Can't listen to CD anymore.

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>I am sitting here, while my wife is in class, listening to Linda Rhondstadt's What's New on DVD audio and then I switch to Bobby Caldwell's Come Rain or Come Shine on CD and It is like listening to an MP3 or something. God I am so blown away by how good DVD audio, SACD and DTS 96/24 sound, that I find hard to listen to regular CD's anymore. I used to have the What's New album on a Half Speed Master album with a Thorens turntable and it never sounded as good as it does on the DVD A disc. It is just amazing how good it is. Does anyone else have this problem with CD's afters listening to the other formats?</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>Yes. &nbsp;If I'm gonna be listening to music all nite, I always make sure to listen to my DVD-A & SACD stuff last.</font>

[Clint DeBoer]

<font color='#000080'>I did a comparison between SACD and CD tracks on the Nora Jones album and was blown away by the lack of smooth reverb on the 16-bit tracks. Amazing difference.

I woudln't rule out CDs as being crap, but if you have a choice I could honestly see trading all my albums in for SACD.

Multi-channel is another story. Sometimes, that's just "different", not necessarily better.</font>

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>So far I have not heard a multi channel that I dislike. Pink Floyd,Dark side of the moon, Queen, the game, Steely Dan, all sound amazing. What I find ironic is how some audio snobs try to bash multi channel; yet when they demo some fancy smancy setup to you the first thing they say is " hey do you hear how deep that sound stage is? How 3 dimensional it sounds? Not as 3 dimensional as 5.1 buddy <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'> &nbsp;I am really starting to dislike the audio snobs now, after all the years of lies they have been feeding people. I agree that some multi channel stuff could get messed up if not done with care.</font>

[Rip Van Woofer]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>jeffsg4mac : <font color='#000000'>What I find ironic is how some audio snobs try to bash multi channel; yet when they demo some fancy smancy setup to you the first thing they say is " hey do you hear how deep that sound stage is? How 3 dimensional it sounds? Not as 3 dimensional as 5.1 buddy <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'> *I am really starting to dislike the audio snobs now, after all the years of lies they have been feeding people.</font>
<font color='#000000'>Ah, when I read things like that it warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of our hobby!

I'm an old (well, middle-aged) fart still stuck in stereo. My preamp is 30 years old. Because I'm a stereo snob? Au contraire! I'm just marking time till I can afford to make the leap to multichannel. Besides the crappy economy putting the pinch on my discretionary income, I still need to go to school on this stuff (this site sure helps!).

It's a mystery to me why the stereo snobs can't understand that a real center image is superior to a phantom center image*. Or is it because it's done digitally? After all, "digital" is still a dirty word to lots of 'philes.

Hell, when I read the stuff from on the CES pages about digital active crossovers, real-time room correction and stuff like that on top of multichannel sound at prices mere mortals can afford I feel like I'm falling in lust all over again! If this is the Brave New World of audio, bring it on, baby! I'm all ears!

Hmmm...those Sherwood separates sure look sweet...!

*A bit of historical trivia I ran across: when the early work on stereo was being done at Bell Labs in the '30's it included a center channel!</font>

[Clint DeBoer]

<font color='#000080'>A lot of this is a quality issue. An excellent pair of stereo speaker will image much better than a so-so set of fronts and center. Having directional sound doesn't necessarily designate it as having "good imaging".

I personally prefer to have decent speakers all around, but there is a distinct enjoyment to good imaging - whther it is from stereo or multi-channel.

But yes, there are snobs out there who won't be satisfied unless they are listening to distorted tube playback on stereo with esoteric cables and magic brass dampening blocks on top of their gear.</font>

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>How about Onix stones as dampers, there is a site detailing the whole procedure and even selling Onix and Jade stones to keep on top of your CDP, speakers and amps.


Wonders never cease <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'></font>

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>So what's the link?? Gotta get me some of those to go with my crystal pyramids!! <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'>

I've been thinking of offering my own magic stones. I go fly fishing a lot in northern Michigan and the stream bottoms are gravelly. I could bring home a five gallon bucket of genuine Michigan Magnetic Glacial Rocks, put 'em in a tumbler to make them nice and shiny, and write a bunch of hooey about the magical properties imparted by millenia of tumbling about in the pure northern waters enriched by trout poop after being transported from the Arctic by glaciers (where the rocks were first formed close to the Van Allen belt radiation under the northern lights, of course -- lots of mojo there) and retire to a life of ease!

On the other hand, I was at a wholesale craft supply shop recently and saw good sized mesh bags of polished river pebbles for less than a buck a bag, so maybe I don't even need to bother lugging buckets home and buying a tumbler...

PayPal accepted! Step right up!</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'>I haven't had the chance to hear DVD-A but considering the sound of some regular DVDs I have I'd really like to. I have SACD and have been impressed with the bottom end on the rock/pop cds but not overwhelmingly so. I have The Whos Tommy on SACD and thought it was absolutly fantastic sounding, but when I took it out to my car and played it on my non SACD player it still sounded great. It's just a great sounding album period. I haven't noticed much difference in the one classical SACD I own which is disappointing because I feel classicla could use the most help. I don't have multi-channel yet and I don't know if I want it. I'm not an audio snob but I really haven't heard any multi setups that really impressed me, in movie theaters or in homes (but than again all I have heard were movies), I know that it can be done right and I'm open minded to it. It's something I'll have to learn more about. I might opt for a center channel, but some of this stuff seems to sound so dang good with a nice dedicated two channel system that I think why bother with the huge cost and complicated set up of buying a new receiver and speakers.</font>

[av_phile]

<font color='#000000'>I have yet to get my hands on a universal player. *But the 5.1 DD/DTS tracks on a DVD-audio are impressive enough for me. *Multi-channl discreet sound is impressively immersive as it gives a totally new listenning experience. *Although a bit artifical and unrealistic. *(It isn't everyday you get to listen to a jazz ensemble right in the middle of the group, do you???) *But *DVD-As, whether multichannel or stereo, I'm starting my collection. *I just wish they start releasing more titles in that format. *Unfortunately, i still must get CDs as the new ones from my favorite aritsts are released only on CDs. *Tsk Tsk</font>

<font color='#000000'>I just got a universal player and hven't hooked it up yet(gotta hang the palsma this weekend first) but some of the problem is that many CDs are recorded so poorly. See AH article few months back. If you like jazz or blues try mapleshaderecords.com. I don't want to be a shill but the guy making the recordings blows anything else I've heard away. Drums are great in particular. He hangs a piece of plywood above the kit to reflect sound back down to the one mic. Like Rob Babcock, I save the mapleshade for last as nothing else sounds any good after. It'll make you love redbook again. Good prices too.</font>

[allengarman]

<font color='#000000'>I have also experienced some dissatisfaction with my old CDs relative to DVD-As. &nbsp;

Notably, my "Diamond Life" CD by Sade leaves me wanting more after listening to some DVD-As. &nbsp;The music seems a bit hollow and her voice lacks some warmth.

Interestingly, my observation of the sound disparity phenomenon occurred while trying out my new set of 5 speakers, so I did not have any preconceived relative opinion of DVD-A versus CD. &nbsp;My new higher-end speakers actually reveal more of the music, and ultimately help to expose the CDs lower level of information.</font>

[duff]

<font color='#000000'>I just bought a universal player (pioneer 563A), and I'm loving multichannel music (only have DSOTM, the Flaming Lips latest, and a couple of Dave Matthews tracks (which may be DTS only)).

Bu I am surprised that I can't really discern a difference in quality for the high-res recordings. *

I ran a test with DSOTM: I downmixed the 5 channels to 2 (DVD player option - to make it more comparable to the original CD), and played the original CD (a burned copy) through my basic 5 disc sony changer. *I played the 2.0 SACD at the same time (careful not to play the standard CD layer), and switched back and forth through my Denon 1803. *

While llistening to the SACD, I was thinking "man that sounds good," and it seemed like the background vibed-out guitars and the light ride cymbals were smoother and more clear. *But then switching over to CD... it didn't really sound any worse. *If the test had been blind I don't think I would have been able to choose which was better. *

I don't know if I'm missing a setting somewhere, the player's transfer isn't up to par, I need more time with it, if I just anticipated a bigger difference, or what. *But I think I have a fairly good ear and I'm a little bummed I can't really hear an improvement.

