Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 50th Anniversary Reissue (with 5.1 surround mix)

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Poor mastering job if that is the case, but easy to fix with any audio editing program. I always found it useful when ripping mono vinyl records to record to stereo and then convert to a mono wave file, then for comparability (i.e. burning to CD) convert back to stereo, the mono stereo tracks are then perfectly balanced. I don't have a copy of this myself. the high price has put me off for now at least.

All that digital conversion is against my religion. I simply use a Y connector, and merge the two L and R channels and record to one channel. Then copy that chan and paste to missing chan. No digital conversion, and merging the two in analog reduces the noise floor right at the start.
 
Decided it was worth getting at this price. I order from Warehouse Deals a lot - items are often new items with minor damage incurred in shipping. Amazon indicated that they had 15 of these sets in warehouse deals condition when I ordered.

Fwiw, I got a very good copy of 1+ for $20 from Warehouse Deals as well.
 
Quality family time at Bag End

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk
b2e34c46b5876ada1c0525793948546c.jpg
 
Well, a good friend invited me over to hear this. I really see this mix as a missed opportunity, which is quite disappointing given the wonderful job I thought they did on the "Love" surround mix. In particular, LSD and Mr Kite were very underwhelming. Given the work that Giles had already done cutting apart the Lucy track, I totally expected a psychedelic treatment where the notes were floating around the room randomly like colored dots in front of your eyes when the Mescaline kicks in (or so I've heard). In the same way, when Henry the Horse starts dancing, I felt it would have been entirely appropriate to center the organ but have the effects spinning around you in a dizzying manner, the way the organ on a carousel would remain stationary as you ride, but all of the sounds from outside would be spinning as the ride twirls. "Day in the Life" was nice, but pedestrian. A treatment completely not befitting that song. Only two songs actually benefited from the surround mix in my estimation. The separation given the small ensemble in "When I'm Sixty-Four" gave an interesting freshness to that tune (not one of my favorites on the album) and "Penny Lane" was literally the only mix that had me hearing things I hadn't before. Again, the fact that the whole album didn't do this is a wasted opportunity.

I've yet to even mention the most egregious blunder of all. The LFE channel is an awful mess. For starters, it is entirely too loud. My friend had to turn his sub down twice just to get it to "play nicely" with the other channels. Once that was accomplished, it was horrible "flubby" and indistinct. Plus, it seemed to only carry far too much of Paul's bass fundamental but I heard little to none of the kick drum fundamental. It's really all but inexcusable IMHO.

In a way, this is probably appropriate for a 50th Anniversary release. For fifty years I've heard about how the mono was the go to mix and the stereo was an afterthought. With this release it seems that the stereo is finally the go to mix and the surround was treated as an afterthought.
 
I recently bid on the 5.1 bluray for $45 shipped but didn't get it. Thanks to this forum, I saw the set was available used on Amazon for $65 shipped. All the tumblers went down and I bought it. Like you all, I figure on getting a good chunk of that back by re-selling it minus the bluray. I didn't buy this set when it first came out because of poor reviews of the 5.1, in addition to the fact that I'm not really into box sets for the prices they are asking. After listening to this, I'm a little confused about all of the negative comments on the 5.1. I suspect if you don't like it, it could be an equipment issue (not set up properly or misadjusted etc... My system is set up for 4 large full range speakers, as I seem to remember Lou Dorren saying you you don't need subwoofer's (with their bass management issues) and center channels ( I think they dilute the front stereo image). My OPPO 95 sets these speaker adjustments and of course High Res Audio comes from the Oppo's RCA outs to my 4ch preamp/amp ( A slider control sets the front-back level-much easier than all that digital menu gobbilty goop). I don't think I've ever heard a better Quad than Ringo's "When I'm 64"! I only need to make one more comment.....get this disc.
 
I didn't buy this set when it first came out because of poor reviews of the 5.1, in addition to the fact that I'm not really into box sets for the prices they are asking. After listening to this, I'm a little confused about all of the negative comments on the 5.1. I suspect if you don't like it, it could be an equipment issue (not set up properly or misadjusted etc... I don't think I've ever heard a better Quad than Ringo's "When I'm 64"!

