Post by The Rang April 19, 2008 (31 of 93)
|
|
I have about 150 SACDs.
Multi Channel (or even hybrid) is not an issue.
Believe it or not, I have yet to listen to any of my SACDs in multi-channel.
I prefer good old 2 channel, especially since that's all my good system can accommodate.
One of these days I'll try a few in theatre system
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rang said:
I have about 150 SACDs.
Multi Channel (or even hybrid) is not an issue.
Believe it or not, I have yet to listen to any of my SACDs in multi-channel.
I prefer good old 2 channel, especially since that's all my good system can accommodate.
One of these days I'll try a few in theatre system
I can thoroughly recommend MCH - I can't imagine you'd be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by aaron April 20, 2008 (33 of 93)
|
|
I have 200 sacd's and I only listen is stereo. I would like to try MCH but expanding my set by adding 3 extra channels at 10000$/channel is not possible.(If I want the same quality).
Anybody have any experience with high-end stereo and adding some "normal" quality extra channels? Is it worth it?
|
|
|
Post by stipus April 20, 2008 (34 of 93)
|
|
I have about 120 multi-channel SACDs and maybe 3 stereo-only sacds.
I enjoy the DSD better sound, but that's not the main reason why I'm buying SACDs.
I'm buying SACDs because of the multi-channel tracks. I also listen to DTS-CDs, DVD-Audio, Musical DVD-Video with 5.1 Dolby digital or DTS tracks... etc
I can hear a small difference between a good SACD and the same DTS-CD, but honestly that's not a major concern for me.
In 1998 when I bought the musical DVD-Video "Eric Clapton unplugged" in Dolby Digital 5.1, I enjoyed it so much that I decided I would not buy stereo music anymore... and that's mostly what I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
aaron said:
I have 200 sacd's and I only listen is stereo. I would like to try MCH but expanding my set by adding 3 extra channels at 10000$/channel is not possible.(If I want the same quality).
Anybody have any experience with high-end stereo and adding some "normal" quality extra channels? Is it worth it?
I built my multi-channel system around my stereo. The old stereo system consisted of a pair of Apogee Duetta Signatures driven by a Musical Fidelity P-270, the preamp was a passive McCormack TLC. The sound was good enough to make the superiority of LP over CD evident. When I went to SACD the superiority of SACD over both of them (LP and CD) was very evident.
To go to multi-channel I purchased a Bel-Canto Pre-6 and, initially a pair of Magneplanar SMGs for the center driven by a B&K stereo amp fed by a Y connector from the center channel of the preamp. The rears are little spherical Omni-Sats driven by a Parasound A-23.
The rears are big step down from the Apogees. The Magneplanar SMGs also - but last summer I replaced them with th Magneplanar 2.6r model which I obtained used and had rebuilt at the factory. The front channels are uniformly excellent now. The rear channels are of lesser quality. The biggest difference now in the front is better bass. Another smaller difference is an increase in over-all clarity and sweetness.
I have a lot of 4.0 multi-channel discs and I have to say that they sound enormously more lifelike in 4.0 multichannel than in stereo. The fact that lesser quality equipment is reproducing the rear channels is unimportant compared to what the rear channels are providing. These are PentaTone RQR series and some older DSD recordings from Hyperion and Harmonia Mundi. One Harmonia Mundi 4.0 stands out for recorded excellence; it is:
Falla: The Three Cornered Hat etc. - Pons
A lot of people think that you will pollute the sound from your superb stereo speakers and amps if you spend less on the center and rear channels. My experience is contrary to that. I don't however, know how much loss there would have been if I had been unable to afford an even finer multi-channel preamp than my old stereo preamp.
Actually I have to suggest that even then, based on my father's experience with a NAD multi-channel receiver, that the negatives would be small compared to the added realism obtained from reproducing the surround sound of PentaTone, BIS, Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi, Chandos and others.
The five channel surround from the above labels is superb! Going back to stereo even when I had the little Magneplanar SMGs in the center, was always a disappointment. There is an added dimensional presence in MCH that makes reproduced music seem much more like the real thing.... one has to work much less hard to "suspend disbelief".
|
|
|
Post by Domimag April 21, 2008 (36 of 93)
|
|
For me only because it is multichannel.
After making tests, I listened that most of SACD has no difference between SACD stereo and CD stereo... so listening these SACD in stereo only has no sense.
all the best.
|
|
|
Post by mig007 January 3, 2009 (37 of 93)
|
|
I try to listen only to multichannel sacd or dvd audio. I have some 2 channel sacds but I prefer the surround effect even if its redbook and from matrix or other processing means. I do have a question and hopefully someone can affirm or educate me. When a previously released disc such as Bob Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks" is re-released on multichannel sacd, how is it created. My understanding is that the sound engineers use the original master tracks on tape and instead of down mixing to two tracks, they down mix to 4 or 5 tracks, thereby creating the multichannel disc. I started a thread on Audiogon and its discussion forum under digital, and got into some heated debates about multichannel vs. stereo (non sacd). Several of the Luddites claimed the re-released multichannel sacds derived from the original stereo mix, using, as one debater claimed, tricks or illusionary techniques. As much as I tried to explain the process as I described above, they could not grasp the concept. Please visit the site, and any comments will be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno January 4, 2009 (38 of 93)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
OK, I'll be the odd man out. I like DSD because of the sound quality, not the quantity of speakers.
I have no quarrel with those who believe otherwise.
You're not the odd man out at all, Dan, and I know of one other person who feels the same way as you and I do and I'm sure there must be a number of others. For one reason or another we still have stereo-only systems. I personally think it is sad that so much importance is being placed on the multichannel aspects of SACD as it has resulted in so many wonderful recordings, both past and present, being overlooked for SACD release.
I know most multichannel devotees will not believe me when I say that I do not miss those extra channels, as the clarity and spaciousness that I get from my top system provides me with everything I want. I have a friend who has a multichannel set-up and I often take up SACDs and listen to them through it but when I listen to those same recordings through my top system later, I usually end up preferring the latter experience.
I guess it's a question of quality versus quantity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
mig007 said:
My understanding is that the sound engineers use the original master tracks on tape and instead of down mixing to two tracks, they down mix to 4 or 5 tracks, thereby creating the multichannel disc. I started a thread on Audiogon and its discussion forum under digital, and got into some heated debates about multichannel vs. stereo (non sacd). Several of the Luddites claimed the re-released multichannel sacds derived from the original stereo mix, using, as one debater claimed, tricks or illusionary techniques. As much as I tried to explain the process as I described above, they could not grasp the concept. Please
I know a couple of DVD-Audio titles as well as SACDs that were created by putting the stereo mix through a Dolby Pro Logic-like 'expansion' but by far most multichannel discs are created in the honest way you describe.
|
|
|
Post by terence January 4, 2009 (40 of 93)
|
|
For me if SACD wasn't multichannel I wouldn't have bought it - there's not really that much difference between RBCD stereo and SACD stereo on my system, and sometimes I prefer the RBCD version.
To my ears the improvements over stereo of a good 4.0, 5.0 or 5.1 mix are enormous, and that to me is by far SACD's biggest attraction.
|
|
