# SACD 2-channel or 5.1 "survey"



## wgmontgomery

Hi. I'm curious about the preferred listening habits of readers of this forum. If given a choice of 2 channel or 5.1 on a SACD, which do you usually choose? What are the main factors that affect your choice? If it's an older recording like _Dark Side of the Moon_ that was recorded in stereo, which do you choose? Any other reason(s) for your preferences?? Thanks.


----------



## tshifrin

Easy answer from me; I only have 2 speakers! I've heard great SACD in surround, but it never attracted me like a fine 2 channel system has. I get all the air, ambiance, and imaging I need from the room reflections.

Tom


----------



## CdnTiger

I'm a 5.1 guy. Although stereo is great, I like the immersion that 5.1 offers. I also find listening for how the various instruments and sounds were mixed throughout the different channels to be more fun than for a soundstage stuck between 2 speakers. Of course, that can be taken too far...


----------



## Jon Liu

Good question! Having accessibility to both in my system, I still prefer 2 channel over 5.1. However, there are a few, like DSOTM that I thoroughly enjoy in multichannel, as well. Generally though, even in SACD format, I will choose the 2 channel mix over the multichannel.


----------



## wgmontgomery

I guess that I'm a bit of a "purist;" if it was recorded for stereo (quad mixes exist, I know) like DSOTM, I listen in stereo. I wish that engineers would use the surrounds to add "space" to the recordings instead of using them like some new toy. I don't want the drums behind me! I guess that it's like the ping-pong recordings that came out when stereo first hit the scene. Things do seem to be getting better with some recordings, though.

I may post this same survey in the HT forum and see what answers I get. Thanks!!!


----------



## koyaan

I like the additional compression that the 5.1 channel mix provides, particularly for full orchestra perfprmances. For small ensemble, I don't have a strong preference.


----------



## JoeESP9

I prefer playing music in the format it was recorded for. It depends on the recording. If it was recorded for two channel playback that's how I play it. If it was recorded for 5.1 playback I have to use a phantom center channel for playback. I've got four large esl's and three sub woofers. I don't have room for another esl. 

My system might sound even better with a timbre matched center channel speaker but I work with what I have. 

I'm curious. What does 5.1 have to do with (additional) compression?


----------



## bambino

Simple for me, two channel but if we are in party mode which is a rarity in a house with Twins then we'll do 5.1.:T


----------



## koyaan

JoeESP9 said:


> I prefer playing music in the format it was recorded for. It depends on the recording. If it was recorded for two channel playback that's how I play it. If it was recorded for 5.1 playback I have to use a phantom center channel for playback. I've got four large esl's and three sub woofers. I don't have room for another esl.
> 
> My system might sound even better with a timbre matched center channel speaker but I work with what I have.
> 
> I'm curious. What does 5.1 have to do with (additional) compression?


What I mean by "compresion" is th impact of the sound. If I'm listening to say Beethoven's 7th in 5.1, the addition of the supporting speakers produces a greater impact. I really don't find this to be the case if listening to a CD with Dolby PLIIX, In this case I'd generally listen in stereo with the tube buffer, but with an SACD designed for 5.1 (The Telarc recording by Paavo Jarvi is a good example) you get more sound impact with the 5.1 recording.
Of course there are some pieces that simply demand 5.1 because of the performance. Berlioz Requiem, Salzburg Missa, and the Sony E.Power Biggs "Bach Great Toccatas and Fuges" are examples as the sound is meant to be heard from different direction. lddude:


----------



## wgmontgomery

Re: "My system might sound even better with a timbre matched center channel speaker."

I recently replaced my Kef center with a Dynaudio (exact model as my mains), and I have to admit that it made a _huge_ difference. It's as if there is no center; now there's just a front sound stage.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

koyaan said:


> I like the additional compression that the 5.1 channel mix provides, particularly for full orchestra perfprmances.


Which recordings have such a compression in their 5.1 tracks?


----------



## wgmontgomery

I don't think that he meant compression as in digital (less info) compression; I think that he was referring to the "sonic impact." He explained it in a later post.


