MCH systems and stereo systems are complimentary. Many MCH systems ARE stereo systems. The extra channels are there, in many cases, to deal with the acoustical limitations inherent in such playback systems. Those extra channels don't change the nature of the stereo experience. They just make it a lot better.
IMO, most 2CH systems are hobbled and incapable of truly great/accurate stereo reproduction. The physics just don't add up with most 2CH full range speaker/room interactions.
The stereo experience, due to the intrinsic technical limitations of the system, is strongly enhanced by a controlled use and tuning of the "small differences". The palette given by professional equipment is not large and systematic enough to create great audiophile systems for consumers. AV multichannel systems carry much more spatial information, and are much more predictable - here the professional units can easily outperform consumer units.
As F. Toole once wrote, stereo is an individual experience. Many people share his opinion and regret that the music industry did not fully endorse multichannel, going on supporting the two channel format. Just my opinions, YMMV.
Mr. Reading Comprehension, I said the VENUES, particularly live venues have a higher noise floor NOT the gear. Read back. That's where the headroom issue comes in. Of course the ability for less loss from transmission line effects is also a reason the pro industry with higher nominal output voltage. My premise was simple. The Pro industry needs headroom, the Consumer industry does not need it as much because homes are quieter, the emphasis being on low level signal purity not brute power per se. The neighbors would kill you. THAT is where this started and YOU asked why I said you couldn't couldn't mix pro gear with consumer. ANOTHER thing I DID NOT SAY. I said it COULD (Obviously because many people have done it) but you would have to work harder on the gain structure, work you need to do much less of if you stayed +10 or -4 throughout. You proceed to argue that you have done it, naming a specific brand of amp and other brands of amps, then retract by saying the examples you gave were of systems all +10.
Go back to your post 103. You expressly said it is an issue of headroom vs noise floor. So +10 enabled gear has a higher noise floor?
You asked: If you are using consumer amps and running these direct from the DCX, how much output gain did you need to knock off considering the vast majority of consumer amps do not provide variable input sensitivity selection?
You seem to be in ASSumption mode. Entirely. There are plenty of Consumer Grade amps that have +10 / Balanced inputs. Additionally I don't use amps with out ability to adjust the input sensitivity.
I didn't say I adjusted anything. All I did was point out to your question above that if you provided a single ended cable the Behringer would come down 6dB.
I know you quoted post 104 of mine explicitly so you also know I wasn't running -4dBu. I'm trying to find any piece of equipment that has -4dBu balanced connections. It could be out there. I just don't recall bumping into it.
You also point out that the the DCX converts down by 6dB when you go single ended. I said it does not convert anything, you are just using 1 of the 2 hot leads. This will happen wether it is +10 or -4. In other words, You still have not gone down from +10 to -4. You're still short 4dB since the approximate drop in nominal signal from +10 to -4 is 10 not 6. In other words again. My SUSPICION is you were able to get a better but not ideal matching output by going single ended but you still got it to match up by shaving bits from your DSP OR lost headroom by essentially peak limiting output by increasing the input voltage required for a consumer amp to be run full power. Earlier in the thread a manufacturer who makes balanced differential gear simply states. Consumer amps are not made to be fed +10. What more do you want?
What more do I want? I want you to start reading what I actually posted. I simply stated in reply to your post 103 that the Behringer makes an adjustment. I don't mix -4 and +10 systems because their isn't a need to in an audiophile setting. There is PLENTY of native gear at almost all price levels.
In a commercial setting (back ground music) small public theater and they don't have money to replace gear then I'll work around it with a bump box if needed. The SQ just needs to be 'Good Enough'. But we are talking about the serious enthusiast that is 9 out of 10 times going to pay attention and do it right.
Tell you what. Scan a pic of your users manual that says it will convert to -4 as you have claimed it does. Best yet show me that the DCX in fact has -4 modules for the unit to switch to at all.
I didn't say it converted to -4. I'm certain it doesn't. Their user guide says it comes off the signal by 6dB. Take it up with Behringer if you are that curious. It's not an issue for me since I'm not using a mixed signalling format environment. Who needs that headache.
Is there any SQ reason that one shouldn't run say a Wyred DAC with XLR (+10 out) to a Parasound with XLR (+10 input)?
I know it was pointed out: "Earlier in the thread a manufacturer who makes balanced differential gear simply states. Consumer amps are not made to be fed +10".
