|
|
|
I tried this query at Audio Asylum but had no luck. Perhaps someone lurking here can help?
I want to move from 2-channel to multichannel SACD, but I have a few concerns:
1) I love the quality of my stereo-only Ayre C5xe. My wife and I can readily tell the difference between this and less costly disc players.
2) I do not use a center channel or subwoofer. (My front speakers are Rockport Miras)
3) My Theta Casablanca III does not downmix 5.1 analog to 4.0, even through the Theta "Six Shooter."
Can anyone suggest high end components that will downmix SACD from 5.1 to 4.0? I don't mind buying used or demo.
What if I splurged for a center channel? I would still want to avoid the subs. Can I play SACD without a subwoofer?
Thanks,
David D.
|
|
|
Post by raffells September 29, 2008 (2 of 15)
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
I tried this query at Audio Asylum but had no luck. Perhaps someone lurking here can help?
I want to move from 2-channel to multichannel SACD, but I have a few concerns:
1) I love the quality of my stereo-only Ayre C5xe. My wife and I can readily tell the difference between this and less costly disc players.
2) I do not use a center channel or subwoofer. (My front speakers are Rockport Miras)
3) My Theta Casablanca III does not downmix 5.1 analog to 4.0, even through the Theta "Six Shooter."
Can anyone suggest high end components that will downmix SACD from 5.1 to 4.0? I don't mind buying used or demo.
What if I splurged for a center channel? I would still want to avoid the subs. Can I play SACD without a subwoofer?
Thanks,
David D.
A very interesting and controversial subject.
The answer is you can do anything and it will work in a fashion.
Sorry but I am not a lurker...
One of the nowadays unspoken problems when converting from stereo to surround is the speaker positioning and designs of a speaker.
When a designer invents a speaker for stereo ,in the olden days he would take into consideration, critically the position that speaker would be placed relating to rear and side walls.ie The nearer to a rear wall gives bass boost.
Further away ?Treble boost.You work on several factors in the crossover design and positions of speakers relative to each other and size of baffle amongst other factors.ie toe in.
This means you throw all these critical details out the window when you position these speakers as surround speakers in the new fashion.Cntre channel front would be nearer to the wall (window) than the two side speakers.
Notwithstanding their usual near the wall location Technically the rear speakers have phase problems compared with the fronts depending upon a number of factors and they are better not being full range.
Nowadays with the opinion that sound direction doesnt matter below a certain fq the 5.1 convenience (cheaper) and partially effective but not accurate way seems to suit those who are not discrimating.
From a technical point of view Its difficult to find identical stereo amplifiers biased exactly the same class A/B and impossible for 3 four ou five/six amplifiersd .matches of speaker cables is out of the question as is the effect of all the external RFI on these items.
Obviously you can set up surround to best effect ? using a test disc and guess what ? the stero wont be as good.I wonder why..
If you go back many years to the early pioneers (stereo was originally 3 channel and abandoned) gave up.
However the physical positioning of a sound field nearer to your ears appartly has a psycological effect that convinces your brain you are nearer to the instruments and can therefore hear more.
Ideally you should try things out for yourself ,downmixing is a major problem.
Ive had some surround recording that were downmixed and sounded awfull.A Carlo
Mitis disc from memory.If you have DVDA its a lot easier to play around by rmixing your own with Discwelder.Its also expensive.
You may now understand why theres nothing out there to suit your needs.If it was reviewed It would be open to ridicule.
Hope this helps Dave
|
|
|
Post by wehecht September 29, 2008 (3 of 15)
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
What if I splurged for a center channel? I would still want to avoid the subs. Can I play SACD without a subwoofer?
Thanks,
David D.
David,
A number of the major classical labels issue their sacds in 5.0, no sub. These include BIS, Pentatone, Chandos, and Channel. Others, such as Telarc and Linn do use the .1 channel though I'm pretty satisfied with how their discs sound on my 5.0 system. I have no knowledge of how the pop labels handle .1.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
wehecht said:
David,
Others, such as Telarc and Linn do use the .1 channel though I'm pretty satisfied with how their discs sound on my 5.0 system.
