| Author |
Thread: Archive through May 23, 2004 |
    
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 801
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 03:52 am: |
|
On April 25, on the "Receivers" thread Frustrated with NAD T762, Jan Vigne made what was probably intended to be a throw-away remark.
"As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel."
My reply was as follows. I start this thread with this repeat post, to try to open up the discussion.
I thought that, too, strongly, and was extremely reluctant to get into all this HT business. I am from the "old school" and hated the whole idea of active subs - speakers should be full-frequency range, and introduce no colouration, n'est-ce pas?
But my family wanted movies, and I baulked at the price and quality of stuff being sold as all-in-one surround systems, knowing full well my stereo was miles better.
I was right.
Once you have a device to read 5.1 discs and amplification, you just use your old speakers. Speakers are still speakers, sound is still sound. And it becomes even more important that you can hear where it is coming from. The old virtues are the new ones, too. And inside 5.1 is 2.0, ready and waiting. Just as a good stereo system could also do mono.
About a year later, I come out the other end, discover DVD-Audio, and thank my family. The family is also delighted with the result, and discovered the old guy knew some things, since we have a system far superior to all-in ones in kids' friends' homes, and sometimes at much less cost.
As an unexpected spin-off, I have a renewed interest in listening to music, including in stereo, including my LPs. I have read this from a number of regular contributors here.
BTW some of the quality DVD-Audio recordings do not use the sub at all, and often not the center channel, either, for reasons stereo purists will see immediately. 5.0 or 4.0 recordings are not uncommon.
The problem with DVD-Audio is it gets filed under "Home Theater". We have a new category here under "Home Audio" for "DVD-Audio and SACD".
Nevertheless my NAD T533 DVD/CD player user's review, and DVD-Audio is under "DVD players" under "Home Video" (placed there by admin), so I try to link it from more relevant threads. The latest posts there have something about which music really benfits from surround reproduction. Some of it really does - greatly.
The answer to whether music sounds better in stereo is simple: it depends on the music |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
jan vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 01:46 pm: |
|
Jan Vigne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 08:40 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John, you're correct that the format choice may depend on the music. The only comment I would add is I seldom hear a stereo (2.0) recording whether it be old, new or reprocessed mono (why do they do that?) that sounds that good to me when it is run through digital processing and multiple speakers. I am probably being an old stick in the mud but it almost always seems to detract from the music or at least not add anything. It seems to be similar to the idea for the original Bose 901. Amar Bose had evidence from studies done at MIT that 9/10 of what you hear in a concert hall is reflected sound. He set about building a speaker with one speaker on the front to send sound directly (approx. 1/10) at your listening position and 8 speakers on the sides and rear of the cabinet to send reflected sound (approx. 9/10)into the room. This was miltiplied times two for a stereo pair. This, of course ignored the fact that within your own listening room what you hear is predominately reflected sound. Instead of adding life to the music digitally created multiple sources seem to muddy things up to me. But my listening area is set up for a rather lively response that adds a sense of ambience. When I added SACD to the system last year I tried a few discs and found the resolution better but it reminded me quite often of the days of CD-4 quadrophonic sound where the mix down put you in the center of the band and even, sometimes, in the center of the guitar's stereo pick ups or the snares on a drum set. Sound, sometimes from the same instrument was coming from different parts of the room. Back in the 70's, when I was much more experimental with my entertainment enhancements, I found that occassionally interesting but now it bothers the P-diddle out of me. It's OK with "Dark Side of the Moon" but orchestral pieces and many live recordings don't work for me. As always the mix down is what will make the recording. |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 816
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Jan,
You wrote "I seldom hear a stereo (2.0) recording whether it be old, new or reprocessed mono (why do they do that?) that sounds that good to me when it is run through digital processing and multiple speakers".
I completely agree. In fact I would delete "seldom" and replace it with "never".
Following your post, I wrote a long essay about Blumlein pairs, where to put microphones, and what is wrong with the Bose mentality. And where to put Bose... Here is another long essay, instead.
Jan, your posts are hugely informative and stimulating, and send me off in too many directions.
I can even follow "(why do they do that?)" I have some Decca Eclipse LPs, "mono recording electronically reprocessed to give stereo effect on stereo equipment". They did it for the same reasons we now have Prologic and all these naff matrixed surround processing programs. In 2020 people will be saying "Prologic: why did they do that?" Briefly: Decca had a back catalogue of mono recordings, stereo was getting fashionable, and they hoped no-one would notice the difference.....
(My aside: one of my first LP purchases was a Decca "Eclipse" LP. I now have the same piece of music on DVD-A. In between, I have two Cd versions. Thrilled by the DVD-A, and with my LP interest rejuvenated partly by your throw-away remark "open the lid", I played the original LP, now almost exactly 30 years old. It is dire. Wonderful performance, LP still in good condition, good surface, good frequency response, "stereo effect" gives you the impression you have gone completely deaf in one ear. And do you know what? My receiver has NO MONO BUTTON. The only way to play those things was in mono.)
Trying to get back on the rails...
Jan, you know audio inside out. I am in awe of your knowledge and insight. But, as with one or two other experienced listeners who post here, I suspect - and forgive the presumption - you are still trying to filter out all the hype and gobbydegook surrounding home theater/home cinema. You know it is garbage, but I believe that you are accidentally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Consider.
1. With four speakers, and you in the center of the square whose corners they are at, you have a stereo pair on each of the four sides. That is four stereo pairs. All the old rules apply; phase coherence if you can get it; full frequency response if you can get it; speakers angled inwards so you are listening on-axis.
2. Center speaker. On most recording you have to put up with it. "Audiophile" DVD-As often don't use it at all, even if they say "5.1" on the label. However, when used by a recording engineering who thinks his job is to be creative, the center channel does real damage to the sound stage.
3. The source. It has to be a true, multichannel recording. 4.0 is probably the best, but for marketing reasons, probably, 5.1 is now the norm (as in 2, some cunning labels quietly forget to put anything on the center and LFE channels). 6.1, 7.1 etc is total nonsense, and a marketing ploy.
4. What sort of performance do you wish to listen to? Here is the ancient dilemma, still with us. For many people, the engineer's job is to give you a sound which is exciting and interesting, but never existed in the real world. This is OK, it should not be made illegal. BUT..... if you wish to re-create, as accurately and faithfully as possible, the actual sound you would have heard had you been there at the performance, then DVD-Audio is HUGE progress. (I cannot speak personally for SACD).
