How can you not have multichannel system

Are you two joined at the hip? I don't remember being called any names and I don't remember calling anyone a name other than stating those who don't like mc music are Luddites, but I didn't single out anyone. I would call the use of the word resent strong and almost begging for a reply, especially given the underlying hypocricy of the poster. One goal I set out for when I started this thread was to provoke people who don't like mc music to post their reasons. And I care about mc music, because using other methods to extract surround sound short of remixing is a matter of trickery. To take stereo recordings and put them through dsp is not the same as remixed mc music. And I see the industry basically allowing sacd and dvd audio to die a slow death, leaving a cavernous hole for us audiophiles who believed mc music was the next great advancement for sound quality and experience.

Mig007, you know full-well what Tvad says about my Acoustic Revive, Synergistic Research, AVM, and Murata super tweeters, but here I am in agreement.

Mig007, when you start a discussion you should expect to receive varying points of view, and some with which you won't agree.

You seem to take any opinion personally that is different than yours, and rather than discuss your perspective with evidence or details that support your position, you lash out with personal attacks.

That's unfortunate, because the purpose of these treads is to share points of view and to discuss/debate the topic.

When the defense of your position falls back onto personal attacks and name calling, it weakens your argument, and it weakens the discussion.

Tbg, did you have a big grin on your face when you posted that last reply. Because your new best friend, Tvad, called multichannel an example of trickery. I wonder what he would say about your system with all those magical tweaks you spent thousands of dollars on. AVM anti-resonance paint??!! Come on, paint?? And those monorail trusses. Nothing makes a system sound more like a million bucks as does wires in the sky, or is that pie in the sky. Hope that grin is still on your face.

From a practicality standpoint, it's much more difficult to implement now that Blu-ray is out. I've recently noticed much more interest on Audiogon discussions regarding the multichannel analog ins on processors. It seems that many people, myself included, have spent good money on good receivers/processors that we'd like to continue using because they are awesome in every respect but are limited to processing the older DD/DTS codecs and have only one set of 5.1 or 7.1 analog inputs.

That leaves us to choose between connecting a 5.1 SACD player or a 5.1 Dolby True-HD/DTS-MA Blu-ray signal decoded in the player and sent to the analog ins on the processor. Yes, I know you can buy a 5.1 analog switcher, but that's about as elegant a solution as using a RatShack passive video switcher to connect your two VCR's plus Laserdisc plus Satellite tuner to your early '90's era TV that had only one composite video input.. Remember those days? LOL!!

Just when you thought it was safe to take the plunge into a new format, they choose not to include SACD/DVD-A. I hope Oppo gets it right with their new player because I did an online chat today with Sony and they have no plans to include SACD in their new stand-alone players like the (otherwise) awesome looking BDP-S5000ES. It's a darned shame, really. -jz

Tvad, I entirely agree and resent the spirit of the initial posting.

01-05-09: Jylee
Tvad, I think your argument is about the philosophy of recording engineers (how mch tracks should be mixed), not about the fundamentals of using more than two speakers in a mch system.

Yes, my argument is about the use of the mix. Not necessarily from the engineer's perspective, but certainly about the mix.

I remember when Quad was introduced. That died a quick death as well.

I don't think it's because people wouldn't be interested in multi channel, but rather because it's a hassle from an end user's perspective to implement successfully in most rooms.

As I said earlier, the format is on life support...ready to for the plug to be pulled, so the discussion here is academic and of no practical value. IMO.

Those who love multi channel will continue to refine their systems (and kudos to them), and those who aren't convinced are unlikely to convert from two channel.

Tvad, I think your argument is about the philosophy of recording engineers (how mch tracks should be mixed), not about the fundamentals of using more than two speakers in a mch system. Anyways, like I said earlier most people don't seem to be interested in mch system for one reason or another, and it's their prerogative.

Look, everyone can prefer whatever they like, but the audiophile hobby endeavors to reproduce the live event, or so I believe.

Anyone who prefers hearing an instrument from a rear speaker, or hearing the chorus from the rear speakers is not endeavoring to reproduce the live event on their system. Their interested in cool sound effects.

Such is their prerogative, but it's not the audiophile goal, and therefore it's of little importance on this site.

Let's look at the total of individual contributors to this thread: 13.

Not an overwhelming response to the multi channel topic, which supports a conclusion that multi channel audio is a non starter at the present time.

I don't think there is right way or only way to produce mch mix. As others have pointed out, most recordings are done with several microphones whether in studio or in concerts. It's then up to the recording engineer to take the raw recordings (master tapes), and mix them into N channels (where N is 2, 3, 5 or 6) that closely represents the sound at the event. Whether the resulting number of channels is two or six, the tracks are artificially created.

