What I would change about SACD players (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

Rob, I am tempted to buy into your ideas but why do Chesky's multi-channel, centre channel-less discs sound so poor to me? Chesky's stereo SACD's, or layers, generally sound terrific. Chuck Mangione's EVERYTHING FOR LOVE sounds miserable to me in multi-channel and glorious in stereo. All four full range channels sound echoey and the .1 channel, as usual, lacks the bass of 2 channel. I'm rather dumbfounded about what equipment would make Chesky's 4.1 discs sound optimum. I think 5.1 SACD can be adapted to the typical equipment folks have. Chesky isn't helpng that cause, me thinks. I've heard the centre channel used rather well on some SACD's and DVD-A's for that matter. What and how much of it is put in the sides is the main point of contention about M-C audio's main channels.
Stereo SACD is really happen'in for me now and I don't have or need $10,000 speakers to realize it's benefits. I do think great 5.1 SACD is possible and if I had an ICBM I bet I could move a whole lot closer now. Best wishes!

 

[Rob Roth]

Rachael,

Sorry if I hijacked your thread for a rant. I realize my priorities may be different from others' and are not inherently better. I just don't think that lack of BM is a great criticism of a SACD player, anymore than I wouild want tone controls on a preamp.

I agree some of the Chesy discs are idiosyncratic. There are, however, a bunch of old EMI quad recordings that have been redone in DVDA. Some of these are very good and the remixers had the good sense to leave them 4.0.

The center channel issue is a concern of mine. Although I describe my SF Solo as 'full range' it is not equivalent to the Grand Pianos. It is voiced the same and uses the same drivers, but can't really move the same air. I suspect most Ht rigs suffer from the same problem. Add to that the probability that the center channel is horizontal and on top of the monitor. I've spent lots of hours minimizing the center channel problems but have to report that the imaging changes when it is engaged; the overall image is wider, but flatter.

What I've been advising people to do is to start with a great pair of speakers in front and adding a second pair of the same for the rears when budgets allow. I believe 4 quality speakers with decent extension can create a good soundfield- provided the processor can handle the phantom center.

 

[Rachael B]

Rob, any SACD player feature or lack there of is fair game for this thread. But, how do processors figur in here, other than ICBM's, since we're all using 5.1 inputs for multi-channel? Chesky's 4.1 discs just don't sound good in M-C. As long as M-C is denied processing in our head units, what's the difference? I don't doubt that 4.1 could sound grand. There are so many roads to Rome! Best wishes!

 

[Philip Hamm]

Rob,
You're optimizing your system for stereo listening at the expense of 5.1 sound.
Have you ever heard a good 5.1 mix with five identical speakers or at least three identical speakers across the front soundfield? It is a revelation. A 5.1 mix with a wisely used center (I have many examples) can sound breathtaking and the center does not collapse the front soundfield. They key of course is the wisdom of the engineer doing the mixing. If too much is put into the center channel it can indeed collapse the center.
And if the center is not the same identical speaker then the front soundfield will be extremely compromised in all cases where a center is used (including movies). And I don't mean the same drivers in different boxes or a "timbre matched" center, I mean three identical speakers in the front soundfield, operating as three stereo pairs (L/R, L/C, C/R).

 

[KeithH]

Rachael asked:

Keith you love SACD threads. Where R U?

I was in Santa Rosa, California on business. I left Monday morning and just got back last night. It was a great trip from a business standpoint, but it was also my first trip to Northern California, and I loved the scenery. I lived in Southern California for four years growing up and have been back a few times since, but I had never managed to get to Northern California. From an audio standpoint, it was disappointing. Tower Records and Fry's Electronics stores are prevalent in California, but Santa Rosa has neither at present. A Fry's supposedly is coming. I also passed a Good Guys a few times, but I had no time to stop in. It was still a great trip.

As for SACD, I agree that a scroll button would be nice. As was said by others, the only way to pull up the complete title of a song to cycle through with the TIME/TEXT button.

 

[Rob Roth]

Phillip,

I agree with much of your last post- hence my dissatisfaction. I can do a good job of positioning my L and R to produce correct tonal balance and center imaging. It's not perfect because the monitor is between them but moving the speakers a bit forward is ok.

But the only way to use another Grand Piano floorstanding speaker as a perfectly matched center channel would be: 1.) spend lots on a front projector system and, 2.) put the center behind the screen. Since the video image is less important to me I am not enthusiastic about spending $10K+ for a viewing device that has to be lowered, powered-up, and starts eating crt lamps when I only want to catch the news or access a DVDA menu.

So I have compromised with the center channel as have, I would estimate, 90+ % of HT owners. The Solo ctr. channel is driver matched, with identical amplification, identical distance (within an inch), and identical cabling. The distances from its tweeter to those of the L and R are also identical. And yes, the result is a large, wide coherent soundstage. But it is not deep.

The only practical way I can imagine to get an exactly matched set of center/mains/surrounds is to use smaller speakers (and, of course, Bass Management). But now I have the tail wagging the dog; the requirements of perfectly integrating the center channel have forced me to compromise in other areas.

It is these compromises, and others, that have led me to question the value of using the HT paradigm for audio reproduction. The center channel evolved as a way to "anchor dialog". It remains unclear that the center channel performs as well with music.

 

[Rob Roth]

Rachael,

If the processor can take 5.1 input and a.) create an effective phantom center, and b.) distribute the LFE among 4 full range speakers we can have the following benefits:

Only need to buy and position 4 speakers- no center and sub

Only need 4 channels of amplification- 2 good stereo amps would fit the bill

More even bass since it would come from 4 sources

Easier soundfield integration

I'm doing a bunch of home renovation this summer and may have the opportunity to try these ideas out.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Friends,
Chesky has been releasing new discs in SIX channel sound. To get the full benefit you need four up front and two in the back. Two of the four upfront are high and at an angle. You probably won't get the full effect of these excellent recordings unless you set up the speakers in this fashion. In the mastering suite they sound great.
I am working on getting David Chesky to talk to the HTF. More details later on.

 

[Rob Roth]

Whether or not David Chesky is succesful advocating his paradigm, I am glad that he is speaking the simple truth; 5.1 was 'developed' for movies, not music.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It is ironic that we now have 7.1 with 'movie' people telling us we need 4 speakers in the back. Last time I looked my ears were angled forward, but all we seem to care about any more is what is behind us.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It is ironic that we now have 7.1 with 'movie' people telling us we need 4 speakers in the back. Last time I looked my ears were angled forward, but all we seem to care about any more is what is behind us.

Amen.
The quality of recording is highly dependent on recording technique and very few understand how to capture all this properly.
I think its a strong bet a lot of MC recordings will be gimmicky with superfluous pans L to R and silly effects. This could fail to take hold if quality is not kept up. Now I have to go listen to some Quad recordings.

 

[Rachael B]

Rob, the processors aren't in play here for 4.0 or 4.1 sound. With the 555ES you would choose the output channels on it's menu. I presume it's the same or similar on other Sony models.

Lee, I don't doubt David Chesky has a good idea for idea's sake but how practical is it? Really? If one had a head unit with a 7.1 input you could set it up, but who'd want to if it was going to interfere with other 5.1/7.1 sources. What processing device seperates the two front rights and lefts? Isn't this really going to wreck having the convience of connection for players like the Pioneer 733/747/47A that also do DVD-A, si?

Is this front arrangement about the same as Sony's theater system? Sort'a? Or, does SDDS have a centre & 2R & 2L? Is Chesky creating a sub-format? It seems so. It sounds like one would have to have a full-blown pre-amp hooked to their 5.1/7.1 input to do this with existing equipment. Even then, would one get worse results if they only had a 5.1 input?

Lee, how practical is this? I wish Chesky would just do the best he can within the limitations of 5.1.

Welcome back Keith! Have you actually tried using the disc labeling function? Pages 28 to 30 555 manual. I must confess I have not. I atleast thought about it... It seems sort'a stupid! The name of the disc should be encoded like the song titles obviously are. That's 2-dayz rant, best wishes SACD'ers!

 

[Rachael B]

Lee, it just occured to me, why can't Chesky make 4.1 discs that would sync with existing equipment. Chuck Mangione's front-centreless EVERYTHING FOR LOVE sounds echo-ey and strange on my set-up. It's dynamite in stereo. Surely two speakers can reproduce the front well enough? Oh well,....

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Lee, it just occured to me, why can't Chesky make 4.1 discs that would sync with existing equipment.

Perhaps we will get a chance to ask him soon. I think there is a way to do four channel sound on his discs.

I think what David would say is that you need six channels to create a realistic illusion of space and directional cues. He has played several recent six channel recordings for me at work and I have to tall you it is impressive how realistic on say, Swing Live, it is that you are in a jazz club with wiatresses bringing clinking glasses behind you and all. Movie sound in 5.1 is not particularly natural sounding to me, but there would be clear business reasons for making the audio and HT setup consistent.

One thing you do gain is height information with two speakers elevated in front and that is very important IMHO.

One minor note, David has the equipment to do a variety of different channels, but 4.1 is just as "different" as 6.0.

 

[KeithH]

Rachael, thanks. I assume you are asking if I have ever manually entered disc titles using Sony's Disc Memo feature. Back when I had the Sony CDP-CA80ES carousel CD changer, I used it, but I haven't bothered with it with the 'C555ES.

 

[Rachael B]

Lee, I'm curious to hear from Chesky. I'm skeptical of the practicality here. In theory I have little doubt it works beautifully with some equipment but it ain't mine judging by their recent releases.
Keith, I'm gonna program a name in to try it. Best wishes guyz!