Relative importance of differences in stereo systems

[Axial]

It's the "fun play" part of it; I agree with professor Rubinson's earlier comments.

[John Dyson]

19 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Just be sure to notice my profile avatar, and remember that just cranking it up and heavily limiting it is not mastering, or remastering for that matter.  Preserve those peaks! Use peak limiting only for the few outlier peaks.

 

Resist demands by the client(the artist, the producer, or label) for LOUDNESSABOVEALL.  If you lose those customers because they went somewhere else to have their mixes intentionally distorted or otherwise over-processed for final release, they weren't worth your time and talent as a post-engineer in the first place.  If you value great sound, you will attract like-minded clientele.

The guy that I work most closely with really dislikes any extra processing.  He is into producing real quality stuff.  I don't do mastering -- that is a specialty area.  I do software/analog hardware/DSP/etc type stuff.

My DolbyA compatible project is meant to retrieve as much of the signal as possible -- without causing artifacts.  There are modes that I can set up in the decoder, and it can pull out more detail -- but sounds 'not quite right.'

[fas42]

High end speakers don't "swamp any differences in the intervening electronics" - what they do is highlight, exaggerate with a ruthless attitude everything that is wrong in the preceding chain - if I want to know how awful audio playback can sound, how unappetising it is to be in the presence of sound reproduction, I just have to visit any hifi show ... .

 

Typical audiophile systems make one intensely aware of the tiniest anomalies - they are a hair shirt experience of the worst kind ... a good rule of thumb is that the greater the potential of the rig, the more one has to thoroughly 'debug' it - otherwise, they make listening to anything but the "right recordings" quite unpleasant.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

If every track I listen to has its own acoustic, tonal and dynamic character rather than something the speaker or room imposes on the music, I’m good. 

Its worth bearing in mind that what we’re listening to is a recording of the original event, if there even was an original event

 

Amen. You're much closer to listening to the actual recording, than the supa dupa signature of the playback rig - of course, many people's egos are tied up in the latter; recordings are really just a means for enjoying the specialness of the kit in the room - who cares about those bum musicians, anyway, .

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

High end speakers don't "swamp any differences in the intervening electronics" - what they do is highlight, exaggerate with a ruthless attitude everything that is wrong in the preceding chain - if I want to know how awful audio playback can sound, how unappetising it is to be in the presence of sound reproduction, I just have to visit any hifi show ... .

 

Typical audiophile systems make one intensely aware of the tiniest anomalies - they are a hair shirt experience of the worst kind ... a good rule of thumb is that the greater the potential of the rig, the more one has to thoroughly 'debug' it - otherwise, they make listening to anything but the "right recordings" quite unpleasant.

 

The problem with having a system with 'personality' is that nuance IN GENERAL can be lost -- but certain kinds of nuance will be made intolerable.

Speaking of frequency response -- when I am working on my projects -- even 0.5dB error can be incredibly irritating.  If you know how something is 'supposed' to sound, it is pretty easy to detect the smallest errors.  If someone has gotten used to an eccentric kind of sound characteristic, than equipment that is neutral can sound 'inferior', weird or maybe even bad.  Vice versa is also true.

It is so very easy to actually believe that something with 'personality' (I am being kind) is better -- because that is what one might be used to.

This is why it is important to just try to enjoy the music, or enjoy tweaking ones system or both.  Trying to make a system superior to some other system -- well -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

John

 

 

[STC]

8 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Of course but the resistance to this huge opportunity for improvement is "baked in" with audiophiles who have financial and personal investments that they want to conserve.

 

I don't think finance is an issue to most audiophiles. I believe it is some sort indoctrination over the years that real performance could be produced by two speakers stereo only.  

 

[Kal Rubinson]

17 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I don't think finance is an issue to most audiophiles. I believe it is some sort indoctrination over the years that real performance could be produced by two speakers stereo only.  

