text:
Audio & Video Forums > AV Forums > Speakers > Stereo versus surround sound
View Full Version : Stereo versus surround sound
stereophonicfan
What is your opinion?
When listening to music on a surround-sound system are missing something or gaining something as opposed to listening on a stereo-system.
It's my experience that surround sound is indeed great for movies, but lacks realism when listening to music. The highs can be reproduced by any speaker performing it's duty in a surround-set. The lows however in a surround system are reproduced by a subwoofer. This device perhaps gives you all the bass and warmth you'll need but it's 'non-directional' sound. It doensn't really matter where you put the woofer, but is that really so? Is bass-sound non-directional?
joel2762
I found when listening to music in surround sound, it brought a new depth to the music. I heard things that I never knew were in the music. It does seem less lifelike, but I like these rear effects. That's just my preference.
Now for subwoofers. They just give the real lows and rumbles in movies. They still work for music, but some people just prefer the 2 channel setting on their reciever using large speakers when listening to music. Hmm. Is Bass non-directional...I think so. I had my subwoofer at the front of the room then moved it to the back. There wasn't too much difference, the bass still traveled everywhere. I could sort of pick ouut where the sub was but I think that was because I moved it there and I knew where it was...
Me, personally, I prefer the good old stereo experience for music.
There are actually technical reasons why a stereo-setup is more accurate than a surround system. The bass produced by a subwoofer is the weak bit, I hereby don't mean to completely disband the surround system.
My point: e.g. when listening to a random classical piece (not that I only listen to classical music, I listen to pretty much anything) containing the sound of instruments like cello's, hobo's and other instruments producing sound with double tones (a higher one and a lower one), the lower tone should, when the sound is right in the stereo-image, be heard right (and left when left).
It's the basic assumption that bass-sound is non-directional that bothers me. Yet most surround systems have only on woofer unit, only few have two directional subwoofer-units. Bass-hits are less direction sensitive but sounds from a bass-guitar are.
Again, I don't hate the surround experience, I actually love it. But as most manufacturers think you only need one bassdriver and I'm more a music-type than a movie-type, I chose the stereo-setup.
I listen to pretty much anything) containing the sound of instruments like cello's, hobo's and other instruments
Surround really makes those hobos come to life. Funny typo, thanks. In the US, a hobo is defined as: One who wanders from place to place without a permanent home or a means of livelihood.
I mention it only since you are from Belgium and may not get why it's funny.
piece-it pete
Well I prefer stereo for music. I've found the various soundfields available do IMO weird things to at least the overall presentation.
But I haven't heard a discrete multi-channel music-only recording on a good quality 5.1 system, either. Perhaps good things are in store for us :). (Of course the manufacturers are going to continue to push/develop 5.1. More amps, more speakers, and maybe, more realistic sound?)
For HT surround rocks!! I don't think anything can replace the point source of the rear channels.
They say any sound below about 80hz is non-directional. It used to be higher (I've seen mention of 120hz). And I'll say if Richard Bassnut Greene believes it it's probably true.
That said :), I'm very stubborn & run stereo subs. My unscientific, totally biased "tests" show (me at least) that the stereo setup has a wider soundstage vs. switching to mono. I think it's possible that we feel the sound as well as actually hear it.
It's also possible I'm kidding myself - and that's no joke.
But it makes me happy.
bturk667
I find listening to music in surround sound to be nothing more than an novelty. The rear surround speakers are there for nothing more than effect. In my opinion it's a gimick, nothing more. I would rather listen to music in stereo thanks.
jbangelfish
Music is recorded in two channel and is meant for stereo listening. HT systems are for movies and nothing else in my view. There may be some new CD types in which music is recorded in a different way but stereo is able to be so good that making it better seems nearly impossible. I have heard that HT uses a mono signal and splits it up a number of ways. I'm not sure if this is true but that would ruin the stereo effect of any recording and may be why stereo listeners are so opposed to the sound. Even if this is not the case, splitting a stereo signal further makes no sense to me. How many concerts have you attended where part of the band or orchestra was behind you and the rest scattered elsewhere?
I don't like the single subwoofer concept either. Had a big arguement with Mr Greene about this, I think he finally decided that I'm just too old and stubborn to change. Anyway, I've never had a system that tells the woofers to stay below 80hz and I'm in no hurry to get one. I have 4, 12 inch woofers that are xo'd to 200hz and below, reaching 18hz. What the hell would I want a single sub for? RG may be right about 80hz and below being non directional but it doesn't fit my system or any other system that I would care to have.
This is where you can have cake and eat it too. You can still have a surround sound and stereo. On my Sony reciever, simply push 2CH and you're back to classic stereo. Press mode until it says NORM SURROUND, and you're all set for movie playback!..As for preferences on where sound is coming from. I'm not one of those people who are all for reproduction exactly how the music was recorded. I like the rear effects. I don't care what way the stage was arranged...Thats just my preference. I like the cool effects. I haven't got the chance to listen to DVD-Audio or SACD but I think a Pink Floyd albumor something on SACD would sound pretty cool with all those neat sounds..It may not be lifelike, but it sounds pretty cool.
markw
Well, that depends. I'm assuming you are refering to recordings origiinaly made in a two channel mode. That's what I'll be addressing here.
With any two channel recordings, any attempt to get more than two channels out of 'em is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. REalism is not even a concern here. Different effects, some pleasing and some not, may be achieved, but enhancing realisim is not about to happen.
With my old HT system, which had only DPL and a few hall type modes, no music sounded anywhere near listenable using that or any other enhancement mode it offered. So, two channel it always was.
I've recently jumped to the 21st century with a Denon 2802 receiver which offers DPL2, Neo, and 5 or 6 channel stereo. Space being somewhat limited for now, I am only running a 5.1 system although it can handle 6.1. in time...
One thing to consider as far as the subwoofer is concerned... Bass management is nowhere near consistent throughout all receivers and all modes. For instance, I have my sub set at 0 for DPL2, Neo and Stereo 5 while in two channel stereo, it's set to -12 db. Otherwise it is overpowering.
Anyhow, I've taken to experimenting with these various modes with two channel recordings. Some interesting results... Some recordings sounded "better" in either DPL2 or stereo 5. I can't think of any that sounded "better" in both. Of course, many recordings did not benefit from either, so two channel is the way to go for these.
Interestingly enough, the recordings I seemed to prefer in DPL2 were those recordings that "seemed" to provide some ambiance thru the rears. Insturments coming from them were an instant turn off.
On the whole, I gotta say I prefer two channel over any enhancements on most of the recordings by a wide margin.
Again, it's like steak sauce. Some people have no problem slathering a fine porterhouse in A1 and others find it a sacralige to profane a fine piece of meat. It's nice to have a choice. Unless I'm gonna eat it, I keep my mouth shut.
Don't forget about SACD and DVD-A in multi-channel, hi-rez. DVD-A in multi channel is actually pretty cool. One song that was particularily memorable was America's "Ventura Highway" (for all you old schooler's out there) that really utilized the surround aspects quite well. The Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" live concert is also very cool in surround w/ the audience applauding behind you. While I still do all of my critical listening in two channel and w/ the sub turned off, I could easily see jumping into the sacd/dvd-a fray if for nothing else because it makes some of the old classics new and fun again. Isn't that what our love for music is all about?
I think it's pretty simple. If a soundtrack was originally done for two-channel, then you play it back in two-channel. If it was mixed for surround, then you're best served playing it back with a surround setup.
The thing about surround music is that it's really in its infancy. Sound engineers are just learning how to work with the new medium and already you see a lot of compelling examples of what's possible with 5.1 channels. Some are good, some are bad, some are mixed to make it sound like you're in a concert hall, others are mixed to put you into a completely different world of sound. It's like the early days of stereo where the early recordings took some wildly different approaches. Just as some of the left to right panning effects in early stereo recordings now sound cheesy, I'm sure that some of the early attempts at surround music won't be looked upon too favorably 50 years from now.
And even now, there's disagreement as to the best approach to surround music. Some producers and engineers prefer to mix without the center channel active, some prefer to go full range on all channels and keep the subwoofer track silent, some recordings put you in the audience near the back of the room, some recordings put you inside of the instrument. All I know is that the better surround music recordings are very compelling. Audiophiles typically look for loosely defined attributes such as imaging, soundstaging, "air", etc. and the better surround recordings provide all of these qualities in abundance and sometimes better than with any high end two channel setup I've ever heard. If you listen to a high quality surround recording and cannot denote these attributes, then you need to make sure that the system is setup correctly.
In order to get the maximum benefit from surround music, two factors are absolutely critical -- speaker placement and timbre matching. The studio monitoring setup with surround music mixing is typically done in the ITU multichannel reference configuration (diagram below)
http://www.soundstage.com/surrounded/pics/200307_itu.gif
Ideally, you would setup your speakers in this configuration as well. Placement with a surround system is more difficult to get right just by tweaking than with two speakers, so this is where you should start.
If you plan on also using your setup with movies, you should make a compromise by raising the surround speakers at least 1' above ear level and pointing them directly at one another. This is the configuration that Dolby recommends for home systems used for both surround music and movies because it retains the precise imaging mixed into surround music mixes while imparting some diffused sound with ambient movie sound effects. If the surround speakers are closer to your ear than the mains, then you need to increase the delay time to the surrounds.
Timbre matching is also absolutely critical if you want to hear what surround music is capable of. With movie soundtracks, the sound that gets sent into the surrounds is not often mixed at the same levels as the front, and more often the sounds that go into the surrounds are ambient effects separate from what's going on up front. Timbre matching in this case is still desirable, but not crucial. (Although more and more, you see much more aggressive sound mixes with movies that steer a lot of the music and action from the front three speakers into the surrounds)
With surround music (including a lot of concert DVDs), the surround channels very often get the lead instruments and vocals at roughly the same level as the mains. Any timbre mismatches significantly diminish the imaging quality. When I timbre matched my system after going almost two years with mismatched surrounds, surround music soundtracks gained an almost eerie three dimensionality. The soundstage across the front is now exceptionally wide, and the side imaging is solidly anchored in a way that's impossible for two-channels to achieve.
Aside from the higher resolution that topspeed also mentioned, surround music has further benefits in that the 5.1 mixes require going all the way back to the multitracked master tapes. In many cases, the two-channel "master" tape was originally prepared with the vinyl medium in mind, and got directly transferred to CD without any other preparation (which explains why so many early CD transfers sounded harsh and tinny compared to the LP versions). With new 5.1 mixes, the soundtrack can now be done specifically with a high res digital format in mind.
Here's my take on the surround issue. Sometimes, with some songs, and seated in the right position it adds depth to the music. For the most part it distracts me. I do however have the receiver in theater mode when watching TV. I say this because I can have the receiver at a lower volume level and still hear what they're saying through the surrounds. Even in 3 channel stereo ( stereo + combined l/r mono to center) it sounds distracting. Movies are fine, kinda cool hearing someone creep up behind you. I'm waiting to get a sacd/dvd-a player to check out that sound like topseed mentioned. Those sacd discs are recorded with multichannel in mind and stereo is not. Is prologic II better than theater, hall, and all those others choices, yes, in my opinion it is. In the end, it is a personal preference.
As someone who has experimented with surround sound for almost 30 years and who has listened to a lot of live music both inside and outside of concert halls, it is clear that ordinary 2 channel stereo is very inadequate. The larger the hall would be for a given musical group, the greater the disparity between what a recording can offer under the best of circumstances and what you would hear live will be. Unfortuantely, modern multi channel systems developed for the home are entirely inadequate for reproducing concert hall acoustics which contribute so much to music.
If you think acoustics at a live performance are unimportant, consider that not only do acoustic architects and engineers get to spend tens of millions of dollars of other people's money to build rooms for listening to music, change them around, tear them down, and build them back up again, but one famous electrical engineer from MIT whose name inspires so much anger measured that a mere 19 feet from the performing stage at Boston Symphony Hall, America's acoustically best room for listening to music, the audience hears 89 percent reflected sound and only 11 percent direct sound and as you move farther back, the percentage of reflected sound continues to increase (this has almost nothing to do with his product.)
As for the bass from subwoofers, while it is true that a separate subwoofer can often increase both the loudness and range of bass, integrating it with the rest of a sound system to accurately reproduce music is not a particularly simple task. At the point where it crosses over to the rest of the system, there is evey likelihood that there will be major frequency response anomolies due to interference patterns. The best and most accurate loudspeakers for reproducing music have the woofers or subwoofers built into them in a way that indicates that the manufacturer has considered and dealt with this problem. Case in point, Bill's Teledyne AR9s.
Geoffcin
The best and most accurate loudspeakers for reproducing music have the woofers or subwoofers built into them in a way that indicates that the manufacturer has considered and dealt with this problem. Case in point, Bill's Teledyne AR9s.
While I have to agree with Skeptic that full range speakers always the best choice, for the most part they are much more expensive than a sat/sub system. A modern speaker with the frequency response of the AR9's would cost thousands. I think it's unnecessary for most HT application. i.e. If you want to listen to movie tracks, sat/sub is a good value.
HT is in the process of growing up now, while stereo is fully mature, and is specifically designed for High Fidelity sound reproduction, not music & movie sound. Does this make them incompatible? No, but it's going to take some time before engineers are able to understand the surround process enough to make the surround mix sound "better" than stereo. My guess is that there's going to be at least a 10 year learning curve, and we've only just started. There is great promise there though, and I see more and more of the quality names in hi-fi designing amps, and processors for HT.
Right now the only "surround" music that I prefer to stereo is live performance DVD's. The Eagles, "Hell Freezes Over", and Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" come to mind.
Well, I had the chance to hear another HT system the other day at a coworker's home. He's been bragging it up for months for both music and movies. First, he had to demonstrate a movie and it impressed me the way that all of these systems have. When a horse hoof hits the ground or a door closes, it sounds like a bomb went off. Throughout, there is a bass rumble which is unidentifiable noise. To me, real life does not sound anything like this. Maybe he has his bass turned up too far, I don't know but this is always the feeling that I get when I hear one of these systems.
Then he played a CD both in stereo and surround mode. It sounded best to me in stereo but I would not call it good, one sub, off to the right and stereo speakers in front, I can't get used to it and the sound quality just wasn't there. I'm sure there are systems that do it better but he has a fair amount of money into this, one of the biggest Yamaha HT receivers and all JBL speakers. Probably a middle of the road system but I'm in no hurry to go to this type of system.
I have heard of people using AR9's with HT but I'm in no hurry to try that either. The amp I'd want to adequately drive so many speakers would have to be too heavy for me to want to pick it up. The effect is nothing I'd strive for anyway. If I ever get into HT, it will be a small modest system that won't overwhelm me with unidentifiable bass sounds and it will be a completely separate system from my stereo.
The AR9's are the most accurate speaker that I have ever had and I am pleased in nearly all aspects of their sound. I don't sense the depth that I used to get with 901's but I have better accuracy. I think the reason is simple physics. I think Dr. Bose made an amazing discovery in the reflected sound principle and the little 901 is able to reproduce the depth of a concert hall better than any speaker that I have ever heard. Unfortunately, it is limited in how well it can do this by the small drivers, too small for the deepest bass and too large for the highest treble, especially when they have to do it all at once.
If someone were to combine the theories and principles of Bose and AR, they might have something really special. I intend to build something along these lines, just to satisfy my curiousity once and for all. As I said, it is simple physics, when you reflect most of the sound, there is a slight delay in the arrival. Call it a reverberation, echo, whatever you like but it gives the sound depth. It's fast enough that you don't hear it as echo or reverb and it does mimic a concert hall. I'm not aware of any other speaker system that utilizes this technology, some do it partially.
With any forward firing systems, all the sound arrives at the same time and to me sounds rather lifeless. There were some time array type systems in which some was delayed, I think Polk dabbled in this and Dahlquist but it's not the same as reflecting like what happens in a concert hall. I think Bose made one of the greatest discoveries in acoustic sound reproduction but in making an affordable system (and 901's are overpriced), he missed the whole package. You'd need loads of power to drive such a vast array of speakers but I for one, completely believe in the concept.
Problems with bass can usually be blamed on room acoustics, which for a typical small to medium sized room will affect the overall sound much more in the low frequencies than in the midrange and highs. Boominess like what you observed is room induced peaking at specific frequencies caused by standing wave formation. In a lot of situations, these peaks can be upwards of 20 db or more, which can easily drown out other sounds and give you bass that's loud and overwhelming with certain sounds and empty otherwise. The only way around this is careful measuring of the in-room response and room treatments and/or parametric equalization.
I think you're going at this from a flawed assumption. Just because concert halls have reverberant acoustics and scads of reflected sound does NOT mean that home speaker systems should try and emulate that. Why? Because the playback chain is different than a live performance. One is an actual event, the other is a reproduction of that event. If a recording already captures that reverberant effect from a live performance in a concert hall, the last thing you want is for the playback to add even more reverberation and echo.
And to me, that's the fatal flaw of the Bose direct/reflecting design. It sounds good in marketing literature, but it's not based on sound acoustic principles. The sound quality of the speaker itself with that design is dictated almost entirely on the distance from the walls, the room acoustics, the reflectivity of the surfaces, the placement, etc. Any asymmetries, odd shapes, open spaces, etc. will affect that type of speaker far more than with a direct firing speaker. The type of sound you get is much more unpredictable. And even when placed optimally, a direct/reflecting speaker introduces time domain errors and distortions that reduce dialog intelligibility, muddy up the imaging (because the head-transfer effects necessary to discern a three-dimensional sound image have to interpret smeared sounds), and have less than optimal tonal response.
There's a reason why mixing studios are soundproofed to minimize the reflected sound, why the best sounding movie theatres have acoustic controls in place to reduce the amount of echo, and why high end demo rooms are typically built with acoustic panels, bass traps, and other room treatments in place. Because a live sounding room will impose its own signature on top of what was already recorded. If the goal is to reproduce live sounds as accurately as possible, then any kind of alteration in the playback chain, whether that be an overly live sounding room or speakers that spray the sound in a random pattern, constitutes a distortion and deviation from that goal.
It may sound lifeless, but that very well may have been the intent of the recording engineer. Or it could be an overly dead sounding room, or the speakers were not placed correctly. If you're doing a blanket condemnation of all forward firing speakers and saying that Bose's approach is the correct way, then I think you're way off base. Bose is the only speaker company that takes the approach that they do, and I don't think it's because they know something that everyone else doesn't. Other manufacturers have tried to impart greater spatiality by tinkering with the phase relationships (which is what Polk did with their SDA speakers) or going with a bipolar design (forward and back firing drivers in phase with one another, which is very different from the almost random off-angle driver placements that Bose uses), using an omnidirectional driver, or simply designing a forward-firing speaker with a wide dispersion pattern. But, those designs are based on much more solid research than Bose's "discoveries." (Their marketing brochures look good, but their products are based on principles that predated them by decades)
I don't think that there is anything random about what Bose designed. Change the angle, change the distance from the walls or turn them around and the desired effects are lost. Placement of the 901 is absolutely critical with very little adjustment available for different situations. Most people have never had them in the correct placement or had enough power to do them justice. Rest assured that a great deal of research went into their simple design. Dr. Bose is a highly regarded professor and either did or still does teach at MIT. He's ahead of most of us.
I do not want to alter a recording either, this is why I don't like equalizers and I have no tone controls. This leaves everything up to the recording engineers to get it right for me. If adding depth to the sound by strategically bouncing it out of corners is wrong, I guess I like being wrong. It creates a 3 dimensional image of sound better than anything that I have ever heard. The main flaw is a general weakness in the upper treble and a slight weakness in bass. They will reach 22hz which is lower than most high end speaker systems with 8 inch or even 12 inch woofers. If you ask me, it sounds better in person than it does on paper. I haven't read any of this stuff in years and I realize that the vast majority of audiophiles hate 901's. They can't do everything well but they do some things extremely well, mainly create a huge spatial sound experience.
Anyway, I'd take a pair of 901's over any HT system or multichannel system that I've ever heard anywhere, store demo or in a home. Overall, I'm happier yet with my AR9's, I just miss that depth of the 901. This is why I say that I'd like to build something that can do both accuracy and create the three dimensional quality achieved through direct reflection.
Don't worry, you won't change my mind. I'm old and stubborn and I've heard lots and lots of music live and recorded for my entire 51 years of life.
If your mind's made up, then that's fine. I have no problem that you like the 901s, I just happened to not like them or most of Bose's other products very much. I've heard the 901s many a time over the years, and I agree that the placement is crucial to getting them to sound right. But, so is the room configuration. I've not heard the 901s in an asymmetrical room, but I have heard other Bose direct/reflecting speakers in odd shaped rooms and the results are very inconsistent. The only shared trait from room to room is that the stereo imaging sound totally collapsed into the middle.
Dr. Bose might be an MIT trained engineer (I don't think he ever taught there, but he does hold a degree from there), but that doesn't mean that his approach supercedes all the other talented designers in the business. If anything, his talent has been matching decades-old design concepts with perceived gaps in the market. (I don't think anybody else would have thought that the market needed a $500 alarm clock or $1,200 boombox)
Even when done right, the 901s to me sound like "mono everywhere" because the imaging gets so smeared that I can't place from where the sounds are supposed to originate. It's a big sound yes, but some things are not meant to sound like they emanate from inside a giant concert hall, and the 901s tend to make everything sound like that. Also, I've never heard of anyone actually measuring the 901 to extend down to 22 Hz. Much like other Bose products, the 901 has a bump up in the midbass that can make them sound punchy, but that's not necessarily true full range extension.
The notion that the 901s can sound better than any surround setup does not make logical sense to me. The 901s can produce a larger soundfield than just about any two-channel setup out there, but in terms of creating a coherent soundfield encirclement, I just don't see it happening with the 901s, especially in a 5.1 setup. The 901's approach just runs contrary to how multichannel soundtracks are mixed and intended to get played back. With 5.1 movie soundtracks, the intelligibility of the center channel is essential for dialog clarity and seamless timbre matching with the mains. Having a center channel speaker that purposely distorts the time domain would be like listening to a movie in an old echoey theatre with no acoustic controls in place. (In that kind of setup, the most frequent reaction to a movie is usually, "What did they say?") THX certified movie theatres are required to construct a baffle wall behind the screen speakers specifically to maximize the time coherency of the audio, and control the reflected sound. In my own home setup, I put acoustic panels behind the front three speakers, and they substantially improve the overall coherency of the sound, smooth out some rough edges, and improve the image clarity.
In a timbre matched 5.1 setup using good speakers, proper placement, and a properly integrated subwoofer, the spatiality is huge but you don't lose the imaging coherency in the process. Not only can you place instruments and/or sound effect locations, but the front-to-back acoustic image and side imaging in particular are rock stable and very coherent. No two-channel setup I've ever heard can duplicate that. In a way, well done 5.1 setup gives you both accuracy and presence, and eliminates the need for a lot of the gimmickry that some speaker companies have deployed to get around the limitations of two-channel systems. Surround music is just getting started, and engineers are only beginning to learn how to work with the new tools. There are plenty of great examples out there already.
I won't argue that. $450 clock radios and he's probably sold millions of them. I have never owned any Bose products other than 901's nor do I intend to. I have owned 4 different series of them and find the oldest two series to be the best. The series ones are about 35 years old and show no deterioration of any kind. They do seem to last. My son has a pair of 501's but I was never overly impressed by them and they do need repair.
What decades old concept in employed with the 901? Paper speakers? Wood cabinets? I don't see anyone else designing a full range direct reflecting speaker but I see many using it for a part of their system. I don't really know if it would work out or not, as I said, I intend to give it a try. The room has to have two perfect corners and nothing else. Too small and they'll overwhelm you, they need a pretty large area.
I have no idea what you listened to that gave you a mono everywhere effect. I have never heard greater separation or spatial response than from a pair or two pair of 901's. I have always appreciated this more from vinyl than CD, I don't know why. Yes, they sound big but IMO not too big. Listen to a grand piano at a church or concert hall, it sounds big. The same is true of a single voice in an acoustic structure, the idea is for everyone to be able to enjoy it. I've never been to a concert anywhere that sounded focal or small. It always sounds big to me. As for their ability to reach 22hz, you'd have to ask Skeptic. Something about working together and adding up their individual small dimentions to act as one large woofer. Sounds nuts but they will reach very low. The later series don't get much below 40hz but are ported and the bass sounds boomier, more ever present but won't go as low.
I know very little about the 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 etc. except that they exist and I haven't heard any that I like for music. I definately would not recommend the 901 for surround although some people use them this way. Quadraphonic albums were tried but never caught on. I guess not enough people wanted to go out and buy a whole new stereo. There might be some great sounding stuff being made with the new CD formats and surround type systems, I have not heard them and can't speak for or against them. What I have heard is two channel CD's played on 5.1 systems and didn't care for it.
I remain completely amazed at what can be done with two channel stereo and don't see a need for improvement or change. I like it all out in front of me (like a concert) and I like it to be difficult to tell where my speakers are. Better yet, I like to imagine that they are not even there and I get mighty close with two channel stereo.
Don't think that I'm calling the 901 the greatest speaker ever because I'm not doing that at all. I'm just saying that they create a depth and sense of spatiality better than anything that I've heard. They still have their shortcomings and I choose to listen to my AR9's.
Obviously, you like the 901s in concept, even if their tonal response is not as good as the speakers you currently use. My comment about decades-old concepts had more to do with products like their Wave and Acoustimass products, which market old transmission line designs as if they were stunning new breakthroughs. The 901 is a more original concept, although I believe that experiments with spherical or ominidirectional speakers did predate the 901.
My mono everywhere assessment of the 901s is similar to what I've noticed with other Bose direct/reflecting speakers. Getting the correct spatial imaging from a two-channel source relies on the majority of the sounds reaching your ears at the same time. Overabundance of reflected sound diminishes your ability to locationally pinpoint where a sound originates, and the reflected sound can vary significantly from room to room.
If your whole experience with 5.1 is two-channel CDs played through those systems, then you really need to give high resolution discrete 5.1 sources like SACD or DVD-A a try. The whole rationale for going to a 5.1 system applies only if you're talking about full-range and discrete channels all the way around. Putting a two-channel source through a surround processor does not count.
The better 5.1 surround music mixes out there rely on very precise and deliberate spatial cues. Getting the time domain and tonal matching right between all five speakers is absolutely essential. But, when done right, to me it produces an overall effect that's impossible for a two-channel system to replicate. And the fundamental difference with this type of system as opposed to Bose's approach is that the big spatial cues from a 5.1 music source are deliberately mixed into the soundtrack. With a two-channel Bose setup, the spatiality may not necessarily be part of the recording, but get added by the speaker regardless of whether or not it's appropriate or intended.
I don't really care about any of them. I did listen to an acoustimass setup as a store demo and was impressed by what the system did for how small it was. Didn't make me want to rush out and buy one though.
I consider all of this stuff to be overpriced including the $1500 price tag on new 901's. I've never paid over $500 a pair whether buying new or used 901's and at that price, I consider it reasonable. My pair of series VI was purchased through a buy back program from Bose in which you could send them your foam rotted series IV's and for $400, they'd send you a new pair of VI's. I bought the IV's for $200 as scrap and traded them in so I guess I have $600 in my newest pair which I don't like as much as the 35 year old pair of series I.
Don't think that I'm in love with the company as I am not at all. If you call for any kind of help or want to buy a new part to repair an old speaker or even a new one, you are SOL. They are definately a marketing company and not much else. I just like the direct reflecting concept as you already know. That and I'm very impressed by the longevity and power handling ability of the old series I and II 901.
As for all the relfection business and not being able to tell where it is coming from, I like that and I thought that it was a goal of a stereo system to do this. To be able to tell the entire stage setup and where each instrument actually is, seems impossible. I can't do this at a concert either without looking. In a very small venue, sitting close to the performers, then maybe but I don't very often listen this way.
We have a 10,000 seat metro center in our area which has concerts, basketball games, hockey games, rodeos, you name it and to me it is very poorly designed acoustically. It seems that everyone plays overly loud to compensate for the poor acoustics and I'm not fond of concerts at this place. I have heard much better at other venues of about the same size (and quite a few smaller) and many outdoor arenas where the sound has someplace to go. In these large arenas, I am never able to pinpoint individual sounds as to where they origniate from, except that they are out in front of me somewhere.
Anyway, I've defended the old 901 here to the best of my ability (and taken plenty of flack for it) and I've never called it the best of anything except maybe for it's depth and largeness of soundstage. What they do is play extremely loud with minimal distortion which works out for most rock listeners. They need lot's of power to do what they do and most people have not provided them with what they need powerwise or placement, both are critical to their performance. Enough about these damn old things.
I have not heard any of the new CD concepts and will soon try SACD as many speak of a higher quality of sound. I mostly prefer vinyl and two channel does everything that I could ever expect a home stereo to do. Don't expect me to go out and buy all new components so that I can have a 5.1 setup. Perhaps someday (but I doubt it) as I said, I have heard two channel stereo sound so good that I don't need it to improve for my tastes. I don't think I'll ever buy into the single sub, or rear channel concepts of multichannel. Two channel stereo has the ability to sound absolutely amazing and good enough for me to never want more. If I ever have a surround system, it will be for movies only and even that doesn't interest me a whole lot.
Sir Terrence the Terrible
It took me a few posts to figure out where you are coming from.
[quote]I mostly prefer vinyl and two channel does everything that I could ever expect a home stereo to do.[\quote]
This combined with your love of the Bose 901 completes the picture. You LIKE distortion, not accuracy.
Vinyl records are loaded with distortion. The needle tracking the groove walls creates distortion. There is absolute nothing clean or accurate about listening to vinyl records.
Two channel stereo is a distortion of a live event. If you every want to hear an audience clap BEHIND the orchestra(instread of behind you as the listener) during a live recording, listen to two channel live recordings. The only reason two channel exists today is because that was all that could be fit the the grooves of vinyl records. The first "High Fidelity" vinyl records where mastered from 3 channel tapes(left, center, right) and mixed to stereo. It is simply impossible to capture and map the acoustics of a venue with just two speakers. Its is barely passible with 6 speakers.
The Bose 901 distorts the soundstage in exchange for spaciousness. The problem of Dr. Bose's perspective is we don't listen to music in our homes like we listen in concert halls. In the concert hall you are listening to the hall first, and then the orchestra. At home, you are listening to what the microphones picked up during recording. That may or may not have the halls ambience. Microphones DO pick up the precise placement of the musicians within the soundfield even if we don't hear it that way in the concert hall. Remember, a RECORDING is what it is, and recording. Not a seat in Boston Symphony Hall.
[quote]I think Dr. Bose made an amazing discovery in the reflected sound principle and the little 901 is able to reproduce the depth of a concert hall better than any speaker that I have ever heard[\quote]
The only amazing thing that Dr. Bose did with the 901 was to introduce the world to tone, phase and image altering reflections. These random reflections are NOT in any recording, they are in the room itself. And unfortunately the room was not the recording venue so these are NOT actual concert hall reflections, but artificial reflections introduce by the speaker. I think DSP's do a better job because they at least get the artificial reflections in the right place, behind you!
[quote]With any forward firing systems, all the sound arrives at the same time and to me sounds rather lifeless[\qoute]
Judging from this line I ask this question....Do you like accuracy?
[quote]HT is in the process of growing up now, while stereo is fully mature, and is specifically designed for High Fidelity sound reproduction, not music & movie sound[\quote]
Sorry to dissapoint you, but stereo is not specifically designed for high fidelity sound. With the exception of classical music it take a whole lot of eq and post processing to squeeze a mix into just two channels. Especially the phantom center image that is usually occupied by the bass and vocals, and awful lot of eq goes into to making bass sound right, while vocals remain intelligible.
[quote]Music is recorded in two channel and is meant for stereo listening. HT systems are for movies and nothing else in my view. [\quote}
Sorry man, but your way of thinking is totally old school. I know of no studio that mixes totally in stereo anymore. Everything now is recorded in multichannel, and downmixed into stereo using protools. I know, because I do it everyday.
[quote]I don't like the single subwoofer concept either. Had a big arguement with Mr Greene about this, I think he finally decided that I'm just too old and stubborn to change. Anyway, I've never had a system that tells the woofers to stay below 80hz and I'm in no hurry to get one. I have 4, 12 inch woofers that are xo'd to 200hz and below, reaching 18hz. What the hell would I want a single sub for? RG may be right about 80hz and below being non directional but it doesn't fit my system or any other system that I would care to have.
Bill {\quote]
It sounds to me that that Doc Greene was right on ALL counts. Multiple subs and a very high crossover=terrible acoustical problems in the bass, and VERY visible subs. Not a very good reciepe for great sound. Its amazing how we can always justify our stubborn ways, even when someone points out how wrong they are.
Wooch, once again your comments are profound, conscise, and totally accurate. Kudos to you bud!
We go throught this Bose 901 thing every few months. I've never seen any product which could generate so much hatred and invective from people.
Well I also still own the original 901s and mine are in perfect condition just like Bill's. I also own AR9s and prefer them just the way Bill does although I have enhanced my AR9s (that's another story) and I used the Bose equalizer just as it was meant to be used.
Therefore, I am in a position to be objective about the strengths and weaknesses of Bose 901. The original speaker introduced around 1968 has many design similarities but some important differences to later versions. It still uses 9 four inch full range drivers in a comparably sized comparably shaped direct reflecting enclosure and it still uses an equalizer. That's about where the similarity ends. Drivers, enclosure, and equalizer are radically different and there are many performance differences as well. IMO, the first two versions performed the best.
What are the innovations?
Direct/reflecting principle
Full range no crossover network design
active equalization
Acoustic suspension design (series one and two)
The magazines of the day (Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity) verified through their published tests very low distortion and linear response down to 23 hz and it competed very favorably with respect to bass response against other low frequency champions of that day including JBL Paragon and AR3. It easily beat just about every other speaker in this regard and certainly anything remotely close to its price. Starting with the ported versions (possibly 3 but definitely by series 4) they can't compete with series one or two either.
When properly installed, the Bose 901 creates a stereo image second to none and unequaled by any other pair of loudspeakers. It successfully eliminates the hole in the middle. Anyone who complains that it makes a piano sound 10 feet wide has obviously never seen (or heard live) a Steinway "A" or "B" concert grand, or a Bosendorfer.
The speaker even when performing at its best has two main failings IMO which make them unacceptable to audiophiles;
It cannot reproduce the highest octave of music very well. This is because the moving mass of the 4 inch driver has so much inertia that it cannot have an extended flat high frequency response of a tweeter. It also cannot radiate what little high frequencies it does reproduce without strong directionality from the front driver. The rear driver hf dispersion is of course much more effective. This is strictly due to the diameter of the drivers. I will one day attempt to improve mine with a direct/reflecting array of tweeters.
It does not have an accurate tonal balance. This can be corrected with additional equalization but until the first problem is fixed, it is pointless to work on the second.
To those music listeners for whom these two factors are not a significant problem which mean most of the general population, and who have a suitable place to install them which can take full advantage of their unique radiating properties, this may be the best speaker they can buy. (That of course lets out all audiophiles.) This is why despite their relatively high cost, when all 6 series are taken together, in terms of units sold, total revenues, and longevity of one model on the market, they are almost surely the most successful product in the history of high fidelity. And yes Dr. Amar Bose was (and may still be if he hasn't retired) a professor of electrical engineering at MIT.
There is nothing wrong with liking the Bose 901. The fact that some people dislike them and I am one of them does not mean much...that is why there are so many speakers on the market. For instance I have read numerous discussions of the AR9 and there is certainly no consensus on that speaker - a lot of people are put off by its numerous phase poblems(too many crossover points) lack of treble response, lack of detail and some just complain that it's dull and lifeless.
What does that tell you? It tells you that YOU and THEY hear differently the speakers in question. That is why it's called a Preference. Ever wonder why magazine reviewers can give the same high mark to two or twenty COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sounding designed speakers? I personally don't like any of the newer(last 8 years) AR, NHT and Snell designs using side-firing woofers(built in subs) etc (Make me nautious and they cost at least double or triple the price of speakers that sounded much better but were not as big and didn't have 6+ drivers with fancy looks. Neither AR nor Snell makes those side-firing noisemakers anymore. Polk does but that explains their poor reviews in the blind sessions at Hi-fi Choice.
I digress, Bose 901s have a unique sound. Lots of people love horn speakers too, and planars and electrostats, some swear by Paradigm. I say buy what sounds good to you, but do make sure you listen to as many different speakers as possible. The more you listen to the more informed is your selection.
Overall a good defense the 901's strengths, but a few things need noting.
The acoustic suspension design predated the 901 by about 15 years.
The problem I've had with the 901 is that it makes EVERYTHING sound like it's the width of the room, whether it's supposed to or not. If the original recording was done in an acoustically dead environment, then its playback should not make it sound like it originated from inside Carnegie Hall. Even a Steinway concert grand will not sound huge and resonant in every possible room configuration.
More so than just about any other speakers I've heard, the 901 is wildly inconsistent from room to room. The active equalization can only do so much to address the room acoustic anomalies, particularly with the time domain, which by reflecting 90% of the sound is intentionally distorted to create that huge sound effect.
I will agree with you about the high frequency response and nonlinearities in the overall tonal balance.
That point presumes that people want the radiating properties of the 901, which is entirely possible but not likely in an era of 5.1 home theater systems. I'm also not sure about your assertion that the 901 is the most successful product in the history of high fidelity. It certainly sold a lot of units, elicited a lot of controversy, and is still being made. But, has its laundry list of purported innovations really left a lasting legacy with the audio industry as a whole? Judging by the number of speaker manufacturers that have adopted Bose's design approaches with the 901, versus other landmark designs like the AR1 or the Klipschorn or various stat, ribbon, and planar designs, I would seriously question that assertion.
I have read numerous discussions of the AR9 and there is certainly no consensus on that speaker - a lot of people are put off by its numerous phase poblems(too many crossover points) lack of treble response, lack of detail and some just complain that it's dull and lifeless.
Out of the box, I'd have to agree at least about AR9s lack of treble. It took 5 years before I had a clue as to how to fix it. I heard and saw Snell AIIIi, one of my all time favorite speakers at a trade show around 1989 and noticed that they had added an indirect firing tweeter. I decided to add a pair to my AR9s and then another and another. Rebalancing the system meaning using the crossover level controls and an equalizer has made a huge difference. I would say that as they sound now, no other speaker I have heard is nearly as accurate or beats it or even equals it in any important respect. It does everything right as far as I am concerned. I'm using the same approach with every other speaker system I own. A loudspeaker with a single direct firing tweeter is now unthinkable for me.
BTW, you can see that the treble has always been a bugaboo for Acoustic research. Every evolutionary step in their high end models has incorporated a major redesign of the treble while according to the in-the-know experts on the Acoustic Research section of Arsenal, the basic woofer design and performance hardly changed at all for about 40 years. This despite the measurements always showing flat on axis response right out to 20 Khz. Obviously, there is much more to subjective treble performance than on axis frequency response.
Dr. Bose had a unique twist on the acoustic suspension principle. Where all prior speaker designers had tried to get the lowest possible resonant frequency accepting the falloff below resonance as the effective lower limit of the speaker Bose did exactly the opposite. His small enclosure was designed to raise the in-box resonant frequency to 180hz. AR 12 inch woofers by contrast have a free air resonance of 19 hz and an in box resonance of from 28 hz in the large AR9 4 cu ft enclosure to somewhere in the mid 30s in the AR3/3A/ten pi/303A 2 cu ft bookshelf sized enclosure. Bose did this to raise the resonant point to where the associated phase shift was inaudible according to his reported test results and used the well known linear 6 db per octave falloff below resonance as the design criteria for a complimentary equalizer which increased output by the same amount, maintaining flat response to a very low frequency. Given sufficient electrical power, the original Bose 901 outperformed AR3 in bass response within their respective maximum loudness capabilities.
BTW, the later 901 ported design having a much steeper falloff below resonance could not come close to matching the original version in regard to bass response even with equalization.
Wanting stereos to sound like concert halls, liking two channel stereo and old outdated equipment. Maybe I'm waiting for 9.1 to come out, then I'll rush out and buy the most expensive sonic turd that I can find. Then I'll go out and buy 9 expensive sonic turd speakers and replace all my albums and CD's with the new 9.1 SACD's or whatever they will be calling them. These other guys should have waited.
Where do you listen to a concert that it does not have a grand and large sound? Living rooms? A grand piano has a very big sound even if you're sitting and playing it yourself. Oh well, maybe this is why I don't call myself an audiophile. Now they don't even like AR9's and are content to refer to them as inferior in some way. Who cares?
I am perfectly happy living in the dark ages with LP's and other forms of two channel stereo. Many other people must be too or they would not still be making turntables that sell for 1.5k (for a midgrade high ender) to as much as 85k, or cartridges that run into several thousand. The most expensive amplifiers that I know of are either monoblocks or stereo amps and can run right up to 100k or so for a stereo pair. Does that equate dollars to sound, not necessarily but someone must think so and I don't think they'd shell out all that money for a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 receiver. I know I wouldn't.
They did manufacture 4 channel LP's for awhile as I mentioned earlier. It was not worth the difference to the masses to run out and buy all new equipment to accomodate them. The only 4 channel amps that I can remember were all receivers and I never heard one that really tripped my trigger. I still have never heard a receiver that I would care to own although there could be some out there. I'm not really interested.
maxg
So much information it is difficult to know where to start.
OK - surround sound - why doesnt it sound good for music most of the time?
Well for one thing if you are listening to DD5.1 or even DTS you are listening to a highly compressed file format. If you have DVD recording software - check out the file sizes when you use any DD format and compare it to using plain old PCM.
I have been playing with my DVD recorder a lot recently and made a number of remarkable discoveries (to me anyway).
Did you know, for example, that DVD Video supports 96Khz/24 bit in its original specs? Most players are not capable of playing it back in native form (actually most recording software isnt capable of creating it either - my current problem) - but some are - worth checking out next time you buy.
The funny thing is - that 96/24 recording ability is only available in 2 channel LPCM format - and according to the original specs - for high quality music. In other words if you want to listen to really good quality music do so in 2 channel mode (according to the orginal designers of DVD that is).
I dont think I have ever seen a DVD Video with 96/24 sound - the main problem is space. I just recorded 45 minutes of music to my hard disk at this resolution (?) and it took over 1.3 Gb.
Whilst many DVD players are not capable of 96/24 they all have to be capable of 48/16 (DAT quality). Many DVD recording software packages support this. Having played around I can confirm that my own findings are it is better than Dolby digital 2 channel soundtracks - but I cant hear any improvement over 44.1/16.
Of course if you are talking about surround sound from DVDa or SACD then none of the above applies.
I tend to agree with others here that the biggest problem with surround sound (on the above 2 media) is that engineers have still not got to grips with it. I have about 15 SS SACD's and the results are VERY variable.
This reminds me in many ways of the problems associated with Quadraphonic although there we had the added problem of some very inferior amplification knocking around as well.
In theory surround sound SACD or DVDa should be the way to go - assuming the engineers can eventually sort out the way to do it well.
In practice, however, very few people are really going to be able to get the real benefits due to a couple of minor problems.
The first minor problem is that your surround sound music system and your surround sound movie system need different speakers. Take a look at the specs for THX - this uses different types of speakers for centre channels and for rears. Compare this to the "perfect" SACD setup (according to Sony). All five speakers should be the same (I am ignoring the further options for 6.1, 7.1 and so on as well as the subwoofer).
The second problem is speaker placement. According to Sony the speakers should describe a circle around the listener and be in the same virtical plane - according to the THX standard you have effectively a flat line of speakers at the front and the rears should be closer to the listener (and I think - above them - firing down)
This basically means that however you do it if you have a single system for both it will be a compromise.
And now some notes on 2 channel vinyl:
1. Someone on here talked about a hole in the middle of the soundstage with a 2 channel playback system. Er...no. If the system is properly setup there is no hole.