Bill
I must second Bill's opinion. The bass on my 5.0 system is superb playing either Telarc or PentaTone (or BIS and all the others that use 5.0) Until I read Bill's post I had no idea that Telarc was still using 5.1 because there certainly is no lack of depth (as in deep bass), loudness or clarity owing to my not having a subwoofer.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht September 29, 2008 (5 of 15)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I must second Bill's opinion. The bass on my 5.0 system is superb playing either Telarc or PentaTone (or BIS and all the others that use 5.0) Until I read Bill's post I had no idea that Telarc was still using 5.1 because there certainly is no lack of depth (as in deep bass), loudness or clarity owing to my not having a subwoofer.
Bruce,
I just checked the new Telarc La Boheme, and the booklet is vague. There's no longer any specific mention of 5.1 but here's what the fine print says: "This disc will play on any surround configuration, but was designed for optimal performance on a system that utilizes at least five full range, and preferably equal speakers employed in a left-front, center, right-front, left-surround, right-surround configuration. There are mix components that require the presence of all five main speakers. A subwoofer is also recommended." So, is the subwoofer a separate channel? I don't know and the Telarc website isn't any help: it includes links for "2" channel and "6" channel sacds, but none of the newer recordings is listed in either place. In any event like you based on my experience the whole subwoofer thing is irrelevant for classical music assuming good full range front left and right speakers.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by zeus September 29, 2008 (6 of 15)
|
|
wehecht said:
There's no longer any specific mention of 5.1 but here's what the fine print says: "This disc will play on any surround configuration, but was designed for optimal performance on a system that utilizes at least five full range, and preferably equal speakers employed in a left-front, center, right-front, left-surround, right-surround configuration.
I believe Telarc's practice is to use full bass for the main channels, plus additional bass in the .1 channel for sat/sub systems. As such, on a full range system with a sub, you'll want to lower the level of signal going to the sub. Maybe somebody with such a setup can confirm this.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl October 1, 2008 (7 of 15)
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
I tried this query at Audio Asylum but had no luck. Perhaps someone lurking here can help?
I want to move from 2-channel to multichannel SACD, but I have a few concerns:
1) I love the quality of my stereo-only Ayre C5xe. My wife and I can readily tell the difference between this and less costly disc players.
2) I do not use a center channel or subwoofer. (My front speakers are Rockport Miras)
3) My Theta Casablanca III does not downmix 5.1 analog to 4.0, even through the Theta "Six Shooter."
Can anyone suggest high end components that will downmix SACD from 5.1 to 4.0? I don't mind buying used or demo.
What if I splurged for a center channel? I would still want to avoid the subs. Can I play SACD without a subwoofer?
Thanks,
David D.
Yes you´ll do fine without subwoofer or center channel. A good center speaker improves you system, but it´s not essential.
I would recommend to add a decent universal player to your system, which does the phantom-center and delay management (very important). I´ve tried Nad M5, Arcam DV139, Sony ES-series, all of them very nice players. If you keep your Ayre as stereo source, you have a lot of options. Even cheaper japanese universal player would be a good start. I think differences between mch-SACD-players mainly exists in their cd-performance and processing options.
Note that universal players in general don´t do the bass management for SACD-discs, Sony being notable exception. This is not essential however, you can drive smallish center and rear speakers as full range and you won´t probably notice any difference. Proper delay management is far more important.
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
Proper delay management is far more important.
kristian
A tape measure is all you need if you have sufficient space.
I sit in the center of a circle of nine foot radius with the "surrounds" at an angle of 105 degrees. I am very happy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all. It seems that 5.0 or 4.0 are viable options. Is the Arcam 139 the best SACD player that downmixes to 4.0?
Does anyone care to predict which will sound better -- Ayre CX-5e playing an SACD disc in 2.0, or an Arcam 139 playing the same disc in 4.0 (properly set up)? All other components are "high end."
I doubt I will be able to do this audition in any store.
David D.
|
|
|
Post by raffells October 1, 2008 (10 of 15)
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
Thanks to all. It seems that 5.0 or 4.0 are viable options. Is the Arcam 139 the best SACD player that downmixes to 4.0?
Does anyone care to predict which will sound better -- Ayre CX-5e playing an SACD disc in 2.0, or an Arcam 139 playing the same disc in 4.0 (properly set up)? All other components are "high end."
I doubt I will be able to do this audition in any store.
David D.
The term you use downmix is confusing.
5.1 will just play as 4 channel with zero sound from Centre.
Downmix is when the rears/centres and fronts are combined.AKA Cockup.
Secondly. The term "sound better" Is an Opinion..Just that.
Its up to the buyer/owner to decide.Its not a game.
D.
|
|
