2ch vs 5ch Stereo

[madmac]

Ok I'm gone from this thread but I still maintain that Rotel gear is an excellent product across the board in all their equipment!. And TommyV.....2channel stereo??. That's basically old school and by and large gone. Sorry!. Once I powered up my unit to output in 5ch stereo (properly calibrated!!) I was sold!!. Enough said......

[BWzes03]

@madmac: Stereo is far from gone! I'd say that a proper 2-channel recording driven by proper 2-channel equipment can produce a far more convincing 3-d sound field that 5.1/7.1 can ever hope to achieve...
That being said, I can only comment on 10-series 2-channel equipment, I still love my 10-series.....
While there were some 'legendary' 9 series and even before, the 10-series is very clean sounding to my ears.

The RCD-991 SE was it I believe, the most overly egineered Rotel CD-player..
The Michi pre-amp and poweramps ... stuff of legend... (not to mention beautiful)

just my 2 eurocents...

[stuofsci02]

Yep.. Two-Channel is still alive and well. And while being less social then multichannel music, IMO it is still the true Hi-Fi format.

If recorded in Multichannel then OK. But having a processor redistribute a stereo signal to multichannel do not do it for me..

[madmac]

I thought I might get some flack for my saying 2ch Stereo is dead!. Obviously it is not where audiophiles are concerned. I was always a 2ch stereo guy for many many years but now I listen to all my music in 5ch. Why? because it simply sounds better that way in my opinion!. The Rotel is not really 'processing' anything in 5ch stereo mode (unlike pro-logic). All it's doing is taking all mono content and sending it to the center speaker, then taking the dedicated 'stereo' left/right content and sending that sound equally to the right/right surround (In equal db measure) and left/left surround. The result is VERY pleasing to say the least and the Rotel does not even work up a sweat doing it!. I find using 5 speakers (all the same model and drivers and properly calibrated both for db level and distance from listener) positioned in different areas maximizes the sound field. Rather than simple 'imaging' that you get with a proper 2ch stereo setup, you are completely immersed and within the sound rather than the illusion of being in front of the band that 2ch offers. However, sound is personal as is musical taste. However, I would urge anybody with a 5ch Rotel receiver to at least try this setup. While running the setup, collapse the sound back into 2ch and you'll be shocked at the difference!.

[stuofsci02]

Naturally 2-channel vs 5-channel will be personal taste. While I agree that the 5 channel processing creates an interesting illusion it also removes the realism from the recording. For instance, a stereo recording might place a piano in front of you, but slightly to the right of the singer which might be centered. This is how it would be if you were there watching it on a stage.

Now in 5-channel the singer will still be in front and centered however the piano will distrbuted across the center, right and right surrond speaker. This will make the piano sound like it is coming from all over (including behind you) which would not be how it is really heard. In my opinion this is good for parties where you might be moving around the room, but for dedicated listening it detracts from the realism and sound stage some work so hard to obtain.

[madmac]

@stuofsci02 - Actually with my 5ch setup, The vocals are immediately in front of me in the center like they are standing right in front of me in the room (More forward than in 2ch mode). The background vocals surround me and the rest of the band is around me like I was right on the stage with them. It's a different perspective for sure but it's more dynamic and immediate in my opinion. I see you have the Oppo 83SE !!. How do you like it?. Do you use it for audio (CD playback specifically)?.

[madmac]

That's good to know because stand alone CD players are pretty much obsolete now and when my current Marantz CD player gives up the ghost, I'm going to need a good alternative. Thanks for the info!

[stuofsci02]

That's good to know because stand alone CD players are pretty much obsolete now and when my current Marantz CD player gives up the ghost, I'm going to need a good alternative. Thanks for the info!

I think the Oppo BDP-95 will also be an alternative once it comes out in Feb. Time will tell if it is better/worse/same as the 83SE for stereo output.

[madmac]

My guess is the BDP-95 will most likely be better than the 83 both in video and audio. Oppo puts a lot of time and research into their players and it's all they do now is BD players and each new model they put out uses better components inside. I have a DV-981HD dvd Oppo player and it never ceases to amaze me in DVD playback. However, it is not good on the analog audio side of things.

[stuofsci02]

My guess is the BDP-95 will most likely be better than the 83 both in video and audio. Oppo puts a lot of time and research into their players and it's all they do now is BD players and each new model they put out uses better components inside. I have a DV-981HD dvd Oppo player and it never ceases to amaze me in DVD playback. However, it is not good on the analog audio side of things.

