Does HIREZ music always mean multichannel to you?

[Timm Rautmann]

The point is, hi-rez has the POTENTIAL to sound much, much better than CD.

Cai, you are right. The potential of hi-rez is much higher than the CD. It can sound more natural, warmer, more analog! But adding multichannel to this potential makes it interesting for everybody.
My point is that what makes the hi-rez REAL interesting is multichannel! Stereo sound can also be interesting if it is matrix encoded. Who of us would listen to stereo if there is also a mutlichannel track available!
Back to your point:
The potential is high - better than CD - from the tech. side this is right. But what does the reality look like. I saw that you have a quite nice SACD and DVD Audio player - the higher class versions. But if you have a standard DVD Audio player or Sacd player the hi-rez potential is not as realizable. If I compaire the sound of my standard DVD Audio Player with my studio standard CD Player then there is no difference. The difference may only be in somebodies head - and this is my fear:
Imagine the music industry will release a lot of Stereo only SACDs. What if they are starting to re-releasing CD masters with a SACD logo on it. People will buy them thinking that they just bought SACD, but do not know it is actually a CD copie, i.d. the same sound quality than CD. In their head the SACD Logo makes the sound quality better, but not the real sound quality itself.
Now lets take a look on the multichannel issue.
In contrast to the problem just mentioned above, fake multichannel surround is very easy to realize by switching the balance to the rear and front, left and right. Take the Silverline releases for instance, they released a couple of fake surround, using pure matrix decoder and than declarating them to be "stunning surround". For somebody who has a quadraphonic backround will immediately realize the fake. An other point is, that if you bought a Multichannel release, you can be sure that they have used the original masters in order to mix the 5.1 version - and then you also can be sure that the stereo version is also a new mix that derives from the masters directly and is not a re-release of the old CD version.
Back to my point:
Multichannel is what I am interested in. I will save my money for multichannel DVD Audios and multichannel SACDs. Most of the multichannels have a Stereo track too, well I do not use it, but for some folks this is useful. For me it is just a -never used- bonus.
I think, if we only buy multichannel, the industry will have to release more multichannel if they want to make profit - and this is all they care for!
Timm

 

[Cai Campbell]

The quality of a player in determining the advantage of hi-rez digital over redbook is not really an issue. It is an apples-to-apples comparison since the same player is utilized in the same system to compare hi-rez to redbook. The advantage of hi-rez over redbook should be clear on even the cheapest players. Higher end players are just going to elevate the experience of both hi-rez AND redbook. If you can't determine the advantages of hi-rez in your own system, then I believe there are other factors contributing to this besides the player (such as the title being evaluated, and other audio equipment in the chain).

I don't believe that the industry, as a whole, will start slapping an SACD logo on regular CD's, or simply convert 16/44.1 PCM to DSD. There will be those notable exceptions, like the Hong Kong SACD's, but worst case, we're going to see transfers from digital masters that fall short of the potential of DSD but are still better than 16/44.1. Only in extreme cases are there going to be SACD's that are not an improvement on their redbook counterparts.

I still maintain that multi-channel is a factor unto itself and is distinct from hi-rez digital. The two are like peanut butter and chocolate. Yes, they go GREAT together but each stands on its own quite well without the other. Consider DTS surround CD's. These are even lower resolution than redbook stereo (per channel) yet still offer a very satisfying surround experience. This illustrates how multi-channel can exist and serve its purpose without relying upon hi-rez technology.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi Cai,

If you get a chance to read the letters to the editor section of "The Absolute Sounds" recent edition. One of the questions posted regards playing a RedBook cd on the best equipment best speakers, Best of everything vs a dvd-a or sacd played on "what we might call regular stuff"

I'm not going to quote Robert Harley who responded because I don't have the article infront of me.

He reminded the person that sometimes the only master the producer has to work with is infact a 16/44 master and therefore the difference wouldn't be significant. But if the master is high quality 1/2" hirez analog tape.

Any HIREZ dvd-a or sacd setup would beat the best cd player and ascociated equipment hands down.

Mr. Harley is the author of several very successful and informative books on A/V in general so hi comments should be taken seriously IMHO.

Peter m.

 

[Cai Campbell]

I don't agree that hi-rez digital in a "regular" system will always beat redbook CD in a "high-end" system. Actually, I think the opposite is (very generally speaking) going to hold true. There are just too many variables to make a blanket statement like this. This ends up being an apples/oranges issue.

Hi-rez is not a cure-all for a mediocre system. Hi-rez is not going to take an average system and make it sound like a mega-buck system. Yes, it will sound better, but quality of remaining components is just as important (if not more so) in contributing to the final result.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi Cai,

This is certainly going to be a hotly debated topic, of particular interest and concern to those who have (as the person who wrote to the editor of TAS has) over 1000 cds and an extremely high quality kit to play them on.

It certainly is outside the parameters of this threads topic and since I do not have 1000cds or a designated cd player (I'm not counting my 5 dvd players), yourself or another member may care to start a separate thread on the topic.

Peter m.

 

[Quadro-Action]

Hi Surround-people there, I have got a message from Cai Campbell about the differences between redbook CD and HIREZ new sound mediums - so I will answer generally - not only for a special message: Of course, there are data-differences - but the most for the measuring-computer. No one will listen 100 kHz or will realize hard the different between 16 bit or 24 bit, when the 16 bit programm is carefully treated or arranged. For example the DVD-Audio from DTS "Brazilian Bossa". This recording is absolut very fine and beyond the still picture for each title you can see the technical datas. And when there is an absolut clear and brilliant piano - look - it's 16 Bit. On the other hand I have nothing again the HIREZ technologiy - May be in future 48 Bit and 396 kHz. But as Fan of Quadraphony is for me only interesting the capacity for multichannel storage.
The quality of each channel is always the same - if mono, stereo or surround (ok, by stereo the DVD-A will have 192 kHz instead 96 by Surround - but who will listen the difference?) And if it would be to listen (o,oo5% better), surround is for me more important. We have here in Germany some battle with a few purists in the press. The mean,High-End is only for Stereo. The biggest mistake. Take 2 High-End stereo sets together - and you will have a high-end quadraphonic or surround-set. So easy.
Of course, most of us like also stereo LP's and it is absolutely allowed to buy also stereo SA-CD's. I have in my cellar even some shellack-records - somtimes easy to play them. And that is the important fact:Music should make fun, which is forgotten by too much theory.
I like all sorts of discussion and like to know also other meanings. But in a club or column, which is named quadraphonic... should be prefere multichannel - or there can be a new HIREZ club. We should better work, that the DVD-Audio allows a downmix to 4-channel - instead of showing the gimmick "Cannot Downmix ... We mix-down after the player with separate mixing-console. Is that HIREZ-Progress? So far my meaning
and I am interest now for other. Dietrich Räsch

 

[petermwilson]

Dietrich,
It would be nice if all DVD-a was 192/24 on the 2ch or stereo side and promoters of the format talk about that capability which is true. Unfortuneately it is not automatic and many of the 2ch parts of dvd-a are 96/24.

I feel it is also true that unless you are a true expert it is hard to tell the difference and Iknow that I can not even though I can hear it is HIREZ.

Many people get caught up in the numbers and listen to their equipment and not the music.

If you hear a HIREZ 192/24 portion of a disc there is no guarantee that you will enjoy it.

My contention has always been that "it's all about the music". I certainly don't mind discussing (to whatever extent I can) the technical aspects of the new and old formats and the equipment that we use to enjoy them but I enjoy Miles Davis, I don't know an songs put out by Totem even though I love their speakers.

Peter m.

 

[daved64]

Graham Nash's Songs for Survivors is 48/24, and sounds just as good as any other 96/24 disc I have. It's all in the recording and mastering.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I am one of those people who have always had a problem separating technology from the music. It can be really good music but if it sounds bad I am not going to play it. That is just the way I am. I bought the Elvis DVD-A when it came out and I think I have played it twice.
Stereo hi-rez is okay, but I am not going to replace my whole collection of CD titles with SACD stereo titles. I have bought a few stereo only SACD's but the only ones that I find significantly better than their CD counterparts are the 2 Peter Gabriel SACD's. (Thumbs down to the Rolling Stones titles). Now multi-channel is something else WHEN DONE CORRECTLY. It brings something exciting to the table. I have and will continue to replace CD's with MC titles. Having the hi-rez along with it adds that technological "excellent sound" that just rounds out the picture. I think the higher bit level (as opposed to the sampling rate) has more to do with the quality increase. On any thread when I make a general comment about DVD-A and SACD it is based on the well produced/mixed titles. The others are eliminated as bad examples that shouldn't be considered.

 

[timw]

Graham Nash's Songs for Survivors is 48/24, and sounds just as good as any other 96/24 disc I have. It's all in the recording and mastering.

I agree Dave. SFS's is also one of my fav's! For a few reasons:
I like the music
I like the surround mix
and I think the sound quality is outstanding.
How many discs can u really say ALL this about?? I'll admit that I've bought some discs just because I've read that the surround mix is great even though I'm not a big fan of the artist. For instance, Lately I've been thinking about that Beck-Sea Change SACD. I don't know much about Beck and haven't really heard much of his music but after reading the many positive comments about this disc I may take the gamble. Perhaps this isn't the best way of going about deciding on what discs to buy but it has also got me into some fine music that I never would have thought I'd get into!!!
Until the G. Nash disc was released I also wondered how NEW music would sound in this format. All I was buying were older 'classic' releases.(No complaints here...these sounded alot better too!). But I was really curious to hear a newer release...Well, when I read that G. Nash was not only coming out with his new album direct to DVD-A and that he was actually going to release it before the regular CD, I had a feeling this was going to be a winner.
I hope more artists/bands do the same.......

Tim

 

[daved64]

I agree Dave. SFS's is also one of my fav's! For a few reasons:
I like the music
I like the surround mix
and I think the sound quality is outstanding.
How many discs can u really say ALL this about?? I'll admit that I've bought some discs just because I've read that the surround mix is great even though I'm not a big fan of the artist. For instance, Lately I've been thinking about that Beck-Sea Change SACD. I don't know much about Beck and haven't really heard much of his music but after reading the many positive comments about this disc I may take the gamble.

Tim

RUN and get Beck! It is incredible.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi Guy,
I sort of hear where your coming from.
Since I've never owned a cd player, I'm not going to go through the "How many times do I haveto buy the White Album scenario" alyhough "Santana's Abraxus is a candidate since I have the LP but no longer a record player.

Maybee subconciosly, that's why I tend to lean more towards the REZ of the music first and how many channels it's offered on second.
I've never really been an Elvis fan, but I honestly feel that transfer was well done, even though I have nothing to compare it to, and it is growing on me.

The other thing that I'm going through is that it wasn't until I discovered HT and purchased some top of the line equipment (specially speakers) my cars cassete deck was my best setup.

I'm like a kid with a new toy but I do remember a "studio quality" Otari reel to reel that came with a few reels of well recorded George Benson stuff back in the eightys when I had a record player and a Bang and Olufson fm reciever/pre/pro and some s45 speakers whose woofers have just been sent to England to someone who desparately wanted 22 yearold woofers that could blow to-morrow!!!. But I still didn't have a cd player.

Now I have 5 dvd/dvd-a/sacd/hdcd/video only players.
Anywho, I don't have anything to replace since my wife is basically interested in the "solitudes" Dan Gibsons stuff and has a few of those, but she is getting into jazz with me, thank goodness.

If your going tobe around Chapters in the next while, you might want to check out the "letters to the editor" section of TAS "The Absolute Sound", in a previous post I refferred to a question regarding RedBook vs HIREZ on the best equipment. It's an interesting read.

Peter m.
PS If you ever plan on being near Lakeshore and Dixie on a weekday, let me know and if the timing works, we can get to-gether.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi,

DITTO on Becks "Sea Change". Was it he that did "i'm an Asshole"?

I also bought it based on the review and whether it's your type of music or not I think you'll agree that it's well done and won't be sorry.

Peter m.
BTW: My biggest mistake was Ministery "ANOMONISITY" or something like that. If your an Industrial Rock fan, it got decent reviews though, it's just not my kind of music.

 

[Guy Robinson]

Hi Guy,
I sort of hear where your coming from.
Since I've never owned a cd player, I'm not going to go through the "How many times do I haveto buy the White Album scenario" alyhough "Santana's Abraxus is a candidate since I have the LP but no longer a record player.

Maybee subconciosly, that's why I tend to lean more towards the REZ of the music first and how many channels it's offered on second.
I've never really been an Elvis fan, but I honestly feel that transfer was well done, even though I have nothing to compare it to, and it is growing on me.

The other thing that I'm going through is that it wasn't until I discovered HT and purchased some top of the line equipment (specially speakers) my cars cassete deck was my best setup.

