|
|
|
Much as I respect the other contributors here I must disagree about the main deal being stereo. There are many discs where the MCH layer completely outshines the stereo layer for two main reasons:
1) the extra clarity and definition afforded by the extra speakers [walls melt away much more often in MCH]
2) the works that specify positioning around the listener are far, far more exciting
There is little value in my opinion in purchasing an expensive stereo-only player when you will get more accurate & exciting presentation in MCH if you re-allocate your budget accordingly.
Also, MCH sounds far better in the full 5(.1 if you can't get away without a sub-woofer) speaker set-up than using a "phantom" centre channel. I would note that asking your player or receiver to create such a channel involves a lot of processing and possible distortion that is somewhat contrary to the aims of many here. I assert that it is far better to give signals that have had as little processing as possible applied to them.
For me the excitement in SACD is 75% MCH, 25% stereo; I have to say that SACD in stereo only is still amazing compared to RBCD though.
|
|
|
Post by andrewb June 29, 2007 (12 of 25)
|
|
pgmdir said:
Absolutely--- you simply tell the player-- and/or the receiver what you don't have, and it takes care of it. It mixes the center with the left and right for a phantom center.
I agree with the above by 'pgmdir' but you must be careful to make sure the player or amp you purchase can do this.
In my own case I ran for about a year without a centre channel, letting my amplifier create the phantom centre by taking the centre channel information stream and splitting it equally between the front speakers. When I finally bought a centre speaker, and one that was a perfect match for the front speakers, I could rarely hear any difference between having the real speaker and using the phantom speaker - I certainly could not have reliably differentiated between them in a blind test.
Maybe a centre speaker is useful for cinema surround but for music I have found it of no value compared to a phantom centre.
The comments about how well the multi-channel mixing has been done points out an important fact. I have discs of Beethoven piano sonatas where the improvement in going from CD to SACD stereo was startling, but even more amazing was that when I tried multi-channel there was just as great an improvement again. In contradiction of this, I have orchestral discs, where I can hear the difference between stereo and multi-channel but am unable to definitely say which I prefer, of course I have other orchestral discs where the multi-channel is clearly better than the stereo sound.
|
|
|
Post by Xav June 29, 2007 (13 of 25)
|
|
I agree with Polly Nomial - MCH is what makes people go "WOW" - you don't really hear things all around you on many discs, but instruments really do have their own "space" on stage - things can sound frighteningly real.
Stereo SACD is good, but a lot of people wouldn't notice the difference (and yes, I have a good stereo system - Rega Amp, Royd RR2 speakers). MCH, if the engineer is good, can be astonishing.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir June 29, 2007 (14 of 25)
|
|
Really nice to see some new names today!
Don't laugh and point, but there are some orchestral recordings which sound better to me in the two channel mix--- with my own receiver recovering some ambiance through a simple matrix or a non-invasive DTS NEO 6 Music setting. I think that SOME engineers mix in a tad too much and the imaging suffers. Different recordings, different tastes, and different strokes for different folks. By the way, I believe that ANY multi-channel player is able to be set up for what you do or don't use. Just click none for center channel, and the mixing is automatic.
Surround is great. For music a "phantom" center will sound exactly like your front left and right speakers--- obvious since that's what it comes from. An actual center speaker, if not identical, will alter the presentation.
I think I'll go home now and listen. Welcome to the forum, Sambucus.
|
|
|
Post by Myrantz June 29, 2007 (15 of 25)
|
|
My two cents says a center is certainly beneficial when there is more than one listener for much hi-res surround music. For one person sitting in the 'sweet spot' it's of little consequence. Also, I prefer multi channel over stereo for certain recordings and vice versa for others - depending on the engineers/artists intent, or for effect value in some recordings. Personally for stereo only, I believe one requires a truly high end machine for it to be noticeably more musical than a decent stand alone cd player. EG: I prefer listening to cd through my Rega Apollo than the same two channel SACD layer through my Denon 3910. Others may differ.
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred June 29, 2007 (16 of 25)
|
|
Sambucus said:
Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated. andrewb your assessment of the benefits of SACD being 75% improved sound and 25% multi-channel – is very interesting and confirms my impression. I think rear channels could add a little useful ambiance, but I have real problems with a centre channel. My current red-book stereo system produces tangible, solid centre images with plenty of stage depth. There’s nothing for a centre channel to do! I’m more interested in sound quality than a multiplicity of channels, so I think you’re confirming my leaning towards two channel SACD.
But Sigfred are you disagreeing with this? Does the additional ambiance make that much qualitative difference?
The difference between stereo and multi-channel can be startling, and I think that you will miss much if you restrict yourself to stereo.
|
|
|
Post by Sambucus June 30, 2007 (17 of 25)
|
|
Well thanks again for all the input. Silly me to hope there could be a simple way forward here. Looks like I’ll have to experiment. I guess I just baulk a bit at getting a player (like the Marantz DV9600 or DV7001 as suggested above) which has all the video electronics in it. You can probably switch it out, but a lot of what you’re paying for (especially the video up-scaling up to 1080p) is wasted. Machines like this must be tuned for home cinema use.
What about something like the Sony SCD-XA9000ES? That looks like a good quality audio only multi-channel player. Anyone with experience of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the producers at 2L (highly rated by most that have heard their releases for audio quality as well as their artistic decisions) seem happy with a Pioneer DV-989AVi (not sure about the US counterpart)!
I don't think you have to worry too much about money down the drain but I absolutely agree about the need to experiment. If you can, find a dealer that will allow you a listening session to compare stereo to MCH & then choose accordingly.
From memory, pretty much all of Sony's SACD hardware products have been highly rated for SACD playback (RBCD less so but that should be the case with every manufacturer if the SACD playback is good).
|
|
|
Post by andrewb June 30, 2007 (19 of 25)
|
|
Sambucus said:
Well thanks again for all the input. Silly me to hope there could be a simple way forward here. Looks like I’ll have to experiment. I guess I just baulk a bit at getting a player (like the Marantz DV9600 or DV7001 as suggested above) which has all the video electronics in it. You can probably switch it out, but a lot of what you’re paying for (especially the video up-scaling up to 1080p) is wasted. Machines like this must be tuned for home cinema use.
What about something like the Sony SCD-XA9000ES? That looks like a good quality audio only multi-channel player. Anyone with experience of that?
I think you will need to to try and get a few hours listening to a well set up multi-channel system that uses SACD before you decide. I think multi-channel is worth having, but I still think less important than the basic improvement in sound obtained via stereo only.
The Sony SCD-XA9000ES player is the one I purchased and the sound is excellent on both CD and SACD, for the money I don't think you can find anything that will be signicantly better. It's absence of DVD facilites is to me an attraction as opposed to a universal player, where one is obviously paying for the video and audio features, and one must assume that the video costs will reduce the quality of the audio at the same price point. I use the player with the matching Sony DA9000ES amplifier with an ilink connection which transfers the signal as DSD (or PCM for a CD) to the amplifier. The sound is notably better than when connected via analogue cables, but this may be because the Sony DA9000ES is a digital amplifier.
One day I would like to listen to the player through a high quality analogue amplifier and see what the difference is.
I have/had a couple of gremlins with the player, when I first purchased it the programming facility with CD (though not SACD) sometimes failed, in that it either skipped programmed tracks or stopped before completing all the programmed tracks. Sony support fixed this by replacing the main processor on my machine, though it took over a year while the people in Japan sorted out the problem. The fault was not specfic to my player, it was observed by a few people, mainly dealers. The support from Sony on this was excellent. I expect all their new players will have been fixed in this respect as this was resolved about two years ago.
My other problem is minor, but sometimes, when I start to play a disc, the sounds pops, the amplifier overloads and then cuts out but only when using the ilink connection. This only occurs rarely, perhaps 1 in every 100 plays, and is something I have learnt to accept.
No matter which player you get there will always be some slight problem I believe, that is the cost of the high technology that is today employed in these systems.
Stereophile have a very good review of the Sony SCD-XA9000ES online.
http://stereophile.com/hirezplayers/1203sony/
|
|
|
Post by tream June 30, 2007 (20 of 25)
|
|
What about something like the Sony SCD-XA9000ES? That looks like a good quality audio only multi-channel player. Anyone with experience of that?
Here's another vote for the XA-9000ES. I've had mine around 2 years, and besides sounding great, it has been trouble free.
|
|
