Post by Luukas July 11, 2015 (1 of 109)
|
|
Super Audio CD (SACD) has changed my way to listen classical music. The surround sound (5.0 or 5.1 channels) brings incredible dimensions to the performances. The little reverb at the surround channels creates a feeling that you are sitting in the middle of the concert hall.
Now there are hundreds of albums which are produced on SACD Stereo. It means that there isn't multi-channel layer. It doesn't make sense.
I heard music only from the main speakers. The listening experience was dull.
There are many excellent "SACD Stereo" albums, for example Eliahu Inbal's Mahler cycle with the Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra (Exton).
Any comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some time ago when I was contemplating an upgrade to my existing 5.0 system, some folks advised me that, for symphonic music listening, I would be better off if I would drop the idea of surround, sell everything and buy instead two floorstanders and a stereo amp. That because the floorstanders, with good positioning, would anyway offer enough spatial feeling for the sound. OK, I was telling them, but what about the SACD multichannel? For the most part, they simply didn't respond.
Others (fewer) said that, no matter what, I would not get in stereo the same spatial experience as with a 5.0/5.1 system, the sound clearly being localised only on the front.
Ever since, I remained with my present 5.0 system, solely for the SACD listening experience. Not that I do not agree that the sound quality itself would not be better rendered by a stereo amp with 2 speakers - even in a stereo system half the price of the surround one. But the feeling of spatiousness is gone. Am I wrong? Well, I guess it's debatable.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 11, 2015 (3 of 109)
|
|
I have been listening in surround format for almost 40 years now. Yeah, you read that right. In the late 70's I implemented a Hafler surround setup for my stereo system. For those who don't know what that is, it is a simple system that takes the out-of-phase signal from the two stereo channels and send it to a (or two) rear speaker(s). The resulting sound was amazing - the soundstage moved forward and expanded giving so much more realistic reproduction. I was hooked. Since I listen to classical music (an important consideration) this worked very well (especially with simply-mic'd recordings) because that ambience signal correlates with the hall sound. Over the years I refined this setup, incorporating two rear speakers a separate amp for the Hafler signal and a volume control so I could dial in the best effect at the listening position.
When the early multichannel receivers became available, they incorporated the Hafler idea in generating rear surround information. So, about 15 years ago I abandoned the Hafler approach and began using a m-ch receiver just to extract the surround info from my stereo source and send it to the surround speakers. I can control the volume in the rear independently of the mains for best stereo soundstage. Some will ask why I don't just implement full 5.0 or 5.1 discreet surround - my answer is that with my setup I can experience a credible surround sound on ALL my discs both RBCD and SACD and I have MANY more RBCD's in my collection.
So the answer to your question - why stereo SACD? For me, it is to get the best possible stereo signal to feed my "surround" system. The best recorded SACD's render violin timbre that is natural and not edgy as many RBCD's have. That's why I am glad that almost all SACD's have a stereo SACD track.
Edit: I should add that my main stereo rig contains high end equipment (Marantz SA-11S2 SACD player, Cary SLP-05 preamp and Manley Snapper monoblocks). It's just the surround setup that employs a m-ch receiver with inexpensive bookshelf speakers for the surrounds.
|
|
|
Post by Luukas July 11, 2015 (4 of 109)
|
|
Thanks for your answers.
Luckily I have an amplifier which contains the surround decoder. The decoder is a part of the Dolby Digital Theatre System which contains different sound programs for Movies and Music.
The surround decoder offers actually quite realistic surround listening experience. The instruments are distributed for five speakers. I use it when I'm listening normal CDs.
|
|
|
Post by Iain July 11, 2015 (5 of 109)
|
|
Luukas said:
Thanks for your answers.
Luckily I have an amplifier which contains the surround decoder. The decoder is a part of the Dolby Digital Theatre System which contains different sound programs for Movies and Music.
The surround decoder offers actually quite realistic surround listening experience. The instruments are distributed for five speakers. I use it when I'm listening normal CDs.
Quite right.
On my sytem, I use either of the following DSP to decode 2-channel source material to 5.1 multi-channel output:
a) Dolby ProLogic IIx-Music
b) Dolby ProLogic IIx-Cinema
... for the appropriate input format. They work well for what they are; after all, you can't make a silk purse from a sows ear. : )
BTW, higher quality input source material will produce better results from the appropriate DSP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discovering discretely recorded Mch sound for classical music via SACD was easily the most transformative listening experience ever in my home audio system. It changed my home listening like nothing else by virtue of breaking a major barrier between me and the sound of the live concerts I frequently attend. It is simply based on a superior model of what we hear in the hall and how we hear it.
