jdm56 Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 OK, after salivating for a good, long while over the wonders to be experienced via SACD and DVD-A, I am now over the threshold: I've got my Pioneer Elite 55TXi receiver and 47Ai universal player up and running, and I've got a grand total of six "new format" titles - 5 SACD & 1 DVD-A. So, what conclusions have I come to concerning hi-rez audio? Well, #1 is that CD is darned good. Good enough, really, except that with only two channels, it can only let you experience music as though through a window. It can't ever let you step through that window - get you ~into~ the acoustic. But on the other hand, we have... ...conclusion #2, which is: Just because you have speakers in the back, why would you want to put voices/instruments back there? One of my first SACD's is Mark O'Connor's Hot Swing Trio "In Full Swing". The disc is superb. I would be thinking potential Grammy winner here, BUT; Why oh why do they keep playing musical chairs with the voice and instrument locations? Very distracting! One song will have Wynton's trumpet in the left rear, in the next one, he's moved to the right front! WHY? It just destroys the illusion of reality that the recording otherwise creates. Oh well, more later... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 As usual, its all in the recording. Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 I sometimes wonder if the artist is given a chance to provide input to the way theses discs are cut. Though I haven't run into your situation I can understand how that would be distracting. Maybe its jsut a signature of the mixer? scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eq_shadimar Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 James chin up please!! There are TONS of great 5.1 channel mixes out there in both SACD and DVD-A. There is also lots of crap too. There are some recordings that I like the LP, some that I like the CD, and others that I like the high res version of. The important thing to remember is that now you have choices!! What type of music do you like? Perhaps I can offer some suggestions. Laters, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssh Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 It's difficult to know what is mixed well until you buy it.Multi-channel SACD can be a stunningly beautiful format. SSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted September 13, 2003 Share Posted September 13, 2003 This just seems to be a return to the "quad" era. It didn't work out well, perhaps because of the media. One theory was the recording and perhaps speaker placement, put the listener in the middle of a group of sounds. Your in the middle of the orchestra instead of in front of it. If so, speakers placed behind the listener would be a good thing if we want 360 degree placement. The later "surround" theory uses the extra channels to create ambiance. The echos of the concert hall or ambiant sounds like rain, birds, the thumps of invading storm troopers breaking into Prince Lea's ship. This is not the same as "behind". We see this in movie theater systems where most of the surround speakers are at the sides. It is my understanding that the recent remix of Dark Side of the Moon wants to place some sounds behind, and not ambient. More phantasmigorical. That is okay for that. We move speakers to the rear. None the less, movies are mixed so that thunder and rain come from everywhere or ambient. "Identity" is an example of it. (I liked the flick.) But thunder and rain only from the rear would not be realistic. Maybe we move the speakers to the side. So you can appreciate that various mixes may assume different speaker placement. We just can't win. I might put the speakers on wheels. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 ---------------- On 9/13/2003 8:53:53 PM William F. Gil McDermott wrote: This just seems to be a return to the "quad" era. It didn't work out well, perhaps because of the media. One theory was the recording and perhaps speaker placement, put the listener in the middle of a group of sounds. Your in the middle of the orchestra instead of in front of it. If so, speakers placed behind the listener would be a good thing if we want 360 degree placement. The later "surround" theory uses the extra channels to create ambiance. The echos of the concert hall or ambiant sounds like rain, birds, the thumps of invading storm troopers breaking into Prince Lea's ship. This is not the same as "behind". We see this in movie theater systems where most of the surround speakers are at the sides. It is my understanding that the recent remix of Dark Side of the Moon wants to place some sounds behind, and not ambient. More phantasmigorical. That is okay for that. We move speakers to the rear. None the less, movies are mixed so that thunder and rain come from everywhere or ambient. "Identity" is an example of it. (I liked the flick.) But thunder and rain only from the rear would not be realistic. Maybe we move the speakers to the side. So you can appreciate that various mixes may assume different speaker placement. We just can't win. I might put the speakers on wheels. Gil ---------------- ...Which brings me to conclusion #3: How in the heck are we supposed to know what type of surround speakers to buy, and where to put them, when there is no concensus as to what the ~right~ way to record multi-channel music is? It seems that all the options afforded record producers, what with five or six full-range channels at their disposal, has just brought a large measure of anarchy to both hi-rez formats. With 2-channel, everyone just assumes the speakers will be in front of the listener. There is no law saying this has to be; it just is! But the Pandora's Box of surround sound is now open again, and it's a free-for-all. So, do I need to replace my RS-7's with say, a pair of belles in the back corners? But they won't ~do~ room ambience nearly as well as RS-7's, if that is how the record producer's choose to use the surround channels. So I guess I need to do the Denon thing, and have 2 pairs of surrounds; one for ambience and one for stage mixes! -I DON'T THINK SO, TIM! I simply ain't got the room OR the inclination for that. Besides, I think even Denon may have abandoned that folly by now. You know what my inclination really is, when I hear instruments placed behind me? I wanna move the surround speakers up front - "Hey fella, get up here with the band"! If you're gonna treat surround just like fronts in the mix, well then, why in world would you want them BEHIND YOU?!?! Shoot, lets just put the left front speaker out in the hall! And we'll mount the center speaker on the ceiling, right over our pointy heads! Now that'd REALLY be surround-freaking-sound! ...Light up, drop out and tune in...or whatever the heck it was Timothy Leary was famous for saying. Is my old-fogeyism showing? It's not that these "aggressive" surround mixes sound bad, it's just that they don't sound ~right~, ya know? Cause like I said, that Mark O'Conner SACD really is superbly entertaining, and I would recommend it highly. And if you too, are put off by the surround mix, there is also an outstanding two-channel mix - which will bring me to conclusion #4...but not right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 ---------------- On 9/13/2003 12:22:12 PM eq_shadimar wrote: James chin up please!! There are TONS of great 5.1 channel mixes out there in both SACD and DVD-A. There is also lots of crap too. There are some recordings that I like the LP, some that I like the CD, and others that I like the high res version of. The important thing to remember is that now you have choices!! What type of music do you like? Perhaps I can offer some suggestions. Laters, ---------------- True, choice is good - but dad-nabbit, I WANT the surround mix to sound the best! That's why I got into multi-channel; for the higher fi that 5 channels ~can~ bring. Oh, and as for my musical tastes, It would be a lot easier to state what I ~don't~ like: Metal and Hardcore Rap, Dixieland Jazz, and Barney. I'm open to about everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eq_shadimar Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 If you haven't done so I would highly recommend getting the DVD-A demo disc from AIX records. AIX produces some of the best multi-channel mixes around. On most recordings he gives you a choice of stage or audience mixes so you can choose what you like best. Anyway the demo is great if only so you can hear a good mix to compare others to. Laters, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 I have been interested in "Nitty Gritty Surround" on AIX, but have not yet found it at a decent price. A choice of stage mix or audience mix makes more sense to me than the 2-channel/multi-channel choice. Especially in light of the fact that DPL-II on my receiver will not take a hi-rez, two channel input (conclusion #4 - WHY IS THAT? Is it just my receiver or is that just a limitation of DPL-II? If so, it seems pretty lame to me - Two steps forward and one step back!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted September 15, 2003 Author Share Posted September 15, 2003 Oh yeah, conclusion #4: Now this may be a hardware issue; at this point I don't know, but I can not play the 2-channel hi-rez SACD output with DPL-II; at least not thru i-link. I will try a 5.1 analog connection and see if that works. The issue is, if I don't like the multi-channel mix, I would like to be able to listen to the hi-rez 2-channel mix through DPL-II. I can, of course listen to the CD layer via DPL-II, but by darn, when you've paid for SACD, I wanna at least hear the two-channel hi-rez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tankhokie Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 it's sounds frustrating... i am just waiting till polka hits sacd - until then, nothing else matters i guess it is slow on the uptake into mainstream, thus no real standard to go follow...creating all kinds of mixes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.