spirovious
Well-Known Member
DSD vs PCM Interview with Ed Meitner-
DSD vs PCM Interview with Ed Meitner | DSD-Guide.com
DSD vs PCM Interview with Ed Meitner | DSD-Guide.com
Direct Stream Digital - The New Addiction
- Thread starter venkatcr
- Start date
spirovious
Well-Known Member
Can we really play on PC-
DSDIFF Decoder - Hydrogenaudio Forums
DSDIFF Decoder - Hydrogenaudio Forums
Murali, if you noticed, I said we must open our minds. We are all constantly being told by our minds that music is 2 channel, and everything else is unnatural.
When I heard the DVD-A with sound recorded and edited for 5.1, fortunately, I was not so hung up on 2.0. The effect of hearing voice coming from the front, the drums from one side, and instruments from another was exhilarating. None of these need to be out of phase. Just imagine sitting in the middle of an orchestra and listening to classical music. The way an orchestra is seated nowadays is all facing one direction because of the way our halls are constructed. Just imagine a hall where the dais is in the middle surrounded on all sides by the audience. You can ask how can the artists see the conductor, but those are minor issues that can he handled by technology.
Very similar to the way you enjoy a movie with surround sound, music, recorded and edited properly, can also be enjoyed in a surround sound system.
In real life you do hear sound all around your head with the perception of depth. This is what sound engineers have been trying to replicate in electronics. In terms of at least the surround part, all I am saying is that there is an easy solution.
Cheers
anm
Well-Known Member
Well, if I am on a road, and a bus is honking from behind, I will get out of the way and not argue about god has given us only two ears, come from the front, and a slight toe-in please!
We hear sound from all directions, and are also capable of placing where they are coming from.
Stereo is a good approximation, and has been around for many (y)ears. It is also affordable, easy to place in a room compared to many speakers, multiple wiring. I hope a well recorded surround music will sound really good if all speakers are up to it. In most home theaters, not all speakers are equal, even if they are from the same company.
However, if a sound is recorded in stereo, and then played with artificial mixing to create a surround effect, it can sound unnatural.
We hear sound from all directions, and are also capable of placing where they are coming from.
Stereo is a good approximation, and has been around for many (y)ears. It is also affordable, easy to place in a room compared to many speakers, multiple wiring. I hope a well recorded surround music will sound really good if all speakers are up to it. In most home theaters, not all speakers are equal, even if they are from the same company.
However, if a sound is recorded in stereo, and then played with artificial mixing to create a surround effect, it can sound unnatural.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
2-channel, stereo sound remains secure and unchallenged for serious music listeners as yet. 'As yet' should not be confused with 'for ever.'
I don't know that people want to hear music from the perspective of sitting in the orchestra --- but imagine a multi-channel DSP system in which one could dial in the venue and the seat! It would even be able to reproduce even the bad concert halls in the world! A sort of musical equivalent to being able to select one's view point when watching sport on digital TV.
The possibilities are endless. Whether they work out or not, and whether people choose to buy into them or not, are other matters.
New digital formats may be able to bring us much more information other than simply extending frequency response and dynamic range to values which we may not be able to experience anyway.
It's easy to forget, on the other hand, what an absolutely incredible invention stereo is --- that two points of sound can reproduce a two-, and even three-dimensional illusion of the performance. Astonishing.
I don't know that people want to hear music from the perspective of sitting in the orchestra --- but imagine a multi-channel DSP system in which one could dial in the venue and the seat! It would even be able to reproduce even the bad concert halls in the world! A sort of musical equivalent to being able to select one's view point when watching sport on digital TV.
Probably because it is --- or because, however good the idea, the implementation may be limited or downright bad. Multichannel, along with room-correction DSP, could bring a new level of experience to music that still actually appears to come from in front of us.
The possibilities are endless. Whether they work out or not, and whether people choose to buy into them or not, are other matters.
New digital formats may be able to bring us much more information other than simply extending frequency response and dynamic range to values which we may not be able to experience anyway.
It's easy to forget, on the other hand, what an absolutely incredible invention stereo is --- that two points of sound can reproduce a two-, and even three-dimensional illusion of the performance. Astonishing.
Last edited:
anm
Well-Known Member
^^ agreed. But having two ears is not a limitation for experiencing true surround sound.
