[deleted]
That new arrangement sounds quite enticing. (I have a small space, so most of the time stereo is fine.) But some friends with a much larger room have a system similar to yours, and it sounds glorious. The perspective is definitely different.
-Bruce
I have 5 channel system and I naturally listen to multichannel SACDs in multichannel form. When it comes to stereo recordings of classical music, I listen to them in stereo mode OR in DTS Neo 6:Music mode which in most cases works really well, because the nature of classical music spatiality is quite random and diffuse. Electronic music with simple delays-based spatial trick on the other hand may sound band in multichannel modes. In general I recommend using stereo mode for stereo recordings (you can't go wrong!), but some types of music almost always sound even better in suitable (not any!) multichannel mode.
It is a misunderstanding of multichannel music to assume some instruments are placed behind the listener. If that happens the system has been set up incorrectly! Perhaps the delays are wrong? Perhaps the channel volumes are wrong? The purpose of rear channels in music is to enhance spatiality, to increase depth by better controlled reflections. Rear channels should make the instruments sound further of the listener! Well set up multichannel system kind of removes the listening room acoustics "forcing" the spatiality of the recording on top of the listening room acoustics.
Movie soundtracks are different. They purposely place sound all over the place and sound coming behind/side/even above is intended, but at least most music is not like that. Cellos should be in front of the listener and if they are not, the system is set up incorrectly. Getting things right in multichannel systems can be quite challenging. In this sense stereo is much easier to get right.
I have 5.1. Alas my newish receiver is too new and my SACD too old that I can't connect them properly. As a result, I've had to keep my old amp, but I've never bothered hooking it back up. I can play DVDs, DVD-As, and Blu-rays in surround though.
But when it comes down it, I usually only like 5.1 when I'm listening to multitracked music like the current Beatles' remixes, Hendrix, etc. With classical music and jazz, it tends to sound diffused and artificial. There are some exceptions, of course (Spem in Alium, anything with offstage musicians, etc.), but attempts to recreate a space that I'm not actually in have an uphill battle.
I think classical music in stereo recordings work well most all the time in multichannel mode IF:
- The system is set up well/correctly.
- The two => multichannel matrix decoding is suitable (movie modes may not work for music etc.)
No matter how many channels, music reproduction system has to be set up well for a good result. Speaker placing/listening point/room acoustics/delays/levels/etc. are all important aspects. It's just that stereo system is much easier to get right than multichannel. So, if setting up a system is challenging in a room, doing stereo only might be the wisest choice.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on January 16, 2023, 06:35:26 AMWell, thank you, but again I'm asking about 2-channel v. multi-channel for listening to a stereo signal in the abstract, not regarding whether it's easy/hard to setup etc. Think 'spherical cows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow)'!
In other words, assuming it's all set up perfectly and your hardware is fine, and your music sources are good, does listening in multichannel to a stereo signal provide "something" that standard stereo speakers don't provide, in your experience? (And, I guess, if so, what?) And would you therefore suggest that going that extra mile to get it setup 'correctly' was worthwhile?
I believe you'd answer 'yes' to the 'does it provide something extra' question, and have explained the 'what' up above, too. But it's looking like you and I might be rare birds in even considering this approach!
If it's something most people don't bother with, I think that's useful to know too!
I'm sorry, but there is no simple answer to these things, but there are principles that can guide people. These principles can be violated in certain situation even with positive results.
One of the principles of audio re-production is to have the same amount of speakers you have audio channels in your recording. This principle says stereo recordings should be listened to with stereo speaker pair. Since stereo speakers are relatively easy to set up well, this approach gives normally good solid results and when done really well (a listening room with excellent acoustics + very high performance speakers optimally placed) can give stunning results (with great recordings with very good recorded sound).
The principle above can be "broken" successfully if the spatial information on the recording is suitable for pseudo-multichannel sound decoded from the original stereo sound. Classical music is this type of sound because of how classical recordings are recorded and produced. Good pseudo-multichannel sound can overcome some of the limitations a stereo speaker pair in perhaps adequate, but not excellent room acoustics/speakers by enforcing the spatiality recorded more strongly into the acoustic listening space. This can make the soundstage bigger, deeper and more like the acoustic space where the recording was done. This is the "something extra", but it depends on the listening room and the speakers how much of it you get. Maybe a lot. Maybe not at all. Maybe things are worse!
It is about pros and cons and how they compare. In my system and with classical music the benefits of pseudo-multichannel seems to be bigger than the "harm done" not obeying the principle of one speaker per channel in the recording, but in another systems (different speakers/room) it can be the other way around.
