How many of you are playing high-res audio? (meaning sampling rates of either 88.2/96/176.4/192 or DSD)?

Reply

Millemissen replied on Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Hi fergus,

yes you need either a dedicated SACD player or a SACD capable bluray-/dvd-player.

There aren't many around since the SACD isn't a mainstream product.

And you don't need special speakers for listening to SACD. But they should be quality speakers (and amps) to match the higher soundquality.

There are different opinions whether there is a need for SACD (or highres audio) or not, as you might have read in this thread.

Judge for yourself, if you have the opportunity to listen to a SACD.

During the last years the bluray disc has taken more and more over - due to the greater data capacity of tha disc

Geeetings Millemissen

Reply

Millemissen replied on Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Stan:

I should add that I voted for "proper hi-rez" (vinyl) because the question included the word "buy". I already have my BS5, but would love to buy a modern BeoGram. I guess the topic seems more focused on TVs audio formats where I am less interested. I bought a Bv8 for its outstanding picture and its ability to play stereo music through my beolabs from my beosounds. Stan

Hi Stan,

digital high resolution music and vinyl makes a fine pair - imo. This is not a matter of one or the other.

Since you have a BS5 and are focussed on audio, you should have voted for both.

Why Peter calls 'vinyl' 'proper hi-res' I don't know. Vinyl can't be highres, since it is analog.

But we must let Peter explain why he used this definition - probably because he is a 'vinyl man' 📻

The fact that SACD - recorded/mixed as multichannel - needs a surround processor, and that SACD capable bluray-/dvd-players mostly are connected via HDMI makes the subject 'tv audio formats' interesting.

Greetings Millemissen

Reply

Barry Santini replied on Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:50 PM

rated by 0 users

geoffmartin:

Hi Barry,

I think that you need to be a little more specific. For example, take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs

Should every audio play be able to decode all of those? At every bitrate?

My question is only partly facetious - the specifications of any piece of gear (or a plugin, for example) has to draw some lines somewhere - if there's one codec on that list that is not going to be supported, then that means all of them are up for discussion. When calculating the cost and development time required to support a given codec and bitrate, you have to consider the licensing and legal fees (where applicable), writing the code, ensuring that the hardware supports the codec/bitrate, and all the testing that is required to ensure that everything works in all cases.

And thanks for the offer of ale! :-)

Cheers

-geoff

Reply

Stan replied on Fri, Aug 9 2013 9:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Carolpa:

Stan:

I should add that I voted for "proper hi-rez" (vinyl)

Most newly produced vinyl is first cleaned/remastered. This is almost solemnly done in the digital domain. Thus vinyl can't be better than the digital domain signal it was produced from!

I didn't call it "proper hi-res", Peter did.

I rarely buy new vinyl, but I have 1000s of old LPs... many of which I have not yet listened to.  I inherited a large LP collection from a relative.

Reply

fergus replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 12:29 AM

rated by 0 users

Hi Millemissen

Thanks for your reply. I have a Korg SACD/DSD digital recorder but I mainly use it for recording live music to WAV because I don't really know what to do with the other formats!

Reply

Steffen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 12:43 AM

rated by 0 users

Jeff:

I've seen too many alleged golden ears fail to distinguish between CD quality and MP3 despite all of their assurances and preening to have any confidence in the alleged benefits of HD.

I must say, that I think most people can tell the difference between CD quality and MP3, if listened to via quality speakers.

The 'problem' is that most people don't care. And most people today listen to music via low quality docking stations, ear-plugs etc. where they cannot tell the difference anyway.
A lot of young people today have never even listened to a CD (or vinyl) on quality equipment/speakers.

Good news is, that more and more people won't just settle for MP3's when they stream or download - but choose higher quality formats.
Just 6-10 years ago, it was quite a struggle to find music on the net in other than MP3 format. Today it's easy to find high-res music files.

Once we get over the 'MP3 era', more people might start buying quality equipment again. They might realize that you can not just buy any box for distributing wireless music in your home.  

Reply

Jeff replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 2:17 AM

rated by 0 users

Steffen:

I must say, that I think most people can tell the difference between CD quality and MP3, if listened to via quality speakers.

Well, maybe some but not most from what I've seen. A lot depends on the quality of the encoder and how low a bit rate is used. With the audio group a few years ago, in another city I lived in, we made up custom discs for people to play with. Let them pick the tunes they felt would show off their ability to hear the problem with compressed audio, and recorded the track as an unaltered track to disc, followed bu the track run thru Apples AAC encoder and then converted back to CD, followed by the track ten times, with randomly assigned distribution of original or compressed track, and let them listen however they wanted, speakers, headphones, as long as they wanted to play with it, take the disc and have fun. These were not crappy systems, these were pretty hard core audiophiles.

No one could distinguish between wav and either 256kbps VBR or 128kbps VBR. Some could sometimes identify 96kbps, but not that reliably. 

What was interesting is that most audiophiles picked tracks that were spectacularly unsuited to showing off the weaknesses of an encoded format because they don't understand either the human ear or the encoding process, what they "know" to be true from years of audiophile mythology is pretty much smoke amd mirrors and not grounded In engineering. I have one track that I use, that I could fairly reliably hear at 96 on phones, I could think I heard stuff at 128 but not statistically valid performance, and never at 256. Its a pop music track, and that's all I'm gonna say about that right now. most people pick tracks that give an encoder plenty to work with and then are surprised when the encoders work. 

Reply

John replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 9:10 AM

rated by 0 users

Greetings All

I'm following this thread with interest, and voted yes, as I'm a predominately classical music listener, and also movie buff, and have a small but growing collection of SACD discs which I used with my previous Sony ES digital amp and ES DVD/SACD players.

The principle advantage of SACD for me personally, is discrete multi-channel surround sound, which for classical music in particular, renders a much more realistic and believable reproduction of the original event than two channel stereo.  I also used the ES players for DVD and RB CD.

With my new system (V1-40 & Beolab 9's) I am for the time being using a basic Sony Bluray player, which was a gift, to build up my collection of Bluray based movies, and have been busy ripping my RB CD collection to the HD of my Mac, using iTunes and ripping in ALAC.

Playback for music is via streaming over WiFi to an Apple TV3, attached via HDMI to my V1-40, and it and iTunes are controlled using apps on my iPad.

As many of my SACD disks are hybrids, I've ripped the CD track to the Mac, and have yet to try them out on the Sony Bluray player as regards using it's multi-channel SACD capabilities.

Having read the other thread about the inability of the V1/BV11's engine to support certain sampling rates, I tried out my Sony Bluray player (around 12 months old) on MC & 2ch SACD, and sadly, no sound from the V1 despite tweaking and trying different setup options within the Bluray players menus. So I can only guess that it's outputting audio at a sampling rate the V1 won't recognise.

I'm not overly perturbed, as I've plans to upgrade it to something on par with the ES machines as regards overall quality, and had in mind the 103 or 105 Oppo machines, but it appears from previous comments that they would also be inoperable with the V1/BV11, so I'm having a rethink about an Cambridge Azur (latest model is a 752) as from Geoffs comments, this would work for MC SACD's.

On the other hand, is this issue with the V1/BV11 family likely to be fixed down the track with a software upgrade, or would it need a fundamental change of hardware, i.e. the DAC and associated circuitry etc?

Many thanks for a very interesting thread BTW and for Geoffs fantastic contributions

Kind Regards

John

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 9:14 AM

rated by 0 users

BeoMegaMan:

Ahh, Beoworld where a simple poll can turn into PDF of pages.... :).

Yes - BeoWorlders seem unstopable

MM

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 9:41 AM

rated by 0 users

John:

Greetings All

.......

Having read the other thread about the inability of the V1/BV11's engine to support certain sampling rates, I tried out my Sony Bluray player (around 12 months old) on MC & 2ch SACD, and sadly, no sound from the V1 despite tweaking and trying different setup options within the Bluray players menus. So I can only guess that it's outputting audio at a sampling rate the V1 won't recognise.

I'm not overly perturbed, as I've plans to upgrade it to something on par with the ES machines as regards overall quality, and had in mind the 103 or 105 Oppo machines, but it appears from previous comments that they would also be inoperable with the V1/BV11, so I'm having a rethink about an Cambridge Azur (latest model is a 752) as from Geoffs comments, this would work for MC SACD's.

On the other hand, is this issue with the V1/BV11 family likely to be fixed down the track with a software upgrade, or would it need a fundamental change of hardware, i.e. the DAC and associated circuitry etc?

John

 

Hi John,

Many thanks for your post.

You have experienced exactly the 'malheur' that we are working on being recognized in Struer - and resolved.

As things are now (as far as I know) the only way to play a SACD on the V1/BV11/BSys4 platform is to get a Cambridge (752) blurayplayer.

Due to the Cambridge philosophy all audio is upsampled to 192kHz (or 96 if you limit it as Geoff soes) before it is output via HDMI to the BV.***

And the V1/BV11 does play the files at 96kHz.

If this discussion, the poll and/or the fact that the guys in Struer now are aware of it, will bring a quick change to the V1/BV11 family, I can't say.

If  'a simple software update' of the DSP is sufficient, hopefully Geoff would be able to tell.

Who can't wait seems to be forced to buy the Cambridge BD!!

P.S. There is an interesting app for that called 'Stream Magic'.

Note: it aeems that a PUC support for the 752 is possible - the only thing that holds me back is the missing Netflix support in the CA (which the OPPO has).

***personally I am not quite convinced of the 'upsampling-thing'. Might be okay with the SACD, but I would rather have a native output rate for all other audio filles - but that is another discussion....

Greetings Millemissen

Reply

symmes replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 1:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Spending $100 in development to accommodate SACD would be a sad waste of money for B&O. Leave it hackers to hack/modify their stuff and lament B&O's lack of technical prowess. Jeff is spot-on. Just build functional, bulletproof, and exotic entertainment systems. Grrrr. 

Reply

beolion replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 2:19 PM

rated by 0 users

When I rip CD's, the I use FLAC.

However, if possible, I buy from i.e. Linn in 24Bit 96kHz to get the best possible input signals.

I have a BS5, and I listen to music thru the BL9 connected to my BV7.

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 3:30 PM

rated by 0 users

symmes:

Spending $100 in development to accommodate SACD would be a sad waste of money for B&O. Leave it hackers to hack/modify their stuff and lament B&O's lack of technical prowess. Jeff is spot-on. Just build functional, bulletproof, and exotic entertainment systems. Grrrr. 

Hi symmes,

you don't need to tell what you have voted.

Meooows from Millemissen

Reply

Carolpa replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 7:45 PM

rated by 0 users

symmes:

Spending $100 in development to accommodate SACD would be a sad waste of money for B&O. Leave it hackers to hack/modify their stuff and lament B&O's lack of technical prowess. Jeff is spot-on. Just build functional, bulletproof, and exotic entertainment systems. Grrrr. 

Sorry but you mis the point. It is not only SACD but ALL the, to PCM decoded signals with a sample rate of 88.2 or 176.4 kHz.

If a blueray would have this format, if you want to play files in Homemedia or with an apple tv or a  dune hd etc these will be inaudible .

And B&o have already proved it can easely and bullitproof be done. The BS3 is capable to reproduce these sample rates 

Reply

Carolpa replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 8:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Stan:

I didn't call it "proper hi-res", Peter did.

@Stan

You're right Stan, Peter did.

regards

Reply

symmes replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 8:16 PM

rated by 0 users

@millmissen

and you might consider keeping a thought or two of yours to yourself.

Reply

symmes replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 8:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Actually, I agree on all the PCM formats, and don't understand why  any significant ones are missing. Same goes for FLAC and OGG Vorbis, and Apple (if it were actually available for license). SACD/DSD is another animal, just the way Sony/Phillips intended.  And, to Geoff's allusion to the future of binaural or multichannel streaming, how do you pick which codecs to include, given the risk of being wrong?

Reply

symmes replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 8:29 PM

rated by 0 users

Actually, I agree on all the PCM formats, and don't understand why any significant ones are missing. Same goes for FLAC and OGG Vorbis, and Apple (if it were actually available for license). SACD/DSD is another animal, just the way Sony/Phillips intended.  And, to Geoff's allusion to the future of binaural or multichannel streaming, how do you pick which codecs to include, given the risk of being wrong?

Reply

chartz replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 9:41 PM

rated by 0 users

Hi,

I am going to stay with CD and vinyl because I've got too many records to change formats now, this would be a financial disaster - has anyone mentioned this before?

What matters is the music, and both supports give good sound for my ears. I use first and second generation CD players (Beogram CDX and 5500, Sony CDP-101, Philips CD100), a Beogram 4000/MMC20CL as well as an iPod on the move, with 256 AAC encoded music and I can't hear much difference between all those different formats, if any. But what I can most definitely hear is music!

I did try Linn files reproduced on a quality Pioneer DVD player (24/96) but was not overwhelmed.

I therefore voted no, and...

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 10:01 PM

rated by 0 users

symmes:

@millmissen

and you might consider keeping a thought or two of yours to yourself.

Hi symmes,

are you trying to muzzle me?

Greetings Millemissen

Reply

symmes replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 10:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Millemissen:

symmes:

@millmissen

and you might consider keeping a thought or two of yours to yourself.

Hi symmes,

are you trying to muzzle me?

Greetings Millemissen

MM

I don't care what you do or say until you respond to me from self-annointed role as board manager, which you did.  When that happens, I will call you out, which I did. I've noticed before you don't like when people do that, so check in with a mirror, not me. 

 As to the benefit of your being muzzled, that's none of my business or interests and it shall remain that way, though too much of a good thing tends to become a bad thing.  

Enjoy,

Ray

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sat, Aug 10 2013 10:59 PM

rated by 0 users

Hi Ray,

I won't commend on that - that would just keep the ball rolling.

Your post ended with "Enjoy" - so will mine.

Enjoy

MM

Reply

Jeff replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 2:14 AM

rated by 0 users

symmes:

Actually, I agree on all the PCM formats, and don't understand why any significant ones are missing. Same goes for FLAC and OGG Vorbis, and Apple (if it were actually available for license). SACD/DSD is another animal, just the way Sony/Phillips intended.  And, to Geoff's allusion to the future of binaural or multichannel streaming, how do you pick which codecs to include, given the risk of being wrong?

FLAC is popular enough I also don't understand it's MIA status. Apple Lossless, well, that's Apple's fault for not licensing it. It points out the problems with supporting Apple products, on the one hand they are so ubiquitous that you pretty much have to if you are going to get a share of the mass market business, on the other hand given half a chance Apple will beat you like a rented mule and just stick it to you when it suits their fancy (A3 and Lightning Connector anyone?). I haven't had much experience with Vorbis.

Good point, how do you know which ones to implement? B&Os usual MO is to wait until a technology is well adopted enough to give it a chance of longevity, but it seems it might be more affordable to guess wrong on codecs than it was back in the day when everything new format wise was a major hardware design thing. While not free to implement, a codec is not as bad as say adding a MD player or DCC capability and finding out they turn into doorstops.I guess at best it's a guessing game, market research at it's best is like looking in a crystal ball.

I still think this whole HD is barking up the wrong tree, you will never seen an improvement over CD audio until multichannel becomes common, and that might never happen because so few people setup surround sound systems properly, proper speaker placement, room acoustics, etc. It's less critical to be right, though still important, to get the most out of movies, even more critical with audio only. Today many people don't even want to set two speakers up right, see A9, A8, etc. Binaural is interesting, I've listened to a ton of it and it sounds creepily real on headphones, and about like monaural on speakers. A codec that would encode CD quality stereo and binaural on one bitstream would be useful IMO. You could own one track that was optimized for speaker and headphone listening.

Reply

Steffen replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 2:38 AM

rated by 0 users

Jeff:

Steffen:

I must say, that I think most people can tell the difference between CD quality and MP3, if listened to via quality speakers.

Well, maybe some but not most from what I've seen. A lot depends on the quality of the encoder and how low a bit rate is used.

You might have a good point there, Jeff.
However, My experience is that most of the MP3 music I find on the net is poor quality, compared to playing the same songs from a CD or from my computer in Waw or FLAC format. (Or from the net in several non-MP3 formats).
Maybe I should just try to convert some tracks to MP3 myself, to compare...

Reply

Jeff replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 3:18 AM

rated by 0 users

Steffen, where do you get the MP3's? Do you know what the bit rate is? Downloading a good converter and doing it yourself is always a good option if you're interested in experimenting. I don't use MP3 much personally, I usually rip to Apple AAC using iTunes. Apple does a number of things I don't like, such as proprietary lossless they won't license to anyone, but their implementation of the AAC encoder is a very good one. One of the most sonically transparent encoders I've heard.

I've been thinking I should download the same song via iTunes (AAC), Amazon (MP3), and rip from disc to see what differences I find. Of course, since they come from different sources you can never be sure if it's the encoding or if they started with a differently EQ'd file to start with. You have no guarantee that the Apple and Amazon versions were encoded from the same master file, and therein lies a lot of the problem I think.

Reply

Carolpa replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 9:31 AM

rated by 0 users

this is no discussion/poll about encoders/decoders

Basic principle:

Decoded audio - decoder - PCM - dac - analog signal

So this is simple a question about: which sample and bit rates PCM are supported by B&o.

B&o only decodes some audio formats. All the other have to be done by other devices. These devices send the PCM signal to f.e. the BV11 to be processed to an audible signal.

Note: Apple uses AAC but this encoder is developed by others.

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 12:02 PM

rated by 0 users

Hi Carolpa,

this is what I am trying to say all the time!

I've given up now - this thread is doomed to meander/get off track.

But as long as people place their votes, it is ok.

You certainly triggered attention in Struer to the missing support for some of the PCM versions in the 'new engine'  - thanks for that.

Greetings Millemissen

Reply

Millemissen replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 5:35 PM

rated by 0 users

I wonder if that post should have been posted here instead:

http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/6989/62504.aspx#62504

Greetings Millemissen

Reply

js replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 9:37 PM

rated by 0 users

Jeff:

Apple does a number of things I don't like, such as proprietary lossless they won't license to anyone

Apple Lossless (ALAC) is open source since 2011

But still not supported by Beosound 5

Reply

soundproof replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 10:13 PM

rated by 0 users

Some years ago, I had the founder of 2L Records in my previous listening room. We were listening to various of his recordings through my BeoLab 5s. I also went to his post studio, to listen to multi-channel playback of his recordings on a 5-channel setup, that was configured with similar full-range speakers according to the AES-EBU standard.

2L does old-style acoustical recordings with high-resolution microphones straight to the recording medium, and with no post-mixing. Their work has been very well received (lots of awards and stand-out recordings). They find venues that are suitable for the kind of music they are recording, and then spend the time required to get the best possible result. Their recordings are available in a variety of formats, from multi-channel files down to CD.

When you record in this fashion, and don't meddle with the result in post, you end up with a brilliance and resolution that is astonishing.
Also, when listening to the 5-channel setup in his studio, I was able to walk about inside the soundscape without experiencing the feeling that the music shifted according to my position in the room - it really was as if I was walking about among musicians fixed in space. A unique and memorable experience, and if I had room for a five-channel multichannel setup, I might have aimed for that -- but there aren't many recordings done in this manner.

Again, a few years ago, I caused a flap over at Computeraudiophile when I pointed out that the majority of the high-resolution recordings sold by HD-Tracks couldn't possibly be high-resolution, as they were made with microphones that weren't sensitive above 18kHz (and many under). So where was the supposed higher resolution coming from? That started a thread on that forum where people analyzed HD-Tracks releases, and established that indeed, there was no music signal to be found above the microphone limits. Some issues had artefacts in the above 20kHz range, and many of these were highly suspect.

On a more amusing note, Linn Records a while ago had to inform customers that a large selection of music they had sold as high-resolution, to considerable acclaim from reviewers and customers, was Redbook quality. (16/44.1)
These were not from Linn's own recordings, but a catalogue Linn resold from another producer. What had happened was that when these high-resolution files were transferred to Linn, the files were converted to Redbook. Most curiously, no one noticed - not at Linn, nor from the original provider, nor did any of the musicians who had done those recordings. (I'm assuming that they were curious to hear the result). It was discovered through an analysis of the tracks using Audacity.

In other words, a lot of the supposed high-resolution music offered for sale is nothing of the sort, and this is particularly valid for recordings from before the time when high-resolution recordings were possible. In the vinyl and tape eras, producers were satisfied with microphones that were adequate for the reproduction possible with those media. If you want to have fun, you should analyze needledrops from vinyl - you will be amazed by where the ceiling is for the frequency range possible. While many vinylphiles (and I love vinyl) will claim that vinyl can reproduce very high frequency, it does nothing of the sort. (Many are confused by the carrier track used to encode four-channel vinyl for Quadraphonic - but that carrier track did not contain a music signal, but the information needed for the channeling of the music to the front and back speakers. The card used for C4 in Beograms was quite sophisticated, in order to carry out that channeling).

For what it's worth, audiophiles don't think much of DMM vinyl, instead preferring the limitations of regular vinyl recordings - again, an illustration of the fact that it seems to be the distortion we go for, not the purity of the signal, which was better with Direct Metal Mastering. 

