I posted just last summer (link attached) about the hassle of setting up a 5.1 surround system, and that I had chosen to knock together a guerilla “Brian Eno” 3-speaker method instead.
Well, here we are in 2021 and I have now set up a proper 5.1 system after all! It’s a little bit Heath Robinson at the moment as I am using an old amp I acquired, and I don’t have a subwoofer yet. But already the effect is very nice indeed. The end of Tubular Bells Part One is amazing with all the instruments coming in one at at time from all around you.
But the only 5.1 mixes I have at the moment are the Mike Oldfield ones (as all his reissue series came with 5.1 DVDs as standard).
So my question is: which 5.1 albums should I go for to start building a collection? There’s been a lot of chat on here about surround sound, but I can’t see a thread specifically discussing the merits of different albums.
I’m pretty vanilla and seventies-biased in my mainstream taste, so some 5.1 Pink Floyd and Yes is probably a good first step. I should clarify, I am talking DVDs not any other format. (Actually not sure if there IS any other format…. but anyway DVDs it is).
https://theafterword.co.uk/brian-enos-ambient-speaker-system/#comments
Moose the Mooche says
The Beatles LOVE and the Talking Heads 5.1s are what springs to mind.
Arthur Cowslip says
Love – yes that sounds like a good one, I forgot about that.
fentonsteve says
Do you mean DVD or Blu-Ray?
DVD-Audio is one of those formats that never really took off, a competitor to SACD (which is still limping along).
The XTC CD/Blu-Ray twofers are great value, all are done by that publicity-shy Steven Wilson bloke.
Arthur Cowslip says
At the moment, DVD. Our bluray player died a few weeks ago and I’ve gone back to the DVD player. But I might buy another bluray player at some point this year.
Is bluray more ubiquitous a music format than DVD then?
Not sure of the difference between DVD Audio and DVD Video to be honest – both seem to play on my DVD player and show video content as well.
fentonsteve says
Warning: this might get a bit dull.
“Ordinary” DVD (aka DVD-Video) have Mpeg compressed standard-defintion video, lossy (mp3-style) stereo audio, and/or lossy 5.1 (sort-of-mp3-style) and the space for (but usually not provided) lossless CD-quality stereo (PCM) on a 4.7GB or 9.4GB disc.
DVD-Audio has static video (menus) and lossless hi-res stereo (PCM) and 5.1 surround (might still only be lossy – I’d have to look it up) on a 4.7GB or 9.4GB disc.
Blu-ray disc (BD) has the space for hi-res video, lossless hi-res stereo, lossless hi-res surround on a 25Gb or 50GB disc.
There are not many DVD-A discs about. XTC did the first couple in both CD/DVD-A and CD/BD. They soon dropped the DVD-A option.
Arthur Cowslip says
Not dull at all!
DVD 5.1 sounds fine to my non-audiophile ears, so I don’t really mind the “lossiness”. But to future proof anything I buy I think it sounds like Blu Ray is the best option and is becoming a standard. I definitely need to replace my player at some point as I have quite a few Blu Ray movies.
Ah, so DVD-Audio only has static menus and no videos. As I say, I’m working only from my Mike Oldfield albums at the moment – Return to Ommadawn is marked DVD-Audio so that explains why there is no animation on the disc! Hergest Ridge has a nice flying glider animation while the music plays so it must be DVD-Video – although the disc itself says Compact Disc!!
Jaygee says
Anything by Steven Wilson is generally pretty good. While retailing for an extremely reasonable £15 to £20, SW’s two-disc XTC remaster sets are all terrific and come with bags of extras and outtakes
Chrisf says
As mentioned above, anything done by Steven Wilson is good – he did a few of the early Yes albums as well as the XTC mentioned above.
One additional album that I always recommend is the surround mix of Roxy Music / Avalon. It’s not a whizz bang effects mix but just really builds an all encompassing soundscape.
Have a look at this thread on Hoffman (I know) which has some very good reviews – go to near the end of the thread and there should be an index with links to the various albums he’s reviewed……
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/surrounded-on-sundays-5-1-quad-reviews-and-summaries.851486/
Arthur Cowslip says
I don’t mind Hoffman! Will have a read at that thread, thanks.
Roxy Music I’m not so hot on, but will add to my list below Talking Heads!
