[jaddie]

Quote:

Higher sampling rates generally have lower levels of jitter.

Please supply a bit of backup for that one.  And while you're at it, might take a look at the audibility threshold of jitter in general.
Quote:

CD playback requires the use of a brick wall filter to cut off frequencies above 22khz - this filter causes ringing.  If you look at a picture of a typical CD impulse, the signal will show ringing before and after the pulse.  Higher sampling rates can be implemented with less harsh filters and thus generate less ringing.
 
Some DACs use different reconstruction filters that eliminate the pre impulse ringing, but these will generate artifacts that are in the audible frequency range.  Higher sampling rates with these filters can move these artifacts above the audible range.

Ever heard of oversampling? I think it's what you're referencing in the second point.  It's found on every CD player in the last 15 years, probably 20, and pretty much takes care of the issues with high-order brick wall filters. Careful with the ringing analysis, though.  If you are referring to the visual representation of a square wave, just remember that band-limiting a square wave with even a theoretically perfect filter will display ringing because of the removal of harmonics that make it square in the first place.  Just because it's a-ringin' don't mean it's bad.  Ringing doesn't exist apart from the cause, which may or may not be audible. 
 
Quote:

Higher bit rates will theoretically increase the dynamic range.
 
Now whether any of these effects are audible?  Some say they are.  Some don't.

 
Higher bit rates will theoretically increase the dynamic range.  Bit rates are the result of two things: bit depth and sampling rate.  You can increase one, or the other, or both, and end up at a higher rate than you started with.  The dynamic range of 24 bits is at least partly mythological, as there are no non-cascaded ADCs with a real 24 bit dynamic range.  Typical ADC performance is around 20 bits, even though 24 bit words are generated.  The cascaded ADC architecture results in true 24 bit dynamic range.  However, you still can't really hear that, because of the dynamic range of your listening environment.  If you had an NC20 room (unlikely unless you are way out in the country and have no HVAC running or equipment in the room with you), if you match the noise floor of 16 bits with your room noise floor, then the theoretical 96dB range of 16 bits would put the max at 116dB SPL, and realistically, it's more like 92dB and that puts the max at 112dB SPL.  If you could achieve it, the theoretical 144dB dynamic range of 24 bit, with noise floors matched, puts the max somewhere around pain and irreversible hearing damage. 
 
The real advantage of 24 bits is in processing in post production where DSPs doing dynamics processing and EQ have more data to "chew on", after which down-sampling to 16 bits is fine.  44.1KHz might be a bit low, but there's not much evidence that doubling is necessary.
 
 
Quote:

Now whether any of these effects are audible?  Some say they are.  Some don't.

That's pretty much being proven right here.  Gab those ABX files and go nuts.

 

[bigshot]

The two channel CD layer and the two main channels on the SACD layer I compared on a Pentatone were absolutely indistinguishable. Same mix. Same everything. It kinda makes sense that they would mix two channel first and then lock the mains down and mix the surrounds to work with them. Pentatone only does hybrid disks. I would bet that a good chunk of their customers don't even have the capability of 5:1 sound. For some reason, classical music fans are slow to appreciate 5:1.

I agree that 5:1 sound is a big difference though. That is the reason to go with the SACD format, not better sound quality.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

The two channel CD layer and the two main channels on the SACD layer I compared on a Pentatone were absolutely indistinguishable. Same mix. Same everything. It kinda makes sense that they would mix two channel first and then lock the mains down and mix the surrounds to work with them. Pentatone only does hybrid disks. I would bet that a good chunk of their customers don't even have the capability of 5:1 sound. For some reason, classical music fans are slow to appreciate 5:1.

I agree that 5:1 sound is a big difference though. That is the reason to go with the SACD format, not better sound quality.

Agreed, especially the point about the slow adoption of 5.1 music.  Sad too, because anyone can hear the difference between 2 ch and 5.1, but nobody can reliably hear "HD" stereo's improvement.  So, the "bit budget" should be spend on more channels, not two high-rate channels.  
 
Interesting that in the 1930s Bell Labs stereo experiments, it was determined that the minimum channel count for acceptable stereo soundstage (they didn't use that term) was 3, not 2.  We landed on 2 because the delivery medium was vinyl, and 2 was the practical limit without matrix methods.  
 
Excluding DMP/Headphone systems, there are almost no stereo-only systems sold today, relative to 5.1 surround systems of any sort, including the virtual surround some sound-bars deliver (which is can actually be pretty good). But since we're still stuck at 2 channel stereo .mp3s, two channel headphones, and 2 channel stereo radio, the music industry has failed to move forward to 5.1 in anything but the tiny splinter markets.  
 
I do love my 5.1 DVD Audio discs, and SACDs, though, and no home theater demo is complete without a 5.1 music demo. 

 

[Hi Rez]

 I don't believe I  indicated whether I believe there are audible differences or not.  Apparently an assumption made on your part.  I personally make no assumptions on what folks believe they can and can't hear.
 

Please supply a bit of backup for that one.  And while you're at it, might take a look at the audibility threshold of jitter in general.
 

 
Link describing how higher bit rates (upsampling) is being used to reduce jitter.
 
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio-page-2
 
DAC1.  Effect of bit depth on jitter.  Look at figures 9 and 10 in the following link.  Also note the intermodulation spectrum (fig. 8) - no products in the audio band with this reconstruction filter.
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac1-usb-da-processor-headphone-amplifier-measurements
 
QB-9.  Note the pre-ringing in DAC1 impulse in figure 1 in the following link.  Figures 2 and 3 show the effects of different reconstruction filters on impulse response - no pre-ringing.  Figures 12 and 13 show effects of changing reconstruction filters - figure 13 has a increased number of artifacts in the audio band - they are down in level, but they are in the audio band which is what I stated previously.   Compare those to that of the DAC1 in the previous link (fig. 8).
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qb-9-usb-dac-measurements
 
Audible? Some folks don't believe so.  Clearly others do, or there wouldn't be a market for higher resolution players and material.

 

[bigshot]

 I don't believe I  indicated whether I believe there are audible differences or not.

Audible differences are the ones that matter.

We hear with our ears. It's just as important as an audiophile to be well versed on thresholds of perception as it is to be knowledgeable about hifi specs. Without one, the other is meaningless.

People want their music to sound better. It's good to focus on that and not get tangled up in numbers that don't relate to anything we can hear. (Unless of course, you happen to be a bat.)

Audible? Some folks don't believe so.  Clearly others do, or there wouldn't be a market for higher resolution players and material.

Just because someone believes something, it doesn't necessarily make it so. And just people spend money on things, it doesn't mean that they actually need to.

 

[bigshot]

I do love my 5.1 DVD Audio discs, and SACDs, though, and no home theater demo is complete without a 5.1 music demo. 

It's good to hear somebody else say this. Sometimes I feel like an odd duck in audiophile and home theater circles, because I want a system that presents 5:1 with the most natural sound possible. It seems that audiophiles are stuck on 2 channel and home theater people are dedicated to totally unnatural presentation (huge booming bass and ping pong rear channel effects).

The greatest improvement in sound I ever experienced in my system... bigger even than going from vinyl to CD... was when I got a 5:1 receiver and put together a surround system. The difference is massive. I find that with Yamaha's DSP features, even mono and stereo recordings sound much better in 5:1. I honestly think that it is the biggest breakthrough in recorded sound since the introduction of stereo. It's even more of an improvement over stereo than stereo was an improvement over mono.

 

[jaddie]

Totally agreed, bigshot.  I had the privilege to engineer an early multichannel music demo at the IAMM conference in 1997 (back then, IAMM was International Association for Multichannel Music.  It means other things now).  The demo room was actually 8 speakers/channels, in the standard ITU configuration, but the extra channels were to provide a choice in the type of surround speakers, either dipole or direct radiating.  Producers submitted their best 5.1 mixes and specified which surround speakers to use.  We played clips of 2 channel stereo, then switched to 5.1 without changing average volume.  The difference was completely dramatic, no mistaking the improvement.  Then, throwing caution to the wind, we hired a band to play live in an adjacent room, and did a live 5.1 (actually 7.1) surround mix in the demo room.  We actually had guests claim they preferred the demo room to the live event.  I edited the demo segments, assembled the demo system, and engineered the live mix (with a lot of welcome help!). That experience sold me on the concept, and I've never listened to two-channel stereo in the same way since, though I admit it's mostly what I listen to.  5.1 material just never fully caught on.  
 
Something I will aways regret is while working for a large broadcast company in the early 2000s, the company was pushing for the current HD Radio standards.  As an employee I couldn't really oppose their push, but I wanted to, in the worst way, push for multichannel broadcast capability, as an option, over the concept of using bandwidth for other audio services/stations, which is what won.  5.1 in a car would be a massive improvement, and having a publicly available free 5.1 music service might have pushed the format forward.  Not that my non-participlation was the reason it didn't happen, though.  Mostly broadcasters are non-progressive slugs, and never have really looked forward far or fast enough.  I can say that, I've been one.  Sadly, there are no 5.1 services, broadcast or streaming, and here we sit more than 15 years later, still stuck on two channel stereo.
 
Two channel stereo is NOT "pure" or somehow advantageous as minimalist.  It's hobbled, always has been, and can never deliver a convincing soundstage in a room with two speakers for any more than one seat.   

 

[proton007]

If we're talking about physical media, its possible there's some difference if they're mastered differently, which is hard to tell.
 
Otherwise, if you use the same master and downsample it, there shouldn't be any difference.
 
For example, I got my hands on a 24/96 vinyl rip. Yes there was a difference, that the vinyl had a small audible background noise, other than that I couldn't tell any difference from a flac file.

