| Author |
Thread: Which channels are used under certain conditions? |
    
Bronze Member Username: Culp4684
Post Number: 50
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 08:07 pm: |
|
When they record some of the old classics on SACD and DVD-A, they sometimes use three channels. In particular, I was looking at this:
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=14641
Not having one of these players as of yet, I was wondering what three channels were used. Is it left-center-right or left-right-rear?
|
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
New member Username: Friedoyster
Post Number: 7
Registered: Sep-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 07:30 pm: |
|
It really bugs me that they can't be more specific in their listings. How about 2.1 for the three channels ... I've seen that before. |
Bronze Member Username: Culp4684
Post Number: 51
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 07:39 pm: |
|
I'm not sure what you mean about the three channels. Generally, I always thought the ".1" in 5.1, 4.1 or whatever referred to the powered subwoofer output. So, in your case, the 2.1 would be left and right mains accompanied by the subwoofer. |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 725
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 07:52 pm: |
|
Robert, you're right, the .1 normally refers to the LFE (subwoofer) channel.
With hi-rez audio some channels can show as 'live' yet are not used. For example Neill Young's Greendale DVD-A Multi-channel Surround shows as 5.1 but in reality is 4.1
Regardless, these hi-rez formats can sound really wonderful even in 2 channel. |
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layne
Madrid
Spain
Post Number: 147
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 08:41 pm: |
|
That Mussorgsky piece is 3.0, according to these release notes:
http://bmgclassics.com/albums/product.jsp?id=82876613942
I've heard that when stereo was invented many decades ago, 3 channels was considered necessary for a perfect soundstage image. 2-channel became standard because of technological limitations.
Cheers
AL
|
Bronze Member Username: Culp4684
Post Number: 52
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:28 pm: |
|
I've read in a couple of places (one of them was probably right here on ths board) that using the center channel spoils the effect on a lot of hi- rez material. |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 730
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:33 pm: |
|
That depends entirely on the sound engineer. Like all formats there are good and bad recordings. I have some surround hi-rez discs where I think the center works very well and others where it is over used. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2178
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:48 am: |
|
I have "multichannel" discs in 2.1, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1. Some really good "5.1" discs actually have nothing on the centre channel, so are really 4.1. You can still pin-point centre-stage; it sounds for all the world like something is coming from the centre speaker, but if you put you ear to it, there is just silence. The centre channel is almost impossible for engineers to include without messing up the phasing that give the position of sound sources so well in stereo. I think that is why many serious recording engineers give it a miss. Probably the best DVD-Audio disc I have is in 4.0. The sub also causes problems if you take a "purist" approach to music, though there is no denying its impact in movies etc.
I agree with My Rantz, it depends on the sound engineer, and what he decided to put on the disc. |
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layne
Madrid
Spain
Post Number: 151
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:57 pm: |
|
John, have you listened to Eagles - Hotel California in DVD-A? IMO a masterpiece considering breakdown into multi-channel. I run my system without channel delays, but even then phase bias is negligible.
Cheers
AL |
|
|
