Thread: SACD vs. Live

Posts: 45
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by wehecht September 13, 2009 (21 of 45)
FullRangeMan said:


I agree with Raffels, PollyNomial statement is very personal and reflect his preferences when listen in his system. The MC fans in this Site intends to create a untouchable doctrine among new listeners and audiophiles that MC is better than Stereo....These MC fans are tiring. This MC sound format should be restricted to movies, where it never should have left.
Regards.

This is positively hilarious. So PN's statement is personal and MC fans are trying to create an "untouchable doctrine" but you see yourself as a reporter of some kind of objective reality. Have you read your own profile recently? What do you think the statement "this MC sound format should be restricted to movies" is if not a personal opinion stated in terms of an "untouchable doctrine"?

I don't insist you listen in MC or say that you must have poor hearing or be uninformed because you prefer stereo, why do you guys insist that if I prefer multichannel I am either deaf or stupid? I attend at least 25 live performances each season including the Philadelphia Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic, the Met, and solo and chamber recitals. Whether I'm trying to reproduce the largest or smallest of halls and performing forces most multichannel recordings do a better job of replicating the live experience in my room, on my equipment (which is all any of us can answer for) than the very good sacd stereo does on my much more "high-end" stereo only system in another part of the house.

All of us who participate in this forum are pursuing the unattainable: the accurate reproduction of public music in a private/home environment. Our pursuit has led us to what is presently a niche product. Further subdividing the niche by insulting each other and suggesting that what many of us enjoy ought to be eliminated is just absurd.

Post by FullRangeMan September 13, 2009 (22 of 45)
wehecht said:

This is positively hilarious. So PN's statement is personal and MC fans are trying to create an "untouchable doctrine" but you see yourself as a reporter of some kind of objective reality. Have you read your own profile recently? What do you think the statement "this MC sound format should be restricted to movies" is if not a personal opinion stated in terms of an "untouchable doctrine"?

I don't insist you listen in MC or say that you must have poor hearing or be uninformed because you prefer stereo, why do you guys insist that if I prefer multichannel I am either deaf or stupid? I attend at least 25 live performances each season including the Philadelphia Orchestra, the New York Philharmonic, the Met, and solo and chamber recitals. Whether I'm trying to reproduce the largest or smallest of halls and performing forces most multichannel recordings do a better job of replicating the live experience in my room, on my equipment (which is all any of us can answer for) than the very good sacd stereo does on my much more "high-end" stereo only system in another part of the house.

All of us who participate in this forum are pursuing the unattainable: the accurate reproduction of public music in a private/home environment. Our pursuit has led us to what is presently a niche product. Further subdividing the niche by insulting each other and suggesting that what many of us enjoy ought to be eliminated is just absurd.

Sorry for any rudeness, not intentional, or about PolyNomial etc... Iam old fashioned in audio (Less parts/equipments is more sound quality).
As there is no established truth on this subject, in really all our statements are personals, unless some are writing in name of a audio company or magazine.
To me looks all the MC fans join here in this Site to promote that and say Stereo is bad, when this is only a personal taste. I read some big magazines last year that softly imply that MC is better, but who believes in these magazines? Not me!
I think that with the constant sound propagation of the NXT speakers to every position in the room, will no longer have need to hear 5 channels, with 2 channels the sound will spread in every room bit as same with 5 channels. Anyway 5.1 is very strange to me, I can not believe that people like that, as I nor like of recording technique with lots of mikes.
Regards.
P.S.: You are right, should be forbidden to speak Stereo vs MultiChannel issues here, this only affect the SACD format.

Post by skogskatt September 14, 2009 (23 of 45)
FullRangeMan said:

I think that with the constant sound propagation of the NXT speakers to every position in the room, will no longer have need to hear 5 channels, with 2 channels the sound will spread in every room bit as same with 5 channels. Anyway 5.1 is very strange to me, I can not believe that people like that, as I nor like of recording technique with lots of mikes.

You cover a lot of ground here, and reveal some deep seated prejudices, and a modicum of ignorance.

