Well, the Onkyo TX-SR605 is a good start at £400, and the same company's TX-SR875 and TX-NR905 are excellent. The new Marantz models sounded promising on a brief listen a while back, and the Audiolab 8000AV/8000x7 combination is also extremely fine at about £1000 for the whole processor/power amp package.
[quote user="helisphon"][quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.
No, the actual reverberation of the hall, not the effect of a big hall recorded on the front two channels reverberating around a much smaller space - ie your listening room.
Try listening to a real concert in a good-sounding hall, then a stereo recording of the same event, and you'll realise how much you're missing.
Have to say I think all those 3D Sound/Q-Sound kind of things usually sounded like a nasty, phasey mess to me - move your head a smidge and everything went haywire.
Try listening to a real concert in a good-sounding hall, then a stereo recording of the same event, and you'll realise how much you're missing.
Have to say I think all those 3D Sound/Q-Sound kind of things usually sounded like a nasty, phasey mess to me - move your head a smidge and everything went haywire.
[quote user="Hughes123"][quote user="helisphon"][quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.[/quote]
I totally concur,
I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky.
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.[/quote]
I totally concur,
I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky.
[quote user="bluetorric"] I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky[/quote]
Can't see it catching on myself.
Mind you, if it's any comfort, have just had an email from a Gramophone reader complaining that I gave a good review to a stereo SACD player, when in fact I should be promoting multichannel.
Can't see it catching on myself.
Mind you, if it's any comfort, have just had an email from a Gramophone reader complaining that I gave a good review to a stereo SACD player, when in fact I should be promoting multichannel.
[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="bluetorric"] I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky[/quote]
Can't see it catching on myself.
Mind you, if it's any comfort, have just had an email from a Gramophone reader complaining that I gave a good review to a stereo SACD player, when in fact I should be promoting multichannel.
[/quote]
You can't win them all
No my point is that 5.1 is fine for av but for me a stereo set up wins with music.
but then thats just my opinion.
[quote user="bluetorric"] I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky[/quote]
Can't see it catching on myself.
Mind you, if it's any comfort, have just had an email from a Gramophone reader complaining that I gave a good review to a stereo SACD player, when in fact I should be promoting multichannel.
[/quote]
You can't win them all
No my point is that 5.1 is fine for av but for me a stereo set up wins with music.
but then thats just my opinion.
[quote user="bluetorric"][quote user="Hughes123"][quote user="helisphon"][quote user="Andrew Everard"]
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.[/quote]
I totally concur,
I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky.
[/quote]
Another good point, somebody who plays music in 5.1 is usually just seeing how many speakers he/she can fit in and not usually seeing how accurate a sound he/she can produce. Then there's the hastle of wires, getting it set up properly, putting the sub in the right position...
...The whole point is, we have two ears that are directed futher forward than rearward, thus when, for example an orchestra plays, our ears nearnly match up with what we see, and we focus in on the musicians, rendering rear speakers virtually pointless unless a large volume of sound is expelled from them. It's like reading a book, before you know it your not actually reading and thinking "that character is un-realistic" your somehow transported to the setting. With hi-fi after a minute your not judging the sound-quality, your involved in the music. If you want the "hall effect" then 5.1 is fantastic, but it's pointless, because when you actually start getting involved in the music in a concert, you only hear the orchestra themselves and the same would apply for your home. The only reason halls are shaped so that there is reverberation is so that the sound can be projected to anybody in any seat, otherwise it would be boring because you wouldn't be able to hear any of the instruments.
And a sound processor can create the hall effect anyway...I know someone who has a JVC one from 1980 and it does sound like your in a hall, but after a while its just pointless because you become involved!
Do you get what I am trying to say?
*P.S - The 3D sound (Q-sound) stuff is a bit higgldy piggledy I will grant you that! And you do need to be in the right place!
[quote user="helisphon"]I think Andrew's point was that the idea behind using 5.1 when listening to classical music - or indeed live rock recordings - is not to place you in the middle of the orchestra, but to enhance the feeling of being sat in the audience by providing more ambient information than you get from stereo.
[/quote]
By George, he's got it!
[/quote]
Woohoo!! (Now if I can just get my head around the cable thing, and CD versus vinyl, and valve vs. solid-state, and...)[/quote]
Surely the point of a good stereo system is that it can do this? What ambient information would you want if you were supposedly listening in a hall? People coughing and eating? My hi-fi can give this ambient feeling by using just its two speakers making it sound like the sound is reverberrating around the hall, and it's hardly the pinnacle of hi-fi technology!
Winter in July by Bomb The Bass (not everyone's cup of tea) was one of the first, and one of only a few songs to be mixed in "3D Sound". I have a copy of it, and it's a downright awful song but it really does prove that there is no need for more than two speakers.
God, I can get a better ambient effect (reverberation, soundstage etc) out of my bush turntable than I can with my Sony 5.1 system that cost £800...I really do have to say that a properly set up, good quality stereo system DOES transform any room into a hall or a stage or the like.[/quote]
I totally concur,
I get the impression that 5.1 is speakers for the sake of it and a tad gimmicky.
