If you have to distribute $10,000 over 5+ speakers, a subwoofer, 6+ channels of amplification, a processor and the usual digital source, in music fidelity terms you've got nuthin'. Put that money into two channels only and the quality of everything goes up dramatically, without spending a dollar more. And you'll get satisfying sound out of movies too. You can also have better vocal clarity than any center channel speaker can provide you. In all ways, the 2 channel alternative will be better, except one -- you won't have primary sonic events happening behind you. So what? -- You don't in real circumstances anyway. Moreover, the number of multi-channel recordings that make any good use of the format is tiny, and as we've seen in prior attempts at more than 2-channel sound, very few engineers have any clue how to use the format to contribute to fidelity, as opposed to novelty and special effects. It might be that some "audiophiles and audio enthusiasts" will accept the sonic degradations of multi-channel in that budget, but musicophiles who care about genuine fidelity won't.
Phil |
Cdwallace,
One has to be definitive to be heard in these debates. So I take a clear position which also corrseponds to what I believe, advise and have experienced.
Look, it doesn't matter what has been posited academically or by research labs regarding the psycho-acoustics of MC -- no system made available to date has been anything close to convincing. But more to the point, they have been destructive of tone, corrosive to holistic representation of sound, and any damaging to realism in spatial presentation.
But let's put even those flaws aside for a moment. $10,000! What compromise must you make in quality of power amplifiers and speakers to spread much of that money over 5.1 or 7.1 channels, instead of 2? I can promise you it is a vast qualitative difference in gear, and no amount of processing makes up for it. In fact, the processing exacerbates it.
That budget is much too low to be able to match in 5.1 channels the tonal, spatial, musical and emotional fidelity that can be attained in 2. Moreover, very few rooms can intelligently accommodate more than 2 channels. I've been through, in detail, the promise of matrixed and discrete 4 channel; DTS; Dolby Surround; SACD Surround, etc., etc., etc. For $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and probably beyond, I can always pull together a system in which 2 channel reproduction will be more convincing.
I've heard the 20.2 system under development at USC with Tom Holman's participation. It was fascinating but not encouraging. High Fideltiy in music is not being achieved by maximizing the number of drivers. It cannot, at least today, be achieved by software correction for all the physical errors introduced by many imperfectly-matched drivers attempting to do the same thing. It is not being attained by discrete approximations of absorbed, reflected and reverberant energy. All of these attempts are sucking life and tone from musical sound. But even if you don't agree, surely you grasp that you can afford much better fundamental-performance speakers if you're only buying 2 on a capped budget, rather than 5. Surely you can agree that much better sounding amplification is available if you're buying only 2 channels of it. If you're buying at Best Buy, perhaps not. Let's assume you're buying elsewhere.
I have no argument with someone who likes MC for its gimmicks and novelties. Whatever entertains you! But if you want the highest possible music fidelity, communication of emotion, and tone, then 2 channels are your optimum solution at your stated price, and well above.
Phil |
D_edwards,
Surround in a pure music sense, sans center, sans TV, sans any expectation of ever being used for a movie soundtrack with the associated image in view, is still the same problem -- on a fixed $10K, one can easily assemble 2 channels that will sound better in every way, unless you are assigning inappropriately disproportionate weight to the artifacts that are ham-handedly represented by the non-primary speakers.
It's hash, unfortunately. All you have to do is listen.
Phil |
Oh.. CD... you had more questions:
1/ I didn't drop any names regarding equipment. I can but I didn't.
2/ If I set your expectations for fidelity with $10,000 of 2 channel system, you will not want to degrade it by subbing in 5.1 lesser channels. Instead you will be trying to figure out how to afford another $10,000 to TRY to avoid screwing up what you're hearing from 2.
3/ We're still plagued with enough recording engineers that don't have good judgement with stereo, after 50 years. You might be too old to hear before you can listen to a well-crafted multi-channel recording.
4/ Performance -- Go ahead, strip the labels. You can go into the hifi underground and find any number of ways to spend $10,000 on beautiful, solid, satisfying 2 channel by brands you've never heard of. You won't get brand seeking from me.
Phil |
No, D, we don't agree. The "power of 5" is less than the power of 2 in placing realistic music reproduction in your home. The basketball analogy is a non-sequiter. More drivers in more positions with more crossovers, lower quality all the way around for a given sum of money; worse amplifiers, etc. etc. only translates to worse. Time confusion, magnified room interaction, phase confusion, etc. Nothing is really clear.
