TV monitor analog input/outputs

[AnotherJohnson]

Just for fun I played the Carmen Sandim SACD on the two channel system.

192/24 is no substitute for a first rate system. The SACD on the main system is superior in every way in spite of the slightly higher resolution of the data DVD.

I’ve been looking over my collection, and I’ve actually got several more multichannel SACDs.

[AnotherJohnson]

I remembered that the Liutos were strong on vocals.

I noticed that Tierney Sutton’s “Dancing in the Dark” SACD is multichannel. So I’m back at the HT system to see how that disk sounds.

The vocal’s not bad. The simple orchestral accompaniment is OK too. Not high end, but definitely listenable.

It is now “late night” here, at least for my early to bed wife. Out of consideration, since the main listening room is by the master bedroom, I don’t listen to high dynamic range recordings after 10 pm in that room. I usually switch to ABC Jazz, or small groups and solos.

The HT is in the old master, as far from the new one as you can go in the house. I cranked this up and went to see how audible it is in the MBR, and it’s not audible at all.

That’s a strong advantage to having two distinct locations rather than merging the HT and two channel main system in this particular case.

[admin]

AJ,

This is fun stuff. I too sometimes break out the multichannel 5.1 SACD's or play some concerts on video discs that have multi-channel tracks. I would probably not obsess about trying to get the same fidelity out of a HT setup as you do your 2 channel system that has top of the line components that will blow anything in the HT out of the water. You mentioned that the speakers in the HT are not optimally placed, but again, I think this is actually kind of ok as you have the room correction software managing those potential shortcomings. Much better to have a suboptimal placement in a HT setup than a stereo setup.

Just have fun with it. Play the 5.1 tracks, enjoy it for what it is, and then go play the 2 channel stuff on the stereo and enjoy what's presented on that end.

I think it's great that you have two set ups. We are very lucky to have these. Last night I watched a scary movie (for the Halloween mood) with the wife, and enjoyed it. Then shut everything down, and turned on the stereo system and listened to some 2 channel audio. Both fun and very different.

[AnotherJohnson]

Digging around last night I was surprised to see that some of the old RCA Living Stereo recordings I have are SACD multitrack.

They are not 5.1, but are 3 channel. During the transition from mono to stereo recording 60+years ago, three track became common in anticipation of the day when consumers would pony up for stereo. These recordings were L C R tracks, so the SACD plays all three front speakers if the player is capable.

I played some Fritz Reiner conducted Mussorgsky last night. These recordings are somewhat limited by the orchestral recording technical problems of the day … they’re not in my regular rotation of go to programs. But the three channel presentation was historically fascinating.

[AnotherJohnson]

We are very lucky to have these. Last night I watched a scary movie (for the Halloween mood) with the wife, and enjoyed it. Then shut everything down, and turned on the stereo system and listened to some 2 channel audio. Both fun and very different.

Now , when the Sasha DAWs arrive, if only I could find one more room for the Sabrina, LP275Ms, LS28SE, Ruby SA-KI system.

Why/how do I always end up with three systems?

[admin]

Why/how do I always end up with three systems?

Yes,... life is such a struggle!

[AnotherJohnson]

Interesting CD comparo here.

I have this on CD and now also on SACD and 5.1.

image.jpg (2.54 MiB) Viewed 2487 times

The CD itself is one of the best sound wise I’ve ever heard. Simply stunning.

The SACD turns out to bring a bit of polish and refinement. Worth the cost? Yes … but only as a curiosity satisfier.

The 5.1 comes along on the SACD. It’s identified as DSD Multi 2.8 MHz/1 bit.

I’m sitting in the middle of a trio that should be out in front of me. The center vocal tracks are not nearly as convincingly real as on either two channel version. Some cuts are better than others whereas on the two channel, all cuts are gorgeous.

So 5.1 strikes me here as a novelty.

[AnotherJohnson]

Another disk RJ and I have suggested before is Tierney Sutton’s “Something Cool” on Telarc.

EF14E505-D847-4485-BFEB-C3CFADB8784E.jpeg (3.58 MiB) Viewed 2480 times

I have had the CD for several years. But I’ve just acquired the SACD recently. The SACD also has a “Surround “ layer. It was released in 2002.

The liner notes say that “Multi-channel surround sound for audio playback in the home is a relatively new concept.”

They say this disk “was designed for optimal performance on a system that utilizes at least four full-range, and preferably equal speakers employed in a LF, RF, LR, RR configuration. A CF speaker and subwoofer are also recommended.”

The reason this caught my eye is that my front and rear speakers are not even close to being equal, and even though the software was employed to tune the system, there’s a limit to what can be accomplished.

I suspect this is an issue when comparing serious two channel programs to their attendant 5.1 channel programs.

Meanwhile this CD was not well suited to the premium JBL audio system in my truck, but it’s killing it in the ARC/Wilson system. It is very well done.

[admin]

Another nice selection. I think you are approaching multichannel listening the right way.... that is having fun with it. Making comparisons. I don't think it's about better or worse, but rather different. I journey into multichannel listening here and there,... and then back to 2 channel serious listening shortly thereafter. But it's always fun.