1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'High-end Audio Forum' started by magiccabbage, May 14, 2015.
225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234
236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
  1. romaz
    There's no reason why it can't be done with the DAVE but yes, it will be expensive.
    Ted Smith, creator of the PS Audio DirectStream has done exactly this with his DACs and has reported wonderful results using multi-channel SACD recordings, an Oppo BDP-93 modified with the following board:
    Ordinarily, because of the encryption schemes employed, multi-channel SACD will output a digital signal only through the HDMI port.  This add-on board will output a de-encrypted multichannel digital hi-def audio signal through RCA ports instead (up to 8 channels).  This means you will need up 4 DAVEs and connect via the BNC ports.  Of course, this would work for Blu-Ray movies also and this setup could represent one of the finest home theater setups in the world.  The ideal scenario would be for Rob and Chord to create an 8-channel DAVE DAC.
  2. rkt31
    if i am right for movies there are already some outboard decoders/processors available which can output multi channel pcm signals.
  3. rgs9200m
    I guess I'm old-school, but multi channel sound beyond a set of stereo speakers has always sounded weird to me. Even a center channel seems to make imaging sort of flat as opposed to great center/phantom images from conventional stereo. If I hear things behind me, even ambience from rear speakers, it sounds artificial and somehow forced. Just my humble opinion. I would sure rather direct my dollars to better 2-channel stereo rather than divert valuable dollars to multi-stuff. Of course, I don't care about or watch many movies, I just listen to music. Movies might as well be midfi for me, unless for the occasional concert on video.
  4. Crgreen
    I agree. Given the paucity of recordings I thought that so far as music was concerned, surround-sound had more or less died the death. I know Stereophile still mantains a column but it can only be a matter of time before they axe it.
  5. paulchiu
    happy US July 4th!
    After nearly 4K comments on our beloved DAVE, I am surprised there are zero reviews on head-fi.org.
    For those of you who could really write.  Please!
  6. Mython Contributor
    My question about multi-channel isn't really because I am an avid fan of multi-channel, but more out of curiosity, since I know (partly thanks to an earlier discussion with Romaz) that it is technically possible, and I am curious as to how the soundstage-depth talents of DAVE might be subjectively perceived within the context of a multi-channel configuration. For example, I wonder if it might 'expand' the subjective size of the circular soundstage, or, because of the oddities of multi-channel processing, perhaps have no such influence upon soundstage size (or, I could say 'circular-depth'), or perhaps some other unanticipated influence.
    So...just simple curiosity, above all else.
  7. Crgreen

    Probably because all the reviews have appeared here and it would be a bit redundant.
  8. romaz
    Most audiophiles prefer 2-channel where you have a forward soundstage but when you go to a live performance, it's not just about soundstage width, height and depth.  There is also a rear soundstage that represents the acoustical reflections of the venue.  With good multi-channel, the goal isn't to hear musicians performing behind you because that certainly would not represent any live event that I attend.  Rather, the rear and side channels are supposed to provide you the natural ambience and the reflections that you might hear at Carnegie Hall, for example, even if your listening room is only a fraction of the size of Carnegie Hall.  I have heard some really good multi-channel recordings that definitely provide a greater sense of "you are there" and so the goal with good multi-channel isn't "artists in the room" like it is with 2-channel but rather "listener transported to the venue."  Even the applause and the inadvertent coughs and sneezes that emanate from the rear channels can contribute to the illusion that you are sitting 5th row center if you close your eyes.  In this sense, the experience can truly be genuinely immersive and transfixing.  Listen to the 2-channel vs multichannel versions of Magnificat by 2L in your home theater and be prepared to be more convincingly transported to the Nidaros Cathedral in Norway with the multichannel version.  The problem is there aren't many good multi-channel recordings to make this expensive venture worthwhile for most manufacturers and consumers.
    There happens to be one DAC manufacturer who believes there is a market for a high-end multichannel DAC and this DAC happens to be their most expensive product:
    Mython likes this.
  9. Crgreen
    You're right: in principle, multi-channel audio affords the possibility of more realistic sound reproduction. But it's never really taken off. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but the most obvious are the legacy of two channel audio, and all those headphone listeners whose needs increasingly dominate the market :)
  10. esimms86
    NADAC and, perhaps, exasound (at a much lower price point) beg to differ. The msbtech offering makes the thought of having 4 DAVES in a surround setup seem like a cost effective idea.
  11. Crgreen
    You're right: in principle, multi-channel audio affords the possibility of more realistic sound reproduction. But it's never really taken off. There are a number of possible reasons for this, but the most obvious are the legacy of two channel audio, and all those headphone listeners whose needs increasingly dominate the market :)
  12. rkt31
    theoretically even 2 channel recording done with a single stereo mic, captures all the ambient cues which can be reproduced by a stereo playback system. there is a chesky stereo test track for that. i have listened to that track and you can hear the sound coming from behind in a properly set up stereo system  . that thing is possible even by some sophisticated sound processing  algorithm but the process demands heavy processing and due to that sometimes the music can sound a bit brittle in higher frequencies. i am myself a stereo man and watch movies in 2 channel mode with hugo. master and commander and spr blu rays are great tester for movies in 2 channel.
  13. Christer

     Hello again romaz.
    Well there are some works where there can be instruments also from the back channels with mch. One such example is the  LSO LIVE Berlioz Requiem from ST Paul´s Cathedral, where the brass in the Dies Irae are sounding from " all four corners" so to say.
    My  most impressive live concert of Berlioz´s Requiem was live in Salzburg many years ago also with the brass in all four corners. It was maybe the most "Eargasmic Experience" I have ever had.
    And as you say 2L´s  recordings  are also very immersive in mch.
    I´ve  worked  on two of Morten´s productions as photographer and both being right in  the choir in Nidaros and the Chamber Orchestra in Selbu church were truly immersive experiences. And of course the recordings sound much closer to live heard in mch than  plain stereo.
    But good as mch can be under ideal circumstances my preference is still the lowest possible distortion and big full range speakers with lots of watts powering my music.
    A full mch system of the similar SQ  and fffr as my current stereo system would add at least another 20k in price  for speakers and amping alone,not to mention the space needed for five big electrostatic speakers instead of two.
    But the first SonoruS Holographic Imaging recording from Yarlung shows some promise for more accurate spatial sound than plain stereo at least. But one has to get used to listening to tape hiss a bit  again,SonoruS  is rendered via a tape recorder somehow.
    Especially the string quartet and the voice and piano sound very realistic and at times, listening with closed eyes, almost the only thing telling my senses I have not been transported to the venue is the slight tape hiss audible.
    Just as with headphones there are imho, no other speakers except some planars that image as perfectly realistically as electrostatic speakers. And no other speakers I have heard do it with lower distortions and as seamlessly as electrostatics.
    Cost  and room size no object, I would own either   5 Gryphon Pendragons or 5  ML Neoliths and mch amping and  an mch DAC of SOTA quality.
    And considering how much effort Rob Watts puts into recreating accurate depth and space, it is surprising there is no mch DAC from him yet.
    There are as far as I know only two ways of delivering those things as close as possible to the real thing,and they are with speakers mch with at least 4 channels and via headphones binaurally.
  14. bigfatpaulie
    I will preface this with a comment: I love my DAVE.
    But its remote is really crummy...  What happened there?  I know many here don't use it aside to change volume (if that) so it doesn't matter, but as a DAC with as many features as DAVE has and literally not one is accessible with the remote.  Really?  It has nearly 50 buttons, but only 6 or so actually serve a purpose - at least as far as I can surmise.  I know it's likely a 'generic Chord remote' but I feel like it's the one black mark on an otherwise amazing product. 
  15. Beolab

    You can always pimp it out with the Chord Alu Remote holder that match the DAVE like i have! Then it weighs about 680 grams and the feel are on a diffrent level, but you do not get any more funktion or buttons :sunglasses:

225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234
236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245

Share This Page