----------



## JoeESP9

koyaan said:


> What I mean by "compresion" is th impact of the sound. If I'm listening to say Beethoven's 7th in 5.1, the addition of the supporting speakers produces a greater impact. I really don't find this to be the case if listening to a CD with Dolby PLIIX, In this case I'd generally listen in stereo with the tube buffer, but with an SACD designed for 5.1 (The Telarc recording by Paavo Jarvi is a good example) you get more sound impact with the 5.1 recording.
> Of course there are some pieces that simply demand 5.1 because of the performance. Berlioz Requiem, Salzburg Missa, and the Sony E.Power Biggs "Bach Great Toccatas and Fuges" are examples as the sound is meant to be heard from different direction. lddude:


I think a better term would be system dynamics. Compression has lots of negative connotations.

wgmontgomery:
The reason I said "timbre matched" is because I've tried various high quality speakers for CC duty. Those in boxes sound fundamentally different from an esl. The closest I've come has been with a Magneplanar MMG. However, in my room it was too distracting. 

Maybe I'll try a Martin Logan or Magneplaner purpose built CC speaker. Unfortunately, none of my buddies has one I can borrow. I'm reluctant to try a B&M store for a loan. What do I do if I don't like it and don't want to buy something else?


----------



## wgmontgomery

Audio Advisor sells Martin Logan centers, and they have a trial period. Here's one for $199!

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1MLENCORE BLK

I imagine that trying to "timbre match" electrostatic mains with a conventional speaker for center may be difficult; they have quite different sounds.


----------



## astrallite

If there is a stereo and a multichannel SACD of the same recording available, I will always look for the multichannel variant even if it costs a few more bucks. To me surround music gives off a shivering euphoric feeling that is not there (or far less) with stereo.


----------



## Mark Techer

astrallite said:


> If there is a stereo and a multichannel SACD of the same recording available, I will always look for the multichannel variant even if it costs a few more bucks. To me surround music gives off a shivering euphoric feeling that is not there (or far less) with stereo.


There were a few SONY titles. I have Celine Dion's A NEW DAY that has both 5.1 and 2.0 on the same disc. This is not a hybrid disc like Dire Straights BROTHERS IN ARMS, so the 2.0 version is DSD, not LPCM.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Mark Techer said:


> There were a few SONY titles. I have Celine Dion's A NEW DAY that has both 5.1 and 2.0 on the same disc. This is not a hybrid disc like Dire Straights BROTHERS IN ARMS, so the 2.0 version is DSD, not LPCM.


Even if the SACD is a hybrid, there is a 2channel DSD along with the RedBook layer.


----------



## koyaan

I have a few of the old Sony 2 channel SACDs and really enjoy the sound, most of my SACDs are hybrids, though, and I hardly ever listen to them in 2-channel mode. I guess that means that I really perfer Multi-channel.


----------



## JoeESP9

wgmontgomery said:


> Audio Advisor sells Martin Logan centers, and they have a trial period. Here's one for $199!
> 
> http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=1MLENCORE BLK
> 
> I imagine that trying to "timbre match" electrostatic mains with a conventional speaker for center may be difficult; they have quite different sounds.


Not electrostatic.


----------



## Mark Techer

Kal Rubinson said:


> Even if the SACD is a hybrid, there is a 2channel DSD along with the RedBook layer.


Ahh so they do


----------



## HTip

I like both. Depends on the 5.1 mix really. If a mix is more like 5-channel stereo (i.e. Jamie Cullum), I play 2.0. When the 5.1 mix is done properly it adds to the experience. DSTOM is a good example. With a good mix it feels like I have two front speakers that cover the whole wall.

Same is the case with DVD-A. Donald Fagen - The Nightfly is astonishing :T


----------



## wgmontgomery

Most discs offer two SACD versions for a reason; some of us prefer the 2 channel, and others like the multi channel. No one is "wrong," and I think that's a good thing.


----------



## wgmontgomery

JoeESP9 said:


> Not electrostatic.


