Post by Mushroom July 15, 2015 (61 of 109)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
Mushroom complete nonsense if one is not deaf in one ear, even if deaf in one ear its also nonsense. Stereo & mch are available on one disc.
My apologies. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that MCH and stereo are not always available on one disc. There is often a stereo layer, but not a MCH layer on many. To dump stereo in favor of MCH-only availability would be a disservice to the medium and listeners.
Physics and biology have as much to do with my observations on monaural hearing as much as actual experience.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa July 15, 2015 (62 of 109)
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
In principle one could say: music is analogue, if the whole chain is analogue it must be better.
If the recorded and reproduced waveform is closer to the original, it is better. Digitally recorded and reproduced waveform is at the current state of the art about 1000 times more accurate than the best analog systems, ever.
That is all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by jackan July 15, 2015 (63 of 109)
|
|
Mushroom said:
I've got a somewhat different take on stereo versus multichannel playback listening options, based on being deaf in one ear.
I tend to focus on the quality of the sound overall and not too much the spatial ambience, since that is limited. My feeling is that there are inherent limitations in how many varied sounds can be reproduced at once time by speaker systems. When you hear a band or orchestra, you hear discreet instruments (unless you're sitting in front of that trombone, then that's about all you hear) that are combined in your head (ear) to produce the full sound effect. Just how many sounds a speaker can accurately reproduce at one time, I don't know.
Hi Mushroom, interesting take on sound, stereo/multi.
Your ear/brain does not get different or discrete signals. Only one complex signal per ear. When you listen to an orchestra, all the sounds of all the instruments, and the reflections, are all summed together, and combined into one signal. So same with the speaker. It's job is to reproduce a (very) complex signal. One thing the brain is very good at is comparing the two signals, and analyzing the difference between the two. So when one hears a symphony, there is a slight difference in time and response between something that is sitting off to one side. Something that is directly in front, will have both the exact same timing, and frequency response. The down side to stereo over real life is that the brain now has to deal with four responses. Because each ear hears both speakers. (This is one huge advantage for headphones, as we are back to each ear hearing only one source.) In your case I would imagine that you would be far better off with a monaural source, so you will not miss information, nor have sound coming from multiple places, only to interfere with each other.
Back to that complex signal. In the instance of a two way speaker, one part reproduces the highs, and the other the lows, these signals then combine in the air, just like the instruments in the orchestra are combined. This is one of the hardest parts of speaker design is getting the two signals to combine in a phase coherent manner. If you take two stereo speakers and place them on the same side of your body, you will now have doubled the potential problems for phase coherence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Oh, Euell, where's your sense of musical adventure?
Left behind before I got to Accordianville, with a nod, however, to Art Van Damme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Left behind before I got to Accordianville, with a nod, however, to Art Van Damme.
Seriously, Euell, if you replaced your grand piano with another keyboard instrument, namely, the accordion, you'd have plenty of room for those rear speakers which really begs the question posed in this thread: SACD stereo: it doesn't make sense?
It sure doesn't ;-) !
Not to mention what luggin' that thing around would do for your upper torso! http://wnyaccordions.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/accordion_of_despair.265181016_std.jpg
Oh well, I suppose it's safer than duck hunting.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Seriously, Euell, if you replaced your grand piano with another keyboard instrument, namely, the accordion, you'd have plenty of room for those rear speakers which really begs the question posed in this thread: SACD stereo: it doesn't make sense?
Makes sense to me and wouldn't want to be less grand after all. :-}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mushroom said:
My apologies. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that MCH and stereo are not always available on one disc. There is often a stereo layer, but not a MCH layer on many. To dump stereo in favor of MCH-only availability would be a disservice to the medium and listeners.
Physics and biology have as much to do with my observations on monaural hearing as much as actual experience.
I have yet to see a mch SACD disc that also does not contain a stereo layer ?
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa July 16, 2015 (68 of 109)
|
|
SACD stereo as a "layer" does make sense. It is there for those who do not have MCH reproduction systems, and to make the life easier for record companies who do not want to carry double inventory (the nifty hybrid CD-layer feature). Down mixing a 5.0 MCH to stereo is not the same as having a proper original stereo signal.
To make stereo only SACDs does not make sense, however, as a CD serves the purpose just as well, and cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disbeliever said:
I have yet to see a mch SACD disc that also does not contain a stereo layer ?
There are a few, most notably the Eloquence discs: /titles/0/366/date/5/1
There's a stereo rbcd layer and a multichannel SACD layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
To make stereo only SACDs does not make sense, however, as a CD serves the purpose just as well, and cheaper.
Many would disagree with that and there are quite a few stereo-only SACD's out there. And, even those who reject the thought that DSD provides a better listening experience than RBCD in stereo, have to acknowledge that extended time stereo-only SACD's are quite useful.
|
|