5. If "approach to the original sound" is your goal, get a disc made by sound and recording engineers who had that objective themselves. I have about 12 DVD-As and it is clear there are going to be all the old problems again. I can suggest some cheap but very good "classical" DVD-As. Rock etc. is a bit more problematical because it is less likely there ever was an original performance. But not always. www.aixrecords.com might be a good multi-genre DVD-A label. I have yet to hear any, but have some on order. www.kaproductions.co.uk have done some great early DVD-A recording for Naxos (www.naxos.com), but now seem to have been supplanted by people who DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO PUT MICROPHONES (heard that before...?")
6. The heck with Bose. Your own room should be as close to anechoic as practicable. What you will get is the sound of the original performance, and it was not in your sitting room/ lounge, so try to cancel that out; it will only cause confusion. Soft furnishings etc.
7. The "sweet spot" is now determined by where your head is relative to the corners of the square, not the ends of a line. Start sitting right at the center, with the speaker delays to the same value, because the distance the sound travels to your head is the same. In practice you might have to delay the center a bit (but see 2): it is likely to be a bit closer. You can experiment a bit with altered delay values and listening positions, but you have to start somewhere. But remember, the essence of stereo positioning is phase. With stereo, you could sit almost anywhere along a line perpendicular to the one joining the two speakers, and intersecting them halfway. You cannot do that now. For your brain to resolve all the positions of the sources of sound, there is one fixed point in space where all the phases and amplitudes will be those you would have experienced IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE.
8. If you knew all that, apologies, and please say so. If you didn't, please give it a shot. Just put one something you are generally familiar with, close your eyes, and listen. And do, please, post back! Or maybe start a new thread. Or just an e-mail.
All the best. |
Jan Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 01:35 pm: |
|
Jan Vigne
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 02:04 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John A. You and I seem to end up doing a back and forth quite a bit. I think, when all is said and done, we are in agreement that the mix is the big deciding factor in the sound you can achieve. And always has been. I believe that is the old garbage in = garbage out. Since you are the only person I have seen use the term Blumlein pair on this site and you apparently know where that should be positioned in a concert hall I commend you. My real objection is to two channel recordings that are processed through the digital circuitry of an A/V unit and regurgitated out to 5,6 or 7.1 channels. (Being an old fogey I seldom hear that .1 that I'm impressed with. Too many are designed for explosions and car wrecks.) I too own many mono recordings from the original pressing and subsequent remixes and elctronically reprocessing all too often strip the music of its best qualities. The end does not justify the means. It comes down to what was the intent of the original artist/recording engineer and does any further processing by another engineer or my A/V reciever improve the music. My system is well set up for a system that has to exist in a communal location. Multiple speakers make for more compromises than a single pair where I can dedicate a space to the "music room". And if I have to choose between a space for my music and a space where everyone can watch videos and occassionally listen to music, I'll take the music room as my priority. So in the A/V room/system I probably don't have everything as "correct" as in my music room. Maybe that will change as multichannel reproduction improves and I aquire more good sounding discs that require more than two channels. But, as you seem to agree, I think I will find too many recordings where the center channel is unecessary but is (over)used to convince me I spent my money wisely on the extra speaker (which was the reason for all that reprocessing and ping pong games that were recorded in the late 50's and early 60's). I have expressed my opinion of the need for a center channel speaker in a different thread on this site and provoked some rather fierce responses. I am again unusual in my tastes as I set my center levels much lower than an SPL meter would indicate is balanced; so what, its my system and I prefer a wider spread across the front with just enough to bring the dialogue to the center but not call attention to "Hey, I've got a center channel speaker!!!" And with the surrounds I spend too much time listening to the speakers and not the music. Should I have direct radiators or maybe diploes. Or maybe bipoles? Should they be high or low? Rear wall or side wall? I've asked and never recieved what I thought was a satisfactory answer. "Well, for some recordings you will want a dipole and for others you will want a bipole that's why we've made our speaker switchable or you can have them be both, or neither, or switch back and forth in between." PUH-Leese! Just let me go back to adjusting VTA between each cut on a record and only playing one song off one side of an album. I know it's a hobby but so is listening to music. When I was selling I always kind of liked the guys who bought their McIntosh or Marantz systems twenty years before and had somebody come set it up and never did a thing to it except continue to buy records and tapes to play. Anyway, so far my response to the handful of SACD and DTS discs that I have purchased is I am underwhelmed, and I don't get the feeling DVD-A will change my opinion much. But, please everyone out there buy more of these discs and players because that is the only way things will improve. I will keep trying because the few that sound good are interesting though I don't feel I have been transported to a particular venue which I kind of thought was the goal of "the absolute sound". |
Jan Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 01:37 pm: |
|
Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 02:15 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site is learning that I'm long winded and is telling me to stop and listen to others. To finish my thoughts from above I will say, as you have, the engineers on the new recordings do not seem to know where a microphone (or two or even seven) should be placed. Rock and pop are back to the days of "Were these people even on the same contiinent when they layed down their tracks?". (OK, the Beatles weren't at the end but they got Phil Spector to make it all better.) And several of the classical pieces I have in multichannel would make a Duetsch Grammophone engineer from the 1970's envious with how many microphone locations there seem to be and how much channel riding is done in the mix down. It's amazing that a French horn and a piano can be the same size. Then could it sound better if I had purchased dipoles? |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 831
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 04:38 pm: |
|
Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 03:35 am:
______________________________________________________
Jan,
Thank you. I have a response to every point. As you may have guessed, or maybe feared. ....
I am currently a bit manic about DVD-A, and must surely sound mildly deranged. I really did not think such progress was possible, not in one swell foop. The people I am most keen to compare notes with are long-term careful listeners, and you seem to be about numero uno at the moment. E.g. I can suggest exactly what to do about the dilemma of "serious listening" vs "family entertainment", and how to get the best of both, which is very desirable. Also some example of wonderful engineers discretely dumping the wretched center channel, while leaving "5.1" on the box so as not to lose sales.
|
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 832
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Not posted previously, but a first, draft response Jan's original post of April 28. All further comments welcomed.
__________________________________________
Jan,
I agree that a recording made in stereo 2.0 should played back that way. And I am still delighted with stereo. Hearing a individual instruments or performers arranged as if across a stage in front of me is a pleasure. What it allows is the isolation of individual sources in space. Any type of music benefits from hearing the individual parts, and how they fit togther. That is the essence of music, harmony, it reaches us at some deep level and moves us in a way that no-one can entirely account for, I think. There is also speech. Broadcast plays, chat shows, news etc - anything where people are communicating with each other - these also benefit.
