Ambivalent About 2 Channel Stereo

[witchdoctor]

I have two systems I use. A 14.1 Auro 3D home theater and a 2 channel desktop system. I used to love listening to two channel stereo on both rigs. I liked listening to Tidal in the HT through a Sunfire TG3 I used exclusively for 2 channel. I use a Marantz 7702 for 14.1 music and movies.The more and more I used Auro 3D the less and less engaging 2 channel became. I moved my Sunfire TG3 to my desktop system since I was using it less and less in HT for 2 channel. Once you listen to music in 3D 2 channel just doesn't cut it. It would be like going back to videotape after using blue ray. It is not just "more speakers". Don't get 3D music lumped in with movie soundtracks. The Auro3D upmixer is great with movies but music is an altogether different experience. That upmixer blows away previous music upmixers I used because it excels at creating the illusion of live performers in 3D, only with sonics not visually. Now when I listen to two channel I am acutely aware of what it is missing, hence my ambivalence. The good news is I have 0 desire to upgrade speakers

 

[stehno]

I have two systems I use. A 14.1 Auro 3D home theater and a 2 channel desktop system. I used to love listening to two channel stereo on both rigs. I liked listening to Tidal in the HT through a Sunfire TG3 I used exclusively for 2 channel. I use a Marantz 7702 for 14.1 music and movies.The more and more I used Auro 3D the less and less engaging 2 channel became. I moved my Sunfire TG3 to my desktop system since I was using it less and less in HT for 2 channel. Once you listen to music in 3D 2 channel just doesn't cut it. It would be like going back to videotape after using blue ray. It is not just "more speakers". Don't get 3D music lumped in with movie soundtracks. The Auro3D upmixer is great with movies but music is an altogether different experience. That upmixer blows away previous music upmixers I used because it excels at creating the illusion of live performers in 3D, only with sonics not visually. Now when I listen to two channel I am acutely aware of what it is missing, hence my ambivalence. The good news is I have 0 desire to upgrade speakers

What many don't realize is that there's enough music info embedded in the recording medium (even some grossly inferior recordings) to literally fill the front half a listening room with volumes of natural sounding 3-D music via 2-channel only. But due to serious universal distortions (inducing a much raised noise floor) much of that music info, though processed, remains inaudible (below the noise floor) by the time it reaches the speaker drivers.

You (and many others) may like the phenomena of many point sources attempting to fill the room with music, but rest assured it's the phenomena you're impressed with as you ain't hearing any more actual music info with 14.1-channels than you could with sufficiently set up quality-oriented full-range 2-channels.

But there's also the lowest ranges of the frequency spectrum that very few full-range drivers can reproduce and for which sufficient sub-woofers are required so maybe I should qualify by saying 2.1 channels.

 

[witchdoctor]

What many don't realize is that there's enough music info embedded in the recording medium (even some grossly inferior recordings) to literally fill the front half a listening room with volumes of natural sounding 3-D music via 2-channel only. But due to serious universal distortions (inducing a much raised noise floor) much of that music info, though processed, remains inaudible (below the noise floor) by the time it reaches the speaker drivers.

You (and many others) may like the phenomena of many point sources attempting to fill the room with music, but rest assured it's the phenomena you're impressed with as you ain't hearing any more actual music info with 14.1-channels than you could with sufficiently set up quality-oriented full-range 2-channels.

But there's also the lowest ranges of the frequency spectrum that very few full-range drivers can reproduce and for which sufficient sub-woofers are required so maybe I should qualify by saying 2.1 channels.

Hmmmmm... I never thought of that. I know I prefer live recordings and subscribe to concertvault.com and qello.com for that purpose. I agree that only so much of the music makes it into the mic and then through the recording and editing process. I can't describe what I can't hear and missing info is missing info. That being said the auromatic upmixer takes the info that is available and presents it in a way that is closer to the live event in my system. I absolutely agree that 14.1 channels can't replace anything that is missing in the recording.

 

[cjfrbw]

I have used ambiance recovery since 1978 with the original Advent SoundSpace Control and four large Advent speakers. It has always been my customary way of listening. I now use the Yamaha surround pre, which also handles home theater.