 

[StudioSound]

Two channel stereo is NOT "pure" or somehow advantageous as minimalist.  It's hobbled, always has been, and can never deliver a convincing soundstage in a room with two speakers for any more than one seat.

Can you make a case for why I would ever want to hear music coming from behind me?

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Can you make a case for why I would ever want to hear music coming from behind me?

There are two common perspectives in 5.1 music, that of an audience member in a seating area and that of a band member.  Both are valid and compelling, but very different. For classical orchestral music the audience perspective makes most sense. In that perspective you won't hear instruments behind you, but you will hear hall ambience.  That's not insignificant, and helps to transport you to a three dimensional acoustic space.  If the recording is of a live concert with audience reaction, that's there too. There are several classical recordings made of antiphonal music, choral works written specifically for call and response, where one group of singers "calls" from the back of the call, the other "responds" from the front, or vice-versa.  This is how the music was composed, and performed.  So those recordings present the material in the only proper perspective. 
 
The "in band" perspective can be highly compelling, even if you have never played in a group and think you would not like it.  This perspective allows the exposure of elements of the performance that would otherwise be buried in a two-channel mix.  The surround mix becomes its own performance.  I often cite "Dark Side of the Moon" in this part of the discussion, because it's well know (best selling album ever), and in it's original release was done in "quad", so remixing to 5.1 was logical and faithful to the original intent.  But the 5.1 version is a revelation of the entire piece.  There are many musical and effect elements that are easily heard in places that make musical or narrative sense, much more so than the two-channel version.  The same is true of other material, in many different genres. The 5.1 mix, in-band perspective, becomes its own event, performance, and means of musical communication.  
 
Of course, both perspectives offer one key element critical to the presentation of soundstage: the hard center channel.  Two channel stereo can never present that, and its phantom image is a very fragile thing, clumping to left or right once the listener's head is moved away from dead center.  The image surrounding two stereo speakers depends highly on the acoustics in the front of the room, less so with a center speaker.  
 
Most people own or have access to a 5.1 system.  I would encourage everyone to search out few 5.1 music discs of music they love (finding those can be difficult), and give those mixes a listen.  The written word only goes so far.

 

[StudioSound]

Thank you. It helps me understand why some people have an interest in it, but doesn't really convince me that I want 5.1 music.

I don't really want to be "in the band" so it rules out those mixes. (is there any indication on the type of mix an album uses?)
I generally dislike live albums - the audience being in the recordings is one of the main reasons why - so the audience coming through the rear channels behind me to make it feel like I am there at the concert is not appealing.
I can definitely see why the hall ambience would be appealing with classical music though, and the "call and response" that you describe. I would have to hear it to see if I actually liked it, and if it worked for me, but I can see that transforming your perception of how "large" the sound is.

As for "most people" owning a 5.1 system, that's definitely not been my experience, and anyone that has, has a cheap $200 HTIB that sounds awful. If anything, those awful sound bars are what most people have, if they aren't just using their TV. (I don't know anyone that has, or would buy, a 5.1 setup just for music)

In a previous home, I had the space for a reasonably high-end home theater setup in a good sized room with a large projection setup.
I spent a decent amount of money on a mid-range 5.1 setup, in addition to the stereo setup that I had been very happy with, and got it all properly set up and calibrated.
In the end, I decided that I actually preferred the presentation through the stereo speakers than 5.1 - 90% of the surround mix was simply used for gimmicks at best, and could even be a distraction. With the stereo setup, where all sounds came from the direction of the screen, you were more focused on the film. I actually found that having a center channel could be detrimental, as a lot of mixes just send all dialog through that rather than trying to create a positional sound field in front of you using the three speakers, so in some ways it was actually less positional than stereo.

That said, I might have to seek out some multichannel albums and see if I can demo them somewhere. (I'm sure a local hifi store would be happy to)
Including the hall acoustics in a classical 5.1 mix has piqued my interest, and I do wonder how a 3.1 setup with left, right and center would sound, rather than surround.

But generally, the biggest issue for me still remains - good speakers are typically only sold in pairs, with most surround formats using an odd numbers of channels, and it is the difference between spending $2000 on something like a pair of Magnepan 1.7s, or $350 on bookshelf speakers in a 5.1 setup, when multichannel discs would only make up a fraction of the music listening. (say 10%)
The only way 5.1 (or 7.1 for films these days) doesn't compromise on sound quality is if you can simply afford to buy five (or seven) of the speaker that you wanted.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

Thank you. It helps me understand why some people have an interest in it, but doesn't really convince me that I want 5.1 music.

I don't really want to be "in the band" so it rules out those mixes. (is there any indication on the type of mix an album uses?)
I generally dislike live albums - the audience being in the recordings is one of the main reasons why - so the audience coming through the rear channels behind me to make it feel like I am there at the concert is not appealing.
I can definitely see why the hall ambience would be appealing with classical music though, and the "call and response" that you describe. I would have to hear it to see if I actually liked it, and if it worked for me, but I can see that transforming your perception of how "large" the sound is.

