Actually they are related. Channel Classics sells Challenge Classics content!
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Multi Channel Audio
- Thread starter Purité Audio
- Start date
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 942
I see.
Both exist but the offerings at https://www.nativedsd.com/ are more comprehensive and include both labels.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
The question was asked earlier about Mch setup issues, and the main issue there is speaker placement/setup. The good news/bad news story about Mch is that it is more standardized than stereo, so there is much less guessing and tweaking necessary in Mch. Unfortunately, those standards for Mch are sort of buried in a lot of confusing commentaries, often seeing unimportant or nonexistent conflict between setups for Mch music and Mch Home Theater. But, I think it is is fairly simple and straightforward to accommodate both with no conflict.
Most all discrete music recordings adhere to the ITU 5.0/.1 standard. There are minor exceptions by labels intent on going off on some tangent or who idiosyncratically reject 5.0/.1 in favor of 4.0/.1. Meanwhile, HT movies adhere to the DTS and Dolby speaker layouts. Forget about the old, obsolete THX standard from the DVD era. The newest Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos layouts, which I am still far from wanting to embrace, merely add speaker channels in the vertical direction to these same basic 2D schemes.
Here is Nyal's commentary from Acoustic Frontiers:
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314speaker-layout/
As as you can see, all you need to do is set up the speakers in the ITU angular array at zero, +/- 30 and +- 110 degrees for 5.0/.1. For 7.0/.1, add two back speakers at +/- 150 degrees, and you are nearly done. All these angles are relative to the sweet spot aka the MLP. All speakers are pointed directly and frontally at the sweet spot, even if they are bi/dipoles. (On that note, the special "surround" speakers you often see, with angular, not front/rear, bi/dipole sets of drivers are really for THX. Avoid them.) I am extremely happy with this angular setup for both music and video.
Setup assumes either equal distances of all speakers from the MLP or it assumes DSP correction (interchannel delay) for distance. They are functionally equivalent, though purists insist on equal distances for reasons unknown (unless they are using an analog Mch preamp, which has no delay compensation). It also assumes channel levels are trimmed to equal loudness at the MLP on mono test tones from each channel. Auto calibration for this by a supplied mike is built into even the cheapest AVRs. Ironically, very expensive Mch prepros usually require manual distance and level calibration by tape measure and sound level meter or mike.
I much prefer the auto calibration procedure acoustically sensing distance and level by mike and built in test tones, especially for subwoofers. Many subwoofers have input networks that cause additional delay in the signal. Tape measure distance to the sub would therefore understate true acoustic distance including the sub's internal delay. Again, it is ironic that cheap AVRs handle this properly, but expensive prepros usually do not. Sub makers generally do not publish how much delay their subs introduce. I guess you have to contact them for that information if needed or try to measure it yourself via a calibrated mike and analytical software.
But, subwoofer setup and optimization is a whole different topic, including crossover setup. Just crossing everything over at 80Hz often does a great job, provided all main/surround channels have measured in-room response extending down to that frequency or below. Specs alone cannot be completely relied on, as room and placement issues might cause major differences from the specs. Response measurements may be called for, if not provided by built in DSP EQ calibration. Sub tweaking, as we know is a potentially complex subject - single vs. multi subs, etc. I will not go into it here. My own single sub setup in an 18x13 room was straightforward and the results quite satisfactory (with Dirac), though I am sure I could be tweaking it to death if I were obsessive. I would rather be listening to or watching music.
On speaker selection, best theoretically is identical main/surround speakers. Second best, theoretically, is similarly voiced speakers all around from the same manufacturer. Three identical speakers just across the front might improve on that. The other approach is mix and match, or mishmash, but that might even work decently, especially if you use full range DSP EQ, which will voice all channels more equally. Horizontal center channels are looked down on for music, but that is a compromise I use with success.