2. There is an assumption here that 2 channel playback cannot create a realistic soundstage and sense of depth.
I would suggest you find a well setup vinyl system and a copy of Roger Water's - Amused to Death on vinyl - you are in for a huge shock. This recording was put together by a company called Q-sound. I have no idea how they have done it - but you will find voices and effects coming from behind you!! Scared the pants off me the first time I heard it at home - I thought someone was coming in from the balcony doors.
I should add that this record is not unique, although it is an extreme example. Other records that display this facet include - some recordings of DSOTM and Jeff Wayne's War of the World - again on vinyl.
3. Vinyl is compressed.
Well it can be - but it doesnt have to be. Try a classical recording from DECCA on one of their Full Frequency Recordings, or even Dutch, Philips recordings from the 1970's onwards. Alternatively (and I hate to recommend audiophile recordings - they are rather expensive) try Audo Analogue, Tacet, Living Stereo, RCA Red Seal or original Colombia Masterworks for classical, any Direct to Disk for Blues or Jazz, Dynagroove (from the 60's) for Jazz, some Riverside recordings are also worthwhile (especially for Sonny Rollins titles).
All of the above should sound massively sonically superior to any equivalent CD recording as long as the vinyl playback system is:
a. Reasonable.
b. Well set up.
The drawbacks to vinyl are many. It is a complete PITA to live with, requires way too much maintenance and can go out of tune in an instant. Records can deteriorate with time (note - can - there are plenty of records dating back to the fifties that are still in near mint condition - I know - I own loads of them).
The benefits are simple. It represents, to date, the best quality sound available in the home today at a reasonable price.
(Note : I added at a reasonable price as I have recently tried out the Accuphase DP85 SACD player. Sonically this is just about as good as any source I have ever heard - but at over $11,000 it should be!!)
OK - I will call it a day there.
[QUOTE=maxg]OK - surround sound - why doesnt it sound good for music most of the time?
QUOTE]
As I said elsewhere, I have had just about 30 years of experience with surround sound systems, both my own concepts and those created by other people.
What your problem is with surround sound depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to be in the middle of bombs bursting in air, subway trains and jet planes going through you, you probably have a good shot at it. If you want to be in the middle of the band on stage with them, you may have a shot at that too. But if you are trying to recreate the beauty of sound the acoustics of Boston Symphony Hall add to the sound of the Boston Symphony Orchestra when you are sitting in the audience, the systems available on the market with today's technology are hopeless and there is no progress in sight on the horizon. Nobody knows how to record the reverberant components alone for the auxiliary channels separate from the direct sound. And the sound field from which that sound arrives comes from hundreds of directions which cannot be distinguished by the human brain, not two or four loudspeakers firing directly at you which you can easily spot blindfolded.
As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers unless those speakers disperse their sound by reflecting them off a large surface. That is for the same reason you can pick out the location of the auxiliary speakers in a surround system. Sound fields are VECTOR fields but are recorded as SCALAR fields. They have both magnitude and direction and it is easy to pick out the direction unless it is fairly well spread out because your ears and brain work like a very efficient direction finding dipole antenna. One small turn of your head and you know exactly where it is coming from (mammals evolved that way millions of years ago in order to survive.) And, the more high frequencies, the easier it is.
"As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers"
The degree of head movement allowable retaining the soundstage varies with speakers, room, distance from the speakers and so on.
In fact the size of the sweet spot varies dramatically with speakers in any given room.
For my setup you will get a strong centre image within about a 4 foot radius of where I sit. Moving outside of that leads to a gentle movement of the centre image towards the speaker you are nearing upto the point one speaker is dead ahead and all the sound seems to be coming from that speaker. YMMV
Speakers with excellent high frequency dispersion and plenty of nearby objects to reflect those frequencies create many paths for them to reach the listener and therefore make it more difficult to identify the exact source. But is is impossible for two loudspeakers to reproduce the effect of 100 or more individual sources spread across a performing stage. And it is also impossible for 4 or 5 loudspeakers to recreate the auditory effect of the carefully designed diffuse reflective properties of a concert hall that took tens of millions of dollars to design and build and years for acousticians to tweak no matter what signal is fed into them. The human ear and brain are just too good to be tricked that easily.
You're presenting a lot of good information, but misinterpreting some of it.
In my listenings with concert DVDs and other sources, the DTS track compares very favorably to the LPCM track, even if the latter format is encoded at a higher resolution than the 44.1/16 resolution used with CD audio. Keep in mind that DD and DTS were developed more than a decade after the CD, so a lot of technological improvements occurred in the meantime.
Classic Records and Chesky, among others, have put out 96/24 resolution audio-only DVDs (they call them "DADs"), and the sound quality of these discs is uniformly excellent. (Keep in mind though that the companies that issue these discs pay a lot more attention to detail during the mastering processing than most recording companies did when they were transferring their backcatalogs to CDs; so the improvements in sound quality could have more to do with the transfer quality than the format itself) Most of these were released before SACD and DVD-A discs hit the market in large numbers, so it's basically an orphaned format right now. However, some DVD-As also include PCM tracks encoded at higher-than-CD resolutions that can play back on any DVD player.
The reason why 96/24 is only in two-channel for DVD-V discs has nothing to do with the original designers having a two-channel fetish. It's all about disc space. In an uncompressed format, it's impossible to squeeze six channels of 96/24 resolution audio into a DVD. That's why DVD-A is actually a compressed format. The difference between DVD-A and DD/DTS is that DVD-A includes the MLP protocol that restores discarded bits before the signal is processed.
The issue with 96/24 discs has more to do with finding a player that will output the digital signal or play it back without downconverting the signal. Some DVD players downconvert the 96/24 audio signal to 48/24 before playing it back or sending it through the digital output. This is partly because some 96/24 discs have copyright restrictions that prevent the signal from discs from getting output through the digital ports at full resolution.
First of all, I think you're referring to THX's dipolar speaker specification for surrounds, and that spec is no longer a requirement for certification. IMO, the earlier dipolar speaker requirement was more appropriate for Pro Logic systems, and the THX Ultra 2 specs acknowledge this by allowing for bipolar and direct firing speakers to serve as THX certified surrounds. The THX specs though should not be regarded as gospel for home theatre as a whole, and even Dolby does not take a stance on THX's speaker certification requirements. Personally, I prefer direct firing speakers for both multichannel music and movie soundtracks, as do a lot of other home theatre owners.
The Sony diagram you're referring to is the ITU reference multichannel speaker placement standard. It was originally drafted as a studio monitoring spec for multichannel music mixing. But, I don't regard it as contradictory to the various placement recommendations with home theatre systems. The THX placement recommendations are not all that different, and FYI nobody I've read recommends that the surrounds be spaced closer to the listening position than the mains. If it happens, you need to compensate for differences in distance by changing the delay timing. Even if the L/C/R speakers are arranged along the same plane up front, the center speaker delay timing should be increased to compensate for the smaller distance to the listening position than the L/R speakers.
The main difference between movies and multichannel music is that movie soundtracks tend to have a lot more ambient sounds mixed into the surrounds, which you want to diffuse to some degree, but not necessarily to the level that dipolar speakers do. Differences in the optimal placement for music and movies have more to do with the height and toe-in angle of the surround speakers. The ITU placement standard works well with both movies and music. Optimal height for multichannel music is somewhat lower than with movie soundtracks, but still above ear level, and the toe-in angle would be pointed directly into the listening position. Dolby's suggested placement for systems that are used for both music and movies is to raise the surrounds about 2' above ear level and point them directly at one another, rather than into the listening position. I've tried many different placements and this one works very well with almost all sources (although my surround speakers are closer to 1' above ear level). It retains the pinpoint directionality and side imaging that you get with multichannel music (and increasingly, movie soundtracks as well, since more of them are mixing the music and front sound elements into the surrounds), while imparting sufficient diffusion for ambient cues. This is only a minor adjustment, and not a big compromise at all.
QSound is basically a DSP processor that some recording studios use (and it's been licensed for some video games and sound cards as well). Some of Sting and Madonna's albums have been recorded with this processor as well. It's very impressive, but does not give you the kind of total encirclement and stable side imaging that a well done 5.1 recording (like Steely Dan's latest DVD-A) can give you.
I think that too many of the debates about CD versus LP don't take into consideration the quality of the transfer, and attribute all of the differences to the format itself. I own plenty of LPs that are superior to their CD versions, but I also have quite a few CDs that sound better than their LP counterparts. It all varies.
Taking a listen to the 96/24 DADs that Classic Records issues (they have a lot of Blue Note reissues and have also done a version of Alan Parsons Project's "I, Robot" which is an excellent recording), I've yet to hear an LP playback that betters those high res transfers. I think it's partially because Classic not only seeks out the original master tapes of those recordings, but they also look for a vault copy of the original vinyl issue as well as the production notes (which would include the EQ settings). Bernie Grundman does the mastering for them and his first step is to do a playback of the vinyl version, so that he knows what the original intent of the recording engineer was, and compares that to the master tape playback. Alan Parsons personally supervised the high res transfer of "I, Robot". I doubt that any of the big record companies went to this much trouble when they were making the CD transfers from their library, and much of the CD's bad reputation among audiophiles could very well stem from this more so than the format itself.
The technical merrits and how pleasing something sounds is not the same. After all look at all the folks who don't just buy a receiver and cd player. And it seems a lot of us like speakers that were all designed or had their roots before 1980. If Sketpic's opinion is fact and everyone will think his speaker is the best in the world, then why should we buy into the technology since 1980. The halfwits from Harman and B&W, JBL and PMC obviously know nothing about designing speakers or they could at least equal a pre-1980 speaker and do it of 1/5 of the original price tag.
But guess what, the math was the same math it was in the 1960s and they knew how to do it they were limited by materials. Marketing drives much of the industry. I don't mean the marketing to sell your ware, I mean Marketing to HYPE junk and pass it off as something you can't live without.
The last time I was at a symphony or just listening to a musician playing the guitar...those instruments were in FRONT of me. The reverberant sound bounces off of walls.
If you look at those HUGE 100,000 seat outdoor Auditorioms in Greece, people in the back row could hear people TALK on stage at vast distances that would put a lot of our present day theatres to shame from an auditory standpoint and those Greeks were doing it centuries ago...so the math was there.
To presume you can't capture the live event is a limitation of the recording process, because what can be recorded from the FRONT can be reproduced by a set of 2 front speakers. You are not going to get the same sound in an 12x10 living room that you got in row 7000 in out door arena. You could hire an acoustics contractor to make your room sound like a great auditoriam...but then your stuck hearing it like that for everthing. Enter SACD or DVD A and surround speakers that can change to the recording. Some of it is pretty good, but some sucks. Right now it's not good enough for me to buy into but I can see where it's going and it might work.
The vast majority of pop/rock recordings are done in some room and everything is recorded separately and then re-integrated together. Which explains a little of the hopelessness of a lot of singers that sound pretty good on disc and can't hold a note to save their life when you see them LIVE. Frankly, for such performances I would rather NOT hear them live because their cd trickery sounds BETTER.
Classical music and spotting where things are is rather the point. When I close my listening to my system I want to know that that the brass is center left the winds center right triangle far left cymbol far center and singer center front etc.
The problem is that boxed speakers reverberate in the bass with most boxes and give away an unnatural sound and the treble response of most speakers always seem to say to me "High I'm a clannging teeter over here over here".
