MP3 Goes Multichannel

[o2xygen]

The file format that inspired millions of downloads hopes to inspire music fans to do something else: buy more speakers. Now officially released by the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS and Thomson, coinventors of the MP3 format, the new MP3 Surround supports 5.1 multichannel sound.

"We asked ourselves, where can music go?" explains Henri Linde, Thomson's vice president of new business, intellectual property, and licensing. "It seemed that surround sound was the logical evolution for us." To encourage people to exploit the multichannel advantages of the new file format, free MP3 Surround encoders will be available until the end of 2005. After that, the encoders will be subject to typical licensing fees.

Software to play MP3 Surround tracks in all their multichannel glory will remain free of charge, and the files will be backward compatible with existing MP3 players. Older players, however, will play back the files as conventional stereo tracks. Consumers will have to purchase new MP3 players and CD players if they want to decode the full MP3 Surround experience. Thomson officials claim that the encoding technology, developed by Agere Systems, increases MP3 files sizes only "marginally."

The new MP3 format may also inspire people to get more powerful systems. According to Thomson, encoding music in surround-sound mode increases the computational workload by about 50 percent over stereo encoding.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1747426,00.asp?kc=PCMS102049TX1K0100488

FRaunhofer websiteLINK (http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/EN/index.jsp)

Download LINK (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/download/mp3surround/downloadpage.html)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

...According to Thomson, encoding music in surround-sound mode increases the computational workload by about 50 percent over stereo encoding...

That wouldn't make many people happy. Not me in any case. Playing music should not take more than 2-8% cpu usage IMO.

[hedge]

That wouldn't make many people happy. Not me in any case. Playing music should not take more than 2-8% cpu usage IMO.
Ummm its talking about ENcoding not DEcoding :P

[Roj]

The file format that inspired millions of downloads hopes to inspire music fans to do something else: buy more speakers.Saw this before over at CD Freaks.

1) It's a blatant cash grab - "let's get the rubes hooked and reel in the cash" and that applies from both an encoder and hardware perspective.

2) It's a pointless gimmick. Most audio recordings to this point are two channel and the "remastered to 5.1 channel" stuff just *BARFS*. "Pretty Sound" and gimmicks I actively dislike. Unless audio is specifically recorded for 5.1 (relatively rare right now and that situation isn't going to change until the DVD audio mess is sorted out in likely a year or so from now), it's a total waste of air.

I won't be subscribing to this silliness.

[Willow of Oz]

That wouldn't make many people happy. Not me in any case. Playing music should not take more than 2-8% cpu usage IMO.

Not only is it for encoding, but it's also a 50% increase. So if it was 4% before, it's 6% now. Be interesting though to see how he arrived at that number.

Other formats already support multichannel - ogg supports up to 255.

And if you don't start getting something like this in place now, when there are already some recordings in native 5.1, then you risk missing the boat and being supplanted by another format. Hence their "free period" of encoding.

As for the formats settling down... hmmm, will be interesting to see if that occurs. I seem to recall DVD+R and DVD-R and people waiting to see which of those would become the dominant format. I still don't see a dominant one. But it doesn't matter anymore. Be interesting to see how the whole HDDVD and Blu-ray pans out.

[whitebrotha]

has ayone actually tried it out? Since i don't have a 5.1 dolby soundcard i can't try it myself.

[acushla]

"Pretty Sound" and gimmicks I actively dislike.

I knew I was right when I said you wouldn't like the DVD-AUDIO...I would like to know how you define Pretty Sound and gimmicks. I for one doubt there is a recording made today that doesn't incorporate some sort of sound sculpting in its production. As for things being recorded in 5.1 Stereo...it seems as if there are audio engineers and equipment that can achieve just about anything...I have a number of DVD-AUDIO disc's (who is deciding what gets made and what dosn't...somebody have a talk with that man) and the sound can be a joy. Much more space between instruments and voices which opens up detail you just don't hear in the original. Really.

[Roj]

"Pretty Sound" and gimmicks I actively dislike.

I knew I was right when I said you wouldn't like the DVD-AUDIO...I would like to know how you define Pretty Sound and gimmicks. I for one doubt there is a recording made today that doesn't incorporate some sort of sound sculpting in its production. As for things being recorded in 5.1 Stereo...it seems as if there are audio engineers and equipment that can achieve just about anything...I have a number of DVD-AUDIO disc's (who is deciding what gets made and what dosn't...somebody have a talk with that man) and the sound can be a joy. Much more space between instruments and voices which opens up detail you just don't hear in the original. Really.

Try this:

http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27057#post27057

[carbonize]

One thing I remember from the original white paper of this new improved MP3 that appears to have been neglected from this thread is the fact that the encoders will now put a marker in the MP3 file to indicate which machine the file was encoded on.

[Roj]

One thing I remember from the original white paper of this new improved MP3 that appears to have been neglected from this thread is the fact that the encoders will now put a marker in the MP3 file to indicate which machine the file was encoded on.

No - Way - In - Hell - Will - I - Touch - This - ****.

[carbonize]

it might be in the white paper and the official encoder but do you think LAME or any of the other third party encoders will go with that? Even if they do I doubt it would be long until patches for the encoders were released.

[Roj]

it might be in the white paper and the official encoder but do you think LAME or any of the other third party encoders will go with that? Even if they do I doubt it would be long until patches for the encoders were released.

If the folks who do LAME implement 5.1, they'll likely be sued. Any bona-fide encoders for 5.1 will have fees attached. That pretty much puts paid to it.

[carbonize]

I thought that they had lost the right to charge people for making MP3 encoders/decoders due to the fact you can only copyright software in America and one other country?

[Roj]

I thought that they had lost the right to charge people for making MP3 encoders/decoders due to the fact you can only copyright software in America and one other country?

I don't believe so. If that were the case, the maker of Blade (another mp3 encoder) would never have been legally strongarmed by FhG. That was why he stopped development on his encoder way back when. LAME got aorund it by removing all traces of original code but if you notice binaries are still not distributed in the US as far as I know.

[Inthewoods]

Wow.....lemme see here. They're gonna take mp3, which is lossy by nature, and has phase coherance and artifact issues anyway, and they're gonna implement a codec in 5.1 "stereo" (which is the saddest excuse for realistic music reproduction ever pushed on the general public)....Then they're gonna make consumers pay to have the "privilege" of using it....ya , OK, sign me up for that one right away.......NOT!!!!!!!

the term "5.1 stereo" is a misnomer anyway, everybody uses it, but it's meaningless if you look up the definition of the word stereo. 5.1 sound reproduction is fine for home theater and movies, and gaming, but not for music.

Oh well, one less thing to pay for... (my very high end home audio system is 2 channel, and I do NOT feel deprived)

[Roj]

Oh well, one less thing to pay for... (my very high end home audio system is 2 channel, and I do NOT feel deprived)

Ditto.

[acushla]

Wow.....lemme see here. They're gonna take mp3, which is lossy by nature, and has phase coherance and artifact issues anyway, and they're gonna implement a codec in 5.1 "stereo" (which is the saddest excuse for realistic music reproduction ever pushed on the general public)....Then they're gonna make consumers pay to have the "privilege" of using it....ya , OK, sign me up for that one right away.......NOT!!!!!!!

the term "5.1 stereo" is a misnomer anyway, everybody uses it, but it's meaningless if you look up the definition of the word stereo. 5.1 sound reproduction is fine for home theater and movies, and gaming, but not for music.

Oh well, one less thing to pay for... (my very high end home audio system is 2 channel, and I do NOT feel deprived)A regular reader of the QUINTESSENTIAL forum will know that I am an advocate of DVD-AUDIO...yet it wasn't until today that I reached a better understanding of why I feel that way. It came about listening to the first album (is there a second?) by BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB. What I realized is that there is a 'studio' quality to it...as opposed to a live recording where (usually) the band is on a stage. A studio recording is nothing like a 'live' recording and I think it might be folly to consider it as such. Is multi channel recording suitable for all audio? I would say no...it is not. On the other hand "stereo' being applied to ALL music might not be the correct approach either. ...oh yes....I have a very high end system as well. Remember Roj talking about those individuals who paid big money for pure invisible copper wrapped in omni directional invisible fluid flow centurion radiated casing? Guess who bought those?

[acushla]

Ditto.

Wecome back Roj...you were missed.

[Roj]

Remember Roj talking about those individuals who paid big money for pure invisible copper wrapped in omni directional invisible fluid flow centurion radiated casing? Guess who bought those?

Martin-Logan / Myryad M-Series here. No Uber Cable. :)

[Roj]

Wecome back Roj...you were missed.

Thanks. :)

Rough week - for a variety of reasons.

Thinking of replacing the MLs with these:

http://www.finalsound.com/

...specifically the 200s, 100s and center for Home Theater. MLs are too damned expensive to build a HT out of - I don't have $35K to spend.

Need to know more...

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Roj] MLs are too damned expensive to build a HT out of - I don't have $35K to spend.

QUOTE]

OK...listen up everybody...we're starting the 'Help Roj Lve His Dream' Foundation. Our goal is to raise $35,000 so he can buy these speakers and report back to us. OK...whose first? Carbonize? InTheWoods? Whitebrotha? Aaron? gsb521? jkrzok? and all the rest of you! Remember... Together...we can!

[acushla]

No - Way - In - Hell - Will - I - Touch - This - ****.

I'm curious as to why, if I interpret correctly, you think this is a bad idea. I know of a forum where users who encode using 'RazerLame' have set up a sharing of files between themselves....Personally I think that regardless of what encoding system you choose (Monkey, FLAC etc) it would be good to know how they were done.

Tell me if this is scary or what. You can take a mp3 file that was originally converted at 128kbps and reconvert it so it shows that it was converted at 320kbps! If the marker served to prevent this one weakness...that's good enough for me.

[Roj]

[QUOTE=Roj] MLs are too damned expensive to build a HT out of - I don't have $35K to spend.

QUOTE]

OK...listen up everybody...we're starting the 'Help Roj Lve His Dream' Foundation. Our goal is to raise $35,000 so he can buy these speakers and report back to us. OK...whose first? Carbonize? InTheWoods? Whitebrotha? Aaron? gsb521? jkrzok? and all the rest of you! Remember... Together...we can!

ROFLMAO!! :)

[jkrzok]

I'm curious as to why, if I interpret correctly, you think this is a bad idea. I know of a forum where users who encode using 'RazerLame' have set up a sharing of files between themselves....Personally I think that regardless of what encoding system you choose (Monkey, FLAC etc) it would be good to know how they were done.

Tell me if this is scary or what. You can take a mp3 file that was originally converted at 128kbps and reconvert it so it shows that it was converted at 320kbps! If the marker served to prevent this one weakness...that's good enough for me.

I think the question is more about WHO did them rather than HOW they were done. Wouldn't the RIAA love to find out who's posting all those lovely mp3s on the internet?

It's just another way for the Man to track us.

[Roj]

I'm curious as to why, if I interpret correctly, you think this is a bad idea. I know of a forum where users who encode using 'RazerLame' have set up a sharing of files between themselves....Personally I think that regardless of what encoding system you choose (Monkey, FLAC etc) it would be good to know how they were done.

Tell me if this is scary or what. You can take a mp3 file that was originally converted at 128kbps and reconvert it so it shows that it was converted at 320kbps! If the marker served to prevent this one weakness...that's good enough for me.

But your ears can tell you that. I ercently downloaded the new Thievery Corporation that was ostensibly done at high quality VBR. It sounded DULL. I then downloaded a 192bit version and it became immediately aparrent that this was the original - the VBR flavor was a re-encode. My sources for APE, FLAC etc. generally include a log file which shows the lineage of the files. The last thing we need is the RIAA having more clues to improve their hopelessly inept methods of tracking users over the net.

[acushla]

But your ears can tell you that. I ercently downloaded the new Thievery Corporation that was ostensibly done at high quality VBR. It sounded DULL. I then downloaded a 192bit version and it became immediately aparrent that this was the original - the VBR flavor was a re-encode. My sources for APE, FLAC etc. generally include a log file which shows the lineage of the files. The last thing we need is the RIAA having more clues to improve their hopelessly inept methods of tracking users over the net.

Showing that a file was created using dbPower as oppossed to RazorLame helps someone to 'track us down? Really? I thought you yourself acknowledged that in Canada this is legal.

[carbonize]

No I said it marks the MP3 file with a way to identify which COMPUTER it was encoded on not which encoder was used. Most encoders already leave a mark to say which encoder was used.

[acushla]

No I said it marks the MP3 file with a way to identify which COMPUTER it was encoded on not which encoder was used. Most encoders already leave a mark to say which encoder was used.

One thing I remember from the original white paper of this new improved MP3 that appears to have been neglected from this thread is the fact that the encoders will now put a marker in the MP3 file to indicate which machine the file was encoded on.

I returned to your original post and realized that when I read the word 'machine' I immediately only thought about the program which was used to do the encoding. It never occurred to me that you were referring to the computer used to do the encoding. Something I would not want. While were at this...how many of you know that deep within the registry of XP there is code that logs the serial number of every portable device you use to upload songs to? I am NOT making this up.

[Roj]

Showing that a file was created using dbPower as oppossed to RazorLame helps someone to 'track us down? Really? I thought you yourself acknowledged that in Canada this is legal.

If that were the case, then that flag is irrelevant in the face of ID3V2 tags. There's such a thing as a comment field. If it goes further than that however, such as embedding MAC addresses...

In Canada this is legal - the rest of the world remains oppressed, unfortunately.

[acushla]

Saw this before over at CD Freaks.

1) It's a blatant cash grab - "let's get the rubes hooked and reel in the cash" and that applies from both an encoder and hardware perspective.

2) It's a pointless gimmick. Most audio recordings to this point are two channel and the "remastered to 5.1 channel" stuff just *BARFS*. "Pretty Sound" and gimmicks I actively dislike. Unless audio is specifically recorded for 5.1 (relatively rare right now and that situation isn't going to change until the DVD audio mess is sorted out in likely a year or so from now), it's a total waste of air.

I won't be subscribing to this silliness.

This might well be the last post I make in regards to the SACD multi-channel disc's. A friend of mine returned from Detroit yesterday with a gift. A SACD disc of Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon'. This afternoon I dimmed the lights, and turned it up. When the music had finished I simply sat there, alone, and marvelled at what had just happened. Music within the music I had never heard before...lyrics that did not require you to strain to understand. A sonic experience the likes of which I cannot remember having had before. And the shivers...what I really remember the most are the shivers that ran up and down my spine at the incredible beauty that was mine to experience in a darkened room.

Now...would it be the same if it was Herman Hermits? Frankly...I don't even want to find out. Yet to listen to Floyd and say there is no place for SACD in audio...well...I suggest at that point your just being stubborn.

[Roj]

This might well be the last post I make in regards to the SACD multi-channel disc's. A friend of mine returned from Detroit yesterday with a gift. A SACD disc of Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon'. This afternoon I dimmed the lights, and turned it up. When the music had finished I simply sat there, alone, and marvelled at what had just happened. Music within the music I had never heard before...lyrics that did not require you to strain to understand. A sonic experience the likes of which I cannot remember having had before. And the shivers...what I really remember the most are the shivers that ran up and down my spine at the incredible beauty that was mine to experience in a darkened room.

Now...would it be the same if it was Herman Hermits? Frankly...I don't even want to find out. Yet to listen to Floyd and say there is no place for SACD in audio...well...I suggest at that point your just being stubborn.

Ever look at the so-called "specs" for SACD? It's the biggest load of ad hoc CRAP you'll ever read. DVD audio is considerably more well thought out and logical. I mean, I have no love for Sony to begin with - they're overpriced and / or underpowered for most of their product line (the minidisc and ATRAC was right up there with their original memory stick for "ripoff of the year award") and they trade mostly on their brand recognition and elitism, but SACD is going beyond the pale even for them.

No, there is no place for SACD in audio and guess what? The market is bearing that point out. I see sections for DVD audio in the stores but precious few for SACD.

Now, on "remastered" (read: twisted and warped versions of the original masters) 5.1 recordings:

I dont like "pretty" sound.

I don't like taking an existing recording and "doctoring" it to produce golly-gee-whiz gimmickry.

I don't like colorization of black and white movies either and view the above as the audio variant of that debauchery.

Dark Side Of The Moon was a work of cosmic genius on the part of Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons. It wasn't recorded in 5.1, although it would have been a textbook case-study for 5.1 if it had been. Taking it and remixing it for 5.1 is the modern equivalent of those horrid "electronically remastered for stereo" re-issues of mono recordings that came out on vinyl so many years ago.

It sounds nice.

But I'm sorry but I can't subscribe to that.

But hey, the audio business is FULL of gimmicks - I've quoted a few of them in the past. And no one ever lost money by selling "cutesy-ness" to the public. The pandering of the myriad variants of "THX Certification" are a wonderful example. The rubes just lap it up, fulfilling the famous quote oft attributed to P.T. Barnum (he never did actually say it, though).

I can't wait to see the hype campaign surrounding 50 Cent's "latest release in full 5.1 surround sound" (pun intended) - it should be MOST entertaining. :) :) :)

[Inthewoods]

I like my music in it's "natural" state, as the artist originally recorded it. Some of the remastering done early on, of some of the rock and pop classics I love, was pure genius, much like the painstaking restoration of a priceless painting by one of the Masters.

As a lover of old cars, I cringe when I'm surfing Ebay, and see a lemon yellow '57 Chevy Belair with flames painted on the sides, a leopard interior, and one of those "racing" steering wheels and a "5000 watt stereo with 18 speakers" described as "a perfect restoration". A nice ride? Maybe, if it floats your boat. A "restoration"? I think not. Better than a new one in '57? Don't make me laugh!!

To me, Dark Side of the Moon on SACD is disgusting. What Roger Waters and crew created in 1973 was a work of art, The SACD (yes I've heard parts of it) is like painting earrings and eye makeup on the Mona Lisa.

/preachoff

[acushla]

Ever look at the so-called "specs" for SACD? It's the biggest load of ad hoc CRAP you'll ever read. DVD audio is considerably more well thought out and logical. I mean, I have no love for Sony to begin with - they're overpriced and / or underpowered for most of their product line (the minidisc and ATRAC was right up there with their original memory stick for "ripoff of the year award") and they trade mostly on their brand recognition and elitism, but SACD is going beyond the pale even for them.

No, there is no place for SACD in audio and guess what? The market is bearing that point out. I see sections for DVD audio in the stores but precious few for SACD.

Now, on "remastered" (read: twisted and warped versions of the original masters) 5.1 recordings:

I dont like "pretty" sound.

I don't like taking an existing recording and "doctoring" it to produce golly-gee-whiz gimmickry.

I don't like colourization of black and white movies either and view the above as the audio variant of that debauchery.

Dark Side Of The Moon was a work of cosmic genius on the part of Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons. It wasn't recorded in 5.1, although it would have been a textbook case-study for 5.1 if it had been. Taking it and remixing it for 5.1 is the modern equivalent of those horrid "electronically remastered for stereo" re-issues of mono recordings that came out on vinyl so many years ago.

It sounds nice.

But I'm sorry but I can't subscribe to that.

But hey, the audio business is FULL of gimmicks - I've quoted a few of them in the past. And no one ever lost money by selling "cutesy-ness" to the public. The pandering of the myriad variants of "THX Certification" are a wonderful example. The rubes just lap it up, fulfilling the famous quote oft attributed to P.T. Barnum (he never did actually say it, though).

I can't wait to see the hype campaign surrounding 50 Cent's "latest release in full 5.1 surround sound" (pun intended) - it should be MOST entertaining. :) :) :)

Well...I guess it WASN'T my last post about multi channel sound. So now it will be a real discussion on my part and an effort to understand and appreciate where you are coming from so I might understand better where I am coming from. Since this SACD recording of 'Dark Side of the Moon' provided the catalyst...I will limit all my comments and observations to that one disc.

No...I never have looked at the specs of a SACD and the truth is I don't believe I have ever looked at the specs of any music I have ever purchased. I suppose the fact of the matter is that I have simply always trusted my ears...either it sounded good or it didn't. Now that you've told me that the specs on a SACD leave something to be desired then all I can say to myself after this afternoons experience is I guess specs just don't really matter. (I'm addressing your response point by point.) In Toronto I would venture to say that SACD discs dominate DVD-Audio by a ratio of at least 6 - 1...although I confess I was not aware that quality of sound was determined by who had the most product.

Now comes the question of re-mastering. What I understand about THIS recording (but could be wrong) is that the original master was done on a 16 track machine. My contention is this...given the state of the audio industry at that time...by necessity these tracks had to be mixed down to two channels. However...30 years later and that much 'advancement' (if you will) in the world of audio...those same 16 tracks can now be mixed in a way that takes full advantage of that 'advancement'...something that in all likelihood would have been done had technology allowed it 30 years ago. As for the analogy about having your B/W films 'colourized' (something I myself find distasteful) I doubt you feel quite as strongly about that when (I don't know enough about cars to make this as strong a statement as I would like) somebody takes a street car and then customizes it by dropping in an engine twice as powerful and sculpts the body in a way that instead of doors it now sports gull wings. (You know what I mean.) Hell...I bet you yourself have things all around you that you've altered and tweaked so they will perform 'better'. In the end I suppose...what gives weight to the 'Moon" disc is the fact that it was overseen by the original artist. It's not like somebody took his work and reworked it on their own. Think of many great composers over the centuries who were continually returning to their compositions and reworking them. Why? To make them better of course. I do not see any difference here. To call it pretty sound (and I do NOT mean to appear rude here...I like you Roj) only indicates to me that you haven't heard it.

Your turn.

[Roj]

I actually inhaled your post into Word, in order to do the reply justice.

No...I never have looked at the specs of a SACD and the truth is I don't believe I have ever looked at the specs of any music I have ever purchased.

It's not the music that's in question, it's the process of mixing and assigning the channels - in short, the engineering behind the finished product. There always have to be nuts and bolts behind that and a logical way of proceeding otherwise the process has no cohesiveness. The SACD spec is VERY "eye of newt, wing of bat... "

I suppose the fact of the matter is that I have simply always trusted my ears...either it sounded good or it didn't.

That's valid in many cases. However, this time we're talking about a consistent standard and methodology for audio. Standards have to be rooted in solid principles and not ad-hoc arbitrary weirdness. I mean, if we'd taken that approach with stereo way back when...

Now that you've told me that the specs on a SACD leave something to be desired then all I can say to myself after this afternoons experience is I guess specs just don't really matter. (I'm addressing your response point by point.) In Toronto I would venture to say that SACD discs dominate DVD-Audio by a ratio of at least 6 - 1...although I confess I was not aware that quality of sound was determined by who had the most product.

As you’ll note, I too am addressing issues point by point, in the manner I grew accustomed to on Usenet (yes, I’m one of those old guys). Audio quality is never determined by who has the most product. If that were the case, Creative Labs and Logitech would be the ne plus ultra of PC audio instead of the exercises in mediocrity that they actually are. However, the spread of snake oil is generally limited by the recognition of what it actually is. From what I’ve read about both, SACD is snake oil and DVD-Audio is not. Mind you, to go back to my analogy above, most PC users DO feel that Creative Labs and Logitech are the ne plus ultra of PC audio. Marketing works wonders.

Now comes the question of re-mastering. What I understand about THIS recording (but could be wrong) is that the original master was done on a 16 track machine. My contention is this...given the state of the audio industry at that time...by necessity these tracks had to be mixed down to two channels. However...30 years later and that much 'advancement' (if you will) in the world of audio...those same 16 tracks can now be mixed in a way that takes full advantage of that 'advancement'...something that in all likelihood would have been done had technology allowed it 30 years ago.

I cannot agree and here’s why:

You have a 16 track master that was recorded by miking the room and instruments in a certain way. That methodology in no way shape or form took into consideration a surround environment. Remember: the most that surround offers is the ambient room noise, specifically the measurable effect of sound bouncing off the back and side walls - if you want to be realistc about it, that is. If you're into gimmickry, then there is some amusement to be derived by placing the listener in a listening environment where the music appears to be coming at you from all sides - but that certainly isn't real life and is resorting to golly-gee-whiz effects. I’ve never heard ANY band sound like that. Back to the whole issue of recording a session to reflect true 5.1, you’d have to set the studio mikes up to record that ambient sound – those echo effects from the other three walls – and that clearly wasn’t done 30 years ago. That information was LOST. No engineering simulation is going to magically recreate it either – that’s movie colorization at best. In short, it’s all fake, and much more fake than stereo engineering is today. I will of course acknowledge that stereo engineering is also fake; however it is much less so because at the very least, all the appropriate audio information is present thus not requiring more to be fabricated / simulated.

As for the analogy about having your B/W films 'colourized' (something I myself find distasteful) I doubt you feel quite as strongly about that when (I don't know enough about cars to make this as strong a statement as I would like) somebody takes a street car and then customizes it by dropping in an engine twice as powerful and sculpts the body in a way that instead of doors it now sports gull wings. (You know what I mean.)

I like AMG Hammers and Ruf Porches because they take the car and significantly enhance it without losing the flavor and intent of the original. I'm not in favor of chopped classic cars (but that’s wood’s analogy – not mine). :)

Hell...I bet you yourself have things all around you that you've altered and tweaked so they will perform 'better'. In the end I suppose...what gives weight to the 'Moon" disc is the fact that it was overseen by the original artist. It's not like somebody took his work and reworked it on their own. Think of many great composers over the centuries who were continually returning to their compositions and reworking them. Why? To make them better of course. I do not see any difference here. To call it pretty sound (and I do NOT mean to appear rude here...I like you Roj) only indicates to me that you haven't heard it.

No offense taken and I hope none given. I tend to argue vehemently and that can sometimes come across as VERY in-your-face but has no bearing on how I view the person I’m arguing with – you’re a truly decent guy.

I have not in fact heard Dark Side Of The Moon redone. I have heard heard the stereo remaster of same. I thoroughly enjoyed it because it brought out subtle nuances I hadn’t even known were there in the original recording. It was extremely well done. I have also heard SACD remasters of Miles Davis and an orchestral performance, the latter as part of an audio demo. I thoroughly disliked both, especially the orchestral mess. That being said, the aforementioned dislike is more of an indictment of recordings remastered for 5.1 than SACD itself. The indictment of SACD comes from the evaluation of the at best ad hoc fly-by-night spec against that developed for DVD-Audio. It reeks of typical Sony hype-over-substance.

Now, consider the following:

Let’s say we have a 5.1 recording that was miked for 5.1 and recorded specifically for it. That means all of the ambient sound has been captured and mixed. However, it has been mixed In The Studio to a set of acoustics present there. When I play it in my living room, completely different acoustic properties will be present. Now I’ll have the engineered ambient sound of the performance bouncing off the walls of the studio layered over the naturally occurring ambient sound of all four walls of My Room. At least with a recording engineered for stereo the sound would be projected from the speakers and would interact with the walls of my room without having that additionally engineered layer.

Let's look at that concept even more closely. First of all, room neutrality is a myth. Essentially, a 5.1 recording will be trying to fit itself as unobtrusively into the acoustics of as many listening rooms as possible while still retaining the flavor of the original room it was recorded in. The logistics of that boggle the mind.
Then again, the engineer could always resort to the gimmickry of unrealistically having the sound come at you from all sides.

Little wonder that in execution the finished product sounds just plain weird...

Now we're starting to arrive at an indictment of 5.1 audio as a concept.

This answer took an entire lunch hour to craft - your move. :)

[Inthewoods]

I would like to clarify my previous post. My dislike of the SACD concept has more to do with the whole "5.1 stereo" (damn, what a misnomer), and the gimmickry of the sound, rather than the SACD specs themselves. I have not studied the specs in depth as Roj has, but even a cursory look at them reveals a whole lot of smoke and mirrors, without much "truth". Can you spell (or smell, take your pick) m-a-r-k-e-t-i-n-g?
But again, it's about the sound gimmicks, which were both displeasing to my ears, as well as (to me) a bastardization of a piece of work which was already darn near perfect as originally released. There is also the factor of stereo imaging, a much misunderstood phenomenon which is, to me at least, of equal importance with clarity and frequency response. Roj said it best already:


I cannot agree and here’s why:

You have a 16 track master that was recorded by miking the room and instruments in a certain way. That methodology in no way shape or form took into consideration a surround environment. Remember: the most that surround offers is the ambient room noise, specifically the measurable effect of sound bouncing off the back and side walls - if you want to be realistc about it, that is. If you're into gimmickry, then there is some amusement to be derived by placing the listener in a listening environment where the music appears to be coming at you from all sides - but that certainly isn't real life and is resorting to golly-gee-whiz effects. I’ve never heard ANY band sound like that. Back to the whole issue of recording a session to reflect true 5.1, you’d have to set the studio mikes up to record that ambient sound – those echo effects from the other three walls – and that clearly wasn’t done 30 years ago. That information was LOST. No engineering simulation is going to magically recreate it either – that’s movie colorization at best. In short, it’s all fake, and much more fake that stereo engineering is today. I will of course acknowledge that stereo engineering is also fake; however it is much less so because at the very least, all the appropriate audio information is present thus not requiring more to be fabricated / simulated.



I was never a member of Pink Floyd (or any other band), so it sounds unnatural to me to be sitting "on stage" as they are playing. Soon we could be seeing "super deluxe SACD 24.1 THX approved Dolby millenium pasturized vitamin-enriched HEPA filtered" remasters....... wait a sec...the band is WHERE?? above me? Below me? Behind me? all of the above? well KEWL.

Blech...I'll pass......

Cheers....

[acushla]

I was never a member of Pink Floyd (or any other band), so it sounds unnatural to me to be sitting "on stage" as they are playing. Soon we could be seeing "super deluxe SACD 24.1 THX approved Dolby millenium pasturized vitamin-enriched HEPA filtered" remasters....... wait a sec...the band is WHERE?? above me? Below me? Behind me? all of the above? well KEWL.

Blech...I'll pass......

Cheers....


What?...I AM the Band?

[Roj]

What?...I AM the Band?

I remember a performer named Pluto Shervington in Jamaica - in his early days he went by the description "The Man Who Is A Band". :) :) :)

[acushla]

You have a 16 track master that was recorded by miking the room and instruments in a certain way. That methodology in no way shape or form took into consideration a surround environment. Remember: the most that surround offers is the ambient room noise, specifically the measurable effect of sound bouncing off the back and side walls - if you want to be realistic about it, that is. If you're into gimmickry, then there is some amusement to be derived by placing the listener in a listening environment where the music appears to be coming at you from all sides - but that certainly isn't real life and is resorting to golly-gee-whiz effects. I’ve never heard ANY band sound like that. Back to the whole issue of recording a session to reflect true 5.1, you’d have to set the studio mikes up to record that ambient sound – those echo effects from the other three walls – and that clearly wasn’t done 30 years ago.

Well...this is not my response so much as my acknowledgement that I have read (3 or 4 times) your scholarly and informed attempt to show exactly why multi-channel sound, as it applies to music, is destined for failure. On the surface (which is precisely why this is NOT my response) it is all very neat and somewhat self explanatory. However...I find that I have this one little problem...being of course my musical experience two days ago in a darkened room that literally and figuratively produced shivers up and down my spine with the sheer beauty and majesty and depth and clarity of a very familiar album that had me hearing music within the music that obviously must have always been there but until now had never been revealed. My guess is that because the music is so complex and layered in places it is only now that we are able to hear it because there is an expansion in the format which enables the multitude of tracks to emerge distinct from one another. This produced an experience I am not likely to forget. You see what the problem is...one can present a case as to all the reasons it is this and that which adds up to 'bogus'...but my experience tells me otherwise...not with a whimper but with a BANG. I suppose that's the dilemma and I suppose a logical question I need to ask myself now is why do I write about all this. It is highly unlikely I am going to persuade you to see it my way (and frankly...why would I want to?)...and I do not think anything would make me see it any other way other than the way I do see it. At this point all I can offer is the idea that perhaps we can agree to disagree. You keep trying to reproduce 'real life' in your living space and I'll continue to be on stage with Miles. I have left one portion of your response which I would like to comment on...and which will probably form the foundation of further thoughts...if I choose to pursue this further. Prior to those comments, however, I would like to just touch upon what I trust will be a point of agreement...that we will de facto assume that each listener has a more than acceptable sound system so as to preclude any discussion of the strengths or weaknesses of the equipment as it affects the sound. The object, as I understand it, is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the sound based on the medium itself. If you know what I mean.