Like a few ML speakers, it's a hybrid. The woofers are (of course) NOT electrostatic, but the tweeter sounds (sorry for the pun) like it is:

"Encore TF uses high-resolution ATF™ drivers that approach the clarity and detail of MartinLogan's electrostatic panels. Each Advanced Thin Film transducer has a micro-thin, low-mass diaphragm with an ultra-light, etched aluminum conductive surface suspended between two opposite-polarity, high-field-strength neodymium magnet arrays. When the electrical audio signal from an amplifier passes through the diaphragm's surface, it creates an alternating electromagnetic field that interacts with the fields of the fixed magnet arrays, forcing it back and forth to produce sound waves in the air. The strength and polarity of the diaphragm's field varies according to the audio signal."

The woofers cross over to the tweeter at ~1800Hz. That covers part of the mids:

"Midrange drivers are speakers designed to handle the frequency band of about 250 Hz to 5000 Hz."

I agree *100%* that it's not a "true" electrostatic speaker, but it _should_ :scratch: work well as a center channel with true electrostatic speakers...IMHO.


----------



## RTS100x5

Im 5.2 on all SACD and DVD-A... Especially sounds good on live recordings and my favorite ELP - Brain Salad Surgery DVD-A..... My preference is based on matched speakers and my main source which is my HTPC with modded ASUS HDAV 1.3 with 7.1 analog....*with BURSON discrete op amps....the analog out sounds far superior than any digital output Ive yet heard ...:clap:


----------



## JoeESP9

wgmontgomery said:


> Like a few ML speakers, it's a hybrid. The woofers are (of course) NOT electrostatic, but the tweeter sounds (sorry for the pun) like it is:
> 
> "Encore TF uses high-resolution ATF™ drivers that approach the clarity and detail of MartinLogan's electrostatic panels. Each Advanced Thin Film transducer has a micro-thin, low-mass diaphragm with an ultra-light, etched aluminum conductive surface suspended between two opposite-polarity, high-field-strength neodymium magnet arrays. When the electrical audio signal from an amplifier passes through the diaphragm's surface, it creates an alternating electromagnetic field that interacts with the fields of the fixed magnet arrays, forcing it back and forth to produce sound waves in the air. The strength and polarity of the diaphragm's field varies according to the audio signal."
> 
> The woofers cross over to the tweeter at ~1800Hz. That covers part of the mids:
> 
> "Midrange drivers are speakers designed to handle the frequency band of about 250 Hz to 5000 Hz."
> 
> I agree *100%* that it's not a "true" electrostatic speaker, but it _should_ :scratch: work well as a center channel with true electrostatic speakers...IMHO.


Sorry. I've heard them. They are not electrostatic and don't sound like they are. They sound close to what a modern Heil AMT or a Magnepan "Quasi-Ribbon" sounds like. 

A speaker is either electrostatic or it's not. The ones in question are not. They don't work well as a substitute. I suppose that's my ML makes electrostatic center channel speakers. This opinion comes from someone who uses electrostatic speakers and has been doing so continuously since 1983.


----------



## hifidez

When I had 4 speakers of similar quality and specification I tried a 4 channel surround system with SACD (and DVD-A). Music actually mixed for surround (eg DSOTM) is fine, interesting, and exciting.

But I listen, I suppose, more to jazz and classical where you expect to hear music coming at you from the front. Most of the jazz / classics surround mixes I played with I found that too much instrumental sound 'splashed' or flowed around to the rear chanels which spoiled the image.

So, on balance, it's strictly 2 chanel for me. And I'm happy to go without surround effects when I'm watching a movie. Just my view.

(At the time I was using, effectively, four BBC LS3/5a compact monitors with/without my MJ Acoustics sub.)

D.


----------



## powerdoc

I prefer to listen the dark side of the moon in 5_1 even if it's not a true 5.1 recording. 
I listen mostly in 2.0, but from time to time listening music in 5.1 is like an sea immersion.


----------



## JoeESP9

How about SACD three channel? Many of the RCA Living Presence hybrid SACD re-issues have three channel sound. When played in multichannel mode they have front left, front right and center channel tracks just as the original three track tapes and playback did.