Anyone else have this experience?</font>

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>The DSOTM is not the best recording to test that out with, use a DVD audio disk of some sort in high res 96/24 or 192/24 then you will hear the difference. And remember that the 563a upconverts the SACD stream to PCM so it is not going to sound as good as DVD audio does on that unit. It sounds very good and much better than CD but not as good as DVD audio.</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>Well, the CD layer of the *new* DSotM does sound fantastic, so that's part of it. &nbsp;Plus, the SACD layer is made from the same 30 year old master tapes and merely copied onto DSD, so the source material isn't any better. &nbsp;You may find more differences among recordings actually recorded in DSD to start with.

The Pioneer player you have does convert the DSD stream from SACD to PCM, and that extra conversion is reputed to degrade the SQ of SACDs a bit. &nbsp;I had Pioneer DVD universal machine, too, and SACD still sounded a bit better but not as good as DVD-A (where it starts PCM).

Personally, I'm not sure whether it's the higher resolution or the MC sound that improves the experience for me. &nbsp;Certainly the sound is more open and less fatiguing in HiRez, but the spacial quality of MC really gives an album life.</font>

[av_phile]

<font color='#000000'>Are DVD-audio files in WAV format? *Has anyone heard about this DVD+audio thing which upsamples CD wav files from 16/44.1 to 24/96 and playable in ordinary DVD video players. It's not DVD-audio. &nbsp;I ask this because my CD copying software may have the upsampling ability to go 24/96 and output it as a WAV file but am not sure if either the CD player or a DVD player will read this. &nbsp;I could try ofcourse. &nbsp;

Here's the cite for anyone interested:

http://www.eximius.nl/dvdaudio.php

Would appreciate hearing your evaluation of this.</font>

[EdHeath]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Rip Van Woofer : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (jeffsg4mac @ Jan. 22 2004,15:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I find ironic is how some audio snobs try to bash multi channel; yet when they demo some fancy smancy setup to you the first thing they say is " hey do you hear how deep that sound stage is? How 3 dimensional it sounds? Not as 3 dimensional as 5.1 buddy :p *I am really starting to dislike the audio snobs now, after all the years of lies they have been feeding people.
Ah, when I read things like that it warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of our hobby!

I'm an old (well, middle-aged) fart still stuck in stereo. My preamp is 30 years old. Because I'm a stereo snob? Au contraire! I'm just marking time till I can afford to make the leap to multichannel. Besides the crappy economy putting the pinch on my discretionary income, I still need to go to school on this stuff (this site sure helps!).

It's a mystery to me why the stereo snobs can't understand that a real center image is superior to a phantom center image*. Or is it because it's done digitally? After all, "digital" is still a dirty word to lots of 'philes.

Hell, when I read the stuff from on the CES pages about digital active crossovers, real-time room correction and stuff like that on top of multichannel sound at prices mere mortals can afford I feel like I'm falling in lust all over again! If this is the Brave New World of audio, bring it on, baby! I'm all ears!

Hmmm...those Sherwood separates sure look sweet...!

*A bit of historical trivia I ran across: when the early work on stereo was being done at Bell Labs in the '30's it included a center channel!</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#000000'>Name calling is always a waste of time and space, as is responding to it.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Anyone who cannot hear a well defined 'center', a clearly delineated soundstage, and clear, defined sonic images on a two channel stereo system is listening to a poorly performing stereo system. &nbsp;I don't think there is anything 'snobish' about someone's personal preferences, whether it is in audio or choice of spirits.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;For whatever reason, it's of no consequence, I much prefer my two channel system to any multi-channel that I have heard. &nbsp;This is particularly true of SACDs (I do not hear the same qualities in DVD-A). &nbsp;SACDs have greater depth, a better defined stage, and a more realistic center than regular CDs. &nbsp;To my easr, SACD does everything better, except the bass balance, which seems a little 'down' compared to CDs (an easily adjusted problem with the Richter Scale III balance knob).
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I have no pronounced dislike of multi-channel, as long as the extra speakers (other than the unnecessary sub and center) are occupied solely with delivering room acoustics from the recording venue. &nbsp;Anything more reminds me of the "Ping Pong' effects often heard when stereo was new. &nbsp;It had nothing to do with the quality of the music, so it had no place on the recording. &nbsp;The same is true of the "middle of the band" seating position on some multi-channel recordings. &nbsp;I have never seen such a ticket for sale, and fear the bandstand would become far too crowded if they were. &nbsp;Some DVD-As seem overoccupied with such effects. &nbsp;My player will handle DVD-A, but i have none of the discs, and won't, until I badly want a piece of music that is unavailable in any other format. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I, as does an earlier writer, &nbsp;feel a bit of impending loss when I put a CD in the tray, now. &nbsp;I know in advance that I am not going to be allowed as deeply into the performance as I would be if it were an SACD, instead. &nbsp;It is no big disappointment; no more than the difference between some well done and poorly done CDs. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I have diana Krall's "The Look Of Love" on both CD and SACD, and the former never gets played anymore. &nbsp;The latter allows me to experience a lot more of the music and the artist than does the CD, so why would I choose less over more, since I have that option. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;After 35 years in the hobby (speaker building), and a lifetime of loving music, I never expected to hear another quantum step forward to equal the new format. &nbsp;The superiority of an SACD would require several years of tweaking and refining to achieve, but yet, here it is, and for less than a thousand dollars, and no work but to make a couple of plug-in connections. &nbsp;It is quite a gift, and largely unexpected to boot. &nbsp;I had read some reviewers who could not hear the difference; I wonder what in hell they were using for a plaback system?!? &nbsp;Resolving ability has to be up to a certain standard, but it ceetainly need not be a $50,000.00 system to hear the difference. &nbsp;On the other hand, don't expect to have your sox blown off through a boom box.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SACD is definitely for real, and if one wishes to get as close to the music as possible, then it is a required addition to the system. &nbsp;I would not feel cheated, if I were to get a bill from Ms Krall for the "proximity fee" that I owe for the the additional depth into the music that I am allowed to experience with her SACD over the CD of the same performance. &nbsp;The price of the player was audio money spent as well as any I have ever invested before.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; EdHeath</font>

[EdHeath]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Rip Van Woofer : <font color='#000000'>]What I find ironic is how some audio snobs try to bash multi channel; yet when they demo some fancy smancy setup to you the first thing they say is " hey do you hear how deep that sound stage is?</font>
<font color='#000000'>Name calling is always a waste of time and space, as is responding to it.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Anyone who cannot hear a well defined 'center', a clearly delineated soundstage, and clear, defined sonic images on a two channel stereo system is listening to a poorly performing stereo system. &nbsp;I don't think there is anything 'snobish' about someone's personal preferences, whether it is in audio or choice of spirits.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;For whatever reason, it's of no consequence, I much prefer my two channel system to any multi-channel that I have heard. &nbsp;This is particularly true of SACDs (I do not hear the same qualities in DVD-A). &nbsp;SACDs have greater depth, a better defined stage, and a more realistic center than regular CDs. &nbsp;To my easr, SACD does everything better, except the bass balance, which seems a little 'down' compared to CDs (an easily adjusted problem with the Richter Scale III balance knob).
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I have no pronounced dislike of multi-channel, as long as the extra speakers (other than the unnecessary sub and center) are occupied solely with delivering room acoustics from the recording venue. &nbsp;Anything more reminds me of the "Ping Pong' effects often heard when stereo was new. &nbsp;It had nothing to do with the quality of the music, so it had no place on the recording. &nbsp;The same is true of the "middle of the band" seating position on some multi-channel recordings. &nbsp;I have never seen such a ticket for sale, and fear the bandstand would become far too crowded if they were. &nbsp;Some DVD-As seem overoccupied with such effects. &nbsp;My player will handle DVD-A, but i have none of the discs, and won't, until I badly want a piece of music that is unavailable in any other format. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I, as does an earlier writer, &nbsp;feel a bit of impending loss when I put a CD in the tray, now. &nbsp;I know in advance that I am not going to be allowed as deeply into the performance as I would be if it were an SACD, instead. &nbsp;It is no big disappointment; no more than the difference between some well done and poorly done CDs. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;I have diana Krall's "The Look Of Love" on both CD and SACD, and the former never gets played anymore. &nbsp;The latter allows me to experience a lot more of the music and the artist than does the CD, so why would I choose less over more, since I have that option. &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;After 35 years in the hobby (speaker building), and a lifetime of loving music, I never expected to hear another quantum step forward to equal the new format. &nbsp;The superiority of an SACD would require several years of tweaking and refining to achieve, but yet, here it is, and for less than a thousand dollars, and no work but to make a couple of plug-in connections. &nbsp;It is quite a gift, and largely unexpected to boot. &nbsp;I had read some reviewers who could not hear the difference; I wonder what in hell they were using for a plaback system?!? &nbsp;Resolving ability has to be up to a certain standard, but it ceetainly need not be a $50,000.00 system to hear the difference. &nbsp;On the other hand, don't expect to have your sox blown off through a boom box.
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; SACD is definitely for real, and if one wishes to get as close to the music as possible, then it is a required addition to the system. &nbsp;I would not feel cheated, if I were to get a bill from Ms Krall for the "proximity fee" that I owe for the the additional depth into the music that I am allowed to experience with her SACD over the CD of the same performance. &nbsp;The price of the player was audio money spent as well as any I have ever invested before.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; EdHeath</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I have the SACD and DVD-A versions of "The Look of Love"- the SACD version hasn't been in the player twice after I heard the DVD-A version of it. &nbsp;Ditto for Beck's "Sea Change." &nbsp;So far, most of the best sounding discs I've heard are DVD-A (especially the two newest Steely Dan discs and Fagan's solo discs).

I will refrain from commenting right now on which format is inherently better; however, you should at least listen to one of the really superb DVD-A discs (eg Zephyr's "Voices Unbounded") before passing judgement on the format. &nbsp;I guess your opinion is your own, but for your own sake you really owe it to yourself to make the decision an informed one.

There are some gimmicky surround mixes in abundance for both formats, as well as DTS CD. &nbsp;I agree wholeheartedly that a guitar solo really doesn't need to pop up in the rear channel- that's really distracting and annoying. &nbsp;Still, we're in the "Wright Flyer" phase of MC recording where CD is in the last days (in the sense that the format has pretty much been optimized by this point). &nbsp;There are some guys out there that really know how to do MC right. &nbsp;Hopefully their voices will ultimately carry the day.

Both formats make listening to CD pretty tough. &nbsp;For my own part, I haven't yet decided how much of the improvement come from the higher resolution and how much is the MC element.</font>

[frkuhn]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same is true of the "middle of the band" seating position on some multi-channel recordings. *I have never seen such a ticket for sale, and fear the bandstand would become far too crowded if they were.</td></tr></table>

I don't agree with this "wrongness" of the middle of the band approach. For me, is so unnatural as to seat in the middle of an empty venue, that I've never been to, listening to the Miles Davis Quintet with John Coltrane play in front of me in 1956. It's ALL a ilusion, remember, there's NO ONE playing in your living room.

I believe after so many years of stereo (which best possible ilusion would be to put the band in front of you) we "learned" that that was the right approach, and anything other than that feels unnatural.