I do like 2 channel from time to time and will sometimes listen to that, especially when using the bass panel of the Analysis Epsilon speakers as full range, crossover-less speakers with 26 DHT tube preamp and Yamaha B2 VFET amp. It sounds great that way, so it is a nice change of pace. However, most of my listening is still with (currently) 8.4 with the ambient surrounds.

Variety is the spice, but I still overall prefer the ambient surrounds on rather than off.

 

[stehno]

I have used ambiance recovery since 1978 with the original Advent SoundSpace Control and four large Advent speakers. It has always been my customary way of listening. I now use the Yamaha surround pre, which also handles home theater.

I do like 2 channel from time to time and will sometimes listen to that, especially when using the bass panel of the Analysis Epsilon speakers as full range, crossover-less speakers with 26 DHT tube preamp and Yamaha B2 VFET amp. It sounds great that way, so it is a nice change of pace. However, most of my listening is still with (currently) 8.4 with the ambient surrounds.

Variety is the spice, but I still overall prefer the ambient surrounds on rather than off.

Once the info is lost (so distorted so that it falls below the noise floor), if one does not address the cause there is no such thing as recovery as you or the technology you employ seem to imply.

Just keepin' it real.

 

[witchdoctor]

That is interesting cjfrbw, looking at your system in your signature line you have some very nice gear. I wasn't aware of the Advent System and am not surprised that even in 1978 ambient audio was still an improvement over 2 channel. Thanks

 

[witchdoctor]

Once the info is lost (so distorted so that it falls below the noise floor), if one does not address the cause there is no such thing as recovery as you or the technology you employ seem to imply.

Just keepin' it real.

Stehno, I attached some info on what Auro 3D can do but yes, it has its limitations. So, how can you recover lost info?

Like this:
http://www.clarifisound.com/

Like this:
http://www.mqa.co.uk/

or like this?

MDAX
The use of compressed audio files like MP3, Windows Media™ Audio or AAC is getting more and more popular. The audio quality of these compressed files however is less than the original lossless files that are on a CD, especially lacking the higher frequencies and affecting the lower frequencies which make the audio image less wide and deep. The Marantz Digital Audio Expander, also called MDAX, recalculates the outputted frequency range of any compressed MP3, Windows Media™ Audio or AAC audio signal and expands it over a broader frequency range. This enables you to get a more detailed and clearer sound.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So, how can you recover lost info?

You cannot.

 

[stehno]

Stehno, I attached some info on what Auro 3D can do but yes, it has its limitations. So, how can you recover lost info?

Like this:
http://www.clarifisound.com/

Like this:
http://www.mqa.co.uk/

or like this?

MDAX
The use of compressed audio files like MP3, Windows Media™ Audio or AAC is getting more and more popular. The audio quality of these compressed files however is less than the original lossless files that are on a CD, especially lacking the higher frequencies and affecting the lower frequencies which make the audio image less wide and deep. The Marantz Digital Audio Expander, also called MDAX, recalculates the outputted frequency range of any compressed MP3, Windows Media™ Audio or AAC audio signal and expands it over a broader frequency range. This enables you to get a more detailed and clearer sound.

Again, once a signal has been corrupted I'm not aware of any technology that can sufficiently "rescue" or even "recover" that corrupted signal and restore its fidelity.

There can be really smart engineering fellers who play with algorithms to "reconstruct" or otherwise doctor the corrupted signal, perhaps to instill a phenomena to take our ears / minds off the lack of fidelity but that's it.

MQA has nothing to do with reconstructing a corrupted signal. MQA is a new hi-rez format that supposedly preserves "exactly" a performance's fidelity so that we can hear for the first time what the engineers heard in the recording studio. Although I've not heard MQA, I've no doubt it's mostly if not all hype. At best, MQA is just another high-rez format that they've managed to compress to consume no more storage than a Redbook CD. And in case nobody's noticed, 16 years after high-rez format's introduction we still have some-to-many who are unable to distinguish the sound quality of a well-engineered CD format verses a well-engineered hi-rez format recording.

