The Best (and Only) Multichannel at CES
There is no question that the Magico M5 is a first-rate speaker, and that by the end of the first day Alon Wolf had the whole system humming. However, this was still a stereo presentation, with all the incumbent limitations of that format. For my Best Sound at CES pick, I tried mightily to find the system that most reminded me of live music. For me, that was the IsoMike/Pass/TAD/EMM multichannel setup. Multichannel, when done right (which is quite a rare feat!) can do things that stereo simply cannot.
For example, I was played a multichannel SACD of a marching band that had been recorded outdoors. In a good stereo system, I would hear a facsimile of the great outdoors spread before me. That's nothing to sneeze at, but in the IsoMike system, I was quite literally transported to the recording site. That is, I felt like I actually was outdoors. No stereo can do this, just as no stereo can convincingly place you inside --as opposed to looking into -- the hall in which an orchestra was recorded.
Yet the IsoMike system avoided the pitfalls of many multichannel systems. That marching band was not surrounding me as if I was in the midst of the ensemble. Like all the recordings I heard in this room, the musicians stayed put in front of me. On vocals, I could imagine a real singer standing before me. The rear speakers seemed to be playing.....nothing at all. They were not identifiable as sound sources, just as one does not explicitly hear the rear wall of a concert hall. In both cases, there is a rear sound source contributing to the overall musical experience, but it is not a distraction from the primary musicians, who are up front.
The IsoMike system sounded like stereo without the artiface inherent in trying to create a complete sonic environment with only two channels. We speak a lot in TAS about how digital makes the mind work harder than analog, rendering the former a less relaxing experience. The same can be said about stereo versus good multichannel. The IsoMIke system simply sounded more natural than stereo, without my having to strain to imagine a soundspace. (You see, even our language -- specifically, the use of the word "soundstage" -- admits to one of stereo's limitations. A "stage" is always in front of you; a space is all around you.) Being thus ensconced, I was involved and more transported into the music, which was more beautiful in the way that live music is beautiful.
Ray Kimber is to be congratulated for this achievement, and for having the guts to put on a multichannel exhibit, frought with peril, rather than taking the safe route. I believe he has shown us several ways in which audio can take a leap toward the absolute sound.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I think you nailed it, Alan. I labeled this system as "my biggest surprise" of CES. Namely, for its ability to transport one to the recording venue. Ray Kimber's huge SoundLabs systems in years past did something similar. Two years ago I voted the IsoMike/SoundLabs system as the best sound of the show, but this was even more convincing (perhaps because of the improvements in the EMM stack?).
Most multichannel systems I have heard place you somewhat in the center of the action. It's as if the performers "surround" you, but this IsoMike/TAD/EMM system is quite different. The rear speakers do not call attention to themselves (indeed, I put my ear to one to make sure it was playing), and enhance the ambience of the recording (or recording space). They must be playing the reflections off the back wall of the hall?
I have NEVER heard a more realistic portrayal of piano. It's as if one could actually hear (and feel) the sound coming off of the piano's lid, projecting towards the audience. That's what happens when you listen to somebody playing the piano in your living room. The focus of the piano was correct and not what I would have suspected in a mutlichannel system. Yes, there is a sense of incredible spaciousness, like in a live event, but the piano maintained its proper proportions. Moreover, all kinds of fine details and ambient cues emerged.
I believe this system, and recordings, moves one closer to the absolute sound ideal than any other in my experience. As I noted in response to another blog, it has shaken my world and caused me to re-evaluate multichannel and digital, I wonder if there's a "poor boy's" version of the system one could assemble?
I must say I'm amazed by these two reviews. But equally I'm amazed at the obvious disagreement, by the main editors here on this site, on so fundamental a listening experience- as the "absolute sound". Why do the others barely if at all comment on this next step in multi-channel sound? Why is there such a distinct rift between the editors here. Surely there are other factors? I'm left to assume its down to what kind of music one likes? JL
Hi JL,
Jonathan Valin just posted a blog that was highly favorable of the IsoMike/TAD/EMM Labs system at CES.
