Post by Julien October 24, 2006 (61 of 93)
|
|
Any system that plays music directly to the air? That would be a no-channel system...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max, Dan and Dave,
It puzzles me how it happened, but you three are really misreading or misinterpreting what I said about "Holy Grail".
To Dan, I said "I guess what is missing here is your understanding, and some others, that pursuing "The Absolute Sound" as defined by Harry Pearson so many years ago, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us. Note, Dan, that I said pursing "The Absolute Sound", yes, "pursuing". I never said anything in my post responding to you, about its attainment did I?
When I also said there are some who seem to resent it (that we are excited about mch), and who proclaim mch as a false holy grail, I was not implying that I regarded mch itself as the holy grail, and I should have chosen other words, but it does seem appropriate given the amount of damning that comes at us from certain quarters on this forum.
Remember how Pearson defined the Absolute Sound: "The sound of live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue". That is what he saw as the benchmark for "High Fidelity" systems. Again, pursuing that end, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us.
Dan, you said you aren't missing anything but given your response, I question that. What I did NOT say was that the 5.1 multi-channel sound attained the "Absolute Sound", eg my personal "holy grail". Seems to me that can only be approached asymtotically. In my and many others opinions, including some very well regarded recording engineers, well realized multi-channel gets us a lot closer to the asymtote.
What puzzles me is why you three collectively pull that "holy grail" statement out of context and build new sentences around it, attributing them to me, then denouncing them??? That is the October, early November crap we annually witness on TV here in the US, but none of you are running against me for political office you know!
Dave, Two things really bother me about your responses:
1, You assume I like artificial added ambience. I have criticized such in my reviews. I quickly tired of the Membran sound for just that reason. I don't like the excess reverb apparent in the otherwise excellent Vanska's Eroica on BIS. When you tell me I like artificial reverb, you are really blowing wind, my friend. Another example, I find the reverb excessive in Kuiken's Magic Flute recording on Amati. I don't know if that's artificial or just the effect of recording someplace with an excessive reverb time with no audience. The point is, however, that contrary to your assumption, I am NOT into artificial reverb or any echoey artifacts. I dislike them. Would probably avoid a concert held in a venu that has that character - would tolerate it only if I was a big big fan of the artist(s).
2, Until you hear it, you really shouldn't be telling me and others that my system can't do what I say it does.
Max, I hope the above clarifies my recent posts to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by mdt October 24, 2006 (63 of 93)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Max, Dan and Dave,
It puzzles me how it happened, but you three are really misreading or misinterpreting what I said about "Holy Grail".
To Dan, I said "I guess what is missing here is your understanding, and some others, that pursuing "The Absolute Sound" as defined by Harry Pearson so many years ago, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us. Note, Dan, that I said pursing "The Absolute Sound", yes, "pursuing". I never said anything in my post responding to you, about its attainment did I?
When I also said there are some who seem to resent it (that we are excited about mch), and who proclaim mch as a false holy grail, I was not implying that I regarded mch itself as the holy grail, and I should have chosen other words, but it does seem appropriate given the amount of damning that comes at us from certain quarters on this forum.
Remember how Pearson defined the Absolute Sound: "The sound of live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue". That is what he saw as the benchmark for "High Fidelity" systems. Again, pursuing that end, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us.
Dan, you said you aren't missing anything but given your response, I question that. What I did NOT say was that the 5.1 multi-channel sound attained the "Absolute Sound", eg my personal "holy grail". Seems to me that can only be approached asymtotically. In my and many others opinions, including some very well recording engineers, well realized multi-channel gets us a lot closer to the asymtote.
What puzzles me is why you three collectively pull that "holy grail" statement out of context and build new sentences around it, attributing them to me, then denouncing them??? That is the October, early November crap we annually witness on TV here in the US, but none of you are running against me for political office you know!
Dave, Two things really bother me about your responses:
1, You assume I like artificial added ambience. I have criticized such in my reviews. I quickly tired of the Membran sound for just that reason. I don't like the excess reverb apparent in the otherwise excellent Vanska's Eroica on BIS. When you tell me I like artificial reverb, you are really blowing wind, my friend. Another example, I find the reverb excessive in Kuiken's Magic Flute recording on Amati. I don't know if that's artificial or just the effect of recording someplace with an excessive reverb time with no audience. The point is, however, that contrary to your assumption, I am NOT into artificial reverb or any echoey artifacts. I dislike them. Would probably avoid a concert held in a venu that has that character - would tolerate it only if I was a big big fan of the artist(s).
2, Until you hear it, you really shouldn't be telling me and others that my system can't do what I say it does.
Max, I hope the above clarifies my recent posts to this thread.
Thank's it does. However i didn't mean to reply specifically to you.Maybe i shouldn't have quoted your statement. But the term "holy grail" tempted me to write. I had observed that there are very intolerant discussions on this site (in general, not anyone in particular)concerning multichannel or not.
I think this site should also serve to further the format SA-CD as such, since it is still not very well known in the large public. I can imagine industry people are looking into here as well, to get a hint at what consumers want. They should not be lead to believe demand is only for mch or only for stereo. Just consider the flop of Universals Mch-only cheapo SA-CDs.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp October 24, 2006 (64 of 93)
|
|
Windsurfer wrote in #62:
Note, Dan, that I said pursing "The Absolute Sound", yes, "pursuing". I never said anything in my post responding to you, about its attainment did I?
My response:
Sure looks like it to me.
Windsurfer #56:
Please don't be offended when we who have discovered...
Me:
"Have discovered" in context of "Holy Grail" (56) vs. "never said anything about attaining" (62)?
Wind #56:
...the extraordinary combination of high resolution and recordings designed to "transport the listener to the concert hall" express our excitement about it. There are some who seem to resent it and who proclaim Mch as a "false holy grail" -
Me:
If not a "false holy grail," then the true one? What other conclusion could one reach when reading this, than that you thought you had attained aural perfection in a box?
Wind, #62:
When I also said there are some who seem to resent it (that we are excited about mch), and who proclaim mch as a false holy grail, I was not implying that I regarded mch itself as the holy grail, and I should have chosen other words,
Me:
Very good. Why not just stop there?
Wind:
...but it does seem appropriate given the amount of damning that comes at us from certain quarters on this forum.
Me:
But why am I damned for the damning done by others? Is your damning stereo lovers better than their damning you? Why doesn't everyone just stop the damned damning?
Wind #62:
Remember how Pearson defined the Absolute Sound: "The sound of live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue". That is what he saw as the benchmark for "High Fidelity" systems. Again, pursuing that end, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us.
Me:
Wind, you may believe that that is an objective standard, but my experience of many years in recorded sound tells me that it is instead a subjective standard. Human senses and biases come into play. I continue to like mustard and you continue to tell me that only mayonnaise is the correct and true and absolute condiment reality. As long as you hold this paradigm, you will be frustrated in your conversations with others who see the issue as a mere preference.
Wind #62:
Dan, you said you aren't missing anything but given your response, I question that.
Me:
No, I said that my understanding was not missing - responding to your charge. Of course I must be missing something. You know The Truth. I am an heretic.
Wind #62:
What I did NOT say was that the 5.1 multi-channel sound attained the "Absolute Sound", eg my personal "holy grail". Seems to me that can only be approached asymtotically. In my and many others opinions, including some very well recording engineers, well realized multi-channel gets us a lot closer to the asymtote.
Me:
I'm very familiar with the fact that recording engineers, well or otherwise, have lots of different opinions about almost everything. When you recruit *some* to your cause, you acknowledge that not *all* agree. And if it's any comfort, many of them also damn those who disagree with them as stupid, stubborn, deaf, etc.. It doesn't change anyone's mind.
What does occasionally change a person's mind is just saying, "Hey - I really like this. You should listen to this." It's a far different approach from the battle against the forces of evil that you're waging.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle October 24, 2006 (65 of 93)
|
|
This is an interesting thread (when tempers are not fraying). I've been delving into some technical papers, and find this illuminating image in a discussion of synthesizing 3-dimensional auditory cues:
"The central conceit of the algorithm is that of a room within a room. The inner room is the space delimited by the speakers which contains the listeners.
The model simulates the behavior of the sound source within a user-defined virtual outer room, as heard from the inner room. The speakers act as windows; through which sound from the outer room passes.
The discussion continues through 2-speaker, 4-speaker and N-speaker configurations. In a ring of 10 speakers, only 2 speakers are required to define any given sound-source. Interestingly, objects within the "inner room" cannot be represented.
http://www.crca.ucsd.edu/~syadegar/Publications/YadegariICMC2002.pdf
http://profs.sci.univr.it/~rocchess/htmls/corsi/SoundProcessing/SoundProcessingBook/vsp.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dan Popp said:
Windsurfer wrote in #62:
Note, Dan, that I said pursing "The Absolute Sound", yes, "pursuing". I never said anything in my post responding to you, about its attainment did I?
My response:
Sure looks like it to me.
Windsurfer #56:
Please don't be offended when we who have discovered...
Me:
"Have discovered" in context of "Holy Grail" (56) vs. "never said anything about attaining" (62)?
Wind #56:
...the extraordinary combination of high resolution and recordings designed to "transport the listener to the concert hall" express our excitement about it. There are some who seem to resent it and who proclaim Mch as a "false holy grail" - "
Windsurfer10/26
WOW DANNY BOY! You (to quote a favorite fantasy sci-fi author)
"pounced on that like a duck on a beetle"
The problem is that you have turned around what I said, ignoring the simile and refering to it as if instead of my having said "is like" respond as if I said "is".
