Steve Schwartz asked:
>1. How big a room do I need for surround-sound speaker placement?
As I'm sure you noticed, I addressed this a bit in a previous message.
The bottom line is that I think just about any room size can be
accommodated without a lot of difficulty.
>2. How much equipment, other than three more speakers (I already have a
>subwoofer) do I need, and how much will I have to pay?
I discussed the budget side of setting up from scratch previously, but
most people obviously have stereo equipment already, and many probably
won't be ready for a complete revamp. If you already have separates (i.e.,
a LP/CD/DVD player, a preamplifier, a power amplifier, and a pair of
speakers, and if you'd like to keep all your existing equipment, that won't
be practical (possible, but not necessary). In the minimum case, only your
preamp will have to change. You can buy a surround processor/controller
(preamp), a three-channel amp (yes, there are a few) or three mono-blocks,
three speakers, cables, and you're off. Surround processors are just
multi-channel preamps with digital connections for things like CD players,
DVD players, etc. These processors start about $600 and go up from there
to something like the cost-no-object Meridian 861 surround processor that
accepts cards to be plugged in for different configurations (and future
features) but will set you back $12,000+ with a compliment of option cards.
It should be noted that these processors generally also include video
switching so they can act as the central controller of a stereo/surround
A/V system switching between CD, satellite TV, cable, DVD, VHS, etc. One
of the tricky aspects of adding to an existing system is matching the
timbre of the new speakers to your existing pair. A little more about
this in a minute.
My path to get to my current system was incremental. I started out a
couple of years ago with the intent to replace my main speakers, which
are now 17 years old. As I started to audition new speakers I realized
that the $3-4k I had allotted to this would not get me speakers as good
as the current ones used to sound. I found a local hi-end shop that took
a limited number of rebuild assignments of this type. It took four months
but they completely rewired them, adding new crossovers and Infinity
replacement drivers all around. This cost me only $800, so I had some
budget left over. I had been using a hand-me-down Yamaha receiver and a
small pair of B&Ws as surrounds with a Polk center, but only for TV and
movies. For music I was just using my Carver amp with an old Accuphase
preamp. Pro Logic and the surround modes the Yamaha offered just weren't
right for music.
The next component I bought was the Onkyo A/V receiver. It has five
channels of amplification at about 100 watts, but I found (as I had in
the past) that this was no match for my Infinities. These speakers use
an acoustic suspension design and therefore are incredible power hogs, so
I eventually brought back my Carver amplifier for the two main speakers.
This left the receiver driving just the center and surround speakers. It
was quickly apparent with the new receiver and it's ability to do discrete
multi-channel sound, my old center and surround speakers were no longer
appropriate.
I should say that the auditioning process can be very important to
finding the right components to build a good system, and part of this
process should be listening to the same set of favorite recordings in
each iteration. Along with a handful of rock and jazz titles, I made sure
I always had Pollini playing Chopin on DG, Browning playing Liszt on Delos,
orchestral and wind band recordings from Reference, some chamber music -
you get the idea. Systems that are good at reproducing orchestral sound
may not excel at piano sound, or voices, so it's important to use a sample
of music the represents the breadth of your listening.
I spent the next three months auditioning new center speakers, and had
a great deal of trouble with this step. Those Infinities have always
sounded great by themselves, creating a surprisingly good stereo image
in often less than ideal situations. I tried a number of conventional
speakers, and while they were fine, they just didn't come close to
matching the Infinities in terms of sensitivity, timbre, range, etc.
Then one of the salesmen who had been helping at one store recommended
that I try Martin Logan. These speakers are hybrids using a combination
of traditional and electrostatic speaker drivers
(http://www.martinlogan.com/). The Infinity speakers are also a hybrid
design using a combination of traditional and EMIT (Electro-Magnetic
Induction Tweeter, http://www.bobbyshred.com/infinity/emit.html) speaker
drivers. As it turns out, the Martin Logan speakers were a near perfect
match for my Infinities. If I have been starting from scratch, however,
I would surely have looked hard at a complete speaker system as I would
have been able to avoid all of this searching for compatible speakers.
Art Scott quite reasonably points out:
>Dave's review of the current situation re multichannel & new formats
>is comprehensive and helpful in making some sense of the very confusing
>situation. But what it mainly does for me is to reinforce my decision to
>stay on the sidelines and stick with CD (and, yes, LP) for now. I should
>shell out several thou to go multichannel/SACD/whatever just so I can then
>go out and buy new versions of The Four Seasons and The Planets? I don't
>think so.
I don't think so either. I tried very hard to not echo the ridiculous hype
the press has give to these formats over the past two years. In my article
I did discuss whether either SACD or DVD-A would survive, but not in depth.
It's my feeling that unless something happens to change the market
drastically, neither format will be a commercial success in the sense
the CD was. First, these are technologies that, for most of the market,
provide a solution to a problem that doesn't exist: high resolution audio.
