Like

Recommendations: Must Have DVDAs and SACDs

 

Bronze Member
Username: Mgkaplan

Calabasas, CA USA

Post Number: 29
Registered: Mar-04
I am relatively new to A/V, not an audiophile, but learning. I recently installed a system which includes a Yamaha DVD-S2300MK2, NAD T63 and Paradigm speakers. I have purchased several DVDAs and SACDs and enjoy listening to good sound. Given that this board is frequented by the experts, I would ask for recommendations as to which DVDA's and SACDs should be on my must have list. Thanks for your help!
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 108
Registered: Dec-03
Ir depends on what you like to listen to.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Mgkaplan

Calabasas, CA USA

Post Number: 30
Registered: Mar-04
Classical (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc....)

Vocal

60s 70s Pop/Rock

 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 104
Registered: Mar-04
Michael,

I see you're from CA. You may already be familiar with these guys, they were from CA as well and got airplay there but not a whole lot anywhere else, - Toy Matinee. One of America's best kept pop/rock secrets. They were fronted by the late Kevin Gilbert and released only one cd, (around 1990 I think), while he was a part of TM. As far as their style goes, I hear influences from artists such as Warren Zevon, Toto, Steely Dan, and even Pink Floyd (on the title cut). Although the cd is DTS only, no DVD-A or SACD, its well recorded and mixed, highly recommended. Check out some samples here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000006I6P
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 105
Registered: Mar-04
Correction - Toy Matinee evidentally is a DVD-A. I was getting my albums mixed up. Sorry.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 110
Registered: Dec-03
I don't do classical, so I can't comment there.

The Stones and Dylan hybrid SACD reissues are excellent. You can also get "Tommy" by the Who and "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" on hybrid SACD or DVD-A (I would probably go with the SACD version).
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 206
Registered: Feb-04
Carlos Kleiber, Vienna Philharmonic (DG), Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 5 and 7. Two of the best classical recordings I've ever heard, now on a single SACD.

Zubin Mehta, Israeli Philharmonic (Telarc DVD-A), Mahler Symphony No. 2. Outstanding performance and recording of a great work involving a full orchestra and chorus that benefits from high-resolution audio.

Bob Dylan, Blood on the Track. Great-sounding remaster of one of Dylan's most personal and best albums on multi-channel/stereo hybrid SACD. (This is the first Dylan SACD I've picked up. Ben, do the others sound this good?)
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 333
Registered: Dec-03
one of my favorites is steely dan gaucho.

very well equalized recording.
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 112
Registered: Dec-03
The Dylan that I have all sound good: Nashville Skyline, Blond on Blond, The Freewheelin', and Highway 61 Revisited.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1310
Registered: Dec-03
Ben,

After talking about it for months, I finally bought Blonde on Blonde, www.simplyvinyl.com, £12.99 (Say $20) from HMV Shop in London. Stereo. 180g vinyl. Perfect pressing. Awesome, wonderful, magical sound. I know you recommended sundazed, but I can recommend this one to anyone. I have a clear memory that friends had a stereo original in 1966. I may just recall, but could be wrong, it was released by CBS in both stereo and mono versions; people had not decided whether stereo was going to catch on.

I never owned any version, myself, before - never properly heard all the words.

"You might believe he loves you for your money, but I know what he really loves you for...."!

Thanks for the recommendation!
 

Silver Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 626
Registered: Dec-03
Michael,
Check out Queen: A Night at the Opera. I absolutely loved this release.
There's also Fleetwood Mac Rumours...Stevie Nicks never sounded so good and alive! yeah!
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New york Usa

Post Number: 254
Registered: Dec-03
Hi All,

I just had one of those rare Sunday afternoons, where the family was out shopping, and I had the house to myself. I don't know if it's available on DVD-A or SACD, but I put on an old favorite-Peter Gabriel's "SO". I cranked it up to 90db and let it rip. I like to give the old Velodyne a little exercise every now and then. I thoroughly recommend it. Gotta go now, and check the house for structural damage. Cheers!
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 120
Registered: Dec-03
John,

I'm glad you got a copy of "Blond on Blond". I have several Simply Vinyl titles...good stuff. I remember reading an article with the head of Sundazed saying it took them a long time to put out their Mono version due to the missing master tapes. I guess they finally found them in a vault somewhere.
 

Silver Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 628
Registered: Dec-03
Rick,
Yes, SO by Peter Gabriel is indeed on SACD, loved it on CD, good but not phenomenal on SACD. Still good music, though!
cheers
 

Sacdman
Unregistered guest
Why all SACDs and DVD-As are oldies?
I wonder why there are no new albums produce in these digital surround format?
Anybody knows any new albums (not oldies)?
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 121
Registered: Dec-03
There are SACD's from Death Cab for Cutie, Mission of Burma, Beck, Ryan Adams, Aimee Mann, and Norah Jones.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1318
Registered: Dec-03
Sacdman,

There are loads of new recordings in DVD-A and SACD. Try:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/

Ben,

Thanks. Blonde on Blonde is a landmark LP, in my opinion. With that album, Dylan had pretty well completed his transition from "Folk singer". What I have is a completely accurate version, same label on the records, same sleeve, same everything - just better quality, heavier vinyl pressing than the original. It is a real pleasure to have that.

What I turned up in my search is that new vinyl pressings are all Rock/Pop/Jazz - no classical at all. I asked in HMV shop and Harold Moore's in London and they said "No, no stock, and we do not expect any new classical vinyl". Some of the prices Moores are asking for second-hand vinyl LPs are unbelievable. I know you are not into classical, but I find it strange no-one seems interested.

About the time of Blonde on Blonde the "audiophile" market was divided between people who wanted LPs and people who wanted pre-recorded open-reel tapes: they argued endlessly about which was best. The LP was better for convenience. There is a great bit in the Movie "Pulp Fiction" where you see "Mia" using both. You can still find people with big collections of tapes, and Ferrograph, Revox, Tandberg etc. tape players/ recorders. The name "Tandberg" is now stuck on really tacky HT systems you would not make houseroom for. Same with "Grundig" I think.

BTW "Dolby laboratories" got started with a noise-reduction compression system that reduced tape hiss, at some cost to sound quality. The purists would never touch it, and preferred to play their uncompressed tapes at higher speed. When tape cassette came in, with a fixed, low speed, and narrow little tapes, Dolby really hit it big. Seems the mass market has always wanted convenience and increased playing time over sound quality, just as we see today.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 218
Registered: Feb-04
My own theory about why so many SACDs and DVD-As are oldies has to do with demographics. The people who have surround sound systems seem to be older and have grown up with Bob Dylan, Fleetwood Mac, David Bowie, et al. How else to explain Toto in 5.1? The younger folks are downloading Avril Lavigne and Outkast onto their ipods.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1334
Registered: Dec-03
2c,

I think it has more to do with marketing. Being interested in different types of music, it seems to me it is rock/pop/ that has a higher proportion of reissues/remixes on DVD-A/SACD than on CD, and then, only "oldie" bands, as you say. It is the opposite with "classical" - all DVD-A/SACd are new recordings. Also, as I said to Ben, there is no new vinyl classical. I do not know how it is with jazz. It is weird. Marketing "experts" often know less than they like to think.

If any one would like a more mainstream "classical" (really baroque) demonstration of what surround sound can do, I recommend Bach Magnificat etc, EMI DVD-A, Choir of King's College Cambridge, Academy of Ancient Music, ace solists. It is a varied programme with some fantastic-sounding organ. All recorded in that famous chapel. It is a "flipper" disc - DVD-A (4 and 2 channel) on one side; DVD-V (AC-3 and PCM stereo) on the other. The 4-channel DVD-A is completely amazing. You could never achieve a sound like that in stereo, and it is completely "natural"; no special effects. It was recorded in 20-bit, and it seems to me that the resolution is not quite as good as most DVD-As. It is still an awesome disc. Shame they did not record in 24-bit. It was recorded in 1999, and I think they did not know, then, how the format would stabilize. You could never, ever get that sound from stereo CD, still less from iPod.