I've heard some recordings where the rear channels are used for ambiance and spatial information. Some other recordings place certain instruments in the rear channels. Some other recordings place chorus in the rear channels. Obviously the listeners have a preference, and prefer certain type of mixing over other types. Some might believe the real channels should be used exclusively for the ambiance and spatial informations. Some other might find "music all around" approach to be appealing. In any case the goal for mch recording is to immerse the listener into the music, and there are different ways to achieve that.

At the minimum, I found that mch recordings tend to have more robust sound stage in the fronts. That's not to say that the stereo setup is inferior for generating soundstage. It's just that with three speakers in the front it gets the job done a little easier. The speaker placements are easier, and there are larger sweet spot.

Many of the RCA Living Stereo SACD releases are a direct transfer from three channel master tapes. In such scenario, I believe the mch mix is inherently superior to the two channel "mix" created from the original three channels, as the mch content will be identical to the master tapes.

But I agree with the consensus, that mch isn't for everyone. Most people don't have the room, inclination or both.

I agree with TVAD and Mapman here. Plus I have never heard a multi-channel system that even approached a quality two way system. TAD gave up some time ago in having multi-channel systems at shows. I know why, the sound was awful. I heard their best sound yet at the RMAF-the rack mounted two ways used in two channel.

Agree with Tvad, and with few exceptions even the audiophile press seems disinterested. I can see how a mid-line Blu-Ray or SACD mch system might get broad traction across the HT segment, but that's about it.

"If done right, sacd multichannel music will best stereo counterparts, every time, hands down."

Is it "done right" or is it "every time"? If "done right", then how? Compared to what "counterparts"? What performance level of 2ch at what cost?

The fact is that audiophiles and reviewers expend countless efforts splitting hairs/adjectives when comparing near-SOTA 2ch components. In constrast, advocates of mch offer mostly undifferentiated praise of mch systems at varying performance levels, from mass-market players and receivers on up. There seems to be very little formal vocabulary other than the "blow your socks off" variety. However, this is not to say it's impossible to assemble a great-sounding mch system.

Not to say multi channel cannot or does not sound great or sometimes even better, but for me as a mainly music lover, the marginal benefits do not justify the significantly greater cost and complexity involved in putting together a really top notch multi-channel system.

For me, fewer channels are just more practical to get right and be able to enjoy than more.

Tvad's points factor into my assessment as well.

It seems to me, while the debate about SACD multi channel is interesting, that the format is dead in the water with limited support from Sony, and a very limited number of new releases. So, I have to ask, "What's the point?"

Where does this discussion lead?

Is multi channel Blu-Ray going to take over where SACD multi channel stopped?

Is there going to be sufficient support from music buyers to make multi channel, high resolution audio a viable business segment for record companies and hardware manufacturers?

History with SACD and DVD-A has taught us the answer is no, and I see nothing on the horizon to suggest a turnaround from music buyers.

I appreciate Audioholik's excellent research; he found several contributors whose reasons for praising multi-channel sacds were better articulated than mine. All the naysayers keep referring to timbre as the holy grail,or being able to tell instruments apart, but my experience and those of others who directly state, or made reference to, hear the instruments better and thereby easier to distinguish while listening to sacd mc. If done right, sacd multichannel music will best stereo counterparts, every time, hands down. Those who say no have not truly tested that proposition, either listening to the wrong music at the wrong location (i.e., Best Buy), or with the wrong equipment, or refuse to even try it, dismissing it out of hand.

Its not that hard.

I'm with MrT on this one. At the point where further upgrades to my 2ch system produce vanishing improvements to timbre, then I'd consider adding mch. But I never seem to arrive at that point. Admittedly, the qualities of timbral accuracy and spatial presentation do occur in different planes of the listening experience. Listeners may prioritize one over the other. But in a 2ch system, upgrades that improve timbre also tend to improve spaciousness, whereas one should not be deluded into believing that the simple addition of more channels improves timbral accuracy. Of course, the overall gestalt of music is what counts, but I disagree with Eldartford that it is relatively easy to obtain correct timbre.

Mig007, regarding Teresa Goodwin's Pos. Feedback contributions, her oft expressed opinions about the inferiority of one source format versus another are dubious, as her points are made purely from the perspective of a budget system. Similarly, the point in your original post regarding superiority of mch is relative to the quality/price of the system. Moreover, it would be important for me to assess any mch system based largely on how it sounds when switched into 2ch mode-- as needed for the majority of LP/CD/SACD sources. And on this point, the majority of mch rigs may fall flat on their faces relative comparably priced 2ch systems.