Now, I have made no secret of the fact that I enjoy multi-channel sound...and have even made the statement that I can create a feeling that I am actually on stage with Miles (electric Miles)...right there, experiencing the music in ways I was never able to before. (Except of course for those times when I was on stage with Miles.). I think the key in that statement...and perhaps a cornerstone to my perspective on this, is that I am able to experience the music in new ways.
You talk about the recording process and between the lines I seem to read about walls/reflections. I have been in recording studios...most notably the amazing studio in the Glen Gould Theatre at the CBC here in Toronto...you must know that one of the objectives of a studio is that it create an environment where there are no walls and therefore no reflections. No environment...if you will.
You've never heard ANY band like that. Well...yes...you haven't ...but... in an earlier exchange I pointed out that listening to music in your living space and seeing a band in concert are NOT the same thing...and in fact, no matter how much you might like it to be similiar...using your own term of REAL LIFE...they aren't even remotely the same thing. You want to see a concert then by all means, go to a concert...but please...do not delude yourself into thinking that by putting on [fill in the blank] you are somehow recreating 'real life'. If that is your goal then you have failed before you begin. The ONLY way you could even come close to recreating 'real life' on your terms is to have the Band perform for you in your living space. The only problem with that scenario is that now your stereo isn't even involved. You see what I'm getting at? Everything is it's own reality and I believe it futile to attempt to transpose characteristics from one medium onto another medium. They are different...why try to make them the same? In my living space real life for me as it applies to listening to music is anything that can convey the music, reveal the music...and anything that that can make me hear and appreciate music in new ways...anything that can help me enjoy the music more. What could be more real than that? Is it fair to say that everything we do...the upgrades and tweaking and rearrangements...ultimately is so we can enjoy the music more? It's always about the music. The music. The music.
I am going to end this 'non response' and say two things. When I was 17 and living in LA some friends of mine and myself had tickets to see Big Brother and the Holding Company featuring Janis Joplin do a concert in San Francisco. The day before we were to drive up, she died. Since that time I have owned a copy of the Cheap Thrills album and have played it so often in my life that there is a part of me that actually believes I was at that concert. My friend was not able to bring me back a copy of the SACD pressing of that album...but she did order it. I suspect it will be here within a week. It is going to be very interesting for me to sit in the same darkened studio and listen to THAT recording. (Don't worry Roj...I promise I will share my experience...good or bad.) The second thing I want to say is this: I recently held a SACD copy of Miles Davis's 'Kind of Blue'...smiled and shook my head while I put it back in it's section. Some things are NOT meant to be changed.

[acushla]

[QUOTE=acushla]

ROFLMAO!! :)

I have absolutely no idea what that means. I would like to know what it means...but I don't know what it means. What does it mean?

[acushla]

I was never a member of Pink Floyd (or any other band), so it sounds unnatural to me to be sitting "on stage" as they are playing.
Cheers....

Sit there long enough and you will find it quite comfortable. Plus you'll get to discover the music all over again...just from a different perspective.

[Roj]

[QUOTE=Roj]

I have absolutely no idea what that means. I would like to know what it means...but I don't know what it means. What does it mean?

Roll On Floor Laughing My Ass Off. :)

Gotta get to work - will dissect your reply later. :)

Cheers!

[hedge]

Very well structured arguments here. I think some of you have been on debating teams in your lifes... ;)
Anyway, I'll agree with acushla here, he makes a very valid point, if it sounds good to you and enables you to be moved in ways that were never before possible, then go right ahead and grasp that oppurtunity. Its not at all like a real live gig when you listen to a peice of music in your living room, its already been manufactured and engineered to be different to that experience. So why not go all out and experience it in an entirely different manner?

[Roj]

Another lunch hour gone. :)

Well...this is not my response so much as my acknowledgement that I have read (3 or 4 times) your scholarly and informed attempt to show exactly why multi-channel sound, as it applies to music, is destined for failure.

Whoa - wait a second. I have no doubt that multi-channel sound will be successful - the marketing and golly-gee-whiz factor all but assures its success. As I pointed out, that stuff sells and sells WELL. What I iterated is why I don’t like it and why purists won’t go for it. The Average Joe will likely lap it up just as they did Pizza Pops (I actively dislike those too). Of the two, I would particularly be disappointed if Sony, with their smoke and mirrors approach, conned the buying public into making their “approach” (and I use the term extremely loosely) the dominant one. If I had to choose, DVD-Audio is the far more credible solution because at least rational thought went into it.

On the surface (which is precisely why this is NOT my response) it is all very neat and somewhat self explanatory. However...I find that I have this one little problem...being of course my musical experience two days ago in a darkened room that literally and figuratively produced shivers up and down my spine with the sheer beauty and majesty and depth and clarity of a very familiar album that had me hearing music within the music that obviously must have always been there but until now had never been revealed.

I got the same effect from the remaster.

My guess is that because the music is so complex and layered in places it is only now that we are able to hear it because there is an expansion in the format which enables the multitude of tracks to emerge distinct from one another.

Nah. Far more likely it’s the effect of having them punched up in the mix, together with having them synthetically engineered to come at you from a different direction than you’re used to a la Creative Labs EAX. Same concept you stated, different slant...

This produced an experience I am not likely to forget. You see what the problem is...one can present a case as to all the reasons it is this and that which adds up to 'bogus'...but my experience tells me otherwise...not with a whimper but with a BANG. I suppose that's the dilemma and I suppose a logical question I need to ask myself now is why do I write about all this. It is highly unlikely I am going to persuade you to see it my way (and frankly...why would I want to?)...and I do not think anything would make me see it any other way other than the way I do see it. At this point all I can offer is the idea that perhaps we can agree to disagree.

I’ll drink to that. :)

You keep trying to reproduce 'real life' in your living space and I'll continue to be on stage with Miles. I have left one portion of your response which I would like to comment on...and which will probably form the foundation of further thoughts...if I choose to pursue this further. Prior to those comments, however, I would like to just touch upon what I trust will be a point of agreement...that we will de facto assume that each listener has a more than acceptable sound system so as to preclude any discussion of the strengths or weaknesses of the equipment as it affects the sound. The object, as I understand it, is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the sound based on the medium itself. If you know what I mean.

Sure. I’ve been chasing audio since my VERY early teens and have gone thorough more than a few systems as well as been responsible for installing / fine-tuning others. The formative experience of my life in terms of audio was at 17 – I helped set up my cousin’s tri-amped Audio Research / Magneplanar Tympani system and on that day fell hopelessly and permanently in love with the immersive properties of flat panel sound.

As an aside, just don’t EVER mention the word Bose in my presence.

Now, I have made no secret of the fact that I enjoy multi-channel sound...and have even made the statement that I can create a feeling that I am actually on stage with Miles (electric Miles)...right there, experiencing the music in ways I was never able to before. (Except of course for those times when I was on stage with Miles.).

You were blessed with the opportunity to be on stage with Miles Davis? I have no words.

I think the key in that statement...and perhaps a cornerstone to my perspective on this, is that I am able to experience the music in new ways. You talk about the recording process and between the lines I seem to read about walls/reflections. I have been in recording studios...most notably the amazing studio in the Glen Gould Theatre at the CBC here in Toronto...you must know that one of the objectives of a studio is that it create an environment where there are no walls and therefore no reflections. No environment...if you will. You've never heard ANY band like that. Well...yes...you haven't ...but... in an earlier exchange I pointed out that listening to music in your living space and seeing a band in concert are NOT the same thing...and in fact, no matter how much you might like it to be similiar...using your own term of REAL LIFE...they aren't even remotely the same thing.

Agreed. Hell, if I go down to one of my favorite pubs and listen to jazz there, the guys at the front of the little sitting room have an immediacy and unpasteurized freshness that I’ve never experienced in recorded music. However, do remember that audio would never have advanced to where it is today if the Holy Grail of the quest hadn't been to achieve that kind of realism even as it was (and is) widely recognized as being forever elusive.

You want to see a concert then by all means, go to a concert...but please...do not delude yourself into thinking that by putting on [fill in the blank] you are somehow recreating 'real life'. If that is your goal then you have failed before you begin. The ONLY way you could even come close to recreating 'real life' on your terms is to have the Band perform for you in your living space. The only problem with that scenario is that now your stereo isn't even involved. You see what I'm getting at?

Only too well – see above. However, the engineer is trying to recreate (at least with some recordings) an approximation of that feeling and having the music come from behind me is only going to do that if I recall how it sounded when I got up and walked to the restroom at the back of the pub to “drain the beer”, thereby having my back to the performers. :)

Everything is it's own reality and I believe it futile to attempt to transpose characteristics from one medium onto another medium. They are different...why try to make them the same? In my living space real life for me as it applies to listening to music is anything that can convey the music, reveal the music...and anything that that can make me hear and appreciate music in new ways...anything that can help me enjoy the music more. What could be more real than that? Is it fair to say that everything we do...the upgrades and tweaking and rearrangements...ultimately is so we can enjoy the music more? It's always about the music. The music. The music.

In the sense that each has their own reality, I’d have to agree in spirit – see my tagline. However, the perspective will always be alien to me. It might be more “natural” with electronic music / chillout / downtempo which are decidedly synthetic in nature to begin with but I’ll always have reservations with genres like jazz / r&b / reggae.

I am going to end this 'non response' and say two things. When I was 17 and living in LA some friends of mine and myself had tickets to see Big Brother and the Holding Company featuring Janis Joplin do a concert in San Francisco. The day before we were to drive up, she died. Since that time I have owned a copy of the Cheap Thrills album and have played it so often in my life that there is a part of me that actually believes I was at that concert. My friend was not able to bring me back a copy of the SACD pressing of that album...but she did order it. I suspect it will be here within a week. It is going to be very interesting for me to sit in the same darkened studio and listen to THAT recording. (Don't worry Roj...I promise I will share my experience...good or bad.)

I sincerely wish you heaven. You were robbed.

The second thing I want to say is this: I recently held a SACD copy of Miles Davis's 'Kind of Blue'...smiled and shook my head while I put it back in it's section. Some things are NOT meant to be changed.

Thank you. :)

[carbonize]

I only have a crappy set up but it's good enough for me. For what it's worth I say this - How much music is actually written to use more than two channels? 1? 2? 3 albums? I know that tubular bells was rerecorded in 5.1 but thats about it. The only music that would be good in surround is live music, orchestral music or trippy synthesiser music like Hawkwind.

[acushla]

Very well structured arguments here. I think some of you have been on debating teams in your lifes... ;)
Anyway, I'll agree with acushla here, he makes a very valid point, if it sounds good to you and enables you to be moved in ways that were never before possible, then go right ahead and grasp that oppurtunity. Its not at all like a real live gig when you listen to a peice of music in your living room, its already been manufactured and engineered to be different to that experience. So why not go all out and experience it in an entirely different manner?

I LIKE you hedge...another intelligent QUINTESSENTIAL member.

[acushla]

multi-channel sound, as it applies to music, is destined for failure.

. (Except of course for those times when I was on stage with Miles).

Not destined for failure commercially...musically.

I'm sorry...I meant to write:......on stage with Miles. (hahaha). The hahaha was silent.

I will study your response and address it sometime over the weekend. After I made my last post it occurred to me that the reason I do write about this is that I refuse to sit back and let somebody dismiss as irreverent (at best) and unknowing mark at worst, my personal experience. You may have valid reasons for not subscripting to this form of musical presentation...but that does not by default render that process as 'silly'. My experience is my experience and when you tell me that the process is silly then what I hear is my enjoyment of that process somehow implies that I am 'silly' and not qualified to be taken seriously when it comes to issues involving audio and music. The truth is I am silly. A lot of the time. This however, is not one of them.


I have attached a photo of my sound system. Keep in mind that once again, the hahaha is silent. (at least I have attempted to unload an image...my 'preview' though, does not show it.)

[rorythedog]

Or you could all go off and take some magic mushies. My stereo always sounded amazing when ripped. Especially when you've finished pacing up and down the hallway. :robot:

[acushla]

Or you could all go off and take some magic mushies. My stereo always sounded amazing when ripped. Especially when you've finished pacing up and down the hallway. :robot:

Ahh...you bring back a rush of memories. Unfortunately, over 12 years ago, due to a certain white powder, I lost the privilege of indulging in any mood altering substances. People used to ask me...'Alan, what can I do so my stereo will sound better?' I always told them the same thing '...smoke a joint'.

[rorythedog]

Ahh...you bring back a rush of memories. Unfortunately, over 12 years ago, due to a certain white powder, I lost the privilege of indulging in any mood altering substances. People used to ask me...'Alan, what can I do so my stereo will sound better?' I always told them the same thing '...smoke a joint'.

I used to say that too when the right "type" walked into the hi-fi shop I worked in. It certainly worked for me. Funnily enough, no matter how expensive the hi-fi is these days, it never sounds as good as it did way back when.

[Roj]

I only have a crappy set up but it's good enough for me. For what it's worth I say this - How much music is actually written to use more than two channels? 1? 2? 3 albums? I know that tubular bells was rerecorded in 5.1 but thats about it. The only music that would be good in surround is live music, orchestral music or trippy synthesiser music like Hawkwind.

I LIKE you carbonize; definitely a QCD member of superior intellect and understanding. :) :) :)

[Roj]

Or you could all go off and take some magic mushies. My stereo always sounded amazing when ripped. Especially when you've finished pacing up and down the hallway. :robot:

ROFLMAO!

[carbonize]

Music sounded better back when as they were still learning what the new technology could do. Stereo in TV shows from the 80's is better because they didn't do subtle they liked to broadcast that the thing was in stereo so the sounds tended to come from the extreme edges. I used to love listening to David Bowie in headphones because he'd have an electric guitar in one ear and an acoustic in the other playing the same melody and I'm sure he sung the songs twice with a different version in each ear.

[Roj]

Ahh...you bring back a rush of memories. Unfortunately, over 12 years ago, due to a certain white powder, I lost the privilege of indulging in any mood altering substances. People used to ask me...'Alan, what can I do so my stereo will sound better?' I always told them the same thing '...smoke a joint'.

Hmmmmmmmmm...

First day of University...

Peter Gabriel's music took on texture, shape and color...

Memories...

Or were those flashbacks... :) :) :)

[Roj]

I used to say that too when the right "type" walked into the hi-fi shop I worked in. It certainly worked for me. Funnily enough, no matter how expensive the hi-fi is these days, it never sounds as good as it did way back when.

True true...

[Roj]

After I made my last post it occurred to me that the reason I do write about this is that I refuse to sit back and let somebody dismiss as irreverent (at best) and unknowing mark at worst, my personal experience. You may have valid reasons for not subscripting to this form of musical presentation...but that does not by default render that process as 'silly'. My experience is my experience and when you tell me that the process is silly then what I hear is my enjoyment of that process somehow implies that I am 'silly' and not qualified to be taken seriously when it comes to issues involving audio and music. The truth is I am silly. A lot of the time. This however, is not one of them.

Um, if I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't waste the time replying to you. :)

I'd simply dismiss you with a one-liner and that would be that.

Be assured mon that if I take two hours out of my time to reply to you, I very much take you and your experience seriously.

I think those here who have seen me debate before will bear me out on that. :)

[rorythedog]

Music sounded better back when as they were still learning what the new technology could do. Stereo in TV shows from the 80's is better because they didn't do subtle they liked to broadcast that the thing was in stereo so the sounds tended to come from the extreme edges. I used to love listening to David Bowie in headphones because he'd have an electric guitar in one ear and an acoustic in the other playing the same melody and I'm sure he sung the songs twice with a different version in each ear.

Which sort of brings things full circle. Music producers always used to strive to replicate the "live" sound. Nowadays, it seems they try to recreate the album sound in the live environment. At least with traditional rock they do.

Somebody (I think Pioneer) developed a speaker enclosure that had 32 identical drive units. The idea being that you'd also have a 32 channel amp to drive it. Which of course depended on a 32 channel production and a whole new way to put this onto media. It was never going to happen. Way too impractical!

However, given the right media, this would work. At least, much better than "traditional" surround sound technologies will ever work.

I've heard stereo productions of classical music sound better through a bridged stereo amp and played through a single speaker. And it was better.

[Roj]

I've heard stereo productions of classical music sound better through a bridged stereo amp and played through a single speaker. And it was better.

Now THAT is a helluva concept.

[acushla]

Um, if I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't waste the time replying to you. :)

I'd simply dismiss you with a one-liner and that would be that.

Be assured mon that if I take two hours out of my time to reply to you, I very much take you and your experience seriously.

I think those here who have seen me debate before will bear me out on that. :)

I reread what I wrote and I'm not quite certain what I meant...but I assure you I did NOT mean to state outright or to imply that there wasn't respect between us in pursuing this discussion. You are correct in pointing out that the very fact that you do engage in this conversation is enough to put to rest that thought. If anything I suppose it was my perception of the lack of respect for the process which I then took on as lack of respect for those who enjoyed that process. More to come. I will say this...in anything I write if there is some doubt as to my intention..ALWAYS remember that I write to you as a friend and NEVER intend for anything to be taken any other way.

[Roj]

I reread what I wrote and I'm not quite certain what I meant...but I assure you I did NOT mean to state outright or to imply that there wasn't respect between us in pursuing this discussion. You are correct in pointing out that the very fact that you do engage in this conversation is enough to put to rest that thought. If anything I suppose it was my perception of the lack of respect for the process which I then took on as lack of respect for those who enjoyed that process. More to come. I will say this...in anything I write if there is some doubt as to my intention..ALWAYS remember that I write to you as a friend and NEVER intend for anything to be taken any other way.

Cool runnings, mon. :)

Oh, and in case you're wondering, yes I really am of Jamaican extraction, hence the patios. That side of me usually comes out when I'm relaxed and amongst friends.

Gotta go - time to go home! Catch y'all in a few...

[carbonize]

Cool runnings, mon. :)

Oh, and in case you're wondering, yes I really am of Jamaican extraction, hence the patios.
patios? Areas at the back of the house, usually paved, where you have you barbecue and deck chairs?

[rorythedog]

patios? Areas at the back of the house, usually paved, where you have you barbecue and deck chairs?

You just beat me there. Heh.

[jkrzok]

patios? Areas at the back of the house, usually paved, where you have you barbecue and deck chairs?

Roj is Canadian. A patio is where they keep the rock salt and snow shovels.

:cheeky:

Said with love by an American only 20 minutes away from being in Canada.

[carbonize]

I swear that the land of the cheeseheads (Wisconsin) must be incredibly dull. Seems 85% of the Americans I met online live there. Hell I used to see a woman from there (Menomonie near Eau Claire).

[Roj]

patios? Areas at the back of the house, usually paved, where you have you barbecue and deck chairs?

OOPS!

Misspelling.

It should be "patois".

[Roj]

Roj is Canadian. A patio is where they keep the rock salt and snow shovels.

:cheeky:

Said with love by an American only 20 minutes away from being in Canada.

Man, given what I came back to when I arrived from Calgary, you have no idea how true that is. Two feet of snow.

[acushla]

I LIKE you carbonize; definitely a QCD member of superior intellect and understanding. :) :) :)

hahaha

[acushla]

Um, if I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't waste the time replying to you. :)

I'd simply dismiss you with a one-liner and that would be that.

Be assured mon that if I take two hours out of my time to reply to you, I very much take you and your experience seriously.

I think those here who have seen me debate before will bear me out on that. :)

Rereading my post several times again I believe if you consider everything I say to be the thinking prior to writing my first post...it might make a little more sense. In other words...I read some negative reviews about SACD from someone who in the end simply dismiss it as 'silly'. Well, I think inherent in that dismissal is the idea that if the medium is silly then by default anybody who listens and enjoys SACD is silly also. How could it be otherwise? That's when I think 'Hey...wait a minute...and it is only then that the dialogue between us begins. Do you know what I mean?

[Roj]

Rereading my post several times again I believe if you consider everything I say to be the thinking prior to writing my first post...it might make a little more sense. In other words...I read some negative reviews about SACD from someone who in the end simply dismiss it as 'silly'. Well, I think inherent in that dismissal is the idea that if the medium is silly then by default anybody who listens and enjoys SACD is silly also. How could it be otherwise? That's when I think 'Hey...wait a minute...and it is only then that the dialogue between us begins. Do you know what I mean?

Yup. :)

[acushla]

Yup. :)

I have given a lot more thought as to why I placed the Miles Davis 'Kind of Blue' back in the rack without even a milliseconds thought of 'I'd like to hear this.' I do not want to hear it...and I suspect that the shaking of the head has everything to do with my recognition that here is an example of that 'blatant cash grab'. I feel this way because, having listened to this album probably as many times as the 'Cheap Thrills' album...I KNOW there is nothing to be gained by having this remixed for multi-channel. The fact is that no matter how well it is done...it is going to be a mess. Now...if we were talking about 'Dark Magus' or 'Big Fun' or 'Live Evil or "Pangaea' or 'Agharta' or 'We Want Miles' or... you have no idea how I would love to go on and on and on...except there is no on and on to go to. If we were discussing these albums, well I for one would tell you that I couldn't wait to hear them remixed. Just as I cannot wait for the 'Cheap Thrills' album to arrive. Now...if I consider my responses to all of this... one thing becomes mark ably clear to me. All of the albums I mentioned that I would like to hear remixed offer material that, in my mind, lends itself to being remixed. That is to say that a remixing in multi-channel format could in fact improve upon the original, enhancing (yes, I'll use that word) the end result in a way that makes the enjoyment and appreciation of the music just that much better. In my world this is explained (justified?) by the fact that we are talking about jazz fusion/rock with lots of things happening on stage coming from all directions in front of us. Not coming in front of us because that is the way it is supposed to be...with us sitting in the audience. Coming in front of us because of the limitations of a live performance. The unalterable fact that a group has to be on a stage and we have to sit in the audience. (Imagine for a moment if I was to suddenly leave my seat and jump up on stage with Miles. I would be escorted off...but for one brief moment I would hear that music differently. Miles NEVER heard the music from our perspective...why should that be our only alternative?) Now...sitting in my living space I am no longer restricted by the same constraints that I am subjected to when I am at a concert. Now I am able to explore that music in ways that just were not available to me in the concert hall. If I want to be on stage I can...and if I want to hear the conga's coming from behind me to the left and the bass behind me on the right because I happen to like it better that way and...you get the picture...I can. If that allows me hear and appreciate the music in new and exciting ways...where's the harm? The same can be said for a studio album. The best example of this I can offer is the DVD-AUDIO re-master of BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB. Believe me...you're in the studio with them. I saw them live at Massey Hall. It was truly wonderful. Through this DVD I've sat with them at a recording session. It was truly wonderful. Now...having said all of that... if somebody comes to me and tells me they heard 'Kind of Blue' remixed on SACD and they never appreciated it the way they did more than then...I'd smile and tell them 'that's great...I'm glad you enjoyed it.' What's more...I'd mean it.

[carbonize]

If I want to be on stage I can...and if I want to hear the congo's coming from behind me to the left and the bass behind me on the right and...you get the picture...I can
Yes and this kind of proves my point. It's irrelevant how you want to hear the music, it's how the artist wants you to hear the music. They wrote/composed it with a specific way of hearing it in mind. If they wanted you to hear it coming from all around they would of written it that way. The technology for surround sound has been here for a while now. All but a few albums were written for only two channels. When they were listening to it in the studio for final mixing they were listening to it in only two channels and they mixed it to sounds how they wanted it to sound from them two channels.

Surround sound, be it 5.1 or 13.1, is mainly for movies/tv although I could see it having a use in radio plays. the only music it would be good for is concert hall music (to replicate the sound bouncing off the walls) and experimental/trippy/weird electronic music such as Mike Oldfield and Hawkwind create. I'm suer Queen, David Bowie and Pink Floyd would of created albums that used multi channels if it had been available back then but they are a minority of GOOD bands that liked to push the boundaries.

[acushla]

I've heard stereo productions of classical music sound better through a bridged stereo amp and played through a single speaker. And it was better.

There are many music aficionados who adhere to the 'mono' concept. Personally I group them just above the 'flat earth' believers.

[acushla]

It's irrelevant how you want to hear the music, it's how the artist wants you to hear the music.

Well...I certainly do NOT subscribe to this line of thought. Here's one reason why. The recording is really nothing but a glorified piece of 'sheet music'. Consider sheet music for a moment. It is music written by a composer to be performed by a musician. Now consider the multitude of interpretations that one piece of written music inspires in different musicians. As recipients of an album of music why should we be restricted in listening to it in any way other than that which we feel best conveys that music to us. The fact of the matter is... we aren't. Unless of course...we think we are.

If they wanted you to hear it coming from all around they would of written it that way.

Well...it is written that way...it's only not coming from all around you because of where you are sitting. If your on stage...then it's all around you. This is not a point to be taken lightly because I believe it goes to the core of the mind set of an audience who have been so conditioned to the idea that music can only be experienced from one's seat. It doesn't have to be that way. Music is NOT a painting.

When they were listening to it in the studio for final mixing they were listening to it in only two channels and they mixed it to sounds how they wanted it to sound from them two channels.

Why exactly do you think they were mixing the music down to two channels in the first place.? Because they wanted too...or because they had to? Think about it...this really supports my position. Obviously in order to mix the music down to two channels there must have been more than two channels. The reason they were being mixed down is because that is where the music/audio industry happened to be at that time. It would be hard to sell an album for 5.1 multichannel sound when nobody has a system that will play it. Now of course 5.1 systems are quickly replacing stereo, so yes, now you can mix your music down to 5.1 multichannel. Listen to the new album (not so new now, I admit) by Beck.

Surround sound, be it 5.1 or 13.1, is mainly for movies...

Says who...obviously not the music industry.

I'm suer Queen, David Bowie and Pink Floyd would of created albums that used multi channels if it had been available..

Wait a minute...now I'm confused...I thought you were just saying that 5.1 sound was mainly for the movies...yet here I see you are certain that had this technology been available earlier then there are musicians who would have used it. Bowie, by the way, does record in multi channel sound. Pink Floyd reached a point in their concerts that they placed speakers all around the stadium...for purposes of the presentation of the music...not simply because they were concerned about the people in the back who may not have been able to hear. People had these exact same discussions when the industry began it's move to stereo...some people seem to not like change...other people embrace it. I'm proud to include myself in the company of the latter.

[Roj]

round sound, be it 5.1 or 13.1, is mainly for movies...

Says who...obviously not the music industry.

...who are notoriously prone to greed, "the next best thing we can milk the rubes, er, buying public for" and who do not in any way, shape or form have audio quality or the best interests of the listener at heart.

They never have, they never will.

I'll go further and say that x.1 sound in movies is fabricated to the point of being ludicrous (just listen to Rocky throw a punch) and I fully expect that the vast majority of musical x.1 implementations will go the same way - I've already heard several that do.

Why do I say this?

Because the NOVELTY will sell like Viagra at a Hedonism resort.

It's golly-gee-whiz.

It'll get the true believers grabbing for their VISA cards so fast that they'll smoke as they clear leather.

It'll sell a boatload.

And - It - Will - Mostly - Sound - Like - Crap.

To put it even more in perspective, here's a wee bit of a history lesson:

Remember the first ten years of CDs? "Colossus" technology existed (we know the results today as the "remastered" craze) but the industry chose to ignore it. So the recording companies sold a boatload of crap for ten years and then said "gee, now we'll release the CD quality sound we decided not to in the first place and get the suckers to buy the stuff a THIRD time".

So here we go again.

After all, we bought it on vinyl, we bought it on the first iteration of CD and then the "remastered" flavor (which should have been the original version on CD but wasn't) and now we'll have the x.1 version.

Soon we'll have it with holographic projection and odorama. I mean, SACD ain't far from that now - it's all smoke and mirrors anyway, so a little more smoke and a couple more mirrors ought to do the trick for more sales, no?

And new artists will be released in that format because everyone will want to hear J-Lo coming form BEHIND their ass in stead of just watching hers - they'll lap it all up like mother's milk. It'll be over-mixed, over-gimmicked and MOST of all it will be mercilessly over-hyped.

Because that's the audio and music biz, doncha know.

See ya at the circus!

[carbonize]

They mix it down to 2 channels because this is how 99.99% of the listeners will hear it and not because they have to. Studios have the ability to mix to multichannels and have had for a few years.

As to the artists I mentioned I refer to them as they were/are pioneers who are always willing to experiment and push the boundaries.

[acushla]

Because that's the audio and music biz, doncha know.See ya at the circus!

So...with all due respect...what exactly is your point?

(More to come.)

[acushla]

They mix it down to 2 channels because this is how 99.99% of the listeners will hear it and not because they have to. Studios have the ability to mix to multichannels and have had for a few years.

As to the artists I mentioned I refer to them as they were/are pioneers who are always willing to experiment and push the boundaries.

I am sorry carbonize...but I have to strongly disagree. They HAVE to mix it down to two channels because up until now x.1 systems were just not available. As for your comment about the artists...well...that's what artists are supposed to do.

Although I do not concur with a lot of what Roj so articulately justifies as his viewpoint regarding x.1 sound there is at least one thing I do agree with...eventually all recordings will be made in x.1 sound. My prediction is that just as in the stereo recordings we've lived with most of our lives were judged by their 'presence' and 'imaging' and 'soundstage'...so it will be with x.1 recordings. The only significant difference will be the greater number of recordings that will be categorized as 'audiophile' by people like Roj!

[acushla]

...who are notoriously prone to greed, "the next best thing we can milk the rubes, er, buying public for" and who do not in any way, shape or form have audio quality or the best interests of the listener at heart.

All right...again, with all due respect...you're not really telling us anything that we don't already know. You have to remember that from their perspective... it is a business. This observation reminds me of the US Government approaching the Government of Columbia with suggestions as to what Columbia could do in their country to destroy the cocaine trade. Columbia responded by telling the US that if they simply told their people to stop doing cocaine then Columbia wouldn't have to do anything because without demand there is no product. To suggest that the music business does not have the best interests of the listener at heart...well...what listener? The masses who are entertained playing their Britney and Madonna CD's on their SONY mini systems and could care less about 'imaging',,, or Roj with his Martin-Logan / Myryad M-Series here. No Uber Cable? The music business is a business and the only interests they need to look after is their own and their stock holders. They owe you nothing. Why do you expect something?

They never have, they never will.

OK...now that we have established that...what now?

And - It - Will - Mostly - Sound - Like - Crap.

...on your Martin-Logan / Myryad M-Series ...and most importantly...to YOU. Your use of word 'mostly' does give me some hope. (hehehe).

So here we go again

Only if you choose to participate.

and then the "remastered" flavor (which should have been the original version on CD but wasn't) and now we'll have the x.1 version.

Should have been but wasn't. My understanding of the 're mastering' process is that the technology that exists now to transfer the sound did not exist when the original masters were done. There are numerous examples of this process of 'refinement' and 'improvment'...the first Led Zeppelin album immediately comes to mind. A revelation...as was your experience with the remastered version of 'Dark Side of the Moon'...which I assume you bought. Tell me...was that in your best interest?

Soon we'll have it with holographic projection and odorama.

It's nice to see you remember things I wrote.

WOW...personally...I can't wait. I think after that the only thing left is to just have the musicians play live in your living space. I am certain somewhere somebody is working on a Holographic Sound Stage where you not only hear your favourite group but you get to watch them play in 1:1 Real Time OMNI-VISION. No doubt there will be some special equipment involved. - acushla

And new artists will be released in that format because everyone will want to hear J-Lo coming form BEHIND their ass in stead of just watching hers - they'll lap it all up like mother's milk. It'll be over-mixed, over-gimmicked and MOST of all it will be mercilessly over-hyped.

I ask again, with all due respect...what's your point?

Because that's the audio and music biz, doncha know.

Yep. Some people like the circus. What'cha you gonna' do?

[rorythedog]

Acushla, do you ever read your pm's? Or your e:mails?

[acushla]

Acushla, do you ever read your pm's? Or your e:mails?

Thanks. I'm still learning about that aspect of the Forum and it has not taken on the form of an 'automatic' habit...yet.

Just finished checking...there was one unread message...but not from you!

[Roj]

So...with all due respect...what exactly is your point?

(More to come.)

My point?

OK.

5.1 for audio is and will be a crock to anyone who likes to listen to a reasonably realistic representation of a musical performance, especially if it is modelled on how 5.1 for video has been done (obviously unrealistic effects manufactured by the producer more for impact than realism). It may well end up emplying the meaningless as THX Certification, given that the two worlds will likely merge.

It will have no bearing on reality in terms of a musical experience in the real world - it will be based on what I prefer to call gimmicks.

From a commercial perspective, it will be used to milk the buying public by promoting a new fad which the public WILL swallow and WILL shell out money for. It's just another cash grab for the recording industry and given from what I've read here, promises to be a very lucrative one.

In terms of actual audio quality and enrichment of the listening experience from a realistic perspective, it offers nothing.

That pretty much sumes it up.

Bottom line:

If you like your sound served up in an unrealistic and unusual fashion (which is completely counter to what audio has always striven to achieve since the model came out), then 5.1 audio of whatever flavor will be for you. Some flavors will at least try and quantify a methodology behind the weirdness (DVD Audio) while others will be pure unabashed and unashamed snake oil (SACD). If you prefer a more realistic listening experience with the sound not coming at you from all sides (for example from the perspective of you being a part of the band) then pass by on the other side of the street.

That's about as clearly as I can put it.

[acushla]

5.1 for audio is and will be a crock to anyone who likes to listen to a reasonably realistic representation of a musical performance,



Finally I believe we have arrived at the root of our differences when it comes to enjoying music in our respective living spaces. Realistic. You strive to recreate something you experience outside...while I, on the other hand, takes pleasure in being able to enjoy music in the 'realistic' setting of a concert hall and then returning to the studio where I can create my own reality and enjoy music in a manner that I am not able to do 'outside'. We have different appreciations...we have different tastes. We have different ways of enjoying music. We are different. Nothing more...nothing less.
You know...for some time now I have been wanting to make some type of analogy to people who are connoisseurs of fine cars...my personal favorite would be a Lambergini...and how they might view those who drove...oh...I don't know...lets say SUV's! I refrained from doing so (until now) as I no longer want to compare music to anything else. Music is music...music is not cars...music is not anything but music...and just as we all enjoy different types of music, like it or not...some of us enjoy listening to our music in different ways. Whose right...whose wrong? Whose to judge? More importantly perhaps...who cares? What's right for one is not necessarily right for others. There is NOTHING wrong in that...it's called life. I find it disturbing that you imply that those who don't agree with you should cross over onto the other side of the street. What's up with that?

I was researching some material on Miles and came across this which I wanted to share with you:

Now, a consideration of "Panthalassa", the 1998 reconstruction album by Bill Laswell of Miles' music from 1969 - 1974 (followed in 1999 by another collection of remixes by Laswell, DJ Cam, King Britt, Doc Scott, Philip Charles and Jamie Myerson). Teo Macero's original arrangements are tossed in the shredder, and we are given the opportunity to hear these songs afresh (which, of course, is the intent).

Listening to John McLaughlin's haunting guitar on the remix of "In A Silent Way" is revelatory, but for me the main attraction is Panthalassa's closer "He Loved Him Madly." This track, taken from the recently-made-available album "Get Up With It" is a vast improvement over the original mix. Transformed into a dreamlike, yet stately piece, Miles' trumpet enters as if from the edge of consciousness - every note perfect, every note sounded with fluid unpredictability.

I also noticed that early Columbia Label's had '360 Sound' on both the right and left side of the label. Perhaps this was the original intent? http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/post/laugh.gif

[acushla]

.I'll go further and say that x.1 sound in movies is fabricated to the point of being ludicrous (just listen to Rocky throw a punch) and I fully expect that the vast majority of musical x.1 implementations will go the same way - I've already heard several that do.

'Cheap Thrills' and SACD

Today it arrived. My SACD copy of 'Big Brother and the Holding Company' featuring Janis Joplin. It arrived this morning but since I had already made commitments for the day, I was not able to get to it until late into the night. As usual when I am in a 'serious' listening mode I dim the lights in the studio and take my favorite position and close my eyes just as the music begins. It is well known that shutting off various senses has the effect of heightening awareness in the other senses...so I have eliminated the sense of seeing to heighten my sense of hearing.

The listening tonight took on a slightly different form as I was well aware that I was going to write about my experience and give an honest and objective assessment of my findings. The truth is that while I'm sitting there in my darkened studio and the music is beginning and I'm thinking about this honest and objective assessment I realize that the chills are beginning to travel up and down my spine once again. As I become aware of that I then become aware of the mounting joy and amazement and wonder that is now taking over my brain. All this and we're not even two minutes into the recording!

So here it is. The openness is the first thing I became aware of...the expanse of the stage and the position of everyone on it. The clarity and completeness/wholeness of each note. This is not just a case of layers of veils which have been removed to enable you to get closer to the music...this is the music. Then...along comes Janis, with colours and intonations in her voice that are nowhere to be found on the original vinyl or CD.

To my mind there can only be one overriding reason why all this so...and it is this: there is simply more. This process is somehow able to lift more information from the tapes than the process before it. Now you add the fact that all that information no longer has to be condensed into two channels...but 5,,,allows there to be definite, definable space between everything. Now you can follow with ease each individual member of the group and what they are doing which, given this disc, allows you be involved in the music to a far greater degree than you could ever hope for on a stereo system...no matter how good that system is.

Which brings me to the vocals. The vocals have that same immediacy and presence...and the longer I listened the more I became aware of the importance of the center speaker. The center speaker does something very special to the reproduction of this music and I now believe is of a lot more relevance to the sound than the rear speakers. Before I continue with the center speaker let me make a couple of comments about the rear speakers as they apply to this disc. I was never really aware that the rear speakers were there. The only time I could 'hear' them was in between songs with the audience applauding...and only so much as they helped to define the space...nothing more. The center speaker, in this recording, is the defining element...it is what allows everything to be presented as a coherent whole. I do not know why that is...but it definitely is.

Now the bad news. It is a fact of High End Audio that as you climb up that ladder the more inner detail and information is revealed. This is a double edged sword because IT IS NOT SELECTIVE of what gets revealed. This disc shows that. Most notably on segments of Janis's vocals where occasionaly the signal breaks up in the top register and other times can sound brittle. In no way can this be interpreted as a failing of the SACD process...and in fact can be viewed as a success of the process. A success because it is one and the same with that openness and clarity that one appreciates throughout the disc.

In conclusion what I have established for myself as a result of this listening and reflection is, like anything else in life some people can take a process and create magic with it while others can only produce sludge. Each SACD should be judged on its own merit as to how successful the music is presented. Lets be honest...the vast majority of vinyl which was produced is uninspired at best...but occasionally a great one would come along. We didn't reject the process of vinyl because the majority of them lacked characteristics we desired.

SACD is here to stay...one only has to look at the ever increasing number of players appearing in the market place...wheather at the high end or low end. I believe as more knowledgeable and talented people become familiar with the engineering and transfers we are in for some truly wonderful musical experiences.

Was there a disappointment? Yes, there was. Just one. The removal of the choral music after Bill Graham tells the exiting concert goer's to 'Have a happy Sunday'.

Up next? Led Zeppelin: How The West Was Won (DVD-AUDIO)

[Inthewoods]

'Cheap Thrills' and SACD


..............So here it is. The openness is the first thing I became aware of...the expanse of the stage and the position of everyone on it. The clarity and completeness/wholeness of each note. This is not just a case of layers of veils which have been removed to enable you to get closer to the music...this is the music. Then...along comes Janis, with colours and intonations in her voice that are nowhere to be found on the original vinyl or CD.

To my mind there can only be one overriding reason why all this so...and it is this: there is simply more. This process is somehow able to lift more information from the tapes than the process before it. Now you add the fact that all that information no longer has to be condensed into two channels...but 5,,,allows there to be definite, definable space between everything. Now you can follow with ease each individual member of the group and what they are doing which, given this disc, allows you be involved in the music to a far greater degree than you could ever hope for on a stereo system...no matter how good that system is.

Which brings me to the vocals. The vocals have that same immediacy and presence...and the longer I listened the more I became aware of the importance of the center speaker. The center speaker does something very special to the reproduction of this music and I now believe is of a lot more relevance to the sound than the rear speakers. Before I continue with the center speaker let me make a couple of comments about the rear speakers as they apply to this disc. I was never really aware that the rear speakers were there. The only time I could 'hear' them was in between songs with the audience applauding...and only so much as they helped to define the space...nothing more. The center speaker, in this recording, is the defining element...it is what allows everything to be presented as a coherent whole. I do not know why that is...but it definitely is.

Now the bad news. It is a fact of High End Audio that as you climb up that ladder the more inner detail and information is revealed. This is a double edged sword because IT IS NOT SELECTIVE of what gets revealed. This disc shows that. Most notably on segments of Janis's vocals where occasionaly the signal breaks up in the top register and other times can sound brittle. In no way can this be interpreted as a failing of the SACD process...and in fact can be viewed as a success of the process. A success because it is one and the same with that openness and clarity that one appreciates throughout the disc...................





That's a very well written review, thorough and thought provoking, thank you. And while SACD may have it's merits, at least for some folks, some of what I truly dislike is right there in your own words. Here are a couple examples:

You stated: "Then...along comes Janis, with colours and intonations in her voice that are nowhere to be found on the original vinyl or CD."

Exactly!!! If something is not here at all in the original, and it's there now, it simply has to be a gimmick, end of story. True remastering is about removing distortion, lowering the noise floor, and tweaking stereo separation and eq to improve on what is already there to compensate for a less than careful, mass produced recording of the day.

You also said: ...and the longer I listened the more I became aware of the importance of the center speaker. The center speaker does something very special to the reproduction of this music

Any audiophile who has ever played a monophonic source through a properly set up 2 channel system knows that a center speaker is TOTALLY unnecessary for 2 channel stereo. Stereo imaging creates the panoramic image from the left and right sources. If there's a "hole in the middle" there's something wrong with the setup. Understand, I'm not saying a center speaker has no place, it's fine for gaming or videos, but accurate stereo simply does not need it. The center information is created by the phase difference between the left and right speakers.

In your "bad news" paragraph, you talk about brittleness and breakup and say: "In no way can this be interpreted as a failing of the SACD process..." Oh yes it can, because that is EXACTLY the problem!! The gimmickry which appears to improve one aspect is the same gimmickry that totally trashes something else, and that's because it's it's a gimmick which is used to artificially create special effects, and one result is the unavoidable artifacts inherent in any reprocessing of this type.

[acushla]

That's a very well written review, thorough and thought provoking, thank you. And while SACD may have it's merits, at least for some folks, some of what I truly dislike is right there in your own words. Here are a couple examples:

Thank you for the compliment. I take audio very seriously and welcome the opportunity to share and discuss my experience.

If something is not here at all in the original, and it's there now, it simply has to be a gimmick, end of story.

I do not think this statement is true. I did not say that anything was missing on the original master tapes...what I said was that the process used to retrieve the information the first time around did not necessarily do a very good job of it. Imagine for a moment two magnets, one twice as powerful as the other... and a dish with 50 paper-clips on it. As you pass the first magnet across the dish it manages to pick up 30 clips...but when you pass the second magnet over the same dish it picks up all 50 clips. Because the first magnet only retrieved 30 clips does not mean there were only 30 clips and somehow the second magnet picking up an extra 20 is somehow magic...or gimmickry . I think the method by which information is retrieved from a master tape now is very different from what it was in the recent past.

...and the longer I listened the more I became aware of the importance of the centre speaker. The centre speaker does something very special to the reproduction of this music...

Any audiophile who has ever played a monophonic source through a properly set up 2 channel system knows that a centre speaker is TOTALLY unnecessary for 2 channel stereo.

Yes, yes, yes...the issue of the centre channel. I have difficulty putting my finger on exactly what is going on here but I can state the obvious and tell you that 5.1 sound is not stereo sound and just because there is a speaker on the left and a speaker on the right in front of you...their assignment in regards to what they now have to accomplish has changed. We are no longer talking stereo...we are talking 5.1 multi-channel so now you have 5 speakers (6 counting a sub-woofer) that perform in unison to deliver what was only being delivered by two speakers in the past. With 5 speakers and a well produced SACD you have sound that cannot be matched by the equivalent in a two channel system. Whatever aspect of this particular SACD that I considered to be it's weakest point was still an improvement over whatever I considered the best aspect of the CD.. I do not say that lightly. This is not a subtlety or a nuance...it is not even something you need to listen for...it's there and it is like night and day. I wish I could invite you into my space and play each of these sources for you. I don't believe there would be anything that I would need to say to you at the conclusion of that demonstration. I will offer this...I am in a studio space with over 1000 sq ft. and a ceiling of approx. 14 feet. I am using a pair of Acoustat Electrostatic Speakers that stand 8 ft .tall with an Acoustat Passive Sub-Woofer. All of the Acoustat's sit on a base of granite. The centre speaker is a well made TEAC and the surround speakers are full range book-shelve speakers that many would enjoy having as their main speakers. These are suspended from the ceiling using steal rods. As is obvious I have not described an average living room and I cannot help but wonder if the environment I am listening in is perhaps an integral part of the formula. I suspect it is.

One thing I discovered very quickly in the use of multi-channel sound is that I do not need to turn the volume up to the levels I used to. You could say that with multi-channel sound you turn the volume down and hear more.

[Roj]

Any audiophile who has ever played a monophonic source through a properly set up 2 channel system knows that a center speaker is TOTALLY unnecessary for 2 channel stereo. Stereo imaging creates the panoramic image from the left and right sources. If there's a "hole in the middle" there's something wrong with the setup. Understand, I'm not saying a center speaker has no place, it's fine for gaming or videos, but accurate stereo simply does not need it. The center information is created by the phase difference between the left and right speakers.

In your "bad news" paragraph, you talk about brittleness and breakup and say: "In no way can this be interpreted as a failing of the SACD process..." Oh yes it can, because that is EXACTLY the problem!! The gimmickry which appears to improve one aspect is the same gimmickry that totally trashes something else, and that's because it's it's a gimmick which is used to artificially create special effects, and one result is the unavoidable artifacts inherent in any reprocessing of this type.

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I too have the same issues woods has and while I'm not going to reiterate his points, I will add the following clarification of movie and gaming sound which in this context can be applied to musical audio:

In movies, the center channel is artifically created for one purpose - SPEECH. The whole 5.1 process in movies is similar to that in games where sounds are artifically assigned locations for EFFECT. EAX was specifically designed to do that. What you're hearing is an EAX-like algorithm effectively applied into an analog medium (EAX is inherently a total simulation where even the sounds such as footsteps are digitally manufactured). In this case, elements of the original recording are being carved up electronically (isolated if you will) and "programmed" to a given location. In that context, it's no wonder that the center channel is important - it will be the ONLY venue for the vocals rather than having them naturally placed in front of you by the phase difference between channels (I say "naturally" because we do in fact have two ears).