For probably 98% of the market, CD sound is as good as they need. Heck,
it seems that for 80-90% of the market MP3 sound is good enough. And this
makes sense for boom boxes, headphones while jogging, car stereo, etc. So,
where's the market for recordings at these higher resolutions? I'm afraid
it will be limited to specialty and audiophile releases. But both formats
have flaws that make them less-than-ideal for audiophiles: no digital
interface because of RIAA paranoia, no bass management, and no distance
compensation. The bass management is being addressed, but there is no
solution on the horizon for the distance compensation problem, and does
anyone believe the RIAA and its members will come to their senses?
The popular hook for both formats is multi-channel sound, which fits in
well with the 10 million or so home theaters that have been installed in
the U.S. over the past five years. In order to maximize acceptance of
DVD-A, many of the current releases include versions that are playable on
normal DVD players as well as DVD-Audio hi-res versions. I have a handful
of DVD-As so far, and two of them include four full versions of the music:
Dolby Digital 5.1, DTS 5.1, six-channel hi-res 96kHz/24bit surround, and
two-channel hi-res at 192kHz/24bit! This is not to mention the (often
lame) video portion of the disc with lyrics, pictures, etc. All for $22
at Best Buy. The old CD version of each of these costs $12, and for new
releases it can be $17. If the labels are barely getting by (yeah, right)
at these prices for often quick-and-dirty CD masterings, how can they
possibly afford to give us four carefully-mastered audio versions, pay
for the Dolby and DTS licensing, include video content, and still hope
to stay afloat?
No, I think these are, at this point, just interesting curiosities.
One of the big advantages to these releases is that the engineer
(theoretically) pays a lot more attention to the audio quality of the
master knowing that the end result will be hi-res, and therefore highly
scrutinized. Let me give an example. One of the CDs I bought when it
was first released back in the mid-80s was Emerson, Lake & Palmer's
"Brain Salad Surgery". For those not familiar, ELP was one of the
most-classically influenced of the synthesizer-driven progressive rock
bands of 30 years ago. The first masterings of early 70s releases were
generally awful, often using the wrong equalization curve, marked by
dynamically-compressed thin, fuzzy sound and a distinct lack of bass. ELP
was the first band to produce their concerts in surround sound, so they are
excellent candidates for DVD-A treatment. Sure enough, Brain Salad Surgery
was one of the first DVD-As released. It has been uniformly praised as a
near-prefect remastering of the original audio. Forget about the hi-res
and surround aspects for a minute - the stereo version of this DVD-A is
amazing. You can hear things in the mix that had been obscured in every
other mastering. There is a depth and detail to the sound that I never
knew was there. As they produced a clean stereo version, they decided to
re-release it on CD, which is also a huge improvement over the old CD.
My point being that all this attention to detail is actually good for
the hard-core two-channel devotees among us too.
But more to the point of this list, will this sort of treatment
ever make it to the majority of the music we love. In my view: not a
chance. It's just too expensive, and the market is too small. There's a
tremendous pent-up demand for high-quality versions of some of the biggest
popular hits. But that's because so much popular music has been poorly
engineered/mastered for CD. I don't think most classical music has faired
so badly. Sure, there are awful classical recordings and masterings out
there, but most have been treated far more carefully from an engineering
prospective than has much of popular music.
Several classical labels have been using high-bit-rate mastering for
their CD releases for about a decade now. Sony uses Super Bit Mapping
(SBM) which was 20-bit at first, briefly went through a 22-bit stage, and
is now full 24-bit. Chandos, also using 20- and 24-bit mastering displays
this fact on their CD covers, as does Dorian. Deutsche Grammophon's newer
"4D" recordings are 21-bit mastered, as are the "Original Bit Masters"
used for the Originals series of re-issues. Decca has been releasing
CDs mastered at 96kHz/24-bit for their Decca Legends series of releases
(limited to Europe for now for some reason). Don't be confused though.
All of these are normal CDs encoded at 44.1kHz/16-bits, but mastering at
the higher rates and then downconverting to the CD rate as the very last
step seems to improve the sound, sometimes quite dramatically.
>Fortunately, when I feel the need to experience music with convincing hall
>ambience I can visit Davies or Herbst or, occasionally, Wigmore Hall and
>get a dose of the Real Thing.
And there is absolutely nothing like the Real Thing, convenience and cost
aside.
>I am only likely to consider a new format if and when it clearly threatens
>to sweep CD away, as CD did to the LP. Right now, the only real threat to
>supercede CD is not SACD or DVD-audio but, frighteningly, MP3 -- not a high
>fidelity medium at all!
Agreed again. If the on-line downloading of music ever starts to
seriously supplant CD sales (some would say it already has, but a one-year
5% downturn in revenue during a recession does not a trend make), we could
be in for a tough time. I don't think CDs will be going away any time
soon, but there are some ominous signs about it's long-term future. You
can argue that SACD and DVD-A are either not needed, are too expensive in
the long, and/or are just broken from a technology viewpoint.
Actually, I was not viewing my article as a proposal to abandon one format
for another. I have far too many CDs, and at 45 I can easily see myself
living with the music I have for the rest of my days. What I did want to
get across is how much more enjoyment I've received from my home audio
system - but more importantly the music I love. One area I did not go into
was the experience of listening to normal CDs through this system. The
reason I did not do this is because my experience is equipment-specific.