First I want to address 5.1 - which you say is very strange to you. Why do you persist in talking about 5.1, when the best recording companies (Polyhymnia - who produce recordings for PentaTone, Caro Mitis, RCA, RCO Live and others, Soundmirror who are producing the Boston Symphony Classics and who set up the recording kit for Mariinsky (Gergiev's Kirov Orchestra of the Mariinsky Theater), made several Chandos and Harmonia Mundi recordings; and BIS, Tudor, SIMAX, and other companies have rejected the 5.1 scheme and use 5.0?

It is pointless to throw brickbats at something no one uses!

As to NXT panels - there is nothing new in speakers that project (or propagate) a cylindrical wave front. Quad Electrostatics, Magneplanar, Apogee (now resurrected in Australia, I believe, Sound Lab electrostatics, all these project a cylindrical (room filling) wavefront. Big ones like the Sound Lab Millenniums recreate the deep bass and most filigree treble. But to my ears they simply do not recreate as wonderful an approximation of the concert hall experience when used in a stereo configuration as they do set up in five channels on appropriate recordings done in 5.0.

My third point relates to your repetitive allegations that "multi-channel belongs in the movies where it started." Are you absolutely certain it started in the movies? Read the Polyhymnia website

http://www.polyhymnia.com/

and read about Erdo Groot who pioneered surround classical recordings for Philips back in the Seventies! Erdo is a man who has devoted his entire life to refining and perfecting the recording of classical music. In a post addressing this subject of multi-channel recording (I must paraphrase not remembering the exact post) he said I can make a very nice stereo recording, but I can make a much more realistic sounding "surround" recording.

The recording of classical music in 5.0 has nothing to do with movies - the uses, the purposes are as different as night and day.

The problem afflicting you and other reactionaries like you (Mr. Raffells comes to mind) is that you simply do not WANT to, and will not believe Mr. Groot.

Post by raffells September 14, 2009 (24 of 45)
skogskatt said:


The problem afflicting you and other reactionaries like you (Mr. Raffells comes to mind) is that you simply do not WANT to, and will not believe Mr. Groot.

Sorry but the problem afflicting you ( I chose those words earlier)
is that you simply do not want to believe that the vast majority of listeners worldwide (billions) have turned their back on surround.(I have as well)
The other FACT is that anyone can make a statement ie Groot.It does NOT make it a fact.
Ive been there and seen the light.In time you will probably get sick of the gimmick or accept your hearing isnt adequate.
Many people who are in the business of trying to sell you something they are involved in will say things which are to encourage you to buy their productor services.
If he can produce good stereo then he has to compete in a very big market.HINT.
Thats why people try different things.
Other people will state their beliefs and opinions or recently ,experiences but in the long run its because they have a vested interest.
The billions of other people who are involved in the trade producing music and who YOU seemingly choose to ignore are obviously wrong.
It is You sounding like the reactionary to any one who forwards the idea that artificial creating a soundfield nearer to the listeners ear is more accurate.
As Ive said its just aiding someone with poorer hearing in most cases .
I would suggest you read the comment about a live performance that from a distance sounds more like mono.Closer you get then the stereo becomes more
closely appropriate (ie concert Hall).On stage is the next step and then I would agree that surround is more accurate but who wants to listen on stage.I have seens some lovely viola players there though.

Post by Polly Nomial September 14, 2009 (25 of 45)
raffells said:

The other FACT is that anyone can make a statement ie Groot.It does NOT make it a fact.

In time you will probably get sick of the gimmick or accept your hearing isnt adequate.

1) Yeah but some people actually work in the industry at a stellar reputation for high production values and a sterling reputation (i.e. Groot), others don't. Some people's opinions ARE worth more than others (my own included). If countless numbers of performers and record producers (i.e. people who should know) say that MCH is a far better representation, then are you really suggesting they've colluded together to hoodwink a growing number of listeners?

2) Rather insulting and needlessly so. If one goes to a concert that has spaced instruments/singers, including behind the audience, tell me - which better represents the desired intentions - stereo (only from one plane of listening) or MCH (from wherever the musicians are placed)?

