"Rock/Pop" MultiChannel shining in Stereo

[Kal Rubinson]

22 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

It would seem that any benefit to downmixing from MCH to 2 channel compared to a straight 2 channel recording would be in mastering.

I do not see any benefit to downmixing from MCH to 2 channel compared to straight 2 channel recording.

 

24 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Any multi-miked recording is by definition MCH, and is downmixed by a mastering engineer.

Right, in theory, but we are dealing with the results of that, of necessity.

 

25 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

By downmixing at home I might gain a bit of a control over the process, but personally I don't want the extra work. I'd rather an experienced professional do this for me

Me, too!!!

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

I was stunned for a while with the question before realizing that almost 99.99% of my fav are from cinema soundtrack meant to be played with Dolby. Even a simple song will have have an orchestra music incorporated in them. They are made for multichannel playback and often incorporate higher technology such as Auro.

Yeah, I am certain that most of my DVD/BDs are dts but a significant number are undoubtedly Dolby.

 

OTOH, that's not what I think of as music. ?

[STC]

31 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yeah, I am certain that most of my DVD/BDs are dts but a significant number are undoubtedly Dolby.

 

OTOH, that's not what I think of as music. ?

 

The multichannel music from SACD still meant to play in the standard multichannel speakers layout. From the technical point, the recording method is still similar.

 

Unless you have an orchestra or musician that playing around the listener, most multichannel music recording only contains the ambience and there is hardly any HF there. 

 

As I listened to songs made for cinema surround playback, the audio CDs are the down mixed of multichannel tracks. It always interesting to experience to compare the DVD multichannel tracks and stereo in my system. 

 

I am not sure how OP is down mixing the discrete multichannel music as the rear ambience surround is meant to be ignored or attenuated quite a bit.

 

In my case, it is easier since they are in Dolby or  DTS but for discrete multichannel album from SACD or 2L, the down mixing is often by ignoring the rear surround and splitting the center channel by attenauting by around 3dB. 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, STC said:

The multichannel music from SACD still meant to play in the standard multichannel speakers layout. .................................................

......................I am not sure how OP is down mixing the discrete multichannel music as the rear ambience surround is meant to be ignored or attenuated quite a bit.

 

In my case, it is easier since they are in Dolby or  DTS but for discrete multichannel album from SACD or 2L, the down mixing is often by ignoring the rear surround and splitting the center channel by attenauting by around 3dB. 

That is what I have been saying.  There is no mix-standard.  

N.B.:  Most classical SACDs do have only ambiance in the rear channels but certainly not all and, in specific, not 2L.

[Rocky Bennett]

On 12/1/2018 at 6:53 AM, Le Concombre Masqué said:

There's Nyquist, there's the actual bandwidth limited range in relation with the actual microphones range and arguments for 192 helping reconstructing transients.

 

However there might be a better argument for using even more space disk : multichannel even for stereo. I'm convinced that what I discovered with MCH Electric Ladyland goes far beyond eventual differences in remastering talents or marketing strategies (Bernie Grundman signs the Stereo that is soso while Eddie Kramer signs the MCH ; the latter supervised the gorgeous Mono LP Axis signed by the former who delivers a soso Mono Mix in the recent SACD where the Stereo shines...).

 

Fact is MCH is more than 2.5 x heavier than the Stereo and I bet it's better use of space than 192 vs 96. Maybe it is also due to LFE and engineers daring to go deep low but MCH downfolded into Stereo via HQP offers aural sculptures of the bass line and of the kick drum that are really reminiscent of live gigs impressions. Even soundstage is deeper that what I'm accustomed to.

 

I'm thus starting a journey into MCH (to be played on my stereo) and suggestions and comments are welcome. As of Rock/Pop I start with https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/TabbedPollChart.htm

 

 

This does sound like an odd idea. I own approx. 950 surround sound SACDs and Blu Ray Audio discs and there might be one or two in my collection that has equal energy output into all 5 speakers. But that is not the problem. I have down mixed many discs (several hundred) on different systems to see what they sound like and they all sound wonky. Chicago, Blood, Sweat and Tears, America etc. etc. all have a wonky sound when you down mix a surround sound disc to two channels. (DO NOT TRY THIS WITH THE CARPENTERS.) The reverb and the acoustics of a surround sound disc does not translate too well to a two channel reproduction. This is an idea best left to the side of the road for kids to play with.

