MultiChannel demos

[bonzo]

Had Quad 5.1 Mch demos today, 2905 L and R, 2805 centre, ATC actives rears. Oppo 105D source, a Denon processor, a B&K sub (that wasn't a good match IMO). Musical fidelity monos firing each front channel.

The guy has been going to classical concerts for 50 years. He doesn't want to spend much. Averages 3 concerts a week now as he is retired, ask him about any conductor, SACD, pentatone, channel classics, etc and out pops the answer like a computer.

No doubt that Mch is producing a more realistic sound, a better concert hall ambience, more soundstage, 3d and more detail than 2-channel systems I have heard. The best was, we got to also watch some excellent blue ray concerts on the projector while the music was playing.

Claudio Abbado, playing Mahler's second on Blu ray - excellent acoustics and excellent filming. I was totally into it, he is so expressive. The orchestra was the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, which is an adhoc orchestra where he handpicks the best players from all the orchestras world over and creates an ensemble.

Also saw some parts of Carmen by the Met. If you know the Gypsy dance, the chorus and the claps/heels are so much better in Mch.

What the system lacks in is the dynamics, which is due to the Quads. They image well and are transparent and nice tone, but the dynamics are just not there. What it also cannot do is produce brass powerfully like the Anima, or tonality like the Analysis. So you can get individual things better from your preferred speaker, some of which will fit into Mch mode, some won't. Makes it easier if the preferred speaker is a Logan hybrid or a box/

 

[Bernard]

Kedar, if you are into handclaps and heels (is there a fetish there?), get "Suerte" by Abed Azrie and Pedro Aledo. It's a Spanish/Arabic disk, with flamenco dancers in the mix. A nice recording.

 

[bonzo]

Just heard from someone who owned the Apogee full range with 4 Krell monos. He now has B&W 801Ds in surround mode with JL subs. Says he gets much better bass now, though midrange and treble was purer with Apogees, but the ability for Surround to replicate classical with good SACDs cannot be matched in Stereo. His statement is interesting given he had a very high end planar and now has a so-so box

 

[User211]

Yeah but he said if he had the space and dosh he'd go back to planars.

The bass statement is interesting. I reckon Apogee bass is pretty much unrivalled. There is more definition in it than anything I have heard. Loads of weight when it is in the recording, excellent speed and good extension too. When the frames have been made rigid it just gets even better.

The problem is source material. Is there really that much that is good in 5 ch?

 

[User211]

He's also using two JL F113 sub's with his 801Ds to better the Apogee bass. He doesn't say he gets much better bass. Just better bass. I wonder what his criterion for that really is.

A mere Duetta in standard form bettered Ascents and a Descent for bass by no small margin. Not for extension but for just about every other quality.

I haven't heard JLs but they must be good LOL.

 

[bonzo]

If he had the space and dosh he would go "MCH with planars" (and yeah he did say with planars like the Analysis)

But till then, mch from lesser boxes provides better listening for classical.

Yes there is enough good classical material on mch, the guys I am talking to have around 3000 SACDs of choice.

If you listen to the datasat Dirac B&W system in Brighton, Justin, it will pale any stereo you have heard on bass, soundstage and separation. He has 4 Seaton subs, in a 7m * 3m room. And that bass is different from Stereo bass, which just keeps going lower and lower. This is correct bass, not only well below the 20s, but the cellos, bass drums, and the slam sounds right. Even an Atmos system I heard at seven Oaks with entry level B&W floorstanders for the front two did a very good job on bass. And that was only 1 B&W sub.

 

[bonzo]

Another Datasat system I heard, he showed me a movie clip. The bullets were flying about at differing speeds, degrees of loudness and frequencies. There were bombs going off at different levels. The scene culminated with one final loud explosion. What he wanted to demonstrate was bass control. I could feel all the bullets and explosions going about as if a conductor was directing them. The control of volume, of the feel I got due to the bass, was awesome. The thing is, that bass control can be translated to music

 

[User211]

Here's a bit of what he said in a quote "I had a better room and better electronics setup with my big Apogees than I currently have with the B&W801Ds. I think the sound and transparency of the Apogee system was incredible. I was using 4 Krell mono blocks (KMA160) to actively bi-amp the full range Apogees. I currently drive the B&W801Ds and HTM1D center with a Krell EV403 amp. While I feel that I get batter bass now (also using 2 JL F113 subs) than with the Apogees, the midrange and treble were purer via the panels. I don't know how I could match many surround and center speakers to those panels!"

Kedar I agree MCH classical is probably way better than 2 channel.

I also agree for outstanding bass extension and weight on movies and also for outright volume dynamic bass drivers are the way to go.

I do not agree the Analysis Omega is anywhere near as good as my current speakers for my tastes. Your as bad a me - lock onto a good thing and you can't stop going on about it

 

[bonzo]

That said, the potential of multichannel classical music on SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray to replicate the sound of a symphony orchestra surpasses that of stereo. Of course, not all multichannel recordings are done well, ruining the effect rather than enhancing it. Many of the Channel Classics and Pentatone label recordings on SACD have orchestral sound that stereo just can't touch. Even listening to the old RCA Living Stereo recordings on SACD, where all of the 3 original channels are presented, allows you to hear these performances much more clearly in my opinion. The same goes for the SACD Living Presence Mercurys.

Overall, I couldn't go back to "just stereo", when multichannel is available in good quality. If you listen to one of the great 2L recordings on Blu-ray, I think you'll understand (even though these are more SURROUND than normal, the sound quality is so high).

I hope these comments help. In an ideal world, if I had the room and the $$$, I would choose a multichannel system using big planers (maybe Analysis, maybe Genesis G2Jrs, etc.).akes sense to post the rest of his message then.

 

[Gordon Gray]

The problem is source material. Is there really that much that is good in 5 ch?

Justin,

In the classical realm, Pentatone and Channel Classics have numerous offerings. And my experience, playing in two channel SACD, is outstanding.

Hoping my final MBL system will be muti-channel. But with a pair of 101's as the main speakers, not sure if I will pursue.

Gordon

 

[bonzo]

Justin,

In the classical realm, Pentatone and Channel Classics have numerous offerings. And my experience, playing in two channel SACD, is outstanding.

Hoping my final MBL system will be muti-channel. But with a pair of 101's as the main speakers, not sure if I will pursue.

Gordon

Gordon, at a recent show, I think Newport, they played an MBL Multichannel. I have zero doubt that having smaller MBLs (116fs) in Mch will sound better than having larger ones in 2ch. Ditto for any other brand. Mch creates better soundstage, details, ambience, and realism than any 2-ch can. The benefit of 2-ch is that not all our 2-ch speakers can be extended to Mch, so we can lose some preferred tonality, and Mch processors are not as good as 2-ch preamps. Ideally if one's favorite brand in 2-ch was one easily extendable to Mch (like B&W, which is found cheap in the used market), then one could team the two.

Also, regarding SACDs, all Mch people I have been in touch with have around 3000 SACDs in classical. Enough for a lifetime