Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings? - Page 11 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Do You Prefer 2-Channel or Multichannel Music Recordings?
2-channel 175 35.43%
Multichannel, audience perspective 181 36.64%
Multichannel, stage perspective 96 19.43%
I've never heard a multichannel music recording 42 8.50%
Voters: 494. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 124Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #301 of 351 Old 07-28-2014, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,671
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljr View Post
How is your room more friendly to 2ch playback?

It's not.

The manipulation of individually recorded tracks such as is often done in a recording studio is an artifice and why is 2 ch any better for such than multich?

it's not

I don't agree that presentation from the front aurally is always the case nor always the best presentation.

Nor do I.

I've attended concerts in venues where even that presentation from the front didn't take the rest of the space into account and that's not necessarily a good thing sitting in the audience. I personally like venues that help fill the room with sound, sometimes with the help of additional monitors placed strategically in the room, sometimes by the design of the space itself. Venues are not always good acoustic spaces.

Agree but I would not like more monitors to try and fix a bad hall.


I think if all recording studios had multich mixing rooms and more mixers experienced in using them you'd see an improvement overall in technique and presentation in recordings; certainly more options.

I agree.

so it's comes down to preferance

for me, and me alone, i prefer stereo philosophically (really 3.2)

surround for performance art and movies that are created specifically for multi channel

hendrix i listen to in stereo, he would have used the hell out of multiI track and i would then prefer to listen to him in multi track


here is something that gets lost, isn't someone on a limited budget (almost everyone) better off with two better speakers rather than 4 lesser speakers? Most always the answer is yes because of simple physics.

I guess my real point in all this is live and let live.
Of course we all operate under our own preferences. I actually love music I've heard only in two channel then presented in a movie in multi-ch with a new mix....makes me want to be able to obtain that particular mix which isn't often possible (as music only). Hendrix I think would be a proponent of multich but really have no idea what his thoughts on that were or even how much personal involvment he had (from what I know once he got into the recording studio thing he got carried away somewhat over the commercial aspects....). I would love to see where multich goes in another 20 years in any case now that the format is there for both the recordings and the playback....

lovinthehd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 351 Old 07-31-2014, 03:08 AM
Member
 
thrak76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Multichannel, a million times over!

I guess stage perspective... I prefer the immersion style, with highly discrete placement and creative use of instruments within the soundstage. Just adding ambience to a recording isn't too bad (concert recordings notwithstanding), but i prefer the "experience" of a good multichannel recording.

Furthermore, i've been matrixing all my 2 channel material for a long time now, first with plain pro-logic or "matrix", and now with PLII and DTS-neo6 variants. A good processor and fine speakers make a good multichannel experience out of all material.
thrak76 is offline  
post #303 of 351 Old 08-03-2014, 06:46 AM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I find the so-called SRS surround on my HDTV to be a little wonky, to be honest. I think it must be a difficult thing to simulate.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #304 of 351 Old 08-03-2014, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 4,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post
While I think some artists thrive in a live environment, rather than a studio one, its not always easy to capture either way. Why would you want a live version to sound the same as a studio version? Thats like saying if you like the studio version you always want a lip-sync performance ala Milli Vanilli?
Exactly.

Often times, my favorite version of a song will be a particular live performance. And then it becomes my preferred go-to version. I am talking about recordings, whether they be concert amateur/audience, radio station performances (KCRW, Peel Sessions, etc.), Austin City Limits, etc.

Now, if you're actually attending a live performance and the song performance sounds significantly different and not in a compelling way, then I can understand how disappointing that might be.

Mourning the disappearing usage of the -ly suffix. Words being cut-off before they've had a chance to fully form, left incomplete, with their shoelaces untied and their zippers undone. If I quote your post (or post in your thread) without comment, please check your zipper.