 

[Rocky Bennett]

 

This does sound like an odd idea. I own approx. 950 surround sound SACDs and Blu Ray Audio discs and there might be one or two in my collection that has equal energy output into all 5 speakers. But that is not the problem. I have down mixed many discs (several hundred) on different systems to see what they sound like and they all sound wonky. Chicago, Blood, Sweat and Tears, America etc. etc. all have a wonky sound when you down mix a surround sound disc to two channels. (DO NOT TRY THIS WITH THE CARPENTERS.) The reverb and the acoustics of a surround sound disc does not translate too well to a two channel reproduction. This is an idea best left to the side of the road for kids to play with.

[ARQuint]

3 hours ago, Rocky Bennett said:

 

This does sound like an odd idea. I own approx. 950 surround sound SACDs and Blu Ray Audio discs and there might be one or two in my collection that has equal energy output into all 5 speakers. But that is not the problem. I have down mixed many discs (several hundred) on different systems to see what they sound like and they all sound wonky. Chicago, Blood, Sweat and Tears, America etc. etc. all have a wonky sound when you down mix a surround sound disc to two channels. (DO NOT TRY THIS WITH THE CARPENTERS.) The reverb and the acoustics of a surround sound disc does not translate too well to a two channel reproduction. This is an idea best left to the side of the road for kids to play with. 

And if this is the case with pop and rock, you can imagine the effect with classical multichannel, where the whole idea is to represent a specific acoustic space and a specific recorded perspective (close-up vs. mid-hall, etc). Down-mixing multichannel programs will usually get you something that no one on the artistic or engineering side intended. That's what the stereo version is there for!

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[shtf]

On 12/1/2018 at 5:53 AM, Le Concombre Masqué said:

There's Nyquist, there's the actual bandwidth limited range in relation with the actual microphones range and arguments for 192 helping reconstructing transients.

 

However there might be a better argument for using even more space disk : multichannel even for stereo. I'm convinced that what I discovered with MCH Electric Ladyland goes far beyond eventual differences in remastering talents or marketing strategies (Bernie Grundman signs the Stereo that is soso while Eddie Kramer signs the MCH ; the latter supervised the gorgeous Mono LP Axis signed by the former who delivers a soso Mono Mix in the recent SACD where the Stereo shines...).

 

Fact is MCH is more than 2.5 x heavier than the Stereo and I bet it's better use of space than 192 vs 96. Maybe it is also due to LFE and engineers daring to go deep low but MCH downfolded into Stereo via HQP offers aural sculptures of the bass line and of the kick drum that are really reminiscent of live gigs impressions. Even soundstage is deeper that what I'm accustomed to.

 

I'm thus starting a journey into MCH (to be played on my stereo) and suggestions and comments are welcome. As of Rock/Pop I start with https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/TabbedPollChart.htm

 

 

 

 

There's one premise that is overlooked by perhaps every MCH enthusiast as well as perhaps every other type of enthusiast.  Which is, the amount of music information that remains audible at the output i.e. speaker is perhaps only 40 - 60% of all the music info embedded in a given recording and read / retrieved for processing.  In other words, distortions generated along the processing of the input signal raise the overall noise floor of a given playback system so that only a percentage of the music info retrieved and processed remains audible at the speaker.

 

This would explain why a hi-rez format say 24/192 are most always only marginally better than Redbook CD while some even claim there is little or no difference.  Because it's a percentage thing.  If say the music info from a single pluck of a guitar string consumed 1MB in Redbook CD format and a hi-rez version consumed 2MB or even 3MB, any audible difference between the two formats remains somewhat negligable because 50% of a single music note remaining audible at the speaker is 50% regardless of the format.

 

This is why it's impossible for the highly questionable MQA format to come even remotely close to producing music "just as the engineers heard in the studio".

 

This perhaps also explains why many who already went down the MCH path years ago gave up on it.  Multi-channel may generate a sound phenomena to the listener but it did nothing to actually provide a higher resolution of musicality.  It was and is just a fun phenomena that is at best no more accurate than 2-ch stereo.

