Again, what makes you thnink bit-perfectness is impossible with HDMI?
Dolby and DTS raw bitstreams require bit-perfect transmission to work. And they work over HDMI.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Multichannel System for Music - Standards, Setup, Thoughts, etc.
- Thread starter Fitzcaraldo215
- Start date
Again, what makes you thnink bit-perfectness is impossible with HDMI?
Dolby and DTS raw bitstreams require bit-perfect transmission to work. And they work over HDMI.
I used this word as a synonym for audiophile ambitions. But, yes, may be I am seeing this wrongly and this is the way to go: Interleave Audio in the Video stream.
It does work better than you regard it.
I use Strawberry server in Linux to deliever the data stream bit perfect directly to alsa. That feeds to my nVidia GP108 audio/video sound card. Output is over HDMI to my Marantz AV7703 which reports receiving the correct datarate of the source file. I can't see where is the issue with HDMI?
Earlier in this thread, there was some discussion of Auro-3D. That motivated me to replace my receiver with one that had this capability. Initially, I was disappointed, finding it inferior to the basic Multi Channel Stereo setting on my Denon X4500H. Granted, I played around a lot with the volume levels of the various speaker pairs in Multi Channel mode, making sure that the sound was mostly coming from in front of me, less to the surrounds (but enough to give a wide soundstage), and even less to the surround backs and height speakers. But no amount of tinkering with the parameters of Auro-3D resulted in anything pleasant.
However, my initial foray into height speakers didn't work out so great for Atmos, either. I've since replaced them with speakers that are a much better timbre match to my base layer. So I decided to try Auro-3D again, and this time am MUCH happier! It's evident that the creators of Auro-3D have a similar goal in placing the musicians in front of the listener, though certainly utilizing the surrounds to produce a wide soundstage, similar to what I was doing with my Multi Channel volume settings. But their use of reverb to simulate a reasonably large performance venue is the difference I was looking for and could never have achieved on my own with simple level settings.
Interestingly, previous to Auro-3D, my setup seemed to somehow "suck out" much of the reverb added in the mixing/mastering process. I know I've heard this reverb (for the same recordings) on other systems and on headphones, but somehow couldn't hear it on my own. I'm not sure if it's the acoustics of my room, my aging hearing, or some combination thereof, but all of my music sounded very much like it was recorded in an anechoic studio, which was really bugging me, given how much money I've spent on it. (Yes, I know most music IS recorded in a more or less anechoic studio, but mixers are very careful to add sufficient reverb to make the final effect seem like a much more natural setting.) Auro-3D allows me to restore the level of reverb I remember hearing in my favorite recordings, giving me the missing piece that had been frustrating me.
Something I didn't anticipate: the reverb also seems to help me better "place" performers in the soundstage. I would have thought that reverb would have added to the problem of instruments seeming to come from a big jumbled mass of sound with no distinct locations. But instead, it's almost like the reverb is adding "location clues" for my brain. Anyone else experience this?
A big thanks to the awesome posters in this thread, who gave me a lot of clues on how to achieve improved performance without breaking the bank!
However, my initial foray into height speakers didn't work out so great for Atmos, either. I've since replaced them with speakers that are a much better timbre match to my base layer. So I decided to try Auro-3D again, and this time am MUCH happier! It's evident that the creators of Auro-3D have a similar goal in placing the musicians in front of the listener, though certainly utilizing the surrounds to produce a wide soundstage, similar to what I was doing with my Multi Channel volume settings. But their use of reverb to simulate a reasonably large performance venue is the difference I was looking for and could never have achieved on my own with simple level settings.
Interestingly, previous to Auro-3D, my setup seemed to somehow "suck out" much of the reverb added in the mixing/mastering process. I know I've heard this reverb (for the same recordings) on other systems and on headphones, but somehow couldn't hear it on my own. I'm not sure if it's the acoustics of my room, my aging hearing, or some combination thereof, but all of my music sounded very much like it was recorded in an anechoic studio, which was really bugging me, given how much money I've spent on it. (Yes, I know most music IS recorded in a more or less anechoic studio, but mixers are very careful to add sufficient reverb to make the final effect seem like a much more natural setting.) Auro-3D allows me to restore the level of reverb I remember hearing in my favorite recordings, giving me the missing piece that had been frustrating me.
Something I didn't anticipate: the reverb also seems to help me better "place" performers in the soundstage. I would have thought that reverb would have added to the problem of instruments seeming to come from a big jumbled mass of sound with no distinct locations. But instead, it's almost like the reverb is adding "location clues" for my brain. Anyone else experience this?
A big thanks to the awesome posters in this thread, who gave me a lot of clues on how to achieve improved performance without breaking the bank!
Last edited:
Glad you like it. My experience was similar, Ipaid the $199 to upgrade my Marantz and at first I wasn't happy with it. I didn't change anything but after paying closer attention to the front soundstage I learned to prefer it. With stereo sources it does less damage to the front than DD or DTS-X..
'Multi Channel Stereo" is a kinda primitive form of 'surround' synthesis. AFAICT it simply maps the front LR to the back LR.
For something approximating discrete surround mixing, use one of the upmixers: Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Surround, DTS Neo, etc. Or Auro 3D.
Works good for parties, filling the whole room with sound.
When I turned down the heights and rears, Multi-Channel's benefit was really just widening the soundstage, which I very much liked. But it still felt like the performers were almost uncomfortably close. If I left Multi-Channel at the original volume levels, it felt like I was sitting in the middle of the world's biggest set of headphones, with me right in the middle of the band. That was a very artificial experience.
Once I got my Atmos system working well, I quickly fell in love with Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague. The band was in front of me, at a natural distance, but there was plenty of additional sound to give me a sense of being in the big setting of the concert. Now, Auro-3D gives me that same sense with all my music (though with a silent audience, of course.
)I tried the other up mixers on your list and never liked any of the others nearly as much as Auro-3D. And even Auro required a good bit of fine-tuning to get it right for my space.
K&M has recently released a couple of products that seem very useful. One is the 26706 base plate, which has new mounting points other than the center for a rod. This also allows multiple rods on the same base. The other is the 24623 rod which reaches 2400mm or ~94.5" in height, which should be plenty for any setup. The one caveat is that the minimum mounting height with a 19780 adapter is 1270mm according to K&M support. Which is too high for front speakers, but OK for surrounds, I think. The lower rod diameter is 42mm so to mount anything to it, you would need a different clamp.
I think I'm going to go with 26706 + 24623 + 19780 for surrounds. I really don't want tripod bases for aesthetic reasons.
I was just made aware that Stereophile had recently reprinted J. Gordon Holts last article for them. He left the mag since his passion had shifted to multich reproduction and he couldn't get the powers there on board with him.
"Editor's Note: Published in 1998, this was the final review written by Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt in the 37 years he was associated with the magazine. In it he expounds on his passion for experiencing recorded music in surround sound. Our continuing focus on two-channel products and recordings was one of the reasons Gordon eventually resigned, in August 1999.—John Atkinson"
https://www.stereophile.com/content/rocktron-cs-525-circle-surround-decoder
This started me thinking, what a shame Gordon couldn't have had more influence on the editorial direction of Stereophile.
Imagine what things might be like today if Stereophile had promoted the factual superiority of multich music instead of the ridiculous promotion of vinyl they have pursued for the last 2 decades.
"Editor's Note: Published in 1998, this was the final review written by Stereophile's founder, the late J. Gordon Holt in the 37 years he was associated with the magazine. In it he expounds on his passion for experiencing recorded music in surround sound. Our continuing focus on two-channel products and recordings was one of the reasons Gordon eventually resigned, in August 1999.—John Atkinson"
https://www.stereophile.com/content/rocktron-cs-525-circle-surround-decoder
This started me thinking, what a shame Gordon couldn't have had more influence on the editorial direction of Stereophile.
Imagine what things might be like today if Stereophile had promoted the factual superiority of multich music instead of the ridiculous promotion of vinyl they have pursued for the last 2 decades.
It’s all about the $$$. Gordon never understood (or didn’t care as much) about what it took to create financial value in a market segment where their brand mattered. Foolish fellow cared more about getting great sound and the actual interests of consumers.