I think my system, with 7 Martin Logan stat hybrids, 3 different sizes plus the horizontal center, holds its own on music against the arrays of identical speakers I have heard. Someday, my ultimate dream system will embody all the theoretical ideals. As everywhere, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I think my system sounds pretty good especially on music, but also with video material.
Most all discrete music recordings adhere to the ITU 5.0/.1 standard. There are minor exceptions by labels intent on going off on some tangent or who idiosyncratically reject 5.0/.1 in favor of 4.0/.1. Meanwhile, HT movies adhere to the DTS and Dolby speaker layouts. Forget about the old, obsolete THX standard from the DVD era. The newest Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos layouts, which I am still far from wanting to embrace, merely add speaker channels in the vertical direction to these same basic 2D schemes.
Here is Nyal's commentary from Acoustic Frontiers:
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314speaker-layout/
As as you can see, all you need to do is set up the speakers in the ITU angular array at zero, +/- 30 and +- 110 degrees for 5.0/.1. For 7.0/.1, add two back speakers at +/- 150 degrees, and you are nearly done. All these angles are relative to the sweet spot aka the MLP. All speakers are pointed directly and frontally at the sweet spot, even if they are bi/dipoles. (On that note, the special "surround" speakers you often see, with angular, not front/rear, bi/dipole sets of drivers are really for THX. Avoid them.) I am extremely happy with this angular setup for both music and video.
Setup assumes either equal distances of all speakers from the MLP or it assumes DSP correction (interchannel delay) for distance. They are functionally equivalent, though purists insist on equal distances for reasons unknown (unless they are using an analog Mch preamp, which has no delay compensation). It also assumes channel levels are trimmed to equal loudness at the MLP on mono test tones from each channel. Auto calibration for this by a supplied mike is built into even the cheapest AVRs. Ironically, very expensive Mch prepros usually require manual distance and level calibration by tape measure and sound level meter or mike.
I much prefer the auto calibration procedure acoustically sensing distance and level by mike and built in test tones, especially for subwoofers. Many subwoofers have input networks that cause additional delay in the signal. Tape measure distance to the sub would therefore understate true acoustic distance including the sub's internal delay. Again, it is ironic that cheap AVRs handle this properly, but expensive prepros usually do not. Sub makers generally do not publish how much delay their subs introduce. I guess you have to contact them for that information if needed or try to measure it yourself via a calibrated mike and analytical software.
But, subwoofer setup and optimization is a whole different topic, including crossover setup. Just crossing everything over at 80Hz often does a great job, provided all main/surround channels have measured in-room response extending down to that frequency or below. Specs alone cannot be completely relied on, as room and placement issues might cause major differences from the specs. Response measurements may be called for, if not provided by built in DSP EQ calibration. Sub tweaking, as we know is a potentially complex subject - single vs. multi subs, etc. I will not go into it here. My own single sub setup in an 18x13 room was straightforward and the results quite satisfactory (with Dirac), though I am sure I could be tweaking it to death if I were obsessive. I would rather be listening to or watching music.
On speaker selection, best theoretically is identical main/surround speakers. Second best, theoretically, is similarly voiced speakers all around from the same manufacturer. Three identical speakers just across the front might improve on that. The other approach is mix and match, or mishmash, but that might even work decently, especially if you use full range DSP EQ, which will voice all channels more equally. Horizontal center channels are looked down on for music, but that is a compromise I use with success.
I think my system, with 7 Martin Logan stat hybrids, 3 different sizes plus the horizontal center, holds its own on music against the arrays of identical speakers I have heard. Someday, my ultimate dream system will embody all the theoretical ideals. As everywhere, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I think my system sounds pretty good especially on music, but also with video material.
There was the AIX Records room with a very high end 5.1 system set up to demo their recordings.♦ Did they have rooms like that @ Axpona 2016, with a 5.1-channel rig setup? ...Perhaps they should...
That'll be some' else.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
The Kimber iso-mike setups (4ch SACD) have sounded pretty good to me.
Unfortunately never heard this one, linked previously in the small room thread, but it would be my yardstick for the scientific approach to MCH, rather than fiddling/tinkering around with mic placement.