BTW just to annoy people who like only one genre, let me point out that "Sad eyed lady of the lowlands" on Dylan's "BLonde on BLonde" has exactly the same chord sequence as Bach's "Air on the G-string" from Orchestral Suite No 2 in B minor. Listen to the bass line.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 221
Registered: Feb-04
John A.,

Far from being annoyed, I get a kick when genres are mixed. It's funny you compare "Sad Eyed Lady of Lowlands" with Bach's Air. Today I read an article in the NY Times about a book written by an Oxford professor, in which Dylan songs are compared to poems by Donne, Keats, and other great poets. Will students be studying "Mr. Tambourine Man" 100 year from now? Then again Dylan apparently plagiarized lines from a Japanese novel on a recent album. Is he a genius or charlatan or both?

FYI there is a wealth of jazz albums reissued on vinyl from labels with great back catalogues, icluding Blue Note, Impulse, Prestige, and Columbia. It's surprising there are no new classical releases on vinyl.

I've read your posts praising the Rubio Quartet's Shostakovich set and am tempted to pick it up. I used to have the Fitzwilliams Quartet on LP, which were wonderful recordings of brilliant performances. Shostakovich chose the FQ to premiere his last quartets. Anyway, these LP's were lost and replaced by CDs by the Manhattan Quartet. I find the sound quality a little strident on these CDs, so they haven't been played much. I wonder if the Rubio set has a warmer sound.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1349
Registered: Dec-03
2c,

It is not "compare" - they are the same chord sequence. The bass lines are identical. The same one crops up, but shorter, in the refrain of "Stuck inside of Mobile with thee".

That number is very famous. There was a ubiquitous TV cigar adverstiement in the UK that used the Jacques Loussier Trio jazz version to indicate peace, tranquility and satisfaction. A whole generation of Brits cannot hear that tune without smelling the aroma of a "Hamlet" cigar.

I actually agree with that guy about Dylan. I know it sounds pretentious. I had never really listened to "Forever Young" before playing "The Last Waltz". it is a billiant song. I also love Dylan's understatement, he sort of spits out these sublime lyrics, as if to say "take it or leave it, I don't care".

Did you see the post where I said I found a Fitzwilliam Qt. LP Box for £98...? The Rubio Qt. CD sound is excellent. Reference quality. Spacious, resonant. I am up to number 3. All young guys, too. Great energy and perfect intonation, but not the sort of autobahn race I hear with e.g. the Alban Berg Qt. Great phrasing and ensemble. They are obviously listening to each other, and each immersed in the whole composition.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 371
Registered: Feb-04
All

Having just acquired a universal DVD player we purchased "Greendale" our first N.Young recording since the Harvest CD many, many moons ago. The Greendale DVD-A recording in full 5.1 is an absolutely superb recording. The vocals seemed in accord with the music - not out there seeking attention - which in some ways reminded me of the atmospheric qualities of Pink Floyd's DSOTM. Wonderful!

John A

I recall you saying that you can probably do without the .1 on DVD-A recordings, but I think that depends the low frequency range of the mains. With "Greendale" the sub seemed integral to the sound with my mains having a 50hz low end. But as a hi-res beginner, I may have more comments about this in the near future.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1397
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

It is great to read about your "Wow" factor! Perhaps you can understand why I must have sounded a bit manic, in March, when I finally got DVD-A? As I said at the time, I almost felt like stopping people in the street.

If ".1" is on the disc, then you should reproduce it through an active sub. Same with the centre channel/speaker. These features are a compromise from an audio "purist" point of view, and probably are amongst the things that put off intelligent people like Jan. But we are lumbered with 5.1, for historical reasons, and if the centre and LFE channels are on the disc, you should play them. It is not so bad if the recording engineers know what they are doing.

However, I have two real "Audiophile" type DVD-As now (one EMI; one Coro), and the neither is afraid to state "4.0" on the disc, and on the box. Also, I hear for myself how much the Naxos DVDs vary; they always contract out the recording itself to small, independent companies, usually in the same geographical location as the recording. I think Naxos probably insists they put "5.1" on the box, but, if you listen, the really good recordings have nothing at all on the centre channel, and use the LFE ".1" channel either not at all, or very sparingly, for the very deep percussion etc. I think good sound engineers realise the centre and LFE channels cause more problems than they solve, in most cases.

BTW the lowest note, E, on a bass guitar, is 42 Hz, if I remember, and that is the fundamental - most of what you hear even from a real one, even from that bottom E string, is the first harmonic, at 84 Hz. The next string up is A, with a fundamental of 55 Hz, and the same applies - you mostly hear 110 Hz and up. Most thundering bass guitar riffs are in really in the range about 64 to 128 Hz (C, fifth fret on the top string) and higher. For music, active subs really only add something for percussion and organ, and that is marginal. Active subs really come into their own for things like collapsing buildings, volcanoes, crashing surf etc. etc., as Jan, for example has pointed out. Probably the cannon in the "1812" overture, too. But that is mostly it, for music.

BTW even if you are not into "classical" I really recommend the Naxos Four Seasons. The disc is cheap, and unbelievably funky. Play it really loud. If Vivaldi really wrote that for a girls' school string band, he should have been sacked on the spot, for depravity, and currupting young ladies. If he was playing the solo violin, surely some of those girls would have done anything to please him, like rock groupies. I often think people just don't realize what a hoot a lot of "classical" music is, if played on good equipment. Classical has a serious image problem, and mostly sounds dire on small speakers. Limp-wristed it ain't. Certainly not in that case.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 431
Registered: Dec-03
well john i disagree with you again. no suprise aye?

when it comes to the sub and center channel.

i prefer having both.

i feel they add much more to the overall suround
exprerience than detract.

and to me is no more messed up by engineers than
the suround without them.

i look for 5.1 and want it when i buy multichannel
music.

to me the center is more important than any other
speaker.
"that is why my center has 2 8" drivers and an 8"
horn"

and the sub, man i can't begin to tell you how much
more i enjoy the music with it.

as you mentioned it's more needed with smaller
speakers but even speakers with say 10" drivers
or larger may play down to even say 50hz and be
reasonably flat but they are not designed to do that
"the drivers themselves anyway" where subs are.
so you have much better sounding low notes with
a sub verses your actual speakers.not to mention
most speakers don't play flat down to 50hz and
lower so your missing some of the bass feel in
the music that little extra umph! that a good sub
can provide.

and if you set your bass management to say, 70hz
it can actually make your main speakers sound
better because they are not working as hard.

plus the bass being seperated so to speak in the
sub channel can send a cleaner signal to your mains.

again this is my take on surround.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 372
Registered: Feb-04
John A

Not to dispute what you and Jan say on the subject of hi-res recordings and the use of subs and centers, but for me, the value of this hi-res surround format (and all music for that matter) is in the listening and whether I like what I hear. For me it really is the music - it's as simple as that. Whether the recording is 4, 4.1 or 5.1, if it works for me then great, I'm happy.

"These features are a compromise from an audio "purist" point of view, and probably are amongst the things that put off intelligent people like Jan"

Well so far one lesser endowed has found sheer enjoyment with these features on a couple of - I guess - non audiophile type recordings.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 373
Registered: Feb-04
Oh yes, went back today - no that's yesterday now - and picked up Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" in 5.1 DVD-A. Apart from the DVD-V, we have the CD and I wanted to compare.

