I listen to my music in 2 channel audio and love the imaging you can get from such a setup. I have not experience the same thing in a multi-channel setup. I've noticed the certain things tend to be anchored to the center channel, and for me the soundstage is not as convincing. Now I have no intent on starting a flamewar topic, but I'm curious what it is that people like in the multi-channel music format. So to those who prefer multi-channel over two channel music, what is it that you like better?

Simple. The soundstaging in MCH is vastly superior to stereo if the system is set up correctly and the recordings are made properly. There are no downsides except bulk and cost.

Having a rewarding surround experience is absolutely dependent on a matched speaker system and careful setup, EQ, level balancing, etc. Absent that, the result is much like the OP describes. So my opinion that if a real music lover wants the best sound possible, it's best to stick with 2-ch unless you're willing to put in the time and expense of a serious surround setup.

Given that serious surround setup, the difference is best described as 2- dimensional vs 3-dimensional imaging. Or in a video parlance, 2D vs 3D. That's not to say that all surround mixes are equal, they certainly are not. Some are cobbled badly, others are expertly done. A skilled surround engineer can put you in the front row of a concert, or plop you down in the middle of the band.

Also the OP doesn't state if he is listening to discreet multi channel or cheesy faux DSP. If his system is properly calibrated and what his speakers are.

I've actually found the most compelling recordings to distinguish the advantages of MCH to 2 CH, in my set up, have been solo instrumental recordings. I have two that are favourites of mine--I'm not knowledgeable enough to state unequivocally whether they are excellent or even very good recordings from a technical standpoint, but I can say they sound better than much of what I own and a lot of what I own is well-regarded by various reviewers, FWIW.

The first is Pletnev Plays Schumann and the other is Pvt. Brubeck Remembers. Each is a solo piano--very different music, of course. When I listen to either one in 2 CH, I am listening to a very good recording of a piano. When I listen in MCH, it is much, much more like having the piano in the room with me.

Of course, I like different things from different types of music in MCH. I enjoy being "in the band" with pop/rock mixes like the Elton John SACDs. I also appreciate the greater sense of space of ambient mixes that are on most classical discs I own. I understand why some people want the music to be "from the front" and why some "in the band" mixes are disconcerting to them. However, for pop/rock and some other genres, there is no "front" in the studio and I enjoy the sense of being surrounded by the music. I even enjoy the "in the orchestra" mixes available on some classical discs (mostly from AIX Records), though I am sympathetic to desire to have the orchestral array be similar to what you get at a concert hall.

Ultimately, I have yet to prefer a 2 CH mix over a discrete MCH mix of anything I own, so I'm always hoping to find MCH mixes of anything I buy and I look forward to the day when DSPs are at the point where they are as good, to me, as the discrete mixes I have--on that day I will have a fantastic "MCH" collection. ;)

Well the idea of the sound being 3D instead of 2D interests me. To answer a few questions, I have not heard a proper multi-channel setup. This curiosity stems from my recent desire to get a new cd player. I found a great buy on a Denon DVD with DVD audio and SACD for $70. My setup is all Paradigm Studio v4's in the front/center. I have the studio 100's for front speakers and a studio 20 for the center. My surrounds are the weak point, but still sounds good for the movies I watch. They are Paradigm mini monitors. My speakers are properly placed, and measured with a meter. The issues I've had in the past with multi channel is the anchoring of the voices in the center channel. This is typical in movies, and also in music DVD's. Now this may be different in the SACD/DVD-A formats, I don't know. But, it kills the sound stage and makes the center channel more "visible." I take it from the responses this is not an issue with DVD-A, and SACD. The best I can hope for with my setup is matching studio 20's for the rear speakers. What kind of quality should I expect given that I have Studio 100's mixed with 20's for the multi channel formats? Also why are some SACD only in 2 channel audio?

