So, what is the latest on blu-ray as a multichannel music medium?
You need to do bass mangement with the scource using analog in. not the avr. with HDMI the avr will do it. The only audible difference would be sacd and dsd. that cannot be done with analog
For Keladrin, a blu ray player with 5.1 analog out will have the DTS MA and DD HD decoder built in, and you must set up the speaker management, (bass management) in the dvd player. There are several made but you should look for universal capability's. ( sacd/dvd audio/ etc) these are the best. Oppo bdp-93 is far above most regarding capability. the customer service is beyond (far beyond) any I have ever seen! THey answered me on a sunday, and went to bat with me re: the discussion with bob here. I ask you to find another company that will do that. there are oppo clones, but you cannot beat what you get for the price here.
update 12/8/12: dsd can be passed with analog. I had received incorrect information. Oppo Digital has corrected me.
I like gorls
I just noticed this post at Blu-ray.com forum from a year ago, http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=170330 No more analog outputs for either video or audio are now the rule except perhaps for Oppo. btw, i agree, their level of service is great.
my advice to upgrade to HDMI connectivity appears to be the more practical choice if not the only choice.
I personally think that for a surround format that has possible access to uncompressed audio tracks then blu-ray is the obvious choice. For a sountrack alone it is a bit of an overkill - you certainly don't need 24 or 50 GB of storage space for a decent soundtrack (maybe for a very large disc library!)
LIke Bob says, dynamic compression is one of the more serious degraders of sound quality and it is a shame that it is so liberally applied in mastering to just 'raise the overall volume level'. Dynamic range is somethinmg to be valued.
Surround formats are particularly good for live concert recordings where the ambience forms a necessary part of the music. I certainly don't listen to eveything in surround (nor would I want to) as it adds a further layer of sound that can effect definition and intelligibility of the music. There is also evidence that you really don't need to sample more than around 60Khz for all the even theoretical issues with aliasing at HF in CD's to completely dissappear so very high sample rates such as 96/192KHz are highly questionable and can represent a processing overhead. See:
Friends: This is my first post here, and I need advice.
I've read most of the posts in this blog just today, and I feel like a third-grader trying to decipher correspondence among PhD's. As an audiophile and reader of TAS since 1983, I am quite conversant with the experience and terminology of two-channel reproduced music, but the discussion here about the technological minutiae of SACD, Blu-Ray, HDMI and various formats etc is too advanced to help me get a handle on how to create a multi-channel setup.
Likewise, Stereophile's series "Music in the Round" is not organized for the novice to multi-channel.
What I need is a primer on multi-channel, but cannot find one.
I'm hoping there exists a thorough, basic book or series of online articles about multi-channel that has the clarity and depth of Robert Harley's excellent book, "The Complete Guide to High-End Audio" - a similar book that is NOT speaking only to home theater enthusiasts, because, as I understand it, multi-channel audio and home theater audio are quite different animals.
Specifically, I want to know if, when I design a new listening room next year, I can successfully incorporate my Quad 2905's (the actual pair reviewed by AHC in TAS) into a multi-channel system by adding small dynamic speakers. In addition, I need to know what additional gear I would need to augment existing McIntosh gear (C2300 preamp, MVP881 Player, MC352 amp).
Video might be added to this room, but theater-surround sound would not be essential.
Thanks for any guidance!
First of all you have to ask youyrself what you want to achieve with multi-channel - the reproduction accurately of multi-channel recordings or the creation of pseudo surround-sound. What is about the reproduction you want to enhance if you are not dealing with multi-channel recordings and why? The particular make of speakers does not preculde their incorporation into a surround system, it just means that some will sound better than others and this is nothing to do with the format (it's the qualuty of speaker). Certainly Quad has a very good reputation but your issue may be finding a surround amp that drives these as well as other speakers (if that is what you are referring to). The issue wth severl amps may be one of synchronisation so make sure you have the ablity to adjuust timing for at least one of the amps. This would probably mean using a multi channel amp for the speakers that are not Quad and a bespoke stereo one for these.
Hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for the advice, Keladrin.
Since my post, I've been asking myself some of your questions - and asking myself if I can afford the extra amps/stands/cables necessary for surround-sound. I would not want to degrade what I have just to get a mediocre effect.
I've decided to carefully, slowly upgrade what I am using - perhaps replacing the transistor amp with tubes soon, adding an AC line conditioner next year, and budgeting adequate room acoustic enhancement for the new space.
And be satisfied with 2-channel audio!
verynicefellow, may I suggest you visit a very informative stite that many multi-channel lovers hang out at, from quad to 7.1 every aspect is discussed.
www.quadraphonicquad.com You will find Kal Rubison of Stereophile a member here also is Steven Wilson of Porcupine Tree fame. Multi-channel high resolution audio is to be experienced before making a call that stereo is enough. many dvd audio discs are still available as are sacd. The idea is to "open" the music that was put down, allowing a more real experience. Take 2 channels and stuff 4-5 instuments it's great. Now try that spittling up those instruments into 5 channels with a special bass channel. Once you have heard it, it's tough going backwards. Now BD has gotten into the idea with music vides in HD and HR MC.
Hmmm... when is enough ever enough? (Echos of my wife...)
I will check out that site, and inquire at my dealer about surround music. Last summer I bought a demo Mac MVP unit in anticipation of using its full capabilities, so I suppose I should follow through and at least LISTEN to a 5 channels before jettisoning the notion.
I think at least a listen is worth it. may I suggest any of the dvd audio done by Steely dan, or Donald Fagen, as I feel that is some of the finest produced multi channel work that was ever done. The imaging was seriously considered especially with "kamakiriad". This media like every depends on the production values. Some are much better than others. The Media done by "silverline" is terrible.( a company that put out dvd audio media) and try an sacd- many feel dvd audio to be warmer sounding, and add a BD muisc video if possible. Hearing it was the turning point for me. I was dead set against it. Then I heard it, and soon had two dvd players like many-dvd a and scad, until I found Oppo. I now run the 93ne. One word-wonderful!
In the beginning, there was mono and it was good from 1886 to the 1950's, but it gave way to Stereo. Many people resisted stereo, they didnt want to buy another speaker and stereo amp, but the new standard was accepted over 10 years and mono finally disappeared. Now we have multi-channel surround and some say its not worthy of adoption. I agree it takes good production values, it has to be used properly to convey the acoustic space (ambience) of the live recording and the audience, but not be dominant, the artists are still on stage in front of you, no imaging precision is lost, its just a more faithful rendering of the actual live recording. When you compare the two in a blind AB, you will always choose the multi-channel because it sounds more real, stereo becomes one-dimensional and incomplete. It had its time, but that time is over now, just like analog. Read my blog post on Blu-ray, its entertaining and informative: http://trgmarketing.com/2012/10/04/un-compressed-audio-is-here-now-on-blu-ray/
Stubborn people who refuse to let it go, like Steve Wilson, who just did ELP and Tarkus in 5.1 is doing another ELP album, and his own work on BD and DVD audio. The Zep release on both shows there is still interest by a small but very dedicated group. Wal-mart had recently a wal mart only dvd audio/cd of Lynard Skynard. And katatonia doing dvd audio. Major companies have turned on the format, so it's independent's doing it, surprisingly Sony released the ELP work by Steve Wilson. Ref. www.quadraphonicquad.com
Hi, folks: Surround is not for me - too costly for the slim advantages. Enjoy your music!