 

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

I believe that some people who are hooked on the audiophile hobby will keep on tweaking & enhancing until they are finished.  People can be 'finished' by lack of funds, lack of imagination or finally learning to just enjoy the music.  Nothing wrong with the tweaking&enhancing phase, just as being satisfied by the best practical system is also okay.  Some people dont' stop at the practical and technically near perfect, and overshoot into hyperspace.  How far they end up in hyperspace depends on funds, persistence, getting married and/or maintaining interest.  Loss of acute, 20yr old hearing is not an impediment to the hobby -- practical constraints are the major outside influence to the hobby..   The persistent audiophile is not limited by his/her hearing ability -- up to a point. :-)

[Kal Rubinson]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The persistent audiophile is not limited by his/her hearing ability -- up to a point. :-)

Agreed but he is often limited by his vision.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, STC said:

Only audiophiles facing this problem of getting the sound correct. Not one videophiles would argue that 50s black and white or the 70s color TV was closer to reality compared to the current 8K format. 

 

To those with proper 5.1 setup knows that stereo sound can never  achieve the realism of the former and yet they steadfastly remain loyal to the stereo format. I have lost count of the number of times reviewers telling that with certain equipment they felt like being there in a live performance and yet this search continues.

 

It is not difficult to know where the weak link is but we have evolved to accept stereo sound itself as unique and forms its own flavour which somewhat similar to lover of vintage sports cars. That is, both are inferior compared current standards but they still appeal to some.

 

It is no longer about speakers or electronics. 

 

 

 

 

For a many people, multi-channel is a non-starter because of the space and equipment requirements. While a well set up multi-channel system for music will outperform an equivalent stereo one, that seldom apples to the typical multi-channel home audio video system.

[Ralf11]

what size, quality do the rear speakers need to be in a 5.1 setup?

 

I've heard that good mid-range 'monitors' are just fine for that (??)

[STC]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

 

52 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

For a many people, multi-channel is a non-starter because of the space and equipment requirements. While a well set up multi-channel system for music will outperform an equivalent stereo one, that seldom apples to the typical multi-channel home audio video system.

 

It could be true where you live but over here, almost all the audiophiles do have a decent HT system and yet I have not seen any of them attempted to spend a fraction of the time they had spent on their stereo system to improve the HT for music listening.

 

In the mid-90s, one audiophile used to have one of the best HT systems and another one for his stereo system. During my visit along with other audiophiles he played Roy Orbison which sounded very good. In a way that was my first experience of audiophile setup. Up to that point, I only had a simple Hifi system.

 

Later, he played a DVD 5.1 live performance of Roy in his HT room. For me, that sound outperformed his stereo setup for realism and musical engagement. Unfortunately, not one of them agreed with me and insisted that HT sound is different and not natural. They laughed at me for my lack of taste. It has been more than 25 years, and none of them even attempted to listen to some music with their HT system.

 

IMO, It is not cost nor space but refusal to believe that a multichannel recording could easily outperform all their effort in perfecting stereo setup. 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

For a many people, multi-channel is a non-starter because of the space and equipment requirements. While a well set up multi-channel system for music will outperform an equivalent stereo one, that seldom apples to the typical multi-channel home audio video system.

Now, where have I heard this before?

[Kal Rubinson]

19 minutes ago, STC said:

MO, It is not cost nor space but refusal to believe that a multichannel recording could easily outperform all their effort in perfecting stereo setup. 

That is why I call those issues excuses.   Their psychological investment is entirely wrapped up in stereo. 

[Allan F]

57 minutes ago, STC said:

It could be true where you live but over here, almost all the audiophiles do have a decent HT system and yet I have not seen any of them attempted to spend a fraction of the time they had spent on their stereo system to improve the HT for music listening.

 

That's my point. The typical HT system seldom has the same degree of investment and optimization devoted to an audiophile stereo system. I am not saying that a multi-channel HT system cannot perform better that a stereo system. It most certainly can. But, in practice, most multi-channel HT systems are not set up to do so. Rather, as entertainment systems, they are more frequently devoted to movies and TV, where sound effects are typically more important than sound quality.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Not in my experience as a proselytizer for multichannel.  The biggest objections are that there isn't enough room for more amps/speakers and that spreading the available budget over 5.1 or more channels would mean that the cost per channel would decrease as would quality.  They offer this as an argument against MCH without realizing that its advantage over stereo trump any such concerns.