I don't think the negative comments stem from any kind of misadjusted systems. That idea gets pushed around quite a bit when there is a difference of opinion on the quality of a mix.

Its not that the 5.1 Pepper mix is bad. It isn't. It's the idea that it could have been so much better if they hadn't tried to play it so safe and "respect the mono" as much as they touted. It definitely offers improved sonics over any version I've ever heard before. And the 5.1 does open up a lot of the tracks. There are even a few that are reasonably discrete, but none of it is consistent through the album. Yep, 64 is good. So is "Within You without You", and "Strawberry Fields" from what I remember. But most of the rest of it drops off a notch in the discreteness category. I think I remember the title track and its reprise as being especially tame. Some of this may well be due to what Giles had to work with in terms of multi-tracks, but the general feeling was that the mix was intentionally toned down.

To my ear it does sound a lot better with the rears turned up 3 dB or so. In general, boosting the rear levels is not something I have to do with any other recording I can think of. So it makes me wonder if those who feel its a "10" right out of the box aren't the ones who have the misadjusted systems.

My system is set up for 4 large full range speakers, as I seem to remember Lou Dorren saying you you don't need subwoofer's (with their bass management issues) and center channels ( I think they dilute the front stereo image). My OPPO 95 sets these speaker adjustments and of course High Res Audio comes from the Oppo's RCA outs to my 4ch preamp/amp ( A slider control sets the front-back level-much easier than all that digital menu gobbilty goop).

I do respect Lou Dorren's ideas, but I gotta disagree with some of this and how you have applied it to this release. A change to full range loudspeakers vs monitors & subs wont fix the lack of discreteness on the Pepper release. The bass isn't the issue. Not only that, I'll put my monitors + sub system up against 80% of the so called "full range" loudspeakers out there, and I'm reasonably sure I'll get more extended, cleaner bass. Its all about the positioning. Seldom do the ideal loudspeaker positions for imaging and the ideal position for bass response fall in the same place. And what bass management issues are you referring to? I have no problem setting mine up and keeping it in good tune.

Modern DSP systems can do a remarkable job of setting levels and frequency contours. The adjustments are likely better than anything any of us might be able to do by ear. I don't use any DSP equalization contour on my system (I do pay attention to what the analysis tells me however, and have used it to integrate a sub) but I do use it to set levels. Its at least as good as I can do with my ears and an SPL meter. Probably better.
 
I don't think the negative comments stem from any kind of misadjusted systems. That idea gets pushed around quite a bit when there is a difference of opinion on the quality of a mix.

Its not that the 5.1 Pepper mix is bad. It isn't. It's the idea that it could have been so much better if they hadn't tried to play it so safe and "respect the mono" as much as they touted. It definitely offers improved sonics over any version I've ever heard before. And the 5.1 does open up a lot of the tracks. There are even a few that are reasonably discrete, but none of it is consistent through the album. Yep, 64 is good. So is "Within You without You", and "Strawberry Fields" from what I remember. But most of the rest of it drops off a notch in the discreteness category. I think I remember the title track and its reprise as being especially tame. Some of this may well be due to what Giles had to work with in terms of multi-tracks, but the general feeling was that the mix was intentionally toned down.

To my ear it does sound a lot better with the rears turned up 3 dB or so. In general, boosting the rear levels is not something I have to do with any other recording I can think of. So it makes me wonder if those who feel its a "10" right out of the box aren't the ones who have the misadjusted systems.



I do respect Lou Dorren's ideas, but I gotta disagree with some of this and how you have applied it to this release. A change to full range loudspeakers vs monitors & subs wont fix the lack of discreteness on the Pepper release. The bass isn't the issue. Not only that, I'll put my monitors + sub system up against 80% of the so called "full range" loudspeakers out there, and I'm reasonably sure I'll get more extended, cleaner bass. Its all about the positioning. Seldom do the ideal loudspeaker positions for imaging and the ideal position for bass response fall in the same place. And what bass management issues are you referring to? I have no problem setting mine up and keeping it in good tune.

Modern DSP systems can do a remarkable job of setting levels and frequency contours. The adjustments are likely better than anything any of us might be able to do by ear. I don't use any DSP equalization contour on my system (I do pay attention to what the analysis tells me however, and have used it to integrate a sub) but I do use it to set levels. Its at least as good as I can do with my ears and an SPL meter. Probably better.
Ringo had nothing to do with When I'm 64, that is Paul. Ringo sang With a Little Help. I think the surround is sensational and I don't have my rears turned up. I especially love the animal effects on Good Morning. I have been listening to this album since the day it was released and it never sounded better than the surround issue. I have listened on many different systems and in many different environments and the surround beats them all by miles. Could have it been more discrete in the rear channels? Maybe, but I don't care. I am not comparing a 60s 4 track recording with modern recordings or even DSOTM, I compare it to what I have heard it sound like in the past. WYWY is so much better it is off the scale.
 
I recently bid on the 5.1 bluray for $45 shipped but didn't get it. Thanks to this forum, I saw the set was available used on Amazon for $65 shipped. All the tumblers went down and I bought it. Like you all, I figure on getting a good chunk of that back by re-selling it minus the bluray. I didn't buy this set when it first came out because of poor reviews of the 5.1, in addition to the fact that I'm not really into box sets for the prices they are asking. After listening to this, I'm a little confused about all of the negative comments on the 5.1. I suspect if you don't like it, it could be an equipment issue (not set up properly or misadjusted etc... My system is set up for 4 large full range speakers, as I seem to remember Lou Dorren saying you you don't need subwoofer's (with their bass management issues) and center channels ( I think they dilute the front stereo image). My OPPO 95 sets these speaker adjustments and of course High Res Audio comes from the Oppo's RCA outs to my 4ch preamp/amp ( A slider control sets the front-back level-much easier than all that digital menu gobbilty goop). I don't think I've ever heard a better Quad than Ringo's "When I'm 64"! I only need to make one more comment.....get this disc.

What do you think of "Love"? Not the edits, but the sound quality and mix. This had ultimate potential which didn't happen. Within You Without You is pretty darn cool but overall, this great album could have been better. Bumping the rears help but it doesn't sound near as good as Love and even Anthology mix wise. Still glad I have it and the other Beatles stuff...
 
What do you think of "Love"? Not the edits, but the sound quality and mix. This had ultimate potential which didn't happen. Within You Without You is pretty darn cool but overall, this great album could have been better. Bumping the rears help but it doesn't sound near as good as Love and even Anthology mix wise. Still glad I have it and the other Beatles stuff...
About 5 years ago I saw the LOVE Show in Las Vegas and it blew me away. I had an excellent time and the surround quality in the big auditorium was great. I believe if and when Giles does the White Album in surround he will take more liberty's than he did with Pepper.
 
I don't think the negative comments stem from any kind of misadjusted systems. That idea gets pushed around quite a bit when there is a difference of opinion on the quality of a mix.

Its not that the 5.1 Pepper mix is bad. It isn't. It's the idea that it could have been so much better if they hadn't tried to play it so safe and "respect the mono" as much as they touted. It definitely offers improved sonics over any version I've ever heard before. And the 5.1 does open up a lot of the tracks. There are even a few that are reasonably discrete, but none of it is consistent through the album. Yep, 64 is good. So is "Within You without You", and "Strawberry Fields" from what I remember. But most of the rest of it drops off a notch in the discreteness category. I think I remember the title track and its reprise as being especially tame. Some of this may well be due to what Giles had to work with in terms of multi-tracks, but the general feeling was that the mix was intentionally toned down.

To my ear it does sound a lot better with the rears turned up 3 dB or so. In general, boosting the rear levels is not something I have to do with any other recording I can think of. So it makes me wonder if those who feel its a "10" right out of the box aren't the ones who have the misadjusted systems.



I do respect Lou Dorren's ideas, but I gotta disagree with some of this and how you have applied it to this release. A change to full range loudspeakers vs monitors & subs wont fix the lack of discreteness on the Pepper release. The bass isn't the issue. Not only that, I'll put my monitors + sub system up against 80% of the so called "full range" loudspeakers out there, and I'm reasonably sure I'll get more extended, cleaner bass. Its all about the positioning. Seldom do the ideal loudspeaker positions for imaging and the ideal position for bass response fall in the same place. And what bass management issues are you referring to? I have no problem setting mine up and keeping it in good tune.