Of course, it takes good taste to make a good "middle of the band" mix, as it takes to make a good stereo one, but I don't think it's wrong from the start. After all, if I actually had been in a empty venue with the Miles Davis Quintet, I certainly would end up walking onstage to hang out with them! Wouldn't you? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'></font>

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>Sorry Ed I have to disagree a lot. Every single DVD A and SACD I have sound superior in the multi channel format. The most notable being the DVD A of Linda Ronstadts What's New. The multi channel blows the 2 channel away and the 2 channel is even in 192/24 vs 96/24 for the multi. The multi channel recordings done well put you right on the stage with the artist something that 2 channel has never and can never do.</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I had read some reviewers who could not hear the difference; I wonder what in hell they were using for a plaback system?!? </td></tr></table> Certain SACD recordings with no bass and lots of highs, like solo piano (Murray Perhia's Goldberg Variations on Sony) or solo female vocals (Anonymous 4's 11'000 Virgins on Harmonia Mundi) don't have a really noticeable difference to their CD counterparts, from what I've heard.</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Name calling is always a waste of time and space, as is responding to it.
* * Anyone who cannot hear a well defined 'center', a clearly delineated soundstage, and clear, defined sonic images on a two channel stereo system is listening to a poorly performing stereo system. *I don't think there is anything 'snobish' about someone's personal preferences, whether it is in audio or choice of spirits.
</td></tr></table> You are on a board dominated by multi-channel enthusiasts my friend. Some of them may have MC receivers that might not even allow them to hear correct 2-channel, at least the Sony I used to have didn't, but just because a person likes to hear their music unnaturally and filled with colorations doesn't make it bad to them, just like someone who prefers to hear in 2-channel shouldn't be labeled an old fashioned audiophile snob for doing so. However, I for one agree with you. I have two ears, and humans hear in stereo, so... In the rush for the latest and greatest, some people have forgotten about how good 2-channel can be. I remain open minded about MC though. Some certain recordings may sound better in MC with some certain set-ups, but I've only read about them, and never actually heard one I liked. Whenever I'm in a store that has a demo room filled with tons of huge speakers and expensive gear, I just walk on by. If they stop adding on more unnecessary channels (bigger is always better isn't it America?) and get MC recordings and gear more standardized there might be some improvments. In the mean time I will stick with pure, cost effective, pain-in-the-butt free, audiophile grade 2-channel.</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>Stereo can be nice, but the two ear argument seems a little absurd to me: &nbsp;you have two eyes, right? &nbsp;Do you watch two TVs at once!? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'></font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Rob Babcock : <font color='#000000'>Stereo can be nice, but the two ear argument seems a little absurd to me: *you have two eyes, right? *Do you watch two TVs at once!? <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':laugh:'></font>
<font color='#000000'>I can if I cross 'em! &nbsp;<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':O'></font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">pain-in-the-butt free,</td></tr></table> Hey! what's up with the censorship? I said pain-in-the-@$$ <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':angry:'></font>