As for Bose, I never heard the original version, but the newer versions since the 1990s...well my friend(acqunence) listened to my old B&W 302s(a $300.00CDN entry) and sold his Bose 901s very shortly thereafter. Despite the DM 302s faults it sounded more "right" than the 901's.
Sounds like the original 901s were basically an entirely different speaker than the dungheeps currently available. It also sounds like the original AR 9 is a lot better than the dungheeps they and their followers are producing now. Audio Note bases their speakers off of the original Snells and that company after Snell's death began making an endless parade of junk(at least for the amount of money). And since most speakers today are total dpeartures from those 70s designs and yet those 70s designs are so well loved by so many today then AN's rip of new designs being fashion oriented over sound is not very far off IMO.
There is only a few times in my posting history that I have seen so much misinformation that really stands correcting. Let me jump into this..First, Skeptic you are so on the mark that its not even funny, you raise some excellent points. Let me address one point.
[quote]I tend to agree with others here that the biggest problem with surround sound (on the above 2 media) is that engineers have still not got to grips with it. I have about 15 SS SACD's and the results are VERY variable.[\quote]
The reason for this variablity has nothing to do with the engineer, it has way more to do with the content that he(or she) has to mix. Mostly all SACD's released(and this goes double for classical music)has been reissues who's master tapes are of variable quality. You can only do so much to clean it up, eq it, and process it to make it suitable for the format. The releases that have been done with multichannel SACD in mind are of exceptional quality, and when heard on a quality system this cannot be argued.
[quote]As for the hole in the middle in stereo sound, unless you sit dead center and don't move your head even a fraction of an inch, you can almost always pick out the source of the sound as being two loudspeakers unless those speakers disperse their sound by reflecting them off a large surface. That is for the same reason you can pick out the location of the auxiliary speakers in a surround system. [\quote]
This is not true at all. Speakers that are time and phase correct will produce the exact waveform that is fed into it. That means both the direction and amplitude(this coincides with information from Skeptics post) Unless the microphone technique employed is flawed(or the speaker is suffering from severe beaming), the speaker will not introduce the hole in the middle effect at all, and if it is accurately performing it will do a reasonable job of recreating the entire frontal hemisphere in terms of soundstaging with a high degree of transparency. Accuracy is the key here.
[quote]Well for one thing if you are listening to DD5.1 or even DTS you are listening to a highly compressed file format. If you have DVD recording software - check out the file sizes when you use any DD format and compare it to using plain old PCM[\quote]
File sizes when talking about compressed audio is irrelevant. MLP(Meridan lossless packing) can compress a audio signal down to 1/3 of its normal size without any losses. While DD is not transparent at any of its data rates, Dts at 1.5mbps can do an extremely credible job of coding a signal with minimal loss of transparency. Dts 24/96 can code without any loss whatsoever. Considering how a compressive codecs work(DD is very extreme and cannot be used in this example) the only data that is being discarded is redundant and inaudible signals. What is left is being encoded at 20-24bit word depths(engineers choice). PCM is not a very efficient carrier of audio signals as it contains both redudant and inaudible signals alike.
[quote]Most players are not capable of playing it back in native form (actually most recording software isnt capable of creating it either - my current problem) - but some are - worth checking out next time you buy.
[\quote]
Most CONSUMER software is not able to record 24/96khz audio but professional software(protools specifically) can work with 24/192khz signals with any loss whatsoever.
[quote]The funny thing is - that 96/24 recording ability is only available in 2 channel LPCM format - and according to the original specs - for high quality music. In other words if you want to listen to really good quality music do so in 2 channel mode (according to the orginal designers of DVD that is). [\quote]
24/96khz is available in 5.1 DVD Audio. 24/192khz is only available in two channel not because of the recording technology, but because of the limitations of the DVD spec itself. It is only able to handle 9.8mbps which is not a high enough data rate to support high bit, highly sampled audio.I think you are mixing up the standards for CONSUMER recording with the standards of professional recording.
[quote]Take a look at the specs for THX - this uses different types of speakers for centre channels and for rears.[\quote]
THX standards only apply to movie sound, not high quality music. To even mention THX in the same sentence as high quality audio is a huge mistake. All THX systems having matching front speakers but use dissimular rear speakers, that doesn't make them bad for music, just not optimal
[quote]The second problem is speaker placement. According to Sony the speakers should describe a circle around the listener and be in the same virtical plane - according to the THX standard you have effectively a flat line of speakers at the front and the rears should be closer to the listener (and I think - above them - firing down)[\quote]
I think you need to take a second look at the THX standards. They have now been revised to reflect timing issues in regards to speaker placement. Sony is not who I would go to about speaker placement. Anyone who recommends that the surrounds and the front speakers should be on the same plane is insane. Any sound arriving from the front and from the rear simultaneously will totally confuse the ear/brain operation. The rear speakers should ALWAYS be elevated above the front speakers for just that reason. 99% of all recording studio's elevate their rear speakers for just this reason. THX does not recommend having the surrounds closer to the listening position than the fronts, they now recommend equal distance.
[quote]This recording was put together by a company called Q-sound. I have no idea how they have done it - but you will find voices and effects coming from behind you!! Scared the pants off me the first time I heard it at home - I thought someone was coming in from the balcony doors.
You are not hearing a fully mapped soundfield in this process, you are hearing signal fed to the front channels with vector crosscancellation processing applied to reduce crosstalk between the ears. This is NOT surround sound nor is it a FULLY mapped soundfield. They do it by applying a little bit of the left channel information into the right speaker out of phase to cancel the effects of head related transfer phenomina which can truncate the front soundfield. Polk use to use the same process on their older(and no longer made) SDA series of speakers. This is old technology and totally unecessary with DVD-A and multichannel SACD out there.
[quote]3. Vinyl is compressed.
Well it can be - but it doesnt have to be. Try a classical recording from DECCA on one of their Full Frequency Recordings, or even Dutch, Philips recordings from the 1970's onwards. Alternatively (and I hate to recommend audiophile recordings - [\quote]
All of the records you mention are very good sounding indeed but compressed because they are limited by the recording technology of the period, or the format itself. If you made any attempt to master vinyl records with the dynamic range found on today's recording, the needle would jump off the record and kill you!!
Also the headroom on older ampex recorders(Decca used these on their full frequency series) was not typically very high, so gain riding was a common practice in those days.
[quote]I am perfectly happy living in the dark ages with LP's and other forms of two channel stereo. Many other people must be too or they would not still be making turntables that sell for 1.5k (for a midgrade high ender) to as much as 85k, or cartridges that run into several thousand. The most expensive amplifiers that I know of are either monoblocks or stereo amps and can run right up to 100k or so for a stereo pair. Does that equate dollars to sound, not necessarily but someone must think so and I don't think they'd shell out all that money for a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 receiver. I know I wouldn't.[\quote]
I didn't think that anyone would buy an air conditioned dog house advertised in the Sharper Image several years ago, but people did. I didn't think that people paid 20k for a vintage car that would just sit in the garage, but they do. I was floored when I found out that men PAY for sex, but they do. People pay for what they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its a superior product. The fact that a person would pay from $1500 to 85k for a turntable does not mean the vinyl format is superior to those small shiny disc, it just means they are willing to pay top dollar for it good or bad. I think now that we know that the most expensive turntable with the most expensive cartride still creates distortion during playback(regardless to how clean it was mastered) shows that some people like distortion more than others. Another point is that there are no receivers on the market that costs $100k, and if there was, somebody would buy it just to say they own a receiver that costs $100k. That would certainly represent a better value than just amps that cost that much.
Sir Terrence
If SACD is typical(and I know it's not) like what I just heard today and what most average people hear then they may as well give up now and forget the whole thing. I have heard better but this rather big chain in Canada had the Denon 2200 DVD/SACD player running through Marantz 7300 receiver with Energy C series speakers all around. Disc was Hotel California. Why on earth anyone would want to hear guitars work coming from behind them and drums in front is totally bizzarre.
The salesman gives the usual pitch that well that's the way the Eagles want you to hear it. Maybe the Eagles should retire if that's the case. Utter crap for a lot of money. Salesman fiddled with the amp brought it back to the front - nevertheless it was no great shakes.
There is expensive 2 channel and people do in fact spend on a lot on turntables. That is more to get every drop out of that medium. Why it can't be done for 2k I don't know, but diminishing returns is present. Throwing more money at something doesn't mean you get better. I'll gamble that a 15k Honda civic will outlast the top of the line Cadillac at over $60K Thus providing me the better service of what a car is designed to do - get a person from A to B reliably.
What this particular store SHOULD be doing is showing off new releases that were recorded in surround sound not trying to convert 70s music into that atrocious disc I was listening to today. Lifeless heartless sound that almost seems geared to the video game crowd.
If you made any attempt to master vinyl records with the dynamic range found on today's recording, the needle would jump off the record and kill you!!
So, THAT'S what happened when I stuck that direct disc on the turntable all those eons ago. All this time, I thought some serial killer with bad aim was lurking abouts.
I didn't think that anyone would buy an air conditioned dog house advertised in the Sharper Image several years ago, but people did.
T-man, you're coming at it from the wrong set of priorities dude! Our house IS the dog's house, and any kind of air conditioning is for the dog to decide, and our privilege to enjoy.
I was floored when I found out that men PAY for sex, but they do.
Ah! So, that's what I was doing wrong all those years! Nookie to fund liquidity ratio is a direct rather than an inverse relationship. That damn stats prof, he was just pulling a fast one on all of us starving students. Now I'll need to change all my socioeconomic assumptions and change my political affiliation.
And a lot of good points have been raised. I do believe that the technology is present to make music in the home better than ever. I don't know how much better it can be than 70's or 80's technology but there is always room for improvement, no matter how minute. It is even possible that good receivers are being made today, this just did not used to be the case, when compared to separates. I have not owned a receiver since 1975 so things could have improved since then. The fact that a 5 channel system gives each speaker section a smaller job could make a system more efficient with less power to each. A typical larger 5.1 receiver seems to be in the 100wpc area. I am more accostomed to having two channels with 200 to as much as 1000wpc which does liven up a pair of speakers.
I agree that some people will buy anything, no matter what the price just to say that they have it. I also think that these horribly expensive components probably sound as good as money can buy. For most of us, we can get excellent results by spending a lot less.
Someone mentioned the new vs old with 901's and AR9's and this is certainly true. When Bose ported the 901, they ruined it. I believe they did this in an attempt to make them more efficient. They also switched from butyl to foam surround which was easier to push with less power. Original 901's, series I and II were notoriously power hungry. I have not heard new AR9's but anyone with the old ones will tell you that they'll keep what they have.
As to the LP vs CD debate, I still haven't heard enough great CD's to prefer them over LP. I know that it is possible to make excellent CD's and I have said before, possibly even better than LP. The fact remains that I own a lot more great LP's than I do CD's. I do have 20 to 1 LP over CD which is at least part of the reason. When I hear a great CD, I'm just as happy to enjoy it as an LP.