Modern DSP systems can do a remarkable job of setting levels and frequency contours. The adjustments are likely better than anything any of us might be able to do by ear. I don't use any DSP equalization contour on my system (I do pay attention to what the analysis tells me however, and have used it to integrate a sub) but I do use it to set levels. Its at least as good as I can do with my ears and an SPL meter. Probably better.

Don't hate me but your "more extended, cleaner bass" doesn't come from the proper direction. Not only are you compromising the line level signal by adding processing, your now completely changing the simple, full range, four corners template originally intended for quad setups.

Instruments, intended for a speaker in one corner, are now being cut. So part of the instrument is coming from one direction (lets say a bass drum from a left rear speaker) and part of it is now coming from your sub (in the front?). This makes a huge difference. Any instrument cut in half and one portion sent from one side of the room, and another portion of the same instrument sent to another side of the room (a completely different direction) is a compromise. Your "more extended, cleaner bass" is now changed to something completely different.

The simple four corners method has now turned into something originally intended movies. Heavy, large full range monitors have been phased out for the easy to carry speakers and a sub. Easier to ship, easier to sell. The literature will tell you bass is not directional. All instruments are directional.
 
Don't hate me but your "more extended, cleaner bass" doesn't come from the proper direction. Not only are you compromising the line level signal by adding processing, your now completely changing the simple, full range, four corners template originally intended for quad setups.

Instruments, intended for a speaker in one corner, are now being cut. So part of the instrument is coming from one direction (lets say a bass drum from a left rear speaker) and part of it is now coming from your sub (in the front?). This makes a huge difference. Any instrument cut in half and one portion sent from one side of the room, and another portion of the same instrument sent to another side of the room (a completely different direction) is a compromise. Your "more extended, cleaner bass" is now changed to something completely different.

The simple four corners method has now turned into something originally intended movies. Heavy, large full range monitors have been phased out for the easy to carry speakers and a sub. Easier to ship, easier to sell. The literature will tell you bass is not directional. All instruments are directional.

Hey I would never hate you. Its just a conversation. We can agree to disagree.

I do want to clarify a few things though.

I don't run a quad setup. I run 5 channels. Like it or not, that's the format modern music is released as. I agree that a wonderful surround experience can be had with 4 channels, and there are many QQ members that prefer it, as you seem to.

We have different ideas regarding how a subwoofer works and how low frequencies are distributed in a room.

I use 5 identical small monitors with 6" woofers. They start to roll off at about 60 Hz or so. They cross over to a sub at 50 Hz (I've tried several crossover points and this one seems to work best for me.). I do this with an active crossover in the analog domain. I do not use any additional DSP at all. My disk player is also set to pass the full signal with no digital bass management, just like yours. I do tell it there is a sub for the LFE channel however. The electronic crossover is connected between the pre/pro and the power amp. The inputs are the 5 analog channels plus the LFE channel. The crossover provides a high pass for the five channels and routes the low bass (below 50 hz) plus the LFE information to the sub. All the levels are adjustable. This is no different than what a passive crossover inside a full range speaker does, in fact, the electronic crossover does a better job of it than the passive crossover networks in most loudspeakers do because it doesn't produce the phase shift common with passive devices. One reason I like this setup so much is it allows me to play full range vinyl with no digital processing at all. Without the analog crossover, the vinyl low end would either be lost due to the roll off of the monitors or I'd have to digitize the vinyl analog signal to be able to route the low bass to the sub. To be honest though, true low bass on vinyl records is pretty few and far between.

How do you set your disc player when it comes to handling the LFE channel? If you tell it there is a sub connected, the LFE information isn't produced at all because there really is no sub connected. If you tell it there is no sub in the system it digitally combines the LFE channel into the signal going to the 4 main channels. That is a use of DSP, which you seem to dislike so much.

