2.0 or 5.1 for audiophile audio?

[josko]

I noticed increased music recordings available on DVD with 5.1 audio and wonder how those compare with, say, a CD with 2.0 audio track. Neglecting video output, should I be critically listening with 2 or 5 speakers? In this case, I'm wondering whether to buy Brahms' "Ein Deutches Requiem" on a CD or DVD. (They're equivalent-quality performances, IMHO.)
On a related note, I've kept my 2.0 audio system (B&W803, Levinson separates) separate from my 5.1 TV system (Polk Lsi, Yamaha 661) and am also wondering if it's time to merge the two, or perhaps add an audio processor and center speaker to the audio setup.
I'd be grateful for any comments on where folks see the two-channel audio going.

Thanks in advance

 

[nibhaz]

Ultimately there isn’t a right or wrong answer to your query. Many purists prefer to listen to their music in its native format, whether it is discreet 2.0 or 5.1. Personally I have never run into a processor that successfully creates 5.1 sound fields from 2.0 material all of the time. For some recording a particular matrix based DSP may work but for others it may throw certain frequencies to the extra channels which can become distracting rather than enhancing the listening experience. So for 2.0 based material listening in 5.1 via DSP is a mixed bag IMO.

So what about discreet 5.1 materials? Well, this can be kind of a mixed bag as well, but is generally worth the effort. For newer recordings that were done with the intention of being mixed into 5.1 the results are generally fantastic. For older recordings that were originally intended for 2.0 the ultimate success of the remixed 5.1 disc lies in the hands of mixing engineers who worked on the new disc. IMO if the new mixing was done subtly, then the overall result can be quite rewarding. You’ll often find that the soundstage has widened and gained depth versus the 2.0 version. Subtle nuances such has as the sound of crickets from a live outdoor show can be place behind you, and the sounds of the crowd can be weighted to the rear of your listening room, which can really make you feel as if your sitting in the audience listening to the show, rather than listening to a recording of the show. As with all recordings, some mixes are just bad. It would seem that some engineers would like to show off; or rather they make liberal or excessive use of the extra channels, which results in an unrealistic or distracting soundstage. In general the 5.1 disc seem to be worthwhile listening experience.

Personally, I would aim for a solid 5.1 system built around your 2.0 system, if space allows. Any placement or equipment compromises should be made in regards to the extra channels.

 

[CraigV]

Nibhaz makes some good points. The other things to consider are speakers. If you’re going to be doing some critical listening to music in 5.1, you want the speakers to be “voice matched” all around. Ideally, your amplification should also be the same all around. This will help to ensure consistency throughout. Sounds like you have some really nice gear for music, and it would take a fairly hefty investment to turn it into a complete surround system. Of course, you would be rewarded for both music & movies with a killer system.

A good example of 2.0 converting well to 5.1 is Dark Side Of The Moon. How the engineer chose to place the sounds in the surround mode is really great.

 

[josko]

Interesting. I hadn't really thought about audio-only (or audio-centric) 5.1 systems. I guess my next step is to pick up a B&W HTM2 center and a 5.1 audio preamp/processor. Frankly, the Levinson 502 is out of my price range, but what are some recommendations for a good quality audio-oriented 5.1 preamplifier at <$2k or so?

In particular, how does the upcoming Emotiva UMC-1 preamp stack up? What are some of the important audio processing engines such a pre./pro. should have?

 

[cfrizz]

You have 2 very nice systems Josko. However, your LSI's would really benefit from separate amplification. That Yamaha isn't even coming close to doing them justice.

 

[CraigV]

Interesting. I hadn't really thought about audio-only (or audio-centric) 5.1 systems. I guess my next step is to pick up a B&W HTM2 center and a 5.1 audio preamp/processor. Frankly, the Levinson 502 is out of my price range, but what are some recommendations for a good quality audio-oriented 5.1 preamplifier at <$2k or so?

In particular, how does the upcoming Emotiva UMC-1 preamp stack up? What are some of the important audio processing engines such a pre./pro. should have?

The answer depends on future expansion. Do you plan on getting into Blu-ray for movies? If so, there are several; processors that would handle the new surround formats, the Emotiva being one of them. Also, the new Oppo player will do BD & surround audio formats. Assuming the Oppo can decode & output via PCM over HDMI, the number of processors grows even larger. You could also get a decent receiver that will do the decoding, as long as it has pre-amp outputs to feed you Levinson or any other power amps.

 

[jostenmeat]

I noticed increased music recordings available on DVD with 5.1 audio and wonder how those compare with, say, a CD with 2.0 audio track. Neglecting video output, should I be critically listening with 2 or 5 speakers? In this case, I'm wondering whether to buy Brahms' "Ein Deutches Requiem" on a CD or DVD. (They're equivalent-quality performances, IMHO.)
On a related note, I've kept my 2.0 audio system (B&W803, Levinson separates) separate from my 5.1 TV system (Polk Lsi, Yamaha 661) and am also wondering if it's time to merge the two, or perhaps add an audio processor and center speaker to the audio setup.
I'd be grateful for any comments on where folks see the two-channel audio going.

Thanks in advance

IMO, absolutely in 2.0. I fully expect the German Requiem DVD to be like most any other classical music DVD, in that they will offer 5.1 compressed and 2.0 uncompressed PCM. Always choose the latter, most particularly for classical, IMO. I always do. So does TLS Guy, a member who has done countless recordings of classical music.

