HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Very slowly and quietly during recent few months I'm starting to put together the pieces to extend my hifi system in the field of multi-channel audio.
The starting point is the fact that I have more than 100 SACD which also have a multichannel layer. This is typically multi-channel 5.0 in the case of classical music.
About two months ago I bought an Oppo BDP93 player, sice my player Arcam CD37 is striclty strereo.
For the moment I connected only 4 channels: two front stereo with the usual New Opera Quinta driven by two pairs of A80 in passive biamping, while the two rear channels speakers are the 2020i Q-acoustics, driven by an A70. Clearly I have added a box with a specific stepped attenuator for it.

Bye, Siro

The odd home cinema and multi way system I have heard (mostly in the far east) major on trying to be impressive without getting the basics right. I am a great believer in two channel stereo, I even find two channel mono perfectly acceptable on mono recordings.

We have two ears, a source of live music is in front of us (unless you are in the orchestra), so I find everything else is redundant and expensive.

Basically I think as you, especially since I listen to 90/100 classical music and opera.
On the other hand considering my main sound sources, namely the Arcam SACD player and my 2 turntables SP15 I can say that I am quite happy with the stereo sound.

But my curiosity drove me to do this test, that I face with some caution, trying to limit the economic impact, but remaining consistent with the philosophy of amplification NVA (passive + amp power). I am at half way, since I still need to select and decide how to place the center channel and subwoofer (for them I will use a pair of A40).

I would rather try to communicate some first impressions of listening, but stressing that I have a 4.0 system now, so I need to complete the system in order to say something more correct, and I need even more time to understand how to set it up. I have no illusions that it is easy and quick to solve all the problems that poses a MC system installed in a small room.

Ciao, Siro

Well, in the case of some pop-rock SACDs recently reissued in MCH (eg Pink Floyd, Genesis, Who), it must be said that the multi-channel, all in all, can be quite valuable, at least because of the effects (typical of those of "The Dark Side of the Moon" ).

Different is the case of classical music, for which the rear channels tend to have only the function to reproduce the original room effect. In some way you could say that they would try to reproduce the original listening environment. In my case of domestic listening in a small room, this effect can be quite noticeable, and sometimes makes listening a little more engaging. The question I ask myself is, however, linked to the fact that I have the impression to pay most of this engaging effect with a loss of detail in the soundstage in front of me. One resason could be that the quality of my MCH Oppo player in not at the same class of the Arcam, and this is confirmed by comparing them with a stereo program. This notwithstanding, in theory the potential of a multi-channel (much more information, essentially) should compensate for a small deficiency of quality, and so I think it is still worthwhile to strive to develop the MCH system, in particular regarding the put into operation of the center channel.

Ciao, Siro

sc_ita wrote:Well, in the case of some pop-rock SACDs recently reissued in MCH (eg Pink Floyd, Genesis, Who), it must be said that the multi-channel, all in all, can be quite valuable, at least because of the effects (typical of those of "The Dark Side of the Moon" ).

Different is the case of classical music, for which the rear channels tend to have only the function to reproduce the original room effect. In some way you could say that they would try to reproduce the original listening environment. In my case of domestic listening in a small room, this effect can be quite noticeable, and sometimes makes listening a little more engaging. The question I ask myself is, however, linked to the fact that I have the impression to pay most of this engaging effect with a loss of detail in the soundstage in front of me. One resason could be that the quality of my MCH Oppo player in not at the same class of the Arcam, and this is confirmed by comparing them with a stereo program. This notwithstanding, in theory the potential of a multi-channel (much more information, essentially) should compensate for a small deficiency of quality, and so I think it is still worthwhile to strive to develop the MCH system, in particular regarding the put into operation of the center channel.

Ciao, Siro

Its a hell of a lot of money just to try and recreate an acoustic.

Yep - I cant see the point in anything other than stereo im afraid....

I HAVE 2 EARS. (stereo)

IF I HAD 1 EAR. (mono would be good - but its shite)

IF I HAD A FEW EARS. (multichanel would be good - but its shite)

Sorted...............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The argument of the two ears to support the futility of multi-channel is false, because in nature we are quite clearly designed to be able to distinguish whether a sound comes from in front or behind. Like many other mammals, on the other hand.
The real question lies in the source, which in most cases is just in front of us, but in other cases it is arranged in more complex way. Not to mention the question of the reproduction of the environmental (eg reverb in a church).

Ciao, Siro

I don't know if this is relevant but,I can recall my nephew giving me a go on his PS3 with 5.1 surround sound playing some war game.He firstly set it up in 2 channel and then 5.1 for the full effect.

In 2 channel it was very good but,in 5.1 I had a clear advantage playing the game because,I could hear the enemy tank or soldier coming up from behind me.

I quickly got bored though and fatigued :eusa-whistle: with the sound effects?

I quickly got bored though and fatigued with the sound effects?

Yep - It just aint natural........