Should come as no surprise that I've heard all of these objections a few times before.  I would only say, 5.1 mixes of all kinds are like trying out new foods.  You may think you'll hate them, but until you try them, it's really just a prejudice.  There are so many technical reasons that 5.1 or more is far superior to two channel stereo in presentation of soundstage, ambience, dimensionality, vertical space, etc.  The reasons that most objectors won't even try it range from it being unfamiliar, the expense of more channels (but see below), the failure of "Quad" (4 channel sound, 1970s), and a false conception that two channel stereo is somehow pure.  I still encourage everyone to give 5.1 music a fair trial, not 5 minutes of one track, but a real, honest, eat the unknown food trial.  Try to get around the idea that being "in the band" is bad.  It's just a creation of another reality, an opportunity to hear performance aspects that are unavailable otherwise.  Stereo itself is unnatural, and not a replication of an original at all.  Stereo is it's own reality, something acceptable to us, but never really duplicating the original performance, some of which didn't even happen concurrently.  5.1 is just another canvas, another medium of expression, and one with more dimensional possibilities than two channels can provide.  Movie tracks are a different case, as they are created to support picture, and deliberately have plot points supported with off-screen sound.  
 
Quote:

As for "most people" owning a 5.1 system, that's definitely not been my experience, and anyone that has, has a cheap $200 HTIB that sounds awful. If anything, those awful sound bars are what most people have, if they aren't just using their TV. (I don't know anyone that has, or would buy, a 5.1 setup just for music)

Agreed that there are many low-end 5.1 HTIB systems, but they do add to the number of systems capable of playing 5.1 mixes of all kinds.  Those systems are growing far faster than the number of two-channel systems.  We are just now coming to a point were it is possible to buy good soundbars.  Those from Golden Ear and Definitive Technology, for example, are really quite good.  Even the better Yamaha bars are quite respectable, though each is a compromise of sorts.  But the fact remains, there are more surround systems being purchased than stereo systems.
 
Quote:

In a previous home, I had the space for a reasonably high-end home theater setup in a good sized room with a large projection setup.
I spent a decent amount of money on a mid-range 5.1 setup, in addition to the stereo setup that I had been very happy with, and got it all properly set up and calibrated.
In the end, I decided that I actually preferred the presentation through the stereo speakers than 5.1 - 90% of the surround mix was simply used for gimmicks at best, and could even be a distraction. With the stereo setup, where all sounds came from the direction of the screen, you were more focused on the film. I actually found that having a center channel could be detrimental, as a lot of mixes just send all dialog through that rather than trying to create a positional sound field in front of you using the three speakers, so in some ways it was actually less positional than stereo.

One mans gimmick is another mans special effect.  But your preference is understood.  However, in movie soundtracks in particular, if it matters to you you that you hear what the director intended, you do need a configuration similar to that on which the mix was created.  Nearly all film dialog is intended to come from the center.  Dialog is hardly ever panned or positioned for a number of reasons, one of which is the change in timbre during a pan, but there are others.  Center channel dialog is pretty much an industry standard, and dialog is not intended to be positional.  The discussion of the reason why this is go beyond the scope of this particular thread, but it's been documented to death, it's purposeful, and was arrived at as the best compromise. Suffice to say, center is where the dialog is, and is supposed to be, trying to lock it there with stereo simply doesn't work in more than one listening position. 
 
Music mixes are different.  I cited earlier the 1930s Bell Labs/Harvey Fletcher stereo research, but a quick repeat: they theorized that to replicate the soundstage it would take a grid of thousands of speakers in a plane in front of the listener, each with its own channel.  They compromised at lower numbers of speakers, and landed on 3 as the acceptable minimum, mostly for reasons that phantom images between speakers are extremely fragile and unstable.  Many 3 channel recordings were made, especially early on.  I have several stereo CDs that originated on 3 channel masters, many recorded in the 1950s.  I guess they were hoping there would be a way someday to play them.  Well, now there is!  
 
The center channel widens the listening window because it's a speaker, not a phantom image.  What's done with content is another question, of course.  
 
Quote:

That said, I might have to seek out some multichannel albums and see if I can demo them somewhere. (I'm sure a local hifi store would be happy to)
Including the hall acoustics in a classical 5.1 mix has piqued my interest, and I do wonder how a 3.1 setup with left, right and center would sound, rather than surround.

Thank you for trying to keep an open mind.  Frankly, the preference for two channel stereo is mostly conditioned in, it's all we know, and well, we have only two ears, right?  The logic is seriously flawed, but the prejudice is strong enough that multichannel music has really sort of failed in the market because of it, and not the lack of the playback hardware. 

 

Originally Posted by StudioSound /img/forum/go_quote.gif
But generally, the biggest issue for me still remains - good speakers are typically only sold in pairs, with most surround formats using an odd numbers of channels, and it is the difference between spending $2000 on something like a pair of Magnepan 1.7s, or $350 on bookshelf speakers in a 5.1 setup, when multichannel discs would only make up a fraction of the music listening. (say 10%)
The only way 5.1 (or 7.1 for films these days) doesn't compromise on sound quality is if you can simply afford to buy five (or seven) of the speaker that you wanted.

Yes, the speakers sold in pairs problem is an issue, but there are many speakers not sold in pairs too.  For example, the MK Sound S150 MkII (which have been used in production of hundreds of films) are available individually, and even as a powered speaker.  It's fully possible to not only have 3 matched LCR speakers, but own the same exact ones that your favorite films were produced with.  There are others as well, but you have to look into the home theater market, and not the stereo market to find them.
 
I totally appreciate your last sentence, and I always recommend matching LCR speakers, but not necessarily surrounds, as they fulfill different roles.  The do need to match in timbre, though, and that's always a challenge.  
 
However, we have to be a bit careful when generalizing about the comparison of a pair of "good" speakers vs a 5.1 setup of, well, less expensive speakers.  Avoiding the extremes, for the moment, it turns out that pretty much anyone can hear the difference between stereo and 5.1 (any mix, movies, music, or even "extracted' surround from stereo), but not everyone can appreciate the delicacies of high-end speakers.  I know that's hard to believe, but it does work.  The reason goes back to stereo research.  Every time the channel count is doubled, everyone can hear the change.  So as to our budget, if you can find your way to 3 excellent, matched speakers in the front, a pair of timbre-matched application-specific surrounds, and a pair of subs, that system would provide a close match to that on which soundtracks are created (a concept called "interchange"), and since your layout will probably match that of the suggested 5.1 channel standard (ITU, etc), you're ready for 5.1 music as well.  
 
As you probably know, there are very few 7.1 discrete soundtracks, as the theatrical standard remains at 5.1. The back two are most often "decoded' from the two rear channels.  That doesn't invalidate their purpose, but does make them a bit ambiguous.  Still, 7.1 is not so necessary for film as implied.  
 
If you do go for a 5.1 music demo, please try to find a good, high-end home theater dealer that has taken the trouble and expense to use high quality speakers in an acoustically treated room with a calibrated system.  You owe yourself that much.

 

[bigshot]

There's one thing that jaddie didn't touch on... A good 5:1 system isn't about things coming at you from behind or echoes from concert halls. It's better for playing back 2 channel stereo too.

On my Yamaha receiver, there is a DSP called 7:1 Stereo. When I switch that on, it takes the two channels and creates subtle phase differences so the room fills with the sound. There is still a clear soundstage up front, but the areas to the side where with 2 channel the sound shifts a bit gets filled in. It isn't directionality as much as filling the space. You can kind of get the idea of how it sounds if you sit in your normal listening position for 2 channel and cup your hands behind your ears. When your hands are behind your ears, the sound is fuller. When you take your hands away, it sounds thinner. Also, when you move around the room, the sound doesn't change. I don't know the name for this or the theory behind it, but it works.

I have a really nice 5:1 speaker setup and I played a trick on some friends. I turned off all my EQ and DSP settings and sat them down to listen to a stereo classical recording just using the mains. After a few minutes, I asked them how it sounded. They were all positive and liked it a lot. They complimented my speakers. Then I cut in the EQ and DSP and played the same stereo CD. I could see the look of shock on their faces. The sound suddenly filled the room and opened up with transparency into three dimensions. Every one of them was shocked at how much better it sounded. Even though I have nice speakers up front, it was the humble speakers in the center and rear that made all the difference. The improvement in sound between average speakers and nice ones isn't anywhere close to the difference between taking the signal unfiltered out of the amp and applying EQ correction and DSP to fill in 5:1.

The improvement from 5:1 even for two channel playback has to be heard to be believed. I was reluctant to go 5:1 myself, until I got a projection video system and needed it for that. As it turns out, the surround is much more important to my music listening than it is my movies.

I don't know anyone that has, or would buy, a 5.1 setup just for music

You know someone now! If you ever get to Los Angeles, I'd be happy to demo my system for you.

By the way, I've found that a lot of what home theater folks say about sound is hooey. I hired a professional to install my projector and screen and to run wires for me, but I took full control of how the sound system worked. A lot of the things that salesmen tell you isn't true. You don't need or want to use the same kind of speaker for all five. The mains should be the exact same thing you would use for music, but the center needs to be very strong from the upper bass up. It's actually better if it doesn't have bass. The rear channel is basically fill, so bookshelf speakers are fine there. The sub is very important. It's good to get a very good sub, then carefully dial it back so it crosses over from the mains perfectly.

Those soundbars and tiny satellite systems they sell for home theaters aren't representative of what 5:1 can do.