With two ears, yes, it is true that we can still hear a car approaching from behind. That is probably why we are not created with "surround" ears all over the body.
When I listen to music, it is like sitting in front of the players and hearing the sounds coming from a soundstage wide and deep in front of me. I believe that when a player blows a horn or trumpet, its sound should come from where he is on that soundstage. It becomes weird if that originates somewhere around me or behind. With a good 2-channel system, even the echos reflecting from behind me become audible adding to the authenticity of the reproduction.
I never want to listen to music as if I am sitting right in the midst of the troop and sound emanating from all around me. To me, that is absurd. It is like those guys spending money in putting all sorts of amplification and speakers around them inside a car, driving the car, and expecting to get a great experience.
At the same time, I like to hear the surround effect of movies when for example, in A Bridge Too Far, the guys fire shells from in front of me and they land and explode in the neighbour's house behind me. That is what movie surrounds are meant for, isn't it? But I don't expect the trumpet player in a music to throw the instrument behind me and the sound coming from there.
The crux of the matter is that movies are made with moving cameras and the whole surround sound concept came from the perception that the viewer is right in the middle of action and thus enjoys those effects. I will be surprised if someone tells me that on a serious music soundstage, every player is running around us with all those instruments. May be some weird pop singer or Bollywood characters jumping up and down and running around!
Let us also not get carried away from all those surround sounds emanating from those Mosebauer discs. Listen to a true surround sound of a video disc of Jurassic Park or Saving Private Ryan and compare. A surround speaker even in a movie is supposed to sound when there is really some sound in that direction, unlike all the sounds coming all the time from all the speakers in several DTS and Dolby labelled movie theatres I had been to.
These are purely my personal views, not for agreement or disagreement. After all, everyone wants to experience such arts in his or her own way. So if some of you feel that surround music is worth it, so be it. But I won't in my own humble way.
Happy listening.
murali
You are missing the point completely. We are not talking about Moserbaer or artists jumping about, or trumpets being thrown about. I am talking about setting the soundstage in a way never thought of before.
In a recording where vocals are employed, for clarity, the singers are always isolated from the instruments. This is then mixed by the editor. Till now the editor was mixing for two channels. There is nothing to stop him for mixing for multiple channels.
There are a number of very good albums that are mixed for multi channel. Some of them are:
Stereo, from the Greek word - Stereos - implies multi channel as the actual meaning for 'Stereos' is solid - certainly meaning more than two dimensions. (Ack- Music in the Round #1 | Stereophile.com). Till now we were limited by technology. But media size and compression techniques have reached a level where you can have the same quality of sound coming from all of the multiple channels.
In real life, including a stage, nothing is in two channels. When you talk about a soundstage, you are talking about more than two dimensions. If you are talking about positioning of the artists, it is never done for two channel reproduction. It is done for convenience, proximity to the mikes, and a lot of other factors. All these limitations can be thrown away.
As I said before, we take a lot of effort with the electronics and speakers to have an 'expansive' soundstage. Why? Because, limited by technology, we were trying to push two channel to sound more like multi-channel.
For a long time now, recordings have always been in more than two channels. Unfortunately muti channel systems such as quadraphonic systems were not successful. Those days are gone. With something like a Blu-ray, you can have 2 to 3 hours of uncompressed music with very high resolution stored very easily.
More and more artists are now recording in multi channel. Most new Orchestral recordings will be in multi channel. Listen to a good multi channel recording, and you will wonder how you were happy with just two channels.
The future is multi channel music. Whether you like it or not, artists are already convinced and they are moving in that direction.
The days of two channel music is numbered.
Cheers
In a recording where vocals are employed, for clarity, the singers are always isolated from the instruments. This is then mixed by the editor. Till now the editor was mixing for two channels. There is nothing to stop him for mixing for multiple channels.
There are a number of very good albums that are mixed for multi channel. Some of them are:
- Steely Dan: Gaucho (DTS CD and SACD)
- Linda Ronstadt: What's New (DVD-Audio)
- James Taylor: Hourglass (SACD)
- Alan Parsons: On Air (DTS CD)
- Steely Dan: Nightfly (DVD-Audio)
- DTS Classical Collection - multiple discs (DTS CD)
- Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon
- Eagles - Hotel California
- Foreigner by Foreigner
- Billy Joel - 52nd Street
Stereo, from the Greek word - Stereos - implies multi channel as the actual meaning for 'Stereos' is solid - certainly meaning more than two dimensions. (Ack- Music in the Round #1 | Stereophile.com). Till now we were limited by technology. But media size and compression techniques have reached a level where you can have the same quality of sound coming from all of the multiple channels.