With respect to direction, lets go back to that bass drum example of yours. A bass drum has a fundamental frequency of about 50 hz or so. The upper harmonics stretch to over 150 Hz, and the low end stretches to below audibility. The fact is, its difficult to hear any signal lower than 50 hz because you feel it more than you truly hear it. You hear the upper harmonics, but you feel the lower ones. Because of that, those low frequencies do really seem directionless as long as the crossover to the sub is set reasonably low. I've tried crossover frequencies as high as 100Hz without noticing a direction issue, but it does bloat the mid-bass when set that high. My sub is in the front of the room but off to one side and pointing in a completely different direction than the main speakers. Its that way for a reason. It minimizes the standing waves that are produced if it were oriented to fire forward and it allows it to provide truly low bass. I have measured a -3 dB point of 18 Hz. That's tough to achieve in all but the largest of full range loudspeakers. I never notice any conflicting directional information... not in the least. There is no compromise, there is no "huge" difference. I seldom even realize the sub is there until something with true low bass gets played. The biggest problem I have is how it can excite other objects in the room at high volume. Again the freedom of placement that the sub provides helps quite a bit in that regard. And it allows me to locate the smallish monitors for optimized imaging without worrying about what kind of problem that bass driver (which is usually only a few inches off the floor in a large floorstander) is going to cause.

What I do miss by not having large floor standers is the lack of a height dimension. I used to own large Magneplanars which produced a truly good, really large image that produced a good sense of height.

The bottom line here is that there is more than one path to a superior sounding system. There is no right way. If what you are doing works for you in your room that's all that matters. And smaller monitors plus a sub work very well in mine.

Now what was it we were talking about? Oh yeah.... that Pepper release...
 
Last edited:
Hey I would never hate you. Its just a conversation. We can agree to disagree.

I do want to clarify a few things though.

I don't run a quad setup. I run 5 channels. Like it or not, that's the format modern music is released as. I agree that a wonderful surround experience can be had with 4 channels, and there are many QQ members that prefer it, as you seem to.

We have different ideas regarding how a subwoofer works and how low frequencies are distributed in a room.

I use 5 identical small monitors with 6" woofers. They start to roll off at about 60 Hz or so. They cross over to a sub at 50 Hz (I've tried several crossover points and this one seems to work best for me.). I do this with an active crossover in the analog domain. I do not use any additional DSP at all. My disk player is also set to pass the full signal with no digital bass management, just like yours. I do tell it there is a sub for the LFE channel however. The electronic crossover is connected between the pre/pro and the power amp. The inputs are the 5 analog channels plus the LFE channel. The crossover provides a high pass for the five channels and routes the low bass (below 50 hz) plus the LFE information to the sub. All the levels are adjustable. This is no different than what a passive crossover inside a full range speaker does, in fact, the electronic crossover does a better job of it than the passive crossover networks in most loudspeakers do because it doesn't produce the phase shift common with passive devices. One reason I like this setup so much is it allows me to play full range vinyl with no digital processing at all. Without the analog crossover, the vinyl low end would either be lost due to the roll off of the monitors or I'd have to digitize the vinyl analog signal to be able to route the low bass to the sub. To be honest though, true low bass on vinyl records is pretty few and far between.

How do you set your disc player when it comes to handling the LFE channel? If you tell it there is a sub connected, the LFE information isn't produced at all because there really is no sub connected. If you tell it there is no sub in the system it digitally combines the LFE channel into the signal going to the 4 main channels. That is a use of DSP, which you seem to dislike so much.

With respect to direction, lets go back to that bass drum example of yours. A bass drum has a fundamental frequency of about 50 hz or so. The upper harmonics stretch to over 150 Hz, and the low end stretches to below audibility. The fact is, its difficult to hear any signal lower than 50 hz because you feel it more than you truly hear it. You hear the upper harmonics, but you feel the lower ones. Because of that, those low frequencies do really seem directionless as long as the crossover to the sub is set reasonably low. I've tried crossover frequencies as high as 100Hz without noticing a direction issue, but it does bloat the mid-bass when set that high. My sub is in the front of the room but off to one side and pointing in a completely different direction than the main speakers. Its that way for a reason. It minimizes the standing waves that are produced if it were oriented to fire forward and it allows it to provide truly low bass. I have measured a -3 dB point of 18 Hz. That's tough to achieve in all but the largest of full range loudspeakers. I never notice any conflicting directional information... not in the least. There is no compromise, there is no "huge" difference. I seldom even realize the sub is there until something with true low bass gets played. The biggest problem I have is how it can excite other objects in the room at high volume. Again the freedom of placement that the sub provides helps quite a bit in that regard. And it allows me to locate the smallish monitors for optimized imaging without worrying about what kind of problem that bass driver (which is usually only a few inches off the floor in a large floorstander) is going to cause.

What I do miss by not having large floor standers is the lack of a height dimension. I used to own large Magneplanars which produced a truly good, really large image that produced a good sense of height.

The bottom line here is that there is more than one path to a superior sounding system. There is no right way. If what you are doing works for you in your room that's all that matters. And smaller monitors plus a sub work very well in mine.

Now what was it we were talking about? Oh yeah.... that Pepper release...


Been there done that. All that matters is that you like your setup but keep and open mind and attempt to understand my simple points. I agree it is easier to understand once you hear it but in the end it is simplicity of the original quad setup design that makes the most sense, not the new 5.1 setup originally designed for movies.

My setup is 5.1 but it is based on a 4.0 setup with an additional full range center. Dot one sub beneath center channel. No redirected bass management. Ran a normal 5.1 setup for a couple decades before I stumbled into some larger monitors. Peace.
 
Been there done that. All that matters is that you like your setup but keep and open mind and attempt to understand my simple points. I agree it is easier to understand once you hear it but in the end it is simplicity of the original quad setup design that makes the most sense, not the new 5.1 setup originally designed for movies.

My setup is 5.1 but it is based on a 4.0 setup with an additional full range center. Dot one sub beneath center channel. No redirected bass management. Ran a normal 5.1 setup for a couple decades before I stumbled into some larger monitors. Peace.

Ok I see. Ill bet that does work well. So during playback do you play 5.1 as true 5.1 or do you defeat the center channel and play it as 4.1? Maybe it even changes with the source material for you. I do have several early DTS disks that sound better to me in 4.1 because they were originally 4.0 tracks that DTS took and "enhanced" to 5.1. For those one can just turn off the CC and drop the rear level by a couple of dB and it often snaps into better focus.
 
I don't think the negative comments stem from any kind of misadjusted systems. That idea gets pushed around quite a bit when there is a difference of opinion on the quality of a mix.

Its not that the 5.1 Pepper mix is bad. It isn't. It's the idea that it could have been so much better if they hadn't tried to play it so safe and "respect the mono" as much as they touted. It definitely offers improved sonics over any version I've ever heard before. And the 5.1 does open up a lot of the tracks. There are even a few that are reasonably discrete, but none of it is consistent through the album. Yep, 64 is good. So is "Within You without You", and "Strawberry Fields" from what I remember. But most of the rest of it drops off a notch in the discreteness category. I think I remember the title track and its reprise as being especially tame. Some of this may well be due to what Giles had to work with in terms of multi-tracks, but the general feeling was that the mix was intentionally toned down.

To my ear it does sound a lot better with the rears turned up 3 dB or so. In general, boosting the rear levels is not something I have to do with any other recording I can think of. So it makes me wonder if those who feel its a "10" right out of the box aren't the ones who have the misadjusted systems.

I do respect Lou Dorren's ideas, but I gotta disagree with some of this and how you have applied it to this release. A change to full range loudspeakers vs monitors & subs wont fix the lack of discreteness on the Pepper release. The bass isn't the issue. Not only that, I'll put my monitors + sub system up against 80% of the so called "full range" loudspeakers out there, and I'm reasonably sure I'll get more extended, cleaner bass. Its all about the positioning. Seldom do the ideal loudspeaker positions for imaging and the ideal position for bass response fall in the same place. And what bass management issues are you referring to? I have no problem setting mine up and keeping it in good tune.

Modern DSP systems can do a remarkable job of setting levels and frequency contours. The adjustments are likely better than anything any of us might be able to do by ear. I don't use any DSP equalization contour on my system (I do pay attention to what the analysis tells me however, and have used it to integrate a sub) but I do use it to set levels. Its at least as good as I can do with my ears and an SPL meter. Probably better.
Several points to discuss:
People still debating the Pepper mix eh?
Giles Martin gave Paul McCartney what he wanted. Anyone who thinks that Paul wasn't involved in this doesn't know much about the man.
Thinking that Love should or would be the template for Pepper to me is unrealistic for too many reasons to go into.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with tweaking surrounds. Although I have used and like the Anthem ARC system since it was released it cannot account for mixing decisions or personal taste.
I have never understood why people apply quadraphonic sound design to 5.1 or x.x of any kind. They're totally different.
When I play Quad material, I don't rewhack it to put in a center channel. It's not meant to be played that way and shouldn't be, no more than taking the center channel out of a 5.1 recording or using one speaker for 2-channel.