I have stereo only SACD setup, but will probably try multichannel in the future...

here's an interesting opinion from one of the users

"After some critical listening, I concluded that good original DSD recording multi-channel SACDs are far better than the CDs, in terms of any attribute in geneal (e.g. naturalness, sound stage or holographic imaging, presence, depth, midrange clarity/purity, bass, trible, atmosphrer/liveness, transparency, dynamic contrast, etc

http://personal-info.bravehost.com/MyAudioSystem.htm
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=hirez&m=249373

realistic timbre has yet to be attained in any stereo system. isn't truth in timbre the essence of music ? isn't the sound of an instrument more important than where it comes from ?

evn if if i have frequency perception loss above 12khz, i can still recognize a tenor sax. i want a tenor not to sound like an alto. one channel is sufficient for that purpose.

For the technical or engineer, a schematic:
http://www.sonicstudio.com/pdf/dsd/SACD_FormatOverview.pdf

Oops, here is the site
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/sacd.htm

Here is another sacd article where the reviewer lists her favorite 2 channel and multichannel sacds. Along the way she sheds some light, but not right on the nose. Worthwile if you want to try a few discs, even if 2 channel.

FWIW, I'm a network television production professional. In my college days, I recorded and mixed multi track music.

I have a reasonably good understanding of recording and mixing, although I would never claim to be able to sit down at a recording desk and do it today.

Of course it's all about the mix, and that includes stereo. No doubt there are silly multichannel discs just as there are bad stereo ones. There are plenty of multichannel discs that do not put performers in the rear.

And Mrtennis...If you seek realism, spatial cues are quite important, and more difficult to achieve than pitch, timbre and harmonics. In fact, as your hearing deteriorates with age, as yours will too, (sorry about that) you will find that spatial awareness is affected very little, and therefore becomes even more important.

2chnlben, exactly what I would like to get from this thread. Eldartford has given the best explanation so far while some of the links provided by the op have also been useful. I searched 5.1 audio for some info also and found lots of reviews of SACDs, some multi-channel.
A lot of what the op is referring to in his explanations are the benefits of hi-res formats vs multi-channel IMO. That's what I get from his explanations anyway. The link concerning the Chinese review is primarily a review of Bob Dylan SACD releases and makes slight mention of 5.1 information.
I agree with Tvad that recorded music is normally presented as if the performers are in front of the listener. A good resolving stereo system in an adequately treated room can present plenty of ambience to create this illusion. Can a well mixed multi-channel recording played back on a comparable system sound better? If the mixing was not done properly it would just sound like sound effects intent on making an impression.
Does it sound better? That's one question pertinent to this thread. Others are:
With the decline of SACD and DVD-audio, is there a an adequate selection of multi-channel music being released today?
Is the additional equipment needed to play multi-channel music worth the investment, especially if the sole purpose of the equipment is music and not video?
Can a multi-channel be properly installed in a small room, say 12X13 (my rooms dimensions)?
One more thing, before the op decides I'm one of the idiots who can't understand how music is mixed he should know I have extensive experience in the technical aspects of this field. In fact, I'd venture the majority of the Audiogon members posting on this thread have more than just a passing knowledge in this area. It is an audio forum after all.

Eldarford,

Your point is well taken, and as I stated, I really have not had an opportunity to listen to a really good multichannel music system. The fact that I have only heard really poor multichannel music systems has obviously prejudiced my perception. It's just that the argument - as presented in this thread - is so poorly....well, argued, that I couldn’t resist a bit of sarcasm. I truly would like someone to describe the enhancements / augmentations that well-executed multichannel brings to the music presentation. For me, a well defined explanation, or description paints a much better picture than a “cork-in-the-wazoo” one point perspective. No offense to anyone…really. What’s it like man! Some of us really do want to know.
Thank you…really.

01-04-09: Eldartford
2chnlben...The idea that performers should always be in front of you does not reflect the reality of a jazz jam session or a chamber music performance in your home.

Perhaps not, but sitting in on a jazz jam session or hearing a chamber music performance in one's home (all I have seen still have the listeners in front of the performers, not surrounded by them) are not music experiences typical of most performances.

Are we to assume multi channel makes us part of the performer's perspective?

I can see where multi channel can be interesting for specialized performances/recordings, but limited in application.

