The Ultimate Battle : Stereo Performance of AVRs ?

[lovinthehd]

Do instruments fly overhead? I hope not, especially pianos.

It matters little if an instrument literally is flown overhead on a stage....but could be interesting if safety needs are met (assuming some asshole isn't all anti-OSHA type regulations because he's such a genius).

 

[BriReeves629]

Do instruments fly overhead? I hope not, especially pianos.

Have you never been to a Motley Crue concert?

 

[killdozzer]

Where did the troll go?

He seemed to me like he had certain expectations, like he would be met here with an applause and admiration and then had a sudden realization of how huge his misjudgement was.

A lot of these "AVR's can never match with a proper..." see themselves as being bigger experts and true knowledge keepers so they often hastily expect agreement since they think all experts must think like them. That's why I think they often charge forums like these with a loud "hey everyone, let's prove those AVR buyers they don't know sh..." And after that you can hear crickets chirping, needles dropping and such.

 

[killdozzer]

I know we probably have most of these scattered around these forums, but could we compile them here; all the "extra hard work" for the amp; all the heavy or heaviest loads for the amp? What are the most difficult tasks for the amp?

Obviously, I know about lower impedance speakers and higher SPL, but what are those rarely mentioned if any? I don't know if lower speakers sensitivity counts as one, I guess ti does indirectly since higher SPL will burden the amp more if the speakers are of lower sensitivity. Are there any others?

The reason I ask is, and allow for an analogy (even if I know analogies are not the best way to go about it), compare it to safety in cars. Obeying all the traffic laws would make you safe even without a single airbag, but you want them for when it counts. 500 HP you don't really need to get to work, but they're quite handy when you DO need them. So, what would be an amp that doesn't win your hearts with all the features, but stays perfectly clean throughout the hardship and does that with flying colors, like THD doesn't even raise a bit no matter how hard you drive it or it just walks over all the transients without ever skipping a beat...

If we're not talking about what suffices, but what is an "ass kicking, built like a tank, most clean and stable" amp in the most difficult situations?

 

[highfigh]

Have you never been to a Motley Crue concert?

No, but does the sound of a guitar flying overhead come from the FOH speakers, or from the guitar flying overhead?

 

[highfigh]

It matters little if an instrument literally is flown overhead on a stage....but could be interesting if safety needs are met (assuming some asshole isn't all anti-OSHA type regulations because he's such a genius).

But live recordings are less common than studio recordings and the instrument placement for the latter is fabricated, anyway, unless it's a classical recording and the orchestra or smaller group are using traditional instrument placements.

I have heard of a band from Chicago whose drummer, as it turns out, is a friend of someone I know- they're called 'The Falling Wallendas'. If they ever fly the massive drum set, I'm not gonna be there.

 

[highfigh]

I kinda feel the same way. Especially when you consider how studio music is recorded. It’s not like it’s actually recorded in stereo! There’s multiple tracks recorded, at DIFFERENT times often in separate rooms from one another on completely different days or weeks even. THEN an engineer puts it all together to make it sound like a group of musicians all together in one room at one time. I also have to laugh when people talk about stereo superiority and soooo faithfully recreating the performance in their rooms. While there certainly are recordings of actual performances in certain recording venues, I think the majority are mainly close mic’d small room recordings.

Even worse- people say they want music to play through their system so it sounds the same as when it was recorded without a clue as to how real instruments sound up close, how the sound is altered so it blends together well, how the mistakes are repaired or all of the equipment used in a typical audio system in a control room.

 

[Pogre]

No, but does the sound of a guitar flying overhead come from the FOH speakers, or from the guitar flying overhead?

From Tommy Lee's drum kit.

 

[sterling shoote]

H


How many great multi-channel recordings have you heard vs the really bad ones?

The recording industry is far from what it once was- if they won't recover their costs, they won't do it. Someone is paying for the remastering- the consumer. If they don't buy, it will stop.

I do not have any bad multi-channel audio recordings. All my multi-channel SACDs and downloads present music with breath and depth not heard from stereo; and, instruments and voices are placed where imagined they should be. This multi-channel experience is not a surround-sound one where sound seems to emanate from behind my listening chair. At any rate, we are all being depressed by record producers who present stereo as the defacto means to recorded music pleasure. Things may be changing however, since multi-channel pleasure can be enjoyed now with no expense but for the media, most out there today having a ubiquitous multi-channel AVR.

BTW, right now this is what I'm listening to in 3 channel stereo from my OPPP 205 and it is wonderful.

 

[Kingnoob]

Do instruments fly overhead? I hope not, especially pianos.

Good point , but the death of most brands carrying stereo amps seems to say . Avr is king in sales , even if they suck for music.
Aren’t avr king?? The only way you can get stereo is often separates.
If music is recorded for stereo it’s always going to sound better in that mode then
Surround sound .

On my onkyo I only like music on all channel stereo . Everything else usually sounds buzzard or overly processed, surround and music only mix in a overly big room .
My vote goes to vintage stereo receivers winning this battle as new ones are rarely made or cost a small fortune.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irvrobinson]

I do not have any bad multi-channel audio recordings. All my multi-channel SACDs and downloads present music with breath and depth not heard from stereo; and, instruments and voices are placed where imagined they should be. This multi-channel experience is not a surround-sound one where sound seems to imitate from behind my listening chair. At any rate, we are all being depressed by record producers who present stereo as the defacto means to recorded music pleasure. Things may be changing however, since multi-channel pleasure can be enjoyed now with no expense but for the media, most out there today having a ubiquitous multi-channel AVR.View attachment 31756BTW, right now this is what I'm listening to in 3 channel stereo from my OPPP 205 and it is wonderful.

