MQA Discussion

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

"Filling a room" is not an issue; getting the correct surrounding soundstage is logically impossible with 2 channels.

When a live studio recording is multi-miked and multi-tracked etc, it's not really possible to recreate a correct soundstage, regardless of the number of channels available in the replay media.

And most live classical recordings use microphones suspended above the pit, which also makes it logically impossible to recreate what you hear from normal seating, regardless of 2, 4, or 6 channels.

I agree though that multi-channels improves the ability for engineers to create a believable soundstage, but at he same time it also increases the chances of creating something that's less believable than ever, as indeed was the case with early stereo recordings, where there were often 2 individual channels with absolutely nothing in common and zero stage. (Think Beatles Sgt. Peppers etc)


From my POV, mainstream recording engineers are still a long way from perfecting 2 channel recordings, and in many respects their skills have gone backwards over past decades, so I would much rather that the focus was on perfecting 2 channels first before venturing into the far more complex domain of MC.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

When a live studio recording is multi-miked and multi-tracked etc, it's not really possible to recreate a correct soundstage, regardless of the number of channels available in the replay media.

Indeed.

And most live classical recordings use microphones suspended above the pit, which also makes it logically impossible to recreate what you hear from normal seating, regardless of 2, 4, or 6 channels.
I agree though that multi-channels improves the ability for engineers to create a believable soundstage, but at he same time it also increases the chances of creating something that's less believable than ever, as indeed was the case with early stereo recordings, where there were often 2 individual channels with absolutely nothing in common and zero stage. (Think Beatles Sgt. Peppers etc)

So, as with everything else, it is always possible to something poorly. OTOH, it is possible to create plausible representation of what you hear from a normal listening position, although probably not from an orchestra pit.

From my POV, mainstream recording engineers are still a long way from perfecting 2 channel recordings, and in many respects their skills have gone backwards over past decades, so I would much rather that the focus was on perfecting 2 channels first before venturing into the far more complex domain of MC.

I'd rather have them move on than to continue to flog a dead horse.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

I'd rather have them move on than to continue to flog a dead horse.

The horse may be dead but it's still leading the race.

[imprezap2]

Originally Posted by gbaby

Are you and Douglas posting from experience or is this conjecture?

I have listened to dedicated listening/cinema rooms, yes it can be impressive at first, but I much prefer a well set up two channel system.

I agree with the remarks made regarding recording quality, rather have them concentrating to get the best two channel experience.

For me it's not a problem that other's enjoy multichannel sets, but don't say they perform much better than two channel systems, because they don't IMHO.

It's also a matter of economics, I am pretty confident that the 50000 dollar two channel set will have an advantage over a 50000 dollar multichannel set. (but both will be enjoyable)

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

The horse may be dead but it's still leading the race.

But only on 2 tracks.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by gbaby

Are you and Douglas posting from experience or is this conjecture?

Gbaby....I am sure that a well-optimised multichannel setup will sound amazing, but from a practical standpoint, it is basically impossible to optimise such a setup in the average room that 95% of audiophiles are limited to.

Then there is, of course, the WAF!

It is difficult to optimise 2 channel, imagine the nightmare to set up a multichannel system to perfection.

Then there is the issue of spreading the budget. For a budget of 30k for speakers, I am sure one would get much better sound quality by spreading it over 2 speakers.

Only very large budgets and a dedicated sound room will make it viable!

You do have a point, in a perfect world.

[Lassej]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

But only on 2 tracks.

But for winning the race it's enough with one track...only one winner.

But back to MQA. May be good for streaming but I will not put my money in a new format. I buy most of my music.

BR
Lasse

[Sharp 1080]

Originally Posted by imprezap2

I have listened to dedicated listening/cinema rooms, yes it can be impressive at first, but I much prefer a well set up two channel system.

I agree with the remarks made regarding recording quality, rather have them concentrating to get the best two channel experience.

For me it's not a problem that other's enjoy multichannel sets, but don't say they perform much better than two channel systems, because they don't IMHO.

It's also a matter of economics, I am pretty confident that the 50000 dollar two channel set will have an advantage over a 50000 dollar multichannel set. (but both will be enjoyable)

I actually have such a system in a dedicated room with zero WAF. I am divorced and can verify that I have both testicles! But seriously I can say from experience if it is not a dedicated room set up for both stereo and multichannel then those listening to a demo most likely are missing the benefits of having both formats. I have two channel source material (SACD) that sounds like it is multichannel at times due to the spaciousness of the recording. We have heard it mentioned before, "wow that sounds like it is beyond the speaker's width in the room" when it images"! I also have multichannel material (live recordings) in the lossless format that are definitely mixed correctly and is way beyond what 2 channel could ever accomplish. I was biased and two channel only for years and still listen primarily to stereo. There is a reason when you are out in the open in nature and it's quiet you are able to hear sounds behind you.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Lassej

But back to MQA. May be good for streaming but I will not put my money in a new format. I buy most of my music.

I have little hope that there will be enough music offered to entice me.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by imprezap2

I have listened to dedicated listening/cinema rooms, yes it can be impressive at first, but I much prefer a well set up two channel system.

I agree with the remarks made regarding recording quality, rather have them concentrating to get the best two channel experience.

For me it's not a problem that other's enjoy multichannel sets, but don't say they perform much better than two channel systems, because they don't IMHO.

It's also a matter of economics, I am pretty confident that the 50000 dollar two channel set will have an advantage over a 50000 dollar multichannel set. (but both will be enjoyable)

You are talking pure conjecture. I feel I already own a great multichannel processor in the SP3 and a great 2 channel system in the BDA-3. My main speakers are down -3db@ 32Hz and are full range. So, I can listen to great 2 channel and multichannel at will. The surround algorithms coupled with its clean design in the SP3 runs rings around all 2 channel sound from the BDA3. You can conjecture all you wish, you can stay in the dark ages, you can continue to cook on a wood stove, you can continue to ride a bike rather than an automobile for long distances, and you can continue to listen to music in mono. I have decided that after hearing both, multichannel wins.