If you start with the simplest assumption of a pair of microphones, placed where you, the listener, would be, the perceived positions of the sources of sound on playback is determined by both their relative amplitudes and phases from the two speakers.
So a sound source right in front of you has equal amplitudes from the two speakers and the same phase. One to your right will be re-created by more amplitude (volume ) from the right speaker, but also by the phase difference in the sound from that single source, caused by the greater time if took the sound to reach the left-hand microphone. Somehow or other the brain can take those millisecond delays and phase shifts from the sound reaching our two ears, which, in reality, are hearing only two loudspeakers, and apply its own processing. The result is a recreation of what we would have heard if we had been where the microphones were in the recording. It is like holography; you make the appearance of something three-dimensional, even when the information is only on a surface (two dimensions).
Most recording engineers use more than two microphones. For example, in the simple case of a round-table discussion on the radio, the each person speaking usually has one microphone, placed on the table in front of him. The sound engineer has to mix the lines to give a two-channel output that resembles what would have been obtained with just two microphones, in the right place. The result is usually a stereo broadcast where it sounds like you sitting at the table, listening to the conversation. Usually the chairman or whatever sounds as if he is sitting opposite you - this is just because the signal from the mike registering his/her voice is equal in amplitude on the two channels, and in-phase.
I get some stereo broadcasts these days by digital satellite. It is very interesting to switch between stereo and "matrixed" surround sound, and to listen to what is going on. It is quite clear that the sound engineers have taken considerable care with the phasing, in order to give you surround sound effects. E.g. in a panel discussion or stage show in front of a live audience: you are given surround that makes it sound exactly like you are a member of the audience. Even TV advertisements, fanfares announcing the news with the station's signature tune, etc, are very skilfully laid out so the voice is coming from in front, and there is, say an orchestra or something laid out behind you. The same is true on many two-channel videotapes. The surround sound effects are no accident. And in movies they are used to great effect, because they can re-create moving sources of sound, e.g a helicopter circling around, or whatever.
In music you do not usually have moving sources of sound, but it is not ruled out, and can be quite effective. There are many examples; marching bands, ceremonial processions, other things.
But even for musical performers sitting or standing in one place, which is the norm, what you can rebuild from surround sound is the sound of the room in which the recording took place - the reflections, mostly. You just cannot do that in stereo. And if the performers are actually located around you (and some music was written for that kind of performance) there is just no way to get back that experience from stereo.
The big mistake of the Bose approach, in my view, is that the reflected sound you hear at the performance cannot possibly resemble the reflected sound in your listening room. Maybe if you had your two speakers set up in a room of the same size and construction as the hall in which the performance took place, if might be possible to approach what Bose probably had in mind. But it is nonsense to think this can be done in the home. You are right, the Bose approach just muddies up good clear stereo positioning. If you take the Bose approach to surround sound, it is much worse.
To re-create a 2-D, surround sound stage, you need good, old-fashioned, directional loudspeakers, as phase coherent as you can get - even for "Surrounds". The ideal home listening room today would be anechoic: lots of soft furnishings can get close enough, probably. If your listening room has its own reflections, these will be competing with the recorded ones, and you will get a collision of two incompatible perceptions of the space you are in. It is stressful to get incompatible signals, the brain has to devote too much attention to trying to figure out what the heck is going on.
Genuine multichannel recordings (5.1 etc) give sound engineers much more control, and the effects in movies are now quite startling and add to the experience considerably. The effects in music, meaning reproduction of a real musical performance, are potentially very rewarding. The problem is the approach of the sound engineers. Mostly they do not seem to imagine they are even in the business of capturing a real performance. Some do, however. We knew that with stereo. But in fifty years of stereo there is still no clear decision between creating something arresting and synthetic, versus capturing a real event and reproducing it as accurately as possible.
From my limited collection of DVD-Audio discs, there are still the bad guys and the good guys, and a lot in between. The there are the clowns who may (or may not) understand full well what the medium will do, but for whom the first priority is to force their own interpretation onto the listener, getting in the way of the performance.
But the potential is there to do great things. We should not write off the medium, just try, as you put it, to "listen and learn". |
Jan Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 01:39 pm: |
|
I think, if this is to go any further, I would like to open this to the other responders (John A. and I being the bravest of the brave first responders) by asking a few questions of the listeners in the forum. In today's market place the predominant format for recording music is still a two channel stereo mix. In the same market the sales of two channel equipment has plummetted in the last few years as multichannel Home Theater gear has far outstripped the competition in market growth. Many stores here in the US don't (or barely) carry two channel equipment in stock. The "new" formats of SACD and DVD-A, after a half dozen years on the market, are still struggling to get a foot hold and loosing the war as retailers are pressed for display space. I've found quite a number of people who don't know and don't care about the higher resolution of another copy of "Abbey Road". Since the library of discs and the higher price means a "better" sounding disc will represent a relatively small portion of the music you own, what are your feelings toward the success and failures of the equipment and music industries. How do those of you who have invested a good deal of time and, probably, money justify your purchases of a medium that is at odds with the media you own. How many of you listen to a stereo recording in stereo and on what type of system (two channel or more)? Have we become a society where the $29 CD boombox is relevant? Is the Home Theater the only system in the house and if so do you listen to two channel recordings in five, six or more channels? If so, why or why not? What does it benefit a two channel recording to be played back in something other than two channel playback? And, as an aside, do you realize that if you play back two channel recordings in Dolby Pro Logic you are essentially recreating the same matrixed surround sound that was sold in the 70's as Sansui QS surround? Those of us who have been at this for a while might actually have a recording we purchased first as a stereo mix, then as a quad mix, then as a (replacement) stereo mix and now as as a different stereo remix and are looking at replacing it with yet another multichannel mix. That being the case, how far has the industry moved forward in the last four decades? I realize many of the responders in this forum weren't even a sparkle as they say back when Sansui was a well known and respected name in electronics but join in and tell us why you own the equipment you have. Not "I bought the Yamanon Acoustics SX-1000B (in silver face plate) because it kicked the butt of the ...". Why did you purchase a type of product such as stereo, multichannel, Home Theater, etc.. How do you feel about the music that is at odds with the industry? Are you satisfied that one compliments the other or what should change?