That may be true, however, it appears they brought the 93 and now 95 out quite quickly to provide a 3D player which seems to be where the competition is going. Also the fact that they stopped selling the 83/83SE before the 93 was available leads me to believe that something was up (maybe they couldn't get parts etc.). For this reason I am unsure if aside from the 3D and extra HDMI port if the new players are really going to be better.

Cheers,

Stuart

[cZwUV620]

I haven't heard any of the 9 series but I'm more than happy with the stereo performance of the 10 series.

As far as multichannel goes, I'll only use it if the recording was mixed specifically for it. I enjoyed multichannel surround from ordinary redbook CDs with my Denon receiver for about a year. There's no doubting it's a interesting way to listen to music for sure, but ultimately I grew tired of it. One day I switched to stereo mode and thought, "this is more like it."

Soon after, I went to my local dealer and told them about my plans for a dedicated stereo system. I told them I was using receivers to listen to music in various modes and stuff and the salesman told me, "The stage is in the front, not the back". He showed me the Rotel power-pre amp combo and the rest is history.

[madmac]

2 ch stereo puts you in front of an illusionary stage made and fabricated by the sound engineer, 5ch stereo puts you in the middle of the stage......almost like you were a member of the band. At the end of the day, it's just personal preference. Also, be aware that multichannel dvd audio and SACD are also 'fabricated' illusions created by sound people as well.....not an example of reality in any way.

[Anovak]

I thought I might get some flack for my saying 2ch Stereo is dead!. Obviously it is not where audiophiles are concerned. I was always a 2ch stereo guy for many many years but now I listen to all my music in 5ch. Why? because it simply sounds better that way in my opinion!. The Rotel is not really 'processing' anything in 5ch stereo mode (unlike pro-logic). All it's doing is taking all mono content and sending it to the center speaker, then taking the dedicated 'stereo' left/right content and sending that sound equally to the right/right surround (In equal db measure) and left/left surround. The result is VERY pleasing to say the least and the Rotel does not even work up a sweat doing it!. I find using 5 speakers (all the same model and drivers and properly calibrated both for db level and distance from listener) positioned in different areas maximizes the sound field. Rather than simple 'imaging' that you get with a proper 2ch stereo setup, you are completely immersed and within the sound rather than the illusion of being in front of the band that 2ch offers. However, sound is personal as is musical taste. However, I would urge anybody with a 5ch Rotel receiver to at least try this setup. While running the setup, collapse the sound back into 2ch and you'll be shocked at the difference!.

Madmac,
While submitting that it's all about how each of us hears and prefers to hear, I totally agree with you about the difference between 5ch stereo and 2ch stereo. And, you're absolutely correct that there is no "processing" going on here.....simply sending the left/right info to front and back speakers and combining it for the center channel. I think the basis for my preference is:

When you attend a live event, the soundstage is not only in front....in a venue that is great acoustically, the sound will fill the space with some reflection from the rear and in fact all around, giving a "surround" kind of impression. That is what appeals to me, personally. Granted, an audiophile 2ch system in an equally stellar listening room will also produce a fantastic experience with ambient sound coming from behind and around you....just not quite as vivid in my experience.

I, by far, prefer the 2ch SACD to the multichannel format for precisely the reasons you mention: in multichannel, engineers decide what will be placed in the various channels.....I like to decide that myself, and raising or lowering the volume of the surrounds/center gives me the ability to achieve the perfect balance for my idea of how it might sound "live."

If you haven't tried it yet, get some of the UHR SACD's from Mobile Fidelity,(most recorded in 2 ch. stereo), and if you have an Oppo or similar player that you can send the signal via HDMI bitstream to your Rotel 1570 (or similar) processor that will then split it into the aforementioned 5ch stereo and get ready for a treat! If you like the Doobies, try Toulouse Street and listen to the title cut.....absolutely astounding, again, in my opinion.

[madmac]

@Anovak.....My Oppo will output SACD in 2ch so I will definitely give that concept a try. I have a Diana Krall SACD disc. Have you heard any HDCD's ?. I have played some of those back in 5ch and it's amazing!. Sadly though, SACD's and Dvd audio discs are by and large gone and not being made anymore. CD mastering has gotten so good lately that many well made cd's are approching SACD sound quality anyway.

[Anovak]

@Anovak.....My Oppo will output SACD in 2ch so I will definitely give that concept a try. I have a Diana Krall SACD disc. Have you heard any HDCD's ?. I have played some of those back in 5ch and it's amazing!. Sadly though, SACD's and Dvd audio discs are by and large gone and not being made anymore. CD mastering has gotten so good lately that many well made cd's are approching SACD sound quality anyway.