As someone who voiced those same concerns for far too long let me agree. 

 

5 channels with appropriate material makes a real and sizable difference.  Not always blow me away differences, but enough your loss of quality using slightly lesser products for more channels is a positive trade off for the listening experience.   Pony up for a good sub or three and the other speakers have less to handle and can be somewhat 'lesser' without really much compromise for the range they cover. 

 

Now I agree with STC, that some believe good enough 2 channel obviates the benefit of more channels when that isn't so.  But the primary complaint is the one Kal espouses here. 

[STC]

3 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That is why I call those issues excuses.   Their psychological investment is entirely wrapped up in stereo. 

 

Why? What were they chasing all these years? Fidelity or self-accomplishment of being best among imperfection? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

That's my point. The typical HT system seldom has the same degree of investment and optimization devoted to an audiophile stereo system. I am not saying that a multi-channel HT system cannot perform better that a stereo system. It most certainly can. But, in practice, most multi-channel HT systems are not set up to do so. Rather, as entertainment systems, they are more frequently devoted to movies and TV, where sound effects are typically more important than sound quality.

 

It is not that simple. Proper setup requires some understanding about the recordings itself. Firstly, we need true multichannel materials.  Then the next question is to determine whether the multichannel materials' extra channels are meant for object based sound or spatial information. Furthermore, all the senior audiophiles s grew up hearing stereo sound. Technically, those recordings will sound better with stereo, and artificial remastering for multichannel will sound so different that it is hard to enjoy the music. AND to some, they don't like the difference!

 

This difference or weakness in multichannel can be addressed easily. You can always convert your current stereo setup to a multichannel system with a small investment. You don't even need full range speakers for the surround. A good AV receiver can handle the extra channels. Just press stereo or multichannel to suit the material.

 

Cost is just an excuse. Another weak excuse is space. In the top range audiophile setups, the diffusers, bass trap, reflector take up far more space than the tiny surround speakers in comparisons. Kal is right. It is a psychological resistance. 

 

 

[Allan F]

45 minutes ago, STC said:

 Another weak excuse is space. In the top range audiophile setups, the diffusers, bass trap, reflector take up far more space than the tiny surround speakers in comparisons. Kal is right. It is a psychological resistance.

 

No it isn't a weak excuse. in my apartment living room setup, I don't have bass traps or other room treatments that take up appreciable space. Nor do I have any convenient locations for additional amplifiers and surround speakers, let alone places to run the wires to connect the latter. In any case, I don't see any point in arguing about whether cost and/or space are excuses or realistic practical constraints. I am not knocking multi-channel, but perhaps you and Kal are getting somewhat carried away in your proselytizing for it in making such statements.

[STC]

18 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

No it isn't a weak excuse. in my apartment living room setup, I don't have bass traps or other room treatments that take up appreciable space. Nor do I have any convenient locations for additional amplifiers and surround speakers, let alone places to run the wires to connect the latter. In any case, I don't see any point in arguing about whether cost and/or space are excuses or realistic practical constraints. I am not knocking multi-channel, but perhaps you and Kal are getting somewhat carried away in your proselytizing for it by making such statements.

 

I understand that some do not have a dedicated room. I was addressing those with dedicated room for music. 

[Kal Rubinson]

12 hours ago, Allan F said:

I am not saying that a multi-channel HT system cannot perform better that a stereo system. It most certainly can. But, in practice, most multi-channel HT systems are not set up to do so.

Agreed.  That is one reason why earlier predictions that the rise of HT would lead to the success of multichannel music listening were wrong.  (The other one is that most HT system owners are not very interested in music.)

[esldude]

Where I see the MCH vs stereo issue being off kilter is not apartment dwellers or people with small rooms that don't have the space.  It is for people who have large rooms with large sums of money spent on polishing up stereo when going to MCH would be quite an improvement.  In time many of those people spend significant money on very peripheral issues which at best make very marginal differences when the same money to add other channels to what they have would be significant improvements.  

