Champagne taste beer budget Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 GRRRrrrrrrrrrrrr.. forum ate this the first time I tried to post it, try, try again. Was discussing the dedicated listening room with the owner of a HT design shop yesterday. He seemed to feel that in 5 years most everything will be in a SACD or similar format, with sound coming from more than just the two standard stereo channels. Quadrophonics revisited? Is everything old new again? I don't want to build a listening room for two channel, only to have it outdated by the time I get it finished the way I'd like. Any thoughts anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Jump to the NEW MILLENNIUM! It's all 5.1 from now on, Baby! 2 Channel is DEAD. You ever hear Denisov coming from your rear right? It's HEAVEN and Champaigne rolled into one! Open a microbrew! Make a toast! It's SOUND ALL AROUND! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 LOL SACD and DVD-A will eventually rule the marketplace, but DVD-A uses fold-down, and SACD has moved to Hybrid discs. Hey, you gotta be able to play this stuff on your boomboxes and Bose Wave CD/Radios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Great I gotta start all over again. Ya right! Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Tom, Just set up another room with another system Then you can have it ALL Smilin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Smilin, I'm running out of rooms. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 "Is stereo going to be quad?" Quad! I hope not. That old Quadrafonic sound was soooo bad. I would rather listen to and be entertained by a band, not be in one. Instruments in all corners is unnatural. I'd reather have two channel and if I want surround use DSP to simulate live venues. I still have my AudioPulse Model One digital delay unit in the back room. I think it was the first sucessful DSP device on the market and was until Bob Carver matured the "Sonic Hologram" with digital delay. That's the basis for all the DSPs out there today. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 pentatone classics is re-releasing some old quadraphonic recordings as SACD's.... they have been remastered and sound very good...(at least the ones that i have heard).... the series is called the "remastered quadro recording" series http://www.polyhymnia.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 ---------------- On 12/11/2003 1:57:34 PM rf3iicrazy wrote: Smilin, I'm running out of rooms. Tom ---------------- Tom, You will just have to multitask your existing space c ya soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Yes sir, the Pentatone/Polyhymnia stuff is state of the art. I don't believe these quad recordings were ever released before, though. They were recorded with the *plan* to put them out as quad records, but then the format died. So now they are getting the chance to be heard, and with much better quality than quad vinyl could manage. The more junk-theatre-in-a-box-for-$300 units that sell, the better. That will ensure a big enough customer base to keep the multi channel SACD releases coming for the relatively few people who have a set up to hear the recordings properly. The first Mercury Living Presence SACDs are due out early in 2004. They will be three channel across the front, as recorded. This will be the first time ever that anyone outside of the Mercury engineers will've heard the MLP material in three discrete channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 And I thought WAF for two-channel was challenging. I'm just going to have to quit audio and start running the vacuum cleaner. I don't stand a chance with Quad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Paul, One of my MLP CDs is mono, yup, done with a single microphone. Boy does it sound gooooood! Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 I have a mono CD on Mercury (Living Presence) too, the Chicago Symphony recorded in 1953 and 1954 with a single Telefunken microphone. It's Bartok: The Miraculous Mandarin and Kodaly: Peacock Variations. From the liner notes: "It was intended that these (monophonic) recordings should be played at full room volume as, indeed, they were at many a hi-fi show, and in many a home as a wider and wider public came to realize the new promise of recorded music. The Kubelik/Chicago Symphony "Pictures at an Exhibition" may have won more listeners to high fidelity than any other symphonic recording, and with justice. It still sounds marvelous." I imagine a fair number of people listened to these through a single Khorn. But I still think the recordings made on three channels will be neat to hear on three channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I don't see DVD audio or SACD getting rid of CDs as fast as records disappered. There are a lot of people who still don't have 5.1 yet and do not want it. What I'm doing is my La Scalas are going to be used in both my home theater and 2 channel system. I'm still waiting on the La Scalas to be made and my preamp should be on it's way. The last piece of the puzzle is a Luxman system selector. I have a Dennon receiver and DVD for home theater and a preamp and 2 SS amps and CD player for 2 channel. The way it works is the 2 SS amps are hooked up to the left and right speakers. You then plug the cables from the amps into the output of the system selector. Then plug the L&R output cables for from the HT receiver into the input on the System selector and do the same for the output cables from the preamp. Then all you have to do is push a button on the system selector to pick which system you want to use. The only thing is you have to have a stereo amp or in my case 2 mono amps. I have a HT system and about 2 months ago I decided it sounded good but I wanted great! So I think this set up will work for my needs. If you wanted to keep a HT room and a 2 channel room then of course it won't work. I don't see DVD audio or SACD getting rid of CDs as fast as records disappered. There are a lot of people who still don't have 5.1 yet and do not want it. Xman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I still use Sonic Holography on my C-1 preamp. The theory behind it seems solid enough (manual has a big essay about it) and it really tightens up the focus of the instruments and the soundstage. The downside is speaker placement is absolutely critical and the sweet spot is tiny. 5.1 for music seems kind of silly since when you are watching/listening to live music the sound is coming from one direction, there isn't a guitar player in the upper right balcony, and a drummer behind you. And as Carver and a few others have shown, you can crated the ambiance of a venue with two speakers with little problem. For movies you're are trying to recreate reality where sound is coming at you from all directions, so it makes a lot more sense (even if it's usually butchered in application). ---------------- I think it was the first sucessful DSP device on the market and was until Bob Carver matured the "Sonic Hologram" with digital delay. That's the basis for all the DSPs out there today. Rick ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 The DAV-A of Magnification by Yes is very well done. The rears carry crowd noise and an ocassional echo. The live cut puts you in the 5th row. This is not the total weird Yes music they sometimes produce. I like it. It is only Anderson, Howe, Squire (!) and White with a full orchestra, no keyboardist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfogg Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 " 5.1 for music seems kind of silly since when you are watching/listening to live music the sound is coming from one direction, there isn't a guitar player in the upper right balcony, and a drummer behind you." That really isn't what 5.1 music is about at least not when it is done well. With a good 5.1 mix the performance is up front as always, the surrounds are use to give you the 'sound' of the space the performance was made in... IOW it is used for the halls ambiance. When done well the results are far beyond what can be accomplished in stereo. It really is no different them some of the early gimmicky stereo recordings that ping ponged between the two speakers. Once the engineers settled down and used 2 channels to good effect the playback surpassed what came before it. Same thing is occuring now with 5.1 recordings. " you can crated the ambiance of a venue with two speakers with little problem. " For one person in a very fixed sweet spot and that still can't really get ambiance from all around you. Also the proper speaker positioning for this with the Carver is very different then how the speakers would normally be placed for typical stereo listening. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 It is sad to read people talking about multichannel music who have obviously never heard it. If someone isn't interested in MCH, that's fine. But when someone says that he's not interested in it because he doesn't want flying guitars swirling around him and drums behind him etc etc blah blah blah, it just shows to me that he has never heard MCH. Criticize it for some vaild reasons, like you don't have enough space, or don't want to spend the money. Criticizing it for having a mix that it actually does not have, and that you just think that it has, is ignorant. And there is no law that says a recording has to represent what it would be like if you saw the performers live. A studio recording with a concept behind it can do anything the artists wants. Are you going to skip listening to "Sgt Pepper" because the Beatles couldn't have had a horse and a rooster on stage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hardy Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Let's see: this post leads me to 4 comments: 1) Remember the description of the surround sound hi-fi in Anthony Burgess' "(A) Clockwork Orange"? (the original novel, not the movie... although the hifi stuff in Kubrick's movie is very cool, too). Is there a correlation between surround sound and the (anarchistic) state of society? :-) 2) As to quad re-mixes and re-masters. I have a German matrixed quad (SQ or QS, I forget) version of "Dark Side of the Moon". The mix is quite different than the "redbook" verison we all know and love. Wonder if it'll pop up on one of these SACD remasters? 3) Last night I was listening to a "live" recording of an Australian boys' choir (Sydney Grammar School) performing Christmas music recorded in a church in Sydney. The recording was simply mic'ed and the mics were far enough back in the church to capture plenty of the space's ambience and echo. I was listening and thinking: why would anyone ever add phony ambience to a recording (unless they'd never heard the real thing) and also why I would ever want/need speakers behind me to simulate what I was already hearing with the Paramours and Cornies cranked up on this beautiful recording. 4) What about famous recordings such as Cowboy Junkies' "Trinity Sessions" recorded with the "Ambisonics" microphone? How do you make an x.1 mix of that ? (sorry about the underlining... I inadvertently stuck an HTML tag in there and I can't get it out!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgb Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 It does a pretty darn good job without sounding artificial. The speaker placement is pretty standard, but being placed at least a foot from either wall (2' from back wall is prefereable). For one person in a very fixed sweet spot and that still can't really get ambiance from all around you. Also the proper speaker positioning for this with the Carver is very different then how the speakers would normally be placed for typical stereo listening. Shawn ---------------- 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.