|
|
|
Well, I don't know who the hell JJP is, but the site certainly is a first for me. Whatever, there are more illustrious reviewers out there to get a better idea of this recording.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht July 8, 2011 (32 of 73)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Well, I don't know who the hell JJP is, but the site certainly is a first for me.
He also seems to be confused about how the stereo layer on a hybrid sacd is produced. By referring to the stereo tracks being folded down from the multichannel tracks he seems to have confused sacd with dvd-a. While I may be picking nits I always wonder about the extent to which all of us hear what we expect to hear, and if he thinks the stereo tracks are some sort of black box by-product then how reliable is his report on the sonic properties of the stereo layer?
I feel certain that I'm not immune from this sort of predisposition. I recently read a "professional" review of an early LSO Live disc praising its (stereo) sacd sound in words that imply that all sacds must have superior sound, while I felt the same disc was fatally undermined by the acoustics of the Barbican (multichannel). I wonder whether the reviewer would have thought less highly of the sound had he been told that the disc was a standard rbcd or if I would have thought more highly of it had I been told the disc was recorded on tour at a more sympathetic venue?
|
|
|
Post by JJPJ July 9, 2011 (33 of 73)
|
|
wehecht said:
He also seems to be confused about how the stereo layer on a hybrid sacd is produced. By referring to the stereo tracks being folded down from the multichannel tracks he seems to have confused sacd with dvd-a.
Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse. When listening in four or five channels, one usually hears all the signals directed to all the channels independently, distributing the frequencies more evenly. When listening only to the front pair, assuming the record company didn't actually manipulate the front-channel sound further, one sometimes hears what might have come out more smoothly in multichannel sounding more lower-midrange cloudy or upper-bass foggy. This is not the case with the "Scheherazade" disc, which sounds quite good. By the way, it is a new Polyhymnia production, recorded in 2010. --John P., Classical Candor
|
|
|
Post by JJPJ July 9, 2011 (34 of 73)
|
|
DSD said:
JJP said "The PentaTone sound is simply genial, listenable, rather than audiophile material." Which makes me wonder if this is a Polyhymnia recording? I love PentaTone's Polyhymnia recordings but I'm not too crazy about PentaTone's other ones.
Yes, it is a new, 2010 Polyhmnia production, and it does sound quite good, even in two channel. While I didn't find it the best performance I've ever heard (I prefer Reiner, Kondrashin, Beecham, Haitink, and others), it is in multichannel, a definite advantage to folks with multichannel systems such as I imagine most of the folks here at SA-CD.net have. --John P., Classical Candor
|
|
|
|
|
|
JJPJ said:
Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse. When listening in four or five channels, one usually hears all the signals directed to all the channels independently, distributing the frequencies more evenly. When listening only to the front pair, assuming the record company didn't actually manipulate the front-channel sound further, one sometimes hears what might have come out more smoothly in multichannel sounding more lower-midrange cloudy or upper-bass foggy. This is not the case with the "Scheherazade" disc, which sounds quite good. By the way, it is a new Polyhymnia production, recorded in 2010. --John P., Classical Candor
Are you suggesting that "assuming the record company didn't actually manipulate the front-channel sound further," the stereo L/R is identical to the L/R of the multichannel tracks?
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
JJPJ said:
a definite advantage to folks with multichannel systems such as I imagine most of the folks here at SA-CD.net have. --John P., Classical Candor
wrong, the majority of sacd listeners are stereo.
Also surround tracks on sacd are mastered approx 6db lower that the stereo front l & R.Please read some technical information.
So they cannot be identical.Therefore,they also must lose the lowest 6Db of signal levels.ie A LOSS.
Always obvious to a good stereo listener but apparently not for poorer surround listeners.
|
|
|
Post by JJPJ July 9, 2011 (37 of 73)
|
|
TROLL-Buster said:
wrong, the majority of sacd listeners are stereo.
Also surround tracks on sacd are mastered approx 6db lower that the stereo front l & R.Please read some technical information.
So they cannot be identical.Therefore,they also must lose the lowest 6Db of signal levels.ie A LOSS.
Always obvious to a good stereo listener but apparently not for poorer surround listeners.
:)
If surround tracks were at the same decibel level as front channels, you wouldn't be replicating the sound of a concert hall, where side and rear information should be ambient hall bloom only. Otherwise, you'd be sitting in the middle of an orchestra, a rather awkward position if it's realism you're after and not mere gimmickry.
Also, any loss in overall decibel levels, front vs. rear, should not affect overall frequency response, which is what we're talking about here. Anyway, I didn't mean to start an argument with so learned a crowd, only to explain myself further.
Gotta go. If anyone would like to discuss the matter further, or any other classical music related items, you'll find my e-mail address at the bottom of every page at Classical Candor, along with my background info.
Thanks, and nice chatting.
John
|
|
|
Post by tailspn July 9, 2011 (38 of 73)
|
|
TROLL-Buster said:
Also surround tracks on sacd are mastered approx 6db lower that the stereo front l & R.Please read some technical information.
So they cannot be identical.Therefore,they also must lose the lowest 6Db of signal levels.ie A LOSS.
Always obvious to a good stereo listener but apparently not for poorer surround listeners.
Actually, they're not. A quick sampling of the major producers with the Sonoma DSD metering shows stereo channels are either equal to the L&R MCH channels, as in the sample I took of BIS, to about 2dB higher with Channel and Linn. Pentatone (Polyhymnia produced) was about 1dB higher, and Pentatone (Soundmirror produced) about 2.5dB higher.
Stereo tracks are either produced with separate main microphones, or folded down from the MCH tracks, depending on the production company and producer. If they are folded down, I could see a reason to master them a bit hotter to maintain the dynamic range. I would suggest, but I do not know, that stereo tracks are sweetened more than MCH tracks in mastering, to increase the sense of space and dynamic range. After all, the Stereo tracks are missing three channels of spacial information. I do admit Dave that us poor surround sound listeners are suffering :)
Tom
|
|
|
Post by tailspn July 9, 2011 (39 of 73)
|
|
JJPJ said:
:)
If surround tracks were at the same decibel level as front channels, you wouldn't be replicating the sound of a concert hall, where side and rear information should be ambient hall bloom only.
John, quit while you're ahead :)
|
|
|
Post by DSD July 9, 2011 (40 of 73)
|
|
Thanks JJPJ for confirming it is a Polyhymnia recording.
|
|