Madmac, yes your Oppo will do that. Be sure to go into the Oppo setup and set the HDMI audio output to Bitstream. Then, make sure you have selected the input on your processor that the HDMI signal is coming in to, then select 5ch stereo....

Haven't played any HDCDs yet and you're right about the dvd-a and sacd discs going the way of the dinosaur.....the higher resolution of those discs, especially the 192/24 in some dvd-a's (Eagles-Hotel California e.g.) seriously rivals analog in my opinion. Even the 48/24 sounds far, far more full and smooth than any cd's I've heard. Really, go to:

http://www.mofi.com/store/pc/viewCategories.asp?pageStyle=p&idCategory=2

I don't believe you'll be disappointed if you find some albums/artists there that you like in terms of the sound quality played back as we've discussed.

Thanks for your helpful observations.

[madmac]

On last thing about multi channel audio (Rotel 5ch stereo specifically). The positioning of the rear speakers appears to be paramount from an audio perspective. Mine are positioned above ear level. If your rear's are AT ear level, then the 5ch stereo via a Rotel processor perspective might sound a bit 'harsh' in the vocal arena and might need to be tweaked. I realized this today while standing up in front of my speakers vs. my usual sitting down position. Sitting down with the surrounds above my ear, the surround effect is more subdued and realistic whereas standing puts the surrounds more directly into my ear creating too much vocal 'sound' around me and not enough from the front where it sould by and large originate.

[maxwebster]

If you haven't tried it yet, get some of the UHR SACD's from Mobile Fidelity,(most recorded in 2 ch. stereo), and if you have an Oppo or similar player that you can send the signal via HDMI bitstream to your Rotel 1570 (or similar) processor that will then split it into the aforementioned 5ch stereo and get ready for a treat! If you like the Doobies, try Toulouse Street and listen to the title cut.....absolutely astounding, again, in my opinion.

er, there are usually more than 2 channels in a recording... and multi-channel SACDs are re-engineered from the multi-channel master - otherwise - what's the point?

[Anovak]

er, there are usually more than 2 channels in a recording... and multi-channel SACDs are re-engineered from the multi-channel master - otherwise - what's the point?

Hi Max.

I am talking about the final pressing of a disc. In my understanding, some SACD's are just 2 channel stereo, some are 5.1 channels and the information that goes into each channel is designated by an engineer(s) according to what they feel needs to go there.

The way I understand it from Mobile Fidelity, the 2 channel stereo SACD's are produced from the original master recordings with the information going to left and right essentially the same as it was for the first pressings, in this case, of the Doobie Brothers "Toulouse Street" vinyl album.

The HUGE difference is that there is so much more information on the UHR SACD's, much less compressed than in the case of a regular CD at 44.1/16, that the sound is amazingly better to my ears.

So, when you have that really wonderful, high resolution 2 channel signal coming in and then split it into 5 channels, the sound literally envelopes you. You are sending an identical left channel signal to left front and rear, identical right channel signal to right front and rear, and a combined left and right channel signal to the center channel. Tweak your rears to the level that suits you in terms of how much in the middle of the music you would like to be and you're there. Close my eyes and play with the rears I get the feeling that I'm literally walking from the center of the band towards the audience when lowering rear volume as the sound emanates more from the "stage." Raise the rear volume and I'm putting myself back in the middle of the band on-stage.

Give it a try if your equipment allows. I have found the stereo SACD's so much better on balance than those of the multi-channel, or 5.1 type and I suppose it is because of the preference to decide myself what the rears should sound like. Many engineers put little to nothing, reverberated ambient sounds, or crowd noise in their mixes for the rears. That's not very appealing to me.

There are absolutely some exceptions and fine ones at that, e.g. Elton John's "Honkey Chateau," which is really great in SACD 5.1 (kudos Greg Penny for the mix) and for DVD-Audio, Queen's "A Night At The Opera" (Elliot Scheiner's talented mix) and particularly "The Prophet's Song!"

So, that's what the point is....in my opinion....unless I've misunderstood yours. Again, give it a try. 8)

[Anovak]

On last thing about multi channel audio (Rotel 5ch stereo specifically). The positioning of the rear speakers appears to be paramount from an audio perspective. Mine are positioned above ear level. If your rear's are AT ear level, then the 5ch stereo via a Rotel processor perspective might sound a bit 'harsh' in the vocal arena and might need to be tweaked. I realized this today while standing up in front of my speakers vs. my usual sitting down position. Sitting down with the surrounds above my ear, the surround effect is more subdued and realistic whereas standing puts the surrounds more directly into my ear creating too much vocal 'sound' around me and not enough from the front where it sould by and large originate.

Madmac, great point! I have found this to be so also. How high above ear level are your rears if I might ask? I have been able to achieve a similar effect by simply lowering the rear volume at times when certain soundtracks sound too harsh but there seems to be so, so much more to acoustics that dramatically changes the way things sound and it would not surprise me at all that by raising yours, you have tapped into a more ideal sound quality based on the characteristics of your listening room.....just some thoughts.

Andy

[madmac]

My rears are basically 5 feet above my ears when I'm sitting down on my sofa. The main thing that makes my sound so good is that all my speakers are the exact same model and all the drivers are identical making the sound perfectly seamless. All my speakers are also properly calibrated for distance from listener and db levels are properly set. I never change the db level settings on mine because the sound is absolutely perfect with whatever disc I spin. Have you heard the DTS dvd version of Steely Dan's "Two against Nature". absolutely fabulous sounding recording!!. Anovak is correct about the higher def recordings (DVD-A, SACD, HDCD) in regards to selecting the 2ch presentation (Many offer both 5.1 and 2ch) and then playing the discs in Rotel's 5ch stereo mode. Unbelievable enveloping sound!. In the higher def formats, there is way more 'texture' to the sound with super smooth, well defined bass!.

[Anovak]

My rears are basically 5 feet above my ears when I'm sitting down on my sofa. The main thing that makes my sound so good is that all my speakers are the exact same model and all the drivers are identical making the sound perfectly seamless. All my speakers are also properly calibrated for distance from listener and db levels are properly set. I never change the db level settings on mine because the sound is absolutely perfect with whatever disc I spin. Have you heard the DTS dvd version of Steely Dan's "Two against Nature". absolutely fabulous sounding recording!!. Anovak is correct about the higher def recordings (DVD-A, SACD, HDCD) in regards to selecting the 2ch presentation (Many offer both 5.1 and 2ch) and then playing the discs in Rotel's 5ch stereo mode. Unbelievable enveloping sound!. In the higher def formats, there is way more 'texture' to the sound with super smooth, well defined bass!.

Madmac, thanks for those details and sounds like we are on a similar page with regard to preferences! I certainly dooooo have the dts TAN and would agree it sounds very, very fine and highly recommend it as dts showcase material and a must-hear for enthusiasts who enjoy Steely Dan.

But guess what? If you're a DAN fan, and sounds like you are, what sounds even better to me is the DVD-Audio of TAN.....then, if you can stand it, go for the bacon and listen to Gaucho on SACD!!!! Blow you away fer shure!8O

Anybody here know if there are any Steely Dan, Aja hi res discs available anywhere? Did a search and found some Japanese imports that were pretty costly and still in 44/16.....maybe could go for the re-issued 180gr. vinyl by Cisco but then there's the $20-30K drop for a turntable that would do justice to such stuff....

Andy

[madmac]

@Anovak.....Vinyl ????!!! Your kidding right???!!. There's no way vinyl from a spec point of view touches any digital medium....including a well pressed CD!!.

Ohhh boy......I've opened a can of worms here right!!??? :-)

ps...I do remember seeing Aja on SACD or DVD audio somewhere but I don't remember where it was. My Oppo dvd player is annoying when it comes to playing dvd-a discs because I have to turn on the tv to navigate the menus to choose 2ch stereo and I hate having the TV on when listening to music! If I just press play, the thing puts out dolby digital as default. ARGH!!

[Anovak]

@Anovak.....Vinyl ????!!! Your kidding right???!!. There's no way vinyl from a spec point of view touches any digital medium....including a well pressed CD!!.

Ohhh boy......I've opened a can of worms here right!!??? :-)

ps...I do remember seeing Aja on SACD or DVD audio somewhere but I don't remember where it was. My Oppo dvd player is annoying when it comes to playing dvd-a discs because I have to turn on the tv to navigate the menus to choose 2ch stereo and I hate having the TV on when listening to music! If I just press play, the thing puts out dolby digital as default. ARGH!!

I like to reflect back upon the fact that we all hear differently, which accounts for such strong feelings on both sides of this subject I suppose.

Without getting too far lost in this, there are many, myself included, who are very sensitive to compressed music.....that's why the less compressed stuff, like DVD-A and SACD sounds so much better to me on balance and especially with my Rotel equipment.