H.P. Saucecraft says
Phil Spector’s Back To Mono box set really comes alive in 5.1
Arthur Cowslip says
One thing I notice is that isn’t easy to search online for these. Amazon seems to get confused when you search for DVD audio for example.
And doesn’t seem to be any way to get the Pink Floyd ones without buying these ultra-expensive “Immersion” boxes!
Chrisf says
If you have the ability to play digital files (via USB thumb drive etc), I know a man that has these Pink Floyd albums and could possibly share in a cloud drive….. (along with any other requests)
Vulpes Vulpes says
My shed needs painting.
Chrisf says
I can upload a virtual can of red paint to the cloud… will that do ?
dai says
Ooh @Chrisf, your man sounds really interesting.
Arthur Cowslip says
He does indeed! @Chrisf I will PM you.
fatima Xberg says
If you want the full surround experience I’d recommend the Flaming Lips – both »The Soft Bulletin« and »Yoshimi« are available. These are really weird with full drumkits circling around your head and guitars attacking from behind and backing vocals swirling through the room like mosquitos on acid.
Artery says
As already stated, anything with Steven Wilson’s name on it is great. I recommend The Yes Album, Court of Crimson King and the Dukes Of Stratosfear collection. All available cheaply.
Avalon is a great mix (but out of print) as is Ferry’s Boys And Girls album. DSOTM, obviously, and Abbey Road too.
Ainsley says
The Abbey Road box even has an Atmos mix included. There’s also a 5.1 mix of Tubular Bells but it’s the 2003 re-recording, not the original, and it’s probably the LEAST subtle 5.1 mix of anything I’ve heard. Very interesting, though.
Arthur Cowslip says
No, the 2009 tubular bells reissue has a 5.1 mix from the original multitrack, definitely. It’s got Vivian stanshall and everything. It’s unsubtle… and I love it!
Ainsley says
Ah, didn’t realise. I’ll have to try and find that one. The re-recording just isn’t quite Tubular Bells, is it?
Arthur Cowslip says
Oh it’s horrible. It’s a fantastic example of Why Records Sounded Better In The Seventies. It’s almost like a scientific experiment: the same musician using the same instruments playing (almost) exactly the same notes…. And yet it sounds off compared to the original. You could theorise endlessly about why: the regularised tempos? The digital effects? The lack of wayward seventies tuning? But it’s like night and day.
Moose the Mooche says
See also Kraftwerk’s 3-D albums. I think you probably had the be there.
fentonsteve says
I have that Jean Michel Jarre 30th anniversary digital re-recording of Oxygene from the mid-00s. I mean, honestly, what’s the point? It came free with my mum’s hate rag.
Arthur Cowslip says
I think it’s just artists’ temperament. Never being happy with what you create and wanting to do it all over again. We listeners hear a charming, human sounding recording with spontaneity and quirky mistakes. The artist hears clanging errors recorded for eternity.
Ainsley says
I just got a copy of the CD/DVD set via Ebay. Looking forward to listening to the original 5.1 this weekend but if the first few minutes are anything to go by, it sounds great
Ainsley says
I finally managed to find the right time and circumstances to have a proper listen this 5.1 mix (system is in the lounge, like a lot of others) and it’s fantastic.
I’ve listened to Tubular Bells literally countless times since buying the album on release but in this mix I genuinely heard sounds I’ve never heard before. For that reason alone it was worth the £27 to eBay. It’s actually hard to imagine listening to it any other way now.
Arthur Cowslip says
Yay! Glad you liked it. One of my favourites.
The viv stanshall Sailor’s Hornpipe is fun in surround as well!
DrJ says
5.1 can be faffy, that’s my experience, but when it works, it’s great. However since my surround sound is hooked up to the family tv and there’s been this lockdown, the kids are not wholly interested in gathering around for a listen to surround sound THRAK. The two albums that have made me go “oooh” in surround is the 2019 5.1 of In The Court Of The Crimson King and the 5.1 of Roxy Music’s debut. (Both by SWilson)
dai says
New Gold Dream – Simple Minds
All the Talking Heads ones
XTC sets
Tommy – The Who
Abbey Road
No Other – Gene Clark (only in expensive box set)
You have to have a Blu-ray player to take full advantage, not just superior sound quality, but it is probably the dominant physical format for 5.1 now.
Agree that thread on Hoffman is useful even if the main guy who writes there does over do it a bit with his introductions.
yorkio says
I’d say the biggest problem with most surround mixes these days is that with a few honourable exceptions, you’re often obliged to buy a massive and often eye-bogglingly expensive SDE full of old tat you didn’t want just to get the surround disc.
