 2Ch setup is locked in, the sound stage is detailed, deep and wide? Now imagine, if you will, this same phenomenon taking place, when done correctly, 5 times over. The results are truely amazing, not a gimmick.
Not only that but the purpose of the five is to really perform like one! Lost you didn't I. You see, when the 5 have been setup and calibrated properly, it creates a 360 degree soundfield. This is just as if your hearing the instrument or voice in front of you (in its orginial intended placement) and the reverb, echo attack and decay, ect...all around you. As if the performance was taking place in the room with you.
I'm really starting to see that people don't understand what I and other are getting at. It can be a tough concept to grasp at first. Trust me it was tough for me too. But when someone with more experience and complete understanding took me through the process, it clicked. Then I was able to replicate this same thing myself...on my system. My system has its limitations, more than what my mentor's system had. But the same principles apply. The results were still similar. Similar enough to know I knew what I was doing.
I have a long ways to go, but I'm on the right track. |
Judging my the lack of dialog I would assume 1 of 2 things, either everyone is just so asstounded they can't comment or no one really cares.
Sad part about it is, this forum is missing information such as this, practical information. Not spend another $800 for .5 meter speaker cable or switch out the components until you find the "right match", no matter how long that takes or how much it costs. If you don't, then you'll never achieve a holistic sound or warm smeared feeling to everything you play.
But hey, "you'll" get tired of component swapping and spending money only to get more frustrated because you're still in the same place you were before. Only this time you'll have even less money and 4th or 5th-hand used components.
When the times comes, practicality will be here, and so will MC. |
Hi CDwallace,
My poision is without a doubt multichannel!!! I have been listening to multichannel since 1971--yes quad 8tracks and reel to reel as well as matrix surround. To date the greatest component developed yet is the Angstron 200. I say this because I have not heard either dts or DD sound better. But the real magic is the Mike Moffitt's algorythem of matrix surround sound from 2ch cd. I have not heard a 2ch source that hasn't sounded richer a fuller than with the simple matrix! The only disappointment has been with SACD mc. To much noise and distorion in rear channels. For discreet surround nothing surpasses dts in mho. Long live mc!! |
Madhf...thanks for the post. Glad to see someone who enjoyed MC from its infant stages until now. If you loved MC then, I can only amagine how much you're enjoying MC of today. Technology can be a wonderful thing. Viva MC!!! |
I recently went back to 2 channel. I had a nice music only MCH setup and enjoyed it a lot. The only problem was the dirth of MCH SACDs and DVD-Audios.
New releases are almost gone now and the selection was never very good to begin with. I've upgraded my DAC to where digital sounds almost as good as my vinyl. SACD and DVD-A in stereo is fine. There's actually much more new vinyl available than new Hi-Rez digital. My HT is surround, but not my stereo room now. |
Thanks for the post ThomJohn...did you do much listening of 2ch CD's in surround? How did you like it? |
Cdwallace writes: did you do much listening of 2ch CD's in surround? How did you like it? How do you get surround sound from 2 channels. By synthesis? Regards, |
Don't have the time to bring you up to speed of its origin and how it works, but its a little known secret called processing! Basic knowledge of such is assumed and should be acquired prior to engaging in even the most casual conversations regarding MC and 2CH.
I'm sure there are plenty books and write ups for your reading pleasure available on both the internet and in your local bookstore.
Not sure where you were headed or implying with the question, but here is the civilized answer.
Any futher questions, Metralla? |
So ThomJohn...where were we?
"did you do much listening of 2ch CD's in surround? How did you like it?" |
"How do you get surround sound from 2 channels. By synthesis?"
Actually Metralla every stereo disc has surround information on it, all you need to do is study a little about the pick up patterns of microphones and mic arrays.
Also realise that all reverb, and delay algorithms are modeled for 360 degrees, not 180, which is all two channel has to offer.
