chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 The format of the audio disc, known as the "Red Book" standard, was laid out by Sony and Philips in 1981. The format is a two-channel 16-bit PCM encoding at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented. Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented. Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented. Quote
vibes Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Buy an SACD for multichannel. All things being equal, the sound quality will be better anyway. Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted July 19, 2006 Author Report Posted July 19, 2006 hi vibes, chewy-chew-chew-benitez signin' on here: you don't know me very well, do you vibes? im not gettin SACD. If i want surrround im going to go Quad, which i can't do till i find a nice vintage rug to cover the floor where the wires will run under to put speakers in the back. you should see what my friend doug did- syncing 7 hi-fi's together in his basement (each w/ 7 osciciloscopes on top). it sounds amazing Quote
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented. Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented Four-channel sound is an allowed option within the Red Book format, but has never been implemented. GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD MG (Your friendly lo-fi fan) Quote
fasstrack Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Aw, I think I'll bust out crying. And the problem with two channels would be? It never fails to amaze me how sheep-like people are when a new and 'improved' product is marketing super-sized then media served. I called Mac Mall and asked for computer speakers. As in two. You see, I have two ears at last count. I was sent something called a 5.1 system which had 5, count 'em 5 speakers, and enough wires to make Medusa work harder. I simply could not put it together properly. (truth in posting: I am a techno-moron, slobbering on myself even as I write this) Sent it back (the first of 2 times Mac Mall f'ed up a simple order), went to CompUSA and spent $20 on speakers including subwoofer that are just peachy keen. What is this obsession about 'new, improved technology'? What am I missing here? Edited July 19, 2006 by fasstrack Quote
Parkertown Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Chewy, Actually, some cds do feature authentic, vintage quad mixes on them. If you played them with the proper decoder, you would get the quad mix. I believe some older Columbia cds had them...like a Santana one I think... But yeah, you gotta have one of them old decoders... There are also the DTS cds put out by DTS Entertainment. Many classic rock titles with their original quad mixes intact. I'm surprised you've not seen these as they've been out for quite a while. I have a few...like Steve Miller's Fly Like An Eagle, E.C.'s 461 Ocean Blvd... Playable on most dvd players connected to a surround receiver. (pssst, and they can be copied too!) Quote
medjuck Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 So called Duo/discs (dual/discs?- I forget how it's spelled) like the last release of Kind of Blue often have the entire cd in 5.1 digital. Quote
mgraham333 Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 Parkertown is talking about these. I remember when they first started coming out. They were about $25. Now most of them are a bit more reasonable at $13-17. I have a few, but honestly like my SACDs and DVD-As they just don't get as much play as good old fashioned 2-channel redbooks. Quote
David Ayers Posted July 19, 2006 Report Posted July 19, 2006 I never understood what was supposed to be wrong with mono. Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Posted July 20, 2006 i dont know either i prefer mono #1 except in certain instances in rock/pop where it sounds better in quad Quote
mikeweil Posted July 20, 2006 Report Posted July 20, 2006 (edited) I wouldn't see much sense in re-channelling a recording conceived for stereo reproduction (no to mention mono sources), as the recording setup would have been different with that in mind. But with original quadraphonic or newly recorded multi-channel material, why not. On the whole, I care less for multi-channel sound than for high resolution, which I think is much more important. And yes, we have only two ears, but they hear in all directions! Edited July 20, 2006 by mikeweil Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted July 20, 2006 Author Report Posted July 20, 2006 how are those fake-stereo lps done anyway? how do they alter the mono? Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 They split up the frequency range. Poorly. Quote
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 They split up the frequency range. Poorly. Sometimes I don't think they even did that. I've got a lot of the late 60s Specialty LPs, reissuing Gospel material from the 40s and early '50s and it all sounds like mono to me, only labelled stereo. Best rechanneling I've ever heard! MG Quote
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted July 21, 2006 Author Report Posted July 21, 2006 you mean they just put more lows on the left side and more highs on the right? is that what you mean Quote
Claude Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 Yes, that's one part of the "rechannelling" operation. The other trick is to delay one channel very slightly, which creates an artificial ambience effect. Quote
dave9199 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 How can you tell if you're listening to mono or stereo, aside from the cover telling you. What is it I should listen for to tell me? I could never figure it out. Weren't the first 4 Beatles cds released in mono when they came out in the 80's? I have those. Quote
Parkertown Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 It'll just sound not quite right... So, should we give you examples of cds/lps with fake stereo? mmmmm.... On the Capitol cd of Pink Floyd's "Works" there are fake stereo mixes of "Arnold Layne" and "See Emily Play." Got a copy of that? Cuz that's a good example... Quote
dave9199 Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 I don't hace Works. What is different in the sound? Quote
Parkertown Posted July 21, 2006 Report Posted July 21, 2006 mono signal played through both channels, but with the high frequencies attenuated in one channel, and the low frequencies attenuated in the other channel. It sounds like Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.