Somehow though, Yes and XTC, for example, manage to get the stereo remix, the 5.1 remix and a hi-res needle drop of the original mix onto one disc, along with a handful of promo videos and still keep the price down to about twenty quid. Those I’ll buy every time.
NigelT says
I bought quite a few SACDs and DVD-As when they arrived. It might be my system, but SACDs seem to sound superior to my ears, but you do need a universal type player. By the way, I use a Denon Blu-Ray player through a Sony surround system for all my surround sound listening as it plays all of the above, in fact any type of shiny disc. I also have an analogue output to my stereo as some discs sound better that way (The Rolling Stones SACDs for example).
Sticking to DVD-As…
Pet Sounds
Love – The Beatles
Any of the REM reissues
In The Court of the Crimson King
Arthur Cowslip says
Pet Sounds! That’s a good suggestion.
I suddenly realise I have a Pet Sounds special edition on a shelf somewhere… I wonder if that has a surround mix on it… I’ve never bothered to check…
(edit) It does! 40th anniversary edition. Good shout @NigelT !
Arthur Cowslip says
Wow! Pet Sounds is a revelation. Listening to it right now. The surround mix is a totally different sound palette. To be honest I always found the album to be too thin and echoey, which made it tiring to listen to all the way through.
Well this surround mix is even MORE echoey and it sounds brilliant. All the drum hits and little pizzicato orchestral stuff seems to shooting off into reverb-y canyons all over the place. Feels like sitting in the middle of a sound stage while Brian Wilson runs the band through the songs.
fentonsteve says
You can’t carry the SACD bitstream over a digital S/PDIF link, which is why SACDs sound better over analogue link – the digital link to the amp will be CD quality when playing SACD.
NigelT says
Thanks @fentonsteve. So, are you saying that SACDs played via 5.1 are lower quality than DVD-As and Blu-Rays played through exactly the same system? To my ears they sound ‘better’ than DVD-As for some reason. Dark Side of the Moon and War of the Worlds are brilliant in 5.1 from an SACD.
fentonsteve says
No, that’s not quite what I mean.
There’s a 6-channel DAC inside your Denon disc spinner – as it supports SACD, it is almost certainly a Sony DAC chip of hi-res quality. There’s another 6-channel DAC inside your Sony system.
SACDs are Sony’s proprietary bitsream format, which is not PCM like the audio on a CD, DVD, DVD-A or BD.
If you link the two together with a digital cable (electrical = S/PDIF* or optical = TOSLINK**), these digital links can only carry PCM data.
Sony’s bitstream format can not be carried over an digital link***.
SACDs all – well, 99% of them – also have a standard 16/44.1 CD layer.
Play a SACD through the digital input on your Sony and you get stereo CD. Play it though the analogue inputs (converted by the DAC in the Denon player) and you get better-than-CD quality in stereo or surround (depending what’s on the SACD layer, of course).
As I say, the DAC in the player is almost certainly made by Sony. So is the DAC in the Sony receiver. So they should both be of similar quality. Use whichever sounds best!
Does that make it any clearer?
(*) Sony/Philps Digital InterFace
(**) TOSHiba LINK.
(***) but there’s a USB transfer mode called DoP which can, or a DSF file.
garyt says
If you connect the SACD player to a suitable receiver via HDMI, I believe this passes the bitstream.
Jaygee says
Yes, but will it let me play my CSNY, ELP and BJH albums?
Arthur Cowslip says
Speaking of CSNY, one album I would love to hear in 5.1 is Deja Vu. It’s one of the best sounding albums ever, in my opinion, as well as being musically gorgeous of course. It would be great to hear those vocal harmonies spread out across the sound field. I think it was probably recorded on 16 tracks? So presumably there would be no problem creating a nice big open mix.
dai says
A big box set is expected this year I believe so one could be included. Having said that Neil Young, to my knowledge, has not released any 5.1 stuff (apart from live DVDs), so he could veto it. You never know with him.
fentonsteve says
This is also true but, by pointing it out, you’re at risk of becoming as dull as me!
NigelT says
Thanks @fentonsteve ! I use an HDMI cable between the Denon and Sony.