Unfortunately never heard this one, linked previously in the small room thread, but it would be my yardstick for the scientific approach to MCH, rather than fiddling/tinkering around with mic placement.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 942
Thank you Kal.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
I have most of them, and they are good, though I do not put them at the top of the heap. They did not take the world by storm with a clear and demonstrably better idea. Isomike is now defunct, as far as I know, and their now OOP catalog is quite limited. I think 5.0 with a center channel does a better job, personally, with music.
A scientific approach was tried with stereo, too, with two-mike directional coincident pair and binaural. Both have been commercial flops. The use of multi mike arrays in stereo has stood the test of time, even though there may be a lot of art to it with different approaches favored by different engineers in different venues. We might not understand what they are doing, so it seems like mere fiddling to us, the outsiders. But, they might know a thing or two we do not from experience, and they live or die based on sonic results.
There will always be arguments about mike and engineering technique. As a pragmatist, I look at and buy what are good recordings, not certain mike techniques. I look to the engineers to deal with those issues to the best of their ability.
Channel Classics, for one, generally uses a minimalist 5.0 Mch miking scheme. Their sound is generally excellent. But, so are quite a number of other Mch recordings using multi mike arrays, IMO. There is no clear winner in my view.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 942
♦ http://denisdubiella.com/index.php?controller=post&action=view&id_post=3
His essay is not without some incidents...miscalculations and other affairs of the underworld.
It also needs editing.
His essay is not without some incidents...miscalculations and other affairs of the underworld.
It also needs editing.
Last edited:
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
A question out of curiosity: do you combine your (best) video playback system with your main audio system? Or, do you prefer, or insist on, the separation of the two? No poll, just opinions.
I have actively been combining audio with video actively since 1990. Yes, the audio quality accompanying video sucked in those days, but only by comparison to "hi fi" source material. It still sounded way better via my main stereo system than it did via junky TV speakers.
I personally believe in ever greater convergence of the audio and the video into a combined "home entertainment" system. But, I sense that many audiophiles resist this. Some reasons are clear. Music is our predominant muse and our most valuable passtime. That goes for me, too. But, do you or do you not insist on best quality audio for those moments of weakness (I will not tattle on you) when you want to watch Bridge of Spies on BD (excellent, by the way), Downton Abbey or even a football game.
Personally, I love the combination. For one thing, it is an opportunity to share my audio obsessions with my wife, who normally is not audio- or classical music-obsessed, as am I. When I listen to my music, she is not there. Also, I cannot tell you how much I enjoy even football games with high quality audio via my main system. Even my wife, somewhat grudgingly, concedes that my main system sounds great in comparison to our slightly augmented bedroom TV system, but it is not the big deal to her that it is to me. I do watch some, not much, humdrum stuff on the bedroom system with her, also. Currently, we are catching up on Criminal Minds via Nexflix streaming. She is happy with that, though she appreciates the bigger, better monitor and the audio much more when we watch on my main system.
It is also true that the video possibilities were the reason I first tried Mch audio. Originally, my intent was to combine hi def video including Mch in the most cost effective way, marrying my existing stereo to Mch Home Theater upgrades I did. But, once I heard my first hi rez Mch music SACD, my life suddenly changed forever. Stereo was out and Mch was in, as of over 8 years ago for me.
So, I would appreciate your thoughts on this, understanding that I am now hooked on Mch and in combining that with my best video experiences.
I have actively been combining audio with video actively since 1990. Yes, the audio quality accompanying video sucked in those days, but only by comparison to "hi fi" source material. It still sounded way better via my main stereo system than it did via junky TV speakers.
I personally believe in ever greater convergence of the audio and the video into a combined "home entertainment" system. But, I sense that many audiophiles resist this. Some reasons are clear. Music is our predominant muse and our most valuable passtime. That goes for me, too. But, do you or do you not insist on best quality audio for those moments of weakness (I will not tattle on you) when you want to watch Bridge of Spies on BD (excellent, by the way), Downton Abbey or even a football game.