I'd like to recommend 2L's work with the Souvenir issues, which are also available on vinyl (!). To get the best possible result, the ensemble was arranged with the deeper string instruments in the centre (under a specific frequency, the bass is mono on vinyl), and with the rest of the instruments mirror imaged around that centre. The lead microphone was the centre one, with L and R used to bleed in the stereoscape. This greatly assists the cutting to vinyl master (metal cut for these issues). These recordings are stand out both in their high-resolution version, and on vinyl. 2L spent a lot of time researching the best method of achieving an excellent production for the vinyl issue, and it is really evident.
They spent two weeks recording - which is almost unheard of today, when recordings are done on the fly by most producers, due to budgetary constraints. 

How it was made: http://www.stereophile.com/content/2ls-final-frontier-vinyl

http://www.amazon.com/Souvenir-Part-1-Vinyl-TrondheimSolistene/dp/B006ZV6XOA

To listen to true high-resolution recordings, you can try the samples at their site, they are available in a number of formats: 

http://www.2l.no

Reply

vikinger replied on Sun, Aug 11 2013 10:59 PM

rated by 0 users

Thanks Soundproof. I keep learning from your great contributions.

Graham

Reply

Jeff replied on Mon, Aug 12 2013 12:54 AM

rated by 0 users

I had forgotten Apple Lossless was open now! Thanks for reminding me. 

And Soundproof, you bring up some excellent facts and interesting recording info, I'm very interested in their work and will follow up on that, 2L. The multichannel sounds particularly exciting. But as you observe, they go orders of magnitude farther than most to get superior recordings, a little of that care would be a larger benefit to the recording world than HD. 

WRT LP. I remember playing with a Carver Digital Time Lens processor, which induced freq response and phase/channel separation aberrations into CD playback patterned after LP. Amazing how vinyl it could make digital sound. It's main problem was that it was non adjustable, you only got one choice, on or off, if it was more flexible it would have been a wonderful analogizer. 

Reply

Barry Santini replied on Mon, Aug 12 2013 1:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Millemissen:

I wonder if that post should have been posted here instead:

http://archivedforum2.beoworld.org/forums/p/6989/62504.aspx#62504

Greetings Millemissen

There is a tv - and there is a BV.

Reply

soundproof replied on Mon, Aug 12 2013 7:35 AM

rated by 0 users

pjPl4CJ.jpg

There are some SACD-issues that make available the original 3-channel mix of early stereo recordings - that is something I would like to have B&O functionality for. Early stereo engineers were dissatisfied with the 2-channel stereo illusion, compared to the fixed solidity of 3-channel playback. Which is why they for a number of years kept recording 3-channel, hoping a technology would come along that was affordable for mass distribution. 

But vinyl won because of the economy of manufacturing vinyl records, and we got stuck with 2-channel until multi-channel began emerging for movies.

Here's Frank Sinatra in front of his 3-channel system, fed by tape. He had record players in the back of the listening area. Three channel stereo gives a much more solid soundscape than two-channel. (Stereo means solid, and not two, as some think). Early stereo engineers were despairing that they couldn't share their 3-channel recordings with anyone but the very rich, who could afford 3-channel tape machines and especially dubbed tapes. The rest got 2-channel down mixes.

Now, this limitation has disappeared, and we can enjoy at least 3-channel or 5-channel music recordings, though to justify the latter, one often finds that the perspective is unnatural, with the locus of the recording in the middle of the orchestra. I personally prefer having the music "in front of me," and for that 3-channel suffices.

Check out some of the SACDs with the original 3-channel versions. (If you play back the Kind of Blue SACD 3-channel, without a centre channel, and otherwise configured properly, Miles "disappears.") Good home theatres have centre channels now, but they should be voiced for full-range, and not primarily for dialogue, for such 3-channel recordings to shine.)

Reply

Jeff replied on Mon, Aug 12 2013 3:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Great photo of Sinatra and his SOTA setup! I remember listening to early stereo records, particularly demos, that were all ping pong L and R and no middle. Kind of like early quad, overdone  You can get a good center image with two channel, but not if the speakers are too far apart and the recording is wonky. I think the reason Klipsch came up with the Heresy originally was both to have a stereo option for people who had one Khorn in mono and no room or money for another, and as a center for people who had two Khorns but the corners were too far apart for good stereo.