DVA-A = DVD-Annoying (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

Phil, and don't forget that Celine Dion, J. Lo., and Ricky Martin are out on SACD and Disturbed is out on DVD-Audio.

 

[KeithH]

FeisalK said:

i must say that all things being equal i prefer multichannel to stereo.

If only all things were being equal more often. For me, stereo has a leg up on multi-channel most of the time. :frowning:

 

[KeithH]

Nicholas, one last thing. It's one thing to say that there is nothing of interest on SACD or DVD-Audio for post-baby boomers. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, it is a totally different thing to try to classify other people's rationale for buying music. You obviously have no clue.

 

[NicholasL]

Yes, double thumbs down! Great point. You're the winner Keith. Remember, this is a forum where people post replies for discussion. Didn't mean to offend anyone, including you, so if you were offended well sorry, don't take it personal ok? These are for posting opinions and not pure fact, so posts don't always have to be "useful."

Anyways, everyone else please continue discussing sacd and dvd-a as you were, i was only stating my opinion. don't get mad keith, chill out and have a beer like Phil.

 

[FeisalK]

Keith

stereo has a leg up on multi-channel most of the time

IMHO its probably due to the fact that mixing engineers have had umpteen years tweaking stereo recordings and perfecting the art/craft. Things will definitely improve with a little more maturity in multichannel recording - from artists to engineers all the way down the chain to us listeners.

As with everything new I also think that the medium is being played around a bit more than necessary (gimmicky recordings), plus its probably more difficult to go back and remix what was intended to be in two channels as opposed to having an album originally conceptualized in surround.

For the layperson (me) though, multichannel works - prologic sees improvements, and everyone raves about Logic 7.

 

[Mark_J_H_Jr]

To follow up on my initial posting.

I have spent some more time setting trim levels, moving speakers and simply listening to mc.

This is just my opinion, so don't blast me... but I find mc intriguing when used as background music and not for "critical" listening.

The high resoulution of the format is great, but I still can't come to grips with instruments or vocals coming from places I do not expect.

I enjoy music videos. In fact, I really enjoyed a "Faith Hill" video the other night I rented from Netflix. I had to watch it twice.

Sorry.. back on topic :b

The multichannel mix was believable and involving. It is that sort of mix I think the multichannel mixes should strive for. I much prefer that when I close my eyes and listen to music, my minds eye sees a concert or recording session rather than a disjointed grouping of instruments or vocals coming from haphazard places.

How 'bout this for an analogy. I want my music like a Russell or a Remington, not a Picasso.

 

[rick_sullivan]

Last night I was listening to the Eagles “Hotel California”. I swear, Henley was over my head…

I wonder how much indivual room acoustics play a roll in this.

As I understand it Tom Homan has a version of THX in the works where there is overhead speakers. Thus the 747 can fly ovehead in the theater. I think in 6.1 the plane flying overhead would be sonically wrong but perceptually right because one would see the plane on the screen and you would perceive it flying overhead. Your mind also tells you it is not flying underneath you!

A number of theories have been precented to account for the fact that we can tell whether a sound is coming from the rear or front even though we only have two ears. The standard one is that it is in the shape of the ears and that's that. There is another -- seemingly wacky at first -- but also thought as credible by serious people is that it is the fine hairs on the backs of our ears that are reponding to the sound and our brains are hooked up to them. These fine hairs also do not repsond due to their size to low bass frequencies. Thus we have no real directional with bass for one more reason. Weird huh?

Ok so front, back, and overhead, and underneath are interesting propositons when we only have two ears. Add to this melange the room acoustics and you have another issue. Surround was supposed to break up the listening rooms acoustics and substitute the recording rooms or a virtual rooms acoustics.

But then why would one player put Mr henley overhead and another in the front? Good question.

My rumbles.

 

[Mark_J_H_Jr]

Rick,

Room acoustics and speaker placement do seem to have an effect on some sonic signatures. The specific cut of Hotel CA, when in the sweet spot, the vocals did come from overhead. If I shifted from the sweet spot, the overhead perception went away.

 

[John Kotches]

Rick,

Tom Holman doesn't have a version of THX with overhead channels. Tom is no longer at THX, and hasn't been for a number of years

As founder and head of TMH Labs he is indeed working on 10.2 though



Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

They just buy the best they can find within the meager 100 disc selection

Its well over 400 discs in DVD-AUDIO and 1,200+ in Super Audio so I think its a decent selection plus the rate of title release is increasing. According to HFR, Universal will release 80 Super Audio discs in the Fall alone.

If you play any well-recorded discs, you will find that two channel stereo can create a full "soundstage" where there is a convincing illustration of the individual instruments and their locations on stage. This is what one is likely to hear from the front of the stage, usually Rows K-M.

I like multi-channel too (DSOTM is great) but my ears are two channel and that is where I do most of my listening.

