Your ears: Before 5.1/After 5.1 (Transitioning from hi-res to, well, 2 channel!)

Here's a question for the ages: When you listen to standard radio or standard CDs after listening to multi-channel/stereo SACDs/DVD-A, how do you handle it without going crazy?!! Dolby Prologic II? Talk radio? Or do you eliminate 2-channel (whenever possible) altogether?

I have yet to listen to hi-res multi-channel audio, (no SACD or DVA player...yet! Just CDs, DCC/Mofi CDs, HDCDs, and hybrid SACDs) so I can only begin to imagine what it is like. Here's a good example: I have the Carpenters hybrid SACD but am feeling from what I've read on other posts, I'm really missing out on the 5.1 experience! (No worries, once I get a real job and move out of my Mom's place, it's on my to do list to get a groovy 5.1 set up. Gotta make sure the walls are thick on my apartment, though!)

On a related note, check out another thread of mine below, which might change the playbook a bit:

News Article: MP3 Goes Multi-Channel
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=46677

 

for me, being a multi channel fan since '73, what I do is fold back any stereo or mono program to the rear speakers to get the 'surround' effect. To me, it sounds more full.
5.1 is great for isolating instruments/vocals (with some discs) so you can study any part in particular more closely.
Mixing for surround was more of a problem in the 70's than it is now...back then they would do crap like just add echo to the rears to create a quad effect, ruining the sound, or they would spin things around the room like crazy going overboard a bit. After checking the Carpenters, go for the Eltons. Truly great 5.1 mixing on those IMO.

 

Enjoying something in multichannel sound doesn't mean that my enjoyment of stereo or even mono has been diminished. Every once in a while I will play back a stereo source using some sort of processing to send musical information to the rear speakers, but truth be told I generally just prefer to listen to stereo if that's what's on the disc.

 

If I wanna hear it in MC I turn on the ProLogicII

 

I'm guilty of rarely listening in classic 2 channel stereo mode anymore.

Even when I put on a regular cd....I switch my reciever to "5 Channel Sound" which gives a nice full stereo picture throughout my listening area. It just moves the right/left stereo signal to the respective right/left rear speakers. So nothing is added to the music.....just opens up the sound.

 

I find it somewhat hard to listen to most CDs through ProLogic II or Neo6 anymore. They bring in too much loss of clarity save for some strange occasions.

As to HiRes, surround is my first choice always. I only use stereo for headphone listening and if I want to make a copy from the HiRes output to play in my car stereo.

BTW, I always listen to HiRes in Direct mode. I've found it gives a more detailed sound.

 

Hi,
A few questions:

1- 5.1 only spreads the stereo image or it isolate certain instruments in one channel? A bit confused here.
2- When we think as someone mixing an LP 40 years back was he/she planning to have his/her album listened in 5 channels?
3- Comparing to 70's Quadraphonic how you would consider SACD (DVDA also for that matter)? A format that will be prevalent in the years to come or something that within 10 years will be like laser discs?

Regards,
Helio

 

5.1 (SACD/DVDA/Dolby Digital/DTS) does isolate the five channels into each speaker...hence the term discreet surround.

On this thread I'm talking about listening to stereo recordings using a little trick available on Denon recievers which just spreads the stereo image to all five speakers. Doesn't color the sound....just spreads it around for a fuller effect.

I believe quad also spread rear information to its respective speaker in a four quadrants listening area.
Dolby Digital 5.1 further isolates all the information into their respective speakers like low bass to the sub and ambiant info to the rears. 5.1 is much more effective than old quad though obviously quad is still fun to listen too.

 

I just adjust to it. I'm used to going from stereo to mono, so it's no big deal there. I'm used to reducing hi-rez files to 16-bit/44.1.

 

I agree 100%. The bass management seems to blur everything slightly. Plus it the volume level is lower on mine with bass management.

 

Add to this that, although the sounds on each of the five channels are isolated (discreet) that does not mean that the instrument heard, say, on the front right channel will only be heard there. For example, you will usually have the instrument mainly there, but its echo or delay information sounding on the other channels so as to simulate a room or hall effect (all discreet). Same goes for the voice. On the Elton John SACDs you've got Elton's voice basically alone on the center channel, but at least both the R and L front channels also have it, but with echo. So you get the information of Elton singing dry in the center (the source) and the reverberations of his voice coming from other channels.

Sometimes, on some 5.1 disks, you also have some drum information (mainly tom toms and cymbals) at lower levels sounding in the back surrounds so as to give the impression - when heard from the correct hearing spot ('sweet spot') that they are closer to you than, say, the snare drum. This should give a more 3D feel to the mix. So you, hopefully, get instruments or voices not only surrounding you, but doing so at different distances and positions.

 

I like listening to multichannel music from SACD, DVD or DVD-A multichannel sources. When well done, it can be a very involving experience BUT it does not lessen my interest in two-channel. Classical music and live rock concerts tend to use the surround channels to replicate the ambience of the concert venue, rather than to create a new listening experience. This can be very effective, but IMO -- and I know this is going to be both counterintuitive and controversial -- the imaging of the instruments on the stage presented by a top notch LP or two-channel digital source is better than the multichannel source (while the multichannel source does a better job of presenting the ambience). Multichannel studio rock recordings, on the other hand, are often mixed with voices, instruments and effects allocated to various of the speakers to produce "interesting" effects. These can be terrific or just plain dumb, but in all cases they seriously disrupt the imaging and generally create an "unrealistic" (even if fun and involving) experience. Therefore, I always get something important and desirable from the two-channel that I am not getting from the multichannel (not to mention the MUCH wider availability of two-channel material).

I do not listen any more to two-channel sources spread to all of the speakers using Pro-Logic or some other method. I tried it for a while using the circuitry in my digital controller and found that the benefits of hearing the sound through all of the speakers did not compensate for the loss of clarity, imaging deterioration and other harmful effects of the extra digital processing.

 

I think they employ the word "discrete" when referring to surround sound from these types of sources to differentiate it from synthesized surround. It does not imply that a given musical instrument is solely in one channel.

 

I describe it as getting "spoiled" when listening to 5.1 surround sound. The sound is so amazing that you wonder how you ever listened to music before it came into being!

However, I cannot handle Dolby ProLogic. The deterioration in sound quality is just too obvious. I'd much rather listen to a true stereo mix in a good pair of headphones.

Here's a question: What's the best way to listen to high rez stereo mixes...speakers or headphones?

 

I tend to do so on my headphones, but I am sure there are others here that would suggest otherwise as a better option for usual listening.

 

John,

Well..............................let's put it this way. A "discrete" quadraphonic source, either from a Quad reel, Quad 8 track , or a CD-4 LP can be just as effective as a modern 5.1 mix, as the playback is always heard the way the program was mixed, in "discrete" four channels. The quadraphonic matrix systems, which included the early Dynaco (DY), ElectroVoice (EV), RM (Regular Matrix), and the later SQ from CBS and QS from Sansui took a discrete master tape and "matrixed" them into essentially two encoded stereo channels. No matter how wonderful the decoder used was to decode these recordings, the end result would always be a compromised 4 channel playback, as the decoders of the day could never totally separate the 4 channels completely. Also, the ENcoders also were not perfect.

That is why the "quad" community initially embraced the DTS CD prior to DVD-A and SACD, as this was the first modern way to get 4 discrete channels of info onto a medium that could be played back on current equipment.

I just spent an afternoon converting a quad reel of Black Sabbath's Paranoid to a 24/96 4.0 DVD-A, and I can attest first hand - 4.0 discrete quad can be JUST as effective as modern 5.1. It's just a matter of the mix, and the delivery medium.