I have no idea whether your ability to set up a 2 channel system is comparable to mine, worse or better. And neither do you. But I live in the epicenter of the entertainment industry, saturated with multi-channel advocates. Sometimes they visit. I've had doubters of 2ch, full of multi-channel zeal, media or sound professionals all, forced to admit that they underestimated what can be achieved with 2 channels after hearing my system. They've also admitted that they could not possibly equal the tonal quality and music fidelity of my 2 channels without raising cost and seriously mucking up the aesthetics of my rooms.
For me, hifi must be in the living spaces, not sequestered to some kind of dedicated geek cave. Not that I would have multichannel sound if I elected to build a system in a dedicated space. But multichannel as comprised today is a joke as a technology to integrate in a social living space.
Up to any practical spending level I can think of, I can achieve a higher level of musical fidelity in 2 channels than in more than two, on the quality differences of the gear choices alone, as budget dictates. If I built a 2 channel system for the original poster's hypothetical $10,000, and then tried to extend that tonal quality to multichannel for perhaps $20,000, I'd then be able to spend that 20Gs on 2 channels better still. If you're paying attention to tone and realism, you just can't get away from that reality. However, if you put multichannel artifacts ahead of realism and tone, then nothing will convince you otherwise.
The original poster asked: "If you were restricted to a budget of $10,000, and wanted to assemble a system, from start to finish, which format would you choose, 2 channel or mulichannel?" My answer is unconditionally 2 channel, and it would be the same at 10X that budget, too.
Phil |
CDw,
Would you consider the acoustics department at USC, working with THX, to be competent at MC setup?
20.2 ch, way beyond any retail configuration, in a room engineered for optimal MC "realism." Stereo or MC was interesting as an acoustical phenomenon, and better than any MC setup I've heard elsewhere (plus I live in an area where skills for this are high, and installations are many), but it wasn't up to the acoustic truth I can get from my own 2 channels.
Economically, MC is good for the industry if people bite. And movies are the bait, notwithstanding the music crowd here. Unfortunately, MC is another unnecessarily complex and intrusive dead end for anyone seeking convincing tonal and spatial fidelty to the actual experience of listening to music live. Nonetheless, many will be seduced by it. As an economic choice I have no argument with their / your preference. Buy it and be happy. But anyone asking my advice is going to be steered clear of it by me.
Phil |
The purpose of the USC system I heard was MC music.
Phil |
CDw,
I haven't called you a liar at any time. Also, I have extensive experience with MC for music as a discrete endeavor from MC for HT. My comments on this have been in the realm of MC for music, this being AUDIOgon rather than VIDEOgon.
Economically, MC is about movies, as movies are the hook the entire industry's marketing machine is using to entice people into MC. The music side of it is a sideshow economically, however. Just face that fact. Nevertheless, the movie aspect of MC is not the framing of *my* answer to your original question. I am giving you an undiluted music reproduction perspective. And by the way, YOU posed the question. Don't protest that you don't like the answer!
I have heard music MC correctly. It is not an advance in fidelity, IMO. I've probably heard more diverse and correct music MC installations than 99.99% of people who have heard MC of any type. It's not a scheme for convincing fidelity, in my view, but I do understand why some people are seduced by it and enjoy it. That's OK. Do what you want.
20.2, 20.1, 10.2, 10.1, 7.2, 7.1, 5.2, 5.1, 3 channel, 2 channel SRS, SACD MC, DVD-Audio, yadda yadda yadda, none of these schemes in expert configuration are unfamiliar to me. It's plainly reaching to say that MC is no more complex than stereo. I can assure you, I have heard what you're talking about, and my reaction to it is it's worse in every elemental way for music fidelity, than 2 carefully chosen and configured channels. Especially when you stipulate level cost. That doesn't mean I won't continue to be curious and listen for some future iteration of MC when someone gets it right. Today is just not that day.
Phil |
It's not accurate to say that 20.2 had "everything except fidelity, in my opinion." It had novelty, it had effects. It wasn't absent any sense of fidelity, but it had much less fidelity than 2C. I was listening to something evangelized as an advancement in fidelity but it sounded regressive instead.
Phil |
"Where can I find more information on the 20.2 MC system?"
I don't know. My contact is no longer there. It was also a system in progress and I am sure it is different today.
Phil |
CDw,
No, I did not call your belief a lie. I merely disagree(d) with it. I don't question the sincerity of your belief in MC as a conveyance for fidelity. I just don't share it.
