Which Way To Go?

Let us discuss as to which way the audiophiles should go?

this way.....no music sounds good without a shot of single malt on rocks or red wine or chilled beer..aarrghh but with dim lights

it depends on individual tastes. When it happened to debate among my freind's circle many seniors not accepted other formats like DVD-Audio even SACD & were wished to stick to the regular stereo format. May be that purists doedn't want their music signals to under go too much processing

Good one kspv, Frankly I am yet to hear Hi-res multichannel audio. Rather I am yet to hear good Vinyl setups also. Long back I heard a few LPs at my friends place played on a Philips TT and thats all the experience I have with Vinyls.
So basically in 2 channel I have only seen tapes and cds all the time. In multichannel I have heard a few DTS tracks in 5.1 setups. So Looking at my limited exposure to audio I am open to go in either direction. My gut says that neither can replace the other. Formats and sampling can change and so can the media but pure Stereo is so world apart from multichannel that its almost like Apples Vs Oranges. I wanna eat both according to my appetite.

I feel with multi channel format (5.1, 6.1, 7.1) it envelopes a listener better ...as the evolution from mono to stereo and stereo to multi..

May be that purists doedn't want their music signals to under go too much processing

aaahhh these purists are one bunch of specimen who can't accept the fact that there is something better than what they beleive in..

I feel that (if mixed properly) multichannel music can have more engrossing capability but again it may take the focus out of the listener. In other words, people (most of us) who are used to 2 channel music may find multichannel distracting. My personal feeling is all music may not go well in multichannel format. For example, if you are a fan of blues artistes like John Mayall, Eric Clapton, Peter Green, you may not find it great because there the music style is simple and not much layered. But for lovers of Phychadelic music or music with lot of effect should do well in multichannel format. Mixing is very important. I really want listen albums like Floyd's DSOTM, T. Rex's 'Electric Warrior' in multichannel format. I also feel Western Classical should sound good in multichannel but Indian classical is better suited for 2 channel. However SACDs are supposed to perform better than normal ACDs even in 2 channel. That's good.

I should stop now before anybody points out that I am assuming too much.

you are right disk. Further my doubt is in multichannel music 6.1 or 7.1 etc will it not that soundstage, imaging focus etc all what we talk about becomes Unrealistic?

hi just surfing the marantz site for a receiver and here is something faq's on dvd-a and sacd-
things like whats going to last etc and whats better-
check it out
regs
anirvan

http://www.marantz.c...t.FAQ&cont=as&bus=hf

DVD-audio or SACD does not necessarily have to be multi channel. These were designed to get more info into the digital storage format to make it sound more analogue and natural. There are very few recordings in this format though. So you have a long way to go before you throw your redbook cds away. In fact I would say that 90 percent audio systems do not extract all the info from Redbook cds even now. It is basically for people who are not satisfied with RBCD after extracting their full potential.
Some recordings like pink Floyd or new age electronica with lot of ambient information sound slightly better on a well setup multichannel audio systems other wise I don’t see any reason for listening to audio on multi channel. Artists stand in front of you and play for you always. Why do you want the music info to shift behind you when they were not there in the first place. It sounds highly un-natural to me.

Why do you want the music info to shift behind you when they were not there in the first place. It sounds highly un-natural to me.

I would only prefer to hear only claps , applause from surrounds..gives me a feelin I'm in front row

True, where multichannel is used in movies for making it more real (landing of a figher plane or sound of creatures chasing you)...in case of music multichannel actually makes unrealistic, but anyway many people may still prefer it.

I would only prefer to hear only claps , applause from surrounds..gives me a feelin I'm in front row

Hey Sub, then 've a nice 5.1 receiver + DVD palyer with 5.1 spk setup, you 'll enjoy music DVDs better

Why do you want the music info to shift behind you when they were not there in the first place. It sounds highly un-natural to me.

Yeh Sq wave, I too was thinking same May be finally it's all about taste.

I would only prefer to hear only claps , applause from surrounds..gives me a feelin I'm in front row Hey Sub, then 've a nice 5.1 receiver + DVD palyer with 5.1 spk setup, you 'll enjoy music DVDs better

music has to be from front speakers as we always sit in front of musicians than having them around...it's just the lesser audience seated at the back have to clap

Coming back to Square wave's point, I have also felt the music from SACDs to be more engrossing and richer. It felt less digital....less harsh on some notes. I have quite a few SACDs (They are almost the same price or lower). Can somebody come up with a logical explanation as to why the CD layer of an SACD should be better than a normal ACD or is it my imagination at play??