I will modify your bolded statement a bit in that the better DSP systems, ARC, Dirac, Trinnov, can do far more of everything more accurately than can be done by ear with a SPL meter(most likely a Radio Shack unit).
 
[And what bass management issues are you referring to? I have no problem setting mine up and keeping it in good tune.]

When dvd audio first came out, I purchased a Sony ES digital surround preamp and paired it with separate amps. When it was set up to 5.1 and digital management, it seemed like I was always going through menu's to adjust the LFE channel (problem solved with a 4.0 system). Then there are the discs out there that have zero or little info in the LFE channel so that expensive subwoofer aint got nothin to do. The Moody Blues SACD's) are a prime example of this! I don't know how you listen to discs like this is if you have small right and left front channels that are bass shy. When I had my 5.1 set up, I remember taking a feed from an extra RCA out on the Oppo and routing it to the LFE, which sounded pretty good with the Moodies discs.` My LFE channel set up consisted of a JBL L212 System sub and I didn't have room to set it right in the middle of the front speakers along with the center channel, so it was off to the side. Bass is supposed to be "non-directional" but if it isn't centered between the front speakers it always sounded to me like it was off balanced to the side the sub was on and it made me wish I had a balance control to adjust it (problem solved with a 4.0 system). Now, a good 4.0 system might require a player that folds the bass and center correctly into the right and left channels and the OPPO surely does that. By reading your posts, I can see you are a really knowledgeble surround guy and a real hobbyist, but there are number of posts on forums of people having trouble with these complex modern systems, including getting their bass properly set up. If manufacturers had stayed with 4.0 and simplified it to "plug and play" maybe we wouldn't be a "niche" group of misfits. Since I got rid of my center and LFE, I have not noticed any detrimental effects to the surround sound field and seem to enjoy my 5.1 music (and I guess 7.1) just as much as before, not to mention that it sure took a lot of extra stuff out of my room. My 4 large speakers are Jbl Horizons and JBL L112's (all 12" 3 ways). The fronts are on stands and the rears are built into the back wall (all are ear level). At any rate, thanks for your post, i enjoyed reading it. Getting other viewpoints is what makes this forum great.
 
[What do you think of "Love"? Not the edits, but the sound quality and mix.]

For me, the "Love" disc is an incredible experimental foray into the surround sound experience and few mixes can match it. The SGT Pepper disc can't match it, but I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. What I do hear on the Pepper mix is harmonizing vocals along with other sounds and effects in the rears, actually very enjoyable stuff. If the Love disc had not come out before Pepper, I think people would be much easier on the pepper mix..To simplify, "Love" spoiled us all.
 
Ok I see. Ill bet that does work well. So during playback do you play 5.1 as true 5.1 or do you defeat the center channel and play it as 4.1? Maybe it even changes with the source material for you. I do have several early DTS disks that sound better to me in 4.1 because they were originally 4.0 tracks that DTS took and "enhanced" to 5.1. For those one can just turn off the CC and drop the rear level by a couple of dB and it often snaps into better focus.

Yes. Most 5.1 discs sound better with my full range center channel and dot one sub. No directing of bass (or channels) needed. I think America's Homecoming is one of the best examples of how great a center channel can sound. Many 5.1 mixes don't use the center to it's full potential like Homecoming, Primus Sailing on the Seas of Cheese for example. Redirecting the center to the mains on that mix doesn't make much difference. ...also four amps in the summer in Florida heats up the room so much, I will redirect center and sub channels just to keep the place cooler. It still sounds very good and a lot of my recordings are 4.0 anyways so I can get by with two stereo amps on rather than four. No doubt, like you, I simply turn off the center and sub amps for those enhanced 5.1 discs that you mention with the redundant center and sub channels. My sub is passive obviously.
 
Back
Top