Last edited by CruelInventions; 08-03-2014 at 12:20 PM.
CruelInventions is offline  
post #305 of 351 Old 08-03-2014, 02:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,267
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 28
A few days ago, I sat with my son and introduced him to some classic Yes (The Yes Album on Blu-ray in lossless MCH). It was a blast. I'm listening to the same album now (the 2014 Steve Wilson stereo mix via my headphones). It's still a great album--but I'd much rather be in the "man-cave" with the MCH mix going. Sadly, not an option at the moment.
Ovation is offline  
post #306 of 351 Old 08-08-2014, 01:22 AM
Member
 
linger63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
As long as it's a GOOD recording I don't really consider the number of channels as a deciding factor !!!!!!!!!!!


Cheers
linger63 is offline  
post #307 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 02:59 AM
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
dying breed

There is nothing better for me. Then at the end of a Blu-ray: There will be a song that has been mixed into 5.1. Or for older movies where they would put the poppy tunes in the middle of the movie... It is oh so good.


My ears I feel can pick up these sensations, and I still get this tingling down my spine from these sounds.


But what is happening in the industry has been mostly the death of such sensations. Remember DVD-A audio? That was multi-channel, a few artists produced DVDs in that format before they realized there was no demand. Now many file formats are capable of carrying multi-channel, but it is just not practiced... because there is not enough demand.


I call it the ear-bud generation! I swear, I am 40, yet I can hear better than 95% of most other Americans. Even at my place of worship, if I'm not running the sound counsel, another guy will turn it up so loud that the voice on the speaker will be hurting my ears.


Added: Many of us may have home theater issues with our wives. "Oh, your working on your stuff again"... lol Case in point to this discussion, she could not tell the difference between 2 and 6 channel music, nor care. She likes music, but quality means little.

Last edited by robertkjr3d; 08-13-2014 at 06:04 AM. Reason: I botched the wording writing so fast
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #308 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 11:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I'm of the first generation of stereo listeners who remembers rigging up passive ambiance-derivation by wiring a pair of rear speakers in series between the left and right hot terminals. It seldom sounded very good.

What I now realise, having a decent 5.1 system with two-way speakers at all positions other than the sub (though the sides don't go as low but have their lower octaves steered to the sub in the AVR), is that a stereo recording only gains in clarity from ambiance derivation - now done in the AVR - if it is recorded binaurally.

Discrete multichannel - created by mixing into a surround set of channels the discrete channels now uniformly used to capture each instrument (often two or more per instrument - look at the miking of a drum set sometime) and the hall sound - is a different animal from surround derived from a stereo mix by exploiting the difference between the stereo channels.

While "audience perspective" mixes recreate the experience of sitting in an auditorium at a live performance, "stage perspective" mixes enable hearing more clearly the individual instruments, since they don't all have to be reproduced by one pair of speakers, which usually buries the background lines in order to feature the lead lines - and phase cancellation between the instruments assigned to a channel only aggravates the problem, compromising the lead lines as well. Spreading the instruments across five speakers, by using the two or more channels used to record an instrument to place them in space in different locations around the room, means that they can each be heard more clearly.

I don't understand the hate for doing this I hear voiced on this forum or from "audiophiles" in general. Don't they want to hear the music as clearly as possible?

It's analoguous to the hate directed at high definition digital recordings by audiophiles whose love of the "warm" sound of vinyl played through tube amplifiers can lead them to reject as "harsh" any recordings that actually contain both low and high frequencies that reproduce the overtones and harmonics in the music.

While the format war between DVD-A and SACD delayed adoption of discrete lossless high-definition multichnnel audio, the commodification of Blu-ray players that can deliver more discrete channels of high-definition lossless multichannel audio, with high definition video at the same time, means that true high-quality surround music is available to most people, without having to buy an additional player beyond what they use for movies.

The people on this forum should be championing using modern home theaters to listen to music in the clearest way possible, urging their friends to get two-way surround speakers instead of satellites to make them into music systems - not decrying good surround recordings as "gimmicks."

Philnick is offline  
post #309 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 01:44 PM
Senior Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I think this simple question is more complex than it seem upon initially encountering it.

First Budget - before we even get to the music, let's consider the equipment. For a fixed budget, you will always get better equipment if you buy a stereo. That doesn't mean a Surround System at the same price won't sound good, just simply not as good.

When ever I sit around dreaming about the magnificent Home Theater I'm going to buy some day, one thought always enters my mind - Think of the Stereo system I could buy with that money.

Second Content - How was the Surround Sound created? Was it mixed from 2-channel using electronic magic, or did they have the original master multi-channel 'tapes' to create the Multi-Channel Surround version?

If done right, multi-channel music can be stunning, or if not done right, it can simply be a gimmick to impress your friends.

There is a degree to which I don't trust Surround Sound, though I'm not an idiot I see its virtues. Go down to Walmart buy the cheapest $100 all-in-one self-contained 5.1 system and give a listen. Even as the speaker sound bad, the Surround effect still sounds impressive. So, the point is, it is easy to be fooled by the nature of the effect, even as the music doesn't sound that good.

So, if we assume the equipment is first rate, and we assume that the content has been created and mixed with Surround in mind, and if compression is kept to a minimum, then I suspect Multi-Channel Surround Music can sound stunning. And if not ... then not.

Just a few thoughts.
bluewizard is offline  
post #310 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 01:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 155
If surround music sounds better despite bad speakers, then I don't see how it's a gimmick - the whole idea is for music to sound good to you.

I don't have any friends who would be impressed by a surround system... maybe if I walked in with Eva Longoria on my arm.
hernanu is online now  
post #311 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 07:42 PM
Senior Member
 
robertkjr3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
I don't have any friends who would be impressed by a surround system...
Is this not a modern concept? Go back a few years.. and more people would be very impressed. Now, people just don't care anymore. Remember when IMAX would advertise there sound system? Now for me, generally it sounds better at home than in the theater.

That is what I was referring to in my earlier comment about these times. I invite some friends over. Some don't care... But, I still get some that are really impressed, that the Phaser Blasts come from behind them and can even scare them a bit!
robertkjr3d is offline  
post #312 of 351 Old 08-13-2014, 09:53 PM
Member
 
dark41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I've always been a bit of an audiophile. Most of my music collection is lossless formats, but still limited by the original mixing issues. Music was never meant to be mixed for recording, and even the latest technologies are a poor substitute for live gigs, all with separate amps and speakers. Mixing drums, guitars, keyboards, and vocals always compromises on the quality of the sounds, whether it's 2 channel or multichannel. I've never met a musician who's happy with the way their instrument or voice sounds after mixing.

From my experiences of jamming with friends back in the day, I prefer multichannel stage. Even multichannel stage has limitations, but to me that's the closest to the live sound that I'm always trying to reproduce.

I want to feel the bass drum and be able to tell Paiste from Zildjian cymbals - the way I can standing in front of them. That's impossible with 2 channel audio, and most multichannel audience mixes.

To each their own. But, I'd bet that the vast majority of people would share the same opinion if they'd grown up hearing each instrument and vocalist coming from a single direction around them, as I did. Your head is the ultimate music mixer.
dark41 is offline  
post #313 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 05:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
bthrb4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northwest PA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
I use to use a $500 DAC like there was no other way to listen to music. Then I sat down and did a very long listening comparison against my receiver being fed digital signal via hdmi and couldn't tell a difference. Granted my speakers arent the most detailed speakers but they are just as good as most of the general market. Now, after setting up my room correction software I just can't turn off Dolby music mode when listening to my music. You can make it sound just like stereo with a few tweaks only instead of being in front of you, it wraps around you. When I have people over I always like to show them the cool stereo imaging that we all initially loved because it is a pretty cool thing to hear but that is short lived as your ears start wondering what all this air around you is doing not having music in it.

Last edited by bthrb4u; 08-14-2014 at 05:42 AM.
bthrb4u is offline  
post #314 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 05:45 AM
Advanced Member
 
bthrb4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northwest PA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
However my speakers are kind of forward and pretty dynamic but I do also love a good laid back 2 channel presentation if I'm just sitting around enjoying dinner or a nice conversation with someone. Maybe some wine in front of the fireplace with the wife. Some speakers are better for this than others.
bthrb4u is offline  
post #315 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 06:04 AM
Member
 