Actually, the problem is that the choice of material for the DVD-A and SACD remixes is typically NOT geared to the video game crowd, but rather aging baby boomers. I would love to see more new releases done up in multichannel, but SACD is the only format that can be released simultaneously for CD and multichannel mixes (essential for any kind of significant penetration into retail stores), and hybrid disc manufacturing capacity is totally booked right now doing reissues, so hybrid new releases are not feasible yet (the current issue of The Absolute Sound has a status report on SACD and DVD-A).
You're not the first one to complain about the Hotel California remix. There are bad surround music examples out there, just as there were a lot of bad stereo mixes in the beginning. Rather than generalize based on this one example, you should look for some of the better mixes done by the likes of Chesky, DMP, or Telarc, if all you want is something that sounds like a live performance. Chesky in particular has done some stunningly good work that virtually puts you into the same room with the musicians. Their two-channel mixes are also superb, but don't even come close to the depth and immersive effect that their surround mixes give you. Hotel California is a studio album, not necessarily intended to replicate a live performance.
Judging from some of the remixes that I've heard, a lot of older material is not necessarily a good candidate for surround remixing. The tracks needed to create a convincing envelopment and immersion effect simply might not exist. For example, the surround mix of Steely Dan's 1980 album "Gaucho" is awful. All of the instruments and vocals got discretely assigned to a particular channel, and it all sounds like five separate boxes with not a lot of good imaging qualities or spatial cues. On the other hand, their more recent "Everything Must Go" DVD-A is startling in how seamlessly all of the sound elements work together (both mixes were done by Eliot Scheiner, but Gaucho was the first one that he ever did six years ago, so obviously the state of the art has advanced considerably in the meantime; well, I believe he also did Hotel California, so that might reflect limitations in what he had available more than anything).
But, because a surround remix goes into the original multitracked master, it opens up all sorts of new possibilities to improve the basic audio quality, since as Terrence pointed out, two-channel mixes originally intended for vinyl required compression and all sorts of other tricks of the trade to get them to sound right in that medium. In a direct comparison, even the poor surround mix on Gaucho still yielded a noticeable improvement in the audio quality.
The other aspect of SACD and DVD-A that you didn't address is the remastering of the original two-channel source into high resolution, since EVERY SACD and DVD-A includes a high res two-channel mix. Even if you just have a two-channel system, the opportunity to remaster poorly done CD transfers is a welcome opportunity to correct past mistakes. I think a more valid way to assess the worth of SACD or DVD-A would be to compare the two-channel CD version with the two-channel high resolution track.
Not another car analogy! The diminishing returns do exist, but the one thing about turntables is that approaches get more and more esoteric as you go further up the line, and the resulting components are not necessarily better sounding or even better built than the lower priced alternatives. The thing about that Civic versus Cadillac comparison is that the Caddy will haul more stuff, move faster, possibly handle better, provide more features, and have a quieter ride for that extra money. Whether or not one outlasts the other is irrelevant in a discussion of diminishing returns. It's an apples to oranges comparison since the performance aspects and physical dimensions are significantly different, and the top of the line Cadillacs have several performance advantages over the Civic, even if the Civic is more reliable in the long-run. But, an esoteric five figure priced turntable might not give you even a minor performance improvement over a more basic VPI or Well Tempered turntable.
Woochifer(Why are you not called Woofer?)
I was not attacking SACD though it sounded that way. No, I was attacking the store trying to sell people a new format and then to put on that Eagles disc is mind boggling. It is a bigger box chain though but still. Instead of having to hard sell people by giving them sales propaganda would it not be much easier to select some competant discs and let it sell itself?
If I'm running the store I'd be looking at discs from makers such as Chesky, Telarc, RR, Opus 3 etc. I realize 98% of buyers want top 40 and rock and roll but man there must be something better than that disc to choose. I have heard better systems, but many people hearing that may get turned off, certainly when you want over a grand for the player, and have to buy a bunch of speakers to impede one's living room to get sound that is pretty close to the already bad cd version.
Instead of reviving 70s music they should be trying to appeal to the 20 somethings or even teens who spend mom and dad's money. They're the one's filling the theaters to watch the ghastly movies being made and they're the ones ready to buy into anything with a COOL factor. Dare I say it but get Britney or Cold Play, or 50cent or some such music on SACD. Of course then I won't be going anywhere near it because the selection would make me nautious but hey I'm probably not their market. That's not really true everyone can be the market...but 70's music is probably not the best.
Well it is certainly true that the car analogy is not the best, The Civic is cheaper to run, easier to park, easier to load(I'm thinking the hatchback models where you can put a 32 inch tv in the back where you can't in the Caddy due to the shape of the trunk), far better gas mileage, will maneuvre better(depends on your meaning of handling but at low speeds I should think the Civic is better for quick turns in and out of areas. Overall speed and Luxury accomodations goes to the Caddilac - assuming they actually work. It's a good analogy depending how you view it, a bad one if you view it another way. If you perceive the extra $50,000.00 to get you from A to B over a 10 to 15 year span to better spent on a Caddilac then that is of course one's choice.
The extra money on a turntable. Well I've never heard an esoteric turntable. The TT1 from Audio Note is the best turntable I've ever heard, and it's less money than some of the highly touted Linn's. I'm not sure about it's build quality, has a wierd floating chassis...but then judging it agains my table I'll trade - so maybe floating tables are good.
I have gotten lazy and generally prefer cds for their ease of use. With a chanfger I can sit in my chair for 6 hours and listen to anything in my collections without getting up. Lazy you bet but it's nice. Getting up to hear one song on an LP or every 20-25minutes to change records? Convenience vs sound. And good cds are just as good if not better than LP. It depends on the RECORDINGS not the medium.
One reason I support SACD is not the format but the recording. If they take a horrible recording and make it good...then that is reason enough to go SACD - the multi-channel is icing on the cake.
Sony got rid of that damn cheap DVD/SACD player in Canada anyway. Hi-fitommy lucked out. It was going for $229.00 but they dumped it and the replacements at more money don't have SACD.
The cheapest SACD player here now is a 400 disc DVD/CD/SACD player at $799.00CDN. Which actually isn't that bad a deal considering it does everything and even more and I have been impressed with the the CDP 355 300 disc changer. It's actually quieter than a lot of carousel units. It's strange that something so big can cost $280.00CDN and yet some dinky Sony digital Camera is even more money. Well it's not strange I know why but still.
I've noticed that this thread is getting a little out of hand.
I've also noticed, like someone mentioned earlier that it's starting to get to much to read all.
A discussion started about full range speakers to replace multiple-way speakers. First thing that crossed my mind was the fact that in every design with full range drivers you have a significant loss of frequency range. Again I'm openminded about this but I can't ignore that fact. Getting the full range out of a single driver poses a significant technical challenge.
I read a post where stereosound was being defended and with a good argument. My view on it: if you want a concert sound, with cheers behind you and a band in front of you and a guy cursing on your right and chick flashing 'something', go see and hear the concert. Is it really worth it to go out and spend a massive budget on a surroundset just for those few music DVD's or SACD's you have. You nearly have to be a movie and concert DVD or SACD fan only. No music? If you rich, well then no problem! But the mass of people aren't, consider that.
The massive budget required to purchase a quality surroundset scare a lot of people, that's also the reason why cheap, small and ill powered surroundsets overwhelm the market. They have a cheesy sound and are usually driven by a inside-subwoofer-amplifier (or more likely a small powerdistributer, little or no coils, cooling or extra connections)
You also often require a lot of space for a decent surroundset, another luxury not many people have.
I also find the idea of a 9.1 channel system outrageous. I you really want to go that far, well than build your own theather to put it in. Don't come and tell me you would put a 9.1 system in your livingroom. Two problems: either weak units ill driven, cheap system; or well driven system but so much power you can never really use it a reasonble potential and if you do your neighbour will start to complain (if you don't have any good for you!)
I guess we won't be able to stop the excentric looneys. 5.1 is more than enough 6.1 and 7.1 is already pushing it to me!
And that receiver thing, pffff. I mean there are many good receiver, but have you encountered a lot with A-class operation, I sure haven't. It's also not interesting because it is a mainly a movie oriented product.
All you really have to do is make the choice;
-do I love movies and like music, then go for the HT-experience
-do you adore a smooth angellike sound in your life and a decent or no HT then go out and purchase that classic A-class operation goldpiece and a sturdy pair of speakers
Be reasonably crazy, you'll only be doing yourself a favor!
thepogue
2 channel will go the way of the eight track....in 20 years or less. I don't like it either but I just can't buck the ball...what format will dominate is still a bit fuzzy but I'll keep looking...
Sorry, in rereading the thread, I realize that I missed that point. You're right in that the stores should be demoing more of the mixes that were originally done with 5.1 in mind, rather than 70s recordings that got repurposed for surround. But, it could just reflect the taste of the people running the store more than anything.
The first batch of DVD-A and SACD releases included an awful lot of the exact same titles that were in the first group of CD releases (e.g. Billy Joel "The Stranger" Mike Oldfeld "Tubular Bells" Fleetwood Mac "Rumors"). I would think that pop music has evolved a little bit since 1982. It's only more recently that more current titles have gotten into the pipeline. Considering that the so-called "Gen-Y" consumers are the ones who do more MP3 downloading, I would've thought that the record companies would target them with all sorts of incentives to migrate them over to the copy protected DVD-A and SACD formats. In quite a few cases, the surround version opens a whole new world of sounds compared to the two-channel version.
The isolation system on a turntable is very important, and potentially expensive. Unlike with solid state components or digital sources, the overall audio performance of a turntable depends a lot on the ability of the unit to minimize external intrusions. The spring suspended chassis is one of the more popular isolation designs out there. AR introduced it in the early 50s, and it's very effective. The Well Tempered decks use an ingenious fluid suspension system to dampen any vibrations from reaching the tone arm, and it's also very effective. A lot of the obsession with isolation designs that went into turntables got carried over into all sorts of products designed for amps, CD players, etc. but with those types of components I'm not convinced at all that they are necessary or particularly effective.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing turntables is that the cartridge is at least as important (but much more frequently overlooked), as is the setup (the VTA, overhang, tonearm balancing, etc. all need to be accounted for).
In some ways, the whole ritual involved with LP playback makes music not so much a matter of convenience and background, but more of an event and something that commands full attention.
You do find good and bad examples in any medium, and really the thing to watch out for is the quality of the transfer, not necessarily the original recording since we have no way of assessing that unless we have access to the original master tapes. The great thing about SACD and DVD-A is that they necessitate going all the way back to the multitrack masters. In the process of assembling the multichannel mixes, the flaws with the two-channel transfers are exposed, and in some cases a new two-channel master gets created. Or at the very least, the two-channel transfer can be tweaked so that it sounds the way that should for a high res digital format. In addition, having five channels available eliminates a lot of the congestion with multitracked two-channel recordings. Even a clean two-channel recording like Pat Metheny's "Imaginary Day" sounds much more open and natural in 5.1, and we're not even talking about the spatial cues which sound much more targeted and deliberate.
I still have no desire for 5.1 or any other multichannel system nor do have any desire to own a receiver. I do not listen to the radio unless I'm in the car. Putting sound behind me does not interest me in any way. The only thing that belongs behind me is applause and since I'm not fond of live recordings, is unnecessary. Besides, even if I do listen to a live recording, which is rare for me as most of them were poorly done, I don't find myself waiting for that wonderful sound of applause. If you like the sound of applause, you must have a 5.1 or better system.
I also said that I was waiting for 9.1 but I was joking, sorry, someone missed the sarcasm. I am happy with two channel. If you think that your stereo recording sounds better with a 5.1 setup, go for it but I think there must be something wrong with your two channel system. Most people here seemed to think that 5.1 for music was a novelty with little merit. Many people who have 5.1 systems will still listen to music in two channel as they feel that it sounds better. I choose to listen to something that was fully intended for two channel playback. Call me an old fashioned old fart, I don't really care.
5.1 or higher may be the way of the future but I have no intention of running out to buy 4,000 or so new 5.1 CD's to replace my old albums and CD's and a complete new system to play them on. There is already 6.1 and 7.1 so then what? Are we supposed to start over again with the whole process? Sorry, not for me, I don't care what they come up with.
All of the high end products that I am aware of are made for two channel stereo. This applies to speakers and every other component that you need from cartridges, turntables, amps, preamps and CD players. There is a reason for this and the reason is that two channel is capable of reproducing very high quality sound. Is 5.1 capable of doing the same? Probably so but for the reasons mentioned above, most of us are not going to buy into it. It might be interesting to see what the future brings but I see more vinyl being produced than has been in many years. There is a reason for that too and again it comes down to quality of sound. CD's seem capable of doing it just as well but too often they don't do it so us cantankerous old farts will keep buying the vinyl. And it's not because we like distortion, quite the opposite. I expect to enjoy two channel for the rest of my life, if I'm in the dark and missing something, so be it, I like it here.
you can stand on the rail and say no it ain't....but it is...to be sure.... and it will just get better and better as technology and money (investments) move forward... I really think there will always be a place to 2 channel but to suggest that 5.1 and the formats that follow have little musical merit well...lets just say the trains a coming...and she's a coming fast and hard! Now let me make clear that if that type of future/format (5.1 etc) is not in the cards for some...that's 100% cool with me and I fully understand.... I love the 2 channel, tube and vinyl thang! long live rock and roll man!....but if your suggesting that the only thing that can be heard from the rear of a 5.1 is hand clapping?...sorry, just not factual..the fact of the matter is that most shows I've gone to over the years have had plenty of sound coming from various angles (to include the rear) depending on the venue...am I suggesting that ALL 5.1 (and beyond) formats best 2 channel? Heck no! But to blow-off the power of the future is missing out IMO. Also I think just like any other changes in media the transition is always a slow one. Nobody ran out in dumped all their 8 tracks and reel-to-reel tapes the instant cassettes came on the market...same with LP's and CD's for that matter...so I wouldn't plan on dumping' your 4000 LP/CD collection anytime in the next 20 years.... in fact if you've got a passion for vinyl pass it on to your kids (but I think it's safe to say you can lose the 8 tracks now ;) One last point, most high end hi-fi makers are into the multi-channel market these days Theta, Verastarr, Proceed, Krell, Moon, Lexicon to name a few. And most high end speaker makers tout their wears for HT/multi channel music. In fact very few disregard this market. I guess my point is that a short trip down to a local "brick and mortar" tells the short and long of it all. They are making more money with HT/multi systems and custom installs and where the money goes...so does the market...and so goes the music industry..and the technology....and the quality...up, up, up...chooo choo...do I hear a train a comin'?..;) My guess is that multi-format IS the future and the future is now...as to buying a ticket to that train is a personal matter....I just hate walking. For the record I am strictly a 2 channel guy...I have an old pro-logic system for HT...and my 2 channel system blows me HT system away...but I'm just waiting for the champagne to be sold at beer prices. Cheers! All Aboard!!!!
In fact, I may just wait forever. As long as stereo vinyl and CD's are being made well, I'll be happy to listen to them. I still have never been to a concert with music behind me, when this happens, I may have to rethink my position but I don't expect this to occur anyway. Why on earth would it happen? To surround me with music? I don't know about the rest of the world but my ears seem designed for forward and maybe some listening to the side. I can live without the side effect unless we are referring to the side reverberation present in all concert halls. The walls of a listening room do this also and it's good enough for me.
8 track was a flawed medium from the get go and didn't stay long, good riddance. I am old enough that I saw it come and go and the same for cassettes. Cassette could be better and was OK but you don't see much if any of it around either. LP's and stereo CD's are still being made by the millions and as I said, more and more artists are offering their music on LP. This is because it has good sound and people have been willing to spend lot's of money to appreciate high quality stereo sound.
Some high end companies may be making 5.1 systems but I think it's just to jump on the bandwagon and to make money more than it is to give us high quality sound. The most highly regarded components and most expensive are still two channel. I also said that I don't doubt that the multichannel can be good or even great but I am not willing to start over and I consider it to be completely unnecessary.
Don't worry, I have no plans of getting rid of any of my collection or replacing with anything new unless it is two channel and I'm just replacing a worn out LP or CD.
Yes, boatloads of money are being dumped into HT systems but they have not convinced me to spend any of my money yet. Fine for movies but I am completely happy listening to music on a system designed only for music in two channel. The fact that everyone is buying into this crap doesn't make it better in any way. Everyone went the CD route too, myself included but I never let go of any vinyl and I'm very happy that I didn't get rid of my vinyl. Look around, you'll find many people who were unaware of how good home stereo could be until they heard a decent vinyl playback system. CD's continue to get better and it's a good thing or most audiophiles would be doing vinyl only. Critical listeners are a small group apparently as 90% of the world thought that every CD they ever had was good enough or they had no idea that it could be better. My vinyl passion has carried on to one of my sons but not the other. The one who prefers CD listens to Slipknot, Coal Chamber and other similar garbage for whatever that means. Have you heard that stuff? Man, it's bad.
No matter what happens, I don't see myself ever owning a subwoofer or a rear channel of any kind. I don't need it and I don't want it. I'm a stubborn old coot but two channel stereo is capable of being so good that I'll never want for more. Let the train come and let the train go, I have no intention of getting on. Let it run me over, I don't care. If 5.1 becomes the high end medium of the future, I will be very surprised but it will be interesting to see. It has to do alot better than what I've heard for me to be even slightly interested.
man you are a stubborn ole coot....God Bless ya!! Well if ya ever change your mind...this lil Krell will only run you 14K (that's just for the sub)!!! Enjoy the ride Bill!!
My old full range speakers reached 22 or 23 hz, depending on who you ask and my AR9's reach 18 hz. No sub needed. 14k? Ouch! Hope it sounds good. What is the frequency range?
It's not about just reaching the note...volume also has a play in it.
The Audio Note E/D one can by for $2000.00Cdn new and will hit 12hz to 23khz (in a corner) with one 8 inch woofer and 1inch tweeter. The speaker is not huge as it is really a Stand-mount - not a floorstander. But then it basically uses the entire wall to create the sound so in a way your speaker is the size of the entire wall. Of course soince the majority of people can't hear below 40hz and 98% of music never goes under 30hz it's mostly a moot point unless you're a real huge fan of pedal organ...I'm not at all so I get to save money.
lows however in a surround system are reproduced by a subwoofer. This device perhaps gives you all the bass and warmth you'll need but it's 'non-directional' sound. It doensn't really matter where you put the woofer, but is that really so? Is bass-sound non-directional?
Moving my sub just six inches in and direction greatly affects how it sounds. Currently I have it facing perpendicular to my speakers about 1 ft. away from the wall in on both sides. This seems to make the subwoofer less noticeable, that is I can't tell if the bass is coming from the sub or the speakers. Other tricks I have tried involve elevating the front tof the sub an inch higher than the rear, and placing the sub one foot behind the two front speakers.
The main problem with subs and music is that spekaers usually go down to about 35 Hz - 50 Hz. The sub then kicks in. The lowest note on a bass guitar is about 38 Hz. The lowest note on a piano is 28 Hz (I think). During musical passages a poorly set up sub can sound terrible. People tend to turn them up too loud and don't have the crossovers adjsuted properly. With my system if the sub is turned up too loud I notice that the lowest note on the bass guitar comes out on the sub, while the other notes come out on the main speakers. Sounds terrible.
As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go.
"As for listening to music with five speakers, I think multi-channel music is the future of home audio, but it has a LOOONGGGGGG way to go."
My take is that unless someone comes up with a downloadable MP3 like multi-channel format it will always be a minority interest product, not much larger than vinyl is today.
Apple have hit upon a mechanism that will allow the music industry to make money from downloadable music and it looks like it will stick. This may have a very dramatic effect on music sales, and not all of it bad.
I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.
Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.
DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.
(Interesting side note: I spent christmas in Manchester (England) and had a full day in the enormous shopping centre they have there. Whilst my wife attempted to buy every shoe and item of clothing ever made I sought sanctuary in a Sony store.
In the store there were innumerable portable players (MP3 and CD), DVD players, a new DVD recorder, an MP3 type jukebox with a 40 Gb disk, headphones, camera's, organisers, video cameras and all the rest of the Sony stuff, <b>except</b> SACD players. I did not see a single SACD player (either dedicated or DVD combo unit). Equally as surprising - they had 2 turntables on display, although to be fair one of them did look more aimed at DJ's than casual users).
I see the slow, inexorable death of CD over the next 20 years (maybe less) and the domination of the downloaded single at the expense of albums in any form.[Quote]
I agree. CD are to easily converted to mp3. Records companies can't make as much money on them.
Multi-channel may take a growing share of the optical disk music market (I am including DVD audio and SACD in the market alongside traditional CD) but the market as a whole for them is on the way downwards.[Quote]
I disagree. I think multichannel will take over much the same way surround sound with video has. Just because music will be released in multichannel format doesn't mean you can't play it in stereo.(Ex. DVD)
DVD video will continue to go from strength the strength IMO - but if they continue to attempt to push ever more speakers into people's living rooms then that too will fail. 5.1 seems to be as much as the masses will stand.[QUOTE]
I agree, more speakers will be pushed. I think it is Parasound that sells a processor that has 7 channels, a sub output, another sub output for ultra low frequencies(to shake the room) and four additional programmable outputs for a total of 11 speakers and 2 subs. I think that for most people 5-7 is the most they will use.
As for releasing multichannel music an a mp3 type format that can't be illegaly downloaded, it would have to sound better or as good as RBCD/DVD-Audio/SACD for it to really catch on. MP3 sounds terrible compared to RBCD on a good stereo.
12hz seems mighty low for 8" but if Bose could reach 22 or 23 with a 4 inch, almost anything seems possible. You are right that nearly all music is well above this range but we are able to appreciate above and below what we can actually hear. It seems to change our perception of the music with low notes being felt, the highs seem more complicated but with speakers that are able to reach well above our hearing range, high notes seem more distinct. I can't really explain why I can hear a difference but it adds something.
I am a big fan of pipe organ and they do play very low (down to 8hz for a 64 foot pipe but these are rare). Some new bass guitars also reach quite low and some electronic sounds are also getting well below what many speaker systems are capable of. I like to get as much of the range as I can.
I believe Avantgarde claims 10hz for their big bass horns and I commend them for their efforts and innovations in horn design. They are quite expensive though.