Frankly, if they are just stereo rather than surround sound, I find most SACDs sound fine in stereo on my CD player using the CD layer. I have a Roksan Caspian player and amp setup through a pair of B&Ws which I am a huge fan of. Things like the early Elton John albums are just brilliant through this.
fentonsteve says
Ah, yes. As garyt points out above, HDMI can carry the SACD bitstream.
I had an Arcam SACD player (mid-price FMJ range) for a while, then bought a Naim CD player (Classic range, about 10 times the price of the Arcam). The Naim CD design is about 10 years older than the Arcam, and it doesn’t play the SACD layer, but it sounds better than the Arcam (in stereo). It’s not just about the bit rate and DAC, there are many more Devils in the details.
Your Roksan is similarly of tank-like robustness to my Naim.
NigelT says
I got the CD player first (replacing a top end Arcam) and then replaced my Pre/power Audiolab amps with the Caspian amp. I could not believe how heavy the damn thing was when I got it out the box – nearly did my back in. These things are really built.
fentonsteve says
Toroidal transformers the size of dinner plates, half-inch milled casework, heatsinks like a giant’s cheese-grater. Hmmm, lovely. Jumpers for goalposts…
Vincent says
I have a 5:1 “Morph the Cat” by Donald Fagen. Magnificient.
Arthur Cowslip says
I know I’m probably hitting the @fentonsteve bat signal with this comment…
My DVD player is connected to my amp via a digital phono cable, and I’m using just a standard mono RCA/phono cable – I had to buy a big long one as the amp is hidden at the other side of the room from the DVD player. But… I’ve just read that apparently you aren’t supposed to use a standard cable, but you are supposed to buy a special “digital coaxial” cable instead, that just LOOKS like a standard RCA/phono cable.
But… it works fine.
Am I committing any crime of faux pas by doing this? Or is there some other problem I am causing without knowing it? I feel a bit like I am sticking it to the audiophile Man by just using a standard cable.
dai says
I think not a problem as a digital signal is being transmitted. Sound will be the same. If cable deficencies prevented decent transmission of the signal it would manifest itself in sound dropouts and clicks and things.
fentonsteve says
A bit more theory, sorry:
S/PDIF is a matched transmission line system of 75 Ohm characteristic impedance. The digital audio bistream from DVD player is about 1.5MHz (4.6MHz or 10MHz for BluRay). These are baseband video bandwidths, so S/PDIF uses video cable.
Audio bandwidth is 20kHz and it not a matched system. Source impedance is typically 10 Ohms, audio cable typically has a characteristic impedance on 100 Ohms, and amplifier inputs typically have an input impedance of 10,000 Ohms.
Stick digital audio down a bit of audio cable and (i) the signal strength gets lost down the cable (ii) the signal gets distorted so much by the cable that the receiver can’t decode it, both of which are easy to detect because they both end up with silence. The worst option is (iii) the signal gets distorted but the receiver still locks onto it, althought the recovered signal has excessive digital jitter. Jitter is the digital equivalent of Wow & Flutter.
So, going back to the “S/PDIF is Video” above. Therefore, a “Digital Audio” cable is really a Video cable. Because it is a impedance-matched transmission line, it can be very long without loss of quality (I used to run digital video links of 300m round TV studios in my BBC days).
Because you can use Video cable for Digital Audio, it need not be expensive to buy a suitable cable.
How long do you need it? There are a couple of options.
1. Buy an expensive Digital Audio cable.
2. Buy an inexpensive Professional Video cable (with BNC connectors on either end), and BNC to Phono plug adaptors.
3. Buy an inexpensive Consumer Video cable with (wide-bandwidth) video-grade Phono plugs on either end.
Tell me how long you need and I’ll find one from CPC for you. CPC, if you don’t know, are a sort of ‘professional’ equivalent of Maplin.
Moose the Mooche says
Guards! Part them, they are incensed!
dai says
But if what he has works fine then he needs nothing more. Like you (we) said there won’t be slight degradation because of the cable, it will result in huge and notable differences. I normally use Optical cables with digital amplifiers/receivers, but have also used regular RCA cables for digital signals without any difficulty at all (cables being 6 feet or so in length).
fentonsteve says
But you don’t know what kind of threshold you have, without an eye diagram. Even then you don’t know what level of digital jitter the receiver has managed to extract.
A “digital signal” in a cable is nothing of the sort, it is a wide-bandwidth analogue signal in a transmission medium. It has amplitude, transient behaviour, impedance, overshoot, etc.