Dick Emery's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I listen to a lot of dance music so 2 channel for me. But again it depends on source. I have a few multi-channel CD/DVD's and they only really work for stage music IMHO. That being said I do sometimes listen to 2 channel in DPLII Music mode. I also have some odd experiemental multi-channel albums and singles. Carl Cox Phuture 2000 is an odd one and gimmicky. Some classics remixed for 5.1 like The Beatles Yellow Submarine and The Eagles Hotel California or Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds gain an interesting perspective in multi-channel mixes. But I would not say they are 'better' for it.
Dick Emery is offline  
post #316 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 08:04 AM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Given a choce

Given a choice of Mch or 2ch from the same source then I always want the Mch.
Sound quality is much more important than the number of channels and in some cases mono sounds better than stereo, but still some studio mixers (so called 'sound engineers') make Mch SACDs out of 1950's mono sources! What is wrong with these people?
My experience with hundreds of SACDs has shown me that, generally, the surround mix has superior sound quality and dynamic range to the stereo mix.
I would imagine that most of the people on here saying they prefer 2ch are people that do not have any real experience of a good quality surround system. Many of my friends say they would like to upgrade to Mch but can't afford the extra speakers, after all many speakers are hundreds ($£) each.

Last edited by RealAfrica; 08-14-2014 at 10:51 AM. Reason: spelling
RealAfrica is offline  
post #317 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 10:22 AM
Advanced Member
 
bthrb4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northwest PA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealAfrica View Post
Given a choice of Mch or 2ch from the same source then I always want the Mch.
Sound quality is much more important than the number of channels and in some cases mono sounds better than stereo, but still some studio mixers (so called 'sound engineers') make Mch SACDs out of 1950's mono sources! What is wrong with these people?
My experience with hundreds of SACDs has show me that, generally, the surround mix has superior sound quality and dynamic range to the stereo mix.
I would imagine that most of the people on here saying they prefer 2ch are people that do not have any real experience of a good quality surround system. Many of my friends say they would like to upgrade to Mch but can't afford the extra speakers, after all many speakers are hundreds ($£) each.
I have plenty of experience with multichannel and sometimes prefer stereo. First thing in the morning I don't want huge dynamics all in my face. I've got the stereo on simply to create a better vibe when I'm gawky but I Def don't want the music interrupting my semi ability to think right away lol.
However when I come home from the bar and the alcohol induced ungainly state of mind prefers it when my eyes are closed and the ambient sounds of electronic music all around the room rendered from multichannel reminds me why I have a surround sound system system in the first place... Also the movie thing haha

Last edited by bthrb4u; 08-14-2014 at 10:30 AM.
bthrb4u is offline  
post #318 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 10:57 AM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
First thing in the morning I can't really listen to music at all, but if I did, then it would be like you and I would not be sequestered in the 'music room' with the surround system
Many days the first music I hear is in the car via CD. One has to make the best of such noisy environments, but going full 24/96 surround in the car might be OTT. Unless, of course it is one's job to spend many hours of each day in the car. For me CD quality seems good enough, but I would really like to find a practical and affordable way to play 24/96 flac from HDD in the car.

Last edited by RealAfrica; 08-14-2014 at 11:36 AM. Reason: spelling
RealAfrica is offline  
post #319 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hernanu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston Suburbs
Posts: 2,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealAfrica View Post
First thing in the morning I can't really listen to music at all, but if I did, then it would be like you and I would not be sequestered in the 'music room' with the surround system
Many days the first music I hear is in the car via CD. One has to make the best of such noisy environments, but going full 24/96 surround in the car might be OTT. Unless, of course it is one's job to spend many hours of each day in the car. For me CD quality seems good enough, but I would relly like to find a practical and affordable way to play 24/96 flac from HDD in the car.
I do play music in the morning, since my main listening area is in the living room. Pandora, FLAC from my NAS or SACD / DVD-A is usually going... sometimes CD's. Or multi channel stuff in my bedroom 5.1 system.

As to FLAC, I have Poweramp on my Android phone, it plays that just fine, but stereo only through bluetooth.

All in all not so bad. I like music when I'm doing breakfast.
hernanu is online now  
post #320 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 11:45 AM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanu View Post
I do play music in the morning, since my main listening area is in the living room. Pandora, FLAC from my NAS or SACD / DVD-A is usually going... sometimes CD's. Or multi channel stuff in my bedroom 5.1 system.

As to FLAC, I have Poweramp on my Android phone, it plays that just fine, but stereo only through bluetooth.

All in all not so bad. I like music when I'm doing breakfast.
I should have mentioned about flac in the car that I would very much prefer a solution that is played via the car's installed CD/Radio. I do not think it is a responsible thing to be driving a car with headphones on. Probably it is (or at least should be) illegal! It's the same as having a mobile/cell phone strapped to one's ear after all
I found some bluetooth jobbies that are supposed to send to the car radio, on some unused FM frequency, but in practice this seems to be hit and miss with connection, according to buyer's feedback. I really don't think wireless is up to streaming Hi Res properly yet, certainly no good for surround, but it might be OK if correctly implemented for Redbook and empty3.

Last edited by RealAfrica; 08-14-2014 at 11:46 AM. Reason: spelling
RealAfrica is offline  
post #321 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 12:52 PM
Member
 
eccoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
2-Channel. Live musicians perform in front of you, not around you. Audience noise can add to the immersion but I'd rather just hear the music. Using the surround and rear speakers for reverberations can be effective but every surface in the listening room needs to be treated.
eccoboy is offline  
post #322 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealAfrica View Post
I should have mentioned about flac in the car that I would very much prefer a solution that is played via the car's installed CD/Radio. I do not think it is a responsible thing to be driving a car with headphones on. Probably it is (or at least should be) illegal! It's the same as having a mobile/cell phone strapped to one's ear after all
I found some bluetooth jobbies that are supposed to send to the car radio, on some unused FM frequency, but in practice this seems to be hit and miss with connection, according to buyer's feedback. I really don't think wireless is up to streaming Hi Res properly yet, certainly no good for surround, but it might be OK if correctly implemented for Redbook and empty3.
When I got a new car stereo, I picked one with a front-panel Aux input jack that takes a standard mini-headset plug. It's the best way to get music into the car stereo.

With my phone able to play anything off my home library via Bubble UPnP for Android, the matching server for Windows, and foobar2000 with the foo_upnp plugin (all free from SourceForge.net except $4.99 for the Android app at the Play store), I can listen to my own music wherever I am. I can play local files off the phone's microSD card losslessly, or over the cellular internet connection as an MP3 - and when I'm on a WiFi hotspot, the server knows to send it as a WAV PCM file.

Philnick is offline  
post #323 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Many/most newer car stereos have bluetooth - so you should be able to stream from your phone. (I stream Spotify to my car stereo, no problem...)

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #324 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 03:33 PM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post
When I got a new car stereo, I picked one with a front-panel Aux input jack that takes a standard mini-headset plug. It's the best way to get music into the car stereo.

With my phone able to play anything off my home library via Bubble UPnP for Android, the matching server for Windows, and foobar2000 with the foo_upnp plugin (all free from SourceForge.net except $4.99 for the Android app at the Play store), I can listen to my own music wherever I am. I can play local files off the phone's microSD card losslessly, or over the cellular internet connection as an MP3 - and when I'm on a WiFi hotspot, the server knows to send it as a WAV PCM file.
Sounds good I wish my car stereo has an AUX in.
However I spend so little time in the car that it is impossible to justify buying a new in car stereo.
RealAfrica is offline  
post #325 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 03:41 PM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post
Many/most newer car stereos have bluetooth - so you should be able to stream from your phone. (I stream Spotify to my car stereo, no problem...)
I'm sure that is fine for many people, but I have no interest in spotify, especially as they don't pay proper royalties to artists.
I don't see it as any improvement over me playing my CDs as I currently do, or even listening to regular radio.
I prefer to listen to my own lossless music, not empty3, but then the car is such a noisy environment maybe high bit rate empty3 would do? Except I would have to spend so much time converting all my lossless files to empty3 and find more storage for them. That last issue is the one that stops me even considering empty3 use, anywhere.