This to me IS the big issue with digital and why it has a noticeable brightness to it when played in 2 channels, there is information compressed onto the soundstage, and since it is room reverberation, or 360 degree delay processing, or just out of phase noise, this information when not moved to its rightful place in the soundfield (rear channels) will negatively impact the spectral balance of playback. A good example is any live albome with an active crowd, most of these recordings are edgy because the crowd is not mic'd and the off axis response of the microphone and the quantity of them, plus room tone and on and on, gets placed between you and the subject, click on surround and the subject (singer etc) smoothes out immensely, your emmerssed in the crowd and all that "noise" is no longer smashed into the front stage, messing up the performer. |
Cdwallace writes: Any futher questions, Metralla? I guess not. Thanks. Regards, |
Metralla...Glad I could help. If you do have a MC question, or even something that you've been wondering about MC, feel free to ask away. However, this forum was intended to help demistify MC, and enlighten 2CHer in the area of MC. |
Thanks for the breakdown, D_Edwards. |
I've noticed that no one has responded to the previously mentioned question I posed a few postings ago. I must say, its not my intention to be a pest about this, but I'm more than curious as to what legitimite answer anyone can come up with. Sooo.....back by popular demand...I'm posting the same question for the third time. Thanks for you patients!!
Are you aware that the very essense of MC is durived from the same principles of 2CH? Here's the easiest and most practical way I can explain it. Its like getting the same stereo magic between each of the 5 speakers. You know how when a 2Ch setup is locked in, the sound stage is detailed, deep and wide? Now imagine, if you will, this same phenomenon taking place, when done correctly, 5 times over. The results are truely amazing, not a gimmick.
Not only that but the purpose of the five is to really perform like one! Lost you didn't I. You see, when the 5 have been setup and calibrated properly, it creates a 360 degree soundfield. This is just as if your hearing the instrument or voice in front of you (in its orginial intended placement) and the reverb, echo attack and decay, ect...all around you. As if the performance was taking place in the room with you.
|
CDwallace,
No one has responded cuz there's no question! It's a diatribe by you about 5.1 and 360 degree sound. A question ends with a question mark.....like this....What is your question?
If it's "Are you aware that the very essense of MC is durived from the same principles of 2CH?" then yes, I am...not sure what durived means, but yes.
I love hirez mch surround, have lots invested in 5.1 (and 7.1 for movies) and have posted many times here and on AVS, the Asylum, etc about it. But IMO it's not one or the other; stereo and mch are two different formats. I love them both, for very different reasons. No poison for me. |
You know how when a 2Ch setup is locked in, the sound stage is detailed, deep and wide? Now imagine, if you will, this same phenomenon taking place, when done correctly, 5 times over. I'm all for a thought experiment, Cdwallace. If 2 speakers use interference effects to produce a soundfield (stereo), then 5 speakers arranged in the ITU pattern should produce interference effects from all pairs. Should we not then "imagine this same phenomenon taking place 10 times over"? Regards, |
Metralla...thanks for the post but I think I'm a little lost. You wouldn't be suggesting people, whether 2ch or MC, are listening to interference, are you? Cause if you are, I don't think you gonna have many happy audiophiles. :)
However, I do believe I see where you're headed. In theory, yes. Just as a properly setup 2ch system produces the euphoric soundstage soooo many audiophile rave about, for the most part, the same rules apply for MC to acheive this outcome. Difference is, your actually working with five "stereo pairs". L to C, C to R, R to SR, SR to SL, and SL to L.
But just one other thing though. Just as audiophiles don't imagine thier "phemonemon" taking place between thier two speakers, MC listeners don't have to imagine either. WHY? because the same things 2chers are hearing takes place for MC, only 5 times over within the 5+1 speakers. |
Ted...thanks for the response the to question that is not a question because it doesn't have a question mark....go figure. Please excuse the grammatical errors. I was hoping to pose the initial question in the beginning, with a ? of course, and complete the thought thereafter with a (.). By no means imposing any impression of bitternesss. Cynical...to some degree...sure why not! Input does = output!!