[/quote]
Another good point, somebody who plays music in 5.1 is usually just seeing how many speakers he/she can fit in and not usually seeing how accurate a sound he/she can produce. Then there's the hastle of wires, getting it set up properly, putting the sub in the right position...
...The whole point is, we have two ears that are directed futher forward than rearward, thus when, for example an orchestra plays, our ears nearnly match up with what we see, and we focus in on the musicians, rendering rear speakers virtually pointless unless a large volume of sound is expelled from them. It's like reading a book, before you know it your not actually reading and thinking "that character is un-realistic" your somehow transported to the setting. With hi-fi after a minute your not judging the sound-quality, your involved in the music. If you want the "hall effect" then 5.1 is fantastic, but it's pointless, because when you actually start getting involved in the music in a concert, you only hear the orchestra themselves and the same would apply for your home. The only reason halls are shaped so that there is reverberation is so that the sound can be projected to anybody in any seat, otherwise it would be boring because you wouldn't be able to hear any of the instruments.
And a sound processor can create the hall effect anyway...I know someone who has a JVC one from 1980 and it does sound like your in a hall, but after a while its just pointless because you become involved!
Do you get what I am trying to say?
*P.S - The 3D sound (Q-sound) stuff is a bit higgldy piggledy I will grant you that! And you do need to be in the right place!
[quote user="Hughes123"]Man this is complicated! And my pc refuses to paragraph! :-([/quote]
You have to put a P with the "less than" symbol in front of it and the "greater than" symbol after it to get a new paragraph.
Regarding multichannel music I've never heard a properly set up high end 5.1 MUSIC system so can't comment but I think for must living rooms and budgets it's all a bit impractical, plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.
You have to put a P with the "less than" symbol in front of it and the "greater than" symbol after it to get a new paragraph.
Regarding multichannel music I've never heard a properly set up high end 5.1 MUSIC system so can't comment but I think for must living rooms and budgets it's all a bit impractical, plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.
[quote user="jules153"]
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
[quote user="Andrew Everard"][quote user="jules153"]
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
[/quote]
The i-pod generation will realise soon enough......just give them about 10 years......Lol
I guess the next hi-fi format we will have will either be hard-drive mass storage systems or little flash cards that store songs....takes all the fun out of it....I mean people complained about the Vinyl to CD thing, but this is worse...
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
[/quote]
The i-pod generation will realise soon enough......just give them about 10 years......Lol
I guess the next hi-fi format we will have will either be hard-drive mass storage systems or little flash cards that store songs....takes all the fun out of it....I mean people complained about the Vinyl to CD thing, but this is worse...
[quote user="Andrew Everard"][quote user="jules153"]
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
[/quote]
...and DAB!
plus, as we know, alot of people are using 128kbps mp3 so where's the incentive for the music labels to produce the software?...
jules.[/quote]
Don't even get me started on that one - for the first time in recording history, the biggest development of the current age is less quality. It's right up there with developing Concorde, then binning it and going back to slow flights for all...
[/quote]
...and DAB!
I know! We should be allowed to keep FM if we want to, not be forced into DAB. The same goes for TV. Our car wont be able to pick up tv after the switchover.
I also think that FM transmission IS better quality than any DAB...and to get a decent tuner that would match my system i'm building (Arcam) it would cost over £400! It's only £200 for the fm/am tuner!
Therefore I have realised that it's a good time to buy vintage FM/AM tuners! I can get a 70s Rotel tuner thats real nice for £3 or a JVC TX-1 to match my amp for £4.50! It's madness!
I also think that FM transmission IS better quality than any DAB...and to get a decent tuner that would match my system i'm building (Arcam) it would cost over £400! It's only £200 for the fm/am tuner!
Therefore I have realised that it's a good time to buy vintage FM/AM tuners! I can get a 70s Rotel tuner thats real nice for £3 or a JVC TX-1 to match my amp for £4.50! It's madness!
And then there's the ludicrous compression of music these days. As if mangling it with mp3 wasn't enough, no let us sacrifice one of the gains we get from digital audio - increased dynamic range - as well.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity
You can show your support for better mastered music by signing up at:
http://www.turnmeup.org/
every little helps as they sayjules.
http://www.turnmeup.org/
every little helps as they sayjules.
[quote user="cmag"]
Hi
I was wondering about this subject. Please contribute your thoughts!
[/quote]
I'm new here so firstly I would like to say 'Hello' to everyone.. $me waves with a big grin
I've been a music lover since 1973 and I've bought myself up on a diet of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Queen, ELO, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zep, Yello and the likes, I think you get the picture
Even though I've always lived on an extremely tight budget, and had to listen to rock bottom budget kit most of my life, I've always loved the sound of stereo, and I know what sound is going to come from where, be it left, right or center stage. And in later years as I've upgraded, I've come to appreciate depth, focus, transparency and all those other weird and wonderful things that HiFi buffs talk about.
