Stereo vs. Surround Sound

[krabapple]

Stereo music through Prol Logic II (Music mode), surrround sources as recorded. DPL II music sounds more real to me in my setup.

Also, everything -- including SACD and DVD-A -- are ported digitally to my AVR via ilink or HDMI audio. So all DA conversion is done in my AVR. DACS are a mature technology; there's little reason to believe that a CDP DAC will do CD 'better' than an AVR DAC. The DACs in my AVR ar Burr-Browns, which I hear are pretty good. ;>

 

[eirepaul]

Audio is primary for me, with video second. I love multi-channel music and really enjoy the feeling of being in the middle of the recording - it's not for everyone, but I hear so much more of the details in the music this way. Currently listening through 5.1 analog, but looking at upgrading DVD to a Denon model with Denon-Link - my 3805 does not have HDMI.

If I am moving around the house, I may play audio in two-channel pure direct mode. I also use PLII-Music for basic CDs, and tuner; and on occasion I'll use 7-channel stereo for a change.

TV - PLII-Cinema mode

Movies - DD / DTS

It's fun having all these options.

 

[masak_aer]

Music - Stereo....eventhough i sometime use circle surround or 6 stereo
Movies - DTS/DD (the way it's recorded)
TV- Prologic II
Radio - only in my car

 

[Seth=L]

I wish I had my multichannel system still, there moments where I miss it.

I to cannot listen to radio on my stereo, to revealing (doesn't help that I hate public broadcasts and comercials)

 

[bandit]

I always prefer surround... whether watching TV - listening to music or watching a movie... I use the highest surround format that is encoded into the source material... falling back to pro-logic 2 at minimum. I'm curious though about how many prefer DD or DTS decoding....

 

[Seth=L]

In previous setups, I was unable to tell any difference between 5.1 Dolby and 5.1 DTS. DTS-ES discrete is another story. Watching Gladiator in DTS-ES is more involving than Dolby Digital EX matrix surround.

 

[hemiram]

I have had some type of surround going back to the old Dynaco Quadaptor, so I'm hooked, but once in a while, if a CD is on the shrill side, I'll switch over to the fronts and sub. But in general, it's in one of the many surround modes. I was fooling with my cable box remote and discovered that the audio was set to "medium compression". What a huge difference it made when I turned it off!

 

[Seth=L]

I hate compression, I cannot stand most music CD's anymore. You just take the fun out of music by filtering it down and destroying the integrity of the artist's intensions. I recently bought Stone Sour's first albulm, it is so compressed there are no intense moments, I feel that people are really missing out. Why do they go to such trouble to compress the music untill it has no impact, no life. It is at times like these I wait anxiously for Trent Reznor to release another NIN album, because he leaves nothing out and doesn't compress his music. The only thing he could do differently, start recording analog, instead of direct digital transfers.

 

[davee70]

I have wondered myself how many folks preferred stereo to multi-channel music. I'm "limited" to stereo now but I've accumulated a number of multi-channel hybrid SACDs and DVD-As. I find I'm more drawn to classical music these days than to the back catalogues of the rock, folk, and pop artists I've always listened to (though I'm still working my way through Dylan's) and at least initially I've tried to target SACDs. However, I have found that the performance matters more than format in terms of listening enjoyment so it really depends more on the reviews I can read than whether it's an SACD.

I now have 16 of the RCA Living Stereo releases of classic recordings from the mid to late 50's and early 60's, many of which are in 3 channel, L R and C, the way they were recorded. I've wondered what they would sound like if I had the center channel, so it's got me wondering about a "3.1" set up, if that makes sense. Even with the full multi-channel format it seems to me the rear channels with music should be mostly ambience. Otherwise it's going to be more like a movie soundtrack. I don't watch movies and I don't listen to soundtracks. Other than a few DVD-As, the only DVDs I own are concert videos. So it's recreation of the soundstage that's more important to me. I don't have the space to put rear L and R speakers now, even if I wanted to, not the way I would want to do it. But I can see how a center speaker in front would help to reinforce the soundstage that you can get from stereo alone. Especially with orchestral music, the center channel ought to give more definition to the spatial positioning of the instruments like in the concert hall itself. I have read reviewers on amazon comment that the additional center channel on the 3 channel Living Stereo hybrids makes a real difference in the experience.

From the other posts here I gather others have done something similar with a center. And the post from ggunnell that a center rear can be connected between the "hot" leads of the left and right channels I find intriguing. I'm not sure what that would do to the sound but I could make room for a center speaker in the rear. I wonder what it would do to the sound from 5.1 recordings if the left and right surrounds were directed to a rear center. Could the rear center by itself recreate the ambience or would the L and R surround channels tend to cancel each other out? What if the surrounds were directed to the front with a 3 channel LRC set-up? I'm just wondering what expanding on a basic stereo system with an additional center channel would do to the sound with 5.1 multi-channel recordings.

 

[skizzerflake]

I have wondered myself how many folks preferred stereo to multi-channel music. I'm "limited" to stereo now but I've accumulated a number of multi-channel hybrid SACDs and DVD-As. I find I'm more drawn to classical music these days than to the back catalogues of the rock, folk, and pop artists I've always listened to (though I'm still working my way through Dylan's) and at least initially I've tried to target SACDs. However, I have found that the performance matters more than format in terms of listening enjoyment so it really depends more on the reviews I can read than whether it's an SACD.

I really prefer multi-channel music but I think I am a minority. For one thing, convenience trumps all. Multi channel doesn't relate to portable media players and doesn't work with downloadable lossy-compressed "near CD" sound files that many people consider acceptable for listening. The other drawback is that I have heard too many SACDs and DVd A's where it was obvious that the recording engineer wasn't sure how to handle the rear channels. That's almost laughable when they resort to surrounding you with musicians. IMNSH Opinion, rear channels should be for ambience and audible space. Rear channels should not have drums, brass or whatever unless the music is really intended that the audience sit sin the center of a circle of musicians.

 

[davee70]

I really prefer multi-channel music but I think I am a minority. For one thing, convenience trumps all. Multi channel doesn't relate to portable media players and doesn't work with downloadable lossy-compressed "near CD" sound files that many people consider acceptable for listening. The other drawback is that I have heard too many SACDs and DVd A's where it was obvious that the recording engineer wasn't sure how to handle the rear channels. That's almost laughable when they resort to surrounding you with musicians. IMNSH Opinion, rear channels should be for ambience and audible space. Rear channels should not have drums, brass or whatever unless the music is really intended that the audience sit sin the center of a circle of musicians.

Or maybe the pipe organ in the back of the church? Otherwise it makes little sense if the objective is to recreate the live experience or something akin to that, even if the performance was actually recorded in the studio and extensively overdubbed.

I will never be an iPod person. For me even a 320 mp3 looses something compared to the CD and similarly the CD to 24/96 or DVD-A/SACD. I'd like to see more recordings released in the 24/96 format because it gets you 99.9 % of the way there and it doesn't require a special player. Today there are many well recorded and mastered CDs that do sound very good but I still prefer the hi res formats, all else being equal. Which I guess is what still leaves me open to the question of surround vs stereo. Though the easiest cure for that I suppose is headphones. And the're a whole lot less expensive than multi-channel.

 

[krabapple]

All else is rarely equal in such comparisons.

 

[sdy284]

Movies: 5.1
TV: Prologic II
Music: 2.1
Video Games: 5.1

I find that my HK 230 does a good job of putting stereo sources into 5.1

 

[Seth=L]

Movies: 5.1
TV: Prologic II
Music: 2.1
Video Games: 5.1

I find that my HK 230 does a good job of putting stereo sources into 5.1

Sorry, off topic to your responce. I just wanted to make a recomendation having looked at your equipment list.

Your PS2 and Xbox are hooked up S-Video, it would be a very good step up to upgrade to component adapters for both systems. I have a JVC AV-27730, that can't be to dissimilar from yours. The games look spectacular in comparison with component vs. S-video or composite. The entire upgrade would likely cost you less than $100 and is well worth the upgrade, IMO.

And I totally agree on the 2 channel music sources, 2 speakers and a sub can still do wonders.

 

[mfabien]

With an HD-A1 HD DVD player my bonus was to discover how extraordinary it is to listen to CD's via the 5.1 multichannel analogs. The player has 4 DAC's and 7 DSP's, is very heavy (less subject to vibration) and I added anti-vibration pads under each foot.

CD's: 2 channel listening with the above is night and day over SPDIF. Last week my son in law brought his favorite CD's to hear the difference and he was most impressed. The PCM data is uncompressed and each instrument can be heard with clarity.

DVD-A: With the DTS track from a DVD-A, the player delivers a more enjoyable sound in 5.1 surround.

DVD Concerts: In the case of Diana Krall"s "Live in Paris" the John Clayton double bass instrument is not booming as is the case in SPDIF. And in another concert, John Prine is a pleasure to hear.

HD DVD's: DD TrueHD is used for movie "The Perfect Storm". When the actors speak, it is as if you are present at the scene and there's absence of mikes and electronic amplification. Real life rendition is the best I can come up with. And when a door opens (unseen) on the side of the picture, you turn your head because you think someone is in the HT room.

With my 5 disc changer Sony DVD I listen to CD's and Stereo audio (Il Divo, "Encore" DVD) in Neo 6: Music using all speakers. With the HD DVD player, CD's in 2 channel stereo (via the 5.1 analogs).

 

[krabapple]

With an HD-A1 HD DVD player my bonus was to discover how extraordinary it is to listen to CD's via the 5.1 multichannel analogs. The player has 4 DAC's and 7 DSP's, is very heavy (less subject to vibration) and I added anti-vibration pads under each foot.

CD's: 2 channel listening with the above is night and day over SPDIF. Last week my son in law brought his favorite CD's to hear the difference and he was most impressed. The PCM data is uncompressed and each instrument can be heard with clarity.

Was that not true in your other CD players?

DVD-A: With the DTS track from a DVD-A, the player delivers a more enjoyable sound in 5.1 surround.


DVD Concerts: In the case of Diana Krall"s "Live in Paris" the John Clayton double bass instrument is not booming as is the case in SPDIF. And in another concert, John Prine is a pleasure to hear.

This could simply be due to the setup parameters in your player versus your
AVR. Likely the crossovers or the subwoofer channels levels are not the same.

HD DVD's: DD TrueHD is used for movie "The Perfect Storm". When the actors speak, it is as if you are present at the scene and there's absence of mikes and electronic amplification. Real life rendition is the best I can come up with. And when a door opens (unseen) on the side of the picture, you turn your head because you think someone is in the HT room.

Again, what is this in comparison to? I suspect any DD TrueHD mix is a remix, so that introduces a potentially big difference from any other version right there.

With my 5 disc changer Sony DVD I listen to CD's and Stereo audio (Il Divo, "Encore" DVD) in Neo 6: Music using all speakers. With the HD DVD player, CD's in 2 channel stereo (via the 5.1 analogs).

Is the HD player applying some 'surround' DSP to the analog outs like DPLII or DTS Neo?

 

[mfabien]

Was that not true in your other CD players?

The best explanation comes from this other post:
http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=151905&postcount=1

This could simply be due to the setup parameters in your player versus your
AVR. Likely the crossovers or the subwoofer channels levels are not the same.

The subwoofer level in the player is 10 dB lower than it should be (all speakers, including the sub, are set at 0 dB level in the player) and to compensate, I set the GAIN at the sub higher by some 2 o'clock. I then get the same volume from all speakers compared to SPDIF. But the sound is completely different.