The CD always sounded excellent, well recorded, clear, great depth and so on. After listening in 5.1 surround DVD-A, well, the CD sounded flat.

"Two Against Nature" DVD-A 5.1 - Turn it up, it's outstanding!

Kegger - on what I've listened to so far, I am right there with you!



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1406
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, My Rantz,

OK, I surrender! I am arguing about the format the industry has settled on. I feel like King Canute. I completely agree, if you have a 5.1 disc, that is how you should play it. My only point it, "High-res" has got nothing to do with the centre and LFE channels. You can have high-res without them, if that is what the engineers put on the disc. Really good DVD-As are often recorded in 4.0

Tell me this, though, about the centre speaker. If you have a really big screen, say a projector giving an 80" plus diagonal - where do you put the darned thing?

I am hoping to get a projector before too long. All I can think of is splitting the centre channel signal and giving it to two speakers, one on each side (or above and below). This introduces new problems of phasing and getting a good, coherent mono, sounding like it comes from the middle of the screen. But the main Left and Right speakers would have done that just as well. Stereo works! Why do we have a centre channel track on DVDs......?

All the best.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 434
Registered: Dec-03
john i will be going to a projector some time also
"can't wait"

i have measured my room and come up with 2 choices

first their are screens that are designed for a
center channel to be placed behind them so they
are perferated to let the sound come through.

second which is the way i will probably go is "at
least i hope so" i have factered my room with a
100" 16x9 screen that should leave me room under
the screen for my center at about 2 feet from the
floor slightly angled up i think it will work fine.

i have been looking at this for awhile and really
can't wait till i plunge in their. it will complete
my theatre (right now using 56" 16x9 hdtv)

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1408
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

Yes, for me, projectors are the way to go. I had not heard of holes in the screen to let the centre sound through. Seems like a pretty naff idea, but I suppose it could work. We would be better off relying on good stereo imaging to make a virtual centre speaker. You see my point?

I borrowed a work computer projector for a weekend some months ago, and mounted my centre speaker above the screen. It was not too bad, but when I went back to the CRT TV and listening to music, anything with a centre channel sounded ridiculous, like the actors/soloists were glued to the ceiling. It wasn't even good for Batman.

Reading about projectors, I see the reviewers mostly think it is a great idea to have a short-throw lens, with a small focal length. This means you have to have the projector between you and the screen, maybe on a coffee table, or on the ceiling. We have a very high "V" ceiling, and I definitely want the projector behind us, I don't want the distraction, and noise, of the hardware in the way, let alone trailing cables. Seems only Hitachi (cheaper) and Sim (expensive) make projectors this way. There seems to be no long-throw lens on any DLP projector at any reasonable price. Any ideas?

This is off topic.

I will throw in a "must-have" DVD-A to get back. I know "classical" is minority stuff here, but Jan V. recommended Shostakovich's Leningrad Symphony. I never heard it before today, when I played the Naxos DVD-A. "Awesome" is not good enough. I made the flip remark, I'd heard somewhere, "Bolero with tanks". Jeez that symphony is scary. Let me just throw in part of the sleeve note.


Although ideas for a Seventh Symphony had begun coming to mind the previous year, the work that emerged has been regarded as an uninhibited response to the N*zi invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 - the ensuing siege of Leningrad lasting for 870 days and costing over a million lives. Shostakovich began working on the new symphony in the besieged city that July, completing the first three movements by the end of September. In early October he and his wife and children were evacuated, first to Moscow and then to the city of Kuibyshev (later Samara). He finished the whole work towards the end of December.
.......
Reaction to the Seventh Symphony has been one of extremes. The first performance, in Kubiyshev on 5th March 1942, and the Moscow premiere three years later were broadcast nation-wide. Microfilmed and flown, via Tehran, to London, the work was broadcast by the BBC on 22nd June, heard at the Royal Albert Hall a week later, then given a studio performance in New York under Toscanini on 19th July. In Leningrad the following month, a much-depleted Radio Orchestra, reinforced by any musician who could be released from combat during the siege of the city, gave an account which personified the heroic aspiration of the music itself.


BTW watched "Amadeus" director's cut last night. I think 2c recommended that. Terrific. Much better than the theatrical release, which I saw, at the cinema, when it first came out.

But that's a movie, and off-topic, too.

The heck with this rock vs classic nonsense. Try the "Leningrad", really loud, with centre channel and active sub, and see if the hairs do not stand up on the back of your neck.

BTW

The following words are not allowed on this discussion board:

N*zi
Please revise your post to remove the words indicated above.


That is very reassuring. We can all sleep soundly now. The word is not permitted. What a relief. It would have saved a lot of trouble if they'd just banned the word in 1933...
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 374
Registered: Feb-04
John A

"But the main Left and Right speakers would have done that just as well. Stereo works! Why do we have a centre channel track on DVDs......?"

I may be wrong, but without the center speaker on 5.1 movies (I won't get into the hi-res audio thing yet) and using center imaging from stereo with your mains, I doubt you'll get the same control to adjust the clarity and loudness that the center channel provides. Remember, it produces around 70 to 80 percent of the sound in surround movies. I know that if you select none for the center on the receiver, the sound is directed to the mains, but it will be interesting to find out the difference without that control.

Back to hi-res audio: I noted, particuarly on the "Greendale" DVD-A that sometimes there is no sound from the center and at other times there is. I think the way it was done helped to create the atmospheric sound of the recordings. But I'll admit I find it difficult to articulate about how the sound affects my senses - only that so far, I can honestly say I'm in awe of the dvd-a recordings we have so far and am yet to experience sacd!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1412
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

Thanks.

"without the center speaker on 5.1 movies....I doubt you'll get the same control to adjust the clarity and loudness that the center channel provides" My points are (1) the clarity and loudness were the recording engineer's job, therefore (2) stereo would have done it just as well. Actually, better; there is less to get wrong.

The whole of audio seems to be permeated by people wanting to control things you really can't do anything about; ambience effects; more channels (why? a "rear center"...? think about it!); graphic equalizers; on and on. All these things are solutions that bring with them more problems than they solve.

Yes, a good center channel is essential, now, for movies, but that is only because the track is on the disc, and must be reproduced, otherwise you will not hear the dialogue. People say the centre speaker helps to spread out the sound stage, makes it discernable from more listenting positions, but it does not- it has the opposite effect. It concentrates the centre of the soundfield, and messes up phasing, and, with it, imaging.

This is where I am so completely with Jan Vigne, and believe that I understand his problem, and that of other good guys, with surround sound.

Since it is not yet linked here, for others, please see Teaching an old dog new tricks....

Stereo rules! 4.0 rules even more!

People knew this decades ago, probably even at the start of stereo: it is obvious. Now we finally have the technology, we have forgotten what we wanted it for. It is bizarre. I shall place this remark on "Old Dogs" with part of a scanned 1975 LP sleeve.