Personally, I love the combination. For one thing, it is an opportunity to share my audio obsessions with my wife, who normally is not audio- or classical music-obsessed, as am I. When I listen to my music, she is not there. Also, I cannot tell you how much I enjoy even football games with high quality audio via my main system. Even my wife, somewhat grudgingly, concedes that my main system sounds great in comparison to our slightly augmented bedroom TV system, but it is not the big deal to her that it is to me. I do watch some, not much, humdrum stuff on the bedroom system with her, also. Currently, we are catching up on Criminal Minds via Nexflix streaming. She is happy with that, though she appreciates the bigger, better monitor and the audio much more when we watch on my main system.
It is also true that the video possibilities were the reason I first tried Mch audio. Originally, my intent was to combine hi def video including Mch in the most cost effective way, marrying my existing stereo to Mch Home Theater upgrades I did. But, once I heard my first hi rez Mch music SACD, my life suddenly changed forever. Stereo was out and Mch was in, as of over 8 years ago for me.
So, I would appreciate your thoughts on this, understanding that I am now hooked on Mch and in combining that with my best video experiences.
I have mainly because my theater is a dark, windowless room and I don't enjoy listening to anything but movies there. I am now thinking of how to convert my 2-channel system to multi-channel.
I like to get away from the tv, so I don't combine the two. I used too though. At some point I will put in a multichannel system In the tv room.
I find when downton abbey is on the tv's optimum setting for the most rewarding experience is.... Off
Football (soccer)is a blast though, you can sing along to the rude chants when your plugged into a good sound system.
There is something about tv's I find curiously offensive. I fantasise about not having one at all.
I find when downton abbey is on the tv's optimum setting for the most rewarding experience is.... Off
Football (soccer)is a blast though, you can sing along to the rude chants when your plugged into a good sound system.
There is something about tv's I find curiously offensive. I fantasise about not having one at all.
Combined, only so much space in the house... I have several other systems both stereo and HT but my main system does double duty just fine for me. All Magnepan for LCR, surrounds, and rears; a quartet of Rythmik F12's does subwoofer duty. Between Work and Life I rarely listen to music anymore. I did rip all my CDs to a NAS and set up a SONOS network with a Connect to make it easier to play tunes. TT is still in storage, along with my last 300 or so records (from my original 3000+ collection).
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 942
I know people who are very into multichannel hi-res audio music...Hybrid SACDs...Kal and John (PianoMan)...Classical music forum section for John.
And on SACD there is no picture. I have a fair collection of SACDs, few DVD Audios, and few Blu-ray Audios...all without picture and most in multichannel.
My main rig plays dual roles; Multichannel Music without pictures and with pictures...TV display...for my collection of music concert shows on Blu-ray, DVD.
My multichannel setup is first for music...sound. ...Second for movies...sound.
I'm going to confess this @ my age today: If I play a multichannel hi-res audio show of a music concert with moving pictures on stage (eg.; Metallica - Through the Never, or Roger Waters - The Wall, or Roy Orbison - Black & White Night, or Jeff Beck - Live @ Ronnie Scott's...and few more hundreds) from a Blu-ray Video (DVD Video); I feel immersed in the music with the live performance happening on stage, from both my ears and eyes...aural and visual.
For multichannel hi-res music without a picture on the discs (SACD, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio), the TV display is simply turned off. Then it's an aural experience with my own imagination painting the pictures in my brain.
Is one better than the other, between pictures on my screen and the ones I'm painting myself in my brain? ...It depends.
But I like them both, for both provide for the senses.
When I go to a live music concert show I never close my eyes; there are musicians and singers on stage...so I look. ...Unless, when I was much much younger, took too much acid. ;-) ...Mostly Rock concert music shows, and it happened very very rarely. But I just wanted to mention it anyway, to be perfectly correct.
But yes, even with Classical live music I look @ the musicians, the Opera singers, the conductor.
♦ A Blu-ray like from Roger Waters - The Wall, you definitely want to look @ the animation on the wall; it's all part of the music show, and what a show!
And on SACD there is no picture. I have a fair collection of SACDs, few DVD Audios, and few Blu-ray Audios...all without picture and most in multichannel.
My main rig plays dual roles; Multichannel Music without pictures and with pictures...TV display...for my collection of music concert shows on Blu-ray, DVD.
My multichannel setup is first for music...sound. ...Second for movies...sound.
I'm going to confess this @ my age today: If I play a multichannel hi-res audio show of a music concert with moving pictures on stage (eg.; Metallica - Through the Never, or Roger Waters - The Wall, or Roy Orbison - Black & White Night, or Jeff Beck - Live @ Ronnie Scott's...and few more hundreds) from a Blu-ray Video (DVD Video); I feel immersed in the music with the live performance happening on stage, from both my ears and eyes...aural and visual.
For multichannel hi-res music without a picture on the discs (SACD, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio), the TV display is simply turned off. Then it's an aural experience with my own imagination painting the pictures in my brain.
Is one better than the other, between pictures on my screen and the ones I'm painting myself in my brain? ...It depends.
But I like them both, for both provide for the senses.
When I go to a live music concert show I never close my eyes; there are musicians and singers on stage...so I look. ...Unless, when I was much much younger, took too much acid. ;-) ...Mostly Rock concert music shows, and it happened very very rarely. But I just wanted to mention it anyway, to be perfectly correct.
But yes, even with Classical live music I look @ the musicians, the Opera singers, the conductor.
♦ A Blu-ray like from Roger Waters - The Wall, you definitely want to look @ the animation on the wall; it's all part of the music show, and what a show!
Last edited:
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 942
But that's not all...soon those Music video concert shows will start appearing on UHD Blu-ray (4K) and with Dolby Atmos or dts:X and Auro-3D (twelve channels).
But that's not all...some Blu-rays are in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos...for the full immersive audio and picture...like Metallica - Through the Never.
But that's not all...many 3D Blu-ray movies have an excellent music score and in hi-res multich. audio (DTS-HD MA & Dolby TrueHD 7.1).
Multichannel hi-res music wasn't invented with laws that interdict the moving pictures accompanying the music.
We all have a life, I have a humble stereo music system in my bedroom, for stereo CDs and SACDs and the radio.
Some people have a magnificent hi-fi two-channel stereo sound system in their 2-channel music listening room; I don't have that, a separate stereo hi-end class rig with a hi-end turntable. It's missing in my life...other things are missing too. But, some of my best friends are . . . the hi-end stereo analog people.
Multichannel ♫ music well recorded is invigorating. Ask me, or John, or Kal.
Kal by the way is one of my favorite audio/music writers, and that goes back to the days when he just started. Today he's a multichannel music man for sure, with realistic taste...no chewing pink gum here.
But that's not all...some Blu-rays are in 3D, and with Dolby Atmos...for the full immersive audio and picture...like Metallica - Through the Never.
But that's not all...many 3D Blu-ray movies have an excellent music score and in hi-res multich. audio (DTS-HD MA & Dolby TrueHD 7.1).
Multichannel hi-res music wasn't invented with laws that interdict the moving pictures accompanying the music.
We all have a life, I have a humble stereo music system in my bedroom, for stereo CDs and SACDs and the radio.
Some people have a magnificent hi-fi two-channel stereo sound system in their 2-channel music listening room; I don't have that, a separate stereo hi-end class rig with a hi-end turntable. It's missing in my life...other things are missing too. But, some of my best friends are . . . the hi-end stereo analog people.
Multichannel ♫ music well recorded is invigorating. Ask me, or John, or Kal.
Kal by the way is one of my favorite audio/music writers, and that goes back to the days when he just started. Today he's a multichannel music man for sure, with realistic taste...no chewing pink gum here.