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Spoiler: Long%20Explanations

 
Quote:

Thank you. It helps me understand why some people have an interest in it, but doesn't really convince me that I want 5.1 music.

I don't really want to be "in the band" so it rules out those mixes. (is there any indication on the type of mix an album uses?)
I generally dislike live albums - the audience being in the recordings is one of the main reasons why - so the audience coming through the rear channels behind me to make it feel like I am there at the concert is not appealing.
I can definitely see why the hall ambience would be appealing with classical music though, and the "call and response" that you describe. I would have to hear it to see if I actually liked it, and if it worked for me, but I can see that transforming your perception of how "large" the sound is.

Should come as no surprise that I've heard all of these objections a few times before.  I would only say, 5.1 mixes of all kinds are like trying out new foods.  You may think you'll hate them, but until you try them, it's really just a prejudice.  There are so many technical reasons that 5.1 or more is far superior to two channel stereo in presentation of soundstage, ambience, dimensionality, vertical space, etc.  The reasons that most objectors won't even try it range from it being unfamiliar, the expense of more channels (but see below), the failure of "Quad" (4 channel sound, 1970s), and a false conception that two channel stereo is somehow pure.  I still encourage everyone to give 5.1 music a fair trial, not 5 minutes of one track, but a real, honest, eat the unknown food trial.  Try to get around the idea that being "in the band" is bad.  It's just a creation of another reality, an opportunity to hear performance aspects that are unavailable otherwise.  Stereo itself is unnatural, and not a replication of an original at all.  Stereo is it's own reality, something acceptable to us, but never really duplicating the original performance, some of which didn't even happen concurrently.  5.1 is just another canvas, another medium of expression, and one with more dimensional possibilities than two channels can provide.  Movie tracks are a different case, as they are created to support picture, and deliberately have plot points supported with off-screen sound.  
 
Quote:

As for "most people" owning a 5.1 system, that's definitely not been my experience, and anyone that has, has a cheap $200 HTIB that sounds awful. If anything, those awful sound bars are what most people have, if they aren't just using their TV. (I don't know anyone that has, or would buy, a 5.1 setup just for music)

Agreed that there are many low-end 5.1 HTIB systems, but they do add to the number of systems capable of playing 5.1 mixes of all kinds.  Those systems are growing far faster than the number of two-channel systems.  We are just now coming to a point were it is possible to buy good soundbars.  Those from Golden Ear and Definitive Technology, for example, are really quite good.  Even the better Yamaha bars are quite respectable, though each is a compromise of sorts.  But the fact remains, there are more surround systems being purchased than stereo systems.
 
Quote:

In a previous home, I had the space for a reasonably high-end home theater setup in a good sized room with a large projection setup.
I spent a decent amount of money on a mid-range 5.1 setup, in addition to the stereo setup that I had been very happy with, and got it all properly set up and calibrated.
In the end, I decided that I actually preferred the presentation through the stereo speakers than 5.1 - 90% of the surround mix was simply used for gimmicks at best, and could even be a distraction. With the stereo setup, where all sounds came from the direction of the screen, you were more focused on the film. I actually found that having a center channel could be detrimental, as a lot of mixes just send all dialog through that rather than trying to create a positional sound field in front of you using the three speakers, so in some ways it was actually less positional than stereo.

One mans gimmick is another mans special effect.  But your preference is understood.  However, in movie soundtracks in particular, if it matters to you you that you hear what the director intended, you do need a configuration similar to that on which the mix was created.  Nearly all film dialog is intended to come from the center.  Dialog is hardly ever panned or positioned for a number of reasons, one of which is the change in timbre during a pan, but there are others.  Center channel dialog is pretty much an industry standard, and dialog is not intended to be positional.  The discussion of the reason why this is go beyond the scope of this particular thread, but it's been documented to death, it's purposeful, and was arrived at as the best compromise. Suffice to say, center is where the dialog is, and is supposed to be, trying to lock it there with stereo simply doesn't work in more than one listening position. 
 
Music mixes are different.  I cited earlier the 1930s Bell Labs/Harvey Fletcher stereo research, but a quick repeat: they theorized that to replicate the soundstage it would take a grid of thousands of speakers in a plane in front of the listener, each with its own channel.  They compromised at lower numbers of speakers, and landed on 3 as the acceptable minimum, mostly for reasons that phantom images between speakers are extremely fragile and unstable.  Many 3 channel recordings were made, especially early on.  I have several stereo CDs that originated on 3 channel masters, many recorded in the 1950s.  I guess they were hoping there would be a way someday to play them.  Well, now there is!  
 
The center channel widens the listening window because it's a speaker, not a phantom image.  What's done with content is another question, of course.  
 
Quote:

That said, I might have to seek out some multichannel albums and see if I can demo them somewhere. (I'm sure a local hifi store would be happy to)
Including the hall acoustics in a classical 5.1 mix has piqued my interest, and I do wonder how a 3.1 setup with left, right and center would sound, rather than surround.

Thank you for trying to keep an open mind.  Frankly, the preference for two channel stereo is mostly conditioned in, it's all we know, and well, we have only two ears, right?  The logic is seriously flawed, but the prejudice is strong enough that multichannel music has really sort of failed in the market because of it, and not the lack of the playback hardware. 

 

Originally Posted by StudioSound /img/forum/go_quote.gif
But generally, the biggest issue for me still remains - good speakers are typically only sold in pairs, with most surround formats using an odd numbers of channels, and it is the difference between spending $2000 on something like a pair of Magnepan 1.7s, or $350 on bookshelf speakers in a 5.1 setup, when multichannel discs would only make up a fraction of the music listening. (say 10%)
The only way 5.1 (or 7.1 for films these days) doesn't compromise on sound quality is if you can simply afford to buy five (or seven) of the speaker that you wanted.

Yes, the speakers sold in pairs problem is an issue, but there are many speakers not sold in pairs too.  For example, the MK Sound S150 MkII (which have been used in production of hundreds of films) are available individually, and even as a powered speaker.  It's fully possible to not only have 3 matched LCR speakers, but own the same exact ones that your favorite films were produced with.  There are others as well, but you have to look into the home theater market, and not the stereo market to find them.
 
I totally appreciate your last sentence, and I always recommend matching LCR speakers, but not necessarily surrounds, as they fulfill different roles.  The do need to match in timbre, though, and that's always a challenge.  
 
However, we have to be a bit careful when generalizing about the comparison of a pair of "good" speakers vs a 5.1 setup of, well, less expensive speakers.  Avoiding the extremes, for the moment, it turns out that pretty much anyone can hear the difference between stereo and 5.1 (any mix, movies, music, or even "extracted' surround from stereo), but not everyone can appreciate the delicacies of high-end speakers.  I know that's hard to believe, but it does work.  The reason goes back to stereo research.  Every time the channel count is doubled, everyone can hear the change.  So as to our budget, if you can find your way to 3 excellent, matched speakers in the front, a pair of timbre-matched application-specific surrounds, and a pair of subs, that system would provide a close match to that on which soundtracks are created (a concept called "interchange"), and since your layout will probably match that of the suggested 5.1 channel standard (ITU, etc), you're ready for 5.1 music as well.  
 
As you probably know, there are very few 7.1 discrete soundtracks, as the theatrical standard remains at 5.1. The back two are most often "decoded' from the two rear channels.  That doesn't invalidate their purpose, but does make them a bit ambiguous.  Still, 7.1 is not so necessary for film as implied.  
 
If you do go for a 5.1 music demo, please try to find a good, high-end home theater dealer that has taken the trouble and expense to use high quality speakers in an acoustically treated room with a calibrated system.  You owe yourself that much.
 

 

Interesting explanations! So if stereo sounds unnatural, how do binaural recordings fit in there since they are stereo per se, but the recording technique makes it sound more three-dimensional? I haven't tried 5.1 before since no one in my family owns a 5.1 system but it's something I'll keep in mind for the future when I become more situated/less mobile.
 
Quote:

A number of ABX test files have already been posted on this forum that allow people to find out whether they can hear any of the following:
- higher than 16 bit resolution
- higher than 44.1 kHz sample rate
- differences between 44.1 kHz reconstruction filters (ringing etc.)
So far, I do not recall seeing confirmed positive results. The artifacts of a reasonably good 44.1 kHz reconstruction filter are already above the audible range for people who cannot hear frequencies much higher than 20 kHz.

Mmk that's good to know then. I'm not sure what artifacts sound like though. They can produce sound above 20 kHz?
 
Quote:

Spoiler: Long%20Explanations

 
Quote:

Higher sampling rates generally have lower levels of jitter.

Please supply a bit of backup for that one.  And while you're at it, might take a look at the audibility threshold of jitter in general.
Quote:

CD playback requires the use of a brick wall filter to cut off frequencies above 22khz - this filter causes ringing.  If you look at a picture of a typical CD impulse, the signal will show ringing before and after the pulse.  Higher sampling rates can be implemented with less harsh filters and thus generate less ringing.
 
Some DACs use different reconstruction filters that eliminate the pre impulse ringing, but these will generate artifacts that are in the audible frequency range.  Higher sampling rates with these filters can move these artifacts above the audible range.

Ever heard of oversampling? I think it's what you're referencing in the second point.  It's found on every CD player in the last 15 years, probably 20, and pretty much takes care of the issues with high-order brick wall filters. Careful with the ringing analysis, though.  If you are referring to the visual representation of a square wave, just remember that band-limiting a square wave with even a theoretically perfect filter will display ringing because of the removal of harmonics that make it square in the first place.  Just because it's a-ringin' don't mean it's bad.  Ringing doesn't exist apart from the cause, which may or may not be audible. 
 