Question - why does music need to sound "natural" and like a "stage" for it to be engrossing and enjoyed? Does that mean we can never enjoy anything that is unnatural? Surround channels definitely have the potential to bring out ambience and effects that are surreal but more enjoyable than live music. If one prefers live music and wants to connect his every listening session to live music, so be it - but thats not the same as saying 2 channel is always better than multi because it is more real!

Just because we are limited in a real world stage setup, why do we have to be limited in the electronic world too? Go out and enjoy the violin leaping up at you from beinhd or the piano meandering around in the backround..!

While on the topic, is 2-Ch perfectly capable of producing the complete imaging perfectly? For instance, how does stereo recording/reproduction differentiate the same sound that originates say 1m away and 2m away from recording position? Apart from loudness (which is anyway variable), there is nothing else to differentiate in the information - whereas in real life the ear's internal reflections can differnetiate the angle at which the sound strikes it! Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated highly!

ravi schrieb:

Question - why does music need to sound "natural" and like a "stage" for it to be engrossing and enjoyed? Does that mean we can never enjoy anything that is unnatural? Surround channels definitely have the potential to bring out ambience and effects that are surreal but more enjoyable than live music. If one prefers live music and wants to connect his every listening session to live music, so be it - but thats not the same as saying 2 channel is always better than multi because it is more real!

The name of the game is 2-ch therefore we call it HiFi , ever go to a concert or a live jazz show hear the music come from the rear!! NO it’s a good marketing on the part of Sony and Philips that’s all nothing more nothing less.

ravi schrieb:

Just because we are limited in a real world stage setup, why do we have to be limited in the electronic world too? Go out and enjoy the violin leaping up at you from beinhd or the piano meandering around in the backround..!

Well I'll stick with the same as above here.

ravi schrieb:

While on the topic, is 2-Ch perfectly capable of producing the complete imaging perfectly? For instance, how does stereo recording/reproduction differentiate the same sound that originates say 1m away and 2m away from recording position? Apart from loudness (which is anyway variable), there is nothing else to differentiate in the information - whereas in real life the ear's internal reflections can differnetiate the angle at which the sound strikes it! Any enlightenment on this would be appreciated highly!

Well listen to well setup stereo and you will listen and see all the layers that were recorded, every heard a speaker image outside the axis properly?, a well setup system will convey the rec the way it is, a surround system will always exaggerate it.

sbfx,

Thanks, but nothing out of the ordinary in what you have said. However I was trying to get out of a well here.

HIFI needs to be defined. I think HIFI does NOT necessarily mean fidelity to original sound - some sounds never existed as sounds in air before they came onto a CD! HIFI does necessarily include fidelity to the waveforms recorded - either by mic capture or by synthesis! Anyway the above is just a matter of whether we discuss this here or in a different forum (not called hifi forum), but if listening pleasure is what we are seeking here and not necessarily hifi, the question remains!

That being the case there is every reason to include surreal sounds into a recocrding to enhance it. Aftera ll it is the listening pleasure that counts. Lets say an alien never heard live music and hears a reproduction for the first time - what would be capable of giving him listening pleasure? Just because we connect to live music does not necessarily mean that is most pleasurable - there are other ways that could be even more pleasureable. Thats is what I think the goal of multi channel can be.

As for stero reproduction I was interested more in technical details of how it is accomplished, not in the fact that it can be accomplished. Any original papers or references with physical/mathematical/biological details would help; because I cannot intuitively figure out the mechanics of reproducing layered sound, the layering being on the axis but at different distances from listener!

Hi Ravi,

Well I agree that a recording has to be enjoyable and not necessarily live music or for that matter all recordings are fun to listen to, it’s a flavor everyone enjoys.

Every venue for a live show is also going to be different in acoustics, also there are so many audiophile labels who try their best to enhance the recordings for guys like us to enjoy it but most of the times they sound over-produced.

But there is a fundamental difference between 2-ch and 5-ch recordings, we at least I can't enjoy music coming from the center or the rear channel it gets irritating as I'm not used to such a presentation, I recently heard the goldmund setup 5-ch at the Taiwan show and it just drove me away from the room but in 2-ch it was a different story as I could relate to what was happening.

Either which way to each his own, the point is to enjoy it.


Regards,

Satyam.

As rightly said by Satyam, it's only taste/listening styles matters. We cannot apply too much science to music since music is not a perfet science.

Is it authentic? That's the only question you should ask.
Music recorded in 2 channels should be heard on 2 speakers.
Music recorded in 6 channels should be heard on 6 speakers.

Avoid converting music from one format to the other. There is a noticeable quality loss and the sound turns artificial. Authentic 5.1 music on a home theater (capable of music reproduction) is well worth listening to. The only problem is how much music is actually 'recorded' in 5.1

you fail to realise that once something is captured on mic and amplified and digitized(or even recorded on analog media)u lose the so called originality..
amplifying itself is a big mistake....what u hear live, by live, i mean in a concert with the singer singing without a mic and without amplifiers (same for the instruments) that's original quality..
so the talk about 2 or mutlicahnnel music is like picking the lesser of the 2 evils.
u should understand that whatever you do, how much ever u spend u will not be able to get that original feeling. period!
I learnt this long time back and have no qualms about it.

how much ever u may not like to want to believe this view the thing is that even justifying that it is okay if u get close to the reeal thing its enough is not sufficient enough..

being there is so much more better than, being almost there.

benkenobi schrieb:

you fail to realise that once something is captured on mic and amplified and digitized(or even recorded on analog media)u lose the so called originality.. amplifying itself is a big mistake....what u hear live, by live, i mean in a concert with the singer singing without a mic and without amplifiers (same for the instruments) that's original quality..

Come on Sir now that’s wishful thinking tell me when have you gone to a live show where the vocalist wasn’t singing thru a mic there’s a slim chance of that happening unless they are kind enough to sing in you room

benkenobi schrieb:

so the talk about 2 or mutlicahnnel music is like picking the lesser of the 2 evils. u should understand that whatever you do, how much ever u spend u will not be able to get that original feeling. period! I learnt this long time back and have no qualms about it. how much ever u may not like to want to believe this view the thing is that even justifying that it is okay if u get close to the reeal thing its enough is not sufficient enough.. being there is so much more better than, being almost there.

Well here in this specific topic of 2-ch V/S 5-ch there’s a fundamental difference if according to you one can never achieve the SQ that is real then in the case of 5-ch you have MISSED the WHOLE point cause music NEVER sounds like that, there’s only one soundstage that is in front of you and nothing in the rear.


Regards,

Satyam.

hey! am not justifying any position..
am only saying that true music in its untainted form can never be surpassesd and cannoted be imitated..
yes! it is kind of unrealistic, but don't go around justifying things that are not accurate.

i have heard some concerts where the singer alone accompanied by instruments with no electronics to do their thing.
its heavenly and cannot be matched, at least with the present technology.

I agree to the position that attaining the same feel and quality of un-amplified performance is difficult. But that is a different topic altogether. We are talking about 2 channel vs multichannel. It is the question of what takes you closer to the feel of artists standing in front of you playing for you. Quality of the sound depends of your stereo, recording, setup, room etc… If everything is the same, then it is two channel that takes you closer to the actual performance provided artists playing in front of you on a stage is your “reference”. I can’t think of any other reference so it is my chosen format for music.

square_wave schrieb:

I agree to the position that attaining the same feel and quality of un-amplified performance is difficult. But that is a different topic altogether. We are talking about 2 channel vs multichannel. It is the question of what takes you closer to the feel of artists standing in front of you playing for you. Quality of the sound depends of your stereo, recording, setup, room etc… If everything is the same, then it is two channel that takes you closer to the actual performance provided artists playing in front of you on a stage is your “reference”. I can’t think of any other reference so it is my chosen format for music.

read carefully..
"being there is so much more better than, being almost there."

and i am not commenting about either form reproduction of music..what i am trying to insuniate is that the so called stereo effect or any other effect as being pure is flawed when seen in its rudimentary, purest sense ..

Like Ravi says, what matters is whether you enjoy it..or not

benkenobi schrieb:

and i am not commenting about either form reproduction of music..what i am trying to insuniate is that the so called stereo effect or any other effect as being pure is flawed when seen in its rudimentary, purest sense .. Like Ravi says, what matters is whether you enjoy it..or not

True. Both are flawed to a certain extent. But I need to choose what is closer to the truth, right ?

Finally I am back! My seven year old son altered the CMOS settings on my PC, and I spent my Saturday and Sunday trying to get the PC up again.

Appropos Square_wave's posting at #9,

"...90 percent audio systems do not extract all the info from Redbook cds even now. It is basically for people who are not satisfied with RBCD after extracting their full potential..."

Could he elaborate a little more?

Appropos Ravi's posting, sometime back I saw on the net the original notes and drawings of A.D. Blumlein (dated 25th September, 1931), as to how a well-made two channel recording can create the exact ambience of live music. I will try to post the link if I am able to locate the site. But aren't the recordings of companies like Chesky ample testimonies to the fact that two-channel recordings can be spectacularly realistic?

benkenobi schrieb:

and i am not commenting about either form reproduction of music..what i am trying to insuniate is that the so called stereo effect or any other effect as being pure is flawed when seen in its rudimentary, purest sense ..