I had a 5.1 system for a brief time and listened to some multi-channel SACDs. I remember several giving an enhanced listening experience, particularly the Janowski recordings of Brahms Symphonies in Pittsburgh. But it wasn't really transformative. I also had a receiver that could simulate some reverberation for the back speakers and probably generate a center channel from common mode signal in a stereo program, but I never found it enhanced the two channel experience. I'm of the general opinion that if the recording engineer is competent playback will sound best on the system he or she intended.
At this point listening to loudspeakers in any form is not possible and all my music listening is on headphones.
I do 2.1 for music and 3.1 for video. A center channel is useful for dialog enhancement.
Surround doesn't interest me enough to get tiny satellites that would fit in a small listening room.
Quote from: drogulus on January 18, 2023, 07:05:33 PMI do 2.1 for music and 3.1 for video. A center channel is useful for dialog enhancement.
Surround doesn't interest me enough to get tiny satellites that would fit in a small listening room.
I had a subwoofer bu could never convince myself I had set it up right (gain, phase, roll off frequency, etc).
Quote from: absolutelybaching on January 18, 2023, 10:00:24 PMThat, and Drogulus' original comment, seems pretty accurate so far, for me.
I'm finding the rear speakers mostly pointless, but have enjoyed the extra ooomph from the subwoofer... But have begin fiddling with the subwoofer volume, because it turns out you can have too much oomph!
Case in point just last night: Scott Ross's harpsichord in the Scarlatti sonatas had so much audible, mechanical "thunk" that I found it impossible to listen to the actual music and ended up turning the subwoofer volume to minimum. On the other hand, Bruckner with oomph was rather nice.
Not sure I want to fiddle that much, to be honest! But I am still currently just wondering about it and dabbling... No firm decisions as yet!
At times I've had the opposite experience, a recording that doesn't seem to need a subwoofer sounds more alive because of the presence of low frequencies in transients, such as a harpsichord or solo violin. But the drawback is the temptation to be drawn into to tinkering with the subwoofer settings, which draws me away from the music. Ultimately I got rid of it.
I didn't mess with the phase on the sub. It's the same distance to the listening position as the mains.
I use the standard 80Hz crossover and adjust the level so it disappears when there's no low bass to speak of.
Once I have music right I don't adjust for video. A music standard means you aren't adding playback exaggeration to the excesses of movie soundtracks. What works for a classical concert hall CD will serve quite well for Jurassic Park dinosaur stomps. If you try to adjust to the dinosaur music will be off.
My speakers are Canadian. They are dull but have a distinctive sense of humor.
They are PSB something small bookshelfs, almost 30 years old.
If I started from scratch I might go full SVS with 3 little fronts and one of their small sealed subs.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0921/3560/products/prime_bookshelf_BA_pair_350x350.jpg?v=1583780019)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0921/3560/products/sb-1000-hero_350x350.png?v=1611675812)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on January 18, 2023, 07:29:18 PMI had a subwoofer bu could never convince myself I had set it up right (gain, phase, roll off frequency, etc).
A subwoofer is set up correctly when with music you only notice its existence when you turn it off (bass disappears) and with (action) movies socks are spinning in your feet. :D Not an easy task for sure, but that's basically how you know.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on January 16, 2023, 01:08:29 AM- My music is all stereo. Even the multichannel layer on my SACDs got ripped to 2-channel DSF, before conversion to FLAC (though I'm tempted to listen to some of them straight off the BluRay player, just to hear what I might be missing).
How are you ripping your SACDs, and how do you play the files?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 09:39:54 AMI rip them as I explain here: https://absolutelybaching.com/music-articles/how-to-rip-an-sacd/
And I play them with Giocoso: https://absolutelybaching.com/giocoso-version-2-user-manual/
The rip explicitly asks for the high-res 2-channel signal and turns them into high-res FLACs. Essentially, to spare you having to read the whole thing(!), it comes down to running the command:
sacd_extract -i 192.168.137.40:2002 -s -z -2 -o /home/hjr/Desktop
...where the IP address is that of my BluRay player.
Giocoso then plays FLACs (of any resolution), direct to an external Topping E30 DAC.
I know that method to rip the SACDs. Will the Topping handle DSF files with tagging? I'm not sure I would need to shrink the files and if native playback is possible I might want that.
I'm losing hope. I need one old machine to rip, then a new machine to play the files, unless my "Chinoppo" can play them.
Quote from: drogulus on February 01, 2023, 10:14:57 AMI know that method to rip the SACDs. Will the Topping handle DSF files with tagging? I'm not sure I would need to shrink the files and if native playback is possible I might want that.