Again, what is this in comparison to? I suspect any DD TrueHD mix is a remix, so that introduces a potentially big difference from any other version right there.

5.1 DD TrueHD requires me to use the 5.1 multichannel analogs since my a/v is not accepting HDMI inputs/output. If you visit Dolby.com you will have better explanations than one I can give you. This lossless audio codec reproduces the Master audio of the film.

Is the HD player applying some 'surround' DSP to the analog outs like DPLII or DTS Neo?

The HD player delivers LPCM data to the 5.1 multichannel inputs of my a/v. The source audio can be PCM stereo, DD or DTS for standard DVD's and DVD-A's, DD Plus, DD TrueHD or DTS-HD for HD DVD's. The player delivers the format as found on the recording but does not apply surround programs such as those mentioned and found in my Yamaha.

Of you love sound, buy an HD DVD player.

 

[skizzerflake]

Or maybe the pipe organ in the back of the church? Otherwise it makes little sense if the objective is to recreate the live experience or something akin to that, even if the performance was actually recorded in the studio and extensively overdubbed.

I will never be an iPod person. For me even a 320 mp3 looses something compared to the CD and similarly the CD to 24/96 or DVD-A/SACD. I'd like to see more recordings released in the 24/96 format because it gets you 99.9 % of the way there and it doesn't require a special player. Today there are many well recorded and mastered CDs that do sound very good but I still prefer the hi res formats, all else being equal. Which I guess is what still leaves me open to the question of surround vs stereo. Though the easiest cure for that I suppose is headphones. And the're a whole lot less expensive than multi-channel.

I have to add that there is also something special about analog sound from a good vinyl based system. It doesn't offer surround but the directness of the stereo sound from a well recorded record that didn't go through a digital recording step makes you realize that the latest and greatest isn't always best. CD's have always sounded "pretty good" to me, SACD and DVD-A even better, but analog is special. As for mp3, I love my portable media but I would never confuse it for good sound. It's mainly good enough when you're on a noisy street or otherwise in a place where you don't have access to equipment. Having a couple hundred CDs in your shirt pocket makes up for the lossy compression, at least on the subway on the way to work.

 

[Seth=L]

I never got into iPods or MP3 players. I basically cannot stand compressed audio, beyond CD's. Some CD's are pretty bad too. I have StoneSour "come what (ever) may". It is terribly compressed and filtered, very pestulant for listening sessions.

 

[krabapple]

I have to add that there is also something special about analog sound from a good vinyl based system. It doesn't offer surround but the directness of the stereo sound from a well recorded record that didn't go through a digital recording step makes you realize that the latest and greatest isn't always best. CD's have always sounded "pretty good" to me, SACD and DVD-A even better, but analog is special. As for mp3, I love my portable media but I would never confuse it for good sound. It's mainly good enough when you're on a noisy street or otherwise in a place where you don't have access to equipment. Having a couple hundred CDs in your shirt pocket makes up for the lossy compression, at least on the subway on the way to work.

LPs do indeed have something special...various kinds of distortion that CD lacks. This specialness can be captured for the ages by digitally recording the output of a turntable. LPs may sound 'direct', but can't be called 'direct' in terms of how they are made -- the steps from master tape to cutting lathe to stamper are far more 'lossy' than anything in the CD production chain, and require considerable artistry and tweaking to get 'right'.

I never got into iPods or MP3 players. I basically cannot stand compressed audio, beyond CD's. Some CD's are pretty bad too. I have StoneSour "come what (ever) may". It is terribly compressed and filtered, very pestulant for listening sessions.

I think you are confusing two kinds of compression. MP3s are data-compressed to reduce file size, while CDs are (too often) compressed in terms of dynamic range, but not data.

MP3s can sound very, very good...even indistinguishable from CDs, to many ears, including mine. It all depends on how they are made and played. I wouldn't use them for archiving, but they certainly have their uses and they needn't sound bad.