So if the purpose is to recreate the life enviroment of the music, why do audiophiles turn thier noses up to AV music... We moved from mono to stereo. Why must we stick to 2 channel music.
You would need to speak to an audiophile to have your answer, but it might be in part that music is largely recorded in stereo with the musicians 'soundstage' laid out in front. The musicians do not surround you when playing.
I would expect multi channel systems useful only to recreate the ambience of a particular live venue, where the use of active DSP would help to recreate this effect and it would not be possible to do so without it. Generally though, multi channel systems do not offer much, if anything, over a stereo system with your average recording, but they come into their own where special effects are evident.
spoken like a true audiophile. Did you say ask the Audiophile...?
I take it by the ROFL thingy, that you might disagree.
What are your thoughts on multichannel systems playing back a stereo recording in 'surround' sound?
Personally I find it hardly 'hifi' if a surround sound effect has been super imposed on a stereo recording. When have you ever gone to a gig where you sit in amongst a band, with the musicians playing all around you? Also when at a gig, when have you ever seen anything other than a typical stereo PA system array either side of the stage?
Again, I would suggest that multichannel music systems have their place, but are only really needed if some special effects or a recreation of ambience is required.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
To be fair its probably partly due to lack of decent recordings, yes there are some like Wish You Were Here but I think they is a rather limited range.
Do you have the SACD?
We do so many shows in a row,
And these towns all look the same,
We just pass the time in our hotel room
And wander 'round backstage,
Till the lights come up, and we hear that crowd,
And we remember why we came.
No. There is so little music I want available on SACD and the cost too high, rather pay a £1-£2 for cds than £20-£50.
It is actually quite easy to make recorded acoustic music sound live, given a good recording of course.
Firstly and most importantly, you need the space, preferably something approximating the venue for the recording. Next you need amplifiers and speakers that can handle the dynamics and shear volume (dynamic range) of the original recording in what is very likely a large space.
Expensive and impractical without doubt but difficult, no.
Blaming hifi components for this failure to sound live is simply wrong, other factors are far more important.
Agreed. One of the biggest factors that is too often ignored is the recording itself.
Why do people assume that any recording fully captured the live event?
I suspect that many times when persons claim that products with pancake flat frequency responses, sound "bright" that it is really due to the quality of the recording and not the HiFi system.
Regardless of whether someone listens to SACD, Vinyl or even Reel to Reel, I doubt that a perfect recording exists. So how can we fairly compare HiFi playback to the live event, if the recording we use is in anyway compromised?
M-Audio USB Transit->Benchmark DAC1->Beyerdynamic DT880 (600 ohm) / AKG K701
Then of course you do not get the sound quality.
Most of the 5.1 surround sound discs I have heard have been recorded in Dolby Digital and were without exception, excrable.
Not sure what you mean, are you saying cds are not good enough?
Then you say 5.1 is excrable, whatever that means?
We are taking about surround sound, a typical album in 5.1 format requires about 2 - 3 GB of data at cd quality, a CD can only hold 650 - 700MB so you need to put it on a DVD which has 4.7GB.
Ideally a DVD-A disc (no video) would have a 5.1 recording at CD quality and a stereo recording in high resolution, typicall 24/96. The idea of DVDs without video never really took off, so although some top quality DVD - A discs do exist, they are pretty rare. There are more hi-quality SACd's I believe, but still quite rare.
The most common format for 5.1 recordings is on DVD - V discs, ie regular movie format. This usually means a video recording of a concert with the soundtrack recorded in 5.1 Dolby Digital. To my mind the music quality is awful, (excrable), about on a par with low bitrate MP3s.
I think you mean execrable.
Thank you, my grammar is usually ok but my spelling has always been erratic, at best........
All am saying is we are stock in our ways.. Has anyone really done a blind test of an Av amp & 2 channel of the same price piont & see if they can tell which is which...?... Cause I have in shop & the shop keepers could not tell which amp was playing
A) Av amp Marantz SR7007
B) creek destiny 2 intergrated amp
C) speakers KEF R700 floor standing
D) Cyrus Transport
D) Dac:: AUDIO LAB M DAC
No rules. If it sounds good to you it sounds Right!!.Transpor:t . Oppo BDP-105EU Blue ray player.DAC: Rega dac & Audio lab M-Dac. AMP; MARANTZ SR7007. POWER AMP: MARANTZ MM7005 .SPEAKER'S; Boston acoustics M340. (FLOOR STANDING) SYSTEM STAND:QUADRASPIRE. INTERCONNECT;CHORD CHAMELEON SLIVER PLUS. DIGITAL CABLE:Clearer Audio silver Optimus.
Computer: Yototech: 600T case: graphice GTX690 Graphics card. 32gb RAM. Processor: I7 3960X. Solid state drive. 500gb. Sata drive 2TB. blue ray drive. studio monitors: Yamaha SH80M Active speakers. Mixer: Presonus studiolive 16.0.2. Audio connection Firewire via presonus. Screen: Asus 27inch VG278H
Yes What HiFi did that, and everyone preferred the stereo amp over the AV one. I seem to remember bigboss(?) was part of the test.
How long ago was this done..? Also most of the time advantages are always played towards the 2 channel amps in terms of speaker choice . Well in my case most of time on one could tell which amp was playing.
I think David at Frank's has an AV Pioneer he uses.
.....maybe not, but the MF AMS 35i gets closer than you'd expect.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing