DVD-5.1 ac3 vs flac vs SACD

[corElement]

The battle of the HT junkie for his chunk of music in a world of stereo worshippers!

I tried out some DVD audio titles which says 5.1 AC3 and then a flac 2.0 channel file.

The dvd audio titles were 4xx bit rate vs 1200 of the flacs, same songs..

However I found the dvd audio to sound better, cleaner and more enjoyable compared to the flacs which sounded harsh and less enjoyable.
I could hear more things in flac, but many of these things werent pleasant even if they were the result of being lossless.

Could the fact that 5.1 ac3 playing on a 5.1 system have given it a distinct advantage in controlling the sound?

Does sacd come with 5.1 channels or just 2ch? then is dvd audio better for home theatres than 2 ch?

 

[venkatcr]

Could the fact that 5.1 ac3 playing on a 5.1 system have given it a distinct advantage in controlling the sound?

Does sacd come with 5.1 channels or just 2ch? then is dvd audio better for home theatres than 2 ch?

SACD is strictly two channel.

I am not sure how you played the FLAC files. You would need a good DAC in between to really bring out the essence of FLAC.

In a HT system, a 5.1 audio (as available on a DVD) does sound good. Unfortunately it does not seem very popular and there are not too many albums available.

Cheers

 

[corElement]

Oh man, im quite loving how controlled dvd audio sounds in comparison to other 2ch formats I normally listen to.

ESPECIALLY how controlled the sub feels compared to 2ch. The cohesion of the speakers on this ac3 5.1 for each speaker is sounding very melodious to me, almost hypnotic.

 

[srramanujam]

The choice is so often linked to your listening tastes as well.

Most of the times, i am torn bad recordings of good performances (Indian Classical) and impressive recordings of mediocre performance.

In my case the choice is simpler since i dont see many titles of my chocie genre being released in anything other than stereo (even stereo is a misnomer for the bad recordings).

I have settled on choosing Music Today and Charsur Digital Works, and an occassional Sony Music. This restricts the amount of music i listen to, but i am still to exhaust whats availavle within them.

 

[viveksingh]

SACD's are not two channel but can have a tru 5.1 channel recording in DSD, It is very different from a CDs PCM recording and uses a much higher sampling rate. Most SACD titles have a CD layer two (stereo PCM) that can be played by normal cd players

 

[anm]

welcome to the forum viveksingh. Hope you have great time (pass) here.

 

[rahuljonline]

SACD is strictly two channel.
Cheers

SACD does have discrete 5.1 surround sound content.
And contrary to popular belief, there are some amazing albums remixed to 5.1 surround. Most of these discs are not available in India, but they are available on the internet or in amazon.
Here are some of my favourites:
1. The Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd (infact all of their popular albums including Wish you were here, The Wall, Echoes etc.)
2. Tommy - The Who
3. The Greatest Hits - Queen
4. Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
5. Every Breath You Take- The Greatest Hits - The Police
6. The Black Album - Metallica
7. LightBulb Sun - Porcupine

Infact there are loads of this... some more artists are Groove Armada, ZZ Top, Enigma, Sting, Led Zeppelin.. so on and so forth...

 

[anm]

Venkat, to get a better understanding of sacd, pls read this Super Audio CD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the sacd format is kind of dead due to extreme complexity of hardware, lack of portability (can't play in laptop, media players) and lack of titles available. Higher resolution downloads may be a better way out.

SACD is strictly two channel.

 

[rahuljonline]

Venkat, to get a better understanding of sacd, pls read this Super Audio CD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the sacd format is kind of dead due to extreme complexity of hardware, lack of portability (can't play in laptop, media players) and lack of titles available. Higher resolution downloads may be a better way out.

I've heard PS3 can play SACDs, but I'm not sure, as I don't have one.
I think blu-ray audio, which will carry the DTS-HD Master Audio is the next big thing in music!

 

[sam9s]

Initially even I used to love music on my 5.1 setup, but then I auditioned few high quality stereo setup, including the subtle
Lyrita Audio and since then I am mesmerized with stereo but of high quality, like for me stereo on my 5.1 setup sucks. Well it was acceptable, only before i had actually auditioned the high quality stereo. After that literally speaking I have stopped listening stereo (except on my iPOD) untill I get my own high quality stereo. Till then 5.1 is the way for me ....

 

[rahuljonline]

The 5.1 sound gives a good ambiance of being surround by music all round. Some 5.1 mixes are better than the others.
However Stereo is more natural, but sometimes 5.1 gives that 'effect'. Once you grow out of that 'effect', you'll enjoy stereo again.
However, I believe a good 5.1 (or even quadraphonic mix) can equal stereo sound any day.
For example, REM's 'Automatic for the People' is one of the best I've heard.

 

[venkatcr]

Venkat, to get a better understanding of sacd, pls read this Super Audio CD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Cheers

 

[sanjay0864]

A real life soundfield is 360 degrees, thus a 5 channel surround sound is definately more natural than stereo. In a comparison between the 5.1 mix and the stereo mix of the same titles on SACD, the surround mix has almost always outshone the 2 channel steroe mix. Once you have heard the multi channel mixes on titles like, 'Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits', 'The Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd', 'Come Away With Me - Norah Jones', 'Orff: O Fortuna from Carmina Burana', it is hard to go back and enjoy the 2 channel mixes as much. Bottom line is, a good 5.1 setup will not just equal stereo sound, but will actually far outdo it.

It's a lot easier and cheaper to have a stereo setup compared to an equivalent 5.1 setup. The problem is most people end up making comparisons between good qaulity stereo setups with surround setups that are compromised in many ways. More surround setups are compromised due to cost and other practical problems than stereo setups. A good 5.1 setup for music, must have the same quality amplification and speakers all around, something that is quite expensive and thus rare to find in most setups. Ofcourse, the actual 5.1 mix also matters. There are a few surround mixes that are not just unimaginative but are rather poorly mixed and thus do not sound as good.

 

[rahuljonline]

A real life soundfield is 360 degrees, thus a 5 channel surround sound is definately more natural than stereo.

It's true, but when it comes to music, it's always the case that a band is performing in front of you. Thus, 2 channels do sound more "natural".
So, certain instruments from the rear channels create the "effect".
However, wrt electronic and trance music, the word "natural" does not apply. So, a 5.1 mix would always sound better here.

In a comparison between the 5.1 mix and the stereo mix of the same titles on SACD, the surround mix has almost always outshone the 2 channel steroe mix. Once you have heard the multi channel mixes on titles like, 'Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits', 'The Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd', 'Come Away With Me - Norah Jones', 'Orff: O Fortuna from Carmina Burana', it is hard to go back and enjoy the 2 channel mixes as much. Bottom line, is that a good 5.1 setup will not just equal stereo sound, but will actually far outdo it.

Totally agree. The 5.1 mix makes it sound a like a completely new song sometimes.

It's a lot easier and cheaper to have a stereo setup compared to an equivalent 5.1 setup. The problem is most people end up making comparisons between good qaulity stereo setups with surround setups that are compromised in many ways. More surround setups are compromised due to cost and other practical problems than stereo setups. A good 5.1 setup for music, must have the same quality amplification and speakers all around, something that is quite expensive and thus rare to find in most setups. Ofcourse, the actual 5.1 mix also matters. There are a few surround mixes that are not just unimaginative but are rather poorly mixed and thus do not sound as good.

That's a good point.

 

[anm]

Sanjay you are right. Since most music content is in stereo, using one's limited budget on good quality stereo is a wiser thing to do. However, people stretch this too far and get overboard on a 2 channel setup. Doing a surround setup right is difficult and expensive. But if done right, it should definitely sound better, if the recording too is done in surround.

A real life soundfield is 360 degrees, thus a 5 channel surround sound is definately more natural than stereo. In a comparison between the 5.1 mix and the stereo mix of the same titles on SACD, the surround mix has almost always outshone the 2 channel steroe mix. Once you have heard the multi channel mixes on titles like, 'Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits', 'The Dark Side of the Moon - Pink Floyd', 'Come Away With Me - Norah Jones', 'Orff: O Fortuna from Carmina Burana', it is hard to go back and enjoy the 2 channel mixes as much. Bottom line, is that a good 5.1 setup will not just equal stereo sound, but will actually far outdo it.

It's a lot easier and cheaper to have a stereo setup compared to an equivalent 5.1 setup. The problem is most people end up making comparisons between good qaulity stereo setups with surround setups that are compromised in many ways. More surround setups are compromised due to cost and other practical problems than stereo setups. A good 5.1 setup for music, must have the same quality amplification and speakers all around, something that is quite expensive and thus rare to find in most setups. Ofcourse, the actual 5.1 mix also matters. There are a few surround mixes that are not just unimaginative but are rather poorly mixed and thus do not sound as good.

 

[sanjay0864]

It's true, but when it comes to music, it's always the case that a band is performing in front of you. Thus, 2 channels do sound more "natural".
So, certain instruments from the rear channels create the "effect".
However, wrt electronic and trance music, the word "natural" does not apply. So, a 5.1 mix would always sound better here.

It all depends on one's perpective. If you look at it from the conventional sense, you are right that generally the band/orchestra plays in front of you. Thus, from that point of view a two channel mix may to some extent, be more natural, but only as far as recreating that scenario. The fact is, the band plays in front of you ,not because that is the ideal way to listen to music, but rather because of practical limitations of space etc. Imagine if there were no such limitations, would you not rather be in the middle, with the ochestra playing all around you. In any case, this argument only holds true for recreating live ochestra performances and does not really hold true for studio recordings. How about the 'shaadi ka band' with you dancing in the middle?
There are ofcourse the purists, who insist that the only right way to listen to music is the way that it was first released and that, that is how it sounds best. My belief regarding this, is that it is simply an issue of being used to hearing one's favorite music in a certain way, two channels in this case, therefore any change, regardless of actually being better or worse, seems to be poorer in comparison. Personally, I have yet to come across any 5.1 mix that I did not prefer over the original 2.0 mix.

But if done right, it should definitely sound better, if the recording too is done in surround.

Ofcourse, as I mentioned earlier too, the quality of the mix is very important and I should point out that my vote is for genuine multichannel mixes and not some pseudo surround created by electronic processing of a two channel source, be it in the studios or by the listeners reciever/processor. There is one exception to this though, ie. club/dance music, specially of the electronic variety which sounds awesome via Denon's pseudo 5.1/7.1 processing.

 

[theironhorse]

try playing a flac with digital optical and then see the crispness and clarity..

 

[venkatcr]

It's true, but when it comes to music, it's always the case that a band is performing in front of you. Thus, 2 channels do sound more "natural".

This has been changing and will continue to change. For example, the 31st December sessions of the Wiener Philharmoniker is, for quite a long time being recorded in multi channel. It has only been in the past 2 or 3 years that they have started releasing genuine 5.1 DVD with Dolby or DTS sound used for music. Unfortunately, even today, the sale of redbook CD far outstrips the DVD sale.

Even here in Chennai, I have seen companies like Charsur use individual mike for each artist. It is just that they end up editing all this information into two channels. Many of the Beatles albums were recorded in four channels (quadraphonic), but always released as mono or stereo.

The recording companies have to see a commercial value in multi channel music. Again, unfortunately, two channel systems market including mobile systems, two in ones and regular audio systems far outstrips the number of multi channel systems.

Cheers

 

[rahuljonline]

Even I'm a big fan of 5.1 music. But I still believe some of the mixes dont utilize the whole spectrum.
Almost all good Live concert DVDs have a DTS or Dolby surround soundtrack, as Venkat pointed out. But in most cases they use the rear channels for the crowd only.
However, some dvd mixes are also amazing, like Led Zeps Songs Remain the Same, and Pink Floyd's PULSE, or Eagle's Hell freezes Over.

 

[sanjay0864]

This has been changing and will continue to change. For example, the 31st December sessions of the Wiener Philharmoniker is, for quite a long time being recorded in multi channel. It has only been in the past 2 or 3 years that they have started releasing genuine 5.1 DVD with Dolby or DTS sound used for music. Unfortunately, even today, the sale of redbook CD far outstrips the DVD sale.

Even here in Chennai, I have seen companies like Charsur use individual mike for each artist. It is just that they end up editing all this information into two channels. Many of the Beatles albums were recorded in four channels (quadraphonic), but always released as mono or stereo.

The recording companies have to see a commercial value in multi channel music. Again, unfortunately, two channel systems market including mobile systems, two in ones and regular audio systems far outstrips the number of multi channel systems.

Cheers

Actually, almost all music recordings today are multitrack recordings and have been so for atleast a few decades. By multitrack I mean more than two tracks or stereo recording, which have existed since the 1920's. In the 1950's three track recordings started and by the 1960's four track recordings were being made. The Beatles were one of the first to actually record and release music in four tracks, which was marketed as quadraphonic sound. By the 1970's most artists, atleast the big stars, were all recording on sixteen track recorders. Today most recordings are done in atleast 24 tracks and some in 36 tracks or even more. Thus multitrack recording have existed for along time, but what did not exist until the 1980's - leave aside the failed quadraphonic audio - was a consumer level format to deliver multitrack recordings. It was only in the 1980's with the advent of Dolby Pro Logic that consumer format for multiple channels became available. But Dolby Pro Logic was not designed and nor was it suitable for music. Thus, for all practical purposes it was only with the advent of DTS in home processors/receivers in 1997, that finally a mutichannel format capable of delivering mutichannel, audiophile quality sound became available. What is important to understand is that raw recordings and final mixes are totally two different things. Therefore the barrier to mutichannel music has not been the recordings, but rather the lack of a consumer multichannel format and now more importantly the lack of interest in such releases by the consumer market. Personally I feel that a major reason for mutichannel music not being successful, is the music companies failure to release popular titles. Since most of the mutichannel music remained limited to primarily classical recordings and a very few old classic titles by past their prime artists, it is not hard to see why the average consumer did not take a fancy to this. Ofcourse the fact that even a moderate level 5.1 system is rather expensive did not help matters, specially at a time when most consumers have forsaken even the audio cd in favor of the convenience of lossy, heavily compressed digital music. But, the fact remains that the music industry itself ahs just not done enough to promote multichannel music. How many new, current popular artist titles have they released with 5.1 sound? Not more than maybe two or three titles and that too titles, which are not from the very top artists.