Quote:

Higher bit rates will theoretically increase the dynamic range.
 
Now whether any of these effects are audible?  Some say they are.  Some don't.

 
Higher bit rates will theoretically increase the dynamic range.  Bit rates are the result of two things: bit depth and sampling rate.  You can increase one, or the other, or both, and end up at a higher rate than you started with.  The dynamic range of 24 bits is at least partly mythological, as there are no non-cascaded ADCs with a real 24 bit dynamic range.  Typical ADC performance is around 20 bits, even though 24 bit words are generated.  The cascaded ADC architecture results in true 24 bit dynamic range.  However, you still can't really hear that, because of the dynamic range of your listening environment.  If you had an NC20 room (unlikely unless you are way out in the country and have no HVAC running or equipment in the room with you), if you match the noise floor of 16 bits with your room noise floor, then the theoretical 96dB range of 16 bits would put the max at 116dB SPL, and realistically, it's more like 92dB and that puts the max at 112dB SPL.  If you could achieve it, the theoretical 144dB dynamic range of 24 bit, with noise floors matched, puts the max somewhere around pain and irreversible hearing damage. 
 
The real advantage of 24 bits is in processing in post production where DSPs doing dynamics processing and EQ have more data to "chew on", after which down-sampling to 16 bits is fine.  44.1KHz might be a bit low, but there's not much evidence that doubling is necessary.
 
 
Quote:

Now whether any of these effects are audible?  Some say they are.  Some don't.

That's pretty much being proven right here.  Gab those ABX files and go nuts.
 

 

I don't even know what oversampling is; is it the same as up-sampling? If 24-bit is only really advantageous for post-processing, then why do "normal people" buy such music and don't use DSPs?
 
Quote:

Quote:

The two channel CD layer and the two main channels on the SACD layer I compared on a Pentatone were absolutely indistinguishable. Same mix. Same everything. It kinda makes sense that they would mix two channel first and then lock the mains down and mix the surrounds to work with them. Pentatone only does hybrid disks. I would bet that a good chunk of their customers don't even have the capability of 5:1 sound. For some reason, classical music fans are slow to appreciate 5:1.

I agree that 5:1 sound is a big difference though. That is the reason to go with the SACD format, not better sound quality.

Agreed, especially the point about the slow adoption of 5.1 music.  Sad too, because anyone can hear the difference between 2 ch and 5.1, but nobody can reliably hear "HD" stereo's improvement.  So, the "bit budget" should be spend on more channels, not two high-rate channels.  
 
Interesting that in the 1930s Bell Labs stereo experiments, it was determined that the minimum channel count for acceptable stereo soundstage (they didn't use that term) was 3, not 2.  We landed on 2 because the delivery medium was vinyl, and 2 was the practical limit without matrix methods.  
 
Excluding DMP/Headphone systems, there are almost no stereo-only systems sold today, relative to 5.1 surround systems of any sort, including the virtual surround some sound-bars deliver (which is can actually be pretty good). But since we're still stuck at 2 channel stereo .mp3s, two channel headphones, and 2 channel stereo radio, the music industry has failed to move forward to 5.1 in anything but the tiny splinter markets.  
 
I do love my 5.1 DVD Audio discs, and SACDs, though, and no home theater demo is complete without a 5.1 music demo. 

I would have never guessed having more channels would be better in terms of how realistic the recording sounds. I did come across a SACD for the first time in my life a few months ago, but I don't have a player to play it unfortunately. Doesn't SACD add a bunch of high-frequency noise?

 

[jaddie]

Thanks bigshot, and I agree.  I tend not to talk much about the 2ch > 5.1 processes, though many work quite well. I use one of the Denon functions (it's called "9 channel stereo") for that myself.  The purists probably hate them all, and I did too until the recent crop came along, which are actually quite good.  
 
Not to take this to an area many will consider ridiculous, but, well, here it goes: If every time you at least double the channel count, the improvement is obvious to everyone, then the next step beyond 5.1 is 11.2, in other words, Audyssey DSX.  Yes, it's an extraction process going 5.1 > 11.1, but adding width and height speakers is a very significant change.  They're up to DSX 2 now:
http://www.audyssey.com/audio-technology/audyssey-dsx-2
 
I had the opportunity to hear the predecessor to this, 10.2, a few  years ago.  Granted, the demo material was all discrete, but the effect of the width and height speakers is incredible. We don't know now vertically flat the 5.1 circle is until those height channels are added.  The Audyssey Boffins have figured out how to extract the right material from lower channel-count sources to get those channels working temporarily until we get real 11.1 sources.  
 
I know, I know, "I can't place 7.1 speakers, how the heck..." Not everyone can, but it's worth it.  You don't need huge full-range speakers for the additional ones, they just need to be "similar" sounding.  
 
I'm a little skeptical that another doubling will have the same impact, but then I haven't heard Dolby Atmos yet...