----------



## powerdoc

I am not that impressed by the 3 channel recording. It's good audio, but old record from 1930 to 1970, most of it recorded in the late fifies and in the sixties. 
BTW, my 5 way system is not as good as my 2 ways systems, so you may take my comment with a grain of salt.


----------



## koyaan

I have a few of the Living presence recordings and have enjoyed all of them. I don,t find the three channel presentation vastly superior to two channel, but it is certainly at least as engaging and is the mode I generally use when listening to these recordings.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

koyaan said:


> I have a few of the Living presence recordings and have enjoyed all of them. I don,t find the three channel presentation vastly superior to two channel, but it is certainly at least as engaging and is the mode I generally use when listening to these recordings.


You should try the RCA Living Stereo SACDs to assess this. With many of them, I find the difference quite striking and I often use that at demonstrations to prove the value of having a discrete center channel signal and speaker.


----------



## morca

Alway,s 2 channel,better sad 2.1 
If my sub,s are not playing i,am going crazy


----------



## JoeESP9

I agree with you koyaan. IMO three channel playback doesn't really sound any better. For me this may be because I don't have a regular center channel speaker. To play a three channel recording I have to 'borrow" a speaker from my bedroom system and connect a spare amplifier. Normally I run multichannel sound with a phantom center channel. I just don't have room for another full range esl as a front center speaker.

I mentioned the Living Presence recordings mostly because they sound so good. They should be required listening for every modern day engineer. They are perfect examples of how to record with a minimal number of microphones (usually three) and without a bunch of mixing, re-mixing, overdubbing and re-mastering that does nothing whatsoever for the quality of the recorded sound. They have great dynamic range. No compression whatsoever was used to make these recordings. 

They started making these recordings in the middle 50's. Listen to them in multichannel or plain stereo. They sound better than +95% of all modern recordings. If you are a classical music listener you owe it to yourself to audition one or more of these truly marvelous recordings.


----------



## Wardsweb

I'm a 2-channel guy at heart. That is why I have four 2-channel systems and one 7.1 home theater, soon to be 9.1. My 2-channel gives me fantastic imaging, great depth and a huge soundstage. I have detail and dynamics. The music has nuance and emotion. It makes me smile.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

JoeESP9 said:


> IMO three channel playback doesn't really sound any better. For me this may be because I don't have a regular center channel speaker. To play a three channel recording I have to 'borrow" a speaker from my bedroom system and connect a spare amplifier.


That certainly could be a reason.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Admitting up front that I have not played with three-channel playback, I find it difficult to imagine that it can sound better than really well set up two-channel. A finely-tuned two-channel setup leaves absolutely nothing lacking in terms of seamless soundstage, imaging, properly balanced center, everything is it should be.


----------



## koyaan

AudiocRaver said:


> Admitting up front that I have not played with three-channel playback, I find it difficult to imagine that it can sound better than really well set up two-channel. A finely-tuned two-channel setup leaves absolutely nothing lacking in terms of seamless soundstage, imaging, properly balanced center, everything is it should be.


The biggest benifit that I've found with 3 channel listening is the quality of the imaging from an off center listening position.In the sweet spot, it makes far less difference.


----------



## JoeESP9

That has been my experience also. I rarely listen from anywhere other than the sweet spot.


----------



## AudiocRaver

koyaan said:


> The biggest benifit that I've found with 3 channel listening is the quality of the imaging from an off center listening position.In the sweet spot, it makes far less difference.


Good point. And here I will admit that I am "sweet-spot centric," I generally listen alone and make a point of staying dead center in the sweet zone.


----------



## fschris

i am kind of a noob in regards to SACD... What player do you use and can you play back SACDs on a PC... I looked for a little bit and it appears to be NO. You need an actual CD player?


----------



## AudiocRaver

SACD capable drives have not been made commonly available for computers for fear that people would then rip the high-resolution files from the disks and redistribute them. You have to use a SACD player, or a DVD or BluRay player that is SACD capable.

Edit: SACD players will usually play regular CDs, too.

Edit: At one time SACD players had only analog outputs, not digital, not sure if that is still the case.

