|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
The only real need for multi-channle is if the music is "synthetic" and produced specifically for multi-channel, e.g. Bjork. For "normal" music, stereo is fine.
I really had to do a double take on this one. I think it may all boil down to what you call "normal" music.
For me, "normal" music is anything that is acoustically produced by instruments such as clarinet, trombone, trumpet, drums, other percussion, human voice and not artificially reinforced or mixed and then conveyed via loudspeakers to an audience.
So we have all of classical music and most real folk and acoustic jazz and believe me - even a solo violin benefits enormously from being recorded and played back via a multichannel setup. Bach: Sonatas & Partitas - Julia Fischer is one of the finest recordings I ever heard. I first heard it in stereo before my multi-channel system was complete and then a couple months later in multichannel and WOW! That was like I was there!
I however attend a lot of live concerts of classical music - piano recitals, string quartets, orchestral concerts and I have a very good grounding on what "live" music is like. For me and my "normal" music, stereo has become insufficient!
If planejames is like me in musical preferences, he would do very well to invest in a multi-channel player if he can afford a nice one and plan on upgrading to multi-channel as funds permit. Once that is achieved he will never look back. On the other hand, if he puts substantial money into a stereo only player, he will likely have precluded his ability to make the switch - depending on the price of his stereo player. There is an Oppo DVD SACD player which is VERY modestly priced and is considered quite an over achiever. I think it is the 970
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I really had to do a double take on this one. I think it may all boil down to what you call "normal" music.
For me, "normal" music is anything that is acoustically produced by instruments such as clarinet, trombone, trumpet, drums, other percussion, human voice and not artificially reinforced or mixed and then conveyed via loudspeakers to an audience.
So we have all of classical music and most real folk and acoustic jazz and believe me - even a solo violin benefits enormously from being recorded and played back via a multichannel setup. Bach: Sonatas & Partitas - Julia Fischer is one of the finest recordings I ever heard. I first heard it in stereo before my multi-channel system was complete and then a couple months later in multichannel and WOW! That was like I was there!
I however attend a lot of live concerts of classical music - piano recitals, string quartets, orchestral concerts and I have a very good grounding on what "live" music is like. For me and my "normal" music, stereo has become insufficient!
If planejames is like me in musical preferences, he would do very well to invest in a multi-channel player if he can afford a nice one and plan on upgrading to multi-channel as funds permit. Once that is achieved he will never look back. On the other hand, if he puts substantial money into a stereo only player, he will likely have precluded his ability to make the switch - depending on the price of his stereo player. There is an Oppo DVD SACD player which is VERY modestly priced and is considered quite an over achiever. I think it is the 970
Thanks!
James
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 23, 2007 (13 of 26)
|
|
PlaneJames said:
Thank you all for you input - If nothing else it has highlighted to me that music is a very personal thing, and needs to be determined for ones self. To that end, as I buy my SACD CDs, I feel comfortable starting with a pure CD/SACD player. I'm sure there will be improvement in two ways: First, the player I have selected, the Marantz SA 8001 (I hope not a mistake!) is far better than anything I have owned to date, so the the sound will have to be improved, and Secondly, SACD over CD even in Stereo will be an improvement(??)
I can see the argument that Mult-Channel would have some benefits with some music, but for the next several years I think that pure stereo will be enough for me - I just hope the quality is improved. I look forward to SACD and one day even MC!!!
Thanks again for your input!
James
Marantz is nice player so you can´t go wrong with that. If you still wan´t to keep the multichannel option open, check out the Sony SCD-XA1200ES. The quality of CD playback is better than most of the CD-only players in that price range and above. I actually bought my Sony just because of cd-playback quality. I got the multichannel amps and speakers much later.
I´m just oqliged to remind, do not jugde multichannel SACD using these el-cheapo DVD-players. The DA conversion is made with cheapest possible parts and the video boards inside create all sorts of interference. The Oppo´s and likes are great for giving sharp image to your projector or plasma. But only for that.
kristian
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I´m just oqliged to remind, do not jugde multichannel SACD using these el-cheapo DVD-players. The DA conversion is made with cheapest possible parts and the video boards inside create all sorts of interference. The Oppo´s and likes are great for giving sharp image to your projector or plasma. But only for that.
I feel obliged to remind that you do not need to have the DA conversion done by the El Cheapo DVD player. One great feature of the Oppo is it provides DSD output via HDMI so you can let a good AV receiver do the decoding.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 23, 2007 (15 of 26)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
I feel obliged to remind that you do not need to have the DA conversion done by the El Cheapo DVD player. One great feature of the Oppo is it provides DSD output via HDMI so you can let a good AV receiver do the decoding.
Well I think we have two ideologies here colliding. Mine is to handle the DA conversion at the source, then make a short high quality analog signal path to speakers.
The other is to take all audio and video signals and route them to one point (receiver), process them (in PCM), and finally make the DA conversion among all this. Let your ears make the decision.
all the best,
kristian
|
|
|
Post by nessuno September 23, 2007 (16 of 26)
|
|
PlaneJames said:
...First, the player I have selected, the Marantz SA 8001 (I hope not a mistake!) is far better than anything I have owned to date, so the the sound will have to be improved...
If you haven't yet received your SA8001 and are buying it new, you should know that they can sound *extremely* dull and airless until broken in, which can take upwards of 150-200 hours. I left mine running (mostly silently) continuously for more than a week, alternating SACDs and CDs, before it opened way up and became the terrific-sounding player it is now. I predict you will be very, very happy with yours once it gets past this initial period.
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred September 23, 2007 (17 of 26)
|
|
nessuno said:
If you haven't yet received your SA8001 and are buying it new, you should know that they can sound *extremely* dull and airless until broken in, which can take upwards of 150-200 hours. I left mine running (mostly silently) continuously for more than a week, alternating SACDs and CDs, before it opened way up and became the terrific-sounding player it is now. I predict you will be very, very happy with yours once it gets past this initial period.
"Breaking in" a SACD player for 150-200 hours? What exactly is that needs to be "broken in"? Since you where listening to it part of the time perhaps it is you that got used to the sound and not any change in the player?
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred September 23, 2007 (18 of 26)
|
|
trntbl said:
Marantz is nice player so you can´t go wrong with that. If you still wan´t to keep the multichannel option open, check out the Sony SCD-XA1200ES. The quality of CD playback is better than most of the CD-only players in that price range and above. I actually bought my Sony just because of cd-playback quality. I got the multichannel amps and speakers much later.
The Sony SCD-XA1200ES manual does not say anything about the crossover frequency, nor the steepness of the high/low-pass filters. Do you know more about this?
|
|
|
Post by nessuno September 23, 2007 (19 of 26)
|
|
Sigfred said:
"Breaking in" a SACD player for 150-200 hours? What exactly is that needs to be "broken in"? Since you where listening to it part of the time perhaps it is you that got used to the sound and not any change in the player?
Dunno what needed breaking in, but that's how long it took. I actually didn't do much listening during the break-in time, because I disliked the sound. It totally lacked anything resembling air or sparkle, and was veiled over the entire frequency spectrum.
To maybe add some credence to my claim here, I can tell you that I've bought a lot of other new equipment recently (new speakers, new amp, new universal before the SA8001, new upgrade crossovers for the speakers), and every piece except the 8001 sounded good to me as soon as it was powered up. Every piece also sounded progressively better, to one degree or another, over a period of weeks or longer. The 8001 just had a much longer trip to make to get to that point. Maybe the fact that it was a refurb enters into it (less burn-in at the factory, possibly?); who knows.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 23, 2007 (20 of 26)
|
|
Sigfred said:
The Sony SCD-XA1200ES manual does not say anything about the crossover frequency, nor the steepness of the high/low-pass filters. Do you know more about this?
I think the crossover is quite high, about 80Hz (it´s not adjustable). Don´t know about the steepness. BTW, I´m driving my smallish surrounds as large speakers. I have tested surround signals on my records and I found that nearly all of it is in midrange. Only processing I use is phantom center and LFE redirect to main channel, both of them working flawlessy.
kristian
|
|
