Thread: Blu-ray Audio now live

Posts: 165
Page: prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17

Post by Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui August 26, 2014 (161 of 165)
Andrew Everard said:

A new release of one of the most celebrated classical recordings – Allegri: Miserere - Tallis Scholars – is designed to broaden the appeal of high-resolution surround sound...
http://andreweverard.com/2013/11/19/so-is-pure-audio-blu-ray-the-solution-to-hi-res-music-format-bafflement/

Of current concerns, it's good we refer back to this Thread ?


Today, Ubertrout's reply /showthread/111632/121880#121880 ; another time...


Well, Andrew, let's add here his 'Pure Audio Blu-ray' Post , further excerpt :
"for others any product not supporting DSD in its various forms is dead in the water.

And then there’s the whole problem of stereo vs surround: should we be concentrating on the best two-channel playback we can achieve, or going for what is basically an AV system optimised for audio..."

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 August 26, 2014 (162 of 165)
Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui said:

...

"And then there’s the whole problem of stereo vs surround: should we be concentrating on the best two-channel playback we can achieve, or going for what is basically an AV system optimised for audio..."

For most, that might not be a simple question, especially since todays's base of recordings and home music listeners and their systems are still very much 2-channel centric. Few indeed are even the dealerships where you can hear the difference between 2- and multi-channel. Few indeed are the equipment or music reviewers who even acknowledge the existence of Mch, let alone SACD or Blu-ray for music.

Best sound is defined by each individual based on their experience and sensibilities. I have my own definition, more or less in line with Harry Pearson's from the old, not the current, The Abso!ute Sound days. I want my home music playback to approach the sound of live acoustic instruments in real space, i. e., as it is at certain live concerts under good acoustic conditions. Classical music provides an excellent standard for this, since one can attend live concerts and carry home in one's mind the sonic impressions of that live event. Classical recordings attempt, at their best, to capture that sound in the same or similar concert venues, most of which are chosen because they have good acoustic properties for the purpose. And, the venue provides much more than a sense of space, reverb, etc. It affects the very tonality of the sound we hear.

Discretely recorded Mch better captures the characteristics of a live event, starting with mike placement to achieve a balance of live tonality together with spatial cues, most of which 2-channel cannot get right. The sense of space is the obvious difference, since 2-ch cannot surround you with hall reflections from as many directions. Your room is not big enough or acoustically pure enough, typically, so it cannot make up the difference and re synthesize the reflected energy of a large or even a small hall with any degree of accuracy - the Bose Fallacy. Also,the direction from which most of the spatial cues are to reemerge on playback has been lost in the 2 ch mix. Your room alone cannot put a proper sense of space back where it should be. There is no information in 2 ch to direct it correctly.

The mikes and the mixing process in 2 ch also sum out or otherwise alter some of the out of phase information between direct and reflected sound audible in the hall. A good 2ch mixing and mastering job might succeed in somewhat recapturing that. But, I believe that issue is better resolved on playback via multiple discrete channels to deliver more accurate tonality, often more natural and warmer sounding, among other things, than 2ch. Additional speakers at the center and around the room help greatly in that.

The bottom line is I just hardly ever listen to stereo anymore, except for the occasional historic recording of special merit musically. Mch is quite simply far better at delivering a replica of live concert sound than 2ch ever was or will be. It simply captures and reproduces more information from the live event, much of that information just not present in 2ch.

After decades of seeking ever better stereo reproduction vs. my live concert experience, I finally realized that 2 ch itself was the limiting factor. Auditioning countless, highly praised and highly priced pieces of gear and spending considerable sums on my evolving 2 ch setup finally revealed that limit. No amount of spending on stereo can overcome it. So, ever more pristine and costly equipment is not the answer. Much less expensive Mch gear, even a well chosen, but heretical, A/V system optimized for music, can reproduce concert hall realism better than any stereo can dream of.

Mch is one of the great breakthroughs of the past 15 years or so in audio, and one of the greatest ever. Unfortunately, mainly classical music listeners who go to live concerts and who have good quality Mch systems are the only ones who really do get a good sense of how outstanding it really is in providing more faithful and accurate music reproduction. And, we are but a tiny niche within a niche. But, my sense is we have grown and are growing.

Post by Fugue August 26, 2014 (163 of 165)
Wilhelm—Xu Zhong-Rui said:


And then there’s the whole problem of stereo vs surround: should we be concentrating on the best two-channel playback we can achieve, or going for what is basically an AV system optimised for audio..."

I used to be a die-hard surround sound listener, but too many labels have far too much direct sound in the rear channels for my taste (Channel Classics and Ars, to name two), which sounds very unrealistic and ruins the imaging. Then there's the matter of pedestrian performances: I'd much rather listen to Karajan's Mahler or Bruckner on RBCD than any I've heard from Pentatone or Channel Classics; again, just to name two. I only buy SACDs now when the performance is equal to or better than my RBCDs, or if the music is only available on SACD.

Post by Fitzcaraldo215 August 26, 2014 (164 of 165)
Fugue said:

I used to be a die-hard surround sound listener, but too many labels have far too much direct sound in the rear channels for my taste (Channel Classics and Ars, to name two), which sounds very unrealistic and ruins the imaging. Then there's the matter of pedestrian performances: I'd much rather listen to Karajan's Mahler or Bruckner on RBCD than any I've heard from Pentatone or Channel Classics; again, just to name two. I only buy SACDs now when the performance is equal to or better than my RBCDs, or if the music is only available on SACD.

As I said, best sound is defined by each individual. But, your description of the Mch sound of Channel Classics or Ars clearly points to a setup problem. In a properly set up Mch system, there should be no awareness of the surround channels. They disappear, unless you switch back to stereo, in which case the sound field shrinks, frontal soundstage depth and width is dimished along with other tell tale indicators of the switch.

There is a defined protocol per the ITU standard for achieving proper, measured inter-channel balances in Mch, which is fairly simple and straightforward. It cannot be done properly by ear alone or by haphazard speaker angular setup. The bulk of my Mch collection just does not sound in my system as you describe. Nor, does it in other top flight, properly calibrated Mch systems I have heard at great length.

Musical preferences are, of course, different from sonic ones that are based on perceived greater realism. I used to insist on THE one recording, usually a critically acclaimed version of a work. But, going to a lot of live concerts has taught me many things. One is that there are many valid approaches to great musical interpretation, and no one, not Karajan or anyone, has the last word on interpretation, legend though he might be. Not that I always like someone else's different approach, but they are often rewarding in their own way. So, being flexible and adaptable about interpretation means I need not be subject to the generally mediocre sound of, say, Karajan recordings more frequently than I care to be. Personally, my limited and precious listening time is less about analysis of performance/interpretation and more about emotionally and intellectually luxuriating in great musical works of art, ideally, in live concert sound or the next best thing, which is hi rez Mch. But, to each his own.

Post by Fugue August 26, 2014 (165 of 165)
Fitzcaraldo215 said:

As I said, best sound is defined by each individual. But, your description of the Mch sound of Channel Classics or Ars clearly points to a setup problem. In a properly set up Mch system, there should be no awareness of the surround channels. They disappear, unless you switch back to stereo, in which case the sound field shrinks, frontal soundstage depth and width is dimished along with other tell tale indicators of the switch.

I don't have that problem with Linn, BIS,or most Challenge Classics; mainly just the two that I mentioned and probably a few esoteric labels whose names escape me...oh yeah, Oehms, too. Oh well.

Page: prev 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17

Closed