Dick Olsher voted it as "Best Sound at CES" (along with a couple of other systems)
Steven Stone also commented quite favorably on it (although he liked it better at RMAF)
With the size of the show, it's difficult to hear everything, particularly if it's not in your area of focus. Each of us covers a "beat" at CES and mine was "Analog," so by rights, I might not have even heard this system at CES. Other folks covered areas like "Entry Level Electronics" and "Loudspeakers under $2K" so may not have even heard this brilliant multichannel system.
How much is the success of multi-channel sound meeting the goal of "the absolute sound" dependant on the software/proper recording of multi-channel sound? Ray Kimber/Iso-Mike is obviously getting it right but are the rest of the software providers doing the same? BTW, has anyone tried playback of Ray's multichannel recordings on a "poor boy's" version of the system i.e. a good home theater/surround system?
I must respectfully disagree with these accolades for IsoMike and the alleged sound quality of this room.
My first complaint is that I don't recall hearing music - I heard sound-bite demo tracks.
Second, I did not find the surround sound particularly accurate, realistic, or compelling. I found it distracting.
Phase effects, odd front/rear balance (which varied track-to-track) and shifting images are what I recall.
I ran from the IsoMike room after 30 seconds at RMAF. I was determined to give it a good shot this time.
Interestingly, I sat behind one of the mag reviewers whose name appears above - so I figured that Ray was putting on his best stuff. The reviewer certainly seemed enthralled. Neither myself nor the rather accomplished recording engineer sitting beside me "got it."
This result was particularly disappointing given the $100's of gear in the room.
YMMV.
Bob
Mr. Hannon and Mr. Valan,
I do not see any reason- reguardless of what beat one is on, why someone who has seriuously listened to both rooms could not dein to give us a bit of a contrast between these two cutting edge methods of delieving the absolute sound. I know it would be worth the effort. thank you, JL
Here's an advance look at an interesting reader letter that will appear in the April/May issue that relates to this subject.
Digital Multichannel and Equalization is the Path to the Absolute Sound
About a year ago I wrote to you regarding the future of the high end and the technological jump in musical reproduction the home-theater industry seemed ready to take with multichannel Blu-ray. That day has come, and I think a persuasive argument can be made that the highest fidelity musical reproduction in the home is multichannel high-bit-rate digital, and no longer two-channel high-end analog.
This is not just my opinion anymore. Your contributor Anthony Cordesman recently penned an article for the U.K.'s [and TAS’ sister publication—RH] Hi-Fi + (Issue 60) in which he states: "The good news is that music will survive today's high end. The bad news is that the high end risks becoming an aesthetic dead end for a steadily declining number of rich hobbyists." I couldn't agree with him more.
Cordesman also offers a vision on "Where the high end must go to survive." Specifically he cites four requirements for a new high end that, thanks to advances in home theater, are easily within our reach, (if frustratingly beyond most audiophiles’ grasp). They are: 1) multichannel (5.1 to 7.1-channel) recordings at a minimum resolution of 24-bit/96kHz PCM, 2) reliable digital audio servers for recording, storage and playback, 3) new surround-sound recording techniques, and 4) home low- frequency room/loudspeaker phase- and amplitude-correction (a la Vandersteen's 5A/Quattro analog technique or any number of digital techniques such as Audyssey and Trinnov).
The Absolute Sound could do its readers a great service by putting such a system together to demonstrate the potential of Cordesman's vision. Such a project could also serve as a great pathfinder on how your gentle readers can put such a system together, starting with what they already have.
In the words of philosopher Nietzsche, it is time that the high end pull itself up by its own roots and examine the reasons for its origin and current existence. "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end . . ." The same can be said about Edison's cylinders, monophonic recording, stereophonic reproduction, analog audio, and so on. It is long past time to evolve to the next great thing.
Don Bingaman
I agree completely with Don Bingaman's letter and with Tony Cordesman's opinion as stated. Interestingly, we have this CES blog from Alan Taffel that would make it appear as though hi rez multichannel was just invented. Yet, I converted exclusively to hi rez multichannel listening about 1.5 years ago. My friend Andy Quint, TAS music reviewer, has been heavily into it or much longer than that. And, I have since encountered others who have been diehard advocates for over 5 years.
In spite of the high end's indifference to Mch (speaker makers excluded) and continued polishing of the old tried and true stereo formats - vinyl and CD - there is and has been a whole lot going on beneath TAS's radar for quite a few years. First, thousands of hi rez Mch discs have been released and are easily available from the still alive SACD and comatose DVD-A catalogs. Kal Rubinson at Stereophile claims to have over 2,000 Mch releases himself!! And, he has only a fraction of what’s available. Also, can Blu-ray 3.0-spec music releases be near at hand?
Second, sonic progress by the Mch-focused home theater community in the past 2 years has been utterly, utterly astounding. Supporting the hi rez , lossless, 192K-capable, 7.1 channel codecs of Blu-ray has been the major driving force. The tools have been HDMI, dramatically enhanced DSP capability and the wide deployment of DSP-based EQ like Audyssey (one of the greatest sonic breakthroughs in audio history), plus considerably upgraded DAC chips and other circuitry. Although dealers, in general, do not demo it well, if at all, music can be magical in hi rez Mch.
I would not have believed it myself, but my pricey analog, stereo line stage is gathering dust, while my $1,600 AVP with built-in Audyssey delivers the best musical sound I ever heard anywhere at any price. Needless to say, my expensive 2-box CD player and DAC are history, having been replaced by a $169 Oppo universal player via HDMI. I say this as a reformed high end stereo snob for many years. I am beginning to think that the whole high end paradigm we have known has been set on its ear. Following high end stereo orthodoxy for years never gave me the huge sonic advance I achieved by converting to MCH. And, the core of it was an AVP and player costing under $2,000. Simply amazing! There may well be better multichannel setups than my system, but I would not trade the sound I have now for any stereo, no matter how costly or prestigious, and I have heard a lot of very costly stereos.
I now realize that pursuit of the absolute sound of acoustic instruments in real space simply reaches a dead end via stereo. Consider this: the mikes for two channel recordings all, to a greater or lesser degree, pick up hall sounds from the sides and rear. Then, on playback, these side/ rear reflections and ambience are redirected at you from the front speakers, creating a false front soundstage and sometimes causing other negative effects. Whatever is not artificially redirected at you in stereo is just truncated. I consider this a form of distortion, though it is not of the traditional THD, etc. variety. Via multichannel, the whole home listening experience is much, much more like being in the hall with the performers, since the reflected sound emerges more from all around you, as it does at a live performance. I am not talking about artificial in-the-round recordings like Divertimenti, which are, fortunately, few in number. Almost all Mch recordings I know of place the performers in front of you as you would hear them in live performance. The more live performances I have gone to, the less convincing stereo has become.
Before I get even more carried away, here is my bottom line: hi rez multichannel delivers more information with lower distortion from the recording venue to your listening room than any other medium (a) because it is hi rez, and (b) because it is multichannel. It is a much, much closer approach to the absolute sound than stereo can ever be, even high rez stereo. Once heard in a properly set up Mch system by anyone who knows and loves the sound of live music, it becomes life changing and addictive. It has virtually ended my devotion to stereo lasting 50+ years for LP’s and 25+ years for CD’s. As Tony Cordesman has indicated, the old paradigms may well be shifting.
Footnote: I am not sold on IsoMike at all, with respects to Ray Kimber. I own several of the IsoMike performances by the Fry St. Quartet. They are good, but I do not consider them the best string quartet sound I have heard in Mch. Actually, the all-Haydn disc is somewhat unconvincing to my ears sonically. I think there are a lot of Praga Digitals 5.0 releases that sound much better than IsoMike, e.g., the Kocian Quartet Haydn op. 74 “Apponyi” Quartets. Or, the Tokyo Quartet’s Beethoven Rasoumovsky set on Harmonia Mundi. There are others. So, while IsoMike is an interesting experiment, and I hope it succeeds, I do not think it is the last word in Mch recording. There are plenty of excellent 5.0 and 5.1 releases out there using traditional methods.