I didn't say I heard 99.9% of all systems, I said I probably have heard more correctly-implemented MC music systems than 99.9% of PEOPLE who have heard MC. I am fully confident I have heard what you've heard, in terms of competence and quality of system. I just do not draw the same conclusion as you do.
MC hasn't left a bad taste in my mouth. It has a certain entertainment flavor to it. It just doesn't correspond to fidelity, unless you prioritize secondary characteristics over primary ones. I don't need hope. MC-for-music schemes are not enticing today and may never be. It's an ambitious objective beyond the current state of design and software expertise.
Further, my 2 channel systems do not put sound in a box. They achieve excellent spatial projection appropriate to the recording, outstanding tone, realistic timing of events -- everything MC claims as its exclusive purview. From the perspective of a monaural devotee, I'm already multi-channel, so let's just say I am experiencing your epiphany through a superior implementation of the same objectives via a few channels less. You could too.
Phil |
Cdw,
Yeah, I heard the system when it was considered complete. It was considered complete enough to demo to outsiders for fundraising and as demonstration of next generation MC, beyond anything on the market then or now.
Phil |
Cdw,
How was the 20.2 experience? Interesting, entertaining, but thoroughly unconvincing as an exercise in music fidelity. The range of recordings was excellent. There was nothing amiss in the choice of recordings, the source gear or the amplification. Nor the room. The room sounded pretty good acoustically. The MC experience was an interesting divergence from reality, not progress as fidelity, IMO, but clearly a refashioning of sound that can seduce many people on grounds other than fidelity. I was scientifically fascinated, audiophile-intrigued, but sonically & musically underwhelmed. Others with me who were MC adherents thought is was beyond great, but close questioning revealed they weren't judging on any criteria for fidelity. It's pretty easy to get even experienced people excited with big sound, even if it's divergent from fidelity.
Phil |
Cdw,
How I think? Hear how I hear is more like it.
I'm a bit into my sixth decade on the planet. My high frequency hearing is well-preserved for my age. My earliest memory of hifi goes back to 1956, when most hifi systems were still monaural and tubes ruled. I also could sit by my Mom's Fada table radio with its tubes ablaze and dial in pre-Castro Havana cha-cha on the shortwave, or feel daring listening to cold war jabbering between classical music swells from East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Moscow. Dad's '49 Buick and '51 Oldsmobile had tubes in the dash and a paper cone speaker. It sounded great in the midrange compared to what was to come. Someone on the block bought a Chrysler with a turntable in the front seat. There was live music every week even in small towns like where I was located. Soon stereo and tubes, and recordings where engineers were just learning. I was in the hifi business during the whole 4-channel debacle. I investigated contemporary new wave MC with optimism and hoping to like it.
When I was a kid, my school system made regular trips to Philly for the Philadelphia Orchestra youth concerts and some of the regular evening concerts as well, during the school year. I went to every one I could go to, from the time I was 8. So figure it....I was hearing that orchestra during Eugene Ormandy's tenure as music director. He was on the podium for almost every performance. I played instruments in a performance setting. In college I was near Pittsburgh and hence regularly heard the Pittsburgh Symphony, William Steinberg conducting. Later in grad school, it was the Hartford Symphony and then I lived in Boston for an extended time and had a share of season tickets in Symphony Hall and at Tanglewood during Seiji Ozawa's tenure at the BSO. Along the way, being in the northeast where density of live music performance venues is much higher than in California, I heard the full wash of popular music touring figures during about a 25 year span, many in very small venues where I could hear the primary sound.
I've also played music in recording studios, giving me the reference of what happens to a performance on the way to vinyl and CD. I've recorded field performances on a paid basis, further informing understanding of the relationship between what's real and what's recorded. Point is, you are not hearing from an inexperienced person. Most of the MC proponents I meet who try to sell me on this technology have not matched the range of my experiences with live, recorded and reproduced music, let alone my accumulated experience with hifi.
So much for biographical context. You will discount my accumulated experience if you don't agree with what I hear, just as, unless you know you are colorblind, you will tend to trust your own eyes if you see the sky as purple and I say it is blue. I accept this. I don't expect to convince anyone of my (perhaps minority) MC/2C opinion on the basis of an Audiogon post. But I might might make you question yours. More to the point, someone new looking to sort out what they think about this, may find value in this thread.
