PS Audio - Surround Sound not more popular with Audiophiles?

[kfbkfb]

Maybe PS Audio should make a Hafler/DynaQuad device and special speaker (styled like their other audio components and speakers)...an easy intro to surround sound.

And maybe they could also add more out of phase content to their stereo mixes so that matrix decoders (SM to Hafler passive) would have something more to route to the rear/surround speaker(s).


I plan to compose an "Ask Paul" question about adding a Hafler passive decoder to the PS Audio lineup (I'll probably mention Quadios and DV MCH SACDs too).


Kirk Bayne

 

[Horbus]

I fully agree with Paul's statement. Audiophiles are perfectionists and are used to stereo or even mono recordings and struggle to cope with 2 speakers alone. They are also prone to switch their components sometimes on a regular basis to reach the unreachable perfection. So they are overwhelmed with 2 speakers, not to mention what happens with four and more! Also most audiophiles are sticking to older, well known technology from "High End" companies with huge marketing and lack the flexibility for newer gear.
To be honest, the HiFi community is very small and audiophiles are a fraction of them and even less people are into surround music. So there is no big interest from the industry serving our needs.

 

[stoopid]

Music equipment is to actual audiophiles, as expensive handbags and watches are luxury consumables to fashion aficionados. I don't know a single 'audiophile' who isn't a high earner/wealthy. I'm sure the one that exists will chime in here to set me straight. It's not about music or audio reproduction. That's just their context for consuming.

I find that many more actual music enthusiasts are engaged with surround formats than chasing vaporous hardware for audible perfection. We appreciate all the nuances IN THE MUSIC, the hardware is just the means to the end.

 

[ar surround]

I find that many more actual music enthusiasts are engaged with surround formats than chasing vaporous hardware for audible perfection. We appreciate all the nuances IN THE MUSIC, the hardware is just the means to the end.

Or as someone once said, music enthusiasts use their equipment to listen to your music; audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.

A friend of mine had 500 wpc McIntosh amps driving a $25,000 pair of speakers. To demonstrate what his equipment could do, he played a lot of unfamiliar music. It sounded extremely impressive.

Then he put on an HD tracks version of The Eagles song Hotel California. We didn't think it sounded all that great, especially compared to the 5.1 version he heard on my system. The lesson being that endlessly pouring money into two channel equipment can only get you so far.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Or as someone once said, music enthusiasts use their equipment to listen to your music; audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.

A friend of mine had 500 wpc McIntosh amps driving a $25,000 pair of speakers. To demonstrate what his equipment could do, he played a lot of unfamiliar music. It sounded extremely impressive.

Then he put on an HD tracks version of The Eagles song Hotel California. We didn't think it sounded all that great, especially compared to the 5.1 version he heard on my system. The lesson being that endlessly pouring money into two channel equipment can only get you so far.

Which leads me to believe, AR....The HIGH END CAN JUST TAKE YOU SO HIGH ...... BUT JUST NOT HIGH ENOUGH!

 

[barfle]

PS Audio is a strange company. Obviously, they’re making money, so whatever they’re doing, it’s keeping the lights on. I have five of their AC outlets in my room, and I had some in my previous room. But that’s it for their hardware for me. They release impeccably recorded STEREO SACDs (not even hybrid), but the ones I’ve heard aren’t all that high on the production scale.

Another product of theirs that I’m consuming is their on-line magazine, “Copper.” It’s free, and very few plugs for their own gear. Lots of articles anout the music nusiness, tales from the road by various setup men, managers, roadies, musicians, etc., trade-show reviews, lots of music clips (alas, not all remain active for long) in pretty much every genre short of sound effects. Some articles mention surround recordings, but they do seem stuck in two-channels.

 

[jaybird100]

Maybe PS Audio should make a Hafler/DynaQuad device and special speaker (styled like their other audio components and speakers)...an easy intro to surround sound.

And maybe they could also add more out of phase content to their stereo mixes so that matrix decoders (SM to Hafler passive) would have something more to route to the rear/surround speaker(s).


I plan to compose an "Ask Paul" question about adding a Hafler passive decoder to the PS Audio lineup (I'll probably mention Quadios and DV MCH SACDs too).


Kirk Bayne

I think they avoid surround sound because they don't think having sounds come from anywhere but up front is not realistic. You only have two ears. That's the worst excuse in the book. I have friends who have two-channel systems that cost more than my house, and that's what they say. I counter them by reminding them of the ambience of a well-designed concert hall. It comes at you from all sides. With more intimate jazz recordings, they say the different parts that are placed in different speakers is unnatural. My response is that it lets you hear each of these parts with more clarity than if it were all coming from just two speakers. It's like they're playing just to you, in your listening room. I don't see why they just don't get that! When I worked in high end, the owner of the store was very pro-surround. He couldn't get the point across to them, either.

 

[Rhinojack]

I think they avoid surround sound because they don't think having sounds come from anywhere but up front is not realistic. You only have two ears. That's the worst excuse in the book. I have friends who have two-channel systems that cost more than my house, and that's what they say. I counter them by reminding them of the ambience of a well-designed concert hall. It comes at you from all sides. With more intimate jazz recordings, they say the different parts that are placed in different speakers is unnatural. My response is that it lets you hear each of these parts with more clarity than if it were all coming from just two speakers. It's like they're playing just to you, in your listening room. I don't see why they just don't get that! When I worked in high end, the owner of the store was very pro-surround. He couldn't get the point across to them, either.

My response has always been, "...the whole world and everything you hear is surround sound, stereo would be artificial."

 

[4-earredwonder]

Sometimes, I think we're just living in an alternate universe from the High Enders who still believe vinyl is KING! Their high end rags still tout it as the second coming, boutique reissue companies like Acoustic Sound and MoFi still press it by the hundreds [thousands over the years] and up the ante by enticing them with 45 rpm 200g remasters and we, surround aficionados get the 'crumbs' with the occasional Stereo SACD still costing between $30~35 per remaster and have to turn to the occasional major and minor labels for Surround releases mostly in the form of box sets a lot of which still include vinyl [just in case].

Thankfully, in the last few years, SURROUND is catching on in a big way with more and more quality releases and Pure Audio BD~A containing ATMOS remixes have been gracing our listening rooms with increased frequency.

But until a really high end Universal Player costing literally thousands of bucks [and I mean THOUSANDS] enters the highest end markets, audiophiles will continue to pursue the latest mega buck turntables/tonearms/cartridge combos, STEREO only pre/pros, boutique DACs and speakers that not only belong in a modern art museum but rival the cost of Jags, Rolls Royce convertibles and Lamborghinis!

And just as we'd LOVE to convert those two channel 'geeks' to the wonders of SURROUND .... in equal measure they'd love to convert us to the ultimate nirvana of two channel playback .... and the miraculous properties of ....er, VINYL!

It's a NO WIN situation so WHY BOTHER! Just enjoy .... and to paraphrase a line from Stephen Stills ..... LOVE THE SYSTEM YOU'RE WITH...and just be ONE with your MULTICHANNEL universe!

~Planet RALPH

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Just an observation.

There are certainly exceptions to what I am about to say and I'm sure there are many shades of grey between the extremes that I outline below

Audiophiles can fall into two broad categories based on what they listen to.

1. Primarily listens to classical /symphonic/jazz/acoustic The material is generally recorded live, with little or no extra processing and mixing. The goal is to give a "perfect" reproduction of the actual event as if the listener were in the "audiance". The goal is never really attained, of course, Though many will expend effort and cash getting infinitely closer to what they think the goal should be. They focus on how a solo piano would sound to them being played live, 25 to 50 feet in front of them in a large hall. Or a center seat for a symphonic concert. They don't need multichannel to get close to that experience, the room provides enough "ambiance" and in the opinions of many of them, the multichannel treatment degrades the experience.

This group tends to prefer a stereo experience. Related subgroups, and hallmarks include vinyl/analog enthiasts, tube afficionados, purists, mono blocks, exotic speakers, snake oil. They all keep the "high end" afloat


2. Primarily listens to pop/rock/electronic. Material from multi-tracks with lots of mixing channels and "creating" a soundscape, the use of sometimes heavily processed sonics. With this type of material the recording and mixing process becomes an instrument in itself.
All that processing isnt trying to re-create any event, its trying to create an event from the get go. It may be a completely artificial creation, but it can have an enormous cool factor.

The goal here is to shoot for a better rendition of the actual event, if there is one. I mean admit it, live rock shows rarely sound very good to most of the audience. As for the sound of studio recordings, the effort goes into making them sound good enough to provide an engaging listening experience. Surround increases that listener engagement. In reality the only audience is the actual listener. This goal is never really attained either. But just like i wrote above, many will expend effort and cash getting infinitely closer to what they think the goal should be. But they focus on adding more channels and putting speakers in the ceiling, the latest processors, more subwoofers, universal disc players.

I believe this group, while many will still gravitate to stereo, has a much higher percentage of surround fans. They are less concerned with the absolute sound of a solo violin, and more into the wonder of the experience itself.

PS Audio tends to relate to group #1

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

They don't need multichannel to get close to that experience, the room provides enough "ambiance"

It's not a need...but I've got several multichannel discs with only ambience in the rears in which the soundstage completely collapses in stereo! So even for "recreating the live feel" multichannel has it's place, IMO!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

It's not a need...but I've got several multichannel discs with only ambience in the rears in which the soundstage completely collapses in stereo! So even for "recreating the live feel" multichannel has it's place, IMO!

Yep, and there are probably others who feel the same way as you. And still many others who don't.

 

[barfle]

I'm probably an audio whore. I'll listen to everything from Edison Diamond Discs to Atmos Blurays.

Yes, I've spent a good chunk of change on my equipment and on my media collection, and I've been gifted quite a bit as well. Listening to music is something I enjoy a lot, and I'm not going to limit that simply because someone thinks it's got the wrong number of speakers.

 

[PK]

How many mic drops can you have in one thread?

1. Music equipment is to actual audiophiles, as expensive handbags and watches are luxury consumables to fashion aficionados
2. All that processing isn't trying to re-create any event, its trying to create an event from the get go.
3. music enthusiasts use their equipment to listen to your music; audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment
4. ?

 

[kfbkfb]

How about "content is king"?

Recently, I was traveling from Iowa City to Des Moines on I-80, around Grinnell, I couldn't get reliable FM reception so I tried AM and found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGRN

Although fidelity was limited by my mono car radio, it was the type of music I like, I listened for 1/2 hour or so till the AM signal was too noisy.


I like surround sound because, when all is said and done, it's more entertaining, but if it's music I like, I'll listen to it in low-fi mono.


Kirk Bayne

 

[jimfisheye]

The zero to 100 thing with this...
The batshit crazy weirdo who doesn't actually like or listen to music but plays test tones into meters or something. And something something mono or stereo only.

Where is this coming from? Who's doing that?!
I thought those of us actually interested in the nuts and bolts of sound discovered things like basic room taming means you can actually hear the speakers you bought and copper is really good for wire.

The weird stuff aside, I'm definitely one who goes for fidelity before more channels. If that's what someone is hinting at - poking at the cheapo speakers and especially stuff like soundbars - I'm one of them!

Or on the other hand we see strawman kind of arguments sometimes suggesting surround sound listeners are ONLY listening to the gimmicky ****** speakers or soundbars. Not sure what the goal is there. Telling everyone you actually don't know how any of this works?

Fidelity before more channels though 100%!
And yeah, music I want to hear helps!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

They don't need multichannel to get close to that experience, the room provides enough "ambiance" and in the opinions of many of them, the multichannel treatment degrades the experience.

I thought I belonged in that group until I got to your last statement. I guess not.

 

[jaybird100]

How about "content is king"?

Recently, I was traveling from Iowa City to Des Moines on I-80, around Grinnell, I couldn't get reliable FM reception so I tried AM and found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGRN

Although fidelity was limited by my mono car radio, it was the type of music I like, I listened for 1/2 hour or so till the AM signal was too noisy.


I like surround sound because, when all is said and done, it's more entertaining, but if it's music I like, I'll listen to it in low-fi mono.


Kirk Bayne

It just so happens that KGRN is broadcasting in C-QUAM AM stereo!

 

[kfbkfb]

Yes, I didn't hear any ID that they were stereo, when I visit IA again, I'll probably take my Sony SRF-42 AM stereo radio and stop in Grinnell and listen to their AM stereo signal for a while.

(of course, being stereo, they could also broadcast in matrix quad...just to try to tie it in to QQ... )


Kirk Bayne

 

[ar surround]

I’ll tell you though, from time to time I like to listen to Steven Wilson’s stereo remixes with just my front towers playing and fed by 400 wpc. While still preferring surround sound, I find his stereo remixes quite impressive from a fidelity and mix standpoint compared to the originals.