Stereo is the purest option available for us if it wasn’t for it then we both wouldn’t be in this hobby or be chatting about it at all


Regards,

Satyam Bachani.

again you go about it being 'pure'..arguably stereo would seem like the thing we wil have to live with for some time...but does'nt mean its 'pure' or accurate.

Kspv,
A good RBCD recording from cheskey or JVC xrcd contains so much information to make music sound quite natural. The reason why rbcd's sometimes sound bad is not because of the limitation of the format. Most cases it is due to the bad recording and mastering/copying/disk duplication process or a bad setup. A very good stereo optimally setup can extract so much out of rbcds. Most of us are not even there yet. So theoretically speaking, a SACD is not going to make much difference to an average hifi system.

Benkenobi,
We can only talk about the options available to us now. So unless something else which is superior to two channel stereo comes along, I am sticking to 2-channel.I have heard fantastic 2-channel setups which recreates the performance very realistically. For me the new option is definitely not multi-channel when it comes to pure music listening. We are talking about 2ch vs multi for music. So this opinion is based only on these TWO options.

man why can't you guys get what i am trying to convey..
am only saying that stereo is not as accurate as u guys think it is..
hell i too am stuck with it cause i have no other alternative..
all i am saying is that claims about stereo being 'original' is not true. that's all..
let's just move along then.

ravi schrieb:

sbfx, HIFI needs to be defined. I think HIFI does NOT necessarily mean fidelity to original sound - some sounds never existed as sounds in air before they came onto a CD! HIFI does necessarily include fidelity to the waveforms recorded - either by mic capture or by synthesis! Anyway the above is just a matter of whether we discuss this here or in a different forum (not called hifi forum), but if listening pleasure is what we are seeking here and not necessarily hifi, the question remains!

Ravi,

This is a good observation. HIFI includes many boom boxes ...it also refers to insanely expensive systems like Zanden, Gryphon, Burmester, etc.,

However, there are two different audience

1) Like you said, people who want "effects" and sound that is "digitally (DSP)" enhanced over above the "original performance"

2) The other crowd..that wants the "original performance" and nothing more. Practically, it may not be possible to reproduce the "original performance", but people pay a fortune to get as close as possible.

Before you ask, let me explain the reasons why people want the second option.

If you regularly listen to "live" Jazz or Classical music, you will get to know that the magic behind the music is due to various factors such as

* Harmonics
* The true timber of the various instrument
* Intricate tonal variations involved in various tunes/melody
* .. and more

Various technical factors needs to be correct in order to reproduce this magic at home

* Dynamics (Ability to distinguish a 3 db sound from a 6db sound, in a very obvious manner)
* Balanced Frequency Response
* Transient response
* Phase coherence
* Distortion
* Jitter
* Resolution
* ...and more

Getting the above technical factors to match with "Nature" is almost impossible, given today's technical abilities. But people strive hard for that.

Before a music is reprocued at home, it has already passed various stages..

1) Recording
2) Converting the recording to digital format
3) Making prints of the recording (CD press)
4) Reproducing analgue informaiton from digital formal
5) Amplify and reproduce the analogue signal at home

Perfection of technical factors at each stage is important to make this chain reproduce sound that is closest to "Nature".

There is information about music lost at each stage...but the maximum loss happens in your home ( step 4 & 5)...

While SACD and DVD-A improves the "step 1 & 2" of this chain of events, you cannot realize the improvements, until "step 4 & 5" is capable of bringing out the difference.

So before you come to conclusion on this discussion, take effort to listen to an expensive setup....probably one belonging to someone, who has been an audiophile for many years. Unless you do so, you might not understand what i'm talking about..

Cheers
Siva.

Very true............

Siva,

I am thankful for your observations. But I am absolutely clueless as to where you got the idea that I have not listened to "expensive" hifi setups and jazz. Everytime somebody talks against established norms on this forum there are a host of "advices" to listen to high end setups and you will learn etc etc. On the same note, anybody asking for advice on a new setup gets a host of replies asking him to listen for himself and decide. I suggest we all stop posting anymore on this forum and go and listen and listen and listen until we grow old and die - there is really no place for discussion in this forum - everybody wants to play one-upmanship and show that they are the only experts around and have heard things that other people only dream about.

Please now, come out of your well and stop these assumptions that everybody around you is clueless and inexperienced. To set the record straight I have listened to some of the most expensive systems costing above $100k, installed by experts in the field, in fully acoustically treated rooms, to all sorts of music from Indian cinema to Jazz to western classical. Also I have been listening, understanding and designing audio systems ever since I was a kid, if that helps. But I dont go on one track thinking the world is closed and the last word on Hifi has been said. I have no qualms about admitting the facts and looking out of the established norms. As big-ears once pointed out this all might be anathema to audiophiles and so the reactions are expected - well if it is, let it be so.