 

[Ed Cherry]

In response to room layouts and reponses ... I believe that this is a major issue / stumbling block to MC enjoyment. I too have spent an inordinate amount of time "messing" with my speaker setup. I am trying to dual use the room for HT and MC and this is difficult at best. I basically have 2 rear speaker setups .. one for HT (2 side, 2 rear surround .. all bipoles) and one for MC (2 full range at proper angle in back). I just don't have the distance behind my listening spot to get the rears just right. It would be great to have a better room set up for the MC.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I greatly prefer stereo over multi-channel because in most instances, the implementation of 5.1 for music is done poorly. Having instruments coming from all speakers, seemingly at random, serves no purpose, at least for extended listening.

Well said Keith.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Having instruments coming from all speakers, seemingly at random, serves no purpose, at least for extended listening.

It has nothing to do with "purpose",it's an "artistic" decision,like the other poster pointed out he like "Rembrandt" better then "Picasso".

 

[NicholasL]

"Tom Holman doesn't have a version of THX with overhead channels. Tom is no longer at THX, and hasn't been for a number of years

As founder and head of TMH Labs he is indeed working on 10.2 though..."

John, it's funny you bring this up. Tomlinson Holman was my sound professor at USC film school 3 semesters ago, when he was still developing 10.2. His pitch? "10.2 - it's twice as good as 5.1" Funny because he was so darn enthusiastic about his subject matter, and while half the class was taking furious notes and nodding their heads like they knew what he was on about, the other half was asleep. He is a genius though.

 

[John Kotches]

No question about TMH being a genius, not to mention a genuinely nice man in the times I've met him. I'm not sure I'd want to have him as my prof though, talk about a tough critic

Unfortunately I missed the 10.2 demo at CES (I think it was 2002), but I am told it was truly amazing.

Thanks for making me laugh with the "Twice as good as 5.1" comment

Regards,

 

[Frank_S]

Ten point two, I better get a move on and find a new house with a room big enough for them speakers. Holy S***, what will it be next? Me, Well I'm stuck in MONO!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Frank,

I will trade you some speakers for your "factory sample" Sgt. Peppers album.

It really is amazing how great mono can sound...just ask Steve Hoffman.

 

[dave alan]

When I was 10 years old, I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 3 years later, I had my first studio gig playing bass for a country/western guy's A/B sides 'single'. Since then, I've played polkas at weddings, show tunes, graduations, private parties, clubs, etc., up to football stadiums. Every kind of music you can imagine. I dug it all 'cause I love music.

Sorry, but I feel the background is necessary to make a point. To be pigeon-holed as a 'Boomer' who only likes classical, jazz and classic rock is grating.

I like ANY music that's well conceived, well played and well executed.

I'm stunned that the 'post-boomers' weren't the first to embrace MC audio. There are few titles for this crowd because as long as they keep buying CDs there is no need to move on. I wonder why Staind, Korn, Mud Vein, Tool, System Of A Down, the Rappers, etc., haven't jumped into the new formats to experiment and push the envelope.

Myself, I stopped buying and listening to stereo CDs a long while back because for 20 years there has been little innovation and the overall quality is pathetic. Just visit any decent recording studio and ask to hear any master recording of music you know and you instantly hear what happens to it when transfered to CD. (mini-rant concluded)

I'm a SACD MC fan. It's the better format because:
1. DSD is a 1 Bit system. This means that it can be converted into any digital format, exising or future. PCM is 24/96 (96K into 44.1K is a math nightmare) and can't even easily be converted to CD (this is why there isn't a CD version on DVD-A discs.
2. Hybrid MC discs contain both the SACD MC version and the redbook CD version (that can be played on any existing CD player).
3. PCM has reached it's limit @ 24/96. Increasing word length/sampling rate beyond that offers more problems than benefits.
4. Pure DSD eliminates several conversion steps vs PCM. Conversion = loss of quality.

However, the real advantage with BOTH formats, to me, is the headroom issue. You can only put so much sound in 1 channel before you reach the limit and satyrate the channel. When you have 6 full range channels to spread out the sound, each channel has less to reproduce.

So...I'm very interested in the 'UNI' players. I haven't included DVD-A in my setup yet and I'm looking to do just that. I will either keep my SACD player and add a switcher, cables and a DVD-A player or get a UNI. Since it appears that the UNI players are better at DVD-A than a DVD-A only player, I'll no doubt get one.

I appreciate the input. Keep it coming. Which player to get? 999, 2900, 2300, 8400?

 

[Frank_S]

It really is amazing how great mono can sound...just ask Steve Hoffman.

Lee, I did'nt realize it until I had a decent playback system. I listened to The Beatles "White Album" the other night, the Japanese red vinyl MONO version. It sounds fantastic, even compared to my UK toploader Stereo pressing.

Sorry to sway from the topic of the thread.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

You want to get rid of your Maggies?

No thanks. They are part of the family here.

I heard some Hoffman MONO recently and really enjoyed it. An under-rated audio format is there is one. 78s are also under-rated as are 45s.