Never mind. Enjoy. 5.1 is just wonderful when everything is right. Some DVD-A sound engineers really know their stuff. But I think you may be surprised by how many times they quietly kill the centre channel, without telling you.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1413
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

I remember you actually had a quadraphonic system. Sanyo? I never did! Ever hear of "quintaphonic sound"? I doubt it!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 125
Registered: Mar-04
As you guys must know, by now, I'm to Alan Parsons what John A. is to the T533 and DVD-A :-)
So, along those lines check out:
http://www.tascam.com/user_stories.php?uid=49
Some of which goes along with the discussion here.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1416
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Too bad he took the wrong path. Especially with that background in ambisonics/quadraphonics. How are the mighty fallen. Next time you see AP, tip him off about the advantages of DVD-A....
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 435
Registered: Dec-03
john we can debate this back and fourth and not
change each others minds.

i still believe and will allways believe that you
are wrong.

a pair of stero speakers is not going to give me
as good of center localization as a dedicated
center channel will and that is what i like and
want,my center localized to the center.

not to mention some people don't have speakers
that image as well as others do. so everyone will
hear something different in different homes but
with the center channel everyone can hear the
same thing.and it definatly would not work for
movies because if your not sitting in the middle
than a lot of speakers don't image at all.

and you said it, think about not needing a center
rear speaker.well when something is coming from
behind you say a car in a movie it starts way at
the back then moves up to the surrounds so it can
give you a sense of space.it works very very well.
i highly enjoy my (2) rear surrounds 7.1 and had
a very nice upgrade experience over 5.1 the whole
change was night and day.much better presentation.


as i said before you and others have a way that
you like to listen to your media and many others
like myself prefer it differently.

i like more channels and more localization when
it comes to multichannel media.i don't need the
speakers to completely dissapear so i don't know
where the sound is coming from.i like it more localized.

so i think we just have to admit it some will like
the extra channels and some will not.
but were not going to convince one another that
our way is the right way.

but i do believe more people enjoy them than the
ones that don't.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 376
Registered: Feb-04
John A

The only 5.1 movies where things have gone wrong especially with center channel and LFE use, imo, are those old ones that have been remixed to allow a 5.1 label. Maybe a marketing strategy, but they sound damn awful and grating.

Most properly recorded 5.1 movies sound as they should - excellent.

I stated that I don't dispute what you and Jan have been getting at re hi-res audio - you may be right or wrong - I just don't have the knowledge of sound engineering or of the physics of sound etc to offer an educated point of view - NOT YET. My point was not to argue the matter, but merely to convey that I am not fanatical or knowledgable enough to sit and discect a recording over the enjoyment I get from the music.

With some 'classical' recordings or live versus studio depending on the type of music, I could come to terms about 4 versus 5.1 channels. I'm not advocating that every hi-res recording should be 5.1, the beauty of it all, really, is we can choose what we like or beg to differ about what is right or wrong. And please don't "surrender" to appease the likes of people like Kegger and myself - that's not characteristic of you.

To me what sounds right IS right. That is not to say I don't get enjoyment from the opinions from you guys, I do, and find it all quite interesting, but there are some terms that I find amusing which seem to pop up every now and again: audiophile and purist. IMO they are terms relative to egos, knowledge, experiences and time.

At what point does one become an audiophile? What is an audiophile and who determines what is audiophile quality? Isn't it all arguable and really a bit obscure? Knowledge is subjective also, sure some things learned are undeniably fact, but much is based on various opinions.

Was Thomas Edison the first 'purist'? From those who fancied the recording abilities and playback gear of the 1930's, 50's, 70's, 90's etc, who are the purists? In 2050, those who were fanatical about 5.1 might consider themselves 'purists" also.


Quadraphonic systems, imo, should be completely discounted from the debate; they just spun sounds around the room without any thought to the original soundstage. Probably a derivitve of the early mind enhancing culture of the times!

 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 126
Registered: Mar-04
John A.

I think the article may have gotten it wrong. Last I heard it was to be released as a DVD-A.
http://www.5point1.net/011402alanparsons.php

Also, something that may interest you, http://www.silverlineclassics.com/
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1418
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger and My Rantz,

Please, I am not claiming superior knowledge or telling people what to do. I just think 5.1 is a crazy format. It is really a format intended for small speakers with no bass extension or imaging, so you string 'em around like Christamas tree lights, with one sub to do all the hard work. I am not knocking that, either; people like it, and shops are selling these systems like there is no tomorrow.

But when you translate 5.1 up to full frequency range, there is no need for the ".1", though it has some benefits in taking some of the worl off the other channels. And, for best positioning, you are, anyway, going to need your speakers in the right place, pointing in the right direction, balanced, and with the right delays. The centre channel then causes more problems that it solves. And additional channels/speakers - where do you put 'em? And why?

I greatly enjoy 5.1 movies.

I am not an "audiophile" or a "purist", whatever these words mean. I am also not a "high-end" snob. I am proud of how little my system cost. However, I really do like music. All sorts.

My main point is that I think I see where Jan V. is coming from, amongst others. I think I understand all the reservations about surround sound. I was there myself, until recently. I am just trying to see what we've really got that adds value to the experience of listening to recorded music, in the home.

Sem,

Well, I wondered if that mention of SACD in the article was a gratuitous plug. Tascam do SACD, so it is possible.

Silverline Classics looks great. Thank you!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1419
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, Mr Rantz,

For example, look at all the confusion on this thread:
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/51549.html

They would never have got up that gum tree if we had 4.0.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 377
Registered: Feb-04
John - imo, it really depends on equipment quality, matching and knowing what one is doing. Clearly some don't! I got up the gum tree very well with 5.1 - sounds wonderful really!

Again, channel numbers aside, I'm over the moon with the sound and I thank you again for helping me make the decision to go for it.


 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 436
Registered: Dec-03
again john this

" I just think 5.1 is a crazy format. It is really a format intended for small speakers with no bass extension or imaging, so you string 'em around like Christamas tree lights, with one sub to do all the hard work. I am not knocking that, either; people like it, and shops are selling these systems like there is no tomorrow.

But when you translate 5.1 up to full frequency range, there is no need for the ".1", though it has some benefits in taking some of the worl off the other channels. And, for best positioning, you are, anyway, going to need your speakers in the right place, pointing in the right direction, balanced, and with the right delays. The centre channel then causes more problems that it solves. And additional channels/speakers - where do you put 'em? And why?"

is your oppinion not fact.

and i disagree with that oppinion.

i had small speakers i had 5.1 i have 4.0 disks
and now i have larger full range spkrs with 7.1
and feel it is better than any of the prior formats.
including the use of the sub with larger full range speakers.

that is my oppinion.

and again that is my oppinion only for multi channel.

for stero recordings i use 2 speakers and think
it still sounds great.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1422
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

In my opinion, knowling what one is doing is the by far the most important missing feature in most audio systems. This where dealers can some in, also friends (for me, includes you guys), and reading the instructions .

From what you have written before, I'll bet you do, and you've got your system set up right.

Kegger,

Yes, I do the same. My mains go down to 40 Hz, surrounds (my "new" KEF Codas - seems a waste!) to 65 Hz, my centre to 80 Hz. I still leave the sub on standby, all the time. It sounds much better, to me than "All small plus sub" or any other "bass management" combinations.

So, if there is anything the LFE channel, I get it (to 25 Hz), and same for the center channel (it is light on bass, but for speech 80 Hz is enough). It does sound great. Really.

But I still note that a number of DVD-A discs just do not use the centre, or sub, sometimes both, whether they say so on the label or not.

I think I know why this!

As regards my opinion on how we ended up with 5.1 (cheapest way of getting surround sound plus deep bass out of one integrated system) then you are right, it is in an opinion, but I have not heard a better one - and would be delighted to do so. Any views?

The reason I care about this is at the beginning of "Old dogs".

The industry has conned people into throwing away good stereo gear because it is "old", and replacing it with 5, 6, now 7 tin cans and a boom-box. This is what my family had in mind, about a year ago (they would never have parted me from my KEF speakers, just put us all in another room....).

I'll bet you there are LS3/5a speakers being trashed somewhere, today, to make room for things that would disgrace a transistor radio. Look at these all-in one specs - they MULTIPLY the power values of one channel (downhill with a following wind) by the number of channels (which the amp cannot drive at that power simultaneously and continuously) and then ADD the power of the amp in the boom-box. They usually end up with 450 W or something. Wow. And that totally meaningless number is their main selling point - take a look at the ads.

It is planned obsolescence. A con. A waste of time, and a waste of money. The sort of technology we do not need (pace Ghia). And you get WORSE sound than you had in stereo.

Then I have to think whether I want 7 channels. I am willing to try but cannot see the point. I actually have seven speakers, all good ones, plus one sub. I have 5.1 for movies, DVD-A, and my main stereo. The 2.0 system is for the older DVD-V/CD player and still gives wonderful and amazing stereo. When the kids watch Finding Nemo etc. on that, they hear the words, get the jokes, sing the songs. They are better off with movies in stereo that with an all-in-one surround. They think so, too - they visit their friends.

That's what I call bang for the buck.

Must go. All the best.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 437
Registered: Dec-03
JOHN: TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THIS!

I hate to butt heads with you seriously i think
you are one of the good guys.and don't like to
argue with you.

I also think we just have to realize that you and
I are looking for something different in our way
of thinking/utilizing surround.

I definatly agree with this one:
"Yes, I do the same. My mains go down to 40 Hz, surrounds (my "new" KEF Codas - seems a waste!) to 65 Hz, my centre to 80 Hz. I still leave the sub on standby, all the time. It sounds much better, to me than "All small plus sub" or any other "bass management" combinations"

one thought i had last night that might be the
main point we differ on.is that you place the
same bounderies/rules on surround that you do on
stereo where i do not.

it seems you would be very content with a front
set of stereo speakers along with a rear set of
stereo speakers and a sub. with all of this
trying to stay as close to stereo rules as possable.

where i want to be surrounded by sounds coming
from any and all directions without having to
conform to any rules or standards.

now obviously my way puts much more demands on
the engineer than the other.and i believe with
enough practice and time they can do it.and some
allready do, at least for me.

now on the rear surrounds it is definatly on how
you set them up that makes the difference.
the rear channel goes right directly behind you
in the rear with the surrounds just slightly and
i mean just slightly behind you to the sides.
this configuration gives you a whole new perspective
of rear channels it is night and day comparred to
conventional rear surround it's so much more open
and involving.if you could try it you should.

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1427
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

I thank you. Butting heads with you is a pleasure for me, just like fencing with Jan V. We can all learn from good honest differences of opinion. Even if we don't change our minds, we learn something.

I have a 5.1 receiver, so I will have to get a 6.1 in order to try that rear center for myself. I always have to think before I spend money, Out of all our DVDs, I think we have maybe 2 that have real 6.1. For better or worse, we have 5.1 as the standard, and I think it is enough, even too much. But I could be wrong, and if you recommend a rear center, that is something, and I will not forget.

You are quite right when you write:
"it seems you would be very content with a front
set of stereo speakers along with a rear set of
stereo speakers and a sub. with all of this
trying to stay as close to stereo rules as possable"

That is basically how I have my system set up. Just remember you have stereo on each side, too, in that configuration.

I do not believe in following rules for the sake of it. On the contrary, when people say "because I say so" I always try to see what they are trying to hide, and to make up my own mind, instead. If I've got to know anything about you, Kegger, we're brothers in arms on this one.

So I do not just get out the stereo rule book. But I think I know, roughly, how stereo works its "magic". Now, four speakers in the right place can give you stereo on all four sides, and therefore 360º surround sound. I listen to good recordings, and that is exactly what I hear. It is fantastic, a whole new experience.

Now I do not want to sound arrogant, but whoever thought of that center channel either did not understand stereo himself/herself, or else he/she did, and thought we didn't, and could be pursuaded to fork out extra for a channel, and a speaker, for "dialogue". It really is crackers. You may as well argue you need a special, dedicated channel for fire engines, or something. You can get perfect center-stage sound from stereo - or sound from anywhere else where the engineers chose to put it.

Then I listen to gimmicky records of music, and hear the damage caused by engineers who do not know what they are doing. In classical, you great bl*ody harps moving into center stage with no sound of the wheels on the carts they must have been on, pianos suddenly blown up to the size of a small aircraft, all sorts of nonsense. I do not have enough rock DVD-As to tell, but I'll bet it is the same. I have an early stereo Dylan LP - the engineers did not know what to do with stereo. When he played the harmonica and guitar and the same time, they move the guitar over to the right channel, and the harmonica to the left. Ludicrous, like one of those childres' cut-outs where you move heads onto different shoulders. And all the time, he is performing this great song, which speaks for iteself, and doesn't need all that. Those CBS sound engineers should have stuck to their jobs, or else quit, and learned the guitar and harmonica, which is probably what they really wanted, but were afraid they weren't as good as Dylan.

As we agreed, I think, before, somewhere, a lot depends on whether you want to reproduce the sound of "being there", at a real performance, or whether you want the sound of a performance taking place in your listening room. But, in either case, I cannot see much way to improve on stereo on all four sides. Maybe you could do it on six sides, with six speakers, but then you would have to consider the interactions of the "n+2" speakers, too, if you see what I mean. As you said (I remember these things!) "Keep it simple". If you do not want a performance at all, then anything goes, I realise that.

I keep hoping Jan is reading these things, and will step in. I am sort of trying to find a middle ground, but, more importantly - more Kegger wisdom - there is nothing that cannot be improved. But what you do, is see where you can retain the good stuff from the old (here, "stereo") and build on in; not chuck everything away and start again, without understanding what you had before.

That's where I stand, Kegger. Not for the first time, I wish we could have a few beers, and do some listening and talking. I am sure we'd sort it out!

All the best.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1428
Registered: Dec-03
I just noticed we are on "Music". Sorry! All that last stuff really belongs on DVD-Audio & SACD, especially Teaching and old dog new tricks...". Jan V. will not be reading here. I am going to try to call him in, and see if we can port some of this over. Is that OK, Kegger?

BTW I really though Ben James wrapped up this topic with that great, second post (May 27). I don't know what else anyone can say.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 440
Registered: Dec-03
well john we are very close.

it seems the only stickler we have is this.
"Now I do not want to sound arrogant, but whoever thought of that center channel either did not understand stereo himself/herself, or else he/she did, and thought we didn't, and could be pursuaded to fork out extra for a channel, and a speaker, for "dialogue". It really is crackers. You may as well argue you need a special, dedicated channel for fire engines, or something. You can get perfect center-stage sound from stereo - or sound from anywhere else where the engineers chose to put it."

i do not agrre with this mainly.
"whoever thought of that center channel either did not understand stereo himself/herself, or else he/she did, and thought we didn't"

i believe they understood stereo and thought as i
do that a dedicated speaker in the center does
a better job than stereo does.rather it being the
speaker iteself does a better job of centralization
or the fact that that they can place dedicated
sounds their without any of the background from
other sources.

that is my belief/stance on center speakers.

and with 7.1 being very close to perfection for
me all i need/want is two front side effect speakers
so i have 360 degree sound from actual speakers
not some speakers trying to image the spots of
sound.

where it seems you would be content to have the
speakers provide the image to the source of sound
i want actual speakers their.i'm not saying that
image can't do it but i want actual speakers with
dedicated channels.because i believe they can do
it better.

and i figured you did not have a reciever with
rear channels, that's why i said if you could.
yes i know your not going out and buy one to try
it.but if you get a chance to listen to one setup
properly it would be nice.

anyways that is my take on the whole surround thing.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 441
Registered: Dec-03
yes i agree this should be on old dogs.

but it also pertains to anything that contains
surround,so this could be discussed many places
i was just following suit.

and i believe jan thinks the same as you!
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 123
Registered: Dec-03
The center chanel came from movie theater design. I am not sure if it was Mr Lucas, or somebody else. I believe the center channel was (and still is) behind the screen for dialogue.