2chnlben...The idea that performers should always be in front of you does not reflect the reality of a jazz jam session or a chamber music performance in your home. Note also my earlier posting about antiphonal music. Ambience is not the only sound for surround channels.

multichannel concerns spatiality. what does that have to do with music which is pitch, timbre and harmonics.

mono is sufficient to reproduce timbre accurately. why is one so concerned about spatial cues. has the problem of accuracy of timbre been solved ? i think not.

Just what is mixed into the other channels? The stage is always coming at you from in front of your position. Certainly, a multichannel mix does not include any instruments/vocals coming from anywhere other than the front – right???? So, what is being channeled to the other channels - reverb, crowd noise…what?

2chnlben (System | Threads | Answers)

This is the essence of my question as well. For example, in the multi channel version of "Blood on the Tracks", one listener comments that the rear channels appear to have the same information as the front channels, but the rear channels are mixed in at lower volumes. Is this an attempt to create what a mic placed in the rear of the studio might have recorded had there been one in the studio?

This is great stuff!

[Captain's Log] We're fast approaching the planet Vinylphilia where the inhabitants, Vinylphiliacs are reporting a crisis with its turntables suffering from unstable platter rotation. [Capt Kirk to Spock] Are we closer to a solution? [Spock], no, captain, but I have been running simulations of the problem on Ensign Smuck's system, and I believe it is related to the 'Fremer' affect where speakers not costing at least $20000 a pair can produce instability among lower priced equipment . . . [Kirk to Scotty] I need full warp speed . . . We need to reach Vinylphilia before their turntables suffer catastrophic failure, and the inhabitants will have to use back up cd players. Perish the thought.

I have not had the opportunity to listen to a really good multichannel system/setup with music as the predominant medium. I've heard some pretty darned impressive multichannel systems featuring DVD movie format. Additionally, I only have a two-channel system. This is my disclaimer - since the hostiles are a bit ramped up here.
That being said, I have always been of the impression that two-channel audio, for music, presents the most realistic soundstage, including the best centralized imaging capabilities. I would not be surprised however, if advancements in technology will (or possibly already have) change the proverbial playing field, or at least offer legitimate alternatives. When multichannel gets it right, does it merely provide a realistic “concert hall” experience, or does it also capture the essence of the performance – sans reverb, room acoustics and atmosphere? Just what is mixed into the other channels? The stage is always coming at you from in front of your position. Certainly, a multichannel mix does not include any instruments/vocals coming from anywhere other than the front – right???? So, what is being channeled to the other channels - reverb, crowd noise…what? What am I missing here?
I heard a multichannel Black Crows DVD at the local Best Buy and found it laughable to hear the guitar coming from the rear channel. I’m sure it was a bad mix, and for certain it was….well, it was a Best Buy system. Anyway, in defining the differences between two-channel and multichannel, just what are some of the more significant characteristics/qualities of one format over the other? I mean in addition to the whole horse drawn carriage analogy and Reggie Jackson quote - which is over my head!

It's my fault really, I should have known better than to post in this thread...I'm very glad you've found a listening environment that makes you happy Mig007, enjoy!

I'm out.

Mig007, the topic here is multi channel. A discussion on two channel SACD remix is really not pertinent to the discussion.

Arthursmuck, I dig your room. Nice job.

I'm questioning your being completely dismissive of any point of view or preference but your own and you can only respond by attempting to insult me by saying my room lighting doesn't suit your taste? So if it doesn't suit you it can't be right? ...kind of my whole point

Tvad, try this one, its a sacd primer (for two channel only), done by the engineers for the Rolling Stones sacds. Its a technical site for mixing so if that doesn't work, possbly they can refer you to another one.

http://mixonline.com/internet/newformats/audio_satisfaction/#nogo

Tvad, I will try to find that primer and get back to you with it; at least you've made an effort to understand it.

Mr. Smuck, no, I won't attempt to cook your steak, but nice 'Vegas' effect with your system, or were you trying to imagine what a hi-fi system would look like on the 'Enterprise'.

Mig007, I already read that article from beginning to end. I referred to it three
posts
earlier:

Thus far, I have found only one article about
"Dark Side of the Moon" remixed into SACD multi-channel, but it
does not provide the technical info I would expect to find in an SACD remix
primer.

While he discussed aspects of synching (locking up) the various tracks for the
remix, he did not go into the detail I am seeking regarding the multi channel
mix.

When you mentioned SACD primers many posts ago, I thought you had
something bookmarked. No need to expend any more energy.

Thanks again for your efforts

Still just a guy talking loudly (sometimes sarcastically and rudely) about what his preference in musical presentation is....perhaps you'd like to tell me next how I should want my steak cooked....

Tvad, I decided to help you along and with my incredible research skills (having honed them at the Library of Congress)I found an interview with the chief engineer of the multichannel sacd Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. He goes into every detail that you are seeking.

www.avrev.com/home-theater-news/music-software-news/dark-side-sacd-engineer-speaks-on-remix-of-album.html

Please copy and and paste and report back with your impressions.

There is on the disc an extensive video with Brian where he explains how and why the multichannel remix was done. Again, some new tracks were added.

Eldartford (Reviews | Threads | Answers)

That's the type of info that interests me...the creative choices.

I was hoping there might be an article along these lines available on the net.

The movie "Sweet Dreams" (based on the life of Patsy Cline) is an interesting example of what can be done with remixing. It was discovered that the original master tapes of her singing in an isolation booth existed in good condition, although the accompaning instrumental tracks were in less good condition, and somewhat dated in performance techniques. For the movie soundtrack a remix was done using Patsy's original voice track with parts of the instrumental tracks and also some brand new instrumental tracks. The result can be heard on MCAD-6149 DIDX-424. (By the way Jessica Lange did a superb job of lip syncing in the movie, which I recommend as well as the CD). The remix was done by a who's-who of Nashville sound men.

Another remix that I think is interesting is a DVDA "Emmylou Harris, Producer's Cut". This was done by her former husband Brian Ahern. There is on the disc an extensive video with Brian where he explains how and why the multichannel remix was done. Again, some new tracks were added.

By the way, apart from the technical interest, both discs are nice music.

Mig007, I understand the changes that multi channel SACD brings to the
listening experience.

Also, I am aware the multi mix is done from the original tracks and not
from the two channel stereo mix. This is how every remaster is done,
whether stereo or multi channel.

I have never stated in any of my posts that the multi mix was made from the
two channel mix. What I stated was that some multi channel mixes are made
from recordings that were originally released as stereo mixes. I should have
been more specific and said the multi channel mixes were made from the
original tracks used to produce original stereo mixes. You have
misunderstood my point for many posts now, for which I am partly to blame,
and this has been a source of some conflict.

I'm very interested to learn how an engineer or producer chooses to fill the
center and rear channels of a multi mix from what was originally a recording
made for the stereo format. If you find an SACD primer that explains this,
please provide the link.

If by an SACD primer, you were referring to an article that explains that the
original tracks are used to create the multi channel mix, then I understand
that already, and no further info is necessary.

Thanks again.

Even the Communist Chinese understand and appreciate what multichannel sacd brings to the music (see the following site, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288700.htm). I could go on and on and if some of you naysayers properly researched the subject, you will ultimately find the site that plainly penetrates your neanderthal minds, that multichannel sacds are re-mixed from the ORIGINAL TAKES, AND NOT FROM THE released STEREO MIX. It is no wonder to me, after reading the posts under this thread, that the Chinese are on the ascent and we are on the descent. Have a good day, and be smug with your two channel systems. OUT

I am not interested in consumer reviews.

You wrote earlier:

If any reader wants to grasp or learn how multichannel music is recorded please run a google search, 'sacd remixing'. The first two or three hits give a good primer on the subject.

I was looking for an SACD remix primer...an explanation of how the original recording tracks were mixed for multi channel, not for a consumer review.

Thus far, I have found only one article about "Dark Side of the Moon" remixed into SACD multi-channel, but it does not provide the technical info I would expect to find in an SACD remix primer.

I'm interested to know what musical information is being placed into the center and rear channels of a multi mix version of a recording originally released in stereo. The statement I copied earlier regarding "Blood" suggested the multi mix rear tracks were the same as the stereo front tracks, except they were mixed at a lower volume.

Perhaps you can help with a link or two SACD remix primers you have read.

Thanks again.

And music reporter's take at: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-10-09-dylan-master_x.htm

Again, another consumer review, with his/her insight as to the difference. "Blood on the tracks has been reviewed so often, I just wanted to say this 5.1 mix is amazing. I've heard this album a hundred times and with this mix, I'm hearing instruments I never noticed before. Really amazing." That result is not from trickery or the like. Busted!

Again, another consumer's review on the contributions of sacd multichannel, "The SACD/CD 2003 version features a new CD remix and a 5.1 surround remix that keeps Dylan's voice (and "Blood on the Tracks" is his best-sung album) up front where it belongs, but adds some separation for the guitars, bass and drums. It's nice for surround fans, but it is the music that makes this Dylan's most timeless work. It could have been cut on wax cylinders in 1900 and it would still be an all-time classic. "