Post by raffells September 14, 2009 (26 of 45)
Polly Nomial said:

then are you really suggesting they've colluded together to hoodwink a growing number of listeners?

2) Rather insulting and needlessly so. If one goes to a concert that has spaced instruments/singers, including behind the audience, tell me - which better represents the desired intentions - stereo (only from one plane of listening) or MCH (from wherever the musicians are placed)?

1.Are you really suggesting that the billions of people have colluded together to decide that stereo is their desired method of listening for the VAST majority of their listening.As usual you are ignoring the evidence and wider picture.
Are you saying that the numerous people who are even more highly rated and succesfull that the person you name are wrong..As usual you will refrain from answering.Only a very few recording engineers are head over heels about surround.Please read the reasons I stated as a possible reason why.
2.TRY READING what I wrote earlier and you would not be making these statements.
It seems to me there is a desperation by MCH listeners to keep repeating and repeating (especialy you Polly) the very very tiny but mostly unwanted benefits of the occasional multichannel work.
Do you switch off the rear speakers when there is no originated musical sounds from behind you.NO. You continue to listen to this artificially generated sound.
This is the general discussion that the other people are discussing.Once again Not you as you seem to be stuck in a time warp repeating yourself.

Post by Polly Nomial September 14, 2009 (27 of 45)
raffells said:

1.Are you really suggesting that the billions of people have colluded together to decide that stereo is their desired method of listening for the VAST majority of their listening.As usual you are ignoring the evidence and wider picture.
Are you saying that the numerous people who are even more highly rated and succesfull that the person you name are wrong..As usual you will refrain from answering.
2.TRY READING what I wrote earlier and you would not be making these statements.
It seems to me there is a desperation by MCH listeners to keep repeating and repeating (especialy you Polly) the very very tiny but mostly unwanted benefits of the occasional multichannel work.
Do you switch off the rear speakers when there is no originated musical sounds from behind you.NO. You continue to listen to this artificially generated sound.
This is the general discussion that the other people are discussing.Once again Not you as you seem to be stuck in a time warp repeating yourself.

1 - no, but I am suggesting that they have a point (I expect that were we both 50-60 years older and the internet was in existence back in the 1950's, I would be castigated for extolling the virtues of stereo over mono). The evidence for why it is more accurate to use MCH is easy to obtain; go to a rehearsal (as I have on several occasions in several halls, from the mediocre to the outstanding) where you are permitted to sit on the stage. Wait and listen for the echo of a loud staccato chord from the hall and then try telling yourself and others that, when in the stalls, sound only comes from in front.

2 - the benefits of better audibly resolving instruments location and timbre are "very, very tiny" are they? I had you down as someone who cared about these aspects, obviously I was wrong. For recordings where all instrumentalists are in front of the listener, see my answer to 1. As for it being artificial, well yes, MCH is artificial. So is mono, so is stereo, so is any reproduction equipment - that is the whole point (so one can experience the music without having to go to a concert hall in the first place).

In general, as the number of speakers increases though, it better replicates the experience of listening in a concert hall. MCH 5(.1) recordings as set out in SACD is the best currently available but it is not the end point as there is no vertical information recorded (other than through psycho-acoustic techniques) in the normal layout (MDG's 2+2+2 is one label that does have height information but this is far from standard practice). In years to come, technology permitting then it may come to pass that a system like MDG's (perhaps with height information from the rear as well) becomes standard - it is no way near doing so yet.

Post by raffells September 14, 2009 (28 of 45)
Polly Nomial said:

1 - no, but I am suggesting that they have a point (I expect that were we both 50-60 years older and the internet was in existence back in the 1950's, I would be castigated for extolling the virtues of stereo over mono). The evidence for why it is more accurate to use MCH is easy to obtain; go to a rehearsal (as I have on several occasions in several halls, from the mediocre to the outstanding) where you are permitted to sit on the stage. Wait and listen for the echo of a loud staccato chord from the hall and then try telling yourself and others that, when in the stalls, sound only comes from in front.