Now, there are considerations in terms of the actual recording quality. A badly recorded piece will sound even worse the less it is compressed to me.....just lets you hear all the noise that much more, while an excellently recorded piece might sound pretty good on regular cd.....but, would sound even better to me were it available on hi res format.

I have a friend that has a high end stereo setup and plays nothing but the best vinyl you can find. I have to say, it is sweet, very warm, full, lacking not one detail, but his system probably set him back close to $100K! AND, again, the room, the room, the room! His is acoustically near perfect and such a difference that makes.

I would love to know if any of you know a site that helps with such stuff, I mean designing such a room and doing it right and without requiring a degree in rocket science to do it.

Thanks.

Andy

[madmac]

Contrary to what vinyl lovers say, it is, like CD ....a representation of what used to be 'real live' music. Once music goes into a microphone, it is now only a representation of what used to be real. Now that being said, vinyl is a needle going into groves on a record and dates back half a century and more from tech point of view. If grooves in a record being read by a needle is not a form of 'compression', then I don't know what is!!??. To compare it to what is available today is laughable to say the least. Some vinyl records sound ok but will never compare to what is available today sound wise. Now your friends system sounds good because it's high end stuff.....period!. All that tells me is that if he puts on a well pressed cd, dvd-a or SACD, the system would sound that much better than when he's spinning a vinyl record.

One of the MAJOR issues in sound management is bass response in relation to the room. All rooms have a low freq. standing wave issues. Some worse than others. If you can find that freq. spike and tame it, the bass will dramatically improve as well as the rest of the sound that is being produced with it. You want some carpeting and other 'stuffy' items in the room but not too much. I also have a lot of paintings on all my walls which also tame the 'liveliness' of the room and keeps those bass standing waves in check. The single biggest improvement in my setup is when I optimized the bass response to the room. My subs are Infinity and come with a Room adaptive bass optimization system (RABOS) built into them. Once I charted the bass response of the room and optimized the subs to eliminate the standing wave spike, the difference was to say the least...unbelievable!!. Smooth, rolling, deep bass filled the room. No 'boominess' at all anymore. The 2nd biggest improvement was when I started to listen to my music in 5ch stereo with my Rotel !! :-)

[Anovak]

Contrary to what vinyl lovers say, it is, like CD ....a representation of what used to be 'real live' music. Once music goes into a microphone, it is now only a representation of what used to be real. Now that being said, vinyl is a needle going into groves on a record and dates back half a century and more from tech point of view. If grooves in a record being read by a needle is not a form of 'compression', then I don't know what is!!??. To compare it to what is available today is laughable to say the least. Some vinyl records sound ok but will never compare to what is available today sound wise. Now your friends system sounds good because it's high end stuff.....period!. All that tells me is that if he puts on a well pressed cd, dvd-a or SACD, the system would sound that much better than when he's spinning a vinyl record.

One of the MAJOR issues in sound management is bass response in relation to the room. All rooms have a low freq. standing wave issues. Some worse than others. If you can find that freq. spike and tame it, the bass will dramatically improve as well as the rest of the sound that is being produced with it. You want some carpeting and other 'stuffy' items in the room but not too much. I also have a lot of paintings on all my walls which also tame the 'liveliness' of the room and keeps those bass standing waves in check. The single biggest improvement in my setup is when I optimized the bass response to the room. My subs are Infinity and come with a Room adaptive bass optimization system (RABOS) built into them. Once I charted the bass response of the room and optimized the subs to eliminate the standing wave spike, the difference was to say the least...unbelievable!!. Smooth, rolling, deep bass filled the room. No 'boominess' at all anymore. The 2nd biggest improvement was when I started to listen to my music in 5ch stereo with my Rotel !! :-)

Yes, and with the Oppo ability to pass 2ch stereo sacd in bitstream to the RSP1570, which can then process it into 5ch stereo it seems like we have the best of both worlds. Still, the Steely Dan sacd of Gaucho is really worth your listen if you haven't yet, even though it is in 5.1 it is really good. Another disc I have recently re-discovered is the stereo sacd of Boston, self-titled. I bought it thinking it was 5.1 and when I got it home, realized it was stereo and was rather bummed.....then, after getting the Oppo, I put it on in 5ch stereo and was totally blown away!

Andy

[TommyV]

I will chime in here since I have both 2ch and 5.1 setup. I like both and would not want to give up either one. For music in my 5.1 setup I like 5ch stereo as well as PLII Music. I love that you can adjust the settings of PLII Music to your likings. I have 2ch, 5ch stereo, PLII Music and PLII Cinema buttons programmed on all my activities on my Harmony 900 so I can easily switch between each of them depending on what I am listening to.