Charge it to the head and not the heart. Now I know mispelled words and puntuation "bear more weight" then the content, which seems to be the norm with many; I'll try at all cost to be more careful in the future.
I can tell you didn't read much of the previously posted thread or else you have a better understanding as to who the question was initially presented for. Not a problem though, because you confirmed my assumptions that at least one other person, other than myself was aware of the similarities between 2ch and MC. I'm glad you were able to conclude what the mispelling of durived ment...thanks for getting the point!!!
Glad to see there are audiophile who can appreciate both 2ch and MC together, even though you don't have a preference. Please keep in mind, its not an ultimatum to pick between the two; just a thread to see who would pick what, hence the original posting...please see the top of pg 1 for further details. Thanks for your input on the gon, and many others you patronize.
There's plenty of "poison" to pass around. So...if you decide in the future, MC will be here.
Thanks and Happy Listening
PS - I'm having the toughest time finding any media in 7.1? Especially for movies! Any suggestions. |
Cdwallace,
My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but no one can ever tell on the 'net, so nevermind. Sorry you took it any other way.
The 7.1 surround format is mainly one of derived or matrixed 5.1 stuff, with side speakers helping to steer well-derived pans from front to back. I've been living in the 7.1 world with movies since Lexicon first intro'd Logic7 years ago. The first real true discrete 7.1 stuff will not be here until the newer HD audio formats are outputted 7.1 (HDMI 1.3 and /or 7.1 analog inputs become standard).
I appreciate any and all threads that discuss mch music. I love it. (but don't love it any more than great 2 channel.....always have to love both children the same, right). |
Ted...no blood no foul. Glad to see someone else has at least considered MC. This is mindset I'm running to more and more with audiophiles. Few have even considered MC. Fewer have actually heard a setup. They hate it, partially because almost none have heard it done correctly to properly judge. My biggest goal is to push the envelope and try to give MC the much needed exposure. If that means posing questions such as this or trying to somewhat educate, then so be it. I just don't was MC to be written off so quickly without it being considered as "audiophile worthy" as 2CH.
Sometimes I have to take the more aggressive posture only to show the seriousness of the hobby. Besides, I don't want anyone to take my milk money anymmore. :) I've only been in this thing for 3 years; I have a lots of growing to do.
Thanks for you posting and happy listening, Ted. |
CdWallace,
Sorry for waiting so long to get back to you. On a Reel to Reel the amount of tracks will refer to the amount of channels, but the most you can have is two (comerically).
With a 2 track, only two tracks are recorded and it takes the entire playable side of the tape. This results in a superior sound quality because there is more room to store musical information. 4 track means that the one playable side is split in 4 tracks, two for side A, and you flip the tape around for the other two tracks of side B. The last stereophile show in NYC they had a Amprex 2 inch 30 IPS original master tape and of what I heard this sounded astounding. I would wholeheartly suggest that everyone try to get a chance to listen to open reel tape. And if you dare, pick up a deck on Ebay and some factory pre-recorded Amprex, Magtec or columba at 7.5 IPS and judge for yourself. I had to upgrade my cartridge because of the superiority of open reel tape. |
2 channel, hands down, especially at that price point. To add more boxes with such limited funds doom one to plastic dreck. |
Wow...I must be doing something wrong here. I would've never thought $14k to spend on audio gear is considered "limited" funds. |
Any other contenders...don't be shy now! :) |
Multichannel/ 2 channel integrated--
Mirage OM6 omnipolars mains-
Mirage OM10s surrounds-
Mirage MC2 center channel-
2 Bag End 18 inch Stereo Infrasubs w/8htz. response
Mirage BPS400 .1 effects sub
2 Plinius SA102s in Xlr Dual mono, Pure class A 1 silver/ 1 black - powering mains
Plinius P8 200 Watt Class A/ab for center
Plinius SA100mk3 Pure Class A-- surrounds
Plinius M8 W/HT. Bypass 2 Channel preamp
Pioneer VSX-74TXVi Surround Receiver used for processor
Pioneer 59 AVI DVD SACD/DVD Audio
Toshiba SD3109 w/HDCD
2 Sony CDPCX 400 jukeboxes foe pcm redbook
Monarchy 24/96 DIP
Sony C222ES SACD 2 Channel/ Multichannel
Pioneer 730 65 inch CRT HD
Magnum Dynalab 102 Triode tuner w/remote / Mullard nos,match.pr Gold faceplate
Kora Hermes 24/192 DAC with 1975 Mullard cryovalves match pr.
Speaker Cables / High Current dumping...
Transparent Bi-cables on mains
Transparent Plus Bi-bis on center
Transparent Plus Bis on surrounds
Siltech SQ28 from 102s to M8 pre-
Transparent Ultra from 2 Channel sources to Plinius M8-
Also from processor mains front channels to M8-
Transparent Super powercorsd on SA amps and Kora DAC-
Glass toslinks for CDPCX 400s-
3 dedicated 20 amp/220 volt outlets-
Current design pc plus surpressor/ protection
Cable Elevators
Cardas logo caps
Lovan Classic Series component stands flanking monitor
Adona Amplifier stands Silver w/wt. marble for silver SA100mk3/102---Black w/ blue pearl granite for black 102...
I see things going multichannel per sound in life is 360 degrees so it shall eventually be in home reproduction feeling that once proper microphones are placed accordingly for live music etc.. art will eventually imitate life.
No compromises in my system, wonderful. Im ready....
Enjoy ;o}
Regards /// Tim W.../// |
Tim...thanks for the very thorough breakdown of your system. Looks like you've dropped a nice penny into it.
Hows the performance? |
Greetings Cdwallace;
First my apologies as I'm currently well outside your budget of ten thousand dollars, didn't read your initial post before responding.
While I'm sure we could all spend more to obtain that next best component or upgrade, whats important to me may not be important to you or others.
Fair enough, now in terms of whats important to me in the context of my system and its overall performance relating to both movies as well as multichannel...
Full range sound with appropriate dynamic scale for both musical content as well as the movie effects...
To keep the main channels, center channel and surrounds cone driver properties identical along with amplification for final voicing for seamless surround....
A wide dispersion speaker for various listening positions off axis very conducive to hometheatre minus the penalties of sweet spots...About all I feel it gives up are pinpoint imaging and perhaps it doesn't reach the heavens in uppermost frequencies the way a ribbon Magneplaner will...Although separation and general location of performers is rendered complete..
Plenty of Quality power on tap along with plenty of cone drivers to handle the power and deliver proper SPLs, Plenty of headroom available for dynamics...And with two Bag End 18 in. subs along with a Mirage BPS400 for .1 effects....
The performance really speaks for itself and is really a must here for final listener dependant specifics, but safe to say in my world it truly satisfies with excellent renditions of performers playing , instrumental tones along with what I feel is tremendous dynamic shading, suspending disbelief, allowing you to really become immersed in the recorded event, be it multichannel movies, concerts or two channel listening.
The combination of tubes in my sources and Plinius amplification are almost magical and very satisfying never imparting any sense of fatigue. System involvement takes on a new level as many instances it becomes hard to remove yourself from the afternoons playback, turning it off almost induces a feeling of regret.
Now with that being said this system is a labor of love on my part that took many countless hours of research, auditioning at various dealers, and final tweaking of speaker placement, tubes nos, interchanging and mixing of cables, powerline conditioning, etc... and is very much a sum of all the parts synergisticly performing as one to achieve my desired results. Not to mention the cost which incidentally was substantial as I prefer buying new, knowing very well I wont be letting any of this go. Hows it sound?
Very musically satisfying as well as involving, TREMENDOUS!!!
Regards /// Tim W... /// |