The center channel in home theater setups is intended for the same. 5.1 music is mixed to fit home theater specifications. Since the large majority of hi-fi purchases are HT systems, it makes sense that audio engineers may try to mix things in that format. Do I like it, not really. I can understand how people might want to have all of their speakers firing at the same time...since they had to pay for them.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1431
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

Yes, we are getting to the point, now.

"i believe they understood stereo and thought as i
do that a dedicated speaker in the center does
a better job than stereo does.rather it being the
speaker iteself does a better job of centralization
or the fact that that they can place dedicated
sounds their without any of the background from
other sources."

This is the issue, in a nutshell. I think the best center speaker, correctly set up, and playing properly-mixed and balanced sound, makes no difference at all. But, as soon as you get anything wrong (and that is very easy - phasing is precision engineering), then it gets in the way. But I am not 100% sure on this, and really need someone else to have a go.

I think Jan's position, on "old dogs", and that is why we started it, is "surround is nonsense". At least for music. He has got a very strong case. I know a lot of people think that way. This is not a simple issue.

Let us agree to disagree, Kegger, as we have before. I am timed out and must leave, but I will be back, and always appreciate your views.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1432
Registered: Dec-03
Ben,

I missed your post; mine crossed. That is right on, as before. For HT, I suppose I need a screen that is acoustically transparent, but optically opaque. Almost anything is possible. At a price...
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 127
Registered: Mar-04
Quad live:

http://www.stereosociety.com/body_foursides.html
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1437
Registered: Dec-03
Great link, Sem.

So is digital, multichannel Dark Side of the Moon the original quadraphonic mix? This is a good question about many "New" multichannel DVD-A/SACD. If DSOTM is original, and 4.0, that adds value, for me. I would like to hear what they did.

It is amusing how confidently that 1975 article predicts the success of surround sound, and how there were competing formats. I think we had to go through a home theater/cinema stage of development, first, since there was never enough perceived value in surround sound for audio only, except for the brave or foolhardy.

I wonder what Alan Parsons or any of those guys would have said if you proposed adding a fifth channel, just for the front center of the sound stage.....?
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 379
Registered: Feb-04
People - really! This debate is nuts! It's what the individual likes is what matters. If you don't like 5.1 so be it! If you like 6.1, 7.1 whatever, so be it. If you are are stereo buff, so be it!

If the recording doesn't conform to exactly where a musician is positioned on the stage, who really cares if it sounds great. If it doesn't, relegate it to the trash can or give it away - just like I've done with many bad CD purchase decisions in the past.

There will always be bad, average, good and excellent recordings no matter what format. An example of what John A is saying, something I mentioned before: On Neill Young's Greendale DVD-A 5.1, N Y is singing, voice eminates from the front center: a combination, of center, and stereo from mains, suddenly he starts playing the harmonica and the sound comes in from the rear. He must have run past me at lightning speed, but golly gosh folks, I'm not going to rant and rave that they got it wrong - it sounds bl00dy good and effective - so what if it's a little spooky!

My view is that if the format is 4 or only 4 channels are being used and it sounds right, then great, I'm fine with that, but so far, with Steely Dan's "2 against Nature" and NY's "Greendale" DVD-A, 5.1 channels sounds right - really doesn't seem like the center and LFE created any problems - and John A, I'm not sure that anything being debated here should be compared to or has any relevence to the lifestyle systems with tiny speakers strung up like Christmas tree lights, but I'm really glad you didn't fall for that one - could have ended in divorce!

BTW - I'm planning on getting DSOTM on SACD. I'll let you know what I think.

Kegger,

Our room design only allows us 2 rears for our 5.1 system and they are about 10 ft behind and 6ft up the wall (JBL S3611 wall mounts on timber). Not perfect, I know, but still sounds darn good. I'd certainly like to experience your set up then fly over to John A, listen to his, and then write a report between all three. Interseting eh?

John A

Theoretically, you are probably quite correct in your views. Jan Vigne also for that matter, but we all have the equipment to experiment with all channel arrays - if we wish. Whatever we like makes us all right!
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 442
Registered: Dec-03
mr. rantz i completly agree with you.

whatever sounds good to you is neither correct or
wrong.

and that was basicaly what i was trying to convey
to john with explanations of why i like it the way i do.

and felt that what he liked was his oppinion.

and i think he said it, we will have to agree to
disagree.

and don't need to debate the issue any longer.
we both prefer something different and that is fine!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1440
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz, Kegger,

We all agree. For example, My Rantz's "Whatever we like makes us all right!".

All I am trying to do is meet Jan's good, strong criticism, which started "old Dogs" (link in my post, above, "June 15, 2004 - 12:13 pm" if any one out there is interested).

Jan wrote, originally on another thread:

"As an aside, am I the only one who thinks music almost always sounds better when you listen just in stereo. How old I feel."

He, too, was expressing an opinion.

I just love stereo, always have, still do.

Sem's link (above, June 15, too) is also excellent, and there is a link there to really good article "Introduction to surround sound" from 2001. Recommended (though I disagree with some of the stuff at the end). I would also like to hear DSOTM, MR. As I said when I heard the CD, they are not trying to record an original performance. I do not object at all, any more than I did to Sgt Pepper. Love 'em both. I just think people should be aware there are differences between what different recordings are trying to do, in the first place; there is a lot of confusion based around not understanding that.

MR: great idea about travel. Then Kegger would have to hear your system and mine; then I should like to hear both of yours! The travel would break anyone's bank, unfortunately. Let's invite Sem and Jan, and some others.

Or have an "Old dogs' workshop" somewhere. Any sponsors reading....? I propose Australia. Excellent chairman.

All the best.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 130
Registered: Mar-04
I posted the link above not to add fuel to the fire but simply because I felt it was relevant to ongoing discussions here. I really wasn't looking to take sides.
I also think there is a place, musically, for both stereo and surround; the true two speaker sound; the "live" sound and the fun "surroundy" sound. Its like flavors of ice cream: we all have our favorite flavors and styles. But in the end its all about how much we love the ice cream, isn't it?

On another note, if you, even remotely, like Frank Sinatra, you must pick up the Live at the Sands DVD-A. It is superb!! Frank's voice is at its best here, and the band is top notch. Its in 5.1 but, basically the show is coming at you from just the front. The surrounds are used mainly for sonic reflections and to capture the people sitting behind you. You can hear laughter, coughing, and even the ice cubes clinking in their glasses behind you. None of this was edited out, and the recording is all the better for it. YOU ARE THERE!!! And you have great seats.
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 443
Registered: Dec-03
I agree the travel thing would be awsome and pricey!
would love to do it.
and if we went to australia i would have to get
some of that fresh FOSTER'S crap. lol

ANYWAY'S.
I have 3 friends that live within say 25 miles
and between the four of us 2 have 7.1 setups and
2 have 5.1 setups.

now the other guy with 7.1 is quite different
than mine. he has all theta stuff with the denon
5900 and aerial acoustics speakers.

and i run an hk reciever, seperatly amplified to
modified jbl and klipsch speakers with homemade
subs.

to me with no question mine sounds better than the
rest on movies and i'd say probaly second on music too
my buddies theta/aerial acoustics combonation.

the other 2 guys with 5.1 run very compatent
equipment.
and its certainally not a night and day differnce
on any of the systems except mine on movies and
the theta system on music those two lead the pack
in their respective catagories.

i believe mine sounds better than the rest in the
rear and fairly close to the 5.1 systems up front.

with the theta/aerial combo besting all of us up front.

so to me 7.1 sounds better but 5.1 with really
good gear "can" sound better or just as good.

so i guess what i'm saying in the end is i believe
with the same quality equipment 7.1 sounds better
in the rear.
but not an overall night and day better system.
 