My feelings are Home Theater and video are still totally different than two channel music reproduction and I have separate systems for each (though the A/V has now pushed out the stereo to take over the family space and the stereo has had to find a niche in another part of the house). But when I listen to music on the A/V system it is almost always in stereo (and no, my A/V system does not have "church" and "disc" parameters). I have sold receivers that boasted the ability to reproduce the acoustics of thousands of venues, all in presets, and found them useless (if not intrusive) since my personal knowledge is of but a handful of spaces. I am a proponent of your cassette or DVD player having more buttons than all the other pieces in your system put together. I own pieces of equipment that are 40+ years old and have owned many pieces in my current system for more than fifteen years. But I had to replace my A/V reciever after less than ten years. Multichannel music recordings, for the most part, sound fake to me despite the better resolution of SACD and the like. Not all but many. I run my center and surrounds very low in level and other than the benefit for most video sources I don't care for the center speaker in music reproduction unless it is very well (read mildly) treated in the mix. Am I missing something? |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 846
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 04:02 pm: |
|
"I think, if this is to go any further, I would like to open this to the other responders".
Thank you, Jan. I agree.
I have things to say in response to your last posts, but will not reply, here, before at least three other people have a go, first.
Everyone,
Jan understands the technology, the industry, and people, with a long perspective and an insight that I envy. He seems about as puzzled as I am. Our differences are small.
"Sansui. Floats likes a butterfly; stings like a bee".
You do not have to remember that in order to qualify for posting on this thread. |
|
|
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 208
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 05:23 pm: |
|
ok jan not following your questions to a tea i
will throw in my take on it.
ok we know high end audio has less people diving
in so with that in mind it would make sense that
less 2 channel equipment is sold.
many people like to gather the family together to
watch a movie so the ever growing multi surround
market is growing.
the same people who are not into high end audio
are not going to buy expensive media "sacd/dvd-a"
now remember this is all my personal belief and
not based on any sensus or other just what i believe.
keeping on that i feal that not until recently we
have started to realize what we need in multichannel
to also make 2 channel sound good (quality prepro
/amp/ front speakers.these things have finally
started to come down in price so more people can
afford them.
and likewise i think people are also realizing
that it takes a different setup now for surround
than it use to.
you use to be able to get away with small spkr's
all the way around including center channel.
now with multichannel music and the likes of es
and ex soundtracks the center and surrounds are
sent a full spectrum signal and need to be larger.
as the word spreads what needs to be done to make
2 channel perform well in multichannel setup and
there is more quality equipment to choose from
in the mid price range we will get more very good
sounding systems out there.
ok my take on 2 channel sources is the same as the
multichannel source and that is play it the way
it was mastered.
i believe you can have excelent 2 channel sound
from a multichannel system if it is done properly.
i enjoy listening to 2 channel as well as multi.
to me it depends on how well it is mastered for
either.(but play 2 channel in 2 channel)
i personally have a dedicated 2 channel system in
one room and the multichannel in another.
that is mainly do to speaker building i need to
hear the speakers in 2 channel to find out if i
am getting what i want from them.
and it wasn't until recently myself that i was
able to realize what was needed in multi to get
2channel to sound correct.
so i believe when the speaker building is done i
can have both my 2 channel and multi in the same
room without comprimise.
on to the media, i recently purchased the denon
2200 universal player so i can get full use from
the higher resolution formats and if one,the other or both cease to exist i am not out anything
as i still have my media to play that i did get
and plays on my player as well as all my other
media that the player plays also.
i personally like both new formats and bye media
for them and enjoy both the multi and 2 channel
selections.(some better than others)
and now that most good audio equipment has some
form of descent bass management subwoofers can be
used more effecively for both music(2 channel and
multi) and movies.
|
Bronze Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 54
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 06:59 pm: |
|
As one who just plunked down $3800 on a multichannel system, I might be qualified to remark on this topic....with the denotation that I haven't actually gotten to listen to the multichannel yet. For what it's worth:
I received my first "all in one" music system in the 70's. Don't remember the brand just that it had tuner, turntable, etc all in one unit. Probably cost $100 tops. Don't know for sure because Santa brought it to me.
When I was around 10, my dad helped me get into "separates"....which, in my case, meant a Technics receiver and a separate Technics turntable. We were supposed to spend my $150 on the receiver but my dad plunked down an extra $150 so I could get the turntable too. (Those prices are recollections and may or may not be accurate) We tried to get through dinner before breaking the news to mom but my "i've got a secret" smile didn't get past her radar.
Fast forward to 5-6 years ago. Where I work, everyone was happy with the stock price and started buying boats and home theaters. My plunge into this was on the low end, price-wise ( I used my stock to buy a house). I bought a Yamaha RXV795 AV receiver, a Toshiba DVD, and Bose Acoustimass (!). Fortunately, someone set me straight about the Bose and I quickly returned them and got the Energy Take5 system.
I used the HT regularly for several months. The surround was solely for movies as I had no DTS discs. When listening to 2channel, I never used any of the DSP (?) modes - which I have always hated. (See, I was an audiophile in the making I guess) One discovery I made with this system was my CD's sounded better on the Toshiba DVD than they did on the Kenwood CD player I had. Of course, I had no idea then why - but, I've learned on this forum about things like DAC's and transports - so I guess that played a role.
Within a couple of years, I was never using the HT and was starting to hear about this "audiophile" thing. I was also realizing that music was important enough to me to want to be able to have the best sound I could afford. So, I gave the Yamaha a/v, the Kenwood 5-disc CD changer and a pair of the Energy's to a couple who doesn't have much discretionary income and had no system. I then bought my current NAD c350/c541i and B&W system. This 2 channel system has served me well. The only complaint I had was the low end reproduction and knew the system needed a subwoofer upgrade.
I first learned of SACD when I got the Original Master Recording of Aimee Mann's "lost in space" which is also a hybrid SACD. From an Aimee Mann forum, I found out that this SACD thing was supposed to be much better sounding than regular cd's! Heck, it is even supposed to remind you of the sound of LP's without all the scratches and pops! But, of course, you had to have a special player to play it.
In the course of researching subwoofers, I came across this forum. Here's where I found out about DVD-A. The real turning point for me was listening to John A describe the effect DVD-A had on him. At that point, I decided I wanted to take the "plunge into multichannel". Honestly, I still have heard very little of it but still spent the money to get a system. I think my biggest motivation at this point is the higher resolution more than the multichannel capabilities.
