 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.205.66.216
Quote found on Stereophile:As soon as I have more than two ears I will get more than a two-channel system.
Sorry, just being silly. I have a surround system also but did not spend much on it compared to my 2-channel system because to me, movie surround is made up of a bunch of sounds that are completely unrealistic and so over done as to be stupid. Why waste money to reproduce something inaccurate?
Straw man argument. On the 2ch system, you listen to music which, apparently, you care about. On the MCH system, you listen to movies which you do not find satisfying or accurate.
Edits: 06/01/11 06/01/11
I tried for the best of both worlds with an all Revel 7.1 system. It was great and 2 channel music was terrific as well, but my life circumstances have changed (got divorced, moved to a smaller place) where 7.1 seemed to be overkill, so I put all the surrounds and the sub into storage and just use the Revel Studios.
I REALLY like the new set up. I find movies just as engaging, the bass from my full range speakers is solid (at least to 30kHz) and the soundstage 3D and solid to the point where I'm not missing the surround effects.
I can't say that I won't go back to at least 5.1 when I have the right room, but I don't think I will suffer in the meantime. I do think that my situation might be a bit exceptional with the Studios, a Halcro MC7 set up in bi-amp configuraton, Anthem D2 PrePro and Oppo BPD 93 with EquiTech and Richard Grey backing it all up.
I suspect though, with proper speaker positioning and a sub-woofer if necessary, that most folks could be pretty happy with a 2 or 2.1 channel set up for their music and movie sound needs.
My cousin bought a Sony scd-xa5400es sacd player and uses the HDMI output for playback of multi-channel sacd on his Sony AV receiver. I do not take Mch HDMI audio serious when using an AV receiver. The Sony sacd player has also an analog stereo output, which I think is a better option.
Not everybody is enthusiastic about the sound quality of HDMI. See the article The Well-Tempered Computer, an introduction to computer audio.
I don't have experience with multichannel HDMI audio. I use the 2ch HDMI from the Oppo into the Anthem DACs.
Sony AV receivers do DSD down sampling to LPCM (1-bit/2.8224MHz DSD to 30 bit/176.4kHz LPCM) and all its DSD uniqueness is diminished.
Edits: 06/07/11 06/07/11
Regardless of input, Anthem D2 DSP output is 24bit/192kHz. So I'm not sure what effect that has on audio quality with unknown jitter from the Oppo HDMI digital audio output.
I've been happy with the results and glad I didn't spring for the Oppo 95, where I would have bypassed the Anthem D2 DSP for $600 more clams.
Regardless of input, the Anthem D2 DSP output is 24bit/192kHz.
The integrity of the DSD signal (1-bit/2.8224MHz) is down sampled to LPCM and all its uniqueness is diminished.
I found a link on a discussion on the Computer Audio Aslyum for HDMI.
Edits: 06/08/11
Have you compared 2ch HDMI with 2ch analog playback? The jitter with HDMI audio is much higher than with analog playback. My Sony scd-xa9000es sacd player has only a jitter of 176ps peak to peak according to Stereophile.
Edits: 06/07/11 06/07/11
I asked Oppo customer support about HDMI jitter. Here is their reply:
We do not have any written documentation on the jitter rate over HDMI as issues with jitter errors are related to the downstream equipment and not the player itself. As long as the receiver relies on our clock or on the information embedded in the video clock then there will be no decoding errors downstream.
Best Regards,
Customer Service
OPPO Digital, Inc.
2629B Terminal Blvd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
Service@oppodigital.com
Tel: 650-961-1118
Fax: 650-961-1119
I don't know what Anthem does with regards to HDMI DSP. I'll see what I can find out.
The problem with HDMI audio is that the DAC receiver has to synchronize the data bitstream with its internal master clock. Maybe there is also a difference in the jitter for 2ch and 5.1ch playback.
Edits: 06/07/11
This is what I found for a SONY TA-DA5600ES DSD to PCM (2ch/176.4kHz 5.1ch/88.2kHz) audio conversion. Audio playback of DSD and PCM are crippled by the AV receiver.
I actually find a good mono speaker to be superior to stereteo, which is better than multi.........for music, not movies.
Nature is analog but some people think they can digitize the world. Why digital, because in high volume it is cheap due to the large scale integration of electronic integrated circuits and you can add more functionality to a product which also increases the complexity of the product. That is why nowadays we have multi-channel audio playback. Analog audio has its limitations in functionality, but will give you in the end a better sounding product with an accurate reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices.
Edits: 06/08/11 06/08/11 06/08/11 06/08/11
Consumer electronics are marketing driven and so in the old days they came up with the quadraphonic sound, which was not a success. Now the marketing folks have introduced the multi-channel sound with mixed results. Companies as Accuphase are focused on stereo and for good reason. The price/performance ratio is much better of a stereo system and if you want a high-end MCH system, it will raise the cost and complexity of the system. Only the cheap AV systems are a success but not the expensive high-end MCH systems.
Edits: 06/07/11
"The price/performance ratio is much better of a stereo system and if you want a high-end MCH system, it will raise the cost and complexity of the system. Only the cheap AV systems are a success but not the expensive high-end MCH systems."
No truer words have been said. Yes, quad was conceived as a gimmick to wring more bucks from 'audiophile' consumers.
I personally would prefer an excellent mono system over all others, for economic, musical, and archictectural reasons.
Multi-channel audio = a tiny percentage of the tiny SACD market. No telling how much more expensive it would be with multi-channel playback.
My Accuphase amplifier has a mono button. Problem solved.
.....economic and interior space consideration.
A true dedicated mono amp should be smaller and less expensive, given everything else equal.
I do not think the market for mono equipment is large enough that manufacturers are willing to invest in this niche market. Maybe you can find some vintage audio for mono purposes.
Edits: 06/08/11
.....but I was referring to "what if the mono was the standard".
Yes, in the old days mono was standard but we have evolved but old Jazz mono recordings sound very good. Dave Brubeck has many mono vinyl record albums.
Edits: 06/09/11 06/09/11 06/09/11
The so-called "Quote found on Stereophile:" is actually two quotes.
The first was from the OP:
As soon as I have more than two ears I will get more than a two-channel system.
Sorry, just being silly. I have a surround system also but did not spend much on it compared to my 2-channel system because to me, movie surround is made up of a bunch of sounds that are completely unrealistic and so over done as to be stupid. Why waste money to reproduce something inaccurate?
The second is from me:
Straw man argument. On the 2ch system, you listen to music which, apparently, you care about. On the MCH system, you listen to movies which you do not find satisfying or accurate.
Straw man argument, I am Dutch so I had to look up.
Edits: 06/07/11
On that basis I could ask why read novels which aren't true rather than accurate historical books.
Novels aren't true but are intended for enjoyment. Multichannel movie soundtracks, or even multichannel music recordings may not present accurate sound but they can be created for enjoyment and be capable of delivering it. If that's the sort of thing you enjoy, then you're not wasting money by getting a multichannel system that you like, you're spending your money on enjoyment. That's not a bad thing to do now and then.
Inaccuracy isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's a lot more fun and enjoyable than accuracy. I know the Lord of the Rings films aren't true and the sound tracks are faked but it really is worth while, at least to me, to listen to the soundtrack of those movies in good quality surround sound simply for the sake of enjoyment. The inaccuracy of the soundtracks is totally irrelevant to my enjoyment and if I could get total accuracy I dare say my enjoyment might even be diminished.
2 channel stereo is also inaccurate but I enjoy it also.
David Aiken
. . . and they're certainly not in accord with the way I listen to music. ;-)
If Mch is not satisfying or accurate for the movies why should it be then satisfying for audio?
Marantz's Ken Ishiwata has a private stereo system with studio and spent more than £100,000 according to HiFi Choice magazine.
There are not so many people who have the ability for a right set-up of a MCH system in their listen room. Room treatment for good acoustics is also very important to achieve good result.
I still prefer the internal DAC conversion which keeps the signal integrity of the DSD signal of a sacd player. I own a Sony scd-xa9000es for 2ch audio playback and I think it is still one of the best sacd player Sony has build.
Edits: 06/07/11 06/07/11
I recently relocated much of my equipment to the finished basement.
I only use it for 2 channel music, and DVD concert videos , and DVD audio.
I have another smaller sytem upstairs for movies. My downstairs system has an older OPPO , that I use the 6 channel analog audio out. r & L front ( stereo ) go to a Macintosh C-28 and MC 162. The centers and rears go to a 9 year old Denon Receiver, into the anaolg outputs ( 6 channel analog , I don't use the R & L ). the sub out I send to an old Yamaha receiver. I keep the yamaha volume at halfway.
When I turn up the volume on the C-28, I adjust the Denon with a remote from the listening position, by ear.
So now that I have this all up and running, I test it out on my favorite artist , Keith Emerson. Keith Emerson Band Live in Moscow DVD.
I just can't believe the sound. Full rich, and very " concert like". I saw a similar show in New Haven CT from the front row around the time this was recorded. The deep bass on the Moog comes through on the sub channel, so deep, so clear, it is unbelievable. Not quite as good as live on the Bag End sub, but still quite good.
Vocals, other instruments crystal clear and very detailed.
I welcome your comments and advice. Thanks.
Post a Followup:
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