Thanks for everyone's input,
Scott

PS- the sub is Paradigm too

... I have not heard a proper multi-channel setup.... The issues I've had in the past with multi channel is the anchoring of the voices in the center channel. This is typical in movies, and also in music DVD's. Now this may be different in the SACD/DVD-A formats, I don't know. But, it kills the sound stage and makes the center channel more "visible." I take it from the responses this is not an issue with DVD-A, and SACD... Also why are some SACD only in 2 channel audio?

Thanks for everyone's input,
Scott

PS- the sub is Paradigm too
Hum...and you haven't heard a proper multi-channel setup but you have already prejudged it?:confused:

As far as the center being used for voice. This is done on some (a minority) multi-channel but most use phantom. Phantom is used manly because most have inferior (or at least slightly different timbre voiced centers (as you do)) centers and phantom is the industry standard (since all stereo is phantom). However if the singer's voice is in the middle and its' played by the center channel how does this "kill the sound stage"?:confused: Phantom reproduces the same effect just not as well.

All SA-CD's contain a 2 channel track. Multi-channel is an optional track.

Well the idea of the sound being 3D instead of 2D interests me. To answer a few questions, I have not heard a proper multi-channel setup. This curiosity stems from my recent desire to get a new cd player. I found a great buy on a Denon DVD with DVD audio and SACD for $70. My setup is all Paradigm Studio v4's in the front/center. I have the studio 100's for front speakers and a studio 20 for the center. My surrounds are the weak point, but still sounds good for the movies I watch. They are Paradigm mini monitors. My speakers are properly placed, and measured with a meter. The issues I've had in the past with multi channel is the anchoring of the voices in the center channel. This is typical in movies, and also in music DVD's. Now this may be different in the SACD/DVD-A formats, I don't know. But, it kills the sound stage and makes the center channel more "visible." I take it from the responses this is not an issue with DVD-A, and SACD. The best I can hope for with my setup is matching studio 20's for the rear speakers. What kind of quality should I expect given that I have Studio 100's mixed with 20's for the multi channel formats? Also why are some SACD only in 2 channel audio?

Thanks for everyone's input,
Scott

PS- the sub is Paradigm too
I'm not sure why you find the anchoring of voices (or anything else) in the centre channel "kills the soundstage". Your ears "anchor" live sounds all the time. If you attend a chamber music or jazz concert in an intimate, unamplified setting, whatever is "centre stage" will be "anchored" by your ears in relation to your seating position.

Not all MCH audio mixes "anchor" the voice in the centre channel, though many do so. I happen to listen to more instrumental than vocal music in MCH (nature of my collection), but when I do listen to vocals, their presence in the centre channel does not, in and of itself, affect my enjoyment of the music.

MCH audio playback (discrete or not) is different from 2 CH playback and it takes some adjustment--particularly with music with which one is extremely familiar (my first discrete MCH listening was Fleetwood Mac--Rumours on DVD-A). It took me a few runs through the disc to fully appreciate the different experience but once I'd adjusted, I found it far better. The same has happened with every MCH version of something I already had (the Elton John discs, Yes' Fragile, Peter Gabriel's Up, the Genesis discs...). With music that was not familiar, I simply experienced them in MCH first and have seen no reason to go to 2 CH unless I'm playing the disc in another room.

As for why some SACD discs are 2 CH--there are a few reasons. One is that DSD (the recording format on SACD, as distinct from PCM on CD/DVD-A) was, IIRC, originally intended as an archival medium that could be converted to PCM. However, the patents on CD were running out and Sony/Phillips decided to exploit the SACD as a new source of patent revenue. Some rival companies put forth DVD-A and a "format war" of sorts (which really did not help the spread of MCH audio) emerged. DVD-A was always intended to be MCH while SACD was not. It had the capacity to do so, however, and SACD chose not to leave the MCH field entirely in the hands of DVD-A.

The other major reason there are 2 CH only SACDs is the cost involved in creating new discrete MCH mixes (for some discs, it's the fact they were not multi-track recordings, so discrete mixes cannot be made). Since there are two major purposes (besides the economic one, of course) for SACD--"hi-res" audio (to appeal to audiophiles) and MCH mixes AND most audiophiles seemed uninterested in MCH, some releases are simply 2 CH.

