Question about Ryan Adams Gold SACD/DVD-Audio (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

I just purchased Ryan Adams Gold DVD-Audio. For the multichannel mix, I found that I have no center channel and no subwoofer. Is this correct? Was this only a 4 channel mix for DVD-A? Or did I buy a mis-mastered disc?

What about the SACD's multichannel mix? Is it also 4 channel?

The ironic thing is that I was at the Largo last weekend watching Glen Phillips, and Ethan Johns (who produced and recorded this album--both stereo and multichannel) was sitting in the table next to mine. If I had owned this back then, I could have just asked him...

Thanks for the help!

 

[Phil A]

Carlo, just popped the SACD in and listened to a couple of cuts and nothing was in the center. My main system has 4 subs (Rels), 2 for stereo, one on the center, and one on the rears and basically I have 5 full range (my main speakers are full range and the subs are crossed over at 22HZ) as they are connected via the high level connection. So I never worry about the sub. Perhaps later I can stick in the basement system and test that.

 

[Carlo_M]

Thanks Phil. Since you don't get the center channel either, coupled with the fact that my Panny RP91 says "4CH" when I play the DVD-A and nothing seems to be missing (plenty of low-end, vocals, etc.) I think it's supposed to be 4 channel. But if you do get around to testing it on a system that doesn't have the SW connected via high level that would be great!

 

[Phil A]

Carlo, I just threw it into the bedroom system (easier since it is on the same level as the main system). I have an old Elite DV-47A in there and I made sure I redefined the system as having a sub (I rarely listen in multi-channel in there anyway it feeds other places around the house, etc.) and on the 1st cut I heard nothing from the center and nothing from the sub. The display on the Pioneer did show a center but I never pay much attention to it since I don't know how accurate it really is for each disc. The only display I value that much for multi-channel stuff is the one with the DVD-A player in the main system which tells me the sampling frequency and whether it is 2-Ch or Multi-channel I'm listening to.

 

[Carlo_M]

Thanks a lot, Phil. Seems like this is a 4 channel mix. Seems to me an odd choice, but it sounds fine.

 

[LanceJ]

I've always wondered when someone would go out on a limb and use the quad format again.

On some of those pro surround mixer forums, they argue a lot about whether the studio should handle the bass management duties, i.e. run the 5.0 (or 4.0 in this case) channels through a b.m. encoder and then put the result on the final disc as the LFE channel.

Or, just record the 5.0/4.0 channels the way the artist and engineer want them to sound like and let the customer's playback system handle the b.m. The rationale behind this is that the customer is the one who knows his system best so why should the studio second-guess him? This also goes along with the advice that a proper surround music system should employ five full-range speakers for best playback quality.*

This discussion obviously brings up visions of all those quad recordings sitting in many label's vaults. Could this b.m. issue be what's holding up their release? In other words, how will those systems that don't have full b.m. capability for the hi-res tracks & that use sats with 4" woofers react to such a recording? Not very well, I'm sure. The Dolby and DTS tracks have b.m. available to them but that's not the best solution as far as high fidelity is concerned.

* And with the addition of my cheap-ass Pioneer 253s I just bought, I now have such a system! Well, actually it's limited to a quad configuration & it only reaches to about 40Hz rather than to 20Hz but for most music duties it's pretty much a full range system. The Minimus center is the exception since its 5" woofer can't possibly keep up with the other channel's eight inchers, even in my small listening room.