However I already conceded that my use of the simile was confusing and attempted a clarification in Post #62.
You, however, seem determined to hoist me on the same petard that some stereo advocates, it seems to me belong on. The petard of intolerance. My posts, however lacking in sophistication and proper diction, were intended to convey that many, perhaps most of my multi-channel SACDS convey a sense of actually being in a concert hall when I listen to them. I simply don't get that out of stereo. In response to these posts I get all kinds of reasons (theory) why it can't work and statements that I am addicted to "artifical reverb" and so forth. (Actually I dislike the echoey effects I hear on many recordings and if anything the stereo layer seems worse when a recording has artificial reverb added in - but let me not lose my focus here)
The part of your post that really lifted my eyebrows and caused an exhalation of breath with the word (wow) was:
"Popp:
But why am I damned for the damning done by others? Is your damning stereo lovers better than their damning you? Why doesn't everyone just stop the damned damning?"
Windsurfer10/26
I can't remember anything I said "damning" anyone, particuly you Dan. I used the word "damning" to refer to the unwarranted criticism I see concerning Mch everytime someone here sings its praises, with the word damning, I suppose I was stepping over a boundry for some and to those I apogize. But Dan, where in my post do I "damn" stereo lovers ? I think you got carried away buddy!
Another item of interest was:
"Wind #62:
Remember how Pearson defined the Absolute Sound: "The sound of live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue". That is what he saw as the benchmark for "High Fidelity" systems. Again, pursuing that end, is like the pursuit of the holy grail for some of us.
Popp:
Wind, you may believe that that is an objective standard, but my experience of many years in recorded sound tells me that it is instead a subjective standard. Human senses and biases come into play. I continue to like mustard and you continue to tell me that only mayonnaise is the correct and true and absolute condiment reality. As long as you hold this paradigm, you will be frustrated in your conversations with others who see the issue as a mere preference."
Windsurfer10/26
Actually Dan, While the sound of live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue" (coined by HP as "The Absolute Sound")is a goal some of us strive for, Lets drop the Absolute Sound as its descriptor, since you obviously don't like it.
- and Oh, Dan I do realize that sound varies within the concert hall, rather markedly in some cases, and your "mustard - mayo" analogy is valid when describing those differences. A subset of those seeking that sound will feel fulfilled if it is up front in your face and LOUD. another subset will like a little distance between them and the performers....mustard and mayo - right?
The mustard mayo idea works also when describing the difference between those who's goals are 'lifelike reproduction' and those who are looking for 'engaging reproduction' - to quote your phrase.
I am sorry if anything I said was taken as "damning" those who prefer "engaging reproduction" over "lifelike reproduction". Further it is obvious that if the recording engineer is seeking "engaging reproduction", not "lifelike reproduction" then your idea that mch and stereo are like two different flavors is correct.
However where the recording engineer is seeking some flavor of lifelike reproduction (for example only, from the above, say, up front, in your face and LOUD, but his goal is 'lifelike', not 'engaging'. I say there is the potential with Mch, or binaural, (with headphones for audition) for it to be more lifelike than in stereo. Some will say of course that up front in your face and LOUD is engaging, but I really don't need to go there!
I guess you disagree, why not simply leave it at that instead of this garbage that follows:
Popp:
No, I said that my understanding was not missing - responding to your charge. Of course I must be missing something. You know The Truth. I am an heretic.
Wind #62:
What I did NOT say was that the 5.1 multi-channel sound attained the "Absolute Sound", eg my personal "holy grail". Seems to me that can only be approached asymtotically. In my and many others opinions, including some very well recording engineers, well realized multi-channel gets us a lot closer to the asymtote.
Popp:
I'm very familiar with the fact that recording engineers, well or otherwise, have lots of different opinions about almost everything. When you recruit *some* to your cause, you acknowledge that not *all* agree. And if it's any comfort, many of them also damn those who disagree with them as stupid, stubborn, deaf, etc.. It doesn't change anyone's mind.
What does occasionally change a person's mind is just saying, "Hey - I really like this. You should listen to this." It's a far different approach from the battle against the forces of evil that you're waging.
Windsurfer10/26
"Battling the forces of evil"?
Ha - after doing a google search on "Dan Popp" (you didn't give much info about yourself when registering here) I concluded that "Battling the forces of evil" is way farther up your alley than mine! You obviously are a polemicist who would rather spar than seriously examine what you take as a contrary idea.
Enjoy yourself - I've put far too much energy into this to go any further with you.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp October 26, 2006 (67 of 93)
|
|
Wind,
If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I think you might find, though, that others came to the same conclusion about your "having found" something that you later clarified that you were only "pursuing."
I don't see any "is like" in your post that I turned into "is," but we'll leave that, since we understand your true position now.
May I ask whether you understand that I am not the same person as Mr. Raffells or whomever is trying to claim that you're "addicted to 'artificial reverb" etc.? It seems odd that you say that you are not waging war against the stereo listeners, but then, in a post ostensibly responding to me, go on the offensive against something I never said.
I'm glad that you aren't "damning" the stereo folks. I wonder how to interpret your previous comments that I'm "missing something" - and even your current suggestion that "live acoustic instruments in a real acoustic venue" is an objective standard, which mch systems more closely approach? You seem to be damning even as you claim to be blessing.
I feel that I should try to clarify my previous statement to the effect that Realism in audio reproduction is a subjective, rather than an objective goal. Different people hear different things. Even the people who hear the same things (as far as we could make that determination) focus on different things. The people who find .mp3s acceptable are (I think) listening for frequency response - only. If the highs and the lows are there, it sounds "good," even "realistic." Those who have more experience or more discrimination, hear depth that is lost and all sorts of things that simply don't matter to the .mp3 listener.
Similarly, two guys listening to the same great recording on a great system will sometimes have different responses. "You don't think it's bass-shy?" "Hmm - I was too busy listening to the great transients on the triangle. I didn't notice. But the recording seems a little distant." "Distant? Man, I could hear that gnat alight on the conductor's baton in the chorus - I almost wanted to swat it!" And on it goes.
Realism is a great goal, but not a mathematically precise one. And if we differ on that, well, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by ls1115 October 28, 2006 (68 of 93)
|
|
mdt said:
those who still believe surround could do with good main speakers and small surrounds should have a look at the Abbey Road web-site, the Penthouse studio. Why
5 fairly expensive 801s if surround is so great with even the simplest system?
Actually, I built my home theater around my two 801's from 20 years ago, with Krell monoblocks. As of two years ago I began looking on eBay for used B&W 805's of the same vintage for center and surrounds. The 805 uses the same tweeter and a mid/woofer similar to the 801's midrange driver but in a much smaller cabinet. Since the bass (LFE) channel is sent to the 801's woofers (the 801's work full range in my setup), the small 805's are not overstrained and the surround field is very coherent. (I recently added a 15" Velodyne subwoofer set below 50 hz, but it is rarely called into action with most symphonic recordings).
An engineer friend designed a motorized stand for the center channel 805 which raises it high enough to line up its tweeter with that of the 801's. I use this arrangement when listening to audio-only and lower the center speaker so it won't block the screen when playing movies.
The whole thing performs beautifully!
I enjoy whatever worthwhile MCH SACD's come my way but in most of them I feel that the biggest improvement over 2ch is the stability a well recorded center channel brings to the system's imaging. A real godsend in chamber music and opera!
Luis
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp October 30, 2006 (69 of 93)
|
|
ls1115 said:
An engineer friend designed a motorized stand for the center channel 805 which raises it high enough to line up its tweeter with that of the 801's. I use this arrangement when listening to audio-only and lower the center speaker so it won't block the screen when playing movies.
The whole thing performs beautifully!
Luis
Luis,
Your post is a perfect example for Windsurfer and others, that different people make different trade-offs in their quest for "realism." A studio may require all-identical full-range speakers because (for one thing) they have to know with confidence what's on any and every channel. If there's some kind of a low-frequency anomaly in the left-rear channel, they *have* to catch it, even though it may not be a problem in many home systems.
Also, your arrangement of having the center speaker in front of the screen seems to indicate that it is on a line with the front corner speakers - that these 3 are not equidistant from the listening position. (?) This would be totally unacceptable in a sound studio - but for you it "performs beautifully," which I do not doubt in the slightest.
Since there is no perfect system, each listener will make the necessary trade-offs according to what he values in the listening experience. If he chooses wisely, he may not even feel he has traded away anything. Congratulations on the enjoyment your system brings to you.
|
|
|
Post by Paul October 30, 2006 (70 of 93)
|
|
I have listened to several MCH systems, some very spendy, others quite modest, and none of them did much for me. I can hear a difference, but it does not sound more like a live acoustic performance to me, it just sounds like a different presentation of the same material. My least favorite was the effect that the musicians were playing around me in a circle. The rest, which I believe were meant to make me feel like I was in the venue in which the music was recorded, did not, at least no better than TCH. They did sound different, though, than TCH. While I am open to hearing more systems and can agree that perhaps there is a system out there I would prefer to my current one I would say in this thread, at least, several MCH proponents have come across much like certain brands of evangelicals: certain that they are closer to the absolute truth, and pitying, to the point of condescension, those who disagree with their "truth".
|
|