Now, if you're going to get a bluray player, we are in a different game altogether. Now we are talking uncompressed PCM, but for 5.1!

If you're absolutely 100% positive that you're not going to touch BD, stick with 2.0 tracks for DVD. Otherwise . . .

The best match for center speaker to the 803 would be, well, another 803.

 

[Geno]

Don't forget all the Blu-Rays of concerts- jazz, rock, pop, and even some classical and opera. The ones I have are stunning in 5.1. It's the future of physical media, so you may as well jump in

 

[josko]

I guess I need to look into what audio recordings are available on BD - haven't seen much except movies so far. I do plan to get the Oppo BD when it comes out, but really hadn't though about using it with the audio system. What's a great BD 5.1 (classical) audio recording to try it on?

Thanks for the heads-up about compressed PCM on DVD vs uncompressed on BD. I must've missed that among all the specs.

There's a lot of text and talk about where high-end video is going, but I don't seem to find much about audiophile audio formats. I guess the old 2.0 stereo really works well with the right gear.

 

[jostenmeat]

Who's performing on your DVD? My sole recording (CD) is by Klemperer. With Schwarzkopf as one of the soloists.

I guess I need to look into what audio recordings are available on BD - haven't seen much except movies so far. I do plan to get the Oppo BD when it comes out, but really hadn't though about using it with the audio system. What's a great BD 5.1 (classical) audio recording to try it on?

There aren't THAT many yet, and I have reason to believe some caution must be exerted with some particular titles. My BD's are only with video AND audio, and they are the NY Phil performing in Pyongyang, as well as the Brandenburgs directed by Abbado. The video is not reference on either (and I think even 1080i on at least one of them), but the audio is excellent. The video is still cool, mind you, and the Italian hall where the Bach works are performed is gorgeous. One or two of the soloists aren't too shabby looking either.

Here's a small thread for you to reference:
Opera, Ballet and Classical Music discs (Bluray)

Thanks for the heads-up about compressed PCM on DVD vs uncompressed on BD. I must've missed that among all the specs.

Actually PCM is uncompressed either way. The difference is that you can only get 2.0 uncompressed PCM on DVD, where you can get many more channels of the same on BD (normally 5.1 on classical recordings I've seen, but the capability for at least 7.1 is there, if not even more?). The 5.1 lossy tracks on classical DVDs always lose too much transparency IMO.

FYI: compressed is NOT mutually exclusive to being "lossless". Compression algorithms for HT soundtracks, like DTS-MA or TrueHD are indeed compressed, yet still "lossless". I've even read that Dolby Digital Plus is something like 99% the quality of lossless. However, you don't even get that on a DVD, and ol' vanilla DD tracks just can't cut it IMO. Heck, they don't even cut it for me on an HT soundtrack, but for a resolving classical recording, you can just forget about it.

There's a lot of text and talk about where high-end video is going, but I don't seem to find much about audiophile audio formats. I guess the old 2.0 stereo really works well with the right gear.

I've seen TLS say something to the effect that by far most recordings that exist today in the world are best suited to a 2ch system.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think it all depends on the Original Source.

"I have Heart - Live in Seattle" and "Celine Dion - Live in Las Vegas" on blu-ray, and I think they Sound and Look great. I prefer this over any 2.0 CD or 5.1 SACD, but this is pure personal taste because I like to both Listen and See.

I think the "Celine Dion- All The Way" 5.1 SACD sounds better, but then again it was NOT a "live" recording either.

So I think it's nice to have BOTH options - 2.0 & 5.1.

 

[lsiberian]

I prefer a nice 2.2.1 channel setup for audio because it costs less to build and perfect. I"m currently aiming for this upgrade in my setup. Most music I listen to is in stereo though.

 

[no. 5]

I noticed increased music recordings available on DVD with 5.1 audio and wonder how those compare with, say, a CD with 2.0 audio track.

All other things being equal; if it's mixed well, 5.1 has the ability to provide a much better sense of space and envelopment than 2.0.

 

[josko]

I don't mean to be dense, but what's the 2.2.1 format?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't mean to be dense, but what's the 2.2.1 format?

Front Left + Front Right + Surround Left + Surround Right + Subwoofer.

 

[res6jya6]

I'm quite happy with the 2.0 system I have in my office...

I feel like that when I am listening to my iPod on the 5.1 system in the house, the music is "forced" to comply with the 5.1 specifications.

My all time favorite method of listening to music is over headphones, however

 

[Hicks]

I like the option of having either depending on my mood.

The vast majority of my listening is done in two channel, but every once in a while I'll listen to a SACD or DVD-A that's mixed in 5.1 and I do enjoy the enveloping sound.

 

[lsiberian]

I don't mean to be dense, but what's the 2.2.1 format?

Or in my abuse of abbreviations it could be Upper speaker/ Mid-bass/ subwoofer.


But the standard is as stated above.

 

[trnqk7]

I'll chime in with that I think most cd's sound best in 2 channel with either direct or pure direct modes engaged...5.1 just sounds, well, weird on a lot of them. I'd stick with how the original source material was recorded for the most part, the dsp algorithms are getting better and better, but don't sound "right" yet IMO.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, I think if it were made for 5.1, then I would play 5.1 (MLP/PCM or DSD or DD or DTS).

If it were made for 2.0, then I would play 2.0 Direct.