Despite not being a true "audiophile", I still can tell there's a harshness to regular CD's. Despite popular convention, I can still tell that an MP3 file is nowhere near "cd quality" even at 192k. In fact, when I first started ripping my CD's to the computer, I found that going less than 320k was not acceptable to me. This compression sounds ok through the iPod, less so through the main stereo - although it is ok for parties or "background" music when doing chores. Anyway, I guess my point is (and it is strictly visceral nothing scientific), the promise of a better sound from the high resolution was enough to sway me. I hope my money has been well spent. |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 244
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 08:38 pm: |
|
Okay Guys, - past and future.
After the 'bedroom record players' in the sixties, our foray into sound began in the early seventies, after marriage and little money, with cheap rubbish including a Sanyo Quad system, then later upgrading to something a little better with a Kenwood Int amp, tuner, Technics turntable and Yamaha (wegde) tapedeck with 3 way Coral speakers.
When CD's arrived, we upgraded to a 80 wrms Yamaha int amp, Technics CD changer, and Acculab 3 way speakers. A big step up - but cream of the crap and still mediocre sound. The variable loudness control on the amp and insulation packing in the speaker boxes helped make them sound passable.
Then came DVD. Upgraded to 100wrms Yamaha int amp, added a 3 channel Yamaha processor (60wt pc) a top end Yamaha DVD with inbuilt decoders and a pair of small used Yamaha wall mount rears. Gave the Technics DVD changer to our son and replaced it with a Yamaha changer(we have our reasons for having a 5 disc changer over a better quality single player). The top of the line DVD player was nothing but trouble so we then bought a discounted Luxman, which has worked very well.
Naturally, we have tried listening to 2 channel sources in surround modes a couple of times - doing nothing to appreciate is an overstatement. Stereo listening was always going to be much more preferable. Surround DVD movies were okay, but, we still wanted much better.
We began reseaching for an entire new kit that would provide (a) quality stereo performance for cd's and (b) quality HT surround for movies (including music DVD's).
After research we were interested in and listened to NAD, Marantz, HK and Denon receivers. Nad topped our list but reasons (explained in NAD - to be or not to be) led us to the Marantz SR-7300 after discounting the HK and Denon 3803.
We began our upgrade with Danish made JBL XTi-60 towers followed by a Richter sub. Did a blind test on the speakers with several others (Mission, Energy, Boston Accoustics, Mirage Omnis) driven by a Nad amp. When we connect them to the Yamaha, the improvement was astounding but, as expected, sounded a bit bright. When, we finally brought home the SR-7300 everything changed, especially after we connected the cd changer to the 7300 with optical cable. The 7300 paired with the JBL Xti60's makes most cd's sound marvelous and some just absolutely wonderful. It was a whole new world for us!
With 5.1 movies the system is also excellent, can't say enough, but we really like the 5.1 movie concerts. In most cases, the system (now including JBL S3611 wall mounts) provides a great soundstage, a sense of being there with wonderful clarity.
For music only, stereo reigns supreme in our house, it just sounds sublime. But I am looking really forward to DVD-a in particular, and even SACD. At present, we are looking towards the Denon DVD-2900 not only for those formats, but for durability and video handling also. While these new music surround formats might sound magnificent on some recordings, they are, however, like surround movies, correctly positioned listening is required. Although it's great to listen to stereo music sitting in the sweet spot, it's still worthy listening from virtually any position in the room.
What Jan stated about the HI FI dealers, the same applies here: surround systems dominate their stocks because that's where the money is now. They stock very little in stereo componentry. While other formats may certainly carry excellent listening benefits, good stereo sound, I hope will always be a choice.
|
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 850
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 12:18 am: |
|
Kegger, Ghia, and My Rantz.
Wonderful. Thank you, all three. I think your "how we got where we are and why we have the stuff we have" is fascinating and revealing. I have things to say. I expect Jan could write a book, and it would be a good one. But I will still hold off for a bit, maybe coming back soon with something on surround sound formats and modes, where I think the industry hype has been especially confusing, at least to judge just from this forum, and my own puzzling about sales literature etc. I also promised another reply to Jan, and will not forget. |
Jan Vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Let me add this question. The advertising for many speakers and HT components suggest a different approach to designing for stereo music reproduction and Home Theater (why does that get capitalized and stereo does not?) reproduction. Companies refer to their products as "for those who still listen to music" and there are endless numbers of speakers that are in a company's Home Theater line. Kegger's reply seems to indicate he has taken a diferent approach to his designs for the different uses. Is there a difference in what anyone looks for in a speaker or component? If not, what do you make of this approach by the manufacturers? |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 864
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 05:07 pm: |
|
Jan,
HT marketing guys wish to claim sonic perfection; stereo marketing guys wish to claim it is only possible in two channel. Underneath, the basic principles are the same, I think - "sound is still sound".
I have commented before about the anti-stereo "backlash" in the 60s. The argument was: for a given amout of money, you are better off getting one powerful single-channel amp, and one ffrr speaker, than you are getting two separate channels and speakers, each with lower specifications, just to get the sounds of games of ping-pong and steam locomotives moving in front of you: these have nothing to do with music. There was some truth in this school of thought, and it had some distinguished adherents, of whom Phil Spector, whom you mentioned, was one.
I think we are in a comparable position, now, with surround sound. The cheap 5.1 systems are full of gimmicks and the basic sound quality is not good. But that reflects the cost of the components, mostly, and the HT-in-a-box sellers are keen to claim no trade-off with sound quality, even arguing that there is something more musical about synthetic surround sound effects e.g. "jazz", "church" "stadium". It is nonsense, of course, but they are just trying to draw attention away from the limitations of the systems they are selling.
That intended as brief comment. Still some point unanswered, from earlier. Will be back! |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 213
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 05:59 pm: |
|
Jan i am very interested in your question/thoughts.
and i ask this question for 2 reasons 1 i am at
work right now and 2 would like to give your question
a little more thought.
i was wondering if you could explain your question
a little more thurough so i get excactly what you
are looking for.
THANKS!
|
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 250
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 06:47 pm: |
|
"If not, what do you make of this approach by the manufacturers?"