In fact, near as I can tell, MQA is little more than the attempt to standardize the entire industry to a single new (and questionable) "hi-rez" format that potentially simplifies the music industry's inventorying multiple formats and allows for faster downloads. All while Meridian's Bob Stuart is laughing his way to the bank with revenues pouring in from licensing fees and selling $300 MQA converter boxes. But I digress.

What do I do? I do what I can up front by addressing the potential causes at their source so that the signal never becomes corrupted in the first place. That's the only legitimate rescue or recovering strategy I'm aware of.

 

[witchdoctor]

Again, once a signal has been corrupted I'm not aware of any technology that can sufficiently "rescue" or even "recover" that corrupted signal and restore its fidelity.

There can be really smart engineering fellers who play with algorithms to "reconstruct" or otherwise doctor the corrupted signal, perhaps to instill a phenomena to take our ears / minds off the lack of fidelity but that's it.

MQA has nothing to do with reconstructing a corrupted signal. MQA is a new hi-rez format that supposedly preserves "exactly" a performance's fidelity so that we can hear for the first time what the engineers heard in the recording studio. Although I've not heard MQA, I've no doubt it's mostly if not all hype. At best, MQA is just another high-rez format that they've managed to compress to consume no more storage than a Redbook CD. And in case nobody's noticed, 16 years after high-rez format's introduction we still have some-to-many who are unable to distinguish the sound quality of a well-engineered CD format verses a well-engineered hi-rez format recording.

In fact, near as I can tell, MQA is little more than the attempt to standardize the entire industry to a single new (and questionable) "hi-rez" format that potentially simplifies the music industry's inventorying multiple formats and allows for faster downloads. All while Meridian's Bob Stuart is laughing his way to the bank with revenues pouring in from licensing fees and selling $300 MQA converter boxes. But I digress.

What do I do? I do what I can up front by addressing the potential causes at their source so that the signal never becomes corrupted in the first place. That's the only legitimate rescue or recovering strategy I'm aware of.

Most of my critical listening is via live concert recordings vs. studio mixes, something about the way it is recorded and the energy that comes through. I upmix it to 192/24 PCM with my soundcard. I can't recover lost info but it sounds good to my ear, if you haven't checked out qello or concertvault try it.

Brent Butterworth kind of echoes your thoughts on MQA:
http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...-newport-2016-i-finally-got-a-decent-mqa-demo

 

[stehno]

Most of my critical listening is via live concert recordings vs. studio mixes, something about the way it is recorded and the energy that comes through. I upmix it to 192/24 PCM with my soundcard. I can't recover lost info but it sounds good to my ear, if you haven't checked out qello or concertvault try it.

Brent Butterworth kind of echoes your thoughts on MQA:
http://soundstageglobal.com/index.p...-newport-2016-i-finally-got-a-decent-mqa-demo

Thanks for that link to Brent Butterworth's comments on MQA. Which IMO, only substantiates my opinion that those like Bob Stuart, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, et al have sold out big time for this new format that claims to be all things to all people.

I've never heard MQA nor do I need to as I already know for a fact (and have said so routinely over the past year) that it's impossible for MQA to provide anywhere near the performance levels the sellouts (or the naive) claimed.

Moreover, when Stuart claims that MQA borrows storage space from below the noise floor I grow concerned that, at least for those with potentially tremendously resolving systems, MQA may turn out to be a significant downgrade in resolution and hence performance. I wish somebody would ask Stuart whose noise floor is he referring to.

 

[witchdoctor]

Thanks for that link to Brent Butterworth's comments on MQA. Which IMO, only substantiates my opinion that those like Bob Stuart, Robert Harley, John Atkinson, et al have sold out big time for this new format that claims to be all things to all people.

I've never heard MQA nor do I need to as I already know for a fact (and have said so routinely over the past year) that it's impossible for MQA to provide anywhere near the performance levels the sellouts (or the naive) claimed.

Moreover, when Stuart claims that MQA borrows storage space from below the noise floor I grow concerned that, at least for those with potentially tremendously resolving systems, MQA may turn out to be a significant downgrade in resolution and hence performance. I wish somebody would ask Stuart whose noise floor is he referring to.

