REL Quake

[lowrider]

So why waste your money on five channels of shite when there is no software worth listening to unless you are a rampant poseur with no more than a passing interest in music and the recorded arts.

Said the rampant poseur with no more than a passing interest in music and the recorded arts...

 

[analoguekid]

i'm with the 'portugese wazzock' on number 2 here. that would be down to the mix just as a stereo image is. i would have thought that with propper mixing it would be much easier to more accurately locate a sound with 5.1 speakers than with just 2. of course the skills needed may not be honed yet but in future?
cheers


julian

The point being Julian, I am talking about the present.

Most music we listen to is reproduced in front of us, (taking refelections out of the equation) therfore due to the fact that stereo is easier to produce and therfore should be pretty accurate, and coupled with a finite budget then better IMO to invest that budget in better quality components rather than more quantity, then when heard from stereo speakers it is easier to be more accurate, with natural reflections adding to the sound instead of more speakers trying to mimic this, they will potentially be less accurate as they too have reflections that would not be present in live presentation.

I have answered you only on this JU so will Loudmouther kindly refrain from quoting me on this post.

 

[merlin]

Pot Kettle Black

Really Lowrider, whilst I'm sure we all appreciate the entertainment value (village idiots were always popular in rural England), don't you think it's time you went away and learnt a few things before you bring ZG to it's knees?

PS. Would you consider your Rels superior to vented enclosures or don't you understand the question

 

[julian2002]

i only put the caveat in as i've not listened to much multichannel music. for all i (and i suspect most here) know there is a significantly high number of well recorded and mixed sacd, dvd-a, dts, etc. discs around.
cheers


julian

 

[analoguekid]

Ju see my edit to previous post, I have a mate with nice 2ch setup, he also has a Hifi fronted (ie not designed purely for 5 ch) 5.1 set up with Castle Inversion speaks, and sub, in another room, listening to SACD on this I found mix to be very light with everything at same volume, sounded so un-natural, no real bass not as much texture, listening to SACD in 2 ch sounded worse than redbook, sounded like it was comig from another room with no slam or impact to speak of.

 

[merlin]

. for all i (and i suspect most here) know there is a significantly high number of well recorded and mixed sacd, dvd-a, dts, etc. discs around.

Sadly there isn't Julian, so those sold multichannel by the multimnationals are forced to screw up perfectly good two channel recordings to make up for the stereo failings of modern AV systems.

It's a shame as I am sure if the musicians were interested then it might be possible to get the odd good recording. But the truth is we are having 5.1 foisted on us by the large multinationals whose only interest in increasing revenue.

 

[lowrider]

i only put the caveat in as i've not listened to much multichannel music. for all i (and i suspect most here) know there is a significantly high number of well recorded and mixed sacd, dvd-a, dts, etc. discs around.

Julian,

Dont mention the S word or you will be forever banned from the brotherwood of the tug's peers...

They only have two ears, so can only hear music from two speakers... :ffrc: :ffrc: :ffrc:

 

[analoguekid]

Yep I'm with you 100% on this Mike, we are being errodded by the MP3 bigger is better generation, 5.1 was good enough for a while then along comes 6.1 and now 7.1 most people buying this stuff see more speakers = better sound, bit like adds for comps from PC world, mention proc speed HT and giga whatsists, most people don't know the difference and think that the higher numbers must be better.

The majority of people wasting their money on this stuff don't care about sound quality, they care about numbers, they are the true willy wavers, and for once I'm not including Ant in this, as he knows what he's after and makes informed descisions, and I'm sure for an AV system it prolly sound good, but I prefer stereo.

 

[lowrider]

The majority of people wasting their money on this stuff don't care about sound quality, they care about numbers, they are the true willy wavers, and for once I'm not including Ant in this, as he knows what he's after and makes informed descisions, and I'm sure for an AV system it prolly sound good, but I prefer stereo.

Completely agree with you...

 

[analoguekid]

they only have two ears, so can only hear music from two speakers... :ffrc: :ffrc: :ffrc:

Is that it Ant you are an alien with five ears dotted around your head and one bass sensitive ear in yer arse.

I would have thought we all had 2 ears (barring accidents and birth defects) what we don't like is sound coming from behind in a wholly unatyural way, this is ok for movies as it adds to the pictures, but is way wrong for music, I just can't relax.

 

[analoguekid]

Completely agree with you...

Just picked myself up off the floor, thought I had been working too hard, LR is this a misprint.

 

[penance]

Is that it Ant you are an alien with five ears dotted around your head and one bass sensitive ear in yer arse.

.

Explains the funny helmet.

 

[julian2002]

the idea that just because we have 2 ears, 2 speakers are best is ridiculous. we hear things all arround us - not just in front and to the left / right. ok we hardly ever listen to live music with our backs turned but there are always rear and sire reflections unless at an outdoor concert.
damn i'm actually trying to put forward a cogent argument in THIS thread of all places - you're all a bunch of wrong tossers except for me - there the tone is now back where it should be.
cheers


julian

 

[penance]

Julian
I am right, your are wrong.
Tis the way of things

 

[merlin]

Multichannel music is IMO a sham, just another excuse for the big boys to hook the shhep into spending more.

If a two channel recording sounds better in PL2 than Stereo, then the Stereo performance of your setup is substandard. Full Stop.

And the idea that you can faithfully reproduce the original acoustic by using six speakers reflecting off your room boundaries without correction is about as riseable as some people's opinions on bikes

Do me a favour

 

[analoguekid]

. we hear things all arround us - not just in front and to the left / right. ok we hardly ever listen to live music with our backs turned but there are always rear and sire reflections unless at an outdoor concert.

julian

Yeah Ju but you get rear and side reflections from stereo speakers, when you try to mimic this with 5 channels then the other speakers will also refect giving nnatural reflections of pseudo reflections if you see what I mean, the reason 2 channels are needed is not because of 2 ears, but because that is the minimum needed to portray the images in 3 dimensions.

So keep outa the sun mate it's making you as disillusioned as our Portugese friend.

 

[julian2002]

arse truckle chunder fudge. you're all wrong, i'm right and i'm also god. gibber rave froth.

 

[grivois]

Redbook better than SACD

listening to SACD in 2 ch sounded worse than redbook

I've got over 120 SACDs, mostly hybrids, and I've never heard the Redbook layer sounding better than the SACD one but I suppose it also depends on the player. SACD is more dynamic than Redbook.

Redbook might sound more impressive than SACD on some systems because of differences in volumn between the layers. For example, with DSOTM, the Redbook layer is much louder and sounds great on my car stereo because it is heavily compressed, but crap on my hi-fi, whereas the SACD layer sounds great. Stereophile ran an article (last year?) that clearly demonstrated this point.

What's great about SACD is that most of the content is being produced with little or no compression or equalization, which cannot be said for CD that is optimized for the masses (radio/boom boxes). I just got Bob Marleys Young Mystic (stereo, no m/c) and these are some of Steve Hoffman's sleeve comments:

"We feel this disc contains the best sounding versions of these classic songs ever released. We went back to the original Jamaican master tape "splits" (music and vocals on two separate channels) to master the songs. In a few cases the splits no longer exist and we used the original mono mixes instead. For the most part, you are hearing the true sound of the original session masters for the first time here.

You will notice when you listen to this SACD disc that the vocals now have a warm lifelike sound that is dynamic and realistic. I did not use any compression when mastering this disc."

BTW, I am a die hard 2-channel fan with no interest in M/C. 2-channel is hard enough to optimize in real rooms, let alone 5 or more!

 

[wadia-miester]

but I suppose it also depends on the player. SACD is more dynamic than Redbook.

Redbook might sound more impressive than SACD on some systems because of differences in volumn between the layers. For example, with DSOTM, the Redbook layer is much louder and sounds great on my car stereo because it is heavily compressed, but crap on my hi-fi, whereas the SACD layer sounds great. Stereophile ran an article (last year?) that clearly demonstrated this point.

G,

Please do tell me more, I've always found sacd, far less dynamic, which ever player it was, be it Accuphase dpv 85/DCS/sacd1/ the 9000 sony effort. (tweeked versions included)
Sacd certain has its plusses, especialy in the mid band.
When comparing I never used the same sacd hybrid disc, always the redbook version. against the hybrid, you may find a touch of difference
I feel there's a conlict of interest on the Hybrids, with the sacd layer being 'nicely done' as opposed to the red book being under done, I do believe there was a thread/article on this a short while back.
I'm sure that quite a few scad's have been remastered very nicely, and are more polished than the red book, though I have nicely done redbook cd's that really are very good, but again few and far between.
Still with all the indicision on formats, prehaps a multi-platform dac maybe in order

 

[analoguekid]

G,

Please do tell me more, I've always found sacd, far less dynamic, which ever player it was, be it Accuphase dpv 85/DCS/sacd1/ the 9000 sony effort. (tweeked versions included)
Sacd certain has its plusses, especialy in the mid band.
When comparing I never used the same sacd hybrid disc, always the redbook version. against the hybrid, you may find a touch of difference
I feel there's a conlict of interest on the Hybrids, with the sacd layer being 'nicely done' as opposed to the red book being under done, I do believe there was a thread/article on this a short while back.
I'm sure that quite a few scad's have been remastered very nicely, and are more polished than the red book, though I have nicely done redbook cd's that really are very good, but again few and far between.
Still with all the indicision on formats, prehaps a multi-platform dac maybe in order

Tony, you took the words straight off my keyboard, but then we too listened to CD v's Sacd, and not from hybrid layer, both in same player.

Maybe they sound more dynamic if set up in 5 channel ie five identicla speakers and amps placed equidistant around room, but i can't help wondering what that same budget required for above setup, would sound like if applied to dedicated redbook playing system.

The issue with overly compressed discs only seems to arrive with chart type music, TTOPS stuff, most decent long running bands and those not manufactured as such seem to produce cd's with more headroom and thats the kinda stuff I listen to mainly. And it won't be long before the sacd's too are "optimised" for the inevitable surround sound systems we soon will be having with all mini systems and in our cars etc.

P