I currently own a Bryston SP3 processor and I have added Bryston's BDA-3 D/A converter. I am contemplating buying an analog pre-amp for my processor along with a turntable and cartridge, but my experience with digital is that 5.1 SACD/DVD-Audio sound much better than two channel digital. It seems more immersive. So, I would love to read others opinion on whether or not they think multi-channel music betters sonically two channel analog? Do you think its worth pursuing vinyl considering what I already own?
There is no universal answer to that IMO. MCH music heavily relies on the source [often analog] the mix and mastering, much like 2ch ones , and of course of the listener's bias's. One either likes the outcome or not. If you open to the idea that MCH music can enhance the experience of listening familiar music in that fashion, then it's a good bet there is a title out there for you, however it's also a good bet that you won't like everything you sample. Since vinyl doesn't offer surround sound in any of the current formats, I don't see the reason to discuss that here.
I believe it's an apples to oranges comparison. I have some 5.1 music that's flat sounding and some stereo music that is very lively and immersive. In all honesty how can stereo (two speakers) compete with multichannel (five speakers)? All being equal (quality of the recordings) multichannel will always be more immersive. I go in cycles where I listen to a lot of stereo music then a few days later listen to a lot of multichannel music.
As a classic rock fan for over forty years I've developed an appreciation for jazz music in the last ten years. There just isn't that much multichannel jazz music out there. So I feel I'd be missing out on a lot incredible music by just focusing on multichannel music.
With the best mixes possible, 5.1 trounces 2 channel, and digital is better than the best analogue, although not by quite as much.
Multichannel is as much of an improvement over stereo as stereo was over mono. It's just a shame that multichannel is primarily used for antediluvian "art rock". It would be much better used for creating totally realistic sound fields for acoustic music like jazz or bluegrass... but instead it gets used for ping pong Floyd. Stereo went through a similar phase in its early days with lots of gimmicky "stereo demonstration" records. But the major labels embraced the new format and shifted their production over to being all stereo. That's when really sophisticated stereo mixes started being made. I don't think we're likely to see the same happen with multichannel, so it is firmly entrenched in its adolescence. The exception is classical music, but the approach to multichannel there is very conservative, and aside from opera on blu-ray, it doesn't necessarily explore everything multichannel is capable of.
I really don't get "It's just a shame that multichannel is primarily used for antediluvian "art rock" and "but instead it gets used for ping pong Floyd". Huh ? Where do you come up with this stuff? I have many multichannel rock SACDs, DVD-As and Blu-ray Audio discs and they're not "antediluvian art rock" or "ping pong Floyd" (other than the Floyd titles ). "So it is firmly entrenched in its adolescence"....... another huh moment as well.
I'd suggest you check out the many multichannel rock titles that are out there and give them a listen. Maybe then you'll have a different opinion. As far as you've indicated you don't have that big of a multichannel music collection on SACD, DVD-A or Blu-Ray Audio. Unless you count the many music video titles which really don't count IMO .
Some people said that about stereo in the early days when everything was ping pong mixes. Then really good stereo mixes started to be used in mainstream albums and everyone completely turned their backs on mono and never went back. The biggest hurdle for multichannel is the footprint it takes up in the living room. But I see a trend towards making the spare bedroom or unused dining room into a dedicated entertainment room. Wives might think differently about multichannel and home theater if it isn't invading their living room.
So far, I'm more or less swayed by Kal Rubinson's opinion. I do not think I can get a better sonic experience with vinyl or two channel analog over 5.1 multi-channel hi res digital in either SACD or DVD-A.
Probably true. But do you consider a "better sonic experience" as it being a room filled with music? I don't look at it that way as many of my favorite well mixed and mastered stereo recordings might never be released in surround. I'm not going to forgo my favorite stereo music to focus on multichannel music that doesn't really interest me. In other words some buy multichannel titles because they are multichannel even though the music doesn't appeal to them. That I don't get. But to each his own I guess .
Nowadays, I would certainly take the option of mch digital, over 2ch analog...but, in saying that, ever since I've had my GE Triton 1's in my system, I have "rediscovered" my 2ch music (digital). The sound stage is immense and very, very immersive and three dimensional. When I have someone new over, I will put them in the MLP and put on a good 2ch mix and after a bit, ask them which speakers are playing and invariably they will answer, "all of them". 2ch can be very, very good!
sworth, you preaching to the choir here, but your analysis is quite wrong in some areas. Of course lots of us[duffers] wants different genres and titles to be released but our numbers are not enough to even register in the music business as couple % point. They insist to cater to same crowd because that's all there is. There is no new demand so there won't be any new supply. I have no idea who are those women you talking about. HT was promoted from the lifestyle system to dedicated rooms and custom install. There were plenty of different budgets and choices out there. Instead the the masses embraced soundbars, not exactly how one listens to MCH music. Like I've said the largest segment of the audio business that's booming right now is all about headphones, which again is not meant for MCH music.Even Vinyl doing a far better growth than MCH music could ever achieve.Many people even young ones consider it cool these days, and not because it was directly marketed to them. So you can blame marketing all you want, but the end of the day MCH music will never gain widespread traction because there simply not enough interest, not just from listeners but from the artists themselves, and with ever declining revenues from physical media the labels just can't afford to keep releasing stuff that very few people will buy.
The thread is bouncing around a bit. To answer the original question, good mastering is king. There are good and bad mastered discs in both stereo and surround so there really is no correct answer. In fact there is still a some digital stuff out there that hasn't matched some vinyl.
I wish mastering wasn't even necessary, and certainly it isn't for digital recordings, but the loudness war................ anyway been talked about that for years.
It's a catch 22... You won't have people buying the equipment unless there's a wide selection of music to play on it, and you won't have people buying the music unless the equipment is simple and inexpensive. I consider home theater setups to be entirely different animals from systems designed to play multichannel music well. Home theater is all about the extremes in the response... to the extent of putting "butt exciters" in the seats. Multichannel music doesn't work well at all without a balanced response curve. Movies sound good with a response curve tuned for music, but the inverse isn't necessarily true. The 10dB difference in the LFE channel makes it necessary to split the difference and be 5dB too low for one, and 5dB too high for the other. Kids naturally gravitate to headphones because they don't have a place to put a speaker system. A lot of people in a position to have room for a multichannel setup don't see the purpose of ditching their old stereo if it still works. They replace bits and pieces incrementally, and it's about as easy to transition to multichannel that way as it is to amputate your arm a couple of inches at a time.
So do I, but I use PLIIX music. However, I recently discovered another surround codec on my processor that is most likely proprietary and its called Stereo7, 7.1. On 50 to 75% of my 2 channel digital sources, it sounds better than PLIIx Music.
That might be the same one as on my Yamaha AVR. Yamaha seems to make the best DSPs. I use the Stereo to 7.1 for almost all of my 2 channel listening. The only exception is Toscanini recordings, which are so dry one of the concert hall simulations make them more palatable.
I'm very skeptical of pseudo-surround. Having speakers all around you is solid. I'll give it a chance. I'm only mildly impressed by binaural though. It limits the capability of the mix enormously and for me at least, stuff that is supposed to be in front keeps popping behind me and vice versa. That thing with the motion tracking headphones looks a lot more promising, but I haven't tried one yet.
Yes the Smyth Realiser A16 which I had pledged to on Kickstarter will ship next summer. I could recreate the same sound of my MCH rig in my room, using any headphones with this, playing any formats, including Atmos, or DTS X. Looking forward to that.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!