 

Dare I say this also explais why Redbook CD really is sufficient enough for even the most discrinating ear.

 

As for down-mixing MCH info into 2-ch stereo, this would only seem to generate even more of a phemomena than actual MCH.  Regardless, any form of MCH  in and of itself simply cannot translate into a higher resolution presentation or greater sound quality than simple 2-ch for the very reason MCH does zero (think MQA) to lower the noise floor of a given system such that a greater percentage of the music info retrieved remains audible at the speaker. 

 

You asked for suggestions and comments.  My suggestion is, if you're after a sound quality consisting of a fun phenomena only that has very litte to do with improved levels of musicality, you're already on the right path.  If on the other hand, you seek improved levels of musicality that inch your way closer to the live performance or the absolute sound, your money and time would be best spent elsewhere.

 

 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, shtf said:

 

There's one premise that is overlooked by perhaps every MCH enthusiast as well as perhaps every other type of enthusiast.  Which is, the amount of music information that remains audible at the output i.e. speaker is perhaps only 40 - 60% of all the music info embedded in a given recording and read / retrieved for processing.  In other words, distortions generated along the processing of the input signal raise the overall noise floor of a given playback system so that only a percentage of the music info retrieved and processed remains audible at the speaker.

 

This would explain why a hi-rez format say 24/192 are most always only marginally better than Redbook CD while some even claim there is little or no difference.  Because it's a percentage thing.  If say the music info from a single pluck of a guitar string consumed 1MB in Redbook CD format and a hi-rez version consumed 2MB or even 3MB, any audible difference between the two formats remains somewhat negligable because 50% of a single music note remaining audible at the speaker is 50% regardless of the format.

 

This is why it's impossible for the highly questionable MQA format to come even remotely close to producing music "just as the engineers heard in the studio".

 

This perhaps also explains why many who already went down the MCH path years ago gave up on it.  Multi-channel may generate a sound phenomena to the listener but it did nothing to actually provide a higher resolution of musicality.  It was and is just a fun phenomena that is at best no more accurate than 2-ch stereo.

 

Dare I say this also explais why Redbook CD really is sufficient enough for even the most discrinating ear.

 

As for down-mixing MCH info into 2-ch stereo, this would only seem to generate even more of a phemomena than actual MCH.  Regardless, any form of MCH  in and of itself simply cannot translate into a higher resolution presentation or greater sound quality than simple 2-ch for the very reason MCH does zero (think MQA) to lower the noise floor of a given system such that a greater percentage of the music info retrieved remains audible at the speaker. 

 

You asked for suggestions and comments.  My suggestion is, if you're after a sound quality consisting of a fun phenomena only that has very litte to do with improved levels of musicality, you're already on the right path.  If on the other hand, you seek improved levels of musicality that inch your way closer to the live performance or the absolute sound, your money and time would be best spent elsewhere.

 

 

Your premise on percentages doesn't make sense to me.  Until the speaker very little noise is added at all.  Certainly you aren't losings some tens of percent.  Even the speaker if of decent quality isn't losing much.  5% or less I would say.  So I think you are looking at 90% or more getting thru to the air in the room.  

 

Your 50% being 50% regardless of resolution also seems like an idea that doesn't float.  50% of redbook is less than 50% of 192 if 192 really matters.  

 

Stereo vs MCH, stereo has some inherent limitations.  I agree with Kal downmixing to stereo is always a negative.  Even of poorly done MCH.  MCH can in fact be of much better resolution than the finest stereo because of limitations of stereo reproduction inherent in only using 2 channels.  To think otherwise is bizarre.  

[Le Concombre Masqué]

My guess is that there's a much better encoding of the LF/the LF extending instruments when downmixing 5.1. Anyway, what I hear is a much better delineation and impact of the bass lines, kick drum included.

[ARQuint]

4 hours ago, shtf said:

 

As for down-mixing MCH info into 2-ch stereo, this would only seem to generate even more of a phemomena than actual MCH.  Regardless, any form of MCH  in and of itself simply cannot translate into a higher resolution presentation or greater sound quality than simple 2-ch for the very reason MCH does zero (think MQA) to lower the noise floor of a given system such that a greater percentage of the music info retrieved remains audible at the speaker. 

 

You asked for suggestions and comments.  My suggestion is, if you're after a sound quality consisting of a fun phenomena only that has very litte to do with improved levels of musicality, you're already on the right path.  If on the other hand, you seek improved levels of musicality that inch your way closer to the live performance or the absolute sound, your money and time would be best spent elsewhere. 

 

 

This is, I think, a highly confused point of view, as "resolution," as it is generally understood to mean in an audio context (24-bit vs. 16-bit, 96kHz vs. 44.1kHz, etc) has nothing to do with the most apparent advantages of multichannel. In fact, MCh has a profound "democratizing" effect: although pretty much all modern multichannel recordings happen to be offered in high-resolution formats, that's not what makes them appealing, in terms of their musical merits.

 

Limiting the discussion to classical and some jazz for now, the chief purpose of surround sound is to more accurately characterize the space in which the recording was made and the deployment of the musicians as they performed. Depending on the recorded perspective, one also can get a sense of music in the air between the listening position and the players. These metrics can greatly increase the realism and "sense of occasion" of the performance and thus the appreciation of the musical message. You'd hear these benefits if the resolution of the MCh recording was 16/44—it happens to be the case that modern surround sound exploits the higher data density of contemporary recording methodology, and I'm not complaining.

 

Andy Quint

 

I moderated a discussion of MCh's merits and problems with wider acceptance at this year's RMAF: Kal R and Brian Moura were the thoughtful and articulate panelists. Here's the link:

 

[shtf]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

Your premise on percentages doesn't make sense to me.  Until the speaker very little noise is added at all.  Certainly you aren't losings some tens of percent.  Even the speaker if of decent quality isn't losing much.  5% or less I would say.  So I think you are looking at 90% or more getting thru to the air in the room.  

 

Your 50% being 50% regardless of resolution also seems like an idea that doesn't float.  50% of redbook is less than 50% of 192 if 192 really matters.  

 

Stereo vs MCH, stereo has some inherent limitations.  I agree with Kal downmixing to stereo is always a negative.  Even of poorly done MCH.  MCH can in fact be of much better resolution than the finest stereo because of limitations of stereo reproduction inherent in only using 2 channels.  To think otherwise is bizarre.  

 

Perhaps you think it bizarre because you're unable to fathom that as in my example of the arbitrary 50% remains 50% regardless of format content volume.  

 

How bizarre is to conceive that an arbitrary 50% of the music info of single guitar note remaining audible at the speaker is still 50% of a single guitar note regardless of format content volume?  That is so long as the distortions induced along the input signal processing path remain unchanged.

 

Why is that bizarre?  Throw in an superior pair of interconnects and speaker cables and maybe that arbitrary 50% audibility changes to 54 or 55% remaining audible at the speaker.  Add superior line conditioning and maybe it’s now 66 or 67%.  Or if per chance the replacement is inferior, maybe that arbitrary 50% remaining audible drops to 47 or 46%.

 

If an actual improvement occurs in a system, what exactly do you think is happening to generate that improvement?  I’m reminded of a poli-sci professor who said on the first day of class, “IMO, you’re all A students – and it’s all downhill from here.”  Some of us laughed while others expressed their confusion or concern.  I could easily say the same thing of a transistor radio or SOTA-level playback system.  They are all 100% accurate – until you turn them on and push play.

 

You say my premise makes no sense and is bizarre, yet you, using my same grading example, then say you believe roughly 90% of the input signal retains its fidelity all the way to the speaker.  Although you are far from alone in your thinking, there certainly is no evidence to support such a high percentage.  I think of one gent calling himself the audio expert who claims all cables and all components retain 100% of the input signal's fidelity.  If there was any truth to such claims, perhaps aside from proper speaker positioning, then there would be very few, if any improvements remaining to be made to any playback system.  Comments in perhaps any high-end audio forum would suggest the contrary is true.  That some form of improvement may be found under perhaps every corner of the carpet.

 

Moreover, if one is intimately familiar with live music and playback music it is not uncommon for them to also realize the rather large gulf that separates the two, even with today's state-of-the-art level playback systems.

 

For example.  Back in a more innocent age:

 

1.  Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound stated in the Mar/Apr 2009 issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm so that much of the music never makes it to the recording."  Paraphrased.  Harley went on to explain that his premise was based on a somewhat silly experiment conducted by Ed Meitner and it was Meitner who actually came to this conclusion and Harley I suppose just went along for the ride.  Meitner (and Harley) was just wrong about the cause but Harley was accurate when he used the word catastrophic to describe the effects.

 

2.  About a year earlier, Jonathan Valin, senior editor of The Absolute Sound wrote, "We are lucky if even our very best playback systems are able to capture 15% of the magic of the live performance."  Paraphrased.  I've known a few who not only agreed with Valin’s statement but went further to say 15% was perhaps a bit too optimistic.  BTW, I translate magic to believability.

 

If you think my premise of an arbitrary 50% remaining audible is bizarre, then what is your explanation for various improvements you read that others encounter or perhaps even you encountered?  Or the only-marginal sonic differences between Redbook CD and hi-rez?  Or why the supposed "hi-rez" MQA format has fallen on its face when compared to its introductory out-of-this-world performance claims?  Why even today some 18 years after the introduction of hi-rez formats, few if any in a high-end audio forum would bat an eye if somebody opened a new thread asking something like, "Is there a sonic difference between Redbook CD and hi-rez?".

 

You say MCH is a much better resolution that 2-ch because of the inherent limitations of 2-ch.  Again, there can exist a 5.1 channel recording format or even a 55.7 recording format and yes, there can be some sonic benefit to such configurations.  But 50% audibility at the speaker still remains 50% regardless of the number of channels.  Even if there’s volumes more information being processed.  So I understand there’s a hint of truth to this claim but resolution is definitely not the right word to use. 

 

Besides, who could possibly make such a claim and maintain credibility?  Meitner?  Harley?  Valin?  IOW, if nobody was even aware that there’s far more music info embedded in a given recording than what we hear at the speaker, how could anybody know the type of presentation a well-thought-out 2-ch system is truly capable of reproducing? 

 

BTW, my premise of accurately retrieving 100% of the music info embedded in a recording but due to distortions inducing a much raised noise floors with only percentages of the original input signal remaining audible at the speaker can explain nearly every last deficiency, known and unknown, in high-end audio.  In fact, it is because of this very premise that immediately after first reading about MQA and its outlandish performance claims 4 years ago that I went out to several forums warning others that MQA was a hoax and a fraud and that it was impossible for MQA (or any format) to come even remotely close to their early performance claims.  I’ve yet to hear an MQA recording and my warning 4 years ago is as valid today as it was then.

 

Again, although my percentages are a bit arbitrary this is why hi-rez formats (regardless of format content volume) and why more channels like multi-channel actually do little or even nothing to improve real sound quality or get us closer to the live performance.

[Ralf11]

the real issue is whether you think you can do a better job at home, than the mastering engineer did at the console

 

"So you need to ask yourself 'Do I feel lucky today?'"

"Well, do ya?"

[Kal Rubinson]

 

11 hours ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

My guess is that there's a much better encoding of the LF/the LF extending instruments when downmixing 5.1. Anyway, what I hear is a much better delineation and impact of the bass lines, kick drum included.

First, for acoustic recordings of classical and jazz performances, there is rarely a .1 track for LFE.  When there is, however, one faces the challenge of integrating it with the other channels since is it already a mix of what should be in the other channels.

[Kal Rubinson]

31 minutes ago, shtf said:

Perhaps you think it bizarre because you're unable to fathom that as in my example of the arbitrary 50% remains 50% regardless of format content volume.  

I find it bizarre that I cannot fathom anything logical, not arbitrary and/or relevant from your posts on this topic.  

[shtf]

4 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I find it bizarre that I cannot fathom anything logical, not arbitrary and/or relevant from your posts on this topic.  

 

Of course you can't, Kal.  After all you're an expert on MCH.

 

BTW, how's your magazine's staff holding up on the fight for MQA?