Not so long ago, I was at a chaps house who had a Meridian surround sound setup with active speakers and he was keen to show it off. I was forced to sit through endless film clips and live music footage, and I have to say it sounded bloody fantastic. I had never heard such high quality kit in my life and was keen to listen to something I was more familiar with, whereby he produced a copy of Dark Side of the Moon which had apparently been remastered for surround sound.
To cut a long story short, even though I was impressed with the opening heart beat, as soon as the music started I instantly became confused, it just sounded all wrong! I tried hard to appreciate the fact that it was supposed to be different, but my ears were telling me to get the hell out of there before I became sick with dizziness and I soon made my excuses and left.
I appreciate the fact that new and emerging technologies are going to appeal to some older ears with deep pockets, but I suspect it's mostly younger ears with new material where it will be accepted as the norm. I agree that movies sound their best in 5.1, and live performances benefit from the ambient sounds of the crowd and venue acoustics, but call me an old dog if you will. All this new Carlos Fandango kit and music formats is great for some peoples ears and pockets, but I'm sticking to stereo and I'm quite happy with my 16bit CD and crackly vinyl collection thank you very much...
Peace be with you and happy new year to you all.
Hi
I was wondering about this subject. Please contribute your thoughts!
[/quote]
I'm new here so firstly I would like to say 'Hello' to everyone.. $me waves with a big grin
I've been a music lover since 1973 and I've bought myself up on a diet of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Queen, ELO, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zep, Yello and the likes, I think you get the picture
Even though I've always lived on an extremely tight budget, and had to listen to rock bottom budget kit most of my life, I've always loved the sound of stereo, and I know what sound is going to come from where, be it left, right or center stage. And in later years as I've upgraded, I've come to appreciate depth, focus, transparency and all those other weird and wonderful things that HiFi buffs talk about.
Not so long ago, I was at a chaps house who had a Meridian surround sound setup with active speakers and he was keen to show it off. I was forced to sit through endless film clips and live music footage, and I have to say it sounded bloody fantastic. I had never heard such high quality kit in my life and was keen to listen to something I was more familiar with, whereby he produced a copy of Dark Side of the Moon which had apparently been remastered for surround sound.
To cut a long story short, even though I was impressed with the opening heart beat, as soon as the music started I instantly became confused, it just sounded all wrong! I tried hard to appreciate the fact that it was supposed to be different, but my ears were telling me to get the hell out of there before I became sick with dizziness and I soon made my excuses and left.
I appreciate the fact that new and emerging technologies are going to appeal to some older ears with deep pockets, but I suspect it's mostly younger ears with new material where it will be accepted as the norm. I agree that movies sound their best in 5.1, and live performances benefit from the ambient sounds of the crowd and venue acoustics, but call me an old dog if you will. All this new Carlos Fandango kit and music formats is great for some peoples ears and pockets, but I'm sticking to stereo and I'm quite happy with my 16bit CD and crackly vinyl collection thank you very much...
Peace be with you and happy new year to you all.
Interestingly, Dark Side of the Moon was mastered for quadrophonic surround by the original LP producer Alan Parsons soon after the conventional stereo release back in 1973; the SACD release was remixed from the original 16-track tapes, but not by Parsons. There are some bootleg DVD-Audio copies of the original quadrophonic mix floating around out there on t'interweb.
Having heard a bit of the quadrophonic mix played back by Alan Parson in the main Abbey Road control room a few years back - at a B&W speaker launch, IIRC - I can tell you that version is anything but messy, and I have to day I rather enjoy the SACD version in small multichannel doses.
But it's not a patch on some of the good multichannel recordings available in the classical field on SACD.
Having heard a bit of the quadrophonic mix played back by Alan Parson in the main Abbey Road control room a few years back - at a B&W speaker launch, IIRC - I can tell you that version is anything but messy, and I have to day I rather enjoy the SACD version in small multichannel doses.
But it's not a patch on some of the good multichannel recordings available in the classical field on SACD.
It all seams a lot of money to spend to get a little bit of 'ambience' sound ...take the NAD masters series, its AU$4000 for the two channel amp verses AU$8000 for the pre/pwr version. Thats a huge difference to pay for a small sonic increase (not to mention the cost of additional speakers to hear it) Would the Audiolab at GBP1000 pre/pwr be able to match a good 2 channel amp ?
When you factor in all that extra cost surly it is better to spend it all on stereo or have a modest av system for movies (as the sound doesnt have to be as spot on as it does with stereo) and have a high level two channel system..You could have floorstanders for stereo and 5 small speakers for movies so that your lounge room does not look cluttetred...The small style system speakers often look like ornaments on a 'mantle piece' anyway......so they would not look 'cluttered' on your new av rack...keff 'eggs' for example...
When you factor in all that extra cost surly it is better to spend it all on stereo or have a modest av system for movies (as the sound doesnt have to be as spot on as it does with stereo) and have a high level two channel system..You could have floorstanders for stereo and 5 small speakers for movies so that your lounge room does not look cluttetred...The small style system speakers often look like ornaments on a 'mantle piece' anyway......so they would not look 'cluttered' on your new av rack...keff 'eggs' for example...
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram