POLL: SACD 5.1 Tracks - How Important

Most of you know that I am an advocate of multichannel releases. I also lean towards DVD-A in the DVD-A/SACD debate, mostly on the basis that a DVD-A will almost always have M/C tracks, while an SACD may or may not have a 5.1 mix.

Aside from the fact that there are some great stereo SACDs out there (CCR, Zombies, etc), I get the impression that the hard core fans of SACDs really could care less about the multichannel tracks.

That may be a generalization, but that is why I am posting this pole.

Please do not treat this as a DVD-A vs SACD issue. Also, I don't want this to be an pro or anti surround issue either. I am just curious to see what results we get from a membership that is intelligent, knows music well, and actually knows what an SACD is!

Thank You for your input.

:-jon urban

 

Hi jon, I like multichannel and since I've hooked up my system to be able to take advantage of the hi-rez tracks I'm really enjoying it. Even my wife is impressed. Given a choice I'd love to have both MC/Stereo but if I like the title enough I'll buy the SACD w. h-rez stereo. I have both a SACD & DVD-A players.

mud-

 

I voted "Not important, but nice to have for future" but I believe it will be important for the future. I would be happy with a stereo SACD but would love to hear surround too once I get a set up.

 

I voted "Not important, but nice for the future." I don't currently have a surround system anywhere in my house, nor do I care to at the moment ... but I totally acknowledge the possibility that that might change one day. And if it does, it'll be great to be able to check out the multichannel stuff on the SACDs I already own.

 

I voted #3, as I said I have the CCRs and the Zombies, plus a select few stereo SACDs. I will admit, however, without sounding like a complete suck-up, I would not have spent the $$$ on the CCRs if not for the fact that they were mastered by SH.

 

I agree with the guys above, BUT consider this. Is it a good value to the consumer to pay 20 bucks for a SACD that has ONLY the stereo mix?

With the alternative being both stereo mix and 5.1, I cant see why ANYONe wouldnt want to have the 5.1 mix on there also, even if you only use it for reference purposes.

Me, I LOVE 5.1 mixes. You really hear what the artist was trying to say.

 

Wish Steve's CCR discs were MC....

I love them, don;t get me wrong... that would be the cherry on top though..

 

I voted #3. I think that there are some older recordings that shouldn't be given a multichannel mix, and that there are recordings, old and new alike, that don't need a multichannel mix. But it's nice to have choices. As long as the original mixes are preserved and kept available, I say let the mixing engineers knock themselves out.

 

I will buy the occasional stereo disc, but I prefer m/ch. For example, I avoided the Who My Generation 2 cd set becoz I thought it was WAAAAAAY overpriced but when I saw the SACD with both cds on 1 disc -AND ABOUT 10 BUCKS CHEAPER- I bought it!
I've always been a big surround fan and have 10 surround systems scattered throughout the house!
Glad no neighbors are too close!

 

Jon, good poll!

I'm a number three kinda guy... I'd like to see more good M/C SACD releases but I'm happy with all the great stereo SACD releases coming. Either way, I'm cool. The M/C mixes are icing, and boy, do I like the icing...

 

Same here. Neat if it's included, not essential.

 

Looks like I'm in the majority so far: important, but not always necessary. I think some titles just lend themselves better to 5.1 than others. For instance, I just can't see any point to doing 5.1 for the early Beatles albums; maybe by AHDN something could be done, but even then....I'd still start with RUBBER SOUL and work forward. What I'd like to see is the logical titles make it onto multi-channel a lot quicker than what we're getting.

ED

 

Either way is fine...I'm open. I always hope they'll retain the original Stereo/Monon mixes too!

 

I picked #2. It's not important for me, but would be nice to have. Why? My main interest is in 70s oldies, and going to 5.1 usually involves remixing. I want my beloved oldies to sound as they were originally intended by the producer. There's too much of a risk of getting it wrong, and without gimmickry..

 

I voted #2, bt I am starting to come around to the benefits of 5.1.

What ticks me off are discs that contain no hi-rez stereo...You know who you are, Silverline.

 

I am forced to abstain from voting because my preference is not really listed. I have a strong preference for SACD's with multichannel mixes, so that I would not purchase, for instance, any of the initial Sony stereo only titles over their reissued stereo/Mch counterparts, however, I would not abstain from purchasing an SACD solely on the basis that there is no Mch mix. To further clarify my feelings, multichannel mixes are more important to me on new titles or releases which I already own on CD than they are on older, back-catalogue type releases and/or releases which I do not already own on CD.

I am a proponent of multichannel recordings. I love them, but I don't feel that the absence of a multichannel mix should necessarily, in all cases, preclude me from purchasing an SACD. Does any of that make any sense to anybody?

 

I decided to change my mind and actually vote #3. After further thought I realise that that most closely fits what I said above so that, it wouldn't be 'stretching the truth' in any way.

 

I VOTED Not Important But Nice to Have for the Future, but at this point I am more concerned with a CD layer than a multi-channel mix. For most of the multi-channel mixes released so far, my vote would be "Not Important. Would not use."

Although I think a well-recorded multi-channel release that was RECORDED for multi-channel will sonically beat the pants off a well-recorded stereo release that was RECORDED for stereo, there aren't very many well-recorded multi-channel releases that were RECORDED for multi-channel, and I think most multi-channel remixes of material originally sourced for stereo are a bad joke, especially most of the stuff done by Elliott Scheiner, who believes in spreading everything out into all available channels and insists on doing a lot of full-room sweeps. You're listening to a decent mix, then suddenly it sounds like some guy with a guitar is running around the room, or like they didn't have enough room on the stage for the choir/backup singers. Sheesh.

I've attended over 1000 live performances for just about every kind of music except opera, and except for the Quad setup used by ELP on the Brain Salad Surgery tour (and Pink Floyd) I've never heard live music coming from multiple directions at once, and I can't imagine why ANYONE would want to hear recorded music coming from multiple directions at once unless THEY were under the influence of heavy mind-altering chemicals, or they were listening to music that was recorded in the studio by a BAND that had been heavily influenced by psychedelics and was trying to create a psychedelic sound.

(But even the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper, which was a definitive acid album if there ever was one, was mixed for MONO by the Beatles - all those trippy effects shoved into one mixed-down channel - and they might not have had any more interest in 5.1 than they seem to have had in stereo.)

However, well-recorded multi-channel can create pinpoint imaging and a sense of depth and soundstage in a way that stereo never can, and can reproduce room ambience better than any digital processor will ever be able to. If they ever start producing multi-channel the way I think it should be done, I'll spend another $20-30K to add multi-channel to my main system. Until then, I'll only listen to multi-channel on my theater setup, and mostly just for the novelty or for a laugh.

 

dwmann, have you heard any of Chesky's releases (say, Ana Caram's "Blue Bossa")? Or Telarc's (William's "A Sea Symphony", for one)? How about Rounder's latest "Alison Krauss+Union Station Live"?

I think these folks are producing multichannel discs that are done in exactly the way you think they should be. And I agree... these are among the finest sounding discs in my collection.

 

I've heard Alison Krauss. I wish Elliot Scheiner would listen to it, too!

 

I like the Elliott S. mixes that I've heard, but you're certainly entitled not to. There have been a number of pieces of "classical" music that were intended for such things as dual organs front and back or choirs deployed in various locations, that's not unique to the multi-channel era.

For pop music multichannel is sort of a different experience from two-channel stereo. It can be distracting, but so far I'm liking most of what I'm hearing. For classical music I agree, a naturally recorded surround disk is best. The rear channels not only add ambience, somehow they seem to make the front have more depth as well.

I'm in the camp that wants surround mixes of new titles. For older popular titles that I'm already familiar with it's less important, though still nice to have. I really would like to have good surround remixes of classical pieces, even older ones, if the source tapes are available to do it right. (And of course it'd only make sense to release things like the Mercury Living Presence series in 3-channel or 3-channel plus carefully matched ambience in the surrounds (which could be turned off by purists, as long as it was only applied to the surround channels).

 

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more. You took the words - all of them - right out of my mouth. Ditto on the Scheiner mixes, especially Sea Change, ditto on what you said about Classical performaces and the placement of instruments, etc. (I've been to a few performances such as the types you mentioned myself) and ditto what you said about Classical multichannel recordings.

 

Exactly. Charles Ives' Fourth Symphony, for one, was designed to be performed with some members of the orchestra and chorus placed all around the audience in the concert hall, so it can be argued that, until someone sees fit to put out a good surround-sound rendition on SACD or DVD-A, a definitive version that observes Ives' original intentions hasn't been released yet.

 

The only reason I bought an SACD player is for the multi-channel mixes. I don't really care to buy my collection again in stereo.

 

5.1 mix only if multichannel is appropriate for the music at hand and only if the masters have enough discrete tracks available to accomodate a proper 5.1 channel mix.