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

BTW, my premise of accurately retrieving 100% of the music info embedded in a recording but due to distortions inducing a much raised noise floors with only percentages of the original input signal remaining audible at the speaker can explain nearly every last deficiency, known and unknown, in high-end audio.

 

 

Spot on. I often find it hilarious how ambitious, expensive rigs make a complete mess of some of my 'test' recordings - talk about remastering!! They turn the distinctive qualities of a specific recording into a contorted caricature, designed to satisfy the expectations of the particular proud owner - everyone's a mastering engineer ...

 

Ummm, a selection of competent rigs should all produce the same result - that which is what's on the recording.

[STC]

36 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

First, for acoustic recordings of classical and jazz performances, there is rarely a .1 track for LFE.  When there is, however, one faces the challenge of integrating it with the other channels since is it already a mix of what should be in the other channels.

 

LFE channel is a dedicated channel intended for movies. A true 0.1 channel will have a difference level of LF to create the effect which is often as high 10 dB more than the level reproduced in normal recordings. 

 

For music, the LFE channel is used differently by using bass management to filter the LF of all the 5 plus subwoofer channel to the subwoofer. This provides slight advantage to audiophile where the can adjust the LF level to their taste and to address room acoustics problem. 

 

We will understand both POVs better if you share how the multichannel system was setup for musical playback . Both could be correct depending on how their system was configured. 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

54 minutes ago, STC said:

LFE channel is a dedicated channel intended for movies. A true 0.1 channel will have a difference level of LF to create the effect which is often as high 10 dB more than the level reproduced in normal recordings. 

Agreed.  For movies.

 

54 minutes ago, STC said:

For music, the LFE channel is used differently by using bass management to filter the LF of all the 5 plus subwoofer channel to the subwoofer. This provides slight advantage to audiophile where the can adjust the LF level to their taste and to address room acoustics problem. 

"Slight advantage" is generous.  There is no reason to provide an LFE channel for a music recording.  Any competent multichannel system should have a competent facility for bass management to route LF to the subwoofer channel and to be applied to meet the exact needs of any particular sound system.

 

54 minutes ago, STC said:

We will understand both POVs better if you share how the multichannel system was setup for musical playback . Both could be correct depending on how their system was configured. 

I am not exactly what you want to know.   Can you be more explicit please?

[STC]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Agreed.  For movies.

 

"Slight advantage" is generous.  There is no reason to provide an LFE channel for a music recording.  Any competent multichannel system should have a competent facility for bass management to route LF to the subwoofer channel and to be applied to meet the exact needs of any particular sound system.

 

I am not exactly what you want to know.   Can you be more explicit please?

 

LFE and subwoofer channel are not the same. .1 for SACD is a dedicated discrete channel that is specially used to route the LF(not LFE)  of the musical contents to the subwoofer. Most audiophiles also do the same with the stereo system with subwoofer.

 

For most users, the multichannel setup is based on 5.1 home theatre configuration. Technically, in such system, the typical multichannel music album of SACD will not sound correct to people who pursue the highest fidelity. That is not to say they will not sound perfect but it takes a great effort and money to reach there. Ideally, a best multichannel SACD will sound best with identical five speakers. At least, that's how it was originally marketed in the early years. 

 

You are right that LFE is not need for music. However, for music point 1 channel is not LFE but LF. This subwoofer channel will help to increase the clarity of the music when setup correctly compared to the LF in stereo of the same. In OP's case, he may prefer the setup of the mixed down 5.1 format because he is comparing a stereo version with a mixed-down stereo version. The most obvious difference here will be the LF content in the mixed-down version. 

 

Furthermore, it looks like he is also mixing the surround channels to the front (the screenshot is not clear). It will sound different but I cannot comment on that until I get a clear screenshot and how the rear directional information will sound in his room when played form the front speakers. It may sound more denser and  depending on his room acoustics this could enhance the sound.

 

p.s. Isn't it  a myth to think that a multichannel SACD actually contains 6 DSD channel?. AFAIK, multichannel SACD is compressed by about 3 to 1.  

[Kal Rubinson]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

LFE and subwoofer channel are not the same.

