Multichannel System for Music - Standards, Setup, Thoughts, etc.

[NorthSky]

I used a high end Yamaha receiver in the past to experiment with surround sound.
Each music recording I found necessitated different parameter adjustments for optimal satisfying listening results. Also, the speakers positioning was playing a big role in the overall equation, and their orientation...sound dispersion in relation to the main listener head. It was a constant challenge, and sometimes even between songs from the same compact disc.

Today it's easier to simply play the surround mixes done by the pros. The older we get our time is limited. Music enjoyment is from listening with lesser thinkering, I think.

I like everything in surround...classical, jazz, psychedelic rock, new age, alternative, electronica, rock&roll, folk, international, organ, Hawaiian and calypso.
Time is a precious commodity best to not waste. So why not be surrounded in sounds of music.

That Lexicon SSP should be fun to play with.
And today's surround processor chips in our receivers can decode a multitude of codecs...Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro-3D, plus they each have their own music up-mixer...Dolby Surround for music, DTS Neural:X for music, and Auro-Matic for 3D music.
Denon and Marantz higher end receivers offer Auro-3D.

Yamaha higher end receivers and pre/pros are incredible in their computing processing and zillion of parameters for surround music sound and with all their professional world recording venues inside their chips.
Them too you can get for just few hundred dollars on eBay and second hand audio stores, like Lexicon.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I used a high end Yamaha receiver in the past to experiment with surround sound.
Each music recording I found necessitated different parameter adjustments for optimal satisfying listening results. Also, the speakers positioning was playing a big role in the overall equation, and their orientation...sound dispersion in relation to the main listener head. It was a constant challenge, and sometimes even between songs from the same compact disc.

Today it's easier to simply play the surround mixes done by the pros. The older we get our time is limited. Music enjoyment is from listening with lesser thinkering, I think.

I like everything in surround...classical, jazz, psychedelic rock, new age, alternative, electronica, rock&roll, folk, international, organ, Hawaiian and calypso.
Time is a precious commodity best to not waste. So why not be surrounded in sounds of music.

That Lexicon SSP should be fun to play with.
And today's surround processor chips in our receivers can decode a multitude of codecs...Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, Auro-3D, plus they each have their own music up-mixer...Dolby Surround for music, DTS Neural:X for music, and Auro-Matic for 3D music.
Denon and Marantz higher end receivers offer Auro-3D.

Yamaha higher end receivers and pre/pros are incredible in their computing processing and zillion of parameters for surround music sound and with all their professional world recording venues inside their chips.
Them too you can get for just few hundred dollars on eBay and second hand audio stores, like Lexicon.

I don't disagree with what you said. But, Bob, you didn't mention how fantastic Country & Western are in Mch!

Just kidding, of course.

 

[NorthSky]

I like Vince Gill, Emmylou Harris, Johnny Cash, Rosanna Cash, Lyle Lovett, Neil Young, Elvis Costello, Elvis, Nancy Griffith, Roy Orbison, Lucinda Williams, Delbert McClinton, Bap Kennedy, Steve Earle, Alison Krauss, Buddy and Julie Miller, Willie Nelson, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Ron Sexsmith, Jules Shear, David Gray, Nick Drake, Steve Forbert, Loretta Lynn, Stacey Earle, Bela Fleck, Kelly Joe Phelps, Harry Manx, Jorma Kaukonen, Keb' Mo', Eleanor McEvoy, Allison Moorer, Mary Gauthier, The Chieftains, Eva Cassidy, Shelby Lynne, Kasey Chambers, Bob Dylan.

I got all their albums and much much more country music artists.

But I prefer Classical music, which I've been listening for the last few hours, and Jazz, and Blues. I'm also big on electronica.

I don't have a vast physical music library, less than ten thousands.
But I do have the r.a.d.i.o., and also the internet, and all that jazz.

Right now I am listening to opera, soprano female voice, with the full orchestra.
...In Stereo.

 

[Guermantes]

Yes, the purist in me prefers classical recordings that are actually recorded as acoustic MCh and it is also the cheapest and easiest to implement (as NorthSky has said, "less tinkering"). But I was interested in what tech was out there for domestic upmixing. It seems the Lexicon and Yamaha processors are well respected.

