Real vs. Artificial Depth of Soundstage

[RBFC]

The "Isomike" system is an attempt to record the ambience channels in a more discrete (non-crosstalk) manner.

http://www.isomike.com/

Lee

 

[edorr]

I don't see it your way. IMO First about limited content. There is limited content because there is limited demand. If audiophiles liked it, wanted it, there'd be a lot more of it. It isn't produced because there's no market for it. Second, considering what audiophiles spend on their equipment, how frequently many of them buy, sell, swap, trade up, owning at least one multichannel system for listening to music would not be much of a hardship. Many do own them...but use them only for HT. It's all they feel they're good for. Otherwise they'd trade up.

Obviously, an audiophile 2 channel system will beat a HT oriented mediocre multi channel system any day of the week. To build a multi channel system of the same caliber as a two channel audiophile system requires lots of extra boxes, physical space and $$$. Not worth it to the vast majority.

Here is the reality though. I have yet to find anyone (audiophile and non-audiophile) that does not prefer multi chanel over 2 channel in my system. I don't need any more empirical proof than that.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Obviously, an audiophile 2 channel system will beat a HT oriented mediocre multi channel system any day of the week. To build a multi channel system of the same caliber as a two channel audiophile system requires lots of extra boxes, physical space and $$$. Not worth it to the vast majority.

Here is the reality though. I have yet to find anyone (audiophile and non-audiophile) that does not prefer multi chanel over 2 channel in my system. I don't need any more empirical proof than that.

6 years ago i added multi-channel to my 2-channel system. my room had been designed for multi-channel in terms of wiring and conduit in the floor. and the width of my room (21 feet) was to some degree influenced by the desire for optimal SACD multi channel with optimal angles for the rear channels. even acoustically the room had lots of diffusion in the rear of the room for rear channels. i had been very active on the AA SACD forum (i was the second poster on that forum the first day it was up in Nov 2000). this was music only, no video......i have a separate HT in the main house for that.

i owned and still own 600-700 SACD multi-channel discs.

i added a pair of f113 subs, and rear channel speakers and amps that matched the tonal characteristics of my front channels. i had the EMM Labs 6 channel Switchman, and the EMM Labs DAC6 digital. so it was a high level effort.

i wanted to know how good hi-rez multi-channel could get.

the problem with my multi-channel was my Rockport Sirius III turntable. it did space better than the SACD multi-channel. i cannot argue with the theory of multi-channel and what it should be able to do. obviously; i invested a considerable amount of money and time into execution of this on a high level. but reality of how an Lp does space and coherence relegated the multi-channel to a marginal pastime for me. and then there is the fact that with 10,000 Lps of my favorite music how can SACD ccompete?

so if you are digital only in your system then multi-channel music optimized is another step in performance. however; if you have a very serious analog rig then it will do better the thing you got multi-channel music to do in the first place.

been there-done that at a high level. i find it amusing to read all this posturing on how great hi-rez multi-channel music is compared to 2 channel. how about investigating how good analog 2-channel can be first before you make sweeping statements?

again; i'm not arguing with the theory of it......only the execution at this point in time.

as to a Blue-Ray with video on a HT system we are now speaking of a whole different set of issues. i am only commenting on music only.

 

[Robh3606]

been there-done that at a high level. i find it amusing to read all this posturing on how great hi-rez multi-channel music is compared to 2 channel. how about investigating how good analog 2-channel can be first before you make sweeping statements?

Hello Mike

What posturing?? Any multichannel in digital format can be played in 2 channel format. All you have to do is switch between the two. As a matter of fact DVD-A's come with Stereo MLP, Surround MLP and either DTS or Dolby in compressed formats. You can compare all 3 in real time. No analog vs digital just a comparison between the different mixes and formats. The differences in the formats is what I am taking about. I don't see sweeping statements either, the mixes are the key to how well it can be pulled off. If the surround mix is a dog I would prefer the 2 channel in that case.

I have heard some good 2 channel set-ups and shure you can get a sense of space but no envelopment.

Rob

 

[edorr]

so if you are digital only in your system then multi-channel music optimized is another step in performance. however; if you have a very serious analog rig then it will do better the thing you got multi-channel music to do in the first place.

been there-done that at a high level. i find it amusing to read all this posturing on how great hi-rez multi-channel music is compared to 2 channel. how about investigating how good analog 2-channel can be first before you make sweeping statements?

Mike, you are making the case that in your experience the best 2 channel analog beats the best digital multi channel, which is fair enough. I cannot comment, because I do not have analog sources.

The issue here is not analog versus digital. It is - all else being equal - 2 channel versus multi channel. If in your "build for music, high grade MCH system" you took a very well discrete 5.1 SACD recording and played it in MCH, did you prefer the same recording played as 2 channel SACD?

If so, I rest my case and we have a different experience. If not, I just made my case and you confirmed my experience.

You appear to advocate investing in very good analog rig before going down the MCH path, because the end result will be better (and there is more content). This just does not work for me because convenience is a huge factor for me.

By the way, I just picked up a used switchman 3, to see how it compares with the digital volume control I am currently using. Damn. You are always 6 years ahead of me.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you are making the case that in your experience the best 2 channel analog beats the best digital multi channel, which is fair enough. I cannot comment, because I do not have analog sources.

The issue here is not analog versus digital. It is - all else being equal - 2 channel versus multi channel. If in your "build for music, high grade MCH system" you took a very well discrete 5.1 SACD recording and played it in MCH, did you prefer the same recording played as 2 channel SACD?

If so, I rest my case and we have a different experience. If not, I just made my case and you confirmed my experience.

while there were many MC SACD's where i did prefer the 2 channel, there were more where i preferred the multi-channel. so generally i agree with your perspective that with digital, MC is a step up. i would also add that in my particular room 2 channel is optimized to a very high degree.

You appear to advocate investing in very good analog rig before going down the MCH path, because the end result will be better (and there is more content). This just does not work for me because convenience is a huge factor for me.

By the way, I just picked up a used switchman 3, to see how it compares with the digital volume control I am currently using. Damn. You are always 6 years ahead of me.

i've likely got at least 20 years on you in age, so i have to be ahead.

the Switchman is a very good sounding analog preamp. better than most HT processors people tend to use for multi-channel. enjoy!

 

[edorr]

the Switchman is a very good sounding analog preamp. better than most HT processors people tend to use for multi-channel. enjoy!

I have been avoiding HT processors for my multi channel system like the plague - High Rez digital over HDMI just does not cut it for me. I used to have a Marantz ud9004 into a Theta Six Shooter MCH analog preamp. Then moved to modded Oppo with 4 x S/PDIF digital out into a Trinnov DRC system, with digital outs into high grade DACs.

I will be trying the switchman 3 just for kicks, to see if the analog volume control beats the digital volume control in the Trinnov I am currently using. Bruce suggested it probably will, he has a Switchman too.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hello Mike

What posturing??

good point. the claims made in this thread about the superiority of multi-channel are mild compared to what i've read on many other threads, so my 'posturing' comment is maybe overblown relative to this thread. my reaction was to a number of multi-channel claims over time.

Any multichannel in digital format can be played in 2 channel format. All you have to do is switch between the two. As a matter of fact DVD-A's come with Stereo MLP, Surround MLP and either DTS or Dolby in compressed formats. You can compare all 3 in real time. No analog vs digital just a comparison between the different mixes and formats. The differences in the formats is what I am taking about. I don't see sweeping statements either, the mixes are the key to how well it can be pulled off. If the surround mix is a dog I would prefer the 2 channel in that case.

I have heard some good 2 channel set-ups and shure you can get a sense of space but no envelopment.

Rob

if you don't think you get envelopment from analog 2 channel then you need to keep searching for a better analog 2-channel reference. many Lps and tapes fill the room and envelop me in my system. musical information behind you is not envelopment; envelopment is the ambience of the venue taking over your room and the system disappearing.....it's a very low noise floor and very deep linear bass.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have been avoiding HT processors for my multi channel system like the plague - High Rez digital over HDMI just does not cut it for me. I used to have a Marantz ud9004 into a Theta Six Shooter MCH analog preamp. Then moved to modded Oppo with 4 x S/PDIF digital out into a Trinnov DRC system, with digital outs into high grade DACs.

I will be trying the switchman 3 just for kicks, to see if the analog volume control beats the digital volume control in the Trinnov I am currently using. Bruce suggested it probably will, he has a Switchman too.

Bruce would know.

i'll watch for your feedback on the Switchman III.

 

[NorthStar]

6 years ago i added multi-channel to my 2-channel system. my room had been designed for multi-channel in terms of wiring and conduit in the floor. and the width of my room (21 feet) was to some degree influenced by the desire for optimal SACD multi channel with optimal angles for the rear channels. even acoustically the room had lots of diffusion in the rear of the room for rear channels. i had been very active on the AA SACD forum (i was the second poster on that forum the first day it was up in Nov 2000). this was music only, no video......i have a separate HT in the main house for that.

i owned and still own 600-700 SACD multi-channel discs.

i added a pair of f113 subs, and rear channel speakers and amps that matched the tonal characteristics of my front channels. i had the EMM Labs 6 channel Switchman, and the EMM Labs DAC6 digital. so it was a high level effort.

i wanted to know how good hi-rez multi-channel could get.

the problem with my multi-channel was my Rockport Sirius III turntable. it did space better than the SACD multi-channel. i cannot argue with the theory of multi-channel and what it should be able to do. obviously; i invested a considerable amount of money and time into execution of this on a high level. but reality of how an Lp does space and coherence relegated the multi-channel to a marginal pastime for me. and then there is the fact that with 10,000 Lps of my favorite music how can SACD ccompete?

so if you are digital only in your system then multi-channel music optimized is another step in performance. however; if you have a very serious analog rig then it will do better the thing you got multi-channel music to do in the first place.

been there-done that at a high level. i find it amusing to read all this posturing on how great hi-rez multi-channel music is compared to 2 channel. how about investigating how good analog 2-channel can be first before you make sweeping statements?

again; i'm not arguing with the theory of it......only the execution at this point in time.

as to a Blue-Ray with video on a HT system we are now speaking of a whole different set of issues. i am only commenting on music only.

---- Great post Mike, you're dead-on honest! :b ...And I'm real glad you're here.

By the way, Blu-ray, and not 'Blue-ray'.

 

[Atmasphere]

the problem with my multi-channel was my Rockport Sirius III turntable. it did space better than the SACD multi-channel. i cannot argue with the theory of multi-channel and what it should be able to do. obviously; i invested a considerable amount of money and time into execution of this on a high level. but reality of how an Lp does space and coherence relegated the multi-channel to a marginal pastime for me.

Phase linearity, the ability to reproduce phase relationships exactly, has a lot to do with soundstage. The simple fact is you need bandwidth to do that, something that LPs have over every other format. Sure, cartridge specs are usually only measured to 20KZ, but if you look at them, they don't drop off like a rock, they just stop measuring. Most cutterheads can go to 50-60KHz with ease, and the vinyl can easily have that information in the grooves (CD-4 LPs from the 1970s had information up to 75KHz).

Most decent amps and preamps have similar bandwidth. Admittadly there is not much information up there but that is not the point. Phase accuracy is. The result is that the LP is very likely to have better soundstage information than any digital format.

 

[NorthStar]

-- Very true, CD hits a brick wall very abruptly. And then you also have 'jitter' issues with digital.
SACD's much better IMO. ...And I love Multichannel. ...Which LP cannot do.

In true reality, what is the actual 'average' frequency response of an LP? ..Mono? ...And Stereo?

 

[Gregadd]

Was not quadraphonic multi-channel and on LP?

 

[mep]

Was not quadraphonic multi-channel and on LP?

Why yes, quadraphonic means four channels and it was on LP.

 

[Soundminded]

And you are basing this opinion on what?? You are really critical and you didn't answer my question. Do you have a multichannel set-up?? Anyone can read opinions on the net and post them as their own. What counts is actual experience behind those opinions.

Rob

Actually I have two of them at the moment. One is an ordinary HT system in my bedroom, what you'd call a 5.3 channel system. It's ho hum. The other is an experimental system of my own design. It isn't like anything you can buy and it does not work based on any audiophile concepts. At the moment it uses among other things 18 speaker systems in ways that are unconventional. In the next year or two I may build a one or two more experimental multichannel systems. I've got a large house with a lot of rooms to play with.

 

[NorthStar]

Was not quadraphonic multi-channel and on LP?

Only four channels, and it died! :b ...They missed the most important one; the center channel.
...Just imagine; a needle going across the grooves of such albums!!!
...Four times the ticks and pops and scratches!

 

[Robh3606]

Actually I have two of them at the moment. One is an ordinary HT system in my bedroom, what you'd call a 5.3 channel system. It's ho hum.

Ok what is is it?? HT in a box,VHS/DVD/Blue Ray?? What formats does it support??

Rob

 

[Atmasphere]

-- Very true, CD hits a brick wall very abruptly. And then you also have 'jitter' issues with digital.
SACD's much better IMO. ...And I love Multichannel. ...Which LP cannot do.

In true reality, what is the actual 'average' frequency response of an LP? ..Mono? ...And Stereo?

Its a matter of will. The SQ and QS systems derived the rear channels from phasing information. If you also had two channels available from CD-4 encoding, you could hit 5.1 specs. But there has to be the market will.

The avaerage LP bandwidth depends mostly on playback. In our preamp we spec 2Hz to 100KHz in the phono section. Most cartridges have no problem with very low bandwidth as we all know; its the high end that is less well understood, but these days almost any self-respecting phono preamp can do 50KHz and so can most of the cartridges. Due to arm/cartridge mechanical resonance as the bottom practical limit to playback, we can then say 10Hz or so to 50KHz is reasonable.

 

[NorthStar]

Its a matter of will. The SQ and QS systems derived the rear channels from phasing information. If you also had two channels available from CD-4 encoding, you could hit 5.1 specs. But there has to be the market will.

The avaerage LP bandwidth depends mostly on playback. In our preamp we spec 2Hz to 100KHz in the phono section. Most cartridges have no problem with very low bandwidth as we all know; its the high end that is less well understood, but these days almost any self-respecting phono preamp can do 50KHz and so can most of the cartridges. Due to arm/cartridge mechanical resonance as the bottom practical limit to playback, we can then say 10Hz or so to 50KHz is reasonable.

---- I was more specifically asking about the LP (vinyl, record, album) itself; the medium.
...And not just the best one, but on average, from ALL of them (LPs).

...And certainly not about the machines in the sound reproduction chain.

 

[Soundminded]

---- I was more specifically asking about the LP (vinyl, record, album) itself; the medium.
...And not just the best one, but on average, from ALL of them (LPs).

...And certainly not about the machines in the sound reproduction chain.

According to the Lansing Heritage site, in the article about the JBL Hartsfield, during the 1950s recordings didn't have much content beyond 10 Khz. Then by the late 50s, early 60s LPs had content in the highest audible octave. In the 1960s Audio Fidelity Records boasted FR to 25 Khz. In the 1970s the development of RCA CD-4 phonograph records required FR to 40 khz or beyond. CD-4 was a discrete system unlike the matrix systems. As with FM stereo, the out of band information is the additional channels but unlike FM stereo, there was no matrix circuit, just a downshift to recover the rear channels. I only know of 2 manufacturers who specifically made phono cartridges designed to play CD-4 records, B&O and Empire. I've still got an Empire 4000/DIII which claims to track as low as 1/2 gram. It works very well but doesn't sound any different to me than 999VE which never claimed response beyond 20 khz.

A problem with very high frequency recordings on vinyl is that they can be easily damaged. One reason is that the G force exerted by the stylus on the vinyl is greater with more rapid acceleration characteristic of those frequencies. Lower dynamic mass, higher compliance result in lower force required to keep the stylus in the groove. Also stylus geometry affects record wear. The greater the contact area, the lower the force per unit area or stress. Damage occurs when the force per unit area or stress exceeds the modulus of elasticity of the vinyl. That point is called the elastic limit, the point at which the vinyl no longer snaps back after being deformed. It undergoes what's called plastic deformation. This can be seen on a stress-strain curve for any material, vinyl, steel, aluminum etc. The complex polyhedral stylus geometry of CD-4 cartridges increases the surface contact area. However a few playings using a conventional cartridge tracking at say 2 grams or more having an eliptical stylus may wipe away the out band signal.

Tonearms that are dynamically balanced, that is have their center of mass coincident with their pivot points also have lower dynamic mass with any cartridge. Most tonearms are not dynamically balanced, they rely on a difference in the center of mass between the front and rear of the pivot point to apply tracking force.