Thread: Multichannel SACD - what's the real lowdown?

Posts: 94
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Post by Julien January 23, 2008 (21 of 94)
Livy said:

I think you are correct that MC has the capability of a very realistic concert hall accoustic portrayal, but poorly placed mics in a MC recording may produce a worse result than some stereo recordings. Venue also has a lot to do with it. MC is not simply "better" in every case.

Saying that MC is better than stereo doesn't mean that it is in every case. It only means that the very best of MC is better than the very best of stereo. It's like saying, men are physically stronger than women. Then one guy says, "I know a woman who's a lot stronger that me..."

Post by Runkeldunk January 23, 2008 (22 of 94)
!S

I'm very confused about all this DSD. F.ex I have an older (I know its a bad word) receiver fgrom sony. I looked up the specs on sony hp but no word about DSD. Then I look the latest Sony receiver up its this one: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=27925
the 5300es one. And the specs on that says that it supports dsd via hdmi. But not a word on the multichannel analog one, so I am confused.

My player which has no hdmi supports DSD So what is the story here???


++++Runkeldunk++++

Post by Windsurfer January 23, 2008 (23 of 94)
Livy said:

...in terms of whether MC is "better", I think a case can be made for microphone placement having a dramatic impact.

Really - this is so obvious I wonder why you thought it needed saying!

But tell me, can you name a recording by Polyhymnia (any PentaTone for example) or Telarc, or BIS, or Chandos, or Channel Classics, or Tudor, or Avie, or Artegra, or ATMA or Lyrinx ... I could go on and on here.... wherein the MC version is less satisfying than the stereo?

Post by FunkyMonkey January 23, 2008 (24 of 94)
There are two types of evidence in science. There is that which proves the "what", i.e. we experience this after doing this so doing this made that, i.e. blocking a super-tweeter takes the sparkle off the fine treble, therefore, the super-tweeter was contributing to the quality of the sound, therefore high than audible frequencies have a positive and audible effect on the sound.

As I alluded to, there are papers (non-Tannoy) that explain this in a non-empirical if that is what you need, but that is nto proof, it is just the explaination.

I also readily accept that speakers with stated 18kHz top-end can sound as good in treble as those with stated 50kHz treble. That just goes to show important good tweeters are as well as super-tweeters. I would say even more so.

I gained my information from reviews of the Tannoy DC2 speakers before I purchased, and the reviewers wanted to knwo what effect the super-tweeters had on the sound. In both cases, they blocked the super-tweeters and remarked on teh subtle but important reduction in treble quality. So Tannoy didn't sell teh super-tweeter concept to me, independent, sceptical, experienced reviewers did, with t their tests predominantly in CD!!!!!

Post by Orpheus January 23, 2008 (25 of 94)
I agree with all the comments of how much better well done multichannel reproduction is over stereo.

For a SACD player, from all reports, the JLTi multichannel SACD player from http://www.vacuumstate.com/ and its worldwide agents is the one to buy and its not too expensive and it is most likely a steal at its price. I'll be listening to the JLTi next month.

Getting a decent not too expensive analog multichannel preamp ONLY is not an easy task and I'm looking for one and it looks like I'll have to get one made up. I wish that this wasn't the case, but the manufacturers want us to buy lots of things that I regard as very unnecessary and detrimental to the final sound.

A comment on sound above 20kHz. Having these higher frequencies is also going to help the response of a system on impulsive type signals. People should also ensure that the electronics of a system is not going to cut off these higher frequencies.

Post by Orpheus January 23, 2008 (26 of 94)
Windsurfer said:

[big snip]

If one is starting out fresh, discarding all of what went before, I recommend planar type speakers if you have the room for them! see:

http://www.magnepan.com/

for example. This type of speaker as well as electrostatics have an "alive" sound that, in my experience, is unique to the genre. You need REALLY big electrostatics however to deliver bass and loudness where planar magnetics like Apogee and Magneplanar can do this in more modest sizes. The trade off is that the electrostatics are just that little bit *more* alive making the planar magnetics seem like extraordinarily fine cone speakers. But compared to extraordinarily fine cone speakers such as B&W, the planar magnetics seem much more *alive* like electrostatics. Planar magnetics occupy a ground somewhat in between cones and electrostatics.

Instead of electrostatics I'd recommend ribbons like Tony Moore's at http://www.ambiencespeakers.com.au/. I've been through many speaker systems over time and the best that I've come up with is a custom made setup using one of Tony Moore's ribbons (there is a very technical discussion of this at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~googong/audio.html). One very nice thing about ribbons is that they have a nice wide sweet spot, unlike conventional box speakers which have a much smaller sweet spot. One disadvantage of big ribbons like Tony Moore's is that they don't go beyond about 20kHz and for that for SACD a super tweeter will have to be added (I'd like to be able to afford the solution to this problem at http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/, but this will need a lotto win).

Post by Windsurfer January 23, 2008 (27 of 94)
Orpheus said:

Instead of electrostatics I'd recommend ribbons like Tony Moore's at http://www.ambiencespeakers.com.au/. I've been through many speaker systems over time and the best that I've come up with is a custom made setup using one of Tony Moore's ribbons (there is a very technical discussion of this at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~googong/audio.html). One very nice thing about ribbons is that they have a nice wide sweet spot, unlike conventional box speakers which have a much smaller sweet spot. One disadvantage of big ribbons like Tony Moore's is that they don't go beyond about 20kHz and for that for SACD a super tweeter will have to be added (I'd like to be able to afford the solution to this problem at http://www.genesisloudspeakers.com/, but this will need a lotto win).

The Magneplanars have either ribbon tweeters - MG 3.6 and up or quasi-ribbon tweeters - MG 1.6 and down. This business of supertweeting is really overstated. The real advantage of the SACD is not its superior treble response but rather the lack of filtering down near the range of human hearing. That is the huge fault with regular CDs. SACDs are free from that. Most concert halls probably absorb the ultra treble long before it reaches row H for example.

Post by Livy January 23, 2008 (28 of 94)
Julien said:

Scientific knowledge is obtained by repeated experiences on or by humans, and if you are into physics you will know that it's fascinating how much science cannot yet explain that we are aware of. I believe it is seriously possible that frequencies we do not hear individually still affect our hearing.

About the instruments, any sound, even a low or medium frenquency of 100 or 400 hz, contains harmonics that exceed 20khz and can go higher than 100hz. Of course the higher the basic note the stronger the ultra harmonics will be.

You are absolutely right about the marketing aspect, and I think Funky Monkey hasn't fully realized it yet. I know some speakers that on paper go to 18khz only that on SACD have smoother and richer highs than many speakers pretending to go well above the 40 or 50khz mark. If you were there I could easily make you believe that the 18khz speakers go to 100khz and the 50khz ones only reach 18khz.

A lot more comes into perspective than what you can measure. I believe only the best engineers know that in details. It's like string instrument makers, they know what sounds good, but as soon as you try in a scientific way to reproduce it exactly, it sounds very bad. At the end you have to feel it.

Thanks for this reply. I love to create a good debate here, which is much more interesting than simply reading reviews.

I think your comments are very well-thought out and I would like to pose a rejoinder. Science does indeed indicate that there are many things we are aware of that are not easily explained, but I would suggest that, in the case of this subject, that supposition should be inverted. In this case, we can measure (objectively, scientifically) that frequencies above 20khz exist, so we therefore make the supposition that we can "hear" them in some way.

I think this is where the good marketing people earn their bonuses - playing to the "audiophile buyer", those sonic sybarites (how 'bout that one, Ramesh?) whose peculiar fascination (obsession?) is the panacea of perfectly reproduced recorded sound. They (the marketing folks) explain that these frequencies exist and, as a result, those wanting the "best possible" sound need to buy speakers that can emit tones on these frequencies. Audiophiles read reviews, applaud, then spend, spend, spend. Some feel as though they are accepting a second rate experience if the best items are out of their budget. They nevertheless look forward to the day when they will buy that Krell player, throw away those crappy Bose 301's, hook up their new Thiel speakers to their new Rotel amp and (finally) reach the Happy Hunting Grounds...

My question, of course, is this: if you can't hear something pitched so high as a single tone, explain how you're going to hear it when massed with potentially hundreds of tones?

I understand the science behind overtones and I agree that they exist, but once again, we are posed with issue of whether or not they are actually heard by the listener. I would posit that ones within audible hearing certainly are in some way, those outside that realm are likely not. I can't prove it, of course, but that alone doesn't make me wrong. In the end, you are absolutely right - it all comes down to each individual's subjective feeling and reaction.

What's unfortunate is that people are spending money on things that they may not even be able to perceive on the basis of another's unproven assertion that they are perceivable. And that they do so because they feel they may be missing out on that last ounce of sonic bliss if they do not.

Post by Livy January 23, 2008 (29 of 94)
Windsurfer said:

Really - this is so obvious I wonder why you thought it needed saying!

But tell me, can you name a recording by Polyhymnia (any PentaTone for example) or Telarc, or BIS, or Chandos, or Channel Classics, or Tudor, or Avie, or Artegra, or ATMA or Lyrinx ... I could go on and on here.... wherein the MC version is less satisfying than the stereo?

I never assume the competencies of anyone, so forgive me if mentioning the "obvious" offended you. I will try to be less pedestrian in the future.

As for the second part of your post, I need a definition for "satisfying", and then I can answer. Off the top of my head, I can think of one recording from Coviello, the Bosch/Brahms disc, that sounds better in stereo than MC.

Post by Livy January 23, 2008 (30 of 94)
FunkyMonkey said:

There are two types of evidence in science. There is that which proves the "what", i.e. we experience this after doing this so doing this made that, i.e. blocking a super-tweeter takes the sparkle off the fine treble, therefore, the super-tweeter was contributing to the quality of the sound, therefore high than audible frequencies have a positive and audible effect on the sound.

As I alluded to, there are papers (non-Tannoy) that explain this in a non-empirical if that is what you need, but that is nto proof, it is just the explaination.

I also readily accept that speakers with stated 18kHz top-end can sound as good in treble as those with stated 50kHz treble. That just goes to show important good tweeters are as well as super-tweeters. I would say even more so.

I gained my information from reviews of the Tannoy DC2 speakers before I purchased, and the reviewers wanted to knwo what effect the super-tweeters had on the sound. In both cases, they blocked the super-tweeters and remarked on teh subtle but important reduction in treble quality. So Tannoy didn't sell teh super-tweeter concept to me, independent, sceptical, experienced reviewers did, with t their tests predominantly in CD!!!!!

If you think that audio reviewers in for-profit enterprises like magazines are wholly independent, that endorsement and advertising plays no role, I believe you are mistaken.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Closed