Why are boomboxes being brought in here and what have they go to do with HIFI? I though I was clear in when I described HIFI - they should reproduce the recorded material faithfully - boomboxes are not in this league. Also, dont bring in DSP and enhancements to "original performance" or recording - I never said anything to that effect. All I said is HIFI should reproduce what the music composer and recording artist intended us to hear - nothing more, nothing less. If the music composer introduces artificial effects and the recording engineer uses multichannel for better enjoyment, I would not mind using multichannel. Its still HIFI. One cant argue against that.

okay...for all those who think stereo is the best..
are you suggesting that say for example, a musical display by Yanni, like the one recorded live in the Forbidden city in open air with all the intricate notes and the array of instruments can all be captured accurately and reproduced faithfully(okay lets give it a leeway of about 5% just to be realistic)...
come on..not with the world's best stereo system will this be possible.won't even come close

come on..not with the world's best stereo system will this be possible.won't even come close

not at all! music is best heard in a live show provided we are in a theatre and not open air concerts. Again there would be reflections in a closed theatre no matter how good the acoustic treatments are done. So music is faithful only when a singer sings in your ear..

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

So music is faithful only when a singer sings in your ear.. :D

Thank you!!
exactly what i have been hinting all along..
no matter how much you are going to pay for ur audio system...the artist still won't be present in your living room will he?

If the music composer introduces artificial effects and the recording engineer uses multichannel for better enjoyment,

ravi, you would turn 90 before you've a good collection of recordings where the recording engineer has not added boom and tizz. I agree some Jazz numbers are plain and straight, but I don't listen to JAzz always .I listen to pop, disco ,rock , metal, desi music..so tell me guys are these Cd's recorded without slam factors introduced by engineers..

no matter how much you are going to pay for ur audio system...the artist still won't be present in your living room will he

If mariah carey could come into my room I would spend a lots on Audio

That's very true..and who knows what kind of digital effects they introduce into artists's voice to make them bearable at the very least. For all we know they may be horrible 'bathroom' singers.

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

If mariah carey could come into my room I would spend a lots on Audio

Why would you need audio anymore ;-))

Say folks,

You didn't fully understand what I said. 2 channel is best if the band is in front of you, which is usually the case.

However, if you walk through a jungle, you will hear birds chirping and various other sounds from all around you. That should be recorded and played back on a multi-channel system. Just because bands usually play on a stage, that does not mean that if the members of the band choose to play all around you, it would sound worse. In fact, it would give you a closer connection to the music if it were all around you. But the recording and playback would need to be very accurate to achieve this.

Fidelity is trueness to the source. The source is a recording session at a studio. Live recording is very rare. If you listen to Dido even on an inexpensive system like Pulz, it sounds like she is singing in your ear. That's good enough for me.

Neutral,
you hit the nail right on the head on all points.

If a band stands all around me and plays, I would want to run away. It will sound very un-natural. I prefer to be somewhere in a row forming an equilateral triangle with the perimeters of the band performing in front of me so that I get a focused picture of the full sound stage.

looks like we're back to where we started, eh square?

yup

u guys r discussing about multichannel music versus stereo set up well i just enjoy my music thru headphones which i feel is some times better then stereo setups
*IGNORANCE IS BLISS*

actually that is the better choice since there is hardly any extraneous noise..

but a word of caution though, Headphones need to be used judiciously cause they are detrimental to your ears..nonetheless i use headphones for playing games and for all activities on the comp.

Pramod has made a brilliant observation. Indeed, decent headphones (Koss, Sennheiser) can sometimes put high-end speakers to shame. There is a reason why this happens. Between you and your high-end speakers, there is your room which plays a profound role in the way you perceive the music. Room acoustics are absent between you and your headphone speakers.

Loud-speakers send sound to you in much the same way sound occurs naturally. If a tree falls in the forest and you're the only one nearby, you hear the sound after its traveled and after it has interacted with other trees, the ground, plants, wildlife, etc. Some of the flora and fauna absorb sound waves, others reflect them; all of them slightly alter the sound of the tree falling.

Headphones present listeners with a set of circumstances very unlike those presented by speakers, making the two listening experiences something of a comparison between apples and oranges. Because headphones put a pair of speakers right on your head, there is very little space between the source of sound and your ears. So there's little travel time and minimal reflection or absorption of sound, though the phones' earpads, grilles, foam inserts, and the contours of your ears may cause little changes in sound.