I own that album. What does using a center mixed-mono channel (which I'm assuming is the third channel) add to the listening experience that you don't get with stereo two-channel?

 

[sterling shoote]

I own that album. What does using a center mixed-mono channel (which I'm assuming is the third channel) add to the listening experience that you don't get with stereo two-channel?

You get the illusion of a wider stage.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You get the illusion of a wider stage.

You mean it expands the stereo image beyond the edges of the L/R speakers?

 

[Verdinut]

I own that album. What does using a center mixed-mono channel (which I'm assuming is the third channel) add to the listening experience that you don't get with stereo two-channel?

@Irvrobinson ,
The center channel on those Mercury SACDs is not a mixed-mono channel.

Part of text from a booklet accompanying those SACDs:
The aim of the engineering team was to capture as accurately and completely as possible the true sound of the original tapes and 35 mm film masters for some of the discs. The multi-channel capability of SACD allows the listener to experience the recordings in their original three-channel format.
For the transfers to the SACD format, Saki Magnetics three-channel heads (specifically built for that disc series) were mounted on a Studer A80R ½ inch or Studer A820 1" recorder. Both machines were substantially modified to optimize tape reproduction and the analogue-to-digital conversion was done exclusively via DSD using dCS equipment.
Throughout the entire process, repeated comparisons were made both to a playback of the original masters on an Ampex 300 machine belonging to Wilma Cozart Fine and to the original CD transfers which she herself prepared.

Those late 1950's and early 1960's recordings were all originally made using a three channel recording process for the left, center and right channels. The same technique was also used by RCA for some of their 3-channel Living Stereo SACDs.

 

[Irvrobinson]

@Irvrobinson ,
The center channel on those Mercury SACDs is not a mixed-mono channel.

Part of text from a booklet accompanying those SCADs:
The aim of the engineering team was to capture as accurately and completely as possible the true sound of the original tapes and 35 mm film masters for some of the discs. The multi-channel capability of SACD allows the listener to experience the recordings in their original three-channel format.
For the transfers to the SACD format, Saki Magnetics three-channel heads (specifically built for that disc series) were mounted on a Studer A80R ½ inch or Studer A820 1" recorder. Both machines were substantially modified to optimize tape reproduction and the analogue-to-digital conversion was done exclusively via DSD using dCS equipment.
Throughout the entire process, repeated comparisons were made both to a playback of the original masters on an Ampex 300 machine belonging to Wilma Cozart Fine and to the original CD transfers which she herself prepared.

Those late 1950's and early 1960's recordings were all originally made using a three channel recording process for the left, center and right channels. The same technique was also used by RCA for some of their 3-channel Living Stereo SACDs.

I'm aware of the Mercury recording process using three spaced omnidirectional mics. I was not aware that was an SACD (I own the CD version), nor was I aware that there was an advantage to materializing the center mic's feed to a separate speaker. Frankly, I'm a skeptic, but whatever.

 

[Verdinut]

I'm aware of the Mercury recording process using three spaced omnidirectional mics. I was not aware that was an SACD (I own the CD version), nor was I aware that there was an advantage to materializing the center mic's feed to a separate speaker. Frankly, I'm a skeptic, but whatever.

Shortly after those were 3-channel recordings were made, Living Presence Stereo LPs were released and I assume that the center channel signal was partly mixed with both left and right channels for the 2-channel stereo format. Afterwards, with the advent of the CD, Mercury released many of those recordings in this format. As you know, the SACD format came later and the firm decided then to use this opportunity to transfer to this multi-channel format exactly what the engineers heard when the recordings were made. I own several of those Mercury Living Presence SACDs and they are amazing.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yep, too bad we got stuck with the limitations of 2ch audio....I blame vinyl

 

[Jon AA]

If music is recorded for stereo it’s always going to sound better in that mode then Surround sound .

Sounds like somebody needs a proper Auro 3D demo....

 

[Kingnoob]

Sounds like somebody needs a proper Auro 3D demo....

I’ve been to Cinemark xd auro 11.1 it was amazing yes but there speakers are not too clear overly loud . Super high spl , do home amps hav auro 3d??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

Good point , but the death of most brands carrying stereo amps seems to say . Avr is king in sales , even if they suck for music.
Aren’t avr king?? The only way you can get stereo is often separates.
If music is recorded for stereo it’s always going to sound better in that mode then
Surround sound .

On my onkyo I only like music on all channel stereo . Everything else usually sounds buzzard or overly processed, surround and music only mix in a overly big room .
My vote goes to vintage stereo receivers winning this battle as new ones are rarely made or cost a small fortune.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have four avrs that don't suck for music, must have gotten lucky or you just don't have any experience? I replaced 2ch separates with those avrs, too. 2ch music can be matrixed well altho it may depend on what you listen to.

Thought you got rid of the stupid phone/tapatalk ad?