I have been listening to little else at home for the past 8 years with great delight. I could introduce a synthesized Mch effect for stereo recordings, if I chose. It is not bad, although it falls considerably short of discretely recorded Mch. However, my preference is to listen to older stereo recordings in stereo as they were recorded, mixed and mastered. I may be a purist in that sense, but I do not do that often. Usually, it is just to enjoy a superb classic performance from the past.
I think Mch would be more popular among classical listeners who know and love live concert sound if only the opportunity to audition it were more widespread. Dealers seem uninterested because classical music is a small niche. Reviewers, except for Kal in Stereophile, ignore it as they seek more appeal to the mass audiophile market.
Unfortunately, hi rez Mch does not have as much to offer for other much more popular music genres in terms of available recordings or the sense of recreated realism of the performance. But, fortunately, home theater systems are the ally of Mch classical music fans. Unfortunately, high end audiophiles frequently disdain and have a bias against anything that smacks of home theater. It is their great loss if they love live classical music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with Fitzcalrado 215 for a change. However I do not agree with the use of 5 floorstanding speakers and find a sub/s totally unnecessary in a small /medium domestic listening room and I can not tolerate same volume coming from rear speakers as the front ones. I have posted this before but its worth repeating: The Penguin Guide to the 1000 Finest Classical Recordings says
The coming of compatible SACDs has revived surround sound. The back speakers can be very small,even hidden, for their purpose is only to add a subtle background ambience to the recording. With small groups of artists this can bring a subtle but tangible feeling of presence; with large-scale works, especially choral music, the result can be a very thrilling fourth dimension, and one really has the sense of sitting in the concert hall itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disbeliever said:
I totally agree with Fitzcalrado 215 for a change. However I do not agree with the use of 5 floorstanding speakers and find a sub/s totally unnecessary in a small /medium domestic listening room and I can not tolerate same volume coming from rear speakers as the front ones. I have posted this before but its worth repeating: The Penguin Guide to the 1000 Finest Classical Recordings says
The coming of compatible SACDs has revived surround sound. The back speakers can be very small,even hidden, for their purpose is only to add a subtle background ambience to the recording. With small groups of artists this can bring a subtle but tangible feeling of presence; with large-scale works, especially choral music, the result can be a very thrilling fourth dimension, and one really has the sense of sitting in the concert hall itself.
The Penguin Guide quoted opinion is invalidated by its use of the word "only", which of course is nonsense. Many MCH recordings do indeed provide a "subtle background ambience" but that is by no means the only approach to MCH. Of course there are those who prefer a "middle of the hall" or a "first balcony of the hall" soundstage, but there are other valid ways to reproduce (classical) music.
Immersive MCH, or as I prefer in large ensemble recordings "the conductor's perspective", is an incrediibly exciting listening experience. When done well, the listener is placed in the same virtual position in the sound-stage as the conductor. I have actually done this -- stand on stage during a symphonic concert, just behind the podium (with the conductor's permission, of course!) and I can tell you this is an unforgettable, visceral, thrilling and very musical experience. Duplicating it in a MCH recording is a worthy goal, IMO.
However, this type of MCH recording requires substantial Left Surround and Right Surround speakers for the most effective reproduction, since the volume level of the surround speakers is roughly the same as the Left Front and Right Front speakers. (For my taste, the center channel is typically about 2/3 the level of the Fronts).
I have brought musicians I've recorded to my home studio for listening sessions and the responses have been uniformly enthusiastic and positive, usually commenting on the vivid, life-like and thoroughly involving soundstage-- and resulting in an expressed desire to have a similar suround system for their own listening pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolute nonsense, like some of the unlistenable 2L approach . Classical music audiences always sit behind the conductor not stand on stage with him listening from his perspective. There is only one valid way to reproduce mch normal Classical music wherever one sits in the hall .Volume should be same from the three front speakers only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why nonsense? You're assuming that the concert hall experience is the best (most natural?) that one can have in classical music - but did you ever ask a conductor about this? Maybe from his point of view his experience/location is the best.
So isn't it all about the habit of where you are placed while in a concert hall?
Sure, most of us innevitably only listen from the seated perspective while attending concerts live. But why not, for a change, try to hear from the conductor's perspective, in such (rare, unfortunately) multichannel SACDs? And why not accepting that, after all, this may be the most impressive experience?
|
|
