|
|
|
"Charles states that in order to achieve the quality of sound in the surround and center speakers to match that in the mains, the price of the unit would be prohibitive. This is the main reason he is offering two channel only."
I think there's something to this in every respect. Perhaps speaking for the middle-class "audiophile," I starved myself for a couple of years to pull together the best two channel system I could get. Adding three more channels and all the additional trappings and maintaining the quality of them Mains was simply impossible; I couldn't afford it and I was exhausted by the whole business.
Unless money's no object, there's something well-intentioned but ultimately paradoxical about asking one to buy into better sound and three additional channels while knowing that the buyer will have to redistribute his limited or finite budget to cover those three additional channels--thus consequently lowering(!)said sound quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdaniel@jps.net said:
"Charles states that in order to achieve the quality of sound in the surround and center speakers to match that in the mains, the price of the unit would be prohibitive. This is the main reason he is offering two channel only."
I think there's something to this in every respect. Perhaps speaking for the middle-class "audiophile," I starved myself for a couple of years to pull together the best two channel system I could get. Adding three more channels and all the additional trappings and maintaining the quality of them Mains was simply impossible; I couldn't afford it and I was exhausted by the whole business.
Unless money's no object, there's something well-intentioned but ultimately paradoxical about asking one to buy into better sound and three additional channels while knowing that the buyer will have to redistribute his limited or finite budget to cover those three additional channels--thus consequently lowering(!)said sound quality.
You did it for 2 channels, in stead of one. With good reason; it gives more fidelity (and ultimaltely pleasure to listen to) than 1 channel. Realising that the same applies to using 5 channels in stead of 2, designers of equipment will hopefully take this into account in their approach. At a certain quality level I am convinced that going to 5 channels has far more benefits than upgrading the 2 channel quality further at similar or higher costs.
|
|
|
Post by Julien July 16, 2007 (23 of 31)
|
|
GROOT GELUID said:
You did it for 2 channels, in stead of one. With good reason; it gives more fidelity (and ultimaltely pleasure to listen to) than 1 channel. Realising that the same applies to using 5 channels in stead of 2, designers of equipment will hopefully take this into account in their approach. At a certain quality level I am convinced that going to 5 channels has far more benefits than upgrading the 2 channel quality further at similar or higher costs.
Dear Erdo, thanks to Polyhymnia I now believe that this is true, because I've heard the difference. Comparing a multi-channel setting and a stereo setting that both cost the same price, if it's done properly most will agree that what multi-channel brings in terms of realism compared to stereo makes a bigger difference than the better sound "quality" of the stereo system with better components.
Now I also understand people who prefer the stereo choice. It's just that I'm convinced that most people having heard a proper demonstration will go multi-channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit that I am more than interested in the multichannel experience. But I am partly a prisoner of my system, which without going into details, would cost a ton to change over to multichannel. So I may as well get the best two channel that I can, even if, as you all suggest, I might have done it differently if I could do it all over again.
On the other hand, I am not sure I would have gone down the multichannel path. I go to a lot of live classical performances and I believe that the ambiance matters a lot for orchestral pieces but rather less for chamber. (My father in law was an orchestra conductor and voiced the same opinion.) Until I invested a lot into my stereo, home listening to orchestral work left much to be desired. I bet that if I had simply added surround sound to what I used to have, orchestral music would be just as unlistenable, though it would be unlistenable from all sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
I must admit that I am more than interested in the multichannel experience. But I am partly a prisoner of my system, which without going into details, would cost a ton to change over to multichannel. So I may as well get the best two channel that I can, even if, as you all suggest, I might have done it differently if I could do it all over again.
On the other hand, I am not sure I would have gone down the multichannel path. I go to a lot of live classical performances and I believe that the ambiance matters a lot for orchestral pieces but rather less for chamber. (My father in law was an orchestra conductor and voiced the same opinion.) Until I invested a lot into my stereo, home listening to orchestral work left much to be desired. I bet that if I had simply added surround sound to what I used to have, orchestral music would be just as unlistenable, though it would be unlistenable from all sides.
Of course changing an existing set up in the home is not done lightly. But it is good you are interested as there is a fundamental difference in sound reproduction possible with 5 sources compared to 2. I may repeat myself a bit, but it is not just an 'ambience thing'. It is about the way sound sources in an acoustic space develop their sound character and the essentials to reproduce that with loudspeakers. Even with one instrument, like a violin (For instance Julia Fischer's Bach solo violin recording) or a harpsichord (for instance Olga Martinova's harpsichord gems no 4) it makes a huge difference. The direct sounds of the strings (in both cases) are brought to live by the resonance of the body of the instruments. These acoustically enhanced sounds together project the direct sound into the acoustic space. This space, after the player and her instrument, defines the tonal character and quality of the sound. The human ear receives these sounds as a blend of direct sound and reflections, where the reflection's timing and direction compared to the direct sound allow this character to be perceived and enjoyed. In trying to record and reproduce this with a 2 channel system one looses a big part of this relationship as the direct sound and all the reflections are coming from the same 2 front sources. Because of this there is a masking effect that is independent of the quality of the system. With 5 channels we get a large chunk of the original specifics back. Resulting in less masking, and more importantly, regaining tonal character of the sounds that is impossible to achieve with 2 channel reproduction.
We have been making 5 channel recordings regularly for the last 10 years and we found that with playbacks during recordings many (sound/balance)issues that were hard to get by artists, are not issues in 5 channel anymore. It is still as important to be careful with microphone choice and placement, but the bar is raised with 5 channel recordings.
I also understand the home situation has its own dynamics. To get good sound in the house depends on many things. Possibilities of positioning speakers and acoustical character of the room are not always optimal. Having started with, and spend a lot on a stereo system it is understandable that one cannot or would not want to change that. But if the motivation to have a home audio system is to strive to get the optimal enjoyment by hearing great musical sounds that involve the listener through the convincing sound character of the reproduced sounds then 5 channel brings us closer to that than was possible before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
You are being terribly unfair to Charles Hansen, President of Ayre Acoustics. Their CX5e universal player has garnered rave reviews for its SACD (and redbook) reproduction. In the interview you mention, Charles states that in order to achieve the quality of sound in the surround and center speakers to match that in the mains, the price of the unit would be prohibitive. This is the main reason he is offering two channel only. (BTW, Charles is a regular contributor to the hi-rez forum at Audio Asylum and is far more sophisticated than you make him out to be.)
I have a CX5e and it is extraordinary. With my system, which features moderate room treatments (at a fraction of the cost of the CX5e) and a lot of attention to speaker and listener positioning, I feel considerable ambiance. If I have to trade off tonal purity, overtones, dynamics, etc. in order to achieve slightly more ambiance, I would not do it. Others might. Vive le difference!
I don't believe I have been unfair to Charles Hansen. HE asked "who wants the sounds of performers coming at them from behind?" or words to that effect - not I!
I also raise a querulous eyebrow concerning the cost of producing a five channel unit. Yes it would have had to be more expensive but certainly not five times more expensive. And I retort that with the appropriate ancillary equipment, it would have been MORE than 5 times as realistic in reproducing well recorded 5 channel acoustic music than the stereo. (I know, there is no scalar means to access that contention) But I would wager that if you heard my set-up you would wish you had gone in that direction.
I stand with you where you say:
"If I have to trade off tonal purity, overtones, dynamics, etc. in order to achieve slightly more ambiance, I would not do it."
But sir, I didn't trade off much of anything* to achieve CONSIDERABLY more ambiance....or perhaps what was gained was actually an astonishingly more realistic portrayal of ambiance.
In any case, no one who has heard my system feels as though the timbres, dynamics, freedom from congestion, all the things prized in a stereo system have in any way been compromised, either in the player or the rest of the system. Further, if you take a look at it (click on windsurfer) - boy - is it ever a cobbed together system.
Yet audiophile and musically informed visitors invariably comment that it is the most lifelike experience of reproduced music they ever heard. One friend who is an assiduous concert goer said to me of my listening chair: "you could charge admission to sit in that chair".
I frankly feel that Charles Hansen's commercial decision took the high fidelity industry BACK a huge step. We need multi-channel equipment of the quality that he is capable of making for this medium to be granted legitimacy in the up-market audio press, or perhaps among the so-called audio cognoscenti.
* I strongly suspect that any difference between your Ayre and my Sony in the qualities you mention are less than the differences you would hear in changing your seat from one location to another in a good concert hall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to fight Charles' battles for him (except to mention that the quote you chose was an anomaly in an otherwise reasonable defense of his business decision. Let's agree that he shouldn't have said it.) Charles will gladly engage in a serious discussion of these issues if you post on Audio Asylum.
As for me, I am delighted by my two channel system but remain curious as to what I have missed. As I stated, it would not be feasible for me to rip it up and start again, but perhaps if I did start over I might go your route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As to your asterisk:
I have heard the difference between a ModWright Pioneer Elite 59 and my CX5e and it is palpable in both redbook and SACD.
And I have sat all over the lower balcony of Orchestra Hall in Chicago to hear the CSO without detecting the same difference. I can say the same for my in-laws, both of whom were professional conductors prior to their retirement.
I wonder why you doubt the veracity of my opinions but expect me to accept yours (which I am willing to do, or least remain agnostic about.) Don't be so defensive!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayside Bomber said:
And I have sat all over the lower balcony of Orchestra Hall in Chicago to hear the CSO without detecting the same difference.
Ahhh Now I think I have an idea which bay "bayside bomber" might refer to!
I too have sat all over the (in this case) upper center balcony of Boston's Symphony Hall during BSO concerts and I have not heard the differences in timbre to which I refer. But sitting down on the "orchestra" floor or "stalls" the differences in timbre (not dynamics) are so different from the second balcony that (in my unsubstantiated opinion)the differences would swamp the difference between players. I venture this opinion because I feel extremely satisfied with the Sony in this regard. I do not doubt that I would find the Ayre even better but not substantially more believeable because again I speculate that the difference would be, as I said negligable in the context of (to correct myself here), differences between seats in different sections of the hall.
I don't perceive that I was being defensive, merely garrulous. I tend to go on and on and on, seeking to clarify when unfortunately I probably obfuscate.
As to believing your opinion I do not doubt you hold it - or isn't that what you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are indeed big sonic differences as you move all over Orchestra Hall. The Hall has many critics,however, and we are fortunate to sit in the best location for acoustics.
BTW, Bayside refers to Bayside, NY, and Bomber refers to my tendency to launch 25 foot jump shots (mostly bricks). This was before the days of the three point circle!
And don't think I haven't tried to figure out how to get multichannel without spending another arm, leg, or both!
DD
|
|