Fidelity is simple. A person singing has to sound human. An instrument should sound natural and consistent with the experience of hearing it live, whether it is an unmiked cello or Junior Brown's old Fender amp with guit-steel plugged into it. Massed instruments should have both harmony and clash, just as in real circumstances. If the recording was made in a hall, live, I should hear the characteristics of the hall as though I were at or near the mic location, if the miking scheme was simple. If the recording was multi-tracked, multi-miked, overdubbed and the performers were not present simultaneously, then we're already in the realm of artifice and we have no reference for the original sound. We can only possibly surmise whether we're hearing what the recording, mix or mastering engineer intended. In any case, fidelity has to give me a convincing illusion of the intended performance, or convey the character of what the recording, mixdown and mastering engineer captured. Neither a recording alone, a system or individual component can do it by itself.
If you read my prior post to D-Edwards, you know part of what I describe as being more compromised in MC than in proper 2C is "tone." Tone was once commonly understood among hifi enthusiasts, but progressively less so over the last decade. People have been distracted by resolution and detail over tone. Effects, breakdown analysis, picayune critique of details. I find fewer and fewer people listening holistically or even able to comprehend what I mean by that. Headphones in iPods aren't helping. Hifi pushed away from holistic rendering of fidelity in the 1980s and except for a swelling of various underground rebellions, it hasn't really recovered. I blame Krell's debut and embrace by the market as the emblematic inflection point for the devolution of fidelity in hifi. Some other people blame the transistor, the Redbook CD, or the original Dynaco Stereo 120. Maybe line source speakers and power cord obsession too. But Krell was the leading edge of a trend toward atonal but scaled sound reproduction as the signpost for "hifi." Multichannel sound comes from the same roots -- engineers attempting to recreate complex wave behavior through a combination of software logic and dissected propagation. Ugh. The more processing and complexity, the further away we get. People are so confused they can't even discern synthetic from real anymore. I can put music in real tone and dimension in my home with 2 channels.
Many audiophiles today want nothing to do with the actual sound of real instruments and voices. They don't want the true sound of horns with their sometime harshness, output from their hifi. They think a cello or violin are exclusively silky and have never really heard or cared for the full experience of bow-on-string in a close-up performance. Do you think sibilance is never produced by human lips? You'd be wrong. Some rooms are honky and if eq'd flatter sound fake.
Tone is the marker for what's missing in MC. Tone isn't just a matter of frequency response, transient behavior, time or phase coherence, crossovers or not. It's a holistic characteristic wherein all of a note, a sound, a burst accompanies the leading edge. A voice is produced by a body and not just a throat. You hear an entire piano, not just the soundboard and strings. If you don't hear it, I can't point it out to you in an email or a post. If you don't care about it I can't make it important to you by describing it. I can only say that if you think you are hearing it in MC, you most likely aren't, and your references for convincing yourself that you are, are likely insufficient. I won't even judge your hearing -- let's assume it's excellent! Your references for how your mind infers suggestion of fidelity are what's in question when you advocate MC for music as a means for attaining greater fidelity. And I am sure that it goes both ways. What is convincing to you in your current state of mind leads you to believe I don't know real sound either.
That's an impasse and I don't know how to resolve it online. But you asked the original question, and you have my answer!
Phil |
Cdw,
"....IYO..." ???
I don't know "IYO" and until I do, I can't answer your question.
Phil |
Cdw,
I happen use triodes now in my amplification but I have no fanaticism about that topology. With 101db/w/m effciency in my speakers, my big 845 triode power goes pretty far. But it's not all I'm willing to listen to. I also love, for instance, McIntosh MC1201 monoblock SS autoformer amps with 1200 watts each, might even buy a pair.
Would my current system expanded to 20.2 be better? You may have missed a key point of my prior posts. The answer is, "Not likely." Why? Because there would be many more drivers and nothing at all can be *perfectly* matched. There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to. And there'd be too much gear for a domestic environment, to boot. Point is, all those extra drivers reduce TONE and clarity. The software behind the processing is highly imperfect about allocating the systems array of signals. Not to mention that scaling up my 2C system to 20.2 would *dramatically* boost its cost.
I'd be open to expand beyond 2C if I had reason to. However, it doesn't stand to reason that multipying everything I have simply makes it all more so. I could certainly generate more acoustic power, but more subtlety and tone? There's the doubt.
Phil |
Ideally, one builds a system, 2C or otherwise, that does not "add" tone to a recording that doesn't have it, nor delete tone from a recording that does. Certainly, I build my systems that way.
Of course, fidelity is a function of a whole system. A speaker, amp or source alone cannot save it if the remaining components underperform. Balance of factors is essential, since nothing is perfect.
No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity.
So no, I don't agree.
Phil |
No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C.
Phil |
Some people believe Mono is the highest fidelity medium. I don't. Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks. Monaural can have terrific tone, but its lack of dimension is too extreme to offer balance of factors. Plus, the supply of mono recordings is limited, and stereo played mono isn't as good.
Phil |
Cdw,
I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve.
The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference. Or more to the point, the developed aural mind can discern the problem from the signal feed one's ears are sending to it.
Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small. I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. If you can't hear the fundamental problem with massed matched drivers, MC artifice, and the limits of software trying to keep up, then you're perhaps happy with your MC sound. That's good for you. It's not even close to the tonal fidelity I can get from 2C and until you hear what I'm describing, there's no resolution to this impasse.
But again, it was YOU who asked the question originally. You just don't like my answer.
Phil |
Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two.
Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons, but its not exlusive. You can have then too. You can even use Zu speakers for a MC system. A pair of Definitions in front supplemented by Druids all around would be about as good as MC gets, within its unfortunate limits. And by the way, it really is not at all significant to me if "....so does every other manufacturer and DIYer around!" I cannot be responsible for what others haven't discovered yet, especially if they refuse to take advice, right?
You have developed a habit of mis-stating my position. I haven't said nor thought that combining drivers renders them having "no fidelity." That would be an absured idea. There are essentially only degrees of unreality available to us in hifi. We're all just trying to keep the unreality to a minimum. I have a way.
And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched.
Phil |
CDw,
Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing. So I am quite certain you have not heard "my type of system." Don't presume that if you heard a Lowther or Fostex FRD loudspeaker driven by triodes that you've heard my system. Not likely close.
The only "old" technology in my amplification is the tubes themselves, particularly the 300B triode. Hmm....it's still regarded, within its power limits, one of the most linear amplifying devices made to date. Now, apart from that little bit of excellence, it sounds good too, especially if it is used in an advanced circuit to eliminate the bass bloat common in too many 300B amps, and the design pulls the treble spray into line. How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors, and transformers that are in virtually every other modern amp. "It's just a modern housing"....? Ridiculous. And, Man, if you haven't seen it, wait until you see an 845! Magnificent!! How about 7 of those to light up a room, if you're so set on MC?
I believe you cannot hear what I have been describing as the superior sound of well-designed 2C. I also do not attribute this to a physical deficiency in your ears but an attitudinal one between them. But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience.
I don't think I said 2C "has its problems with being holistic." In fact I pointed out holistic sound as a superior 2C attribute. There are people who feel that monaural sound is better still, but I've already said I'm not among them. 2C is CAPABLE of delivering the highest fidelity music reproduction available today at a given cost, but there's no guarantee you'll attain it. There are lots of ways to screw it up! Certainly, someone who knows what they are doing with MC could design a system that sounds better than someone who DOESN'T know what they are doing with 2C. But that's not what we've been talking about. Design two systems, one MC and one 2C informed by the same respective expertise and funded by the same money -- heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."
Now, I know you don't believe this. I am confident someday you will.
Phil |
CDw,
The holistic presentation of music from 2C, that I cited, exists for anyone careful enough to build a system and set it up to attain it. Your perception of this benefit appears to be absent, perhaps constrained by the limits of 2C systems you've built in the past. When you tire of chasing your tail with MC, as you no doubt will, you will return to technology appropriate to the task. That is, if you're listening to music rather than focused on movies. In the meantime, enjoy the route you've taken. It will be fun for you. We always say the journey, not the destination, is the point of travel, right?
Phil |
CDw,
Tannoy, check. Years ago. Cabasse check. Menger, check. Bastani, check. Some of these do very well in certain respects and all are toneful speakers. Not much I haven't investigated and heard. I have a lot of "ins." I ended up completely outside my extensive audio industry network and found Zu. There's a reason. None of the above match Zu for essential fidelity. The strength of Sonus Faber is that the line represents "voiced" loudspeakers. Crossovers are mild and less intrusive than most. In the absence of good integrated performance from other systems, Sonus Faber's subtle voicing invariably sounds like real music in a domestic setting, and the speaker design anticipates the acoustics of domestic environments. The Cremona and above are among the best speakers using crossovers in terms of being able to represent music holistically. Zu is better still, for reasons already outlined.
It didn't take me 50 years to find the right speaker. I've always found the most natural and holistic-sounding speaker for music available at any given time and within what I was willing to spend and accommodate. Zu's solution is an unusually large advance, which is why it is notable and commonly not understood by people who haven't heard Zu speakers. If you think you've heard Zu because you've heard other FRDs, you're mistaken.
I have Zu Druids along with Definitions in two separate systems. There is no question that Druids, using only one FRD, present a note more holistically than do the Definitions which use two FRDs. But Definitions have greater resolution, more linear accuracy, can scale more extensively, and throw a wider usable soundstage. Nothing is perfect so there is a trade-off to each advantage. Fortunately for me, I have both, so I can listen to each according to whim. More to the point, what my double-FRD Definitions DON'T have is the even worse problem of massed crossovers. So I accept one pair of FRDs per side as this is still more direct than most systems, and when I want the special intimacy of no driver duplication, I have my Druids system. If you research my posts here, you will find that I have consistently raised this difference as distinguishing these speakers from one another.
The sub-bass array in the Definition does use 4 drivers each. As a practical consideration, a simgle 18" driver might be better, but the packaging is not domestically friendly. Given the relative lack of defining transient information below 40Hz where the sub-bass array is active, I can accept the massed drivers compromise there. Still there are only two channels, which is the correct number, given current acoustic understanding, technology and software processing. And associated signal shaping is at an absolute minimum.
Two channels can generate interferences, true. It's way true for MC too. Neither is perfect. But this defect is less tone-destroying than multichannel processing by a long shot. It really doesn't matter to me whether Bob Stuart, Jim Fosgate or anyone else disagrees with me. I've owned Bob Stuart's speakers in the past. He usually has at least one really good speaker at a price and the rest are fatiguing and unlistenable. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Bob Stuart -- a highly competent sound professional -- nevertheless knew more about tone 20 years ago than he does today, if I were to judge by his products.I like the *idea* of Bob Stuart's speakers -- especially the more recent digital and process-oriented offerings -- more than the speakers themselves. I do understand MC processing and especially am intimately familiar with software and processors. Today, none of this is up to the task of contributing to fidelity, only in elevating selective perceptual effects.
This is an interesting notion you raise, claiming that my system is designed to soften highs, transients, detail, etc. However, in terms relative to other gear, it's an uninformed and mistaken assertion. I have multiple pairs of tube amps. One pair is very wideband, flat 5Hz - 115kHz, better than many solid state and certainly MC amps. They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least. But they are highly capable at delivering the whole note, not just the superficial suggestion of it. My other amps are flat about 5 Hz - 35kHz, and while they are triode amps, they do not have even a trace of the slow round sound people who have limited experience with tube amps assume defines the genre. My speakers are, as you know, quite wideband as well and extremely revealing of detail along with tone. And then there's the Denon phono cartridge. You think it has dull high frequency response and truncates detail. Hmm....I suppose you've never used one. Moreover, this tells me you think that all variants of the Denon DL103 sound the same. Again, you'd be mistaken to think so. I use the DL 103D, which isn't sold these days, but I had the foresight to buy an ample reserve. In short, your comments demonstrate you've not heard Zu speakers (I asked and you haven't answered) and now I also know you have zero familiarity with the rest of my systems. Also apparently McIntosh autoformer amps are outside your direct experience as well. I suppose you can only hear so much in three years.
Uneven FRD frequency response? True in lesser FRD systems. Not true for the Zu FRD. Again, when you audition it, then you can comment from an informed perspective.
4pi>2pi causing inconsistent driver behavior? See above.
Modulation of high freqencies due to low frequncy content? Well, we disagree on whether you can judge tone, but again, see above. This ain't just any old whizzer cone FRD.
Oh...all electronics use circuitry to amplify. Yes! My single ended amps use much less of it. No, it doesn't destroy tone relative to vastly more complicated circuits. They preserve tone. However, there's always room for improvement. I'm always open to something better.
Top to bottom, everything I've outlined is present in my system configuration. Highly-refined wideband and simple circuits, wide-response, fast, articulate sources, and speakers built around a uniquely wide-range, neutral FRD that uses a minimum number of drivers to achieve their bandwidth, response, resolution and natural tone.
I recall what I "knew" when I was 3 years into hifi. Time will change your perspective. You can be sure of it.
Phil |
"There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head.