I'm losing hope. I need one old machine to rip, then a new machine to play the files, unless my "Chinoppo" can play them.
Just convert the files to FLAC. Zero benefit to playing DSD.
EDIT: To be clear, I mean convert to "native" PCM FLAC.
You can also convert DSD to what's called DSD-over-PCM (DoP) that uses FLAC as a container for the DSD bitstream,. This preserves the DSD bitstream, which converting to "native" PCM doesn't do, while making the file look like a FLAC for all other purposes. Some DACs only support DoP, not "native" formats like DSF.
One advantage of converting to native PCM is that you can process the audio with DSP software for room correction or other EQ.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2023, 11:31:04 AMJust convert the files to FLAC. Zero benefit to playing DSD.
44.1 kHz / 16 bit FLAC while at it. In fact, if you rip SACDs for stereo sound, just rip the CD layer. The only advantage of SACDs (compared to CD) is the support for multichannel audio. The stereo CD layer is downmixed from the stereo SACD layer and is identical to human ears.
DSD was developed for archiving analog studio tapes to digital format. It is very good for that purpose, because bit errors here and there don't affect the sound almost at all (bit errors cause noise mainly at ultrasonic frequencies). Sony just figured out it can create a new consumer audio format from it. Gullible consumers believe there is audible increased audio quality (there is not) and multichannel audio support can be included which was a real improvement. SACD do often sound really great, but that's because music released on SACD is produced, recorded, mixed and mastered really well.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2023, 11:31:04 AMJust convert the files to FLAC. Zero benefit to playing DSD.
My goal is to add SACD files to my lossless archive and play them as is on my PC and file player.
I'm agnostic about how wonderful it will be if I do it this way.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 12:18:58 PMNot sure what you mean about the Topping handling DSFs with tags. It's a DAC, so knows nothing about tags, and merely converts the DSF data into an analog electrical output.
If it plays the tagged files that's what I want. The point is the files will be tagged so that the tags will show up on any tag displaying device.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 01, 2023, 12:56:14 PMSACD do often sound really great, but that's because music released on SACD is produced, recorded, mixed and mastered really well.
Then I should rip the SACD layer. That's exactly my thinking, that
any reason why an SACD sounds better is reason enough.
Quote from: Daverz on February 01, 2023, 11:31:04 AMYou can also convert DSD to what's called DSD-over-PCM (DoP) that uses FLAC as a container for the DSD bitstream,. This preserves the DSD bitstream, which converting to "native" PCM doesn't do, while making the file look like a FLAC for all other purposes. Some DACs only support DoP, not "native" formats like DSF.
The DACs I'm looking at can do either for PC headphone listening.
Quote from: drogulus on February 01, 2023, 01:37:30 PMThen I should rip the SACD layer. That's exactly my thinking, that any reason why an SACD sounds better is reason enough.
The benefits apply to the CD layer too.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 01, 2023, 03:14:06 PMThe benefits apply to the CD layer too.
If both stereo layers are better that's still good. It might dampen my enthusiasm for SACDs a little. But having a really good DAC for headphones on my PC will still be worth it. I see Topping has a basic DSD-64 model for $199. If it's true SACD isn't beyond anything it wouldn't pay to go higher.
I want to archive the files untouched and see no reason not to play them that way since I have plenty of space.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 08:33:37 PMBut I am a former database administrator, so the concept of losing data (even data I cannot perceive) is anathema to me (and why I rip to FLAC in the first place, of course). Hence I always rip the hi-res 2-channel layer.
You
do understand me! I won't give up any data if I don't have to, and I don't have to. The AVR I'm looking at plays DSF/DSDIFF/2.8 MHz, 5.6 MHz, 11.2 M "as is" from a player through HDMI or from the USB. So why convert?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 08:33:37 PMYou are, of course, correct. In the sense that no ear of mortal man yet born can tell the difference between a remastered recording in 2 channel 88.2KHz/24-bit and the same remastered recording in 2 channel 44.1KHz/16-bit. So, on that basis, ripping the CD layer is fine.
It's just that many people don't know or believe this.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 08:33:37 PMBut I am a former database administrator, so the concept of losing data (even data I cannot perceive) is anathema to me (and why I rip to FLAC in the first place, of course). Hence I always rip the hi-res 2-channel layer.
It is completely okay to make these decisions for whatever reasons if you know the facts and what you are doing.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 08:33:37 PMI realise that in doing so, I have just lost some data (the surround sound stuff), but most of my SACDs are of things recorded back in the 50s and 60s and contain the standard warning that 'the 5.1 signal will only sound on the front righ and front left outputs' anyway, so no real harm done.