I've found a white paper on Logic7: https://lexicon.com/tl_files/catalo...34590438521333914_Logic7 White Paper 2006.pdf

The Sony unit I posted is simply a reverberation unit but it is a convolution reverb, that is it uses impulses that have been recorded in particular halls. I have used convolution reverbs in software plug-ins and they are quite natural sounding though it is difficult to do an A-B comparison with the real hall to check for authenticity! So I wondered if impulse response-based processing was now in home theatre products.

 

[hvbias]

Big names aside, I don't find the "batting average" for "exceptional" musical performances in Mch to be any worse than in my CD or LP collections, each also numbering in the thousands. And, I have found the critiques of music, performance and Mch sound to be a quite useful and reliable guide at:

Well yes if we're going purely by percentage (batting average) CD would fare worse as there is a lot of garbage released. Now using numbers the number of exceptional performances on CD would be well into the five figure range. That is not including LP since it's not a high fidelity format.

I am definitely not one of those people that only think big names = great performance. Some of my favorites are from recording artists that would not be well known.

I do think baroque (particularly HIP) is much better these days as the number (and quality) of HIP specialists is better than in the LP only era. And there are some fantastic baroque surround releases. But the finest JS Bach Cantata cycle I have heard is Gardiner's (brimming with life and vitality)... stereo only. That is desert island material for me!

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Well yes if we're going purely by percentage (batting average) CD would fare worse as there is a lot of garbage released. Now using numbers the number of exceptional performances on CD would be well into the five figure range. That is not including LP since it's not a high fidelity format.

I am definitely not one of those people that only think big names = great performance. Some of my favorites are from recording artists that would not be well known.

I do think baroque (particularly HIP) is much better these days as the number (and quality) of HIP specialists is better than in the LP only era. And there are some fantastic baroque surround releases. But the finest JS Bach Cantata cycle I have heard is Gardiner's (brimming with life and vitality)... stereo only. That is desert island material for me!

Yes, I meant percentage, as in exceptional divided by total purchases. No question that in total numbers, CD hugely outpaces Mch in numbers, though I disagree about percentage for exceptional. Likely, therefore, exceptional performance CDs dwarf exceptional performance Mch releases in total numbers, but also so do ho hum clunkers. So, if you like CD sound, you will find quite a few admirable performances there. I no longer like it when I can have what I deem to be much superior sound in discretely recorded hirez Mch.

OK, we can further argue that so and so on CD is more exceptional than what's his/her name on SACD Mch, composition by composition. But, it's just arbitrary personal taste. By all means, enjoy what you like best.

I have thousands of LPs, thousands of CDs, thousands of hirez, thousands of Mch, audio and video. I feel no loss of exceptional performances in Mch, which has dominated my listening for a decade.

 

[Chuck Gerlach]

All of my ear level speakers have the same midrange and tweeter drivers. I have experimented with all kinds of ways to listen to my 2 channel music but using most of my available channels. Dolby (DSU) doesn't work nor does DTS:Neural-X. But a modified Auro does work (mostly). I first set all speakers to large except the L + R otherwise the bass from the L+R gets routed to all other speakers (via bass management) and sounds nothing like it should - way to much bass. I can either set a high pass filter on those speakers and/or design a target curve that solves the same problem. As you have probably determined, none of my speakers are full range.

While most mid to low end processors don't have these two options (AuroMatic Preset and AuroMatic Strength), both the Trinnov and Datasat do. By setting the AuroMatic Preset to "small" the center image is scaled appropriately, otherwise, for example, a voice become too large. Even more critical than that is the "strength" slider. While I am not 100% sure, it appears to just increase the level of all of the non L+R speakers, which effectively adds more "spaciousness" to the sound scape. I set this to max and then keep reducing until all of the non L+R speakers are no longer audible. At a setting of "1" it becomes, for all practical purposes, a stereo image. At the max, it is unlistenable (to my ears). Your setting will depend on your room size and how close you are to your surround speakers (and your personal preferences). In my room, 9 works really well, but on some recording, I can go to 10 - and if I just want to play around, move it up to 11.

Once you have selected your "strength" setting, click the "AuroMatic Bypass" option and you can instantly hear the soundstage collapse to the front of the room. This also allows me to change the strength setting until the differences between 2 channel and AuroMatic are subtle but meaningful. Each person will have their own definition of what "subtle but meaningful" is. And since I have height speakers included (6 installed, but Auro only uses 4), the created "space" becomes more 3 dimensional.

This approach seems to work on about 95% of my music, and certainly, some better than others. Large choral music certainly benefits from it (more 3 dimensional sound stage) but dry studio recordings, not so much.

I also have a lot of DVD-A music that is really fun to listen to but way too exaggerated.

Since I have been able to fine tune this approach to my satisfaction, I no longer listen to JUST 2 channels.

FWIW, when I tried this on my Marantz processor that did not have these two options, AuroMatic was no better than DSU or DTS:Neural-X

 

[Floyd Toole]

All of my ear level speakers have the same midrange and tweeter drivers. I have experimented with all kinds of ways to listen to my 2 channel music but using most of my available channels. Dolby (DSU) doesn't work nor does DTS:Neural-X. But a modified Auro does work (mostly). I first set all speakers to large except the L + R otherwise the bass from the L+R gets routed to all other speakers (via bass management) and sounds nothing like it should - way to much bass. I can either set a high pass filter on those speakers and/or design a target curve that solves the same problem. As you have probably determined, none of my speakers are full range.

While most mid to low end processors don't have these two options (AuroMatic Preset and AuroMatic Strength), both the Trinnov and Datasat do. By setting the AuroMatic Preset to "small" the center image is scaled appropriately, otherwise, for example, a voice become too large. Even more critical than that is the "strength" slider. While I am not 100% sure, it appears to just increase the level of all of the non L+R speakers, which effectively adds more "spaciousness" to the sound scape. I set this to max and then keep reducing until all of the non L+R speakers are no longer audible. At a setting of "1" it becomes, for all practical purposes, a stereo image. At the max, it is unlistenable (to my ears). Your setting will depend on your room size and how close you are to your surround speakers (and your personal preferences). In my room, 9 works really well, but on some recording, I can go to 10 - and if I just want to play around, move it up to 11.

Once you have selected your "strength" setting, click the "AuroMatic Bypass" option and you can instantly hear the soundstage collapse to the front of the room. This also allows me to change the strength setting until the differences between 2 channel and AuroMatic are subtle but meaningful. Each person will have their own definition of what "subtle but meaningful" is. And since I have height speakers included (6 installed, but Auro only uses 4), the created "space" becomes more 3 dimensional.

This approach seems to work on about 95% of my music, and certainly, some better than others. Large choral music certainly benefits from it (more 3 dimensional sound stage) but dry studio recordings, not so much.

I also have a lot of DVD-A music that is really fun to listen to but way too exaggerated.

Since I have been able to fine tune this approach to my satisfaction, I no longer listen to JUST 2 channels.

FWIW, when I tried this on my Marantz processor that did not have these two options, AuroMatic was no better than DSU or DTS:Neural-X

View attachment 13255

Very interesting and encouraging. I have heard good things from others about the Auro3D upmix capabilities. My 9.4.6 system is coming together, and I look forward to replicating your experiences with my JBL Synthesis/Trinnov SDP75/24 processor, which right now is sitting on a counter merely looking impressive.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I have heard discretely recorded Auro with music. I have not heard AuroMatic upscaling from stereo or 2D Mch discrete sources, but I also have heard very good things about it. I also believe that Auro is inherently a better technology in many ways than Atmos or DTS for music, and indeed Auro's roots are in music production, but also subsequently adapted to cinema. Dolby and DTS are big time household words in Mch cinema and video, however. Auro may therefore have a tough time competing. But, they are not all alike in their pursuit of the final height dimension for audio.

Personally, I learned in my computer techie days to avoid being an early adopter. So, I am biding my time, as I think it is still early in the 3D audio technology lifecycle to invest in it, or in a specific implementation. But, I think 3D audio, including height, is the obvious final frontier in recreating a maximally faithful sonic image in home playback.

If discretely recorded 2D Mch weren't so gosh darned satisfying to me and so abundant in my copious collection, I might be more inclined to jump into 3D audIo much sooner. Also, it is still my sense that diminishing returns prevail. Zero-D mono to 1D stereo to 2D Mch to 3D Immersive has exhibited this, I find. But, in the very mature consumer audio arena with ever greater and more miniscule measured and perceptable sonic improvements approaching the asymptote of what is possible, where else can one look for the ultimate incremental improvements that deliver a better replication at home of live performance?

Dr. Toole, I am very interested in your reactions as you get deeper into this.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I have tried both Auro and Auro-Matic but, so far, have not adopted either. First, there is too little interesting music (almost none) available in Auro so far. Second, while I thought that Auro-Matic did a better job than the dts/Dolby alternatives at the time, I agree with Carl that "If discretely recorded 2D Mch weren't so gosh darned satisfying to me and so abundant in my copious collection, I might be more inclined to jump into 3D audIo much sooner."

 

[Floyd Toole]

I have heard discretely recorded Auro with music. I have not heard AuroMatic upscaling from stereo or 2D Mch discrete sources, but I also have heard very good things about it. I also believe that Auro is inherently a better technology in many ways than Atmos or DTS for music, and indeed Auro's roots are in music production, but also subsequently adapted to cinema. Dolby and DTS are big time household words in Mch cinema and video, however. Auro may therefore have a tough time competing. But, they are not all alike in their pursuit of the final height dimension for audio.

Personally, I learned in my computer techie days to avoid being an early adopter. So, I am biding my time, as I think it is still early in the 3D audio technology lifecycle to invest in it, or in a specific implementation. But, I think 3D audio, including height, is the obvious final frontier in recreating a maximally faithful sonic image in home playback.

If discretely recorded 2D Mch weren't so gosh darned satisfying to me and so abundant in my copious collection, I might be more inclined to jump into 3D audIo much sooner. Also, it is still my sense that diminishing returns prevail. Zero-D mono to 1D stereo to 2D Mch to 3D Immersive has exhibited this, I find. But, in the very mature consumer audio arena with ever greater and more miniscule measured and perceptable sonic improvements approaching the asymptote of what is possible, where else can one look for the ultimate incremental improvements that deliver a better replication at home of live performance?

Dr. Toole, I am very interested in your reactions as you get deeper into this.

I too look forward to the experiences. However, in my travels immersive systems have often been - in my terms - significantly compromised by less than exemplary loudspeakers in many of the locations, or listening too far off axis with decent loudspeakers. Whatever might have been possible in an "ideal" situation becomes less impressive, and possibly misguided opinions accumulate. Just in 5.1 and 7.1 systems the differences when equivalent loudspeakers are used in all locations is not subtle - in my experience/opinion. It can be so good that I wonder how much better it can be with elevation loudspeakers - for music at least. However, as I have said previously (somewhere) the most impressive 3D musical experience I can remember, was an Auro3D demo by the inventor Wilfried van Baelen, who made the recordings. As with many things in audio, GIGO applies, but in my opinion, this was an impressive audio experience - and the spatial illusion was maintained as I walked around the room; no "sweet spot". If it works once it can be replicated. In my present upgrade I am attempting to deliver uncompromised on-axis sound to the prime location from all (highly respectable) loudspeakers. We'll see . . . but the final satisfaction will depend on the availability of music that appeals to one's taste - a non trivial factor. "Audiophile" recordings are often good recordings of mediocre or uninteresting music performances :-(. This is reason enough for me to pursue the multichannel upmix process of enhancing existing stereo recordings.

 

[Ron Party]

"Audiophile" recordings are often good recordings of mediocre or uninteresting music performances :-(. This is reason enough for me to pursue the multichannel upmix process of enhancing existing stereo recordings.

So, so true, and so, so sad. I just topped 16,000 albums on my music server and the vast majority of them contain good to phenomenal music (IMO) but are mediocre in sound quality. Still, I'd rather listen to these than audiophile grade yawners.

 

[cjfrbw]

I have been using surrounds for music since 1978. Advent Soundspace Control, all the way to the present Yamaha mediated 8.4 for music.

The system can be trimmed from two channel without crossover using the main Epsilon bass panels full range (yes, they play great that way) all the way up to the full 8.4 surround system (with the main speakers in four way active crossover), and there are times when I listen to all variations in between.

I've gotten tired of explaining surround/multi channel to people because they just are going to believe what they want to believe about two channel sound, so I seldom enter these discussions.

 

[Chuck Gerlach]

A summary of my diddling with AuroMatic: "Less is more".

While increasing the "strength" slider was fun, when over done, it was very distracting. One genre that was greatly improved with this process (and maybe a tad more "strength") was most 70's rock music. A lot of it is overly dry and the bass is best defined as "anemic". I have a preset on my Trinnov labeled 70's Rock, that includes a tad more low end So now, when I Iisten to groups like Boston, Chicago, The Doobie Brothers, et al, I am totally transformed to 40 years ago (except when I look in the mirror).

I would love to be able to find and buy great music properly recorded in multiple-channels but not much of that available. I am not suggesting that everyone will like what AuroMatic does. But when I finally figured out that the very best 2 channel system I had ever heard sounded nothing like live music, I gave up my search for (and the attendant increased spending) audio perfection - and turned instead to audio enjoyment. Upsampled 2 channel audio (done well with matching high quality speakers in a fully treated room) provides me more music enjoyment AND, as it turns out (to my ears) more live sound realism.



Clearly YMMV.

 

[Sal1950]

Upsampled 2 channel audio (done well with matching high quality speakers in a fully treated room) provides me more music enjoyment AND, as it turns out (to my ears) more live sound realism.

Agreed. Don't have the resources you do but doing the best I can. Been messing with multch upsampling since the earliest days of the Hafler circuit, etc. and mostly found it benifial if not too intrusive. Very little native multich out there in the rock/blues/c&w genres that compromise 99% of my listening.
I think I'm going to spring for the $199 Auros upgrade of my Marantz AV7703. I'm not overly impressed with the included Dolby Surond or DTS Neural, preferred the Pro Logic II that was in my older 7701 but not an option in 7703..

.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I too look forward to the experiences. However, in my travels immersive systems have often been - in my terms - significantly compromised by less than exemplary loudspeakers in many of the locations, or listening too far off axis with decent loudspeakers. Whatever might have been possible in an "ideal" situation becomes less impressive, and possibly misguided opinions accumulate. Just in 5.1 and 7.1 systems the differences when equivalent loudspeakers are used in all locations is not subtle - in my experience/opinion. It can be so good that I wonder how much better it can be with elevation loudspeakers - for music at least. However, as I have said previously (somewhere) the most impressive 3D musical experience I can remember, was an Auro3D demo by the inventor Wilfried van Baelen, who made the recordings. As with many things in audio, GIGO applies, but in my opinion, this was an impressive audio experience - and the spatial illusion was maintained as I walked around the room; no "sweet spot". If it works once it can be replicated. In my present upgrade I am attempting to deliver uncompromised on-axis sound to the prime location from all (highly respectable) loudspeakers. We'll see . . . but the final satisfaction will depend on the availability of music that appeals to one's taste - a non trivial factor. "Audiophile" recordings are often good recordings of mediocre or uninteresting music performances :-(. This is reason enough for me to pursue the multichannel upmix process of enhancing existing stereo recordings.

I quite agree about "audiophile" recordings and in your other comments.

In case there is some misconstrual about what is available today in discretely recorded 2DMch, let me give a perspective. As collectors of very large libraries of classical music in discrete Mch, both Kal and I know that the catalog of discrete Mch discs offers huge numbers of superb performances and few of the musically uninteresting "audiophile" releases. I will add my good friend, Andy Quint, to the list of those who agree with this assessment. Andy, a former musician, was for years regular classical music reviewer for both The Absolute Sound and Fanfare magazines and a strong Mch music supporter for well over a decade with a similarly large library of classical Mch.

Yes, Mch classical music is a niche which only gained sustainable momentum when numerous engineering teams/labels with both excellent technical credentials and serious dedication to the music saw the potential of Mch SACD about 15 years ago. Mostly, this recording effort was dedicated to the highest musical standards and the most natural musical sound using state of the art recording technology. Some major orchestras also committed heavily to Mch recording on their own dedicated labels, including the Concertgebouw, San Francisco, Boston, LSO, etc. Add to this some superb "2nd tier" ensembles, like the Budapest Festival Orchestra, the Minnesota Orchestra, the Pittsburgh Symphony, the Mariinski, the Atlanta Symphony, the Cincinnati Symphony, the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, and many others, including many less well known period music ensembles. Many distinguished conductors, soloists and chamber ensembles, too many to list, are also well represented.

The point is, while the available discrete Mch catalog is indeed small compared to 35+ years of digital recordings on stereo CD, there is absolutely no lack of fine performances by excellent artists. Obviously, if I insist on, say, Karajan conducting Beethoven, he will not be found in discrete Mch. But, that does not bother me, because (a.) I have grown tired of him, and (b.) there are many other very fulfilling musical choices in superior discrete Mch sound.

As Kal has pointed out, a good recording/reproduction technology needs a critical mass of worthwhile musical releases with some indication that the list will continue to grow sustainably. Many music lovers are not aware of the satisfying depth of what has been and is available in classical discrete Mch. The myth persists that "there is not much there". While that may be true in rock and other genres, classical music lovers like Kal, Andy and myself are not unhappy in the thousands of recordings we each have assembled in discrete Mch, also including concert, opera, etc. videos, BTW.

As for 3D Immersive audio, time will tell. Kal, Andy and I are very satisfied with where we are in 2D discrete Mch. We can patiently wait for now, but interestedly, on 3D and the fulfillment of its sonic potential.

 

[andrew]

Here's what I got on the cheap today, off our local craigslist:

The inspiration came from this thread. Reason I got it is because of Logic 7. It seems like all people who have tried it think that Logic 7 does upmixing from stereo to multichannel much better than any other algorithm. And for me, enriching stereo recordings spatially seems like a worthwhile thing to experiment with. It seems like some of these old Lexicon processors get sold cheaply on the second hand market, because they don't have hdmi, and also require separate amps or active speakers. "Music only" guys like me are probably a small demographic.

For the time being, I will use it with the D&D 8Cs, and add two surround-speakers. No center speaker for now. Will try upmixing, and also see if I can get hold of some discrete multichannel (I don't have a computer connected, so that would have to be physical SACDs). It has a remote with easy option of turning upmixing on and off, so it will be easy to compare. Then I just need to decide for what surrounds to use... They will have to be cheap! Let me know if you have any suggestions, guys.

EDIT: And the idea is exactly to recreate even more the "you are there" feeling, which @Fitzcaraldo215 writes about as one of the virtues of multichannel. For my coming omni setup in the living room the goal is the exact opposite, to recreate a "they are here" feeling. But I'm way too schizofrenic audio- and music-wise to be happy with just one setup.

What, Oivavoi, was the outcome of the exploration of up-sampling stereo to multi-channel and discrete multi-channel? I've been considering this path but, like you, wouldn't be able to set-up a center channel and would have surround speakers that aren't identical to the main front left / right speakers.

 

[Sal1950]

Not sure how Oivavoi will answer but I'll add this. If your only intention is to upsample stereo sources, I believe the use of non-matching rears will be of less importance than if you were looking to get into discreet multi/5 channel reproduction. There are numerous different pieces of software that will extract the rear channel info with various sounding results. Thus there is no real right or wrong to be held against.. I've heard a couple different system that used the Logic 7 based software for rear channel ambiance extraction using non-matching rear speakers and both provided excellent results.
YMMV

 

[gene_stl]

Thank you for starting this thread. I am currently trying to find three speakers that will be able to play well with my stereo speakers. I was very interested in quadraphonic back in the day but didn't pursue it because the program that I saw did not interest me too much though I didn't search that hard. Also the notion of a 40khz carrier in an LP didn't appeal to me, nor did paying for a discrete four track analog tape machine and tapes.
But now the technology should make it easier and more reasonably priced. (I hope)

Has anyone used a patch bay to switch between sources. The Oppo 205 has 7.1 analog outs and so does the Marantz AV7005 preprocessor that came my way to start with. I don't think either of them will accept USB digital MCH inputs and split them out so I may need another digital box.
The Oppo has time compensation built in, the Marantz has time compensation built in (and audyssey) Jriver which I expect to use has time compensation built in , and my Crown CTS series power amps have time compensation (and DSP) built in. It is very confusing to try and figure out how and if they will all play together.

Even though I have been studying Mark Waldreps book (was an excellent buy for me) and have just started Mitch Barnett's book on Acourate a great deal of confusion and uncertainty remains. Nonetheless program sources of MCH are growing. On my first trip to Half Price Books Records and Tapes ( a wonderful chain you should all run there if its in your town) I got very lucky with some DVD As and SACDs. The pile of MCH program is growing rapidly.

I also would ask if the august members of this thread have any recommendations or comments on a NAS since I am just starting that too. I expect to implement Jriver. I am not sure if Jrivers USB or Ethernet MCH outputs can be "eaten" by my Oppo or my SchMarantz and converted to MCH. Will I have to buy yet another expensive box. Has anyone noticed a bottom feeder version of such things.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The Oppo 205 has 7.1 analog outs and so does the Marantz AV7005 preprocessor that came my way to start with. I don't think either of them will accept USB digital MCH inputs and split them out so I may need another digital box.

miniDSP U-DIO8