Jan,
I don't know about Hi Fi/Stereo/HT marketing in your part of the world, but here it's all Home theatre. Age old Hi Fi specialists are all promoting Home Threatre and stereo components are hard to find and there is little to choose from if one can. I note speaker manufacturers are always promoting HT use heavilly but add great for 2 channel listenning. What is the difference between 2 channel and multi channel main speakers - some are making them with high bandwidths (43mhz) to accommodate the new audio formats, even though our ears hear much less than half that range. IMO any quality speaker will perform well for both stereo and multi-channel - perhaps a high end a little over 20mhz for the higher frequency formats would suffice, but a speaker is a speaker to me. On the Gold Coast there may be 4 or 5 Hi Fi specialists who now deal primarily in HT or surround sound gear. To audition stereo components, one needs to travel to the capital cities and try their luck. It's now a Home Threatre/Surround Sound world. Yet, there is not one outlet here on the coast (pop circa 500,00) that sells DVD-A's or SACD's. The internet is the only source for now. Go figure! |
jan vigne Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Kegger - I'm just throwing out some open ended questions at the moment. I'd like to explore how everyone makes choices about the equipment they own and how they use the technology that is available to them. I would like to know your feelings about the material you have to play on the system you spent hard earned money to own. Hifi has always been a hobby where you could spend enormous amounts of money for equipment. A quick glance at Stereophile's recommended components indicates a class A turntable selling for over $70,000, a tonearm for $4,000 and "The Absolute Sound" just reviewed a $13,000 cartridge. And you still don't have cables to hook it up. All that for an "obsolete" technology. I don't suspect many in this group to be traveling in those circles, though I wish everyone well enough that you could, but you all, from your own experiences, understand the monetary aspect. After all that money has been spent you are still letting the ultimate quality of the sound and video be determined by a source you may spend a few dollars to own. In what we have read so far Ghia seems to have plunged into a fairly pricey system after being drawn by what she heard and read about high quality reproduction but having little experience in the actual product. A very laudable exercise. The type that used to draw people from their fold out speakers with a turntable attached to eventually seek out "audiophile" equipment. In my experience it has always been the person who heard about a better sounding import mix, then found a better sounding component to play it on, and so on it went until one day they were an audiophile. So it seems there will always be someone willing to seek out the best reproduction of the music they want to experience. As to not that many people interested in high end audio, there seem to be, judging from the ads in the magazines, more equipment manufacturers than ever before. Certainly some will disappear just as they always have. But, just as certainly more will replace them. Who is supporting these companies? Why spend the money for a system when, in the case of My Rantz, you don't even have a convenient source for the music to play? Kegger, it sounds as if you are searching for something special in your speaker designs. What have you found in your designs that has taught you something about hifi and about music? What we have had as contributions to this point have been great insights into your journey to the systems you now own. I would hope more folks would join in and tell their stories and relate their experiences. Let's hear what made you search out that better system. What made you look for something better? Why were you unhappy with what you had already? What did it not do that you thought was important to your satisfaction with playing music? What do you want when you go out to find a better piece of gear? What qualities are you looking for? Obviously everyone wants it to sound good but what does that mean to you? Do you listen to live music? If you don't, that's fine with me. If you do, what are you trying to find in your audio set up that says this is good music? How do you get there; two, four or more speakers? After all this thought about what makes you happy with your system, what are you finding in the music and electronics industries that you find help and benefit you? What are you finding that gets in the way? The advertising and the press would make you think that buying more equipment and more stuff will bring you a euphoria that was, until now, only experienced by the Greek gods. Equipment is described as if it will impart some power to you that mere mortals can only dream of. That is until next month's issue or next year's product announcement. How do you filter that into your purchases? Or don't you? It's a lot to chew on and everyone is encouraged to send this off in another direction if you fell it will benefit the discussion. Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. But this all started with John A. and I grousing about the dissatisfaction we have had with multichannel and the recording quality and an overall sense of after all these years it should be better than this. And occassionally, particularly as John has delved into DVD-A, he has obviously gotten excited about some of what he has heard. I'd like to know how others feel about how the people you are giving your money to are treating you. I hope this will be a more interesting discussion than "what cable is the best match ...". Let's see what happens. John A., it's your turn. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 215
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:12 am: |
|
ok jan as i have stated on many occasions i look
at things a little bit more simply than others
and allways try to figure out the most
simple/easy/cost effective way of doing so.
(it doesn't allways turn out that way) but that
is my approach.
just in case any of this may have a bearing of
where i am coming from."I am 38 years old"
I work for a computer company and have been into
electronics for as long as i can remember.
I make halfway descent money but have a home so
i can't spend huge amounts on electronics, well
at least not as much as i would if i could.
I think many of us are in the same boat "allways wanting better"
I live in an area where their are at least 30 or
so electronic shops within 30 miles.like i said
i am into electonics so i visit a lot of them
quite frequently and see whats out there. some i
like but can't afford so i try to make due with
what i can figure is basiaclly the best bang for
the buck in the area i am interested.
from my experiance/researching i found that most
speaker manufacturers make compromizes in there
building of speakers and charge a lot more for
something, that i can build for less.
what i'm into lately is picking up used speakers
taking the cabinets apart and rebuilding them.
i have done ground up designs but it's a lot less
work to start with someone elses design and improve it.
the two main things for me in improving the sound
of the speaker is the cabinet and the crossover.
most cabinets do not have enough internal bracing
and use inferior parts in the crossover.they also
do not make the cabinets thick enough.so i take
the time to get the cabinet at least 1.5 inches
thick on every wall and try to brace at least every 6-9 inches depending on cabinet size.and i
rework the crossover most of the time, starting
with general computer numbers then tweaked by ear. i feal i can build or rebuild a better unit
than i can afford.
now amplifiers/recievers/preamps as of right now
i am not going to attempt to say i can build better.
so when i am looking to upgrade i do a lot of
internet research and try to narrow down choices
then go check them out.
when i hear of a new technology or sound format
i generally want to wait and see if it sticks or
if the mass market units adopt it.before i delve
into it to see what it's about.
so when dvd-a and sacd came out i was interested
but not until more recently when more than a few
units hit the market.and i went and auditioned it.and i felt with the improvement in sound that
i would get from the new formats and video of the
new player for my widescreen tv that a universal
player was the choice for me.so i did research
and got what i think is the best bang for the buck in universal players.
i am very stubborn and it takes a lot to convince
me of something if i don't believe in it.so i can
not put much stock in what most sales people try
to suggest to me.
the main things that make me want to keep looking
for the better equipment.