Edit: Further research confirms that players are still designed to only output the analog signals at higher resolutions, except the encoded signals that are part of a movie stream, like DTS.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

fschris said:


> i am kind of a noob in regards to SACD... What player do you use and can you play back SACDs on a PC... I looked for a little bit and it appears to be NO. You need an actual CD player?


Nope. You need an actual SACD player.


----------



## AudiocRaver

FWIW: DVD-Audio (if you are interested in it) can be played on a pc with a dvd drive using foobar2000 and a foobar plugin called dvdadecoder. All open source and free. Please use legally.:bigsmile:

Edit: There are legitimate, legal uses, like if you are authoring a DVD-A disk and want to be able to test/play it on your media server.


----------



## JoeESP9

Yep! AFAIK there are no PC or Mac drives that play SACDs.

Edit:
There are some CD drives/players that will output a DSD digital signal. There are even some DACs that will decode a DSD digital signal. Both devices have one thing in common. The available models are relatively expensive.

You can do DVD-A playback with a plugin because the DVD-A audio signal is a 24/96 PCM signal. Most sound cards and on-board chips will do 24/96.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Update: The question got me doing some searching. There is one reasonably priced DVD player that also plays SACD and DVD-A formats, the Pioneer DV-610AVE for around $150. It is a multi-region player made for the European market, PAL standard but can be switched to NTSC. This is all according to reliable sounding online reviews by owners. New but with no warranty beyond the return policy of wherever you buy it from, a discontinued product, looks like only a handful of them left. Reviews are very positive. Of course it has the six audio outputs for 5.1 sound, plus HDMI and component video.

As JoeESP9 said, newer players with SACD and DVD-A capability are very expensive. If this is something you're interested in, the Pioneer is a bit of an odd duck but may be the only inexpensive way to get there currently, other than buying something used, and looks like it won't be around for long.


----------



## Savjac

Good question and I have to say for me it depends on the material being played back. As others have said, if the intent was surround or more than 2 channels then that is what I go with. If the discs are the 3 channel RCA discs, then that seems to be what was intended and I find those discs very incredible. DSOTM and a few others have to be played in surround as it is my belief that is how it was intended to be played. That's how they did it live. Most artists though are, for me, 2 channel, as a matter of fact I was just listening to some of the early Elton John SACD's last night and there seems no need for surround, they sound great in good ole 2 channel. 
Hmm just had a thought, Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds sounds like a good listen today, it was recorded live, I will have to experiment with this one.


----------



## 8086

5.1 for me never really caught on. Back when it was 1st released, I had hopes that you would hear different band members coming from different speakers.


----------



## AudiocRaver

8086 said:


> 5.1 for me never really caught on. Back when it was 1st released, I had hopes that you would hear different band members coming from different speakers.


Seems to depend a lot on who does the mix. Some just use the surround channels for ambience. Stephen Wilson (Porcupine Tree) seems to do a bit more with it. I am just getting into it now myself, so am not an expert.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

8086 said:


> 5.1 for me never really caught on. Back when it was 1st released, I had hopes that you would hear different band members coming from different speakers.


And that is exactly what I do *not *want to hear. :rolleyesno:


----------



## JoeESP9

When I want to be surrounded by musicians I dig out one of my bass's, get together with a couple of my buddies and we sit around and have a jam session.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Kal Rubinson said:


> And that is exactly what I do *not *want to hear. :rolleyesno:


Thanks for a good laugh.

Indeed, what one would look for or enjoy in a surround music mix is a great question. Like you, I don't want to be in the middle of the band, but I look for more than ambience from the surrounds, some effects, doubling of instruments, occasional movement of vocal or instrument to an odd direction, things like that to keep the mix alive and engaging beyond typical 2-channel.


----------



## 8086

JoeESP9 said:


> When I want to be surrounded by musicians I dig out one of my bass's, get together with a couple of my buddies and we sit around and have a jam session.


That was kind of the idea I had in mind when I first learned of multi-channel pre-recorded surround music a long time ago with the listener sitting center stage with the band. I recall hearing a demo a good long time ago of a band with the musicians to the left and right with the vocals coming from center stage. For me at the time, it was rather amusing.


