Do you listen in 5/7:1 surround? Or just conventional stereo?

[absolutelybaching]

[deleted]

[brewski]

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

[71 dB]

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.

[KevinP]

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.

[71 dB]

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.

[71 dB]

Well, 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'!

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.

[Spotted Horses]

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.

[drogulus]

     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.

[Spotted Horses]

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.

I had a subwoofer bu could never convince myself I had set it up right (gain, phase, roll off frequency, etc).

[Spotted Horses]

That, 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.

[drogulus]

    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.

[drogulus]

    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.

   

     

[71 dB]

I 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.  Not an easy task for sure, but that's basically how you know.

[drogulus]

• 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?

[drogulus]

I 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:

Code Select Expand

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.

[Daverz]

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.

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.

[71 dB]

Just 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.

[drogulus]

Just 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.

   

Not 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.

SACD 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.

[drogulus]

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. 

     The DACs I'm looking at can do either for PC headphone listening.

     

     

     

[71 dB]

Then 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.