1. a friend of mine owns a buisiness and has more
money then i and because of this he purchases a
lot more expensive equipment than i can afford he
also is very good at picking the best equipment
in his price range so hearing and seeing his gear
makes me strive to want more.
2. i love music clean and sometimes loud and that
is harder to do than most might think.there is a
fine line between clean and loud for budget gear.
3. i go into these high end shops to see and hear
what they have to offer but can't afford and will
find some gear i would love to own.
4.i believe in technology and the thought that
someone can allways improve something or a new
breakthrough leads us to a cheaper more effective
way of doing something.
i personally feal with enough research done on
the net you can get almost all of the info you
need on an electronic purchase without even going
to the store to check it out.
my thought on multichannel be it music or movies
is as i stated above has recently changed.
and that is you need quality full range speakers
all around with a good quality sub and good bass
management form your electronics.
I also feel the speakers are the same for quality
2 channel as it is for multichannel.if anything
maybe for a little extra zing in multichannel be
it movies or surround would be the speakers be a
little on the bright side.
and maybe that could be some of the manufacturers
reasons for having dedicated surround speakers
that some might feel to bright for 2 channel.
i personally like my speakers to be slighty bright.
but i have the 2 channel setup to better evaluate
the sound of the speaker.i believe the speakers
need to be able to perform in 2 channel before
they can be thought of for use in multi.
|
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 216
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 01:24 am: |
|
i also believe some of the reason that more of
the general publc purchase surround systems and
not dedicated 2 channel is that the manufactures
build more multi cahnnel so the price comes down.
then when the general public goes out to buy the
system they say to themselves why would i spend
that much and just get 2 speakers when i can get
5-7 spkr's and a sub for the same or less. |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 876
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 02:57 am: |
|
I agree, completely, Kegger. Well said.
The times are a'changing with home audio. I think the name of the game is keeping the best of the old, and putting it together with what is really worth having in the new. It ain't easy to work out which is which. I get the impression that you and I, at least, agree about the basics.
I agree especially about the need for full-range all round. The ht-in-a-box systems lean heavily on the active sub to do the heavy work. That is so you can string the little speakers around, and hear things coming from different places, at the least cost, all while still getting some deep bass. That is not the way to go if you want the best sound the format will allow. But you don't have to scrap the whole idea.
I think that any 5.1 system worth having is able to do stereo just as well a conventional stereo. And even surrounds should just be the best speakers you can afford, too; there is nothing different there, except people mostly want them to be small, and hang on the wall.
So "5.1"/"2.0" is not a case of "either"/"or". It was the same with stereo coming in to add something you could not get from mono. |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 879
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 11:36 am: |
|
I do not wish to dominate this thread, or deflect readers from the previous, excellent points made by all the posters. Please scroll back to Kegger and previous posts, and by all means skip this one, without referring to it, in order to reply to them. But, here seems a good point to relocate an edited version of part of a post I made on April 17 on Best cables for amp and pre-pro, as follows.
____________________________________________________________
Surround sound.
I went through a steep learning curve on surround formats on this forum. My whole experience of surround sound is still not quite one year old. One thread is still running. What does "DVD-audio" mean here?. Admin has just moved that thread to the new category "DVD-Audio & SACD". This is good. "DVD-Audio" belongs under "Audio", and has got to get away from the home cinema/theatre bracket. Anyway, I started that thread with some stupid newbie misapprehensions, got some flames, and ended up learning from guys who could be bothered to explain what was going on. One was Gregory, posting then as "G-Man", and I thank him. There were others.
This is what I now think I know. Or, at least, think.
Dolby Digital means many things (you can find it on videotapes etc). AC-3 is the 5.1 format that helped kick-off the DVD-Video deal, I think in 1997. It is a compromise format aiming to give movie watchers acceptable stereo in addition to true 5.1. The 5.1 is probably built around the assumption that the listener/viewer has an all-in-one system with speakers the size of tin cans, a low-power amp, and it therefore leans heavily on the active sub for everything else, from all channels. On many discs I have, if you give it large speakers all round then it seems to duplicate the bass intended for the LFE channel.
DTS "Digital Theater Systems" is a competitor to Dolby. It started with audio and computer engineers concerned with getting good sound quality for movies in cinemas/movie theatres, and has an interesting history going back to the earliest experiments with digital sound encoding (there is a pdf file on their site - linked below). They got backing from Spielberg and the first DTS movie was "Jurassic Park". When DVD HT kicked in, they produced a format radically different from Dolby, using intrinsically higher-resolution encoding (96 kHz; 24 bit; PCM - same as DVD-A for 5.1) but they had to compress the files, to get them on a disc alongside Dolby AC-3. The claim is it is that the compression is "perceptually lossless" but it isn't - DVD-A proves THAT, too! But you've got to give it to those guys for trying to do something. In reality, DTS is a less audio-compromised format than DD: it is designed for large speakers for all 5 main channels, with LFE as a separate act. The price they pay for the average movie watcher is that it is 5.1 or nothing - stereo down-mix is impossible, and there is no 2.0. Now, I was knocked out by DTS. It was so clearly superior to Dolby that I could not understand why it was not common knowledge. It could be down to my decoders (in the receiver), but I doubt it.
File sizes. A DD AC-3 file is about half the size of the file containing the same programme in DTS. Now the cost of physically burning and producing a DVD, whatever the format, is very small. What dictates formats available on DVD-Vs is largely marketing questions. For an average movie, the recording company has to choose how best to use the available space. Where there is a multi-lingual region, the distributor will want a movie dubbed into maybe 4 or 5 languages, so the supplier will stick with Dolby Digital. Examples: light romantic comedies; and especially children's movies, where subtitles are not an option, and parents, rightly, care about kids learning their own language. If you choose DTS, you get better sound, but it swallows up the available disc space. So DTS is only worth it to the company if it is likely that sound quality is going to be an issue for the listener/watcher, and if they think people are going to be happy with subtitles (taking almost no space) instead of dubbed soundtracks. Perfect example: feature-length "serious contender" movies e.g Gladiator etc. and many more.
