Thread: BIS thread

Posts: 4131
Page: prev 1 ... 233 234 235 236 237 ... 414 next

Post by Ear September 20, 2011 (2341 of 4131)
Ah... dynamic range... it seems, to a lot of people nowadays it is rather a flaw in the recording when everything does not sound the same and blasts into the living room (or from the Ipod head phones) even with the amp at -45 db. The latest Kate Bush record (Director's Cut - and Aerial as well BTW) has incredible dynamic range and as recorded almost without compression (so it seems). It opens up so nicely when turned up and has fine detail, warm sound (even for a CD)and everything you want. Yet people complain that it is to quiet and 'muddy'and so on.

Loudness War takes its toll.

Post by hiredfox September 20, 2011 (2342 of 4131)
mekduk said:

As on the subject of multichannel, I would say the difference is just mind boggling. Given the right equipments and the right recordings, you will experience something that many (high end) stereo system cannot deliver (law of physics?).

Part of me wants fervently to believe this to be true but biased assertions apart no evidence of even a partial eclipse has presented itself to my ears yet.

Maybe it's where one starts from and regretably even today only a very few (even on here?) seem to have had extensive exposure to cutting edge high end stereo sound and bought into it.

I am not a cynic, for sure anybody can hear the spatial effects of Mch that appeal to many but quantity cannot make up fully for quality.

Post by AmonRa September 20, 2011 (2343 of 4131)
mekduk said:
Given the right equipments and the right recordings, you will experience something that many (high end) stereo system cannot deliver (law of physics?).

The law of physics are here simple: 2 speakers, no matter how high end they are, can not recreate the illusion of space any 5 (even mediocre) speakers in MCH configuration can.

Then, how about a 5 channel high end system? Quite a few people have those also. "Quite" is a relative term, of course. My system is made of PCM and ADAM pro monitors with Genelec sub controlled by Prism AD/DA converter. Some might not think it is high end, as it is pro, but it sounds "quite" good...

Post by DSD September 20, 2011 (2344 of 4131)
mekduk said:

Dynamic range is too big? From my personal experience, I don't think so...

I agree the dynamics of the BIS recordings I've heard on SACD, 24bit download and LP seems to be about right.

The only SACD label that has what I would term "excessive" dynamic range for home listening is Telarc, as they are the only label in which the soft parts are nearly inaudible and the loud parts so loud as to cause me to make a mad dash for the volume control to turn it down. I do find this irritating and if it was not for the excellent sound quality I would not put up with it. Telarc's realistic dynamic range would be fine in a large space like a concert hall but it does overpower my apartment. None of the other 152 labels I've tried have this problem with extreme dynamics and I do not know why people accuse BIS of this problem, perhaps it is limited to certain BIS recordings I have not heard yet?

Also I have not noticed low overall level on BIS recordings, of course I have 350 watts into my 4 ohm speakers so it might be more noticeable on lower powered amps. I just wanted to say every recording has a "correct" playback level which differs from other recordings even on the same label. Use your volume control to dial in the perfect level, you'll know when you hear it.

Post by Euell Neverno September 20, 2011 (2345 of 4131)
Arnaldo said:

From an editorial perspective, the review reads as borderline unprofessional. The disclosure of the excerpts from what is clearly a personal letter, directly undermines any pretense of impartiality. In reality, Mr. Hurwitz should have disqualified himself and assigned the review to a writer less emotionally involved in the matter.

Dunno. One ought to be careful what one puts in writing and transmits to others. In the legal game, for example, e-mail is known as "evidence mail."
When you send something personally insulting to another, be prepared to own up to it -- or don't send it.

Post by seth September 20, 2011 (2346 of 4131)
Euell Neverno said:

Dunno. One ought to be careful what one puts in writing and transmits to others. In the legal game, for example, e-mail is known as "evidence mail."
When you send something personally insulting to another, be prepared to own up to it -- or don't send it.

Agreed. Never put something in an e-mail that you'd be embarrassed to see printed in a newspaper.

Post by Jonalogic September 23, 2011 (2347 of 4131)
hiredfox said:

Part of me wants fervently to believe this to be true but biased assertions apart no evidence of even a partial eclipse has presented itself to my ears yet.

Maybe it's where one starts from and regretably even today only a very few (even on here?) seem to have had extensive exposure to cutting edge high end stereo sound and bought into it.

I am not a cynic, for sure anybody can hear the spatial effects of Mch that appeal to many but quantity cannot make up fully for quality.

Totally agree with this. I'd rather have two transparent, natural and high resolution channels than five mediocre ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure 5 top-end channels would sound absolutely best of all, but:

1) I've never heard such a system in the real world, in UK or Hong Kong - from Absolute Sounds, Excel, the BBC* or anyone else, for that matter.
2) I certainly can't afford five pre/power/speaker channels of the quality of my current two...
3) I don't have the space for five panels. Does anyone?
4) My wife would divorce me if I take over any more of the living room.
5) I've never heard a five-channel system with the resolution/quality of my two. Doesn't mean they're not out there of course, and bloody good luck to them and those that can afford them.
6) Like it or no, 99.9% + of classical and jazz music recordings from the late 50s/early 60s were recorded in two channels. Heard any good 5-ch vinyl(or CD) lately?

I don't knock mch, good luck to it; but - like hiredfox - it sometimes irks me when a few of the more ignorant folk on this Forum have from time to time knocked 2ch when they've clearly never heard properly what it can do. I distinctly recall, for instance, the bozo who affirmed - apparently in all sincerity - that stereo can't produce front-centre images or staging, and that five channels were needed for this.... Yeh, really, learn some psychoacoustics, that guy, and look up Alan Blumlein whilst you're at it.

If I could start my system all over again, I would seriously consider mch; however, as an old git with seriously high quality stereo kit who listens to vinyl and historic recordings as well as SACD, and lives in a real-sized house, I regretfully concluded it's not for me - in this lifetime, anyway.

Sorry, that doesn't mean it's not the dog's bollocks** for folk with the inclination, wherewithal and appropriate circumstances. I'm no luddite, just a realist, folks.

* 5 phase-matched LS 3/5 monitors, driven by a 2" Ampex at 30 ips, playing 1st gen masters recorded from the Proms, when they still knew how to do that properly

** wow, am I allowed to say that? I suppose I just did... overseas viewers, please refer to a good UK slang lexicon. Hint: anything that dogs spend that much time licking MUST be damn good.

Post by tailspn September 23, 2011 (2348 of 4131)
Jonalogic said:

...it sometimes irks me when a few of the more ignorant folk on this Forum have from time to time knocked 2ch when they've clearly never heard properly what it can do. I distinctly recall, for instance, the bozo who affirmed - apparently in all sincerity - that stereo can't produce front-centre images or staging, and that five channels were needed for this.... Yeh, really, learn some psychoacoustics, that guy, and look up Alan Blumlein whilst you're at it.

Luddite Hi, Bozo here,

Actually, in practice, stereo can not produce a accurate "front-centre images or staging", whatever that is. What it does is produce a somewhat intensity correct, but time incorrect, more or less centered unstable mono image from two spaced speakers, very dependent on the listeners position. More on that in a minute.

Alan Blumlein did propose and patent a microphone alignment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair
http://www.wikirecording.org/Blumlein_Microphone_Technique

better known I believe as Intensity Stereo. The above links summarize its premise. Its problem is that it has almost no practical application in the recording of the vast majority of acoustical events. It is too hall dependent, as the uncontrollable rear two lobes overwhelm the front two with ambiance, unless the microphone pair is extremely close to the source. That kinda works on a solo instrument in an ideal hall, but is useless for any reasonable size ensemble. What it does so well is transmit spacial intensity cues with minimum/no phase/timing inaccuracies, since the two figure 8 capsules occupy the same practical point in space, for most audible frequencies. Ever record with it? I did for a few years with a pair of Schoeps figure 8 capsules. On a half inch Ampex ATR-102 running at 30ips even.

The problem with stereo is that we must buy someone else's recordings, as opposed to those we make ourselves, and therefore are subject to their microphone et al techniques. And they all use spaced (about 6' or more) omni microphones as the primary pickup. (There are boutique exceptions of course, and minimally spaced directional microphone pair alignments, but they have their own problems, and are uncommon in practical classical music recording). The problem with a spaced omni pair is that is the center phantom image is only more or less correct in intensity cues, but incorrect in time. If you place yourself in front of an orchestra, especially as close as the recording microphones are placed (like above the conductor), you will be much closer to the orchestra center, then its outside edges. You, or your brain, would hear instruments located in the orchestra center earlier, because they are closer, than the instruments located further away towards the orchestra left and right, where the two microphones are located. The reality is that the two spaced omnis transmit a center instrument with equal intensity, but later in time than a center (microphone/channel) position would.

As you know from your psychoacoustics studies, localization is based on BOTH intensity and arrival time differences sensed by our two ears. We larger animals have a keen ability in this talent. With two spaced microphones (the difficulties and compromises get worse with more, called combing), and two speakers, ergo two channel stereo, my brain gets confused by the seeming dichotomy of a center orchestra instrument(s) located in one space by its intensity cues, and in a different space by its timing cues. Your brain may be different :)

This problem got a resolution by the Western Electric engineers studying sound recording and transmission back in the 30's by adopting three channels in their research and demonstrations, so they had a stable accurate center image. As soon as more than one channel recorders became available, many (most?) recording engineers recorded in three channel, later to be reduced to stereo, the only delivery media then available. Then came "audiophiles" to defend it to the death.

Post by ruben090962 September 23, 2011 (2349 of 4131)
BIS,

Please record some more Opera. Thank you for the wonderful recordings!

Ruben Garcia

Post by sacd_fan_2007 September 23, 2011 (2350 of 4131)
Dear BIS:

Please tell your U.S. distributors to hurry up. :-) I ordered the Hindemith Orchestral disc August 2 from my local store and am still waiting.

Page: prev 1 ... 233 234 235 236 237 ... 414 next

Closed