Phil |
CDw,
So...you don't like Sonus Faber huh? Perhaps you never heard them with the right amp. You can buy the speaker at Magnolia, but you can't buy an amp there that drives them properly. No matter. I didn't buy them either. Whether you think a Manger is a fully-realized speaker is up to you. It wasn't good enough for me.
One thing to set you straight -- it wasn't the 2-FRD Zu Definition that diverted me from Sonus Faber, it was the single-FRD Druid. That was my initial Zu purchase. And if I only had room for one system, It's the Druid that would stay. I have the luxury of having 2, however.
You haven't heard Zu speakers. I can't comment on whatever graphs you've seen on Definitions without knowing them, but +/-4db isn't what you'll actually experience, unless you include the much wider amplitude variations imposed by your room, in which case no speaker measurements are worth knowing. How far off axis are you listening anyway? In my rooms, I have as much *not* ragged response dispersion as the room can use.
The Druid graph you've seen is most likely the Soundstage graph, as there is no other in general circulation that I recall. That test erroneously measured the speaker while placed in mid-air. The Griewe model essential to the speaker's bass extension and midrange linearity could not work in that configuration. It's a fundamentally incorrect test that affects the FRD well up into the midrange. Do you have an anechoic chamber at home? Please put the Druid on the floor when you test it.
It is well known among people who use Zu speakers that Zu manages the mid-range and high frequency output of the FRD acoustically by having two of them. I don't like it better than the single driver Druid. It gains something, already mentioned, and loses something too. I like it for its strengths. Yes, of course the dual FRD is elemental to its advantages and also responsible for the Definition's weakness relative to the Druid. Within current technology, it's a reasonable compromise. It's only 2 per side, not 3, 5, 7 or more, which would be worse. And no multiplication of crossovers, which would be worse still.
Until you can tell me you've heard a Zu speaker, there's nothing more to say about your critique that its FRD must behave like every other 10" driver. It doesn't and you don't know what you're talking about until you hear them. For a thorough accounting of the sonic experience of Druids and Definitions, look up the reviews on 6moons.com and Tone, among others. And watch for Sean Casey's details about his drivers. Or call him up and ask him. Read their FAQ. Get it straight from the design engineers. It's not so hard.
So you really don't know the Denon DL103D -- D, as in elliptical stylus version. I know newbies have discovered the 103 -- and more power to them, it remains a great cartridge. But the D is considerably more defined and extended, and absent what you hint must be its limits. So once again, when you have actual experience with the item in question, come back to talk about it.
I think I gave Bob Stuart credit for his professional acumen. The guy is brilliant. His speakers aren't the sum total of his work, but they do indicate the direction of his notions of tonal fidelity. If his speakers embody his principles, then in terms of tonal fidelity he is lately either regressive or emphasizing the wrong things. Sometimes brilliant people just go down a counterproductive path.
You can find a number of wideband tube amps that are ultrasonic into a resistive load, dynamically. Audiopax 88s are among them. My triode amps are Audion Golden Dream and Black Shadow, which only a brief search here would have revealed to you. Also ultrasonic, into a resistive load, dynamically. Heck, you could dig up some Julius Futterman OTLs or Atmaspheres. Go further to early Harman-Kardons. We're not all listening to McIntosh MC30s, Marantz 8Bs and Dyna Stereo 70s in the world of tubes anymore. And by the way, there was a time when McIntosh autoformer amps did have a round, undynamic, dark sound and square wave performance (to the extent that it matters) was mediocre. That time is not now. Go test an MC1201.
Correct, you can build a multi-channel system using many copies of the same amps I use. That likely would get you closer to some semblance of tonal fidelity than the vast majority of what people use to amplify MC systems, but it will be less real than stereo with appropriate speakers. We keep coming back to the original question. For $XXXX, which gets you higher fidelity, MC or 2C? Conclusively 2C, if you know what you're doing and spend the money appropriately. On the secondary questions of whether spending MORE money allows MC to outperform ANY configuration of 2C, I say no, you say yes.
You're reaching to say that because I appreciate what the dual FRD Definition gains over the single FRD Druid, that this equates to a preference for more channels. No such thing is happening. The system remains 2 channel, and my appreciation of what the bigger speaker gains is in the context of having the smaller, simpler speaker too.
I've heard the states-of-the-arts in MC, multiple times, with professionals involved. Unfortunately you've heard none of my gear or anything similar to it, so we're not really commenting on the same plane of experience and education. If listening would leave your head spinning, then there's your proof that your frame of reference is insufficient. This will change with time. It's very easy to get anchored in definitive criteria for determining fidelity if you're willing. You can't really infer from someone's measurement what's going to be exceptional, only what's going to be adequate.
I love your commitment, am amused by your dogma, and know that these things too shall pass. Measurement is not reliable as a full-scope indicator of what you'll experience in the complex acoustic domain. And SYSTEMS must be evaluated, not just components. I have enough experience with and knowledge of the long sweep of audio history with respect to putting reproduced music in the home to know in that context that in 15 years, maybe 10, you will not be a MC user and you will recall this minor exchange as anticipating your return to 2C for all the reasons I've listed.
Phil |
Cdw,
Hmm...unprocessed multichannel. Then it dawned on me. Are you a proponent of the Kimber 4.0 technique using Isomike recording? Is that your dogma, your specific MC bliss?
Phil |
CDW,
Your dogma is static measurement. That's OK, but it's been proven time and again that we're not measuring enough or we measure the wrong things, for measurement to reflect what a component sounds like. I have a preamp in my stash that is one of the lowest-distortion preamps ever made, and it measures ruler flat. Its square wave performance is exemplary. In its day it was an advance for solid state. No one thinks it sounds better than a huge range or worse-measuring devices of same function available today. Even you certainly prefer worse-measuring gear to this preamp.
But knock yourself out.
Bandwidth certainly is related to the sound of an amplifier, including the ultrasonic harmonic components that affect perception even if they cannot be pinpointed by most people. Extension to 34kHz isn't among the worst nor best. But on a comparative basis, it's pretty good. 115kHz is fully top tier. Yet few people would choose either because of these measurements, and neither did I. Both however prove your assumptions about tube amps are dated and wrong.
I don't have any exclusive attachment to SET amplification. I just happen to have a few SET amps that are exceptionally good. Many SET amps do not meet my approval. But it is really difficult to find one that sounds bad, unlike most other topologies. In any case, there are a few transistor and tube push-pull amps I'd be happy to have. I just don't need them right now.
The Cary 805 does, by the way, kind of sound like it tests. Not entirely. The test suggests a behavior and that behavior can be more or less heard. But under dynamic conditions into real speakers, there are bigger variables. In any case, my 845 amps sound appreciably better, certainly more accurate, and yes, they produce their power. These are among the reasons I own them and do not own Carys. Note however that the Carys are very well built.
Nevertheless, it's well known that an SET amp has its imperfections. They are just aren't amusical, a problem suffered by a variety of ruler-flat components. Every electronics designer knows this. They simply elect to use a topology that balances the imperfect factors to produce the best semblance of actual music sounds. SET has been embraced once again by some of the most talented and aware designers in audio. It needs no defense.
You will notice that the MC1201 square wave performance measured virtually perfect in the Stereophile test, which I recall as being your chief criticism of autoformer amps. It's frequency response at 8 ohms, where I'd be using it if I had a pair, is fine, only showing significant softening at 2 ohms as expected. Anyway, it's a great amp. You should listen to a pair (or more).
"Rich" in the case of the Denon does not imply a fixed EQ correction, it describes the cartridge's ability to reveal and extract information. Its information density is exemplary. It's frequency response is not rolled off. It's superior to CD, for that matter, if the info is in the vinyl.
I respect Bob Stuart's engineering acumen. Unfortunately, his speakers are sounding worse. Knowledge and application are different things. He'd get better results if both coincided. Nevertheless, I grant that his contributions to digital, acoustic and waveform understanding have been significant in hifi, and others have benefitted to the point of getting better results than he has lately.
Yes, an MC system is subverted by multiple drivers and certainly by crossovers, multipled over multiple loudspeakers -- and then further drained of fidelity by processing. If you are simulating multi-channel through a 2C system, then number of drivers becomes moot over 2C, but the processing remains a problem. If you are adding discrete channels, you can't get away from the deleterious effects of multiplying the instance of the speakers you've chosen. I've accepted that my single FRD Druids have a purity that the dual FRD Definitions give up a trace, in order to deliver more scale and definition. That's why I have both. I surely wouldn't want to multiply that small compromise further with an MC implementation. If you can't hear this problem, well...sorry.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I like the SF Amati, but they never made my list. You have in any case acquired data, but you haven't organized it into knowledge. If you like MC, that's your call. I have no issue with that. You asked originally what other people think. But don't try to sell the illusion that you like MC because of some "education" foundation about audio. So far, you're making all the mistakes typical of newbies who have amassed data without deriving understanding. Good luck with that.
Phil |