I used to maintain totally separate systems but after downsizing my home after retirement I folded into one multi channel system. Now I find myself more and more using some sort of multi channel processing with my stereo sources than a direct pure AVR setting.
I do still have capability of just unplugging the DAC from the AVR and into a stand alone stereo amp connected to the L &R fronts. Find myself rarely doing so any more.
I do still have capability of just unplugging the DAC from the AVR and into a stand alone stereo amp connected to the L &R fronts. Find myself rarely doing so any more.
Some variation on this, for me...
Some folks wouldn't like the gear between the speakers, I don't find it to cause a problem.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
I know people who are very into multichannel hi-res audio music...Hybrid SACDs...Kal and John (PianoMan)...Classical music forum section for John.
And on SACD there is no picture. I have a fair collection of SACDs, few DVD Audios, and few Blu-ray Audios...all without picture and most in multichannel.
My main rig plays dual roles; Multichannel Music without pictures and with pictures...TV display...for my collection of music concert shows on Blu-ray, DVD.
My multichannel setup is first for music...sound. ...Second for movies...sound.
I'm going to confess this @ my age today: If I play a multichannel hi-res audio show of a music concert with moving pictures on stage (eg.; Metallica - Through the Never, or Roger Waters - The Wall, or Roy Orbison - Black & White Night, or Jeff Beck - Live @ Ronnie Scott's...and few more hundreds) from a Blu-ray Video (DVD Video); I feel immersed in the music with the live performance happening on stage, from both my ears and eyes...aural and visual.
For multichannel hi-res music without a picture on the discs (SACD, DVD Audio, Blu-ray Audio), the TV display is simply turned off. Then it's an aural experience with my own imagination painting the pictures in my brain.
Is one better than the other, between pictures on my screen and the ones I'm painting myself in my brain? ...It depends.
But I like them both, for both provide for the senses.
When I go to a live music concert show I never close my eyes; there are musicians and singers on stage...so I look. ...Unless, when I was much much younger, took too much acid. ;-) ...Mostly Rock concert music shows, and it happened very very rarely. But I just wanted to mention it anyway, to be perfectly correct.
But yes, even with Classical live music I look @ the musicians, the Opera singers, the conductor.
♦ A Blu-ray like from Roger Waters - The Wall, you definitely want to look @ the animation on the wall; it's all part of the music show, and what a show!
I think, as is obvious, this whole thread is far less about objective science than most of the forum. We are dealing with much greater subjectivity about personal preferences here.
I agree, Northsky, about your experiences with music with/without video. I also find the combined audio/video experience much more immersive, sensually and emotionally than audio only. In that sense, it is more similar to the live concert experience, although the video camera angles are quite different from and do not attempt to duplicate what we see live. There are many reasons why that must be so.
I also find the video + audio distracts your senses from the audio in terms of quality assessments. The audio need not be quite as "good" when combined with video to still have a quality immersive experience.
However, much as I have really loved many classical concerts, operas and ballets in high quality video + audio, I find that I do not want to go back and rewatch the same Blu-ray video production as much as I might wish to relisten to an audio only recording. Seeing the same camera angles, the same close ups, etc. again becomes boring much more easily than just the music alone + your imagination. I often just have to turn the video off after a while if I want to reexperience that same performance.
But, like you with The Wall, I do find myself always wanting the video on with opera. I am steeped in live opera performance, and, to me, for the multimedia concept of opera - music, stage action, story line, libretto, etc. - I want all those things delighting my senses much as I experience them live.
It's funny as I find the opposite, much like reading a book vs watching the film I prefer just music. Letting my mind do the rest. For me it's far more immersive this way round the added picture being a distraction.
Subjective is fine as long as it does not pretend to be anything else.
Subjective is fine as long as it does not pretend to be anything else.
Video takes a lot more of my Personal CPU than music if trying to multi-task.
I can do most anything and listen to music except listen to more music.
I can do most anything and listen to music except listen to more music.
Similar threads