Exactly.  That is why I underscored the terms.

 

24 minutes ago, STC said:

Ideally, a best multichannel SACD will sound best with identical five speakers. At least, that's how it was originally marketed in the early years. 

That is still the best configuration if the main speakers can handle the load.

 

26 minutes ago, STC said:

However, for music point 1 channel is not LFE but LF. This subwoofer channel will help to increase the clarity of the music when setup correctly compared to the LF in stereo of the same. In OP's case, he may prefer the setup of the mixed down 5.1 format because he is comparing a stereo version with a mixed-down stereo version. The most obvious difference here will be the LF content in the mixed-down version. 

That depends on how the producer constructed the channels.  First, for music, any sort of 0.1 channel is rare and that is fortunate.  Second, when it is present, it can be bass managed or it can be redundant but supportive.  The former is unfortunate since bass management should be done on-site and customised to the individual system.  The latter is unnecessary but it can be used or it can be ignored.  

31 minutes ago, STC said:

Furthermore, it looks like he is also mixing the surround channels to the front (the screenshot is not clear). It will sound different but I cannot comment on that until I get a clear screenshot and how the rear directional information will sound in his room when played form the front speakers. It may sound more denser and  depending on his room acoustics this could enhance the sound.

Anything's possible.

 

31 minutes ago, STC said:

p.s. Isn't it  a myth to think that a multichannel SACD actually contains 6 DSD channel?. AFAIK, multichannel SACD is compressed by about 3 to 1.  

It can actually contain 6 DSD channels.  For example, there are 2+2+2 recordings and there are also some Telarcs where the LFE channel has LFE  plus a height channel. 

[STC]

31 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

It can actually contain 6 DSD channels.  For example, there are 2+2+2 recordings and there are also some Telarcs where the LFE channel has LFE  plus a height channel. 

 

It does but for playback they are still compressed although it claims to be lossless compression. Whatever it means. Unless the surround format contain object based channels, I doubt you would really need DSD or anything more than 44.1hHz for the surround channels.

 

Some old stereo recording  deliberately route different instruments to the surround channel to give music orginates from different direction. For this maybe Dolby truHD ot SACD multichannel might be useful. I still prefer music to orginates from the frontal stage only and ambience around me. That's a whole new topic.  

[Kal Rubinson]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

It does but for playback they are still compressed although it claims to be lossless compression.

AFAIK, DST is lossless.

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Whatever it means. Unless the surround format contain object based channels, I doubt you would really need DSD or anything more than 44.1hHz for the surround channels.

That is debatable.  If only used for ambiance, the surround channels certainly do not need the high resolution of DSD but using PCM would result in a strange chimera if the main channels are DSD.

 

15 minutes ago, STC said:

Some old stereo recording  deliberately route different instruments to the surround channel to give music orginates from different direction.

Not stereo at all but there are a few such recordings that I enjoy but not for a steady diet.

 

16 minutes ago, STC said:

I still prefer music to orginates from the frontal stage only and ambience around me. That's a whole new topic.  

Fully agree.

[STC]

43 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

AFAIK, DST is lossless.

 

 

You are correct. If I remember correctly the information in the SACD is DST format which will be unwrapped later.

 

43 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

That is debatable.  If only used for ambiance, the surround channels certainly do not need the high resolution of DSD but using PCM would result in a strange chimera if the main channels are DSD.

 

 

There was a  thread where they compared Dolby Digital and Dolby TrueHD and apparently couldn't tell the difference.

 

43 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

Not stereo at all but there are a few such recordings that I enjoy but not for a steady diet.

 

 

I have less experience in this. I confine myself to 2L multichannel and stereo for comparisons. During the early stage of SACD, I remeber reading that when they remastered for the SACD, it was easier for them to assign different instruments to other channels since most of the orginal recording probabaly contatained some mono tracks. 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

23 minutes ago, STC said:

I confine myself to 2L multichannel and stereo for comparisons. During the early stage of SACD, I remeber reading that when they remastered for the SACD, it was easier for them to assign different instruments to other channels since most of the orginal recording probabaly contatained some mono tracks. 

2L is partial to fairly immersive mixes and are not typical of most classical labels.