Thats what they said about shellac 78 rpm mono, nobody wanted to buy another channel of amplification or another speaker. The current state of the art is multi-channel DTS Master HD, bit for bit identical to the studio master, only available on Blu-ray.
bob, I have several BD with music that are dts ma. One, the Roy Orbison B&W nights, is 96/24. I also have the PF Dark side OTM Bly Ray audio and Wish you were here the same. Both are 96/24. The bulk of them are 48/24 and it still sounds dam good! I just put in the nuforce ne mod and went thru everything with deoxit. The improvment was quite significant. I was a doubter of little tweaks until I began doing so. Little things add up. Cleaning up cable ends and ports. I had all this red crap show up on all my gold plated cable ends and outer ports. Evidently the small amounts of current cause oxidation. My hooks ups were all pretty new also, but the ports are 12 yrs old. Did the HDMI also, same results. All red crap, and they were newer then the audio cables. As far as verynicefellows comments, we were just trying to explain to answer your question. To each his own.
Please, Bob, let it go! If someone is happy with life the way it is, why do you need to go around insinuating that they are backward and foolish? I realize your purse is connected directly to your mouth, but remember that your standards are not everyone's.
Like I said before, enjoy your music. I'll enjoy mine the way it is.
With all due respect, I dont make any money on this, I am retired now and have nothing to gain or lose from sharing my opinion other than that helping others makes me feel good. I guess they call them "legacy years" for a reason, so we can help spread whatever wisdom or knowledge we picked up along the way. I dont just insinuate that the audiophile market is sadly in denial about what the meaning of high fidelity is, I say it out loud for all of them to hear so they will make some progress. The mono crowd hung on for 10 years after stereo was introduced but finally let go.
All of these formats are storage media, with a limit to how much they can store. 33.3 vinyl records could hold more bandwidth and dynamic range than shellac 78's. Frequency bandwidth and dynamic range are what separate a copy from the real thing, its not rocket science.
Blu-ray can store 50 Gigs of data so the old limits on bandwidth and dynamic range have at last been overcome, we can actually experience a bit for bit identical copy of the studio master recording, the holy grail of high fidelity my whole life. Now that its here, its hard for me to understand why everybody isnt in ecstasy. It must be that they havent heard it yet because all who do adopt the new standard.
My blog article for Residential Systems was the #1 ranked story of the year, perhaps it will give this some context; http://www.residentialsystems.com/residential-systems/0001/resis-top-50-...
The Led Zepplin concert is worth seeing, so is SADE, she's mesmerizing and the music has never sounded better; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdpw4QxB9fQ&noredirect=1 Turn it up.
hey sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent, but with all due respect, until you experience this yourself, you dont know what you are missing. I have chased standard of performance for 40 years, right now is the best its ever been, I just want to share it with everyone. Listen to Led Zeppelin live, Kashmir is meant to be heard loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG49QZw0Kc4 This is epic.
SACD is NOT dead. - It's growing and growing, particularly in Europe & Asia. Even EMI is trying it now. The more you listen to SACD the more you love the spatial realism and great sound. If acoustic quality means anything to you, SACD is the way to go. Classical music leads the way, but Jazz is following, revitalizing its great discs of the old & optimizing the new, and soon the rest of music will follow as well too. If you care about AUDIO and really listen, SACD is the way to go for now. (In my opinion, Blu-Ray is essentially limited to people who want to watch, not listen.)
Mark, I didnt mean SACD is dead, I have many friends with large collections. Interestingly, SACD has 10 dB more dynamic range than CD's do, they use the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) compression scheme which is 2 to 1. CD's are 4 to 1. Its easy to hear the improvement. If you love SACD, you will love Blu-ray audio even more for the same reason, they are 1 to 1. Adopting the latest standard takes time but there is no better audio content to listen to at home than Blu-ray, uncompressed, full bandwidth and 120 dB dynamic range, just like being there. Here's a sample of what I mean, hearing this at high level and seeing it projected in 1080p HD on a 111" diag screen is a sensory experience that transcends even the live show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdpw4QxB9fQ&noredirect=1
If you gave a blind person the same choice, they would give anything to see it. Its simply preposterous to conclude that watching the artist is somehow a lesser experience than merely listening, nobody who tries it feels that way afterward. its only those who have not yet experienced it that make that kind of claim.