Last edited by RealAfrica; 08-14-2014 at 03:43 PM. Reason: spelling
RealAfrica is offline  
post #326 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gecko85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 2,184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealAfrica View Post
I'm sure that is fine for many people, but I have no interest in spotify, especially as they don't pay proper royalties to artists.
I don't see it as any improvement over me playing my CDs as I currently do, or even listening to regular radio.
I prefer to listen to my own lossless music, not empty3, but then the car is such a noisy environment maybe high bit rate empty3 would do? Except I would have to spend so much time converting all my lossless files to empty3 and find more storage for them. That last issue is the one that stops me even considering empty3 use, anywhere.
My point was streaming bluetooth from your phone. If your stereo supports blutooth you should be able to stream anything from your phone. If you can play it, you can stream it. So, you'd be able to stream your own lossless files...

I play ALAC lossless files in my car, but it's a direct connection to the back of the unit, with the cable hidden neatly in the glove box.

Panasonic TC-P60ST60, Pioneer SC-1523-K, Oppo BDP-103D, Pioneer PL-550 + Cambridge Audio Azur 640P, B&W CM1 (fronts), B&W CM Centre, Athena Point 5 Mk II (rears), Hsu VTF-2
----------------------------------------
Sony 34XBR960, Onkyo TX-NR414, Sony PS3, Athena Point 5 Mk II (center and fronts), Wharfedale WH-2 (rears), Polk PSW10
Gecko85 is offline  
post #327 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 03:58 PM
Member
 
RealAfrica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko85 View Post
My point was streaming bluetooth from your phone. If your stereo supports blutooth you should be able to stream anything from your phone. If you can play it, you can stream it. So, you'd be able to stream your own lossless files...

I play ALAC lossless files in my car, but it's a direct connection to the back of the unit, with the cable hidden neatly in the glove box.
I'm an oddity in today's society. I don't really do the mobile/cell phone thing; having it with me all the time and spending large cash on having a 'smart' phone with all kinds of bells and whistles. There is nothing wrong with it, it is just not my style.
Therefore, I don't really want a solution to in-car music that involves a phone. Nor am I sure if my phone does bluetooth or if the car cd/radio player would natively support bluetooth. What I do have is loads of lossless files and HDDs and I would like to use what I already have, in any in-car music solution. Your method of a direct wired connection into the back of the car stereo has me thinking hard.
Thank you.
RealAfrica is offline  
post #328 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 07:27 PM
Member
 
madaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Edit: Quote removed, as my post was not meant as a direct "reply" to the quoted post(er)

My preference is for multi-channel stage perspective (as opposed to rear speakers only providing ambience). I like the music all around me, with the different instruments coming from different speakers. AIX stage perspective DVD-As are my preferred format. Ditto the Tacet "real suround" recordings.
That said, there are stereo recordings that are so well-mixed, engineered, whatever, they stand out from the crowd. I have a couple of Deutsche Grammophon (stereo) recordings that provide that "in the room with you" feeling of presence that is what I am after.
To people who go on about only having two ears, and where do you sit when you go to a concert, my reply is my two ears can tell if sound is in front of me, on either side or behind, and back in the days when I pretended I could play a trumpet in a band, I loved hearing the other musicians all around me. I want to be there, not down in the concert hall with the band 50 metres in front of me.
So, "stage perspective" surround. But done well, not as a gimmick. I have some stereo recordings where the engineer seems to have gone too far in "separation" so that it seems most of the sound is coming from one speaker.
I want "presence". Anybody got the Rise album from Anoushka Shankar? That is only a stereo cd, but boy, does it have presence, and a wide sound stage and it fills my (reasonably large) listening room. Maybe with help from my "holographic imaging" AR m5 front speakers.
I do not, generally, use my reciever to re-process stereo recordings, I listen to them as stereo. When I do occassionally "reprocess" I use the advanced stereo setting (with front and back only, no artificial centre, no sub) rather than any of the dolby pro logic options.
I have my two front speakers probably way further apart than most people seem to recomment (a fraction over 4 metres) and my listening position is about the same distance (virtually an equilateral triangle) with about 1.7 m of space behind me.
I suppose what I am saying is what a lot of others have said, the biggest issue is the quality of the original recording - that shows whether the final presentation is in stereo or surround.
Philnick likes this.