My SACDs are more of less 21th century productions meaning they were originally made to be released on SACD format. The surround sound stuff in them is not just "some data", it is very important and the reason why these SACDs are "better" than CDs on technical point of view. It is clear that in recordings done back in the 50s and 60s things are different.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on February 01, 2023, 08:33:37 PMAnyway, whilst you are right from an acoustic point of view, from a data nerd's perspective, I would still rip the SACD 2-channel layer. ;D
From a human hearing/perception point of view rather, but I get your point and perspective.
Quote from: drogulus on February 01, 2023, 03:23:02 PMIf both stereo layers are better that's still good. It might dampen my enthusiasm for SACDs a little. But having a really good DAC for headphones on my PC will still be worth it. I see Topping has a basic DSD-64 model for $199. If it's true SACD isn't beyond anything it wouldn't pay to go higher.
What I mean is that a recording made for a SACD release is likely to have a production philosophy were the sound quality is maximized in every step. The 2-channel SACD layer is a careful downmix of the multichannel layer and the CD layer is a downmix of the that, altho I have heard people say in some releases the CD layer can actually be from different master, so one should check that the 2-channel layers are indeed from the same master. SACD is a very nice format, but not for the reason people often think. Hi-rez as such isn't a benefit for consumers. Instead SACD benefit from:
1) Support for multichannel sound (compared to CD)
2) Niche market status => Attention to sound quality throughout the production.
SACD format also suffers from the niche market status. The players are rare and expensive. The releases are few (the format has practically been death for long except in classical music genre)
A really good DAC will be good with everything you throw at it. It is the analog part that makes the difference, so it doesn't matter if its 44.1 kHz/16 bit or DSD64 you feed it with.
Quote from: ultralinear on February 02, 2023, 01:41:57 AMAnother reason for ripping the SACD layer (into whatever format) is that the two layers may have been mixed differently. An example is the Bruckner recording below. Recorded live in concert in a large hall, the vivid sonics on the SACD layer seem to place you right there in the front few rows, whereas the distant sound on the CD layer puts you so far back, it's like you're outside and listening through a doorway. Only the SACD mix does the performance justice.
Yeah, it sucks when they do this. I have never ripped SACDs. What is demands to do that is absolutely insane. I would need to buy a lot of new hardware and download software. I have an old DVD-player and an Blu-ray player that can play SACDs, but either of them are good for ripping. So I am content in just playing the SACDs instead of ripping them. I don't rip music much anyway.
Quote from: ultralinear on February 02, 2023, 03:48:24 AMI have an old Oppo DVD player which will output SACD audio via the HDMI port in 24/88.2 PCM, which can be captured on a PC and stored as whatever.
I don't use PC. I have a Mac mini. I don't understand how to connect a Blu-ray player to it with a HDMI cable. It is impossible as far as I know.
As another project I could convert all the DSDs to FLAC. I'd do it then think of a reason why I did, something like learning how to do it at the highest bit/sample rates that my equipment can play.
The AVR I'm looking at is the Onkyo TX-NR6050 ($499 at Costco). It weighs over 21 lbs, which in this price range is a good sign. Most AVRs at this price are 17-18 lbs. Stay away from them.
Quote from: ultralinear on February 02, 2023, 08:34:48 AMI don't connect HDMI directly to a PC but use an HDMI "de-embedder" to split out the audio feed and connect that instead. The model I use is a Kramer FC-46XL (pictured below) which was surprisingly expensive though there are many cheap Chinese clones around which claim the same functionality. As (I hope) you can see, you plug the HDMI cable from the DVD/BD player into the input, and have a choice of digital and analogue outputs - I use the SPDIF signal into the digital input of an M-Audio 24/96 soundcard and capture it with Audacity - like I say, a bit of a faff. ::)
Interesting. I did not know such devices exist. In Finland it costs 449 euros.
Quote from: ultralinear on February 03, 2023, 04:42:31 AMIt's about the same here - needless to say, I did not pay anything like that ... but it was still pricey (for me. ::) )
So you got yours from eBay at half the price?
I took a baby step towards learning about DSF files and playback. I downloaded a test DSF from somewhere and tried to play it on my PC using the software I have. Nothing played it. Then I put the file on a drive and plugged the drive into my fake Oppo. It played, and it showed the tags. I pressed the info button and it said "DSF" and showed sample rate info (whatever it was supposed to show with unconverted files it showed).