But isn't Parasound, Bryston, Pass, Sunfire, Odyssey, Classe all consumer but they have 'Pro-Audio' level inputs. They aren't touring grade.
My system is all XLR from the DAC to my AMP. Am I missing some SQ?
Other than the balanced/unbalanced interface concern, pro and consumer interfaces are not as incompatible as much of the misleading information on various internet forums would have you believe. Back in the days before CD, things like FM tuners had maximum output voltages as low as 150 mVRMS. But then CD came along, and the Redbook standard specifies that a full-scale sine wave in the digital domain produce an analog output voltage of 2 Volts RMS from a CD player.
Some earlier posts are leaving out units of input/output voltage. I'll assume that dBu is intended. To convert from Volts RMS to dBu, you calculate:
dBu = 20 * log10(VRMS / sqrt(0.6))
So the 2 Volts RMS maximum output level of a Redbook-compliant CD player is 20 * log10 (2 / sqrt(0.6)) = 8.2 dBu
That's not an incompatibility with pro levels. Let's take another example. The Parasound JC-1 power amp requires 2 Volts RMS to get full rated power into 8 Ohms. And yet the Crown XLS series class D pro amps, which are popular as subwoofer amps in the HT world, all requre 1.4 Volts RMS for full power into 8 Ohms (the input sensitivity IOW). So in this case, the pro amp requires less input voltage to reach full power than the consumer one.
As another example, just about any active preamp from the 70s onward, using IC op-amps with +/-15 Volt DC rails driving the output will put out at least a 12 Volt peak sine wave without clipping, given a high enough input signal. That's 8.5 Volts RMS or 20.8 dBu. That's a state of affairs that's existed for over 40 years.
MCH systems and stereo systems are complimentary. Many MCH systems ARE stereo systems. The extra channels are there, in many cases, to deal with the acoustical limitations inherent in such playback systems. Those extra channels don't change the nature of the stereo experience. They just make it a lot better.
IMO, most 2CH systems are hobbled and incapable of truly great/accurate stereo reproduction. The physics just don't add up with most 2CH full range speaker/room interactions.
I don't give audiophiles advice. I just call it like I hear it.
I listen to stereo music in a "system" that can do video or music. It's a 4CH system, with 2 subs. It's a much better system than any dealer or show system I've ever heard.
I don't give audiophiles advice. I just call it like I hear it.
I listen to stereo music in a "system" that can do video or music. It's a 4CH system, with 2 subs. It's a much better system than any dealer or show system I've ever heard.
I was using "multichannel systems"" for systems having discrete information channels, such SACD or 5.1 AV, in opposition to 2 channel systems (stereo). I was not addressing subs.
MCH systems and stereo systems are complimentary. Many MCH systems ARE stereo systems. The extra channels are there, in many cases, to deal with the acoustical limitations inherent in such playback systems. Those extra channels don't change the nature of the stereo experience. They just make it a lot better.
IMO, most 2CH systems are hobbled and incapable of truly great/accurate stereo reproduction. The physics just don't add up with most 2CH full range speaker/room interactions.
i spent 2 years with an 'all-in' multi-channel music only system combined with my 2-channel system. my room was originally designed for multi-channel 5.1 discrete SACD with additional width to properly accomodate this multi-channel approach. i also have another completely separate 7.1 home theatre in my house.
i owned and still own approx 1000 multi-channel SACD's.
anyway; the 'theory' of multi-channel superiority is just that......theory only. i have no doubt that at some point in the human experience that multi-channel for a home system might just outperform 'flawed stereo'. it only makes sense when you think about it.
unfortunately, reality is that even with digital 2-channel in a room properly designed to take full advantage of stereo.....stereo sounds superior to multi-channel. and analog vinyl or tape is quite a bit better than multi-channel. whether it's the mixing or mastering or whatever....multi-channel just never quite sounds right.
when i realized my analog 2-channel 'out-multi-channeled' the multi-channel i tore out the extra channels and gear and went back to 2-channel only.
the best sounding multi-channel is the quad recordings that are really not reality anyway, like DSOTM or Tommy or such stuff. it's not natural ambience. give me 2-channel natural ambience any day over the best multi-channel i have heard. it likely helps that the best ambient recordings are analog and 2-channel.
again; i'm not claiming that the potential of multi-channel being superior for music is not there, only that the reality has not yet caught up with the potential.