New member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 8
Registered: Jun-04
In my first foray into multichannel music, I was looking at Chanticleer's Magnificat or the Bach Magnificat. Any negatives about these?

Too bad Alison Krause is not on DVD-A. :-(
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1446
Registered: Dec-03
goldenarrow,

The EMI Bach Magnificat is amazing, and there are over 2-and-a-half hours on the disc. It is not the highest res (recording at 20 bit) but still sounds fantastic. It is 4.0, a great format to adjust your ears and expectations. There are one or two very clumsy edits, which will make you think your player has skipped, but it hasn't. The programme is very varied, fantastic organ solos, "Air on the G string" (Suite No. 3 BTW, not 2, as I said), all sorts of stuff thrown in. It is a sort of "Best of Bach", but really, really good. Terrific playing/singing.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1449
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, That's interesting you can do that. I know nobody who is into audio. That's why I post so much here, I think. I knew a guy up the road who was into van Morrison, I think he had an original quadraphonic set-up but now only plays CDs.

Sem, I intend to get that DVD-A. It will have to wait. It is full price here, and I have already overspent on the disc budget. You forgot to mention The Count Basie Orchestra. Ice cubes. eh....? ! I will listen out for them! As with DSOTM, I wonder if it is an original surround recording?
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 131
Registered: Mar-04
Ahh yes, The Count Basie Orchestra, arranged by a young Quincy Jones. I've included a couple links to wet you appetite. When funds allow, (I can certainly relate to that), be sure to put this disc near the top of your list.

Also, let me know when you all start the HT Appreciation World Tour, count me in!! :-)


http://www.audiorevolution.com/music/revs/frank_sinatra_dvda.html

http://www.euphonix.com/news/news2003/032603_DMT_Maz_Sinatra.htm

http://www.dvdangle.com/dvd_audio/elliot_mazer.html

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1453
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks,

Sem.

Quincy Jones! My much-older brother would have loved all this. He liked jazz and technology. He knew some things, having done National Service in the RAF. He had a Pye mono LP record player, and a battery-operated, portable valve radio with fearsomely high-voltage battery pack: state-of-the-art when I was in short trousers. My earliest musical infuences were probably Louis Armstrong and Chris Barber.

I think we should go for an international Old Dogs Workshop. Different host each time. Audio only. All we need is sponsorship...

All the best.
 

New member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jun-04
John A.,

Thanks for the recommendation on Bach Magnificat. I don't remember seeing it locally so I will try to get it over the internet. It would be interesting to hear a good "4.0" engineered surround. I appreciate the interest on this BBS on these topics.

goldenarrow
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1456
Registered: Dec-03
goldenarrow,

My pleasure. The one I am talking about is EMI DVD-A: Academy of Ancient Music/Stephen Cleobury, Choir of King's College Cambridge. The sound of King' College Chapel, is, in itself, priceless. You don't get it, at all, in stereo. I've tried. In stereo, it might as well have been performed in a swimming baths. Surround sceptics should try that one!

All the best.
 

Silver Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 805
Registered: Dec-03
being a big fan, I have to get that Bach Magnificat.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1458
Registered: Dec-03
goldenarrow, Berny,

Amazon link.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1459
Registered: Dec-03
Sorry, that was the CD.

I cannot find the DVD-A on Amazon, or the HMV shop. Or the web. It is:

EMI Classics 7243 4 92401 9 3

BACH Magnificat, Choir of King's College Cambridge, Academy of Ancient Music, Stephen Cleobury.

I find it on:

http://www.emiclassics.com/dvd/dvdaud/index1.html

but there seems to be no direct link.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 133
Registered: Mar-04
Back to the original topic, I would be remiss in my duties if I failed to mention the recent release of The Alan Parsons Project's "Turn of a Friendly Card" in HDAD format. Its DVD-A 24/192 stereo only, no surround. I've just ordered this and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. One of the many thematic albums created by Parsons and Eric Woolfson using many different vocalists, fine studio musicians, and lush orchestration of The Orchestra of the Munich Chamber Opera Care of Eberhard Schoener: Leader - Sandor Farcas.

This would be one of the top three albums by APP, in my opinion worth getting if you are new to their work or wish to explore them. The others being "I Robot" and "Tales of Mystery and Imagination." So far only ..Friendly Card and I Robot are available in hi-rez. Tales.. has been remastered and now includes some narration by Orson Welles. Its songs/music are set to Edgar Allan Poe tales, and uses (I believe) the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and the The English Chorale Westminster City School Boys Choir. Also highly recommended.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 394
Registered: Feb-04
Good to see this tread going back on track again! Sem - I Robot and Tales Of Mystery . . . take me back to good times in the mid seventies. I'll have to keep a lookout for the hi-res versions. Thanks.

SACD 5.1 "Dark Side Of The Moon" - Pink Floyd

The 30th Anniversary Recording: It is not 'You are there!' nor is it a 'They are here!' recording. It is more a "We are all somewhere else entirely!" type of recording. Not only a sentimental favourite, but in hi-res surround, DSOTM is an absolute sensation. Superb audio quality and a wonderful mind stimulant in one.

"There is no dark side of the moon - it's all dark really!"

Yet so enlightening!

 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 135
Registered: Mar-04
My Rantz,
If you could see me now you'd see a huge smile on my face. I'm very happy for you that you have, and are enjoying, the SACD DSOTM so much. I look forward to buying this disc in the near future and being able to enjoy one of the most influential (at least to me), musical statements of my lifetime.

Just to clarify, Tales of Mystery.... is not high-rez. It was remastered, adding an Orson Welles narration, as well as additional guitar,k/b, and drum bits here and there. The only original version of this album to make it to cd is put out by MoFi, and I'm not sure if its even available anymore.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 398
Registered: Feb-04
Sem
Thanks, I'll look out for whatever is available - it was great stuff!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Goldenarrow

Post Number: 19
Registered: Jun-04
Berny, John A.,

FYI, I just mail-ordered the Bach Magnificat from Acoustic Sounds in Kansas for $24.98 DVD-A version. The postage and handling pushed it up over $30. Berny, here is the web site if you need it:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=9617

Sem,

It has been a long time since I listened to Alan Parsons. What do you think of "On Air". As I understand it, it is a concept or theme album and is supposed to be light and easy to listen to. Does it make you feel of flight and the sensation of flight? Is it like any of his older works. I really don't remember any by name, just a kind of catchy rhythm.

goldenarrow
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1507
Registered: Dec-03
goldenarrow,

Yes, that's the Bach I was talking about. I thought I was just getting The Magnificat (I have no other version), but there are hours of music on that disc. Hope you like it! It is sonically fascinating to hear, apart from the music itself. As I said, it is not the highest resolution. Whether that is the signal or the amazing acoustic of the recording venue is difficult for me to tell.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 141
Registered: Mar-04
goldenarrow,
Since, as others here can attest, I love going on about the music of Parsons, here's a few comments about "On Air"

There are two versions, the redbook cd, which is neat in itself because it comes with a companion cd rom disc to be used in a PC. Its got lots of great visuals, hidden links, etc.
The hi-rez version was released a few years later and is a 5.1 DTS disc. The songs are the same, and in the same order on both versions.
It is indeed a theme album based loosely on the history of flight. There are songs spanning such topics as Icarus ('Too Close to the Sun') and 'One Day to Fly, a song about Da Vinci dreaming of flying machines; to the ultra-electronic 'Apollo' a (mostly) instrumental about space travel featuring some of JFK's famous speech about the exploration of space, (GREAT in surround).
As usual there are guest vocalists on the cd, this time he uses Graham Dye (Flying Pickets), Christopher Cross, and Eric Stewart (10CC).