By the way, you accurately stated that we approach sound from two different viewpoints and you summed those differences up very well. :)

[acushla]

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I too have the same issues woods has and while I'm not going to reiterate his points, I will add the following clarification of movie and gaming sound which in this context can be applied to musical audio:

In movies, the center channel is artifically created for one purpose - SPEECH. The whole 5.1 process in movies is similar to that in games where sounds are artifically assigned locations for EFFECT. EAX was specifically designed to do that. What you're hearing is an EAX-like algorithm effectively applied into an analog medium (EAX is inherently a total simulation where even the sounds such as footsteps are digitally manufactured). In this case, elements of the original recording are being carved up electronically (isolated if you will) and "programmed" to a given location. In that context, it's no wonder that the center channel is important - it will be the ONLY venue for the vocals rather than having them naturally placed in front of you by the phase difference between channels (I say "naturally" because we do in fact have two ears).

By the way, you accurately stated that we approach sound from two different viewpoints and you summed those differences up very well. :)

Nice to hear from you. I am not going to spend too much time on this now but I was struck by your linking the centre channel and vocals. I think I have commented several times at the ease by which I can hear lyrics now...not having to strain to find them buried somewhere in the mix...but now placed as a separate stream...if you will.

I have little doubt that somewhere in my immediate future I am going to encounter a SACD disc that had it been my introduction to multi-channel sound would have had me screaming and ranting about conspiracies and cash grabbing. Luckily for me that wasn't my experience and so I am encouraged by what I have heard and consider it an improvement from what went before. When I do encounter that SACD I mentioned...I promise I will write a full review of that experience. Keeping in mind that I do not feel it is the process I need to criticize...simply the failure due to a combination of factors that added up to a SACD that did not attain the heights that it could have.

[acushla]

I say "naturally" because we do in fact have two ears.

...oh yes...that's right...you haven't met me yet. (Is the silence deafening?)http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/post/laugh.gif

[Roj]

Nice to hear from you. I am not going to spend too much time on this now but I was struck by your linking the centre channel and vocals. I think I have commented several times at the ease by which I can hear lyrics now...not having to strain to find them buried somewhere in the mix...but now placed as a separate stream...if you will.

I have little doubt that somewhere in my immediate future I am going to encounter a SACD disc that had it been my introduction to multi-channel sound would have had me screaming and ranting about conspiracies and cash grabbing. Luckily for me that wasn't my experience and so I am encouraged by what I have heard and consider it an improvement from what went before. When I do encounter that SACD I mentioned...I promise I will write a full review of that experience. Keeping in mind that I do not feel it is the process I need to criticize...simply the failure due to a combination of factors that added up to a SACD that did not attain the heights that it could have.

I just wanted to let you know that I have gotten your PM and will respond but there is serious turbulence in my life right now and... ...it's just not so good right now, which is why I'm so sporadic. I'll respond shortly.

[acushla]

True remastering is about removing distortion, lowering the noise floor, and tweaking stereo separation and eq to improve on what is already there to compensate for a less than careful, mass produced recording of the day.

Hey...do you believe it...I have GREAT news! When I was replacing the Janis disc back into its jewel case a little insert dropped out. Picking it up I realized that SONY...anticipating our confusion and desire to know more...have kindly taken the time and expense to enlighten us as to exactly what it is that we are purchasing. This is what it says:

The Compact Disc was a good idea.
This is even better.

Introducing Super Audio CD.

It looks like a CD. But this Super Audio CD (SACD) is much more. Created by SONY and PHILLIPS, the same people who invented the CD, this disc actually contains two separate versions of the same musical program.

1. Direct Stream Digital (tm) multi-channel surround sound.
2. Direct Stream Digital (tm) ordinary two-channel stereo.

From the earliest digital recordings and 16-bit Compact Discs on up to even the latest 24-bit recordings, digital audio has always used multi-bit PCM technology. Until now. Now there's Direct Stream Digital (tm) recording, a one bit system that's fundamentally different. Thanks to an amazing 2 822 400 samples per second you get audio performance that no other format can deliver. Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz. Where CD has dynamic range of 96db, DSD recording can achieve 120db across the entire audible range. Thanks to DSD technology the SACD difference is breathtaking.

Unlike multi-bit PCM recording, SACD's DSD technology uses a one-bit pulse train (center) that is analogous to the music waveform. DSD encoding employs more digital 1s as the waveform goes positive, more 0s as the waveform goes negative.

So there it is...and now you know.

Oh yeah...(tm) means trade-mark and I might have inserted an 'ordinary' somewhere in the text that wasn't in the original.

[madjo]

Hey...do you believe it...I have GREAT news! When I was replacing the Janis disc back into its jewel case a little insert dropped out. Picking it up I realized that SONY...anticipating our confusion and desire to know more...have kindly taken the time and expense to enlighten us as to exactly what it is that we are purchasing. This is what it says:

a lot of marketing spin

So there it is...and now you know.

Oh yeah...(tm) means trade-mark and I might have inserted an 'ordinary' somewhere in the text that wasn't in the original.
I have somewhere an SACD lying here, which had quite the same leaflet (only in Dutch) but in my opinion, it is just another marketing trick... mind you I don't have an SACD player, and am not thinking of buying one either, because I don't see the point in it.. my current cd player works perfectly (though the lens could use a little cleaning)...

Why a marketing trick?
1) To get the 'superior' sound you need a new cd-player (and most preferably a new stereosystem with surround sound dolby/thx/whatever)
2) Every cd can be 'remastered' to this new SACD format, thus making fans shelling out more cash for songs they already own, only now in 'better' sound.

Which brings me to another issue, why are there so few SACD's available in shops, if it is so far more superior?

Also I'd rather have more quality content than the same content twice (once for the 'ordinary' system and once for the sacd system)

[Roj]

Which brings me to another issue, why are there so few SACD's available in shops, if it is so far more superior?

Also I'd rather have more quality content than the same content twice (once for the 'ordinary' system and once for the sacd system)

Within 5 years, SACD will be yet another footnote to history like DAT and quadriphonic sound.

DVD-Audio will likely have evolved to become a real player in the marketplace because it at least is based on sound audio principles.

We don't need any "audio pet rocks" - the market will decide.

[Inthewoods]

Hey...do you believe it...I have GREAT news! When I was replacing the Janis disc back into its jewel case a little insert dropped out. Picking it up I realized that SONY...anticipating our confusion and desire to know more...have kindly taken the time and expense to enlighten us as to exactly what it is that we are purchasing. This is what it says:

The Compact Disc was a good idea.
This is even better.

Introducing Super Audio CD.

It looks like a CD. But this Super Audio CD (SACD) is much more. Created by SONY and PHILLIPS, the same people who invented the CD, this disc actually contains two separate versions of the same musical program.

1. Direct Stream Digital (tm) multi-channel surround sound.
2. Direct Stream Digital (tm) ordinary two-channel stereo.

From the earliest digital recordings and 16-bit Compact Discs on up to even the latest 24-bit recordings, digital audio has always used multi-bit PCM technology. Until now. Now there's Direct Stream Digital (tm) recording, a one bit system that's fundamentally different. Thanks to an amazing 2 822 400 samples per second you get audio performance that no other format can deliver. Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz. Where CD has dynamic range of 96db, DSD recording can achieve 120db across the entire audible range. Thanks to DSD technology the SACD difference is breathtaking.

Unlike multi-bit PCM recording, SACD's DSD technology uses a one-bit pulse train (center) that is analogous to the music waveform. DSD encoding employs more digital 1s as the waveform goes positive, more 0s as the waveform goes negative.

So there it is...and now you know.

Oh yeah...(tm) means trade-mark and I might have inserted an 'ordinary' somewhere in the text that wasn't in the original.


And now I know? Jeez, I thought I already did....So the leaflet is full of the same hype I've been addressing.

......."Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz.".......

They HAVE to be kidding. The highest frequency the human with perfect hearing can perceive is about 20000 Hz anyway, yet the implication is that extending the response to 100KHz is somehow an improvement. MORE MARKETING HYPE

........"Unlike multi-bit PCM recording, SACD's DSD technology uses a one-bit pulse train (center) that is analogous to the music waveform. DSD encoding employs more digital 1s as the waveform goes positive, more 0s as the waveform goes negative."........

and the point of their above tidbit of hype is what again???

Also, let's not forget that Ms Joplin's tracks, as well as Pink Floyd's, were analog in the first place. Thus the most perfect reproduction of those recordings, produced with the most state of the art digital technology, should sound EXACTLY like the original, first generation tapes, with the possible exception of a lower noise floor for increased dynamic range and a better s/n ratio. The very best studio tape machines of the day started a natural (approximate)6db/octave rolloff somewhere between 16KHz and 17KHz, so the frequency response hype in the leaflet cannot possibly be of any benefit when remastering analog recordings of that era, even if a person could hear frequencies over 20KHz, because nothing was there in the first place.

[Roj]

And now I know? Jeez, I thought I already did....So the leaflet is full of the same hype I've been addressing.

......."Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz.".......

They HAVE to be kidding. The highest frequency the human with perfect hearing can perceive is about 20000 Hz anyway, yet the implication is that extending the response to 100KHz is somehow an improvement. MORE MARKETING HYPE

........"Unlike multi-bit PCM recording, SACD's DSD technology uses a one-bit pulse train (center) that is analogous to the music waveform. DSD encoding employs more digital 1s as the waveform goes positive, more 0s as the waveform goes negative."........

and the point of their above tidbit of hype is what again???

Also, let's not forget that Ms Joplin's tracks, as well as Pink Floyd's, were analog in the first place. Thus the most perfect reproduction of those recordings, produced with the most state of the art digital technology, should sound EXACTLY like the original, first generation tapes, with the possible exception of a lower noise floor for increased dynamic range and a better s/n ratio. The very best studio tape machines of the day started a natural (approximate)6db/octave rolloff somewhere between 16KHz and 17KHz, so the frequency response hype in the leaflet cannot possibly be of any benefit when remastering analog recordings of that era, even if a person could hear frequencies over 20KHz, because nothing was there in the first place.

It's typical Sony marketing fluffspeak, woods. That company has long been the purveyor of overpriced / underpowered wares. Look at their TVs. You go to a store and look at a Sony. Look at a Toshiba right next to it. The picture is often the same and in many cases the Toshiba actually has the better picture. But the Sony is usually $100 more expensive at the low end and God knows how much more at the high end. Look at their headphone lineup. Major money, embarassingly low audio quality until you get to an excruciatingly high price point (at that point it damned well BETTER be good and I wouldn't be buying Sony anyway!). Their reciever line is a joke. The minidisc was a HUGE ripoff and we won't even discuss ATRAC, the lowest of the low when it comes to lossy compression.

Yet, they all commanded a premium price.

And they all have some golly-gee-whiz-bang "features" to dazzle the customer.

SACD is just the latest flavor of snakeoil.

In fact, there's only one other company I can think of in audio that does that better:

Bose.

[acushla]

Why a marketing trick?

1) To get the 'superior' sound you need a new cd-player (and most preferably a new stereosystem with surround sound dolby/thx/whatever)

2) Every cd can be 'remastered' to this new SACD format, thus making fans shelling out more cash for songs they already own, only now in 'better' sound.

Which brings me to another issue, why are there so few SACD's available in shops, if it is so far more superior?

To get the 'superior' sound you need a new cd-player (and most preferably a new stereosystem with surround sound dolby/thx/whatever)...

Yes. that is true. I remember back in the days of vinyl (hehehe---judging from the response to my posting of SONY'S self congradually explanation of why the SACD format is superior to CD I am going to have to start using hehehe a lot more. As it stands I felt that by my not writing it in this forum I would save 6 days out of every 365...which would leave me just that much more time to listen to the music. Alas...it will not be.) when you had to shell out extra money for Japanese pressings or heavier virgin vinyl and start investing in some very expensive cartridges. I guess that's not really the same thing though...is it?

Every cd can be 're-mastered' to this new SACD format, thus making fans shelling out more cash for songs they already own, only now in 'better' sound.

Absolutely true. What is also true is that you don't have to buy any of them.

Which brings me to another issue, why are there so few SACD's available in shops, if it is so far more superior?

This isn't the same as asking that if Lamborghini is such a superior car how come there aren't more of them in the street...is it?

This demands a rather complex and multi-dimensional answer. In no particular order:

1) As Roj points out...it is not a forgone conclusion that SACD will succeed commercially (I personally think it will...but just because my thinking it will has absolutely nothing to do with whether it does or not. As Roj points out...there have been a number of formats which have failed...although I do not think it quite fair to include DAT in that category. DAT did not fail because there was anything intrinsically wrong with it...it failed because it came along precisely at the time when tape fell off the mountain.

2. The entertainment business is very different from the days of vinyl...and even from the early days of CD's. In recent years there has been an explosion of products vying for our leisure entertainment dollar. From the availability of DVD movies with their 5.1 sound tracks to computers to gaming...that I believe we have reached a saturation point.

3. High end audio is a niche market and as such there is not nearly as much money to be made as, say, introducing the next 'Grand Theft Auto' - whose sales can exceed that of the most successful Hollywood films. (I only use 'Grand Theft Auto' as an example because, not being a gamer, it is the only game I am aware of...and only because the ads for it on television made me sit up and take notice. (If I was to become a gamer I bet that's where I would begin.). However, worldwide there is probably enough of a market that SONY are banking on being able to realize a greater profit as that market grows. As more and more people acquire players that can play this format...not because of SACD'S but because they want to play DVD's in 5.1 sound and so buy players that, you guessed it, also play SACD,, and once recognizing how much they prefer 5.1 sound will then find CD's boring and begin to search out SACD's which by then will have come down in price to the point that the difference between the CD version and the SACD version will be negligible. Of course right around then all new releases will be dual layered so you can enjoy whichever format you prefer. Of course, though, they are NOT CD's...they are SACD's...and will be priced accordingly.

4. It is unlikely that you are going to flood a market with product that, up until recently, people didn't have the means to play. As more people acquire players (God...remember the cost of the first SACD players to hit the market? Compare that with today when PIONEER have introduced a player (DV-578A) that plays everything including the kitchen sink...and plays them well (a result of technology trickle down affect...trickle down technology...boy, theres a topic that would make a good thread) and sells it for $150.00! (Less than the cost of a good cartridge...now here is an example of where I would have put a hehehe...but I figure anybody who has read four or five of my posts would have seen the hehehe...invisable as it would be... saving me the trouble of putting it there. I'll tell you something...I have fun with all of this...and I do not take any of it so seriously that I cannot joke about it. The truth is that when it comes to audio I do not believe there are any absolutes when it comes to the manner of how one goes about enjoying music at home. Where I live I have many friends who made a living out of music...some playing with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. I was always struck by just how uninterested the majority of them were in audio equipment which was painfully evident whenever I would go for dinner and they would play me some passage that inspired them and wanted me to hear it. One day it was explained to me that because they are musicians they already know what the sound is and therefore that's how they heard it. They did not hear the equipment at all...because they weren't listening to the equipment...they were listening to the music. Think about it.) Where was I? Oh yes...as more people acquire players and start listening to movies in 5.1 sound it's not too much of a stretch to assume that 2 channel sound just isn't going to cut it for them. Not to point out the fact that they have spent a lot of money buying those extra speakers and gone through grief setting the thing up while explaining to their spouses why Aunt Joy's side table has to be put in another room They are not about to sit around and listen to CD's and have all those speakers go to waste...and besides...SACD's don't cost that much more than regular CD's...maybe a couple of bucks...so it's worth it to get better sound. With that thought in mind our consumer heads to wherever SACD's are being sold. As more people buy SACD, SONY is now satisfied that there is a growing market and so steps up its commitment by releasing more product so the consumers choice becomes wider...hey....wait a minute...I'm getting Deja Vue...isn't this exactly what happened when CD's first appeared on the market? Funny thing is...their still here...for now.

I trust that answers your questions.

[acushla]

And now I know? Jeez, I thought I already did....So the leaflet is full of the same hype I've been addressing.

......."Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz.".......

They HAVE to be kidding. The highest frequency the human with perfect hearing can perceive is about 20000 Hz anyway, yet the implication is that extending the response to 100KHz is somehow an improvement. MORE MARKETING HYPE

........"Unlike multi-bit PCM recording, SACD's DSD technology uses a one-bit pulse train (center) that is analogous to the music waveform. DSD encoding employs more digital 1s as the waveform goes positive, more 0s as the waveform goes negative."........

and the point of their above tidbit of hype is what again???

Also, let's not forget that Ms Joplin's tracks, as well as Pink Floyd's, were analog in the first place. Thus the most perfect reproduction of those recordings, produced with the most state of the art digital technology, should sound EXACTLY like the original, first generation tapes, with the possible exception of a lower noise floor for increased dynamic range and a better s/n ratio. The very best studio tape machines of the day started a natural (approximate)96dB/octave roll off somewhere between 16KHz and 17KHz, so the frequency response hype in the leaflet cannot possibly be of any benefit when remastering analog recordings of that era, even if a person could hear frequencies over 20KHz, because nothing was there in the first place.

......."Where CD frequency response extends to 20,000 Hz, DSD technology can theoretically reach 100,000 Hz.".......

Prior to reproducing the Super Audio CD insert, I promised myself that, no matter how tempted I was to offer up my own opinions on any of it ......I was going to refrain from doing so just wait and see how other people responded. Now, with the exception of just one word which I added...I think I did very well.

However...trust me when I tell you that THE MOST DIFFICULT SENTENCE I encountered , the one sentence that caused me pause to reconsider my original vow not to write anything... the one that I was so, so wanting to change my mind and start saying some things... was in fact the very first thing you picked up on.

Unless somebody can explain this to me in a way that I UNDERSTAND...ithis sentence is totally ludicrous. (I am open to somebody explaining to me what this sentence means and why that conributes to 'breathtaking' reproduction...but I have my sincere doubts that anybody could do this) Until that happens then I can only shake my head. I have encountered High End Audio discussions of the frequency range of speakers that far exceeds anything that even dogs can hear and some mystical babble about even though we don't hear it with our ears we hear it with our being and I don't even remember the rest because I think it was right about there that I stopped reading.

Sure it's hype...as consumers what do we expect? It's all hype. Nothing new in that. In fairness...if you read it very carefully from beginning to end (and this is the lawyer in me coming out) what they say is: The Compact Disc was a good idea. This is even better. (Must mean better idea) ...looks like a CD...but is much more. More...like now it's two things. Then it goes on to tell you how early digital recordings were made and then tells you how they are being made now. Just the facts, ma'am

Now comes the part that I think is revelent...CD's have a dynamic range of 96db..DSD recording can achieve 120 dB across the entire audible range. It is only having written that last statement that SONY make a conclusion...Thanks to DSD technology , the SACD is breathtaking.
Guess what? I find them breathtaking. I found them breathtaking BEFORE I read that they were breathtaking...so something has to be making them sound that way.

I know that many people will read that last sentence and attribute all sorts of disparaging thoughts and simply conclude that I couldn't possibly know anything about (good) sound etc. etc. etc....but I'm here to assure those individuals that I actually know a great deal about good sound. I do not want to bring this up ad nausm...suffice it to say that I have sat in some of the finest Opera Hall's in the world...I see live performances on a regular basis...I have seen Wynton Marsalis (among others) perform in the George Weston Hall here in Toronto...a room that is considered by many to be one of the most acoustically perfect rooms in the world for music... for seven years I have worked with Robert Aiken, artistic director of New Music Concerts meeting and hearing internationally renowned composers and performers and through that have had access to various musical personalities within CBC Radio Canada... I have photographed many prominent composers and conductors, including a man I have a tremendous amount of respect for, namely Pierre Boulez...I know good sound. I also know that the limited number of SACD Discs I have played in my studio, compared to the CD's that I own of the same music...are breathtaking.

Also, let's not forget that Ms Joplin's tracks, as well as Pink Floyd's, were analog in the first place. Thus the most perfect reproduction of those recordings, produced with the most state of the art digital technology, should sound EXACTLY like the original, first generation tapes,


I'm not so certain that Ms Joplin's tracks don't sound exactly like the original, first generation tapes do! That was the point I was trying to make in describing the occasional break up of her voice in the upper ranges and a certain brittleness.


Regardless of any of that...personally I could care less how they accomplish what they accomplish...all I know is that I am listening to a new presentation of an album I have been listening to since 1968 only it seems like I am hearing it for the first time. It is open...there is a depth to the stage, there is a clarity to all the voices and instruments, there are nuances and notes and colour and intonations and presence, everything breathes and all of it sounds perfectly natural. And Wonderful and yes...BREATHTAKING. I think on this one they got it right..

[Roj]

High end audio is a niche market and as such there is not nearly as much money to be made as, say, introducing the next 'Grand Theft Auto' - whose sales can exceed that of the most successful Hollywood films.

...which is why you have the BLATANT lies and BS by companies looking to justify their profit line. "Molecularly aligned speaker cable"? RUBBISH!!!! Try a little thing called PHYSICS. 100,000Khz range? RUBBISH!!!!!! BATS can't hear that and no speaker can reproduce it anyway. Transport systems costing thousands of dollars? RUBBISH!!!!!! No human alive, dead or undead can tell the difference between a $800 CD transport and one costing $2000 and if someone makes that claim, point blank they can't.

To take it back to the issue in question, a technology that makes concrete claims and is based on lies and "hype" and ad hoc assumptions with no serious scientific methodology behind it is not a technology. It's BS. That speaker cable is BS. Those claims of frequency range for SACD are BS. The whole "engineering methodology" (and I use the term extremly loosely) behind SACD is BS.

So it sounds pretty.

That's nice.

It's still crap because it has no real leg to stand on from a technological point of view and the bat-eared claims show that. This isn't about "experiences". This isn't aobut "subjectivity". This isn't about "points of view" on audio. This isn't even about 5.1. There are other 5.1 audio solutions that do not take the approach of deliberately using smoke and mirrors to divert the customer from the fact that the emperor really isn't wearing new closthes or in fact any clothes at all. This is about the mechanics behind the curtain. ANYONE will have a REALLY HARD TIME defending the claims, never mind the fluff words like "theoretical" and the attempts by the creator of the so-called "technology" to divert people from thinking really clearly about how things are actually accomplished with the "solution" being tabled.

You say you expect hype in this business - that's fine. It's choked with it and one expects that.

However, lies aren't hype.

At the end of the day they're just lies.

I don't buy into those.

Some light reading, including a link to how DVD-Audio and SACD (The Credible 5.1 Audio Format) work:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/7447.html

[acushla]

So here it is - live recordings of one of the worlds greatest bands of all time. A band who released their first two albums in 1968 and who in 1972 are giving their 2nd North American tour. A band whose music I loved from the opening note of the first album, a band whose first North American tour (to promote the freshly released second album simply called 'Led Zeppelin 11 began of the 26th of December in 1968 and wrapped up 37 performances later on February 8th, 1969. The Toronto date of February 2, 1969 represented the 35th show. . I had just returned to Ottawa (600km from Toronto) from Los Angeles and there was no way I was missing this. Trouble was...I had very little money. No worries I thought...I'll just hitchhike there. And so I did. Now...I want you to understand one thing. One of the reasons I was determined to see them live...apart from the fact that I loved their music...was because I did not believe that anybody could sing like Robert Plant. I just didn't believe it and so had to see for myself. So I did..and he did...only moreso...and even though Jimmy Page had a broken little finger the night I saw him...I doubt if anybody noticed any difference in his playing.

So I was very excited when I saw this collection of live performances of their next North American tour...recorded in the Los Angeles area in 1972. In DVD-AUDIO no less. All right...dim the lights and turn it up.

Very quickly I realized I was at a disadvantage/advantage with this album because I did not have an earlier version with which to make a comparison. With nothing to compare what I was listening to I had to think directly about the original tapes and ask myself 'Gee...I wonder what this sounds like compared to those?' What I'm really doing now is comparing the sound I am hearing to some imaginary sound. Doing this I can tell you right away that the imaginary sound wins every time. Then I think...well...if the recording you are listening to points you to-wards that imaginary perfect one...be grateful. It means you are hearing it.

Overall the music is at least as good as anything I've heard on CD with the added magic of 'live'. Left, Right, Centre, Surround...the truth is I stopped caring about any of that - I was enjoying the music so much I just didn't care.. Whether the multi-channel presentation was adding anything positive or not...I do not know. What I do know...it certainly wasn't having any negative effect.

There are things that happen sonic-ally that, given my limited experience with multi-channel sound, I would not of expected from DVD-AUDIO...but would have accepted as perfectly normal on a CD. I am referring to the sense of staging - an area of multi-channel that I have found outstanding. Vocals were often lacking the clarity that I had come to expect, the sense of having their own space...instead of tangled up with the instruments...layered somewhere within the mix. Shift of venues produced obvious differences...sonically the band sounds completely different on two different stages...sounds different...still Led Zeppelin But...oh well...there it is...who cares?

The music, the music, the music. The music that brought image after image from somewhere in the depths of my memory and allowed me to relive a little of that night at the Rockpile.

23 minutes of 'Whole Lotta Love'. Plants' impersonation of Elvis...four American Rock and Roll songs proving that the band was not so caught up in their own hype that they couldn't 'step outside' of themselves and have some fun. The obvious influence of Pink Floyds 'Saucers full of secrets' ground breaking electronic music album. Think about it...basic blues rocked up and extended by electronic effects. You want a definition of VISION?

A remarkable document of the early days of a band that went on to become an icon.

How does it sound? I don't know...I was too busy listening. Boogie on!

[acushla]

Look at their TVs. You go to a store and look at a Sony. Look at a Toshiba right next to it. The picture is often the same and in many cases the Toshiba actually has the better picture. But the Sony is usually $100 more expensive at the low end and God knows how much more at the high end...........

I think this is not entirely objective. If you speak to the people around Toshiba, Samsung etc. etc. especially the engineers...they will all acknowledge that there was a time when SONY set the standards for Television Sets. It represented their cornerstone product and the success of that enabled them to expand into other areas. I might also add that how something performs today...or looks today...is not nearly as important as how it looks and performs 6 months, 1 year or 5 years from now. Have SONY maintained a leadership role in TV's...I don't know but I doubt it. (I've owned SONY all my life but the television I have now is a SAMSUNG HD. My monitor is a SONY because frankly it's the best screen I could find...something that is important to me as I edit photographs on it. I need true, accurate colours and excellent contrast.) How do we define that? I've seen huge big screens that look like TV's for a race of Jolly Green Giants with price tags that I need to take a nap after reading them. What do you need...what do you want?

Look at their headphone lineup. Major money, embarrassingly low audio quality until you get to an excruciatingly high price point (at that point it damned well BETTER be good and I wouldn't be buying Sony anyway!). Their receiver line is a joke. The mini disc was a HUGE ripoff and we won't even discuss ATRAC, the lowest of the low when it comes to lossy compression.

What are you saying?. You won't buy SONY products because they produce a lot of crap that doesn't measure up to your standards. You then add that even if they did make a product that was good you wouldn't buy it because it was a SONY. That's hardly being objective. I am genuinely curious as to why you are so bothered by the fact that SONY make a lot of crap that you won't buy? The fact that others in our society, as I have stated before, have no concept nor do they care about things like imaging or what you and I would consider 'quality'...but are thrilled when they have put together their $330.00 for a little mini-system and can buy a pair of headphones at the first BEST BUY they find so now they can listen at night and not disturb anyone and a company like SONY recognizes this and steps in to provide a product that fits a need...why does that upset you? What does it have to do with you? You bought your headphones. I bet there are people right now shaking their head at you and the fact you settled for such lousy sound compared to their electrostatic headphones. But hey...you like your headphones...and guess what...the person who ran into BEST BUY and came out with their headphones...they like 'em too! You wouldn't...and that's why you didn't buy them.

And they all have some golly-gee-whiz-bang "features" to dazzle the customer.

Whistles and bells...lots of people like 'em. Lots of people like skins on their player...I don't. I don't think anything one way or the other about people who like skins...or something different from me. I've accepted a long time ago that different people like different things and it ain't ever going to change. I'll tell you this though...I don't get bent out of shape over it.

SACD is just the latest flavor of snakeoil.

This statement is just way too easy to make. Your use of 'latest flavor' is very revealing. I guess I'd like to ask you exactly when did the flavors begin...?

In fact, there's only one other company I can think of in audio that does that better: BOSE.

Their little wave radios are kinda' cute though! (This is an example of hahaha and bait.)

I love responding to you Roj...you do make me think. By the way...my Uncle would love you. He was a weapons engineer at Boeing in LA. He came with me once while I was buying a pair of Transparent Audio MusicWave Speaker Cables. He said a lot of things while we were in the store but the one I remember the most was...'There's one born every minute'.

More to the point is something John Ruskin wrote:

There is hardly anything in the world that some man can't make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey.

Or one of my personal favourites:

Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.

- Damon Runyon

[Roj]

So here it is - live recordings of one of the worlds greatest bands of all time.

...

How does it sound? I don't know...I was too busy listening. Boogie on!

Well, at least it was done with the more comprehensive and well thought out technology. Regarding the sense of staging and the vocals, if I understand you correctly the vocals weren't totally "stand out". That's as it should be. I've never been to a live concert where the vocals were handed to me on a plate - they were ALWAYS tangled up with the rest of the band's sound, albeit potentially soaring over it in the soundman's mix but certainly never artificially "placed" somewhere specific. Going by your description, this one sounds like it was done right, even though it has been remastered.

[Roj]

I think this is not entirely objective. If you speak to the people around Toshiba, Samsung etc. etc. especially the engineers...they will all acknowledge that there was a time when SONY set the standards for Television Sets.

Sure they did. That time is long gone.

What are you saying?. You won't buy SONY products because they produce a lot of crap that doesn't measure up to your standards.

No. I won't buy SDony crap because it inferior to other products while generally costing a whole heck of a lot more oney. That's called a "ripoff". Their technology suite of the last several years also follows that modus operandi.

You then add that even if they did make a product that was good you wouldn't buy it because it was a SONY.

Yup. That abovementioned modus operandi which has been observed time and time again all but totally guarantees that the competition will have equal or better quality - for less money. That's being objective. Don't believe me? Go lurk at Head-Fi for a while as an example.

Whistles and bells...lots of people like 'em.

Yup - lot's of people are indeed stupid and spend money on useless junk. That's perfectly true. The rampant consumerism of our times has produced all kinds of useless things for people with more money than brains to spend it on - it's a whole sub-economy of terminal cutesy-ness. Yup yup yup. And companies like Sony are in business because of them. "Good - morn - ing - ma - ster - your - door - is - a - jar" (no, that's not Sony but 100,000Khz range is). To extrapolate further, the Japanese companies especially have raised the fad to an art form ("Harajuku Girls"). I don't get bent out of shape on it - in many cases it provides the belly-laugh-of-the-day because after all, it ain't my money. :) :) :)

This statement is just way too easy to make. Your use of 'latest flavor' is very revealing. I guess I'd like to ask you exactly when did the flavors begin...?

It's even easier to answer: go back to the 80s and look at Sony's audio lineup compared to the competition. Therein lie the seeds of our discontent (I've been in audio a LONG time).

Their little wave radios are kinda' cute though! (This is an example of hahaha and bait.)

I know - what else could it be? Their PeeCee speakers are also very cute. One thing's for sure - Bose definitely knows how to market. :) Now, if only they could put something (anything!) worthwhile inside those pretty shells...

I love responding to you Roj...you do make me think. By the way...my Uncle would love you. He was a weapons engineer at Boeing in LA. He came with me once while I was buying a pair of Transparent Audio MusicWave Speaker Cables. He said a lot of things while we were in the store but the one I remember the most was...'There's one born every minute'.

ROFLMAO!!!! I too enjoy the "back and forth". Right now, given the extremely high levels of stress and turbulence in my life, it's one of the few things that keeps me on balance. I thank you for that.

There is hardly anything in the world that some man can't make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey.


Oh God yes. Creative Labs must have that enshrined as their motto. Can I keep that one?

Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.

In the context of a proposal made to me only yesterday, that is shockingly apropos.

Be well, my friend.

[auster]

They HAVE to be kidding. The highest frequency the human with perfect hearing can perceive is about 20000 Hz anyway, yet the implication is that extending the response to 100KHz is somehow an improvement. MORE MARKETING HYPE
While I hate to contradict myself:biggrin: many say that 44.1 khz wasnt enough for sampling the 10k-20khz band perfectly and it was because the ear wasnt that sensitive in that band and at the introduction of the cd equipment wasnt sufficiently advanced that it seemed enough. Even then 'subjectivist' criticism came that 'cd sound' was too artificial as compared with vinyl .Also certain 'white papers ' brought out by supertweeter manufacturers :rolleyes: claim that the higher frequency response increases the phase response which makes imaging and sound natural. But all these differences won't show up on most peoples' systems unless they also upgrade to these rather expensive setups( isnt that a vicious circle...)But what im asking is...Should they be compressed using lossless codecs? arent current lossy multi channel codecs enough?

[acushla]

I love responding to you Roj...you do make me think.

ROFLMAO!!!! I too enjoy the "back and forth". Right now, given the extremely high levels of stress and turbulence in my life, it's one of the few things that keeps me on balance. I thank you for that.Be well, my friend.

You answered a question I have been agonizing over for a few days now - principally '...is this the time for me to be writing all of this?' Now I can write without worrying. If that ever changes or I go too far there's always the PM box. It is never my intention to have people NOT like me! I just enjoy a good exchange. More to come later...I like to digest what you write and think about it before showing you exactly where you are wrong. (...ah...do I have to? OK...hahaha)

[Roj]

I like to digest what you write and think about it before showing you exactly where you are wrong. (...ah...do I have to? OK...hahaha)

OOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That one produced a SERIOUS belly-laugh. :) :) :)

[Inthewoods]

..... many say that 44.1 khz wasnt enough for sampling the 10k-20khz band perfectly........... Even then 'subjectivist' criticism came that 'cd sound' was too artificial .........Also certain 'white papers ' brought out by supertweeter manufacturers claim that the higher frequency response increases the phase response which makes imaging and sound natural.........

I edited the boldface type into your quote to make a point (forgive that liberty please): Just because "many say", or "criticism came" or especially "supertweeter manufacturers claim" doesn't make it so. Also, phase response is simply the phase shift portion of the frequency response, and should ideally be kept to zero, so the phrase "increases the phase response" is meaningless. Sorry to repeat myself, but here goes: H-Y-P-E

[auster]

I edited the boldface type into your quote to make a point (forgive that liberty please): Just because "many say", or "criticism came" or especially "supertweeter manufacturers claim" doesn't make it so. Also, phase response is simply the phase shift portion of the frequency response, and should ideally be kept to zero, so the phrase "increases the phase response" is meaningless. Sorry to repeat myself, but here goes: H-Y-P-E
I wrote it like that myself because I also doubt these claims. But when you hear people saying they are better again and again...doubts rise:biggrin:but yes I agree with you 100 % H-Y-P-E
:nervous: Oh and about phase response I meant to say improves

[Roj]

I wrote it like that myself because I also doubt these claims. But when you hear people saying they are better again and again...doubts rise:biggrin:but yes I agree with you 100 % H-Y-P-E
:nervous: Oh and about phase response I meant to say improves

I never have doubts.

I just discount all claims of that kind until I listen for myself or hear the scoop from someone whose ears I personally know and trust. :)

[acushla]

lot's of people are indeed stupid and spend money on useless junk. .

OK….let’s see…SONY used to be the best TV’s made…now?…not so much. (Of course today we have Playstation and Playstation Portable, but that’s part of a bigger story.).

Most, if not ALL of their Audio Products (especially HEADPHONES), are junk in as much as they have no redeeming audiophile qualities and they cost too much which qualifies them for 'rip off' status.

There are competitors who produce better products and do not charge as much.

All right…headphones seem to be a good place to begin to address some of this…but before I do that let me state for the record that, this time, you are entirely correct in your assessment of the situation. For sake of argument and because I believe I could (and will) make a case for this myself…I will agree with you that SONY’s commitment to building receivers and audio related product, including headphones that display any qualities that could include them in a class of audiophile is totally absent.

This has everything to do with why you and I do not own any SONY audio equipment in our homes (unless of course you have a pair of SONY headphones squirrelled away in the attic with your old Discman that you're not admitting to.)

Hmmm... let’s talk about that Discman…the one you owned when you were younger (and life was simpler?)…you were probably pretty happy the day you got it. May not even have noticed that it had the name SONY on it. Then again...might have been the first thing you looked for...you know...didn't want your friends all laughing at you because your's was a CLASSE OMEGA. Had some good times with it too…I bet. While you were having fun with this something else was going on…you were developing a real interest in Audio…learning about this and that…listening, learning, listening until you were educated enough to understand what the difference was between quality sound and that of your Walkman. You were eagerly awaiting each months copy of ‘absolute sound’ and ‘audiophile’ and 'sterophile', among others…you were discovering, learning listening, comparing until at some point you had a pretty good handle on what was good and why. You had developed a personal taste…a refined taste…a musical taste...and along the way you also learnt a little bit about VALUE.

You had a friend you went to school with…his Mom and Dad bought him a Walkman around the same time. He listened to it for a while but them pretty soon it was just sitting on a shelf in his bedroom because he was downstairs watching ‘Monster Truck Pull’ (well…come on …I had to think of something!) He starts buying Monster Truck Pull magazines, right along side his Wrestling Magazines and later on in life he moves out of his parents home and now gets a small place for himself. So now he has to buy something to play music on when he has his friends over for a party, so he heads out with no concept at all, or name, and returns with a SONY…or a SONY clone. Hooks it up, puts on a BLACK SABBATH CD…hears sound out of both speakers so everythings o.k.…heads out to the neighbourhood pub to have 6 or 17 pints with his friend and tells him, right after the story of how the cops nearly busted him for that break and enter, oh yeah…got a really good deal on a stereo system., man. 1000 watts,,,yeah…it regularly cost $399.00 but the guy let me have if for $349.00 .Sweet. Dosen't have none of that multi-channel *%#@ i either. What this guy thinks is that it is not SONY who are the rip off artists...it's those manufacters who charge two times on upwards for what they percieve as the same thing. Brian Regan does a piece like this of a refridgerator sales man showing product to a perspective buyer. Opens up the door tells the guy...keeps your food cold...$699.00...or look at this one...keeps your food cold....999.00...or this baby here...$1399.00...keeps your food cold.

You know it’s true and what you probably also recognize as true is that you substitute just about any other product you want into where we’ve put ‘stereo’ and the overriding concept of the piece would not be changed one iota. You don’t think there are people who know cars who wouldn’t say the same thing about large car manufacturers…and if those manufacturers happen to be North American…well those names would dominate the top portion of THAT list, according to friends I have. So what can we conclude? That the business of audio is pretty much the business of any manufactured product? I think so. So then who is to blame? The people who vote with their dollars? If people were truly angry that SONY is producing ‘substandard’ product and charging enough to qualify for the term ‘huge rip off’…then they would stop buying it. Yet they don’t. Why is that? (OK…yes…I am aware this is a ‘family’ forum…I have also gained insight into the benefits of diplomacy as a life skill.) Well, one could speculate and offer theories and examples for pages but I’m not going to do that here. I’m just going to sum it up in one neat little sentence: ‘Don’t know and don’t care.’ I just realized when I wrote that sentence that although I offered it as the answer of the masses who buy SONY…it pretty well mirrors my own answer as to why all these people buy SONY.Why do so many people go to ‘White Chicks’ or ‘Dude’s Where’s My Car’?Don’t Know…Don’t Care.

Back to headphones…BEST BUY (BEST BUY is a large chain of warehouse bins that (supposedly) offer discount prices on anything that can be fit under the umbrella of ‘ELECTRONICS’ They are in fact one of my favourite stores…it’s like a recess for men…you can walk around and look at tons of stuff you are interested in. It’s better than a magazine because you can actually play with it all…and my experience has been if you ask ‘Hey…who should I talk to or who knows the most about….’ You will get pointed to the guy who knows the most about…and all your questions get answered. After learning all I can I leave with my spindle of 1000 Blank DVD’s that are cheaper than anywhere else. Oh yes…they also happen to have the largest collection of DVD-AUDIO (not a lot of good titles I’m discovering) and SACD’S…probably has something to do with the fact that they are or were, an American chain. So, like I was saying, I’ve decided that I want to buy a pair of headphones and I’ve been online and researching it out…haven’t finished the homework yet…but getting there…and now I find I’m in a BEST BUY. I didn’t go here to buy headphones…it’s just that while I’m in there I think…oh great…let me go look at the headphones. So off I go running over to the headphone section and check out what they have.

OK…lets see…SONY…SONY…SONY…SONY…SONY…YBT…SONY… and 1 pair of SEINNESHERS which look as if they were taken out of the box three years ago and somebody found them in the back of the warehouse…taped the box back up and put a price tag of 199.99 on…making them the most expensive pair there. The second most expensive pair were SONY at $69.99…then $49.99 then $39.99 then $29.99 and then $19.99. Turns out…because I have an idea of what I want…the day of my purchasing headphones is going to have to wait while I go find some stores that sell what I want. No wonder the KOSS pair are going to cost less…they don’t have nearly the research and development going on at the corporate level that SONY has and they most definitely do not have the advertising budget SONY needs in order to keep it’s brand a household name and keep it in record profits year after year after year.

So I didn't buy 'em...but what about the person who has no idea...just the word Headphones to go by...and there they are standing in front of a display that has a pair at 199.00 (the audiophile pair) rule that out immediately, and the $69.00, $59.99, $49.99, $39.99, $29.99, and $19.99. Think they are going to find something in their price range? Is their rejecting the $199.99 pair (the audiophile pair) the same as you and I rejecting the Cary Audio Design CAD 300-SEL? Are you sure?

I came across (I am not making this up and there is NO hahaha) an ad for an $83,000 (US) sub-woofer. What do you think? Ripoff? Are you sure?

I also went to the link you gave me…this is what I saw:

No doubt, a very well engineered DVD-Audio disc can be mind blowingly good when heard through excellent surround speakers. I have a few SACD and DVD-Audio Discs that are great--and some that are poor re-mixes of LP,s or dc's, or some where the engineers just don't have their act together yet.
CD's went through the same growing pains. Many of the early ones, both copies of LPs and original recordings were atrocious until the engineering and mixing knowledge got disseminated through the industry.

It's a matter of taste.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Glad to see you’re coming around.

[Roj]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Glad to see you’re coming around.

Not to SACD I'm not. :) I don't do the snake-oil thing. That being said, a more detailed answer will have to wait. Your epistle is long and I'm exhausted after an investigation today. :)

[acushla]

The more I read about DVD-AUDIO the more I see the discussion as being comparable to trying to determine which is the better automobile - a LEXUS or a PORSCHE. The truth is, seen in this light, one could be considered better than the other, and given the literature that I have read it would seem that DVD-AUDIO is considered to be the better delivery...but what does that say? Nothing I've read on the technical side makes the case that SACD is doo-doo. In fact, it doesn't seem to really come down to the delivery at all...it ALWAYS seems dependent on the source material and the person doing the re-mixing.

If that source material is controlled by SONY and the mix is done right then the SACD succeeds and if the source material is perfect and the guy doing the mixing doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing then the fact that it is delivered on DVD-AUDIO isn't going to save it.

If the source material is the same and the mixer is the same and you put it on both SACD and DVD-AUDIO...well...perhaps the DVD-AUDIO is better...but if you can't drive one of those cars I bet you'll drive the other.

As for the centre channel...it would appear that the vocals are often placed there deliberately, a conscious choice, so that everybody sitting in the living room can turn to the centre speaker the moment the vocals begin. I'm not entirely certain what that means except for the obvious...the vocals are mixed for the centre channel on purpose. In what I've listened to, whether DVD-AUDIO or SACD, this certainly doesn't disturb me...and in fact has been welcome. Remember...I am not concerned with recreating a 'stage' presentation (unless it is a 'live'recording)...I'm interested in enjoying music through my system...and hearing the lyrics adds to that enjoyment. None of which I would define as 'pretty'.

...if it’s any consolation, many of the younger bands and producers/engineers at the show proved that they aren’t locked into any particular philosophy when it comes to multi-channel; they simply create mixes (adventurous or subtle) that serve their material best. I may not like some of their songs, but the mixes are always a breath of fresh air! -

Sanjay Durani

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_06.shtml

The truth is that what we have here is COCA COLA and PEPSI and if you are a COKE lover and you're in a restaurant and they only have PEPSI...then chances are PEPSI is what you're having with your meal.

[Roj]

The more I read about DVD-AUDIO the more I see the discussion as being comparable to trying to determine which is the better automobile - a LEXUS or a PORSCHE.

You have to ask????????

PHILISTINE!!!!!!!!

"Porsche - there is no substitute".

[acushla]

You have to ask????????

PHILISTINE!!!!!!!!

"Porsche - there is no substitute".

All right...ANOTHER thing we agree on! Gotta tell you though...if I couldn't have the Porsche I wouldn't feel too bad about taking the Lexus.

[rorythedog]

The Lexus is the better car on almost every measurable level. What the Porsche delivers is not easy to quantify.

But if you both prefer the Porsche, why are you listening to anything other than stereo vinyl?

I also would take the Porsche. Although I'd rather take a Lamborghini. No need for a "stereo" there.

[acushla]

But if you both prefer the Porsche, why are you listening to anything other than stereo vinyl?

I also would take the Porsche. Although I'd rather take a Lamborghini. No need for a "stereo" there.

It's a valid question and for myself, since I'm honest, it comes down to a question of laziness and convenience. Of course, now, can be added the fact that we have SACD and DVD-AUDIO - which is what the conversation of which was preferable, a Porsche or a Lexus...referred to.

I was lulled from the very beginning by CD's promise of perfect sound (no comments from Roj about how history repeats itself...I'm MUCH smarter now!)...I liked the idea of CD's...load them and forget them. No longer any need to have an 'intimate personal relationship' with your turntable...no need to get up and turn the record over. Don't like that track? Program the machine to skip it. Add to all of that the fact that you really were not able to damage CD's...at least not nearly as easily as with you could and did with vinyl...well, to me, it all added up to a winning combination. I think too that I immediately recognized that the future was with us and this was how things were going to be...all the more reason to get on board now. Remember...I'm the guy who EMBRACES the future! Through listening to CD's I quickly learnt that in the majority of cases if the CD was lacking it was not the CD that was at fault...it was the quality (or lack thereof) of the original master that was to blame. Not always...but certainly in a good number of cases. Then there were the CD's that Producers just butchered in their attempt to make the transfer to CD. One legitimate complaint of early CD's was how during the transfer the lower octave would simply be removed. Not good for those of us who had systems that could reporduce those lower frequencies.

This was something I found intolerable ...but soon even that changed. Vinyl certainly had it's share of growing pains and I don't know if you've ever had an opportunity to listen to cylinders. Talk about Lo-Fi! It didn't get much lower than that...yet people still bought it. Why? For the same reason we buy CD's and records today...it's the music stupid. :laugh:

Every medium has it's growing pains...and CD's had their share of them. Look at where the industry is now...I think it would be difficult to fault the medium at this point. The majority of new releases could not be matched by vinyl. Did you know that at any given instance when a needle is in the groove that it is vibrating to the extent that over 20% of the information on either side of the grove is not available simply for the reason that it is not in contact with the needle? Think about it...

The dynamic range of the most basic CD player has better specs than some of the most expensive cartridges...and you know what sort of money I'm talking about there. Is vinyl better? Well, I'm quite certain that with unlimited funds to spend on turntables, cartridges and related gear...no...vinyl NOW is not better than CD's. With SACD and DVD-AUDIO they aren't even close. One word in my life that I have learnt as a direct result of my interest and experience with High End Audio is the word DIFFERENT. Not better...just DIFFERENT.

Lamborghini...oh oh oh oh...let me tell you...THAT IS MY CAR!!!

PS Speaking of vinyl I might as well get this in now as I may never have a more opportune moment. In 1966 when I was living in Los Angeles I had a friend who had a 45RPM Car Record Player. I believe it plugged into the cigarette lighter and his girlfriend would hold the thing on her lab and stack up 45's on the spindle. Now of course I wish I had bought it. What some people will do to ensure they have THEIR music with them. True story.