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>So by that logic I could very easy sneak up behind you because you can't hear in that direction, only in front of you. Hogwash, you hear in 3D just as well as you see in 3D. I don't know what some of you have been listening to, but it certainly was not a properly calibrated and well setup multi channel system, otherwise I doubt you would have the opinion you do. One thing is for sure, if a multi channel system is setup and calibrated incorrectly it is going to sound wrong and bad. Much worse than a 2 channel setup. Proper calibration is more critical when trying to place sounds not only left to right but front to back and every other combination as well. Levels must be balanced correctly or everything is lost and it will sound like doo doo.</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>jeffsg4mac : So by that logic I could very easy sneak up behind you because you can't hear in that direction, only in front of you. Hogwash, you hear in 3D just as well as you see in 3D. I don't know what some of you have been listening to, but it certainly was not a properly calibrated and well setup multi channel system, otherwise I doubt you would have the opinion you do. One thing is for sure, if a multi channel system is setup and calibrated incorrectly it is going to sound wrong and bad. Much worse than a 2 channel setup. Proper calibration is more critical when trying to place sounds not only left to right but front to back and every other combination as well. Levels must be balanced correctly or everything is lost and it will sound like doo doo.
There's a link for a little article on the way human's hear below. Better start washing those hogs! Humans can perceive or mimmick sound in 3D, but they certainly can't hear in 7.1 channel. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys is deaf in one ear and produced their early albums in mono because he heard in, and understood mono, and Pet Sounds is one of the greatest mono albums ever made. Try covering one of your ears next time you listen to your MC music and you'll notice little difference between that and stereo. Also, I don't think we can compare sight to hearing as they are totally different, and yes it's possible for someone to sneak up behind me without hearing them, but they couldn't if they were in front because I could see them! Anyway, one of the points EdHeath was trying to make was that good 2-channel can give you excellent 3D imaging, even to the point were it sounds like you have surrounds. I'm not knocking MC. If I had the space and could afford it I'd have two different systems, one MC and one 2-channel, but I can't so 2-channel is my first choice, and I don't see any need for more than four speakers and possibly a sub if your speakers are small. I've never felt 2-channel lacking in a center image for either movies or music. After watching TLOTR-The Two Towers on my stepdads poorly set-up mismatched speakered MC system, and even though our rooms are totally different, I was shocked at the difference when I watched the same movie on my measly (but correctly set-up) 2-channel system. My NAD 50W amp and *little PSB's had way better depth and imaging and much more and better bass, no typical harsh digital "movie theater sound" at all, so I know how right you are in that it's essential for a MC system to be calibrated right, but it seems few care to bother. It boggles my mind why MC is so popular, considering most people, especially women, don't have a clue as how to make it work well. Having no standards as of yet and being ridiculously complicated doesn't help any. You shouldn't have to go to school and take classes in order to hear good sound! Every surround system I've ever heard in anybody's home has sounded like complete crap, and most movie theaters aren't much better. Most of the time I can't hear any surround effects at all. The only great MC experience I've had to date at a theater was watching SW-The Attack Of The Clones on a IMAX theater (too bad the movie sucked, Lucas seems to spend more time on effects and sound instead of non-essentials like acting, plot, etc.) Great sound. This was a text book to how it should be done. Mabye someday I'll meet a real MCphile like those on this board that can make me change my mind.http://www.impactmedia.com/mp3/stories/3d.html</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I don't think there is anything 'snobish' about someone's personal preferences, whether it is in audio or choice of spirits.
</td></tr></table> *I'am an unrepentent spirits snob. Only the finest Scotch/Irish Whiskeys and Cognacs are served under my roof, unless nobody brings any! *<img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'></font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I wonder where the bizarre misunderstanding that Wilson did mono because he's deaf in one ear came from? &nbsp;Any interview with him on the subject will quickly debunk this myth. &nbsp;He is indeed deaf in one ear, but he also made stereo recordings. &nbsp;The main reason he recorded Pet Sounds in mono is because at that time a great amount of stuff was in mono and he did indeed understand it well.

His later stuff is all stereo.</font>

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>I guess I'll jump in again: I think the original bashing of "stereo snobs" that I gleefully joined in on early in this thread was in regards to a certain coterie of high-enders who are tendentious and dogmatic in their claims for the superiority of stereo. Much like those who continue to claim the superiority of tubes and vinyl against all reason and evidence*. But yes, name-calling is generally uncalled for, I agree.

Hmmm, I hope I used "tendentious" correctly...

----------
*On some boards, I'd be lynched for that statement!</font>

[A. Vivaldi]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Rob Babcock : I wonder where the bizarre misunderstanding that Wilson did mono because he's deaf in one ear came from? *Any interview with him on the subject will quickly debunk this myth. *He is indeed deaf in one ear, but he also made stereo recordings. *The main reason he recorded Pet Sounds in mono is because at that time a great amount of stuff was in mono and he did indeed understand it well.

His later stuff is all stereo.
I didn't realize that it was a myth that required debunking. I just read it once somewhere and assumed it was true. It would make sense that a person who was deaf in one ear would prefer to work in mono, but of course marketing and stuff would demand a stereo release for "normal" people. The next album after Pet Sounds, Simley Smile, was also a mono only release. Other LP versions were in fake stereo. After that everything was in stereo mainly because mono became obsolete after 1967.</font>

[frkuhn]

<font color='#000000'>Out of the stereo/MC discussion, one thing that really worries me about SACD and DVD-A is the perspective of future releases.

I'm very afraid the huge quality we have with today releases might decreases substantially when this new formats become more popular and start to be mass produced and released. I mean, today, every new hi-rez title is (or at least appears to be) carefully crafted in every stage to the best possible final product, even in the extremes of a new mix after some units have been sold if it's not OK yet (like Eric Johnson did).

I seriously doubt the same care will be taken when the new formats become "it" and titles start to be released by the dozen.</font>

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi,
Maybee I'm an optimist but I think for the most part when the novelty wears off we will also have a great many more experienced mltich producers. &nbsp;Some of thse guys to-day can't help themselves. &nbsp;There doing a mix where they feel if they don't send a ton of info to the surrounds and give us a ping pong effect, they don't feel they've earned their money.

It's the 2ch audiophiles that I feel sorry for but only from a financial perspective. &nbsp;I'm positive that sooner than later they will come around to mltich and when they do they will want to repeat the quality that they have in 2ch. &nbsp;The cost of the extra speakers alone will be astronomical.

Peter m.</font>

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#8D38C9'>I have the crappy version of Eric Johnson's "AH! Via Musicom," I'm afraid. &nbsp;Is the long awaited new version out yet? &nbsp;I'd love to get it.

I'm not sure that the quality of some MC could be any worse. &nbsp;Sure there are some very good ones (eg. "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots," Beck's "Sea Change", etc) but lots of really crappy remixes of old stuff. &nbsp;I wanna just smack the mixers that think the sax solo & guitar should occupy the right & left rear channels. <img src="http://www.audioholics.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':angry:'> &nbsp; I hope mixes get less gimicky as time goes on, except in the few cases where it really works (trance, techno, etc).</font>

[slowhand58]

<font color='#000000'>I remember years, back in the seventies in fact, I owned a Technics Cd4 system. &nbsp;All my friends thought it was a bit over the top having 4 speakers. &nbsp;It was pointed out to me that anything more than two speakers was redundant as the human ear could not process the extra information transimtted by the extra speakers. &nbsp;Now was have speakers coming out of every orifice. &nbsp;But do we know how to use them. &nbsp;I've been in homes where the ubiquitous surround set up makes me cringe it is so poorly executed. &nbsp;But then the same could be said about the way some people treated stereo in good old bad old days. &nbsp;We move on.</font>

[av_phile]

After listening to the hi-res multi-channel tracks on a few of my DVD-As, I am almost tempted to exclaim I'd never go back to 2-ch CDs. But not so fast, I've likewise listened to the recent releases of the Sony DSD 1-bit encoded CDs and HDCD formats on CD and I must say, they max out the sonic potential of my system far better than their previous mixes of the same titles before.

I had Grover Washington's Winelight on LP, CD and now, DVD-A. I recently got hold of the Feel So Good album - a 2 disc compilation of jazz and R&B containing some selections from Winelight on HDCD and I must say, I have great difficulty discerning between this 2ch-CD and a DVD-A in hi-res stereo track.

I also got a compilation of Disco hits of the 70s and 80s, one in DSD bitstream and another in HDCD. I used to dance to these hits, but now, listening to them in their newest incarnation was a total revelation. I never thought you can listen to mindless disco music. But I found myself doing so. (Maybe disco music of the past had more intellectual content than disco hits of today :D ) In glorious 2 channel stereo CD. Even in 5-channel Stereo!!

It seems the newer re-issues of old CD titles on the same media were mixed anew using 20 or 24-bit remastering where the recording engineers did a most competent job. I always believed that a recording mix is a product of these engineers. The truly excellent ones being the product of recording engineers who did well. And whether they are in LP, CD, DVD-A or SACD, there are good and bad ones. While it is true the DVD-A and SACD are technically superior in terms of capturing a performance more faithfully, often it is the quality of the mixdown into 2 or 5 channels done my recording engieners that can make a difference. An over-zealous engineer doing a ping-pong between channels can ruin a stereo mix just as easily as a 5-channel mix when he pans an instrument across all channels as if the musician were running around the room while playing.

I probably won't have the compulsion to listen anymore to old CD titles for which I have a new remix of the same titles in multi channel DVD-A format. But because there are also new CD remixes in HDCD and DSD that can sound more gorgeous than their previous issues, i'd can't let go of 2-ch CDs.