Check out a couple of these live recordings, which version do you like better, this one:

http://www.concertvault.com/santana/video/oye-como-va_1008800.html

or this one:

https://qello.com/concert/Greatest-Hits-Live-at-Montreux-2011-4247#track-4247-6

They may both be missing data but are so much better than the version cut in the studio IMO.

 

[NorthStar]

Was MQA created for cell phones or tablet/laptop headphones?

 

[NorthStar]

Check out a couple of these live recordings, which version do you like better, this one:

http://www.concertvault.com/santana/video/oye-como-va_1008800.html

or this one:

https://qello.com/concert/Greatest-Hits-Live-at-Montreux-2011-4247#track-4247-6

They may both be missing data but are so much better than the version cut in the studio IMO.

I prefer Qello.

 

[witchdoctor]

I prefer Qello.

It is interesting to compare Carlos in 1970 and 2011, I think he is a MUCH better guitarist in 2011 which is saying a lot because he was excellent in 1970.

 

[NorthStar]

It is interesting to compare Carlos in 1970 and 2011, I think he is a MUCH better guitarist in 2011 which is saying a lot because he was excellent in 1970.

I agree; Carlos is a more accomplished musician today than he was yesterday:
1. He has more experience.
2. It has always been his philosophy to improve and explore.
3. The technology in sound advancement.
4. He never deviated from his roots...his soul.

 

[fas42]

What many don't realize is that there's enough music info embedded in the recording medium (even some grossly inferior recordings) to literally fill the front half a listening room with volumes of natural sounding 3-D music via 2-channel only. But due to serious universal distortions (inducing a much raised noise floor) much of that music info, though processed, remains inaudible (below the noise floor) by the time it reaches the speaker drivers. You (and many others) may like the phenomena of many point sources attempting to fill the room with music, but rest assured it's the phenomena you're impressed with as you ain't hearing any more actual music info with 14.1-channels than you could with sufficiently set up quality-oriented full-range 2-channels.

Just to echo this sentiment ... the typical audio system, no matter how expensive, is always flawed in its reproduction, and won't conjure up an immersive listening environment. One way to "fix" it is by extracting elements of the sound, and spraying these around the room in various ways - if done well enough then the illusion should be pretty impressive, because it's providing our ear/brain more of the right info to get a story closer to what was actually recorded, what is there on the source. However, probably the smartest - but hardest, at the moment - approach is to do a better job with getting the quality of the standard stereo reproduction good enough in the first place; this will provide a quite remarkable listening experience, the 'magic' most people spend decades chasing, and rarely achieving ...

 

[witchdoctor]

Just to echo this sentiment ... the typical audio system, no matter how expensive, is always flawed in its reproduction, and won't conjure up an immersive listening environment. One way to "fix" it is by extracting elements of the sound, and spraying these around the room in various ways - if done well enough then the illusion should be pretty impressive, because it's providing our ear/brain more of the right info to get a story closer to what was actually recorded, what is there on the source. However, probably the smartest - but hardest, at the moment - approach is to do a better job with getting the quality of the standard stereo reproduction good enough in the first place; this will provide a quite remarkable listening experience, the 'magic' most people spend decades chasing, and rarely achieving ...

Thanks Frank, you have an interesting blog.

 

[stehno]

Was MQA created for cell phones or tablet/laptop headphones?

In short, if you read the interviews with Bob Stuart of Meridian, he claims Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) format will give the listener (regardless of playback system) exactly what the engineers heard in the studio. When the green light on his gismo goes green you are there.

 

[NorthStar]

In short, if you read the interviews with Bob Stuart of Meridian, he claims Master Quality Authenticated (MQA) format will give the listener (regardless of playback system) exactly what the engineers heard in the studio. When the green light on his gismo goes green you are there.

Sounds great; when can we jump in? And does it work with turntables?
__________

* Bonus (it's about where they keep the master tapes; it's a free video link...feel free to watch or not...personally I immensely enjoyed it):
? http://www.movies-and-tvseries.com/...y-jacks-world-detour-s01e05-iron-mountain-men