The cd begins and ends with 'Blue Blue Sky' parts 1 and 2, nice accoustic guitar, birds chirping, and Stewart's soothing voice. At the end of BBS part 2 is one of the most amazing sounds I've ever heard on cd. Coupled with the accoustic guitar are strings (synths maybe? not sure), the strings are taking you higher and higher, as if you're being lifted by the wind, the suddenly THE deepest note kicks in and it lasts for some 15 or 20 seconds, really shaking pictures on the wall.

From a bass playing friend:

"This is a very loud, low D, a whole step lower than the
bass's ordinary range (accomplished by using a 5-string bass, an
E-string extension, or scordatura). Part of what gives it its
distinctive sound is a doubling in the violins, several octaves up. It
is much softer than the bass, making it sound like one of the bass's
overtones: a cool effect from a sensitive orchestrator. BTW, the
effect is not acoustic; and there is no brass, just strings."

All in all, a very good cd, if you like the Parsons sound/production, though I would rate it somewhat lower than Tales of Myster and Imagination, I Robot, or Turn of a Friendly Card, my favorites.

Go to anazon.com and search on it to hear a few samples.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

Post Number: 150
Registered: Mar-04
http://www.artemisrecords.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=154
 

Silver Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 952
Registered: Dec-03
beck...........sea change..........

get it, listen in surround, don't be affraid!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 195
Registered: Mar-04
Got it. Listening to it now. I like it. A lot. Thanks go out to Kegger, My Rantz, and Ghia for recommending it, maybe others I'm forgetting as well.

Right off the bat the song "Lost Cause" struck a chord with me. After a few listens and then an search on the web, I think I got it. I heard this song about a year ago when Beck was the muscal guest on SNL.

More later....
 

Bronze Member
Username: Donaldekelly

Washington, DC Usa

Post Number: 57
Registered: Jul-04
Amazon has a lot of dvd-audio discs but you have to search by UPC code!!! It is like they are trying to hide the dvd-audio!

Bach Magnificat: $22.15
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005B8A9

To search by UPC or ISBN code.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 198
Registered: Mar-04
Don, All,

Here's some additional sites to peruse...


http://www.amusicdirect.com/
http://www.acousticsounds.com
http://www.dvdempire.com/index.asp?olduserid=00000003338655&nu=1&loginCheck=1293 3137800302004800&userid=00000003338655&redir=1
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1045
Registered: Dec-03
I have 2 james taylor sacd's that i find just wonderful
to listen to.

they are well recorded with very very good music.
 

Gold Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 1115
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,
Which ones do you have? I am having the hardest time getting hold of any.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1048
Registered: Dec-03
Hourglass and October Road !

good stuff enjoy berny.

sem i think you would enjoy also.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 200
Registered: Mar-04
Thanks Kegger, I'll add them to my rapidly growing wish list.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1910
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

Did you get the "Tubular Bells" DVD-A...? Sorry if you said so, and I didn't notice, or forgot.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 201
Registered: Mar-04
John A.

No, the more I think about it the more its slipping down the list. I may still pick it up someday but there is so much more I would rather have first.

BTW, did you ever replace your Frank Sinatra disc? Remember the ice cubes :-)
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 153
Registered: Dec-03
MOFI is releasing a hybrid SACD of Ryan Adams' "Hearbreaker" which is an AMAZING album. The CD sounds fantascic, so I will be curious to see how (and if) MOFI can improve things.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 1918
Registered: Dec-03
Sem,

No, I have not replaced "Live at the Sands" yet. I will look out for another copy. It is still the only DVD-A I have bought that would not play in my machine.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 203
Registered: Mar-04
Ok, I've had a few listens to Beck's "Sea Change" now and here's some initial thoughts...

Quite a bit different than I anticipated, considering how unfamiliar I was with it prior to buying it. Much more melancholy than I expected. It does seems like a nice blend of country/folk mixed in with a bit of electronic effects. His voice, to me, seems to be a mix of Bruce Cockburn, Chris Isaac, and Gordon Lightfoot, (is that even possible :-))???

The surround effects that Ghia raved about are certainly enveloping without being to the point where they get in the way.

I'm not real familiar with his other cds with the possible exception of "Odelay" which I heard, of all places in Corolla, OBX. One of the "kids" (now into his late 20's) we vacationed with first turned me on to "Devil's Haircut" and "Where its At." I guess I assumed this dvd-a would be more along those lines.
I do enjoy it though and look forward to more time with it. I will make an update over on the 'rate your hi-res' thread once I've listened to it a few more times.

I also picked up Neil Young's "Greendale" DVD-A recently but have not taken the time to give it a critical listen yet. Hopefully soon.

On another front, the new Alan Parsons cd, "A Valid Point" will be out in less than 3 weeks. Its been 5 years since his last release so I'm really looking forward to it. It will also be released in 5.1 dvd-a as well, I'm just not sure on the date yet.
Lots of "guests" this time: Nortec Collective, Crystal Method, Shpongle, Uberzone, PJ Olsson, David Pack, David Gilmour, and of all people, John Cleese.
 

New member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 9
Registered: Aug-04
Sem

I'm anticipating your critical listen to Greendale. The Doobie Brother's 'The Captain and Me" is becoming a regular DVD-A on our Denon. Great stuff - I'll have to review my ratings for it. "A Valid Point" should be interesting. Cheers.
 

New member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 10
Registered: Aug-04
Sem

I'm anticipating your critical listen to Greendale - IMO the bass is critical with this recording. The Doobie Brother's 'The Captain and Me" is becoming a regular DVD-A on our Denon. Great stuff - I'll have to review my ratings for it. "A Valid Point" should be interesting. Cheers.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Donaldekelly

Washington, DC Usa

Post Number: 77
Registered: Jul-04
If it is not improper to write, I have about 8 or 9 SACDs and DVD-As that I bought and was disappointed in (because of the music not the sound in most cases). I have them listed for sale on Amazon but if anyone here wants to know what I have available to buy - I will send them a list off of this message board.

I am not trying to use this list as a way to make a lot of money but rather to pass on at a fair price a few items that I bought and no longer want. (Mostly classical).

email is donaldekelly@yahoo.com

I won't bring it up again so as to keep the sense of honesty and noncommerciality that is in this discussion site. Please give me feedback if this seems inappropriate and I will not follow through with sending the list out.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1187
Registered: Dec-03
no don i have no problem with it.

you might even want to list the titles hear that
way if anyone is interested they can mail you.

SEM: that beck is pretty cool aye!
 

Monica
Unregistered guest
I was just surfing for vinyl and ran across this discussion...I just wanted to add a few recommendations to the gentleman's (Michael) question on SACD's. Here are some of my favorites!
Any recordings by the following artists:
Sara K. by Stockfisch Records
Chris Jones by Stockfisch Records
Paul Stephenson by Stockfisch Records
Stockfisch is a German recording label (I live in Germany)...absoletely marvelous sound...recorded with B&W speakers...of which I am partial as husband is owner of such speakers (which are absolutely wonderful themselves).
Also recommend any Concord Jazz (Concord Records) recording...the samplers are a good start to just get an idea of what you may like...they are just great recordings.
I'll leave it at that...Enjoy yourself, and your newfound hobby. I must get back to my vinyl search...the quest for the best!
 

New member
Username: Willy_57

Moerbeke waas, Oost-vlaanderen Belgium

Post Number: 8
Registered: May-06
Bjork - Medusa
Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells
Mozart - The Requiem (Harmonia Mundi)
Yes - Fragile DVD-A
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us