There is a notable example, par excellence, The Lord of the Rings, and not just because chunks of it are in Elvish. Each part of the trilogy was released in the cinema in December; then on DVD "theatrical release" (Dolby Digital only) on just one disc in about the following August; then as an "extended edition" (the full movie, without the cuts the director didn't want to make, and in DTS) on two discs (plus "the making of" etc on further discs) in November. The extended editions are so much better it is untrue. Some of the actors have said the extended edition DVDs will outlive all other versions, and the only ones worth considering if you want to know what Peter Jackson and his guys were really trying to do. If you look at the "Extra material" of the Fellowship, you can see how obsessed with sound quality and music they all were. Any "Audiophile" who doubts the seriousness of intent of some movie makers as regards sound quality should take a look at the "extended" Fellowship, for example, and then see the supplementary material by Jackson, the sound engineers, and especially the composer, Howard Shore.
DVD-Audio. To my complete surprise, it leaves even DTS at the starting blocks. There is a genuinely lossless packing to use the disc space effectively, called MLP. - but even then, they use the entire disc for sound i.e. they don't have to "waste" space on video footage. It is a new era in sound reproduction in the home. I mean that. I won't write any more on DVD-Audio! Sure, its origins are in home cinema, but so what? Half of the industrial revolution and the transport we have today comes from steam locomotives and bicycles (the Wright Bros. were cycle dealers if I remember correctly).
That's about it. Even DTS 5.1 is an big advance on CD sound in my opinion. Dolby Digital 5.1 is an all-purpose format for movies, effectively giving 2.0 and 1.0 in addition to AC-3. In computers this would called "backwards compatibility" and is a good thing. Don't knock Dolby Digital, it gives people pleasure. But it is not there, today, if you are serious about sound quality.
More links
I have read up what Dolby and DTS each have to say about their two competing systems. I greatly prefer DTS sound. Dolby rubbishes DTS, but to me Dolby's arguments are unconvincing, as is the sound. Read, listen, and decide for yourself....
Dolby Evaluates DTS, Parts 1&2 (PDF; 99 KB)
DTS Position on "Dolby Evaluates DTS" (Part 1)
DTS Position on "Dolby Evaluates DTS" (Part 2)
This DTS link is interesting and, to me, makes a lot of sense:-
Brief History and Technical Overview
The best I have read on DVD-Audio, and SACD, is from a disc manufacturer. I have just one of their DVD-As. It is an object-lesson in how to do it, all the way from the recording to pressing, manufacture, and presentation. I particularly recommend downloading and printing the pdf linked there, though the web pages are good, too.
DVD-Audio Overview |
Bronze Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 60
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 04:25 pm: |
|
Jan wrote:
"In what we have read so far Ghia seems to have plunged into a fairly pricey system after being drawn by what she heard and read about high quality reproduction but having little experience in the actual product. A very laudable exercise..."
Or a clear sign of insanity! ;-) |
Bronze Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 61
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 05:09 pm: |
|
Kegger wrote:
"i personally feal with enough research done on
the net you can get almost all of the info you
need on an electronic purchase without even going to the store to check it out. "
From my experience, I think this is mostly true. I think you can end up with a good quality system without having heard it...but there's the question of whether it pleases you sonically/tonally if you haven't had the benefit of listening to it.
I don't have a background in audio equipment retail or manufacturing so I don't really know what drives the focus on multichannel/HT systems. Products are always evolving and there's probably a perception that "stereo systems" are old school and "entertainment systems" are new school. For your average consumer, they want to get the most bang for their buck and they probably perceive an HT system as being a better value - as it can handle both movie sound and music.
Probably 85% of those who have HT systems care more about the aesthetics of the systems and whether or not it delivers the big explosions from the soundtrack. I would be willing to bet that a large portion of those also do not do "serious" music listening but instead use music as a background soundtrack to their lives....the music is there but there's always something else going on (parties, chores, etc). In this situation, most folks would never know if they weren't hearing "all" of the music or whether it is coming out of 2ch or 5. And, most of them probably don't care either.
Those who are captivated by the music and spend time just sitting in a chair listening to it are most likely going to wonder if their system sounds as good as it can/should. The curiosity drives them to start finding out about the equipment. The real challenge is when they do hear a better sounding system. Once you've heard how good your favorite music CAN sound, it's hard to go back to what you were used to before. The flaws which you may not have noticed before start to stand out and start to gnaw at you. For me, this happened after listening to the NAD c350 at the local dealer. I knew at that point, I could not continue to listen to the bright sound coming out of the Yamaha HT receiver & Energy speakers I had.
As Jan said: " In my experience it has always been the person who heard about a better sounding import mix, then found a better sounding component to play it on...." This is exactly what happened in my case. I bought the Original Master Recording of "Lost in Space" because I knew the remastering usually sounds better. But, I had no idea what a "hybrid SACD" was or what SACD was, but it was on the disc label and I had to find out more about it. Hence, here I am...on the verge of having my own hi-resolution system with the added bonus of having made a few new friends. :-)
|
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 220
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 07:01 pm: |
|
GHIA you are a perfect example of what i meant
by that, and hoped you would chime in.
and you said just what i meant "almost all of the info you need"
you did research narrowed your choices and then
had to decicde for yourself what was going to
sound good to you.
unfortunately the only thing we need b&m's for is
listening to the equipment.
i personally try to find what i want locally and
if it is close to what i can get it for online i
will purchase it.
i have only made 1 brandnew online purchase for a
complete piece of eqipment. "b&k pt3 series II preamp"
sure i've bought several parts online but i try
to give the b&m's as much of my business as i can. |
Silver Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 928
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Just to illustrate my suggestion that part of the problem is inflated claims of manufacturers.
Barry Fox in HiFi News (a sort of UK audiophile mag), January 2004, writes about a £500 "high end" DVD home cinema system which claims "'high fidelity speakers and amplifier for the best possible audio performance' with 'accurate sound reproduction unmatched by larger and more expensive systems', 'sonic accuracy' and 'audiophile-grade' performance".
"But when CD stereo was played loud enough throgh the front pair [of speakers] the distortion was truly horrid. To rub salt in the wound, the makers promised 'superior quality audio for music CD playback' and slagged off competing products 'flooding the market' as 'hopelessly outclassed'"
Fox attributes these sorts of claims to "...marketing men who haven't heard un-amplified music since they sat in school assembly and would not know a stereo image if it bit them on the leg. They are the same people who sell amplifiers with ambience setting that promise the natural acoustic of hall, stadium or jazz club".
"If an amplifier adds the artificial ambience of an imaginary hall, to whatever natural ambience the recording has captured, then what finally comes out from the speakers will be the sound of the hall as heard in another hall. This isn't accuracy, it's distortion".
Nice to read some forthright views from time to time! |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 202
Registered: Dec-03
| | |
