Post by eesau May 11, 2008 (1 of 12)
|
|
Hi,
some people in this discussion forum don't understand the importance of SACD multichannel playback.
Actually, I believe that this format would be dead like DVD-A if we did not have all the multichannel
classical music in SACD format. This really is a life and death question for SACD.
Lately I have tried to poll the opinions with two emails to this forum:
/showthread/28015//y?page=first
The approximate vote was 15+ for multichannel and 5+ for stereo only and about three were neutral.
This poll was for the multichannel supporters to give their votes.
Then I also made a question for the anti-multichannel people:
/showthread/28049//y?page=first
I counted about four anti-multichannel answer but because "raffells" did not vote, let's make it five.
(We know raffells opinions see e.g. the strange jokes he makes: /showthread/28041//y?page=first)
About ten people said that they cannot invest into a multichannel system because of the cost and size.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I further went through all the SACD reviews of the past year and this is what I came up with:
171 individuals have reviewed SACDs during the last 12 months and 94 i.e. 55% of them also review multichannel playback.
The rest i.e. 45% reviewers are stereo only.
The 94 multichannel reviewers have reviewed 2006 SACDs that makes 21 on average.
The 77 stereo only reviewers have reviewed 1158 SACDs that makes 15 on average.
Altogether from the beginning of sacd.net and among these 171 reviewers,
. top three reviewers were multichannel reviewers
. 13 multichannel reviewers have reviewed more than 50 SACDs
. 7 stereo reviewers have reviewed more than 50 SACDs
So, I believe that among the SACD buyers, more than 50% are looking for multichannel SACDs and they buy more SACDs
than the stereo only buyers.This happens simply because this group is very enthusiastic about the fidelity of the multichannel sound.
My estimate is that at least about 80% of all SACD purchases are done based on the attractiveness of multichannel sound
reproduction.
best regards,
Esa
|
|
|
|
|
|
eesau said:
Hi,
some people in this discussion forum don't understand the importance of SACD multichannel playback.
Actually, I believe that this format would be dead like DVD-A if we did not have all the multichannel
classical music in SACD format. This really is a life and death question for SACD.
Lately I have tried to poll the opinions with two emails to this forum:
/showthread/28015//y?page=first
The approximate vote was 15+ for multichannel and 5+ for stereo only and about three were neutral.
This poll was for the multichannel supporters to give their votes.
Then I also made a question for the anti-multichannel people:
/showthread/28049//y?page=first
I counted about four anti-multichannel answer but because "raffells" did not vote, let's make it five.
(We know raffells opinions see e.g. the strange jokes he makes: /showthread/28041//y?page=first)
About ten people said that they cannot invest into a multichannel system because of the cost and size.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I further went through all the SACD reviews of the past year and this is what I came up with:
171 individuals have reviewed SACDs during the last 12 months and 94 i.e. 55% of them also review multichannel playback.
The rest i.e. 45% reviewers are stereo only.
The 94 multichannel reviewers have reviewed 2006 SACDs that makes 21 on average.
The 77 stereo only reviewers have reviewed 1158 SACDs that makes 15 on average.
Altogether from the beginning of sacd.net and among these 171 reviewers,
. top three reviewers were multichannel reviewers
. 13 multichannel reviewers have reviewed more than 50 SACDs
. 7 stereo reviewers have reviewed more than 50 SACDs
So, I believe that among the SACD buyers, more than 50% are looking for multichannel SACDs and they buy more SACDs
than the stereo only buyers.This happens simply because this group is very enthusiastic about the fidelity of the multichannel sound.
My estimate is that at least about 80% of all SACD purchases are done based on the attractiveness of multichannel sound
reproduction.
best regards,
Esa
You are living in your own dream world
Creating STATISTICS out of desperation. ? THESE are meaningless/
If you really want to try a FIGHT.I will get an independant to correctly
analyse the reports back. You wont like the response.
Its wishfull thinking that the very few people who bother to respond to these threads is in any way representative of the the buying publiceven when you twist the replies into statistics.
.
Personally I cannot respond to a stereo only thread request as I have been a a surround sound enthusiast for longer than you.So dont alter your meaningless figures.
I still have surround as my spare ,backup system./ Its probably a lot better than yours.? Its till poorer than my stereo and is artificial.
I also know more about surround than you.
Also
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MORE DISCUSSIONS OVER 25 YEARS THAN YOU AND CAN POINT OUT AND CORRECT THE WEAKNESS OF ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE RATHER FEEBLE Groundhog day enthusiasts here.
Pointing out these weaknesses wont make the slightest bit of difference.
Ive also have been involved in experts discussion as to how it works ,How it kids people ?.
I have tried to advance the thinking and explanations ABOVE the "I had two people listen to my system and said it was GREAT" which has appeared many times on non surround sound threads. ie What I call Groundhog day posts.
TRY reading my comments that these do more harm than good.
The fact you cannot see the obvious as to how I personally have kept the topic rolling is a sign of your petty chearleading blind attitude.
I have reperatly mentioned that this subject is spoilt by the rather childish "surround is better" brigade because ??????????? Nothing yet has been stated as proof..2 people whithin the the trade stating how much metter it is loses out against the many thousands who havent said the same? These are JUST opiinions.Like mine,,,Its a different presentation.Ive seen surround die a few times( at my cost)
You will note I dont post negative surround reviews.ie even when the surround sound ping pong effects front to rear and fronts to rear diaganol distract from the presentation I dont comment.Some new kids on the block rave about these benefits.
Many long term listeners prefer not to try to dissuade these enthusiasts as they just want better quality stereo.
If you check the responses you could easily identify that surround listeners are the poorest listeners when it comes to sonics,ie I cant tell any difference between hi rez and cd. Move the sound nearer to their earlugs and they think they hear better.? enough said.
I fell for it myself many years ago.Stopped listening with my ear to the concert wall many years ago.Like a few others have commented I can clearly hear the reflective sounds from behind and above the orchestra as well as the sides in front of me.
Do I really want the rear wall etc NO.
Im listening to the music not the walls even in surround.
Surround is a hanger on to the hi quality sacd listener and probably has stopped many releases in 2 channel stereo.Therby holding back its progress/
I am happy to have had both but gradually just listen to stereo and the music not the artificial closeness.Being There ? My R s.common joke in the Uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people who buy into SACD are looking for multichannel releases. I listen to both stereo and multichannel, but would give my eye teeth for 4 channel recordings from the 70s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Most people who buy into SACD are looking for multichannel releases. I listen to both stereo and multichannel, but would give my eye teeth for 4 channel recordings from the 70s.
And another one! Imagine the full treasures that EMI, DGG, Decca etc. have locked away in their archives... At least we are getting the Philips releases and one shouldn't be greedy but I can't help but be tempted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Most people who buy into SACD are looking for multichannel releases. to both , but would give my eye teeth for 4 channel recordings from the 70s.
Same old GroundhogDay unprooved statement Dootchy.
This is what I complained about.Where are your facts.?
Please dont tell me YET again that you had two visitors that came and listed to your mismatched system,We have heard this so many times that Im begining to think I was there.
I do agree that I would like to hear some of the 4 channel (which I think is superior to 5)ESPECIALLY EMI releases in high rez.Ive got a number in DTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Same old GroundhogDay unprooved statement Dootchy.
This is what I complained about.Where are your facts.?
Please dont tell me YET again that you had two visitors that came and listed to your mismatched system,We have heard this so many times that Im begining to think I was there.
I do agree that I would like to hear some of the 4 channel (which I think is superior to 5)ESPECIALLY EMI releases in high rez.Ive got a number in DTS.
Sorry, but my system is matched. Next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find multi-channel SACD far far superior to Stereo SACD and it is the downplaying of multi-channel SACD by the Media that belives multi-channel discussion upsets their backward 2 channel stereo only readers that is slowing down sales. It is so easy to accomodate multi-channel SACD within a 5.1 Home Cinema system although I find only 4 speakers are required. Even a cheap universal DVD player Marantz DV6001 that decodes DSD will sound far better than an expensive stereo only model Marantz SA-7S1. I did have both and sold off my Marantz SA-7S1 as I found the stereo only SACD performance to be very poor. Furthermore the RB CD performance of this too heavy overated machine is no where near as musical as my 20 year old Marantz CD94 (modified)
|
|
|
Post by duchski November 5, 2008 (8 of 12)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
I find multi-channel SACD far far superior to Stereo SACD and it is the downplaying of multi-channel SACD by the Media that belives multi-channel discussion upsets their backward 2 channel stereo only readers that is slowing down sales. It is so easy to accomodate multi-channel SACD within a 5.1 Home Cinema system although I find only 4 speakers are required. Even a cheap universal DVD player Marantz DV6001 that decodes DSD will sound far better than an expensive stereo only model Marantz SA-7S1. I did have both and sold off my Marantz SA-7S1 as I found the stereo only SACD performance to be very poor. Furthermore the RB CD performance of this too heavy overated machine is no where near as musical as my 20 year old Marantz CD94 (modified)
Superior, inferior. Why do we even compare? It's matter of preference. The only thing we should focus on is survival of the format and availability of players that can support both modes of playback. It should be the listener's choice.
|
|
|
Post by tream November 5, 2008 (9 of 12)
|
|
duchski said:
Superior, inferior. Why do we even compare? It's matter of preference. The only thing we should focus on is survival of the format and availability of players that can support both modes of playback. It should be the listener's choice.
Yes, which is what makes the hybrid format so appealing. The listener gets to decide.
The posts that have resonated the most with me with respect to the multichannel vs stereo experience are those who have mentioned the extra dimensionality that multichannel brings, and the concert hall realism that attends. Raffells prefers 4.0 to 5.0 or 5.1 - my very favorite SACD's from a sound perspective might be the Pentatone RQR's (all 4.0 of course), but I put this down to the use of analog in the original recordings rather than digital, and not 4.0 vs 5.X. My second favorite may be the SFS Mahler series, done in 5.1 DSD, which give the uncanny feeling of being in Davies Hall, a place where I have listened to a tremendous amount of live music, including most of the Mahler recordings during live recording sessions.
Unfortunately, due to a move/divorce I am without a multichannel system right now (the multichannel equipment stayed with her) so I am going to be on the hunt for new stuff.
I join those who wish that Pentatone or others could license other 4.0 material from the 70's - Columbia/Sony, RCA, EMI, and others all have many 4.0 masters sitting around. What a waste not to issue them as SACD's.
I once had a long conversation with Peter McGrath of Wilson Audio, who also does a lot of recording on the side, and he joined Dave in preferring 4.0 over 5.X. I have never listened at length in a session comparing 4.0 to 5.x, so I am not sure I have a strong opinion. All things being equal I believe that multichannel sound is far preferable to stereo, and actually, even when you have more inexpensive speakers.
|
|
|
Post by raffells November 5, 2008 (10 of 12)
|
|
tream said:
Yes,
Hi Thomas,
Now that discussion about surround is getting a bit more realistic as opinions are now being expressed.
I should point out also in response to 7th Ts excellent response that the purpose of surround is to enhance the illusion of being in a concert Hall.
Taking this seriously then If you were to Mic up the two rear side walls as the surround channels you would in fact get very little as they would either absorb or reflect sound waves.The likely probability is that if you compared the two channels would be near identical.
This was one of the reasons that surround could be managed albeit poorly on vinyl.To me they seem to leave the front stereo miked correctly and the very small level on the rears were as 7th T descibribed..This of course didnt suit a lot of people who wanted far more exaggerated effect.
It also meant your stereo speakers were critically positioned in relationship to their best designed performance ie rear and side walls.This is different to positioning them by the suggested 5.1 method.
Now if you take most of the current 5.1 surroud recordings and just listen to the two rear channels..What have you got? Not what Steven suggests but an enhanced left and right midrangeish output.This to me as a long term 4 channel listener is artificially enhancing the playback.Very similair to what they do in car radios.
For the benefic of Stardreamer,Measuring the SPL/fq response in the listening position viz stereo/surround has been done...*****
This is why Ive said all along.Its a different presentation.
It is clear that Windy is even a little wary of some of the diffent surround presentations.(Ironically those he mentioned seem to get the stereo wrong imo)Nice smooth sound but.....
It has even been argued that this surround could make the average surround listers hearing system lazier.(By an expert?)Sometimes I feel that this has come to play but of course NOBODY is going to admit it.
As regards the centre speaker it is totally not required.It can only add to the problems.This is made worse when it has that different rear reflection of a glass window.
In a paper many years ago Ben Duncan (whom I visited) stated that the advent of digital sonics introduced for storage purposes.. with its known scientific difference to analogue sound was going to cause problems for years (and hears) as the human hearing system had evolved in an analogue manner.Louder means more distortion ,not the other way around.
The realization that "clocking" was not important was a Sonys fault from the beginning.Its no use getting ALL the bits (And these systems dont) if you interpret them back into analague slightly wrong.
People like Tom and a few others maybe highly sensetive to this..Others are not.When he gets a very low jitter machine he will almost certainly have a rethink and different opinion. It takes you a lot nearer to an analogue presentation..
Last point on the 2.2.2 issue... I would also like to see 2 + 2 IN FRONT.However this would mean splitting each left and right signal again into high and low.NOT just adding a bit more top end to existing stereo.
For surround it would then be 2 + 2 + 2 plus another 2.......Heavy??
But all those amps and the extra dynamics,woops I dint go into that..****except hinting at it in the measurements ....
Hope this stimulates some thought.Its not new either..suprise suprise.
Dave
ps
She got the surround ??? Mine wouldnt...make of that what you will.LOL.
|
|