Last edited by madaudio; 08-14-2014 at 08:33 PM.
madaudio is offline  
post #329 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 07:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealAfrica View Post
Sounds good I wish my car stereo has an AUX in.
However I spend so little time in the car that it is impossible to justify buying a new in car stereo.
I did that when I inherited my mom's 15 year old Camry with a sound system that sounded terrible - when I get my next used car, I'll transplant this car stereo into it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by madaudio View Post
My preference is for multi-channel stage perspective (as opposed to rear speakers only providing ambience). I like the music all around me, with the different instruments coming from different speakers. AIX stage perspective DVD-As are my preferred format. Ditto the Tacet "real suround" recordings.
That said, there are stereo recordings that are so well-mixed, engineered, whatever, they stand out from the crowd. I have a couple of Deutsche Grammophon (stereo) recordings that provide that "in the room with you" feeling of presence that is what I am after.
To people who go on about only having two ears, and where do you sit when you go to a concert, my reply is my two ears can tell if sound is in front of me, on either side or behind, and back in the days when I pretended I could play a trumpet in a band, I loved hearing the other musicians all around me. I want to be there, not down in the concert hall with the band 50 metres in front of me.
So, "stage perspective" surround. But done well, not as a gimmick. I have some stereo recordings where the engineer seems to have gone too far in "separation" so that it seems most of the sound is coming from one speaker.
I want "presence". Anybody got the Rise album from Anoushka Shankar? That is only a stereo cd, but boy, does it have presence, and a wide sound stage and it fills my (reasonably large) listening room. Maybe with help from my "holographic imaging" AR m5 front speakers.
I do not, generally, use my reciever to re-process stereo recordings, I listen to them as stereo. When I do occassionally "reprocess" I use the advanced stereo setting (with front and back only, no artificial centre, no sub) rather than any of the dolby pro logic options.
I have my two front speakers probably way further apart than most people seem to recomment (a fraction over 4 metres) and my listening position is about the same distance (virtually an equilateral triangle) with about 1.7 m of space behind me.
I suppose what I am saying is what a lot of others have said, the biggest issue is the quality of the original recording - that shows whether the final presentation is in stereo or surround.
I'm another AIX stage-perspective guy. When I listen to a stereo source in my theater, I compare whether it sounds better using DTS:Neo Music processing (gentler than Dolby) or just playing the L and R channels through the surrounds as well, which I think of as "car stereo" mode.

Generally, matrix decoding sounds good only if there's good phase coherence to the recording, which usually occurs with binaurally-miked material. Otherwise, it's "car stereo" mode all the way.

These are available options on my old Yamaha AVR for the stereo inputs, but not for the Multichannel analog input, so I terminated my LF and RF cables from my Oppo in short Y-adapters so they could be plugged into both the MCH input and the DVD input. Problem solved.

Philnick is offline  
post #330 of 351 Old 08-14-2014, 08:58 PM
Newbie
 
sparqmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Agree with all of you!

With the right techniques you can capture sound in many ways. You can trick the mind to believe something is happening behind you with even a stereo track.
But, you can create real magic if you absolutely know what you are doing, when you record and mix with surround. It is not about the quantity of the sound, but the placement
of different sounds and timings. Personally, I like to listen to all music in 2x Stereo. you can change the spectrum of the music with placement and get some cool listening in.
Most music is not recorded for surround. I cannot wait until the methods to record surround are more pronounced. I have recorded live bands using 5 condensers in multiple
locations that I thought sounded mono and have had great results just listening back in a DAW you can hear the separation and could possibly make a great surround track with it.
Surround = Suited for live situations and or film making.
Stereo= You only have two ears! Just enjoy the music! It's what most music is created with!
The scope of how music gets recorded changes everyday and we will hear multiple versions of the same songs soon. DTS vs STereo lol.
Don't forget about the effect it will have on new hardware for recording in different ways too.
This is a great topic!

Thanks for listening, Sparq
sparqmark is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
frontpage , Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off