Dark Side of The Moon 5.1 mix

[edwardre]

Alright folks, I apologize for 'biting' on Mr Boooo's initial 2-channel bait. We all have been here before and should know by now that this is a 'lose-lose' discussion. If some of you are content with your 2-channel setup.....cool. However, at the risk of inciting another full page rant, it would appear from the replies on this thread that those who are 'poo-pooing' multi have not heard a properly setup multi chan and those that endorse have come from the position of growing up with 2-channel and 'evolving' (if you will) to MC. At least that is the case for me. There were a few passages that I have to respond to but first it might help to know what I'm listening through. Of course 'hi-end' 2 channel will sound better - soundstage, dynamically, tonally - than 'mid-end' MC. I do not believe that is the point, I think that we're all speaking to a level playing field equipment-wise.

My setup for MC:

Room size: 20'x20' vaulted ceiling, slab foundation

Front mains: 1954 Factory Custom Khorns

Front and rear centers: Klipsch Belles - Modified w/1950's components

Rears: Klipsch Cornwalls - Modified

Receiver: Denon 3802

DVD-A: Denon 1600

SACD: Sony 755

Video: InFocus LP350 Front Projector

Screen size: 10'x5'

2-channel setup:

Same room

Same 1954 Cornerhorns

Dynaco ST-70 amp w/Van Alstine mods

Dynaco PAS2 Pre-amp heavily modded

AR XA (Early version) turntable

Onkyo 700 CD player

Can also plug in the DVD players but the Onkyo sounds better

On 4/30/2003 12:21:08 AM arena wrote:

i totally agree, all i'm saying is that the imaging of truly hifi 2 channel speakers (i run klipsch rp3s) provides a far more realistic soundstage than anything decoded into 5.1, which always sounds forced or unnatural in comparison, at least in my experience.

In a word: NO WAY. Absolutely, without question, no way. Leastwise if we are still talking SACD/DVD-A. Nothing is 'decoded' into 5.1. That would be 'pro-logic', the practice of taking a fine 2-channel mix and breaking it out into 'forced fragmentation'. SACD, DVD-A, even DD5.1 or DTS are as we know seperate discreet channels specifically mixed to play in a multi-channel mode. I do not listen to my stereo CD's in a multi-channel mode, nor do I play my multi's in a 2-channel mode. Fact is that most recordings - live or studio - are recorded on many tracks and the 'forced fit' is to put multiple tracks into a 2-channel format. That has all changed with the current technologies. Now sound engineers are able to go back and 'portion out' seperate tracks into seperate channels. To me or 'IM(very)HO', this is far closer to the original intent than 2-channel ever could be.

In a properly set up 2 channel system you will get an amazing 3D presentation with sounds coming from all over (including behind the listener). I just don't see the need for MC on normal music other than to allow the unknowing to think that their Bose systems do something great. When in reality it does no more than a properly set up 2 channel.

Now come on. Bose? Ouch! Mr Strabo, not aware of where you are located geographically, but if your ever in the Northern California area (close to Sacto), you have an open invitation to come have a listen to 6 vintage heritage Klipsch's singing in unison. I would truly like your honest opinion after hearing DSOM or the DVD-A Eagles: Hotel CA. I would wager that you will indeed 'see hear the need'. BTW - What's 'normal music'?

Lets examine what good two channel is about. Its about getting that resolution, accuracy, and imaging, all the while having the music come across, well emotionally. It takes more than getting sound to envelope you from five or seven sides. It takes more than it sounding "crystal clear". It's about tone, dynamics music being presented as if it's being performed in front of you. On a good system you feel the music not hear it.

Ditto for you, Tom. Or for that matter, anyone else. Just send me a PM. Again, 6 full sized heritages firing off in perfect harmony will have you more than just merely 'feeling it'. And I am not talking about ear peeling volumes. You will feel the music at the lowest audible SPL. That I can unconditionally gurantee. Now add the aspect that you 2-channel advocates conviently side-step......resolution. The higher the resolution, the more true to life the sound. Close your eyes and you WILL think that you are listening to live music. Open your eyes and you will still think you are listening to live music.

There is nothing here to 'fear'. Stereo recordings belong exactly where you '2-chan's' and a lot of the rest of us put them, in a good, well setup 2-channel rig. MC belongs in the environment for which it is designed.....a good, well setup multi-channel rig. The notion that MC is 'boombox' fodder is well......unfounded paranoia. The selling point for high resolution audio - be it DVD-A, SACD Multi or SACD Stereo is the higher resolution. The subtleties that are less aparent in a lesser resolution format. Certainly these would be lost in a 'boombox' or 'car audio' type of setup. There are many SACD recordings in 2-channel only. To me, this should be a boon for you 2-channel enthusiasts. A higher resolution in your format!!! Would you deny yourself a higher resolution video picture if it all the sudden became available? Why then would you deny yourself a higher resolution audio format? Given the choice between HD or "standard" video, I would prefer to watch HD. Any reason the same logic can't be applied to audio?

Awaiting any and all PM's for that 'dog and pony' show........

[easylistener]

I feel there is two ways of looking at this.

One to make it sound like you are at the concert

Two to make it sound like you are on stage and hear it they way they do.

If you are on stage and are the artist then the sounds are coming from all around you, behind sides etc. I read an artical with roger water that said he wanted the floyd music to be coming from all the angles. This is why I feel that the floyd cds sound better in multichannel.

On the other hand you guys are right. Celin sounds better in 2 channel, but the sacd just happens to be a great recording that makes it sound nice. I think what you guys are trying to say is that you like to listen to music like you are at the concert. Which is what a lot of the artist record and mix there music for. Is this correct or am I way off?

So yes a agree with you guys on some of it. Some music sounds great in two channel, and some was designed and sounds better on multichannel.

I also think that some time the companies spend more money on sacd and that is way some of them have better recordings. I think some of the cds need to be rerecorded because they are not very good.

I like these type of talks, it gives you a better idea of where everyone is coming from.

[Strabo]

----------------

On 4/30/2003 12:00:06 PM edwardre wrote:

Alright folks, I apologize for 'biting' on Mr Boooo's initial 2-channel bait....

----------------

Nice post. I am actually in 99% agreement with you. I am not a 2C only guy, and I do see/hear where MC is benificial. Unfortunately my current room does not allow for five floorstanders. Maybe someday.

IMHO some music should be left in two channel. Why put Wheezer in MC?

Wilco? That would be cool with all the melodic sound effects they use.

Pink Floyd? Love it! Bring on the rest of their albums.

Santana? To me that was just an engineer making silly noises because he could. Gave me the impression Beavis and Butthead where behind the mixing board. Some people like it. Some don't.

Alison Krauss Love it! The way most MC should be. Mostly 4.1 other than ambiance.

I just don't want to see titles being mastered using the center and rears to create a sound that can be done just as well in stereo. When that happens I have to ask myself, "what's the point". The point that I have concluded is, so that lesser systems can feel like a real one. Lowering the bar if you will without any need for quality.

Then where will we be?

[avman]

o.k. my 2 cents...

YES! when you properly set up a 2-ch. system, you hear sound all around you, beyond the left and right channel speakers and perfect centering in between;i.e:my l,r klf-30 is right next to the l,r walls in my ht room. i hear sounds coming from BEYOND the l,r constraints of my room AND the lead singer, for example, comes from the center of my tv tube/screen...beautiful soundstage. i get sounds overhead and behind me as well!

most cd's i listen to use my l,r and rsw-15 only.

however:dvd concerts i have thoroughly enjoyed in dts/dd,

and that experience has expanded my viewpoint on multi channel music. i also have a sacd player. 5 of my 7 sacd's are 2-ch.

avman.

[Bruinsrme]

RF311,

OMG is your avatar funny..

[edwardre]

I think we're all saying the same thing. In essence, we like our music to be of high quality regardless of format.

I feel there is two ways of looking at this.

One to make it sound like you are at the concert

Two to make it sound like you are on stage and hear it they way they do.

I would respectfully suggest that there are a third and forth component to this list:

Three to make it sound like the artist wanted it to sound.

Four to make it sound however YOU THE LISTENER likes to hear it.

I have to go back to the basics of my testimonial. Both formats of SACD (stereo and multi) as well as DVD-A offer STEREO formats that are the same as the original stereo recordings but with a MUCH HIGHER resolution. Regardless of whether your poison is 2C or MC, you cannot deny the potential positive impact to your listening experience. CD's max out at what....44khz sampling rate while DVD-A (multi) is more than double at 96K and DVD-A (stereo) is a whopping 192Khz. I have the Hotel CA CD as well as the DVD-A. Naturally, I a/b'd between my 2 channel tube setup running the CD vs DVD-A in high res 192Khz stereo. Both through the same cornerhorns. The difference is very pronounced. Other than the obvious type benefits one would expect out of a higher resolution format, what is harder to put into words is the difference in the feel. Only way I can explain it is that note for note, there seems to be 'more' sound in the room. Fuller, richer, with more substance. Likewise, I plugged the DVD-A stereo outputs into the tube amp and ran the 192Khz stereo track through. Simply phenomenal. Words cannot adequately describe. Again, a feeling thing. So when I read statements like:

IMHO some music should be left in two channel. Why put Wheezer in MC?

Wilco? That would be cool with all the melodic sound effects they use.

Pink Floyd? Love it! Bring on the rest of their albums.

Santana? To me that was just an engineer making silly noises because he could. Gave me the impression Beavis and Butthead where behind the mixing board. Some people like it. Some don't.

I have to refer to a couple of key thoughts. The first is of course dealing with the Santana assessment. 100% in agreement. **When done right** is precisely what I was referring to as it pertains to these types of hack jobs. On the flip side I refer to the Hotel CA DVD-A, which in my opinion, is the best example of MC hi-res out there (that I've heard). I purchased it because I have the DVD-A player and wanted to checkout this new 'gimmick'. Expectations were fairly low as I was of the same opinion.....Why put this title in MC? Not a whole lot of cool effects, etc. I was treated to a 180 degree change in my opinion of what MC is all about. Each instrument in it's own 'space', clearly part of the overall experience and at the same time seperated. The combo of hi-res and multi-chan (done right!!) simply puts 'more' sound in the room in the right quantities in the right places.

[AnalOg]

bruinsre

ya, thought it fit her image!

Tom

[Marshal]

The Hotel CA DVD-A is wonderful.

As for someone's question about what's the problem with Shine On from WYWH when performed live, well on PF's Pulse double CD set, Shine On is performed with the long guitar intro. That song & Comfortably Numb are Gilmour's greatest moments IMO, FWIW.

Yes folks, we do need more PF stuff on either SACD or DVD-A. Ditto for Led Zeppelin. After all these years, "4"(Runes, Zozo, whatever)has still not been converted to high res audio.

Thirty years I believe, as with DSOTM.

[edwardre]

Now, on the Zep front, you do know that there is a 2-disc DVD scheduled for release I believe this month. Concert footage from the early years. Would be nice if it's at least in DTS. Got my copy 'pre-ordered'.

[Scipio80]

has anyone with a 5.1 setup ever put all the speakers on the same wall? That wouldn't work for DSOTM since it is designed to envelop you, but for some others it would probably give a very unique experience. I fully expect noone to ever do this, but I do think it would be neat to hear.

[boomer9911]

Interesting read, I haven't seen it on DVD Audio format anywhere, but I did pick up the last 3 sealed 30th Anniversary albums of Dark Side of the Moon re-released at our local A&B Sound on vinyl, 1 for me and 2 for the collection vault

I got my first DVD Audio disks today at our grand opening of Best Buy in Western Canada, and I can honestly say impressive, at present listening to Fleetwood Mac Rumours DVD Audio(not bad at $20 CDN ea)

I have not heard SACD multi channel, 2 channel SACD yes, but from what I have read, DVD Audio is giving them a run for their money, and winning, another Beta vs VHS battle.

Also cool is the number of good "live" concerts out now on DVD, Eric Clapton live in Hyde Park is awesome

[Mike728]

I'm finally able to listen to this in SACD. I bought it when it came out about a month ago, just after I put in my order for the Denon DVD-2900. That finally arrived today. It's replacing my Toshiba SD-9200, which is an awsome DVD-Audio player. I just wanted the best of both worlds.

The surround engineering that went into this disc is much more advanced, or thoughtful, than anything I've heard in DVD-A. It's like the music was meant to be heard this way. Night and day compared to its original two channel mix.

All I can hope for now is that Alan Parsons' "I Robot" comes out in SACD.

[Strabo]

For those of you that haven't read it yet, Maxg makes my point perfectly in the soundstaging thread of the two channel forum on why I don't see a reason for everything to be mixed in MC.

Sometimes I get the feeling that few people here realy get a soundstage or an image from their music and that is a shame.

[easylistener]

strabo

I think we do, I know I do and it took me a year to get the speakers in the sweat spot to get it. It is just that some songs were ment for mc. Pink Floyd is one of them. Greatful dead and others. I am sorry that you don't see it. The sound stage that we get in two channel I can get three times that sound stage in five channels.