But on the chance this is of interest, here goes.
For over a decade now, digital signal processing (DSP) has been the
impetus behind much of the popularity behind A/V receivers. DSP allows
you to play regular stereo recording, and the circuitry creates surround
sound information in various ways. For instance, early in the game, Yamaha
had the DSP best processing out there. Back in 1987 Yamaha engineers
embarked on a sound field sampling tour that involved the meticulous setup
of a battery of carefully placed microphones. They then digitally sampled
the sound fields of Anaheim Stadium and the Roxy Theater in California; the
Village Vanguard, Village Gate and Riverside Church in New York; Orchestra
Hall in Chicago; among others. The results were used to program DSP
surround modes such as "hall", "club", "church" or "club". Though many
surround sound modes are gimmicky, and over time tedious to listen to,
there are a few out there that are quite good. My Onkyo A/V receiver
has several surround modes, one of two of which I use all the time when
listening to my CDs. One is called "5-Channel Stereo" and it extracts
information for the center and surround speakers. Likewise the "Unplugged"
mode synthesizes surround sound with the ambient and decay rates of a
small club or studio. The first is great for rock, jazz, and many
classical recordings, especially orchestral music. The second is great
for more intimate recordings of chamber music or solo piano. There is an
"Orchestra" setting, but it is so reverberant that it sounds as though they
are playing at the bottom of well. Many problems exist with such modes,
but with just about every major make, they have at least a couple of modes
that are very effective at creating multi-channel sound from normal stereo.
Two companies trying to standardize this area are (surprise) DTS, with
their NEO:6 surround processing (http://www.dtsonline.com/neo6.pdf)
and Dolby with their Pro Logic II
(http://www.dolby.com/ht/co.br.0107.PLIIListenersGuide.html) both of
which are starting to appear in new receivers.
>By the way, I concur with Dave's point that addition of a subwoofer can
>surprisingly enhance the sonic quality of classical music, *if properly
>set up*.
I think this applies to all speakers. Careful setup is necessary to get
the most out of any of these arrangements. Invest in a $40 Radio Shack
sound level meter. Setup makes a huge difference. The corssover point
on my subs was set incorrectly fo a while, causing a severe dip about
40-50Hz. A tip for future or current surround enthusiasts: if you use
THX processing, make sure your sub crossover is set well above 80Hz.
>There is also the drawback of bringing to light low
>frequency garbage missed or ignored by the recording engineers.
Ah, that there is. I've encountered a few recordings that sound much
better when I switch my subwoofers off.
Jan Templiner wrote:
>First of all, I want to thank Dave for this great article.
You are very welcome.
>I haven't heard those recordings, I don't even have a surround system
>anymore. I used to have a Dolby Pro Logic system (when I bought it, there
>was nothing else available at reasonable cost), but replaced it a month ago
>by a stereo-only system. I was distincly underwhelmed both by the titles
>available in surround and by the effect it has. I found it absolutely
>useless for classical music.
As to the musical qualities of Pro Logic, I agree completely. Pro Logic
was for movies, not for music. And pre-digital surround processing sucked
in genral. I bought a SQ surround decoder circa 1973 that also created
four channels from two in a couple of different settings. Even with my
far-less-than-perfect system, I could tell using this device for regular
stereo was a mess. Have you heard any orchestral music in DTS or Dolby
Digital surround? You may find it's a completely different experience.
>I still don't quite see the point in it, aside from some works written for
>giant forces. But those aside, does the hall ambience really add that
>much information? I would find a four speaker arrangement in front of the
>listener more useful, to project a true stage.
More speakers in front have been used. At least one recent surround scheme
used five speakers. The reason to use speakers to the side and behind as
well is that sound comes from all around, even if it originates at a point
source in front of you. But books have been written about this. for more
info on the pros and cons of surround and the importance of ambience, here
are a couple of interesting articles:
Whither Stereo in a Surround-Sound World?
http://www.chesky.com/Articles/body_library.cfm?article=technical1
Matrix Surround for Music
http://www.sonicdesign.se/matrix.htm
I have to say that though I'm enthusiastic about augmenting my existing
stereo with surround, I and not a zealot about it and realize that many
will be uninterested. If you are completely happy with your current
sound reproduction, I certainly see no reason to change it.
>... I want to ask: What do you think about the future of classical music
>in surround? Does it really add something significant or is it just
>playing around with the technology without significant improvement?
I think it has a tremendous potential in the reproduction of any complex
concert venue, especially an orchestra hall. Whether it has any future or
not, I think it will be very limited because the market will be limited for
the reasons I've given above.
>This of course all leaves away the fact that most CDs aren't particularly
>well engineered. Well recorded CDs would probably bring more advantage
>than badly recorded SACDs resp. DVD-As, leave aside the musical qualities.
Right, and thankfully many of these technologies have a trickle-down
aspect, potentially improving the mastering of regular CDs.
Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/
|