I'm like a kid with a new toy but I do remember a "studio quality" Otari reel to reel that came with a few reels of well recorded George Benson stuff back in the eightys when I had a record player and a Bang and Olufson fm reciever/pre/pro and some s45 speakers whose woofers have just been sent to England to someone who desparately wanted 22 yearold woofers that could blow to-morrow!!!. But I still didn't have a cd player.

Now I have 5 dvd/dvd-a/sacd/hdcd/video only players.
Anywho, I don't have anything to replace since my wife is basically interested in the "solitudes" Dan Gibsons stuff and has a few of those, but she is getting into jazz with me, thank goodness.

If your going tobe around Chapters in the next while, you might want to check out the "letters to the editor" section of TAS "The Absolute Sound", in a previous post I refferred to a question regarding RedBook vs HIREZ on the best equipment. It's an interesting read.

Peter m.
PS If you ever plan on being near Lakeshore and Dixie on a weekday, let me know and if the timing works, we can get to-gether.

How did you miss the CD era? I'm sure that I have had about 10 players over the last 20 years and I currently have 6 DVD players as well but I have had about 10 of those as well in total over the past few years with upgrades and such. You have saved a lot of money.

I will see if I can give that article a read. I think that you probably can play CD pretty well on some of your DVD players. I know that my main player has Burr-Brown DA Concerters and it sounds pretty good on CD but of course sounds best on DVD-A and SACD.

Stay away from the George Benson Breezin' DVD-A. Too much reverb on the MC stream. It does sound okay in stereo but then that is not what I bought it for.

Also thanks for the invite but I work in Scarberia and live out east so west of Yonge is not a place I get too very often.

 

[timw]

Thx for the recommendation Dave...Looks like I'll be spending my lunch hour at the local CD World store. Last time there I saw the Beck disc 'used' for $11. Hope it's still there! Can't go wrong with that deal!!!

 

[Guy Robinson]

Thx for the recommendation Dave...Looks like I'll be spending my lunch hour at the local CD World store. Last time there I saw the Beck disc 'used' for $11. Hope it's still there! Can't go wrong with that deal!!!

Cd World sells SACD's?

 

[Cai Campbell]

Hi Cai,

It certainly is outside the parameters of this threads topic and since I do not have 1000cds or a designated cd player (I'm not counting my 5 dvd players), yourself or another member may care to start a separate thread on the topic.

Peter m.

Actually, discussing CD resolution/performance compared to hi-rez digital resolution/performance is well within the parameters of this thread's topic. The state of hi-rez digital is pointless without some standard to measure it against, and that standard is, of course, standard redbook CD.

I see no need to start a separate thread.

 

[Cai Campbell]

Hi Guy,
....But I still didn't have a cd player.

Now I have 5 dvd/dvd-a/sacd/hdcd/video only players...

Hmm... I would say you have five CD players. AFAIC, If it plays CD's, it's a CD player, no matter what it's called or what else it plays. A rose by any other name is still a rose...

 

[petermwilson]

Hi Guy,

TOO late on Breezin.
Rick Johnson, who is the customer service and technical guy for Denon Canada did the upgrade to my 5800 and does setups on the side, which he did for me.

Rick is also a musician and music producer (he has that new Denon DJ console setup in the production room at his home which is really impressive).
He shares your opinion on "Breezin". He loves the Grover Washington "winelight" though.

Re the cd thing. I'm not sure why. I've owned a couple of reataurants and kind of fell off the face of the earth due to that for large periods of time. I'm a late 60's 70's guy and don't think I cared too much to what I was hearing for the last 20 years.

Now I've discovered Jazz and a wife who enjoys the HT (she gaveup the masterbedroom for it.) There have been other, less enthusiastic, ladies in my life.

My equipment and setup now encourage me more, so hopefully the zeal will continue.

I'm not really a tweaker so my investment now will pretty much be in software.

The Denon has 2 sets of analogs which makes life a little easier. The Denon Link is installed, although, I'm happy with the sound I'm getting now so who knows if I'll ever use it or whatever it's replacement will be.

That's pretty much it. Maybee we'll bump into each other searching for that next wonderful disc.

Peter m.

 

[petermwilson]

Hi,
Re Beck for $11, make sure it's the sacd the cases are very similar.
BTW where is the CD World your referring to.
Peter m.