In real life, including a stage, nothing is in two channels. When you talk about a soundstage, you are talking about more than two dimensions. If you are talking about positioning of the artists, it is never done for two channel reproduction. It is done for convenience, proximity to the mikes, and a lot of other factors. All these limitations can be thrown away.
As I said before, we take a lot of effort with the electronics and speakers to have an 'expansive' soundstage. Why? Because, limited by technology, we were trying to push two channel to sound more like multi-channel.
For a long time now, recordings have always been in more than two channels. Unfortunately muti channel systems such as quadraphonic systems were not successful. Those days are gone. With something like a Blu-ray, you can have 2 to 3 hours of uncompressed music with very high resolution stored very easily.
More and more artists are now recording in multi channel. Most new Orchestral recordings will be in multi channel. Listen to a good multi channel recording, and you will wonder how you were happy with just two channels.
The future is multi channel music. Whether you like it or not, artists are already convinced and they are moving in that direction.
The days of two channel music is numbered.
Cheers
If anything, the mass market has moved in the opposite direction.
The most popular formats today have lower resolution than the popular format from the 80's and 90's. AAC & MP3 have lower resolution that Audio CDs.
On the other hand, in the same time, the market moved from VCR tapes to VCD, Laser Discs, DVDs and now Blu Rays.
Not that audio technology hasn't tried to move on: SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-Ray TrueHD audio, but MP3 and AAC simply have kicked their collective butts.
Practically, this means only one thing. We value visual clarity much more than we value audio clarity.
I am skeptical whether high res audio, or multi-channel audio would gain popularity outside audiophile circles currently, and in the future.
Just listen to Pink Floyd-Wish You Were Here-SACD. The latest hit in the recorded media. You will for the first time hear the details in all its glory, which CD could only touch upon.
SACD should not only be discussed based on the Stereo/Surround channels, but there is lot it offers in the dynamics, details, sound stage etc.,
Why Marantz makes only 2 Channel SACD player, because they believe in the sound of SACD, even when down mixed to 2 channel.
SACD should not only be discussed based on the Stereo/Surround channels, but there is lot it offers in the dynamics, details, sound stage etc.,
Why Marantz makes only 2 Channel SACD player, because they believe in the sound of SACD, even when down mixed to 2 channel.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Music via Multichannel 
This concept has been debated on countless forums for many years now. And the two camps will never unite.
Historically, live music has always been positioned in the front of a listener - with or without a stage. It has been like that for centuries even before mics or professional bands came to existence. The only reason people will accept an alternative solution is when the majority of the population ACCEPT that they can be seated in the middle of a band of musicians. For this to happen, all musicians have to play like this for many centuries and this sensibility needs to embed via the Human DNA into a vast majority of the human population. How many centuries will this take?
Many other reasons,
1.Cost. You have to buy 5 or more speakers of the same quality. 5 or more channels of amplifications.
2.Positioning of 2 speakers pose a huge challenge for the serious listener. Imagine trying to position 5 or more.
If a two channel purist has to go through all this additional pain ( cost and effort), what does he gain ? More believable representation of music ?
There are of course some albums which make use of ambient sounds which if mixed right can sound better on a multi channel system. Some Pink Floyd albums come to mind. But these are exceptions.
This concept has been debated on countless forums for many years now. And the two camps will never unite.
Historically, live music has always been positioned in the front of a listener - with or without a stage. It has been like that for centuries even before mics or professional bands came to existence. The only reason people will accept an alternative solution is when the majority of the population ACCEPT that they can be seated in the middle of a band of musicians. For this to happen, all musicians have to play like this for many centuries and this sensibility needs to embed via the Human DNA into a vast majority of the human population. How many centuries will this take?
Many other reasons,
1.Cost. You have to buy 5 or more speakers of the same quality. 5 or more channels of amplifications.
2.Positioning of 2 speakers pose a huge challenge for the serious listener. Imagine trying to position 5 or more.
If a two channel purist has to go through all this additional pain ( cost and effort), what does he gain ? More believable representation of music ?
There are of course some albums which make use of ambient sounds which if mixed right can sound better on a multi channel system. Some Pink Floyd albums come to mind. But these are exceptions.
Last edited:
Just a few short years. Companies that focussed on two channel are increasingly losing their market share. They either have to shift to multi channel, or walk out. Companies such as NAD, CA and others are trying this. Companies that stick adamantly to two channel will go on increasing the prices of their products as the number they sell go down. To make a budget two channel amplifier, a lot has to be compromised. Today, irrespective of our adamance, modern AVRs carry more technology even in terms of amplification simply because the returns are much higher for the manufacturers.
What you got for 100,000 a few years ago, is now available for under 50K. With Class D amplification gaining momentum, you can easily get a five channel amp for the cost of a two channel. Whether we will accept it is a different matter.
This certainly is an issue in terms of space. Not in terms of soundstage. You can easily place the speakers in a rough 5.1 pattern. You really do not have to have worry about angle, toe-in, and all that as you do with a 2.0. Remember, the sound is being generated from five different sources, not two. Other issues can be taken care of by room correction systems.
'Believable representation of music' - this is a term that makes me smile. You believe 2 channel is a correct representation, while I believe it has been the only representation available because of limitation of technology. I believe the best representation of music is that which is closest to real life - that which is in 4 dimensions - the fourth dimension being depth or distance. To get an idea of this, just walk around in a room and listen to the sound of everyday life. See how they change perspective as you walk around, how the sound moves closer and further away as you move nearer and further away from an object that is making the sound.
The only way electronics can recreate the fourth dimension is by amplitude. But the other three dimensions can easily be created by multi-channel systems; never by a 2 channel system.
Two channel 'purism' is a mind set. A desperate attempt to cling to something you are familiar with. A human trait to resist something new. In any case, 70% of the human population have happily accepted MP3. The balance 30% is all that is left. Of this 2 channel is a very small number for any major effort in terms of technology.
As the delivery mechanism shifts increasingly to multi-channel, the recording and editing industry will also follow suit. After all, they have to sell their music, don't they?
Cheers
square_wave
Well-Known Member
@ Venkat,
Conceptually speaking, are you saying that a few short years will replace the concept of music being heard from the front (or one direction) of the listener to a listener being seated in the midst of musicians. ? Where is this currently happening in the natural world? I cant seem to see even one instance ! Unless this starts happening in the natural world, how will this become conceptually acceptable?
Remember I am talking about the concept . If something is not right at a conceptual level, people will find ways to adapt and stay true to what they feel is correct. It is a brain thing. You cannot do anything about it. Industries and methods will follow suit to always cater to this niche industry. A small instance in the insurgence of the vinyl industry. There is always a group of people who feel digital is wrong conceptually. So they do Vinyl. So who is to say what is right ?
Your write up looks very mainstream to me. And there is nothing wrong with it though.
Conceptually speaking, I agree with you that a multi channel system can make music sound more natural if it is all done in the right way. But we are talking about a very large amount of money here. Production quality of the muntichannel music as well as cost of gear. For example, if I have X amount of money to spend on a music system, I will spend that money on 2 speakers and associated gear instead of spreading it to 5 or 7. I can always get state of the art gear that way instead of going down two steps to inferior ones.
Do you actually believe a serious 2 channel guy will water down quality by spreading his expenditure to 6 or more channels ???? Wow ! You must surely be joking.
Multichannel and 2 channel are all mindsets. For a purist it is all a matter of value.
Conceptually speaking, are you saying that a few short years will replace the concept of music being heard from the front (or one direction) of the listener to a listener being seated in the midst of musicians. ? Where is this currently happening in the natural world? I cant seem to see even one instance ! Unless this starts happening in the natural world, how will this become conceptually acceptable?
Remember I am talking about the concept . If something is not right at a conceptual level, people will find ways to adapt and stay true to what they feel is correct. It is a brain thing. You cannot do anything about it. Industries and methods will follow suit to always cater to this niche industry. A small instance in the insurgence of the vinyl industry. There is always a group of people who feel digital is wrong conceptually. So they do Vinyl. So who is to say what is right ?
Your write up looks very mainstream to me. And there is nothing wrong with it though.
Conceptually speaking, I agree with you that a multi channel system can make music sound more natural if it is all done in the right way. But we are talking about a very large amount of money here. Production quality of the muntichannel music as well as cost of gear. For example, if I have X amount of money to spend on a music system, I will spend that money on 2 speakers and associated gear instead of spreading it to 5 or 7. I can always get state of the art gear that way instead of going down two steps to inferior ones.
Do you actually believe a serious 2 channel guy will water down quality by spreading his expenditure to 6 or more channels ???? Wow ! You must surely be joking.
Multichannel and 2 channel are all mindsets. For a purist it is all a matter of value.
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Agree. Thinking out of the box, for pure music, you can actually keep a dozen speakers arranged in different depths in front of you and create a much more believable soundscape of the sound than using two speakers provided the music produced (mixed) that way. I would say this is better than having just 2 speakers in front of you. I would say this is a step ahead of the current method.
Who created this concept of speakers by your side and rear ? The home theater industry! So I would say that the mainstream industry is trying to retrofit music into this concept. Multi-channel is not the same as home theatre. So what are you trying to propound ??
square_wave
Well-Known Member
@venkat,
Clinging to old things
Ahem.
2 channel is old home theatre type surround is new
Are you saying that for a two channel guy, home theatre type surround is the new thing ?? Who made this definition ???? :sad::sad::sad:
Clinging to old things
Ahem.
2 channel is old home theatre type surround is new
Are you saying that for a two channel guy, home theatre type surround is the new thing ?? Who made this definition ???? :sad::sad::sad:
square_wave
Well-Known Member
@venkat,
In terms of amplification
Can you give me an example of AMPLIFICATION technology which is state of the art in terms of concept and implementation in an AVR which is better than a state of the art two channel amplifier ?
In terms of amplification
Can you give me an example of AMPLIFICATION technology which is state of the art in terms of concept and implementation in an AVR which is better than a state of the art two channel amplifier ?
spirovious
Well-Known Member
For serious listening,we may need a good 5.1 amp as good as a dedicated stereo amp to enjoy multich music over 2 ch,isn't it?
square_wave
Well-Known Member
Theoretically Multi - channel is a no brainer for music. Many years of research has gone into it even before home theatre became popular. This was a very hot subject even in the 80s.
-Many high quality speakers strategically located (mostly in the front area)
-Music which is produced for playback in such systems
Do you need an AVR ? Not sure that is the right animal for the job but you surely need a high quality multichannel power amp and a very high end processor along with multiple speakers along with acoustics -More speakers more reflections. This is an extremely costly affair. One of the reasons why it never really caught up for music.
In recent times, very sneakily the mainstream manufacturers are trying to retrofit this very utopian but worthy concept to the currently popular home theater concept to sell more AVRS and cheap speakers to the unsuspecting music lover. Sad state of affairs.
Last edited:
When I say an AVR, I am talking about a system that can decode audio codecs, do the necessary pre-processing, and the amplification.
If you take something like an Arcam AVR for example, it will be very difficult to differentiate between their two channel and multi channel sound, even of you restrict the sound to just the front channels.
Multi channel music is not easy to come by, but they are available. Till now DVD's size was a restriction in the eyes of serious editors. But with the advent of Blu-ray this will go away.
SW, I am not propagating anything. If at all anything, I am a bit surprised with the abhorrence that many 'audiophiles' seem to have for AVRs and multi channel music. In reality, AVRs have much more capabilities than a 2 channel pre-power combination. With the advent of Class D amplification becoming popular, I am sure a few chip manufacturers will make it easy for manufacturers to make HQ multi channel amplifiers at affordable prices.
Cheers
If you take something like an Arcam AVR for example, it will be very difficult to differentiate between their two channel and multi channel sound, even of you restrict the sound to just the front channels.
Multi channel music is not easy to come by, but they are available. Till now DVD's size was a restriction in the eyes of serious editors. But with the advent of Blu-ray this will go away.
SW, I am not propagating anything. If at all anything, I am a bit surprised with the abhorrence that many 'audiophiles' seem to have for AVRs and multi channel music. In reality, AVRs have much more capabilities than a 2 channel pre-power combination. With the advent of Class D amplification becoming popular, I am sure a few chip manufacturers will make it easy for manufacturers to make HQ multi channel amplifiers at affordable prices.
Cheers
Buy from India's official online dealer!
Similar threads