----------



## JoeESP9

I should add that when I'm just listening I have no desire to be surrounded by musicians. I want the sound to be as if I was in the audience. I'm all for ambiance and audience sounds but I want the impression of musicians performing "over there".


----------



## AudiocRaver

It is going to depend on the kind of music for me. Most of my listening is effects-laden rock, a lot of it progressive, some experimental, with echoes, guitar doubling, little pieces of sound uniquely treated, and I see the surround environment as being another aspect of the medium to be used to engage the listener in whatever fashion the artist chooses. Surround ambiance alone can be pretty effective with other kinds of music.


----------



## tesseract

I love two channel for music and movie viewing but will be switching to surround soon. I am interested in 5.1 SACD and DVD-A more than movies.

I just wonder if someday recordings will be made requiring speakers in the floor and ceiling. :rofl2:


----------



## AudiocRaver

tesseract said:


> I love two channel for music and movie viewing but will be switching to surround soon. I am interested in 5.1 SACD and DVD-A more than movies.
> 
> I just wonder if someday recordings will be made requiring speakers in the floor and ceiling. :rofl2:


No doubt that if theoretical physicists end up proving the existence of the 12 dimensions (or whatever) they talk about in string theory, there will come a day when we end up needing an array of speakers in every one of them.


----------



## 8086

tesseract said:


> I love two channel for music and movie viewing but will be switching to surround soon. I am interested in 5.1 SACD and DVD-A more than movies.
> 
> I just wonder if someday recordings will be made requiring speakers in the floor and ceiling. :rofl2:


It's already been done by the Japanese broadcasting comany, NHK. It's called 22.2 (channel) and I think the picture quality is 4k or higher (don't recall that part). I first learned of it back around 2006 or 2007 when the Japs were running test trials and the cameras were custom built bulky monsters.

Quality 3 channel music and movies makes me happier than 5 mediocre channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/nhk-makes-first-successful-super-hi-vision-ota-broadcast/


----------



## tesseract

AudiocRaver said:


> No doubt that if theoretical physicists end up proving the existence of the 12 dimensions (or whatever) they talk about in string theory, there will come a day when we end up needing an array of speakers in every one of them.


Multi-dimensional sound would be a good thing for a hypercube. :cunning:


----------



## tesseract

8086 said:


> It's already been done by the Japanese broadcasting comany, NHK. It's called 22.2 (channel) and I think the picture quality is 4k or higher (don't recall that part). I first learned of it back around 2006 or 2007 when the Japs were running test trials and the cameras were custom built bulky monsters.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/nhk-makes-first-successful-super-hi-vision-ota-broadcast/


IMAX should be jealous, lol.



> Quality 3 channel music and movies makes me happier than 5 mediocre channels.


I'll go back to 2 channel in a heartbeat if 5.1 doesn't live up to my musical needs. Hope to have a domicile with room for at least two systems one day. I already have more than enough gear to do it. :whistling:


----------



## AudiocRaver

> I'll go back to 2 channel in a heartbeat if 5.1 doesn't live up to my musical needs. Hope to have a domicile with room for at least two systems one day. I already have more than enough gear to do it. :whistling:





> Quality 3 channel music and movies makes me happier than 5 mediocre channels.


There will be good mixes and there will be bad ones. Since 5.1 DVD-A music comes at a premium, both the medium and the player, we expect more from it, hold it to a higher standard. One might do well to keep track of favorite producers & mix engineers, like having favorite movie directors. Steven Wilson is top on my list (Porcupine Tree, King Crimson, Opeth).


----------



## tesseract

AudiocRaver said:


> There will be good mixes and there will be bad ones. Since 5.1 DVD-A music comes at a premium, both the medium and the player, we expect more from it, hold it to a higher standard. One might do well to keep track of favorite producers & mix engineers, like having favorite movie directors. Steven Wilson is top on my list (Porcupine Tree, King Crimson, Opeth).


I'm going to lean on Trinnov technology to help tie it all together... waiting for my AVR to come back from the shop. I look forward to the experience, and to trying out new music.


----------