I usually use one of the multi channel options when listening to music but I am probably going to be upgrading my front speakers to floor standing 683s. With those, I am sure that 2 channel will be more appealing than with my DM601 S3s. What is great about a 5 speaker setup is you can get incredible sound by using 5 smaller speakers and adding a sub. When you upgrade to large front speakers, it starts to become more attractive to listen to music in stereo.

At $1500 (the same price of my CM5s in my stereo setup) I am very interested to hear how the 683s compare for stereo listening to my dedicated 2ch system. I am using the Rotel RSP-1069/RMB-1075.

[TommyV]

Contrary to what vinyl lovers say, it is, like CD ....a representation of what used to be 'real live' music. Once music goes into a microphone, it is now only a representation of what used to be real. Now that being said, vinyl is a needle going into groves on a record and dates back half a century and more from tech point of view. If grooves in a record being read by a needle is not a form of 'compression', then I don't know what is!!??. To compare it to what is available today is laughable to say the least. Some vinyl records sound ok but will never compare to what is available today sound wise. Now your friends system sounds good because it's high end stuff.....period!. All that tells me is that if he puts on a well pressed cd, dvd-a or SACD, the system would sound that much better than when he's spinning a vinyl record.

Vinyl is not compressed, it is analog. A well pressed vinyl sounds better to me any day than a CD. And then you compare what most people listen to, MP3s they downloaded off the internet, and it is not even a comparison.

With SACD and DVD-Audio, you definitely have a superior format to vinyl IMO. They just do not have all the cool titles that come on records. So my record collection is in the hundreds while my high rez audio disc collection is in the tens. If I could get any title in SACD then I would abandon vinyl all together but unfortunately, that will probably never happen as people are moving more toward MP3s and ipods instead of high resolution/high quality digital audio.

[Anovak]

Vinyl is not compressed, it is analog. A well pressed vinyl sounds better to me any day than a CD. And then you compare what most people listen to, MP3s they downloaded off the internet, and it is not even a comparison.

With SACD and DVD-Audio, you definitely have a superior format to vinyl IMO. They just do not have all the cool titles that come on records. So my record collection is in the hundreds while my high rez audio disc collection is in the tens. If I could get any title in SACD then I would abandon vinyl all together but unfortunately, that will probably never happen as people are moving more toward MP3s and ipods instead of high resolution/high quality digital audio.

TommyV, there are still places where you can get a fairly wide variety of SACD's, so I wouldn't give up yet on expanding your collection. Have a look at this link if you haven't yet:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/cat/4/SACD

Amazon, if you do a search, actually has a ton of both SACD and DVD-A discs available. Totally agree with you on the MP3 thing....hurts to listen to it!

Andy

[madmac]

@Anovak - I Checked out the 683's and they look sweet!. I'm sure your going to be very happy with them!.

@ TommyV - Understanding that vinyl is analog, it is still only a 'representation' of the original sound that was in the studio and a pretty poor one spec wise at that!. It is by no means, the whole sound and neither is CD. If you compare the dynamic range and freq. range of vinyl to any digital format, it is not very impressive to say the least!. Some people refer to vinyl as 'warm' sounding and that's just because the format lacks the dynamic punch and extended freq range that the digital mediums offers up. That's fine because some people don't like that 'punch' and prefer a more subdued sound. However, A flat line 20-20K+ frequency range and a db range of 130 does not compare to vinyl's sloping, barely audible 20-20K curving freq range with it's whopping db dynamic range of about 70!!. No comparison!. I agree with you on the MP3 thing though.....it's pretty sad sounding and unfortunately, the way the majority of people today are listening to their music.....mostly through computers and Ipods sadly. It's the utter absence of low frequency sound that gets me in that format!.

[stuofsci02]

TommyV,

I think the CM5 will be a better speaker then the 683 for stereo listening, unless you are really into the bass.

[TommyV]

@Anovak - I Checked out the 683's and they look sweet!. I'm sure your going to be very happy with them!.