(there is more to the story, of course, but I'm not an expert in the field, so this is all I've got with any reasonable degree of certainty to offer)

Ultimately, I would suggest trying a few discs, with various types of mixes (ambient mixes and "in the band" mixes) and figure out if MCH audio suits your tastes. It shouldn't take more than half a dozen different discs to form an opinion on whether it's worth pursuing further.

Good luck.

Hum...and you haven't heard a proper multi-channel setup but you have already prejudged it?:confused:... However if the singer's voice is in the middle and its' played by the center channel how does this "kill the sound stage"?:confused: Phantom reproduces the same effect just not as well.


Just for the record I'm keeping an open mind on multi-channel and yet to pre judge it. I'm giving my experiences with DD DVD mixes, but I won't form an opinion on SACD and DVD-A until I hear a proper setup.

As for killing the soundstage. On the things I've heard (remember I haven't heard SACD, or DVD-A), there isn't much mixing between the center and front speakers. This gives the effect of making the speaker more visible and less convincing than if my front speakers were only used. It seems that Phantom imaging can be anywhere in the soundstage, and I cannot tell how many speakers there are in my setup. A lot of times when listening to two channel mixes the voice will be in the center but maybe off by a foot. I don't hear that effect in DD mixes. So, does SACD/DVD-A mix the disc so there is imaging between the fronts and the center, or is the vocals typically put in the center channel like on a DD mix? I'm guessing there is better mixing in SACD/DVD-A and that is where the issues I've had are.

Given my setup and if I were to upgrade my surrounds to studio 20's to match the center. How convincing should a multi channel setup sound with a mixture of studio 100's and 20's?

Thanks again for the great info

Scott

Just for the record I'm keeping an open mind on multi-channel and yet to pre judge it. I'm giving my experiences with DD DVD mixes, but I won't form an opinion on SACD and DVD-A until I hear a proper setup.

Scott

Well that explains it. DVD-A and SACD will sound better, and depending on which discs you're speaking of, the DD DVD's may be upmixes from stereo or some sort of fake surround. There are some Hi-Res discs that place vocals in the center speaker, but many others don't. Hearing a DVD-A or SACD doesn't guarantee a great mix or even that it's a real surround taken from the multitracks. Seek out a multichannel offering that is known to be good and listen to it on even a moderately priced setup and I'm sure you'll have a better insight to what it's all about.

The issues I've had in the past with multi channel is the anchoring of the voices in the center channel. This is typical in movies, and also in music DVD's. Now this may be different in the SACD/DVD-A formats, I don't know. But, it kills the sound stage and makes the center channel more "visible." I take it from the responses this is not an issue with DVD-A, and SACD. It is simply bad engineering. Such in more common in some genres than in others.

What kind of quality should I expect given that I have Studio 100's mixed with 20's for the multi channel formats? Should be OK.

Also why are some SACD only in 2 channel audio?Because some recordings were only made in 2 channels.

As for killing the soundstage. On the things I've heard (remember I haven't heard SACD, or DVD-A), there isn't much mixing between the center and front speakers. This gives the effect of making the speaker more visible and less convincing than if my front speakers were only used.

Again, it all starts with a carefully calibrated and matched set of speakers. I have a difficult time telling if my center is active or not on most sources, it's that transparent. But then I've spent a lot of time and money obtaining that effect. But I find that most good SACD and DVD-A surround titles have the center mixed way back from the L-R channels. Maybe 30-50% of the levels in the L-R channels and intended to augment them, not stick out.
With movies, many of the lazy engineers have dialog mixed only in the center, but this is certainly not universal.

I have a difficult time telling if my center is active or not on most sources, it's that transparent.

Wow. If it is that transparent then it must be mixed well. I saw a good deal on a Denon DVD-A/SACD player for only $70, so I will pick it up. I'm excited now about the format, and I hope it integrates well with my speakers. If I like the format I will definitely have to upgrade my surround speakers (which I wanted to do anyway). Either way I wanted a dedicated CD player, and for $70 I can't go wrong.

Scott

If it is that transparent then it must be mixed well.That's more a testament to his carefully configured speaker set-up than anything to do with surround mixes or the SACD/DVD-A formats. The fact that you like how vocals sound coming from your L/R speakers but not from your centre speaker is an indication of a sonic mis-match.

So, for example, if you pick up the Beatles' 'Love' DVD-A or James Taylor's 'JT' SACD, both of which have lead vocals in the centre channel, don't be surprised if you're not ending up with the level of transparency that you were expecting.

If you could replace your left or right speaker with your centre speaker and not hear a difference, then you would get a seamless and consistent soundstage. But that doesn't seem to be the case, at least from your description.

As I have a Paradigm Studio setup very similar to yours, and love my multichannel SACDs more than my 2-channel SACDs, I would suggest you buy one more Studio 20 to go with the one you already have plus the dedicated Studio center CC-490/5090/690 and use the pair of Studio 20s as your surrounds. The dedicated center is a much better match for the sound of your Studio 100s - I know because that is what I use. This way everything you play will sound much better and more "holosonic" - to use a word some are fond of.

I don't know which used Denon player you are looking at, but a new Oppo player is a very good SACD source for the money. Good luck!:)

I saw a good deal on a Denon DVD-A/SACD player for only $70, so I will pick it up.

You might want to look that horse in the mouth before buying. If that's the model I think it is it cannot send both SACD and DVD-A over HDMI. Depending on your AVR, that could mean you'd need to use multi-channel analog inputs and then may be bypassing any EQ and setup in the AVR. Not an ideal situation for someone looking for max quality with non-identical speakers.

rdgrimes: It probably is the model you are thinking about, but its also from that store with that really good return policy. I'm not running any EQ right now, and my receiver is not HDMI, so I will need to use the external 5.1 inputs. I haven't considered EQ because for Movies my setup is good enough for me. I tend to be more critical with my music, which up until now, has only been 2 channel.

Sanjay: It will be interesting to hear what I get. I think i will try and replace one of my fronts with my center and see how it sounds.

jskwill: I'm taking donations :). Seriously though, I got a good deal on the lone 20, but I knew some day I would upgrade. Its a much better match than my previous center.

A friend let me a borrow a copy of DSotM on DVD-A. I was really impressed at how it was mixed. I now understand what everyone was talking about now. The mix sounded better than I thought given my non-perfect setup, but now I have something to work towards. I have a couple of questions though:

1. The disc was actually in DD, so what is the difference between that and an actual DVD-A? The quality seemed excellent, so why create DVD-A when you can mix some great music in DD for a regular DVD player?
2. The mix was a quad mix which means I don't have to worry about a mismatched center. Are there a lot of quad mixes out there? What about in the SACD format?

It really is a neat experience being in the middle of a Pink Floyd song!

Scott

A friend let me a borrow a copy of DSotM on DVD-A. I was really impressed at how it was mixed. I now understand what everyone was talking about now. The mix sounded better than I thought given my non-perfect setup, but now I have something to work towards. I have a couple of questions though:

1. The disc was actually in DD, so what is the difference between that and an actual DVD-A? The quality seemed excellent, so why create DVD-A when you can mix some great music in DD for a regular DVD player?
2. The mix was a quad mix which means I don't have to worry about a mismatched center. Are there a lot of quad mixes out there? What about in the SACD format?

It really is a neat experience being in the middle of a Pink Floyd song!

Scott

You're watching the DVD-Video layer of the disc with lossy DD. The DVD-Audio layer has lossless PCM audio. Virtually all DVD-A have multichannel audio, and many SACD do as well.

1. The disc was actually in DD, so what is the difference between that and an actual DVD-A? The quality seemed excellent, so why create DVD-A when you can mix some great music in DD for a regular DVD player?Listening to the higher resolution DVD-A layer, which, as pointed out, is lossless, would require a DVD-A player. I assume, based upon your question, that you do not have this capability. Most all commercial multichannel DVD-A discs also have DD5.1 tracks and some also contain DTS5.1 tracks. So, if you do not have DVD-A capability, you can still enjoy the multichannel mixes present on those discs in one of the two lesser formats. And there are DD5.1 and/or DTS5.1 discs that are not DVD-As available, too.