 

OTOH, mainstream it is a sound bar world.  In that world you get fake pseudo-surround and very compromised stereo. 

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, STC said:

It could be true where you live but over here, almost all the audiophiles do have a decent HT system and yet I have not seen any of them attempted to spend a fraction of the time they had spent on their stereo system to improve the HT for music listening...IMO, It is not cost nor space but refusal to believe that a multichannel recording could easily outperform all their effort in perfecting stereo setup. 

 

For the poor and lower middle class audiophiles it is both cost and lack of space.

 

I live in a studio apartment and I have neither the space or the funds for multichannel. I have one audio/video/computer system with a total cost for everything including Mac Mini computer, Teac DSD DAC, HDTV, Blu-ray/SACD player, tubed preamp, solid state power amp, 2 floor standing speakers and cables with a total cost of everything of less than $3.5K. Some of my equipment is over 30 years old.

 

Slightly over half of my SACDs have a multichannel program. So if I ever become rich I will rent a larger apartment with a dedicated living room and expand my stereo audio/video system to multichannel and give it a try. I don't see me getting that rich in this lifetime. My only income is Social Security.

 

Not everyone is as rich as you make people out to be.

 

11 hours ago, Allan F said:

No it isn't a weak excuse. in my apartment living room setup, I don't have bass traps or other room treatments that take up appreciable space. Nor do I have any convenient locations for additional amplifiers and surround speakers, let alone places to run the wires to connect the latter. In any case, I don't see any point in arguing about whether cost and/or space are excuses or realistic practical constraints. I am not knocking multi-channel, but perhaps you and Kal are getting somewhat carried away in your proselytizing for it in making such statements.

 

I agree and this is the same for the space in my studio apartment. Not everyone has large rooms to put lots of stuff in.

 

11 hours ago, STC said:

I understand that some do not have a dedicated room. I was addressing those with dedicated room for music. 

 

I have never been to anyone's home which has a dedicated room for music. They either have a stereo or multichannel audio/video system in the living room or in their single room if they live in a studio apartment like me.

 

I thought only very rich people had separate rooms for video and audio systems. For the rest of us a single system is used for both audio and video. And many of the few I've been in with multichannel systems have the rear speakers setting on top of the front speakers because they don't want wires running along the walls. If one rents an apartment they cannot put wires in the walls. I suppose one could get wireless speakers for the rear. Oh, well. 

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I thought only very rich people had separate rooms for video and audio systems. For the rest of us a single system is used for both audio and video. And many of the few I've been in with multichannel systems have the rear speakers setting on top of the front speakers because they don't want wires running along the walls. If one rents an apartment they cannot put wires in the walls. I suppose one could get wireless speakers for the rear. Oh, well. 

Even though I used to have a rather significantly high income (into early 7figures), I wouldn't/couldn't dedicate a room to multimedia.  (nowadays, I fell into a rather frustrating illness -- not quite as 'fast track' anymore)  Frankly, as I have more user interfaces, I become more and more confused.  In fact, I almost never log in to my windows boxes directly -- it is easier to pull up a window on Linux (hate to use that name -- used to be a horrid competitor of mine.)

If anyone is into video/audio -- I am, and have been since the 1980's, but I did have an outlet at work -- maybe that is a partial excuse.

My own situation (even as a forever single guy), it just doesnt' make sense to compllicate my life with more 'things'.  I like to have 'fewer' but more useful things.  "things' tend to be a pain to deal with for me :-).  Maintenance is a frustrating distraction, etc....

 

John

[Axial]

How many channels in stereo music sound systems, two or three? 

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

It is for people who have large rooms with large sums of money spent on polishing up stereo when going to MCH would be quite an improvement.  In time many of those people spend significant money on very peripheral issues which at best make very marginal differences when the same money to add other channels to what they have would be significant improvements.  

I think you have defined the issue quite well.  There's nothing that one individual can do to ameliorate another's money and/or space constraints.  All we can do, as here, is to try to open their minds to the potential of multichannel.