Can't listen to CD anymore.

[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!?

</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!?

</font>

<font color='#000000'>I can if I cross 'em! &nbsp;

</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-@$$

</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!  

</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.

&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 ) 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.