2 - the benefits of better audibly resolving instruments location and timbre are "very, very tiny" are they? I had you down as someone who cared about these aspects, obviously I was wrong. For recordings where all instrumentalists are in front of the listener, see my answer to 1. As for it being artificial, well yes, MCH is artificial. So is mono, so is stereo, so is any reproduction equipment - that is the whole point (so one can experience the music without having to go to a concert hall in the first place).

Yes, you are wrong.The benefits of resolving timbre is in the quality of the equipment.SIMPLES as the advert goes.
It Always has been and always will be.Numerous technical people have spent many years developing the better parts.Try thinking od better quality violins.Doubling or quadrupling poorerviolins doesnt improve their sound,It just produces a different sound.Probably better for the listener with poorer hearing.?
Yep I prefer grossed up string quartets but only because on occasions it reduces the intensity of some of original writing,especially Beethoven.
So Its not just playing it louder as on more speakers. This comes back to the earlier comments I made which your clearly need to re read.
As regards your ridiculous and hillarious answer about sitting on the stage and listening outwards.LOL> I suppose its better than previous howlers like listening to the concert with your ears against the rear and side walls for that surround magic.
Its almost as good as the one we had about having someone clapping their hands behind them whilst blindfolded to prove they could hear sound from behind.More Magic.
The vast majority of normal people involved in the stereo reproduction designed to replicate the concert positon of an audience seem to understand the situation moreso than you appear to. As people have noticed the desperation to prove something about surround.
Im afraid I and billions of people are unlikely to purchase any symphonies or concertos designed or entitled FOR THE REAR WALLS.Maybe one or two musicians may find it interesting.

Post by Polly Nomial September 14, 2009 (29 of 45)
raffells said:

Yes, you are wrong.The benefits of resolving timbre is in the quality of the equipment.SIMPLES as the advert goes.
It Always has been and always will be.

Does this mean nirvana is mono?

Post by wehecht September 14, 2009 (30 of 45)
raffells said:

1. It Always has been and always will be.Numerous technical people have spent many years developing the better parts.Try thinking od better quality violins.Doubling or quadrupling poorerviolins doesnt improve their sound,It just produces a different sound.Probably better for the listener with poorer hearing.?

2.The vast majority of normal people involved in the stereo reproduction designed to replicate the concert positon of an audience seem to understand the situation moreso than you appear to. As people have noticed the desperation to prove something about surround.

3. Im afraid I and billions of people are unlikely to purchase any symphonies or concertos designed or entitled FOR THE REAR WALLS.Maybe one or two musicians may find it interesting.

Dave,

I hope you don't mind me breaking your remarks up into segments. It just makes it easier to respond to each point.

1. Your repeated references to the probable hearing deficiencies of mc lovers is simply insulting (and in my case at least simply wrong because I've just had my latest hearing test, something I've done regularly since age 55 just to be sure I get help if needed).

2. "Normal" presumably means those who agree with you. The only person I see acting desperate in this thread is you.

3. Billions of people aren't buying any kind of recordings, and most of the millions who do prefer forms of pop music that make no attempt at faithfully producing, or reproducing, the sound of acoustic instruments and/or beautiful voices singing unamplified in real space. Why should I, or anyone else except a record company executive care about whatever it is they think represents the highest standard in home music reproduction? Probably most of them would prefer the convenience of an ipod to the fidelity of Marantz's best sacd player, and who can blame them considering the music they listen to (I admit to being an elitist when it comes to the music itself, and if we're honest with ourselves everyone here is also an elitist when it comes to audio; if we weren't sacd wouldn't be a niche market, so appealing to a majoritarian argument is simply misplaced).

In an earlier post Peter mentioned an older British speaker design, but couldn't recall the name. Perhaps he's thinking of the old Lowther corner horn. Now that's an idea. But I say we go back further, to the days when music in the home was really great, before all these crazy people got started trying to make us buy all those extra things like separate speakers and amplifiers and such. I say we dust off our 78's, sharpen up the thorn "needles" and listen to our victrolas in glorious 200-2,000 cps mono. After all Nipper recognized His Master's Voice, and we all know his hearing was better than either yours or mine, so who could ask for anything more.

Bill

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed