Post by trntbl January 23, 2008 (31 of 94)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???????? ! !
I wish I could believe that you are kidding me.
FYI: I own about 2500 LPs. I have the first Van den Hul phono cartridge which has been rebuilt and upgraded several times. It is in a Well Tempered Arm mounted on a Merrill Turntable which itself cost 1000 USD twenty years ago. It isn't even hooked up right now! My multi-channel sacd system makes that sound so primitive!
I meant that using analogue connections instead of this HDMI nonsense doesn´t make mch-SACD any less lovable. Sorry english is not my native language. I completely agree with you about the virtues of mch.
But while we are at it, I think most important thing is the music, not technology. Tecnology is already here (while there could of course be more elegant solutions, like i.link connetion to audiophile preamp).
I´d rather have my 3 best LPs than all of my SACDs. I can listen time and time again magical playing DESPITE crappy mono sound recorded from audience. But listening to mch-SACD with all the effects, ambience and fantastic soundstage gets dull after few times if the music is not magical.
So far I´m thankful to all these recording companies like Hyperion, Bis, Pentatone and bunch of others. But I´m terribly worried that there seems to be no new labels coming. I really, really wish I´m wrong here.
If you have a 2500 lp collection and don´t listen to it, you must be either completely technologically orientated or just missed all the good lps. Good for you, either way, if that makes you happy.
Kristian
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 24, 2008 (32 of 94)
|
|
trntbl said:
So far I´m thankful to all these recording companies like Hyperion, Bis, Pentatone and bunch of others. But I´m terribly worried that there seems to be no new labels coming. I really, really wish I´m wrong here.
You are. Added in the last three months:
Nobel Records
Ensemble Modern
Cambria Music
Aurora Records
Beckmann
Opera Rara
King Records (Japan)
Marquis Classics
Love Records
Innova
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
It is odd that neither you nor others hardly ever mention speakers in realtion to a good SACD system.
FunkyMonkey,
Check my profile. I went to the extent of having my speakers made to order at great cost (equivalent in value to B&W 801s!)
I also have what I regard as an excellent SACD player in both stereo and multi-channel modes and a stereo pre-amplifier and power amplifier set-up that is not to be sneezed at (Carey and Nirvana).
My concern is the difficulty in understanding all the many variables (and the jargon in which they are explained) in finding the right sort of amplifier/processing equipment for multi-channel, leaving aside the speakers (I intend to buy more of my made-to-order speakers to make up the 5).
I have seen HDMI praised and criticised.
I have seen DSD to analoque vs DSD to PCM to analogue praised and criticised.
etc, etc, and etc ...
It has left me all bereft!
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
I meant that using analogue connections instead of this HDMI nonsense doesn´t make mch-SACD any less lovable. Sorry english is not my native language. I completely agree with you about the virtues of mch.
WOW! Did I ever misunderstand that one!
There is more to my analog vs mch sacd story and unfortunately I must admit it entails not a little bit of laziness on my part. I rebuilt the so-called family room downstairs in our "raised ranch" taking out part of the utility room to widen what became my listening room. The turntable used to be in the utility room and I made provision for it in the construction, but after hooking up the mch system, and enjoying so very much the sound I am getting, I have spent the time that should have been devoted to finishing off the listening room and constructing a proper stand for the turntable in the utility room, listening to my sacds. This has been going on for about 3 years now. Lazy lazy lazy! I admit to having a hankering every now and then to hear Elizabeth McConchy's Serenata Concertante on a fine Lyrita LP that I own and one or two others as well....some Bach on Teldec I remember being wonderfully played and recorded for example.
But there is no magic on LP comparable to that of Haitink and the LSO doing any of Beethoven's symphonies (on LSO Live sacd) and I have no LP that, in terms of magic, even begins to compare with Julia Fischer's most extraordinary Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto - Fischer, Kreizberg (and I have accumulated a large number of LPs of that concerto, let me tell you!). Similarly the Tchaikovsky symphonies on BIS and Harmonia Mundi totally blow away anything I have on LP (Haitink, von Karajan, even Yevgeny Mravinsky).
Despite the reverence accorded certain pianists now well up in age, I don't think I ever heard a finer performance of Mozart's great C minor piano concerto, K 491, than that on PentaTone with Martin Helmchen....and the sound, well that alone puts the all others in the deep shade! I also find much more fascination with the new Beethoven symphony #5 with Philiippe Herreweghe on PentaTone than any of my several sets on LP.
I am not denying that there are some treasures on LP, just that I think we have an embarrassment of riches already on mch sacd. My sincere thanks to the several labels who have made the effort to recreate music as it is heard in the concert hall! They deserve our support!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livy said:
If you think that audio reviewers in for-profit enterprises like magazines are wholly independent, that endorsement and advertising plays no role, I believe you are mistaken.
These were independent websites, not magazines. And not a Tannoy ad to be found.
Please don't offer spurious reasons why a review may be positive. Maybe because the reviewer sees the comment as SHOCK HORROR - THE TRUTH TO THEIR EARS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
All this technical stuff makes my eyes glaze over, so I used my ears to select the equipment, having had hints from magazines.
I have to say stereo SACD is more than a little better than CD on my system even with a better CD player (the Karik 3).
I think you are right! One problem for me is that there seems to be little enthusiasm in Sydney for SACD. I have read a lot of reviews, but get terribly confused on the technicalities and really would like to be able to listen to a range of brands/machines and systems in different combinations before forking out my hard-earned readies.
And I have to say I agree with your second comment above. I overstated the position about stereo SACD somewhat to make my point about what really good multichannel systems could sound like, if only I could hear some. Stereo SACD sounds smoother yet more brilliant, detailed and immediate than RBCD and I have found the "aural fatigue" factor of lengthy listening sessions to be very greatly reduced with SACD as against RBCD.
Having said that, the immersion effect of what I have heard in multichannel mode is striking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnno said:
I'm sure that what I'm about to say will disturb/upset many multichannel enthusiasts but from my own experience I would choose a high end stereo SACD setup over a medium quality multichannel system any day -- and I've now had a lot of experience at listening to both. Oddly, perhaps, I notice more ambience and sense of depth as well as greater overall realism from my stereo-only SACD system than I notice from the "best seat in the house" position listening to my friend's B and W multichannel set-up.
Maybe the reason for the multichannel disappointment is that a lot of multichannel set-ups incorporate some elements that perhaps are not quite up to the job, even if the speakers are top-notch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say that many of the posts in response to my initial question have been very interesting and informative. Thanks to everyone so far for that.
I am still not very clear about why HDMI would be better than analogue all the way, but am working on understanding what the reviewers and my fellow posters are saying.
As for speakers - I suppose I have to experience the range of possibilities by visting lots of Hi-Fi shops to find those ready to give real Hi-Fi (as opposed to movie) multi-channel demos. I was thinking of just buying more of the stereo speakers I have (which will involve a lengthy wait if the experience of my first pair is anything to go by!), but maybe a reduction in quality for the rear channels without too much compromise on sound quality is feasible.
It is the processing stage that still baffles me, though. More research needed for me, I think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livy said:
But in terms of whether MC is "better", I think a case can be made for microphone placement having a dramatic impact. Reflected sound from side walls and the ceiling is easily picked up by an omnidirectional microphone placed farther back than usual from the stage. A good Blumlein configuration will produce a great result, for example.
I think you are correct that MC has the capability of a very realistic concert hall accoustic portrayal, but poorly placed mics in a MC recording may produce a worse result than some stereo recordings. Venue also has a lot to do with it. MC is not simply "better" in every case.
That's right. I have one SACD recording of choral music where the microphone placement seems to have gone terribly wrong. The sound is dull and muddy and gives an impression of overcrowding, both in stereo and multichannel modes. Other recordings of similar music by the same artists in the same venue sound much better.
|
|
|
Post by Livy January 24, 2008 (40 of 94)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
These were independent websites, not magazines. And not a Tannoy ad to be found.
Please don't offer spurious reasons why a review may be positive. Maybe because the reviewer sees the comment as SHOCK HORROR - THE TRUTH TO THEIR EARS!!!
I never said that all reviews were completely untruthful; merely that some had the possibility of being partially biased. You seem unable to imagine the idea that someone might slant a review slightly in order to make a little money. Of course many reviewers are honest and trustworthy, just like those who serve in government.
|
|