To talk about enhanced 2 channel stereo, I believe much work was done back in the 1950's by Hazard Reeves and Robert Fine and in the 1980's by David Hafler. It is my experience that the best configuation is to use 6 speakers; outside left,left,inside left,inside right,right,outside right. This is how my system is configured,plus I use 2 subwoofers that are in opposed postions. I use a time domain correction circuit for the extra speakers,the subs and the main RL speakers are not in the circuit. The sound quality and imaging is exceptional and there is very little if no sweet spot as in most stereo 2 channel systems. I use a extra amplifier to run the psychoacoustic speakers and they are volume controlled. The technology is out there, but not much interest.
Curiously it is a subject that triggers my curiosity. And I find it appropriate for an Audiophile Fundamentalism thread - Mike Lavigne post was great, but I know people who think otherwise.
I have read about several systems that convert stereo to 5.1 using analog encoders or DSP but never listened to such systems.
-and we can go on and on. Someone has a way they think is better (in my case, balanced differential operation with direct-coupled outputs on the preamp and amps) and everyone else just must not have a system that sounds as good...
-and we can go on and on. Someone has a way they think is better (in my case, balanced differential operation with direct-coupled outputs on the preamp and amps) and everyone else just must not have a system that sounds as good...
I'm glad to see something new,which is old especially in the pro audio world and that is signal grounding being discussed in other threads. Other then speaker design which I think is the foundation of good reproduction and the enjoyment of stereo playback. When you experience let's say a purer audio signal. The device becomes secondary,tubes,solid state,and even nuvistor based systems can all sound excellent. As a review of the Diavelet products showed new thinking of shortening the signal path can enhance the information presented to the listener. The next step is improving the delivery of that information and that is where psychoacoustics will someday play a part. I think enhanced stereo is so much better then a muli channel araignment because it is more natural sounding...that is my opinion.
-and we can go on and on. Someone has a way they think is better (in my case, balanced differential operation with direct-coupled outputs on the preamp and amps) and everyone else just must not have a system that sounds as good...
Curiously it is a subject that triggers my curiosity. And I find it appropriate for an Audiophile Fundamentalism thread - Mike Lavigne post was great, but I know people who think otherwise.
I have read about several systems that convert stereo to 5.1 using analog encoders or DSP but never listened to such systems.
Would not mind reading about how good and how it compares with top stereo with some detail. But the only reviewer I know about that writes about these matters is Kalman Rubinson, who fortunately is also is a member of WBF.
Would not mind reading about how good and how it compares with top stereo with some detail. But the only reviewer I know about that writes about these matters is Kalman Rubinson, who fortunately is also is a member of WBF.
over the years i've owned a number of Home Theatre processors which both process discrete 7.1 (typcially Blue Ray) and also will use DSP to give you a multitude of surround sound 'expansion' choices for music surround sound. none of them approach what a discrete music only 5.1 SACD source will give you for music. maybe by accident you might stumble accross just the right setting for just the right music....but mostly it's a mess. which is what drove me to build the room for dedicated multi-channel and invest in the effort.
the second best surround performance i've heard to SACD 5.1 was (besides Blur Ray concerts) certain redbook dics encoded with DTS and AC-3 surround matrixes which did give you some quite good sound....depending on the mix.
the real problem with any surround approach is how a playback system blends with the mix.
how is the deep bass handled?
how well integrated are the subwoofers with the main speakers?....and will the low frequency channel mix match that separation?
does the room use absorbtion (preferred for movies) or diffusion (preferred for music) for multi-channel?...and how might that effect separation?
how much rear gain is needed?....will the mix match that?
if the surround mix does not have a Low Frequency Channel how will the main speakers do with full frequency?
and on and on.
there is no real consistent standard followed by enough software producers and used by users that allows the format to mature enough to be optimized. just too many moving parts.
Would not mind reading about how good and how it compares with top stereo with some detail. But the only reviewer I know about that writes about these matters is Kalman Rubinson, who fortunately is also is a member of WBF.
i can only compare it to the handful of world class stereo systems i've heard and, while i can understand that not everyone would enjoy a stereo recording presented in multi-channel, i've never felt that my system took a back seat to any of them. its difficult for me to adequately articulate how it sounds, but i really like the musical presentation.