Here's the maximum fun part. The "Chinoppo" is plugged into my Sony TV which ARCs the signal to my Sony receiver. My receiver manual says DSD plays over HDMI. Not every source will do this, but mine does, and so do Sony BD/SACD players made currently.
Later that day:
I DL'd a plugin and now Winamp plays my test file! Winamp!!
I now have a small collection of files from SACDs falling into 2 categories. One is files ripped to hi rez FLAC and other is DSF pure as driven snow.
Oddly I find audiophiles for the most part hear no difference and focus their energies on the playback chain instead. Hearing no difference isn't ordinarily a thing, either in money terms or bragging rights. I have no explanation other than something about how birds flock.
As far as PC playback goes, the only upgrade that makes sense to me is a PCIe USB card for the DAC.
Quote from: drogulus on February 10, 2023, 09:16:19 AMOddly I find audiophiles for the most part hear no difference and focus their energies on the playback chain instead. Hearing no difference isn't ordinarily a thing, either in money terms or bragging rights. I have no explanation other than something about how birds flock.
Actually Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, strongly prefers DSD. That is the kind of preference only a subjectivist could have, but most subjectivists prefer vinyl to digital anything.
Quote from: DavidW on February 10, 2023, 01:03:28 PMActually Paul McGowan, head of PS Audio, strongly prefers DSD.
Don't believe everything Paul says. He tells whatever fiction putting it between two truths. It is all about marketing for PS Audio products masked as audio wisdom.
Quote from: DavidW on February 10, 2023, 01:03:28 PMThat is the kind of preference only a subjectivist could have, but most subjectivists prefer vinyl to digital anything.
Preferring something is different from what is objectively/technically best. In audio transparency is the objective goal, but it doesn't mean everybody prefers it. Vinyl adds distortion* to the sound making it more pleasing to many, but those pleasing distortions should be added to the sound in the studio while producing and mixing, not by commercial music formats that thanks to digital technology are transparent these days.
* This distortion has interesting characteristics because of the way sound is stored on vinyl: High frequencies are emphasized (RIAA-curve) and for mechanical reasons the distortion is different in horizontal and vertical directions meaning the mono-part (horizontal) and stereo-separation part (vertical) get distorted differently causing interesting spatial effects.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2023, 01:20:05 AMDon't believe everything Paul says. He tells whatever fiction putting it between two truths. It is all about marketing for PS Audio products masked as audio wisdom.
I don't believe anything he says! It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products. ;D
So yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.
Quote from: DavidW on February 11, 2023, 07:38:45 AMI don't believe anything he says! It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products. ;D
Well, a lot of things he says are true (whenever the truth doesn't hurt their business model), but that's the danger of it all. It all seems so truthful so the lies can be bold.
Quote from: DavidW on February 11, 2023, 07:38:45 AMSo yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.
Not only
products but also DSD recordings (Octave Records).
Quote from: 71 dB on February 11, 2023, 07:58:23 AMWell, a lot of things he says are true (whenever the truth doesn't hurt their business model), but that's the danger of it all. It all seems so truthful so the lies can be bold.
That is truly frightening.
Quote from: DavidW on February 11, 2023, 08:00:49 AMThat is truly frightening.
There are much more frightening things in the World than audiophools paying $39 for DSD256 downloads.
I'm happy I can play any file on my PC as well as my "Chinoppo". Getting 100% pure DSF is more of a project than anything else. If even the terminally audiophiliac can't tell the difference between hi rez PCM and DSD that's good enough for me. I only want to get the green light on my Fiio lit and declare victory. (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Quote from: drogulus on February 11, 2023, 08:34:52 AMI'm happy I can play any file on my PC as well as my "Chinoppo". Getting 100% pure DSF is more of a project than anything else. If even the terminally audiophiliac can't tell the difference between hi rez PCM and DSD that's good enough for me. I only want to get the green light on my Fiio lit and declare victory. (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
Ha! We must have the same FiiO! I forgot it changes colors. I use it for standard 44.1-48/16 so much. My Dragonfly Red also changes colors.
Quote from: DavidW on February 11, 2023, 07:38:45 AMI don't believe anything he says! It seems like we both realized that his videos are just advertising for his companies products. ;D
So yeah who knows if he really likes dsd or if it was a convoluted way to sell yet another PS Audio product.
Paul is just a salesman and business owner, not an engineer. That gives him a good knowledge of what sells well and for what kind of profit margin. Whenever he ventures into actual factual information, he's often just plain wrong.
See also Hans Beekhuyzen, another salesman who likes to pose with expensive measurement equipment that he never uses.