@ TommyV - Understanding that vinyl is analog, it is still only a 'representation' of the original sound that was in the studio and a pretty poor one spec wise at that!. It is by no means, the whole sound and neither is CD. If you compare the dynamic range and freq. range of vinyl to any digital format, it is not very impressive to say the least!. Some people refer to vinyl as 'warm' sounding and that's just because the format lacks the dynamic punch and extended freq range that the digital mediums offers up. That's fine because some people don't like that 'punch' and prefer a more subdued sound. However, A flat line 20-20K+ frequency range and a db range of 130 does not compare to vinyl's sloping, barely audible 20-20K curving freq range with it's whopping db dynamic range of about 70!!. No comparison!. I agree with you on the MP3 thing though.....it's pretty sad sounding and unfortunately, the way the majority of people today are listening to their music.....mostly through computers and Ipods sadly. It's the utter absence of low frequency sound that gets me in that format!.

Dynamic punch? And as far as freq range here check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

"In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond. Considering that the upper limit of human hearing is commonly agreed to be only 20 kHz, it is up to you to decide how much of a difference this actually makes. But the use of high digital sampling rates lets us record and visualize these upper frequencies which even the current 96 kHz/24 bit standard for professional audio cannot fully capture."

[Anovak]

Dynamic punch? And as far as freq range here check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48

"In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond. Considering that the upper limit of human hearing is commonly agreed to be only 20 kHz, it is up to you to decide how much of a difference this actually makes. But the use of high digital sampling rates lets us record and visualize these upper frequencies which even the current 96 kHz/24 bit standard for professional audio cannot fully capture."

TommyV, excellent points.....which is why, as good as 96/24 sounds, I am totally enamored with the 192/24 soundtracks found on some dvd-audio discs. For instance, have you heard the 192/24 track of Hotel California on the dvd-audio disc? Now THAT is the cat's meow for my ears....just sayin.

Andy

[TommyV]

TommyV,

I think the CM5 will be a better speaker then the 683 for stereo listening, unless you are really into the bass.

Well I do enjoy bass. I mean the CM5s alone were not enough bass for me so I bought a REL sub to compliment them.

On the other hand the CM5s were a tremendous upgrade in sound quality in every aspect to my DM 601S3s. They really blew me away when I got them.

I just wonder now with the 6 series new upgraded tweeter and the 683's FST mid-range driver that the gap may have closed a bit. I have not even listened to the 683s so I do not know. Part of the reason I am looking at the 683 instead of some more CM series is my center. I do not want to have to change it right away. I have the LCR 600 S3 which was the largest 6 series center at the time. I think it will be easier to keep that center with the 683s instead of having to change out the whole front speaker setup.

[madmac]

@ tommyV- Quote: "In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond".

A needle going into vinyl hits 60khz and beyond??? Your kidding right!!??. Vinyl rolls off smoothly starting around 15khz!!. I like a good debate and this one is good. All I can say is not a chance!. Besides, who cares??!!. Most people can't even hear 20khz for that matter!. Stats can and are always misleading to people and try to serve a purpose or prove a point. The fact that a turntable needle states that it has a freq range of 20hz-20khz is ridiculous!. At what db across the board ?. Sonically, It's practically non-exisitent sound wise at 20hz or 20khz. Not gonna' happen with vinyl!!. Too old...too ancient!. Sorry!. Digital audio is smooth , all the way from 20hz to 20khz flat line graph with all db levels equal. Vinyl doesn't even touch that.

[stuofsci02]

Well I do enjoy bass. I mean the CM5s alone were not enough bass for me so I bought a REL sub to compliment them.

On the other hand the CM5s were a tremendous upgrade in sound quality in every aspect to my DM 601S3s. They really blew me away when I got them.

I just wonder now with the 6 series new upgraded tweeter and the 683's FST mid-range driver that the gap may have closed a bit. I have not even listened to the 683s so I do not know. Part of the reason I am looking at the 683 instead of some more CM series is my center. I do not want to have to change it right away. I have the LCR 600 S3 which was the largest 6 series center at the time. I think it will be easier to keep that center with the 683s instead of having to change out the whole front speaker setup.

Well.. I have owned, and run as mains, the 602.5 S3, 603 S3, 683, CM7 and 804s. I had the 683s for two years.

I can tell you this. The 683 is better then the 603 S3. The CM series however is a big jump in refinement over the current 600 series and is IMO closer to the smaller 800 series then the 600 series.. Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder.

[TommyV]

@ tommyV- Quote: "In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond".

A needle going into vinyl hits 60khz and beyond??? Your kidding right!!??. Vinyl rolls off smoothly starting around 15khz!!. I like a good debate and this one is good. All I can say is not a chance!. Besides, who cares??!!. Most people can't even hear 20khz for that matter!. Stats can and are always misleading to people and try to serve a purpose or prove a point. The fact that a turntable needle states that it has a freq range of 20hz-20khz is ridiculous!. At what db across the board ?. Sonically, It's practically non-exisitent sound wise at 20hz or 20khz. Not gonna' happen with vinyl!!. Too old...too ancient!. Sorry!. Digital audio is smooth , all the way from 20hz to 20khz flat line graph with all db levels equal. Vinyl doesn't even touch that.

Did you even watch the video? Just because you cannot comprehend an old technology that uses a needle giving superior results to CD does not make it true. As proven by his experiment vinyl is able to go well beyond CDs limited frequency range. I can even tell the difference between CDs 44.1 kHz and DVD 48 KHz. 48 kHz digital recordings sound much better to me. CDs just can't quite cut it on the WOW factor as far as audio. I am never blown away by the sound like I am with DVD/DVD-A/SACD and yes vinyl.

There is nothing wrong with CD, I own hundreds. For ultimate sound quality though, I prefer other mediums.

[stuofsci02]

Did you even watch the video? Just because you cannot comprehend an old technology that uses a needle giving superior results to CD does not make it true. As proven by his experiment vinyl is able to go well beyond CDs limited frequency range. I can even tell the difference between CDs 44.1 kHz and DVD 48 KHz. 48 kHz digital recordings sound much better to me. CDs just can't quite cut it on the WOW factor as far as audio. I am never blown away by the sound like I am with DVD/DVD-A/SACD and yes vinyl.

There is nothing wrong with CD, I own hundreds. For ultimate sound quality though, I prefer other mediums.

TommyV.. One thing to consider is that SACD, DVD-A, HDCD formats are also considered to be Hi-Fi formats. People don't put piss-poor recordings on to them like they do CD.

I have heard CDs that sound excellent..

Now one test I have done to compare these is I purchased a StudioMaster album in FLAC. It was in 24 bit 96khz FLAC format. I then burned this to a DVD-A in 24 bit 96khz and to CD in 16 bit 44khz. My Oppo BDP-83SE can play both of these formats extremely well.

In the end I think the DVD-A might have been better then the CD, but in the 30 sec it took me to swap discs I could not gaurantee it..

If you have a DVD burner and $20 to buy a studiomaster (from Linn Records for example), then you can do this test too.

[TommyV]

TommyV.. One thing to consider is that SACD, DVD-A, HDCD formats are also considered to be Hi-Fi formats. People don't put piss-poor recordings on to them like they do CD.

I have heard CDs that sound excellent..

Now one test I have done to compare these is I purchased a StudioMaster album in FLAC. It was in 24 bit 96khz FLAC format. I then burned this to a DVD-A in 24 bit 96khz and to CD in 16 bit 44khz. My Oppo BDP-83SE can play both of these formats extremely well.

In the end I think the DVD-A might have been better then the CD, but in the 30 sec it took me to swap discs I could not gaurantee it..

If you have a DVD burner and $20 to buy a studiomaster (from Linn Records for example), then you can do this test too.

I have not done this test you speak of but I have bought the same album in many different formats. I know what you mean that the SACDs and such are the best recorded albums but those are also available on CD. I do have some Grateful Dead HDCD reissues that are quite impressive even though the limited frequency of the format.

[stuofsci02]

I have not done this test you speak of but I have bought the same album in many different formats. I know what you mean that the SACDs and such are the best recorded albums but those are also available on CD. I do have some Grateful Dead HDCD reissues that are quite impressive even though the limited frequency of the format.

Yeah.. I originally compared the CD release to the HDCD/SACD release, but this is not usually a valid comparison. Usually the producer will go back to the masters and change the dynamic compression etc. for the format. For instance in a car with a CD you would want more dynamic compression (less volume range) since you won't be able to hear the nuances because of the noise.. That means the CD may not be the same as the SACD or HDCD.

A real eye opener for me was the new Paul McCartney CD from HD tracks. This CD can be ordered with no Dynamic Compression or High Dynamic compression. One would be for listening in noisey rooms or car or MP3 etc. The other is for audiophile listening.

IMO you have to start with the master yourself to ensure that its apples to apples..

[madmac]

@TommyV...yes...I watched the video but like I mentioned about specs, they are often'cooked' and sometimes outright falsified to attempt to prove what a person wants you to believe. Enough said. I listened to vinyl for years and then bought my first generation cd player and listened to Supertramp's "Breakfast in America" and was blown away!. Never looked bask since.

[wettou]

Love to listen in two channels but for true immersion I prefer the surround sound of Blu Ray, or SACDs :W