ZeDestructor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 120
- Likes
- 68
Different market. And a well-served one. Stereophile’s niche is the old fart who wants magic cables and $10,000 phono cartridges. They have zero interest in multichannel or anything actually useful.
I am confident to say that the Dolby Atmos is the best available format for audio.
Immersive is another dimension, it is a huge step.
Immersive setup at home is a pain in the ass and costs are pretty high, especially if you want to go by the book with exactly the same 11 speakers all-over, but the result is astonishing. A dedicated room fully treated is the best starting point.
Auro 3D is probably the best possible way to enjoy 2-channel recordings, or even SACD's.
IMHO...
PS. Viva Trinnov audio!
Immersive is another dimension, it is a huge step.
Immersive setup at home is a pain in the ass and costs are pretty high, especially if you want to go by the book with exactly the same 11 speakers all-over, but the result is astonishing. A dedicated room fully treated is the best starting point.
Auro 3D is probably the best possible way to enjoy 2-channel recordings, or even SACD's.
IMHO...
PS. Viva Trinnov audio!
There is a not insignificant element of snobbishness in high end audio. Hence the coining of terms like "midfi" for stereo equipment that isn't expensive or exclusive enough. Multichannel is associated with home theater and therefore not "real hi-fi". Multichannel music is looked down on by scores of people that have never heard a decent surround setup. On a contrarian note, I have heard some stunning multichannel pop music while watching TV even with the compression. It seems like some of the TV sound techs are better at mixing for multichannel than many of the people working in music. I was watching "The Blacklist" some time back and the episode contained a scene wherein Gordon Lightfoot's "Sundown" was playing on a turntable. Well it wasn't really. I cranked it up and it was stunning. I didn't own the CD so I went and bought a download. Good, but not as good.
I don't know of an audio showroom that does multichannel except for HT.
A proper sound field reproduction with two speakers is not possible. Any change in equipment, color of the inter-connectors, or even placement of the components will be perceived as audiophile improvement. That leads to advised systems with costs of >>5k$ per channel. The fact, that spreading the sound field over many speaker lessens the burden on each channel is overlooked. The said investment would dramatically shrink the magazin’s audience when spread over 5 to 8 channels.
Hi-end stereo has navigated itself into a dead-end.
Chicken and Egg. Without promotion by both the media and the dealers you don't create the consumer interest. If no one at Stereophile, etc; had paid any continued interest in vinyl past around 1990 it would have died the death that was already playing out. I don't know why they chose the promotion of vinyl over multich as a way to stir spending in the HiFi world? Maybe it was older age demographic of the HighEnd market, I don't know.
We all understand the space, WAF and cost issues faced by multich rigs, but most of the same can be said for the HiEnd stereo market. Very few of the Stereophile readers worry over any of that, their income and passion allows them freedom from such factors.
Your "In The Round" column was our last real hope there and now sadly that has ended. The only real support the market gets is self-generated thru a couple dedicated websites. I may be deluded but I have been sensing an upturn in mch interest, only time will tell if it can be revived by the dedicate users alone.
I do not see that upturn at least for jazz, but I have hope that Mch streaming will come. I do not understand why Qello only streams 2ch even for material where Mch is available. Streaming Mch music video would be such an easy start. What a waste.Chicken and Egg. Without promotion by both the media and the dealers you don't create the consumer interest. If no one at Stereophile, etc; had paid any continued interest in vinyl past around 1990 it would have died the death that was already playing out. I don't know why they chose the promotion of vinyl over multich as a way to stir spending in the HiFi world? Maybe it was older age demographic of the HighEnd market, I don't know.
We all understand the space, WAF and cost issues faced by multich rigs, but most of the same can be said for the HiEnd stereo market. Very few of the Stereophile readers worry over any of that, their income and passion allows them freedom from such factors.
Your "In The Round" column was our last real hope there and now sadly that has ended. The only real support the market gets is self-generated thru a couple dedicated websites. I may be deluded but I have been sensing an upturn in mch interest, only time will tell if it can be revived by the dedicate users alone.
I own almost every Mch Jazz one can buy. I also own almost every jazz direct-to-disc recording. History does repeat itself...