2. The mix was a quad mix which means I don't have to worry about a mismatched center. Are there a lot of quad mixes out there? What about in the SACD format?There ARE other "quad mixes" - both 4.0 and 4.1 - in both the DVD-A and SACD formats. And I would assume in DD or DTS formats, too. The number of channels in any particular multichannel mix is up to the producers, musicians, engineers, etc.. And most multichannel discs ARE 5.0 or 5.1. But if you wanted to listen to a 5.0 or 5.1 mix in "quad" all you would have to do is set up your receiver as having no center channel speaker. Then the center channel info would be rerouted in equal parts to your left and right speakers.

Since my OP I got a Denon player that supports SACD and DVD-A.

Since my OP I got a Denon player that supports SACD and DVD-A.

So I have to ask why you're listening to the DD DVD-Video layer?

So I have to ask why you're listening to the DD DVD-Video layer?

DSotM was burned in a DD or DTS format but the source was a DVD-A. It sounded very good, and much more time was spent in the mixing of the disc than other music DVDs I've heard (not DVD-A). I'm just surprised that more care isn't taken in mixing regular music DVD's. The quality may not be as good as the lossless format, but a major improvement over what they are doing now. I just bought the player and I haven't had a chance to listen to any true SACD/DVD-A. I have DSotM in SACD waiting for me, but everything else I have to get online. They just aren't for sale in my area.

DSotM was burned in a DD or DTS format but the source was a DVD-A.What are you saying exactly? That what you got didn't have the DVD-A tracks?


It sounded very good, and much more time was spent in the mixing of the disc than other music DVDs I've heard (not DVD-A).The mix that is there is simply the original quad mix from the mid-70s. And, yes, it is an aggressive mix.


I'm just surprised that more care isn't taken in mixing regular music DVD's.You're making a broad generalization. What is a "regular music DVD"? How many have you heard? Maybe you just haven't heard one with a "good" surround mix. And aggressive doesn't necessarily mean "good", btw.


The quality may not be as good as the lossless format, but a major improvement over what they are doing now.The sound quality (i.e lossy versus lossless) and the quality of the mix are 2 different and unrelated things.

What are you saying exactly? That what you got didn't have the DVD-A tracks?

You're making a broad generalization. What is a "regular music DVD"? How many have you heard? Maybe you just haven't heard one with a "good" surround mix. And aggressive doesn't necessarily mean "good", btw.

The sound quality (i.e lossy versus lossless) and the quality of the mix are 2 different and unrelated things.
To answer your questions:
1. It was a burned copy, so no I don't have the DVD-A tracks. Why? I don't know, you'll have to ask my friend.
2. What I mean by regular DVD's is non-DVD-A. I've heard quite a few music DVD's, and my issues I've stated above.
3. I wasn't clear on this one. Yes sound quality and quality of the mix are 2 different things. I just wanted to comment on the quality of the mix and that it sounded very nice despite being in a lossy format.

1. It was a burned copy, so no I don't have the DVD-A tracks. Why? I don't know, you'll have to ask my friend.Are you certain your player is set up properly to detect the DVD-A layer?


2. What I mean by regular DVD's is non-DVD-A. I've heard quite a few music DVD's, and my issues I've stated above.As I said, the DSoTM quad mix that you are comparing them to is a VERY aggressive surround mix which is, I assume, what you find so intriguing about it. There are other DVD-A and SACD (and most likely non-hirez surround mixes) that are fairly aggressive, but the DSoTM quad mix is about as aggressive as they come. If aggressive surround mixes are what you are after, though, you may want to start a thread asking what everyone's favorite aggressive mixes are. Some music lends itself very well to an aggressive mix. DSoTM is a great example. Other recordings, however, IMO, are just not suited to being mixed so aggressively.


3. .................I just wanted to comment on the quality of the mix and that it sounded very nice despite being in a lossy format.Right.