The only thing “digital” about it is if it doesn’t work, you get silence from the decoder.
dai says
But the analogue signal contains digital data and a large amount of noise is needed to convert the encoded “ones” into “zeros” and vice versa such that they cannot be decoded at the other end. As for jitter I thought that would show up in more obvious ways other than gradual decrease of sound quality.
fentonsteve says
Having had a lifetime’s career in the digital audio, digital video and digital print fields… as politely as I can, Dai, I beg to differ.
dai says
OK. But the answer to his original question (paraphrasing) “Can this cable work well enough?” is still “yes”.
fentonsteve says
“Can I drive a Formula One car on cross-ply tyres?”
Well, yes, but not well, not reliably and probably not for long.
GCU Grey Area says
Depends on the era of car, and it isn’t easy to find out about detailed tyre construction. I’m more interested in the bits that go ‘vroom’.
Not a current F1 car. I think the last Grand Prix to be won by a car on what were definitely cross-ply tyres was the 1952 Italian GP, which Ascari won, driving a Ferrari 500, on Pirelli cross-plys. These were superceded by the famous ‘Stelvio’ radial tyres, which were used by Vanwall to achieve their manufacturer’s title. However, the big Goodyear ‘dragster’ type tyres appear to have been ‘bias-belted’ in the angle of the the plies in the carcass, (continues p94). . .
fentonsteve says
Nurse! I’ve had another tea/nostril/keyboard accident.
fentonsteve says
In terms of pure physics, it’s odds on that unmatched cable will work (ignoring Signal Integrity issues) below a quarter wavelength. At 10MHz (BD data rate), that’s 7.5 metres of cable. At slower CD data rate, that’s 50m.
Beyond 1/4 wavelength, all bets are off.
For the sake of a 7 quid cable, I wouldn’t take the risk.
dai says
8 quid! But for that price I agree with you. Just don’t spend hundreds on “audiophile” cables
Freddy Steady says
@fentonsteve
I didn’t get where I am today by ignoring Signal Integrity issues. In fact, neither me nor Mrs CJ got where we are today by ignoring Signal Integrity issues.
fentonsteve says
In my day job this week, I had to reject a USB 2.0 board design. It was only two connectors about an inch apart soldered to a board about two inches long.
First principles (at 480MHz data rate) implies anything less than 15cm should not be a problem. Tracks less than 3 cm long were enough for it to fail the eye diagram test, though.
You really do have to sweat the small stuff. Dull, but true.
Arthur Cowslip says
Yes!, you have turned me on to cpc before and they are brilliant. I have bought all manner of spare leads and speaker cable and stuff from them.
The cable I’m using is 10m which I thought would be plenty of distance but it barely reaches! I had to snake it all round the edges of a big wall cabinet and round the skirting board.
fentonsteve says
15m, then? Don’t use a 10m or 15m optical lead, there won’t be much light left dribbling out of the far end. How about this for not-quite 8 quid?
https://cpc.farnell.com/pro-signal/psg00116/phono-to-phono-plug-15m-75ohm/dp/AV13714
Arthur Cowslip says
Brilliant, thanks!
Arthur Cowslip says
I am going to have to ask you to explain ‘excess digital jitter’… Is that something audible that would be obvious? Or is it something like the difference between CD and MP3 that I might not necessarily noticed?
fentonsteve says
Digital jitter leads to all sorts of audio weirdness. You probably won’t notice until it goes away. Think how clear everything looks when you get new prescription specs.
fatima Xberg says
Dear Sirs, can you please crawl back to your shed over on the Hoffman Forum? Thanks.
My brain hurts with all this talk about cables and stuff “dribbling out at the far end”.
duco01 says
You’d need a shed the size of the O2 Arena to house all the audiophiles over on the Hoffman forum!
Moose the Mooche says
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Arthur Cowslip says
Ha ha! Yes, with my newfound love of 5.1 sound I am going to quit this one horse town and set up stall in Hoffmanville. 🙂
I’ve changed…. It’s not you, it’s me…
Jaygee says
AC pops into his local audio shop to stock up on audio doo-dads and gew-gaws en route to Hoffmanville
fentonsteve says
Think yourself lucky you’re not one of the poor graduate engineers I mentor. Give it a few years and the Cambridge workplace will be full of young Daves:
Arthur Cowslip says
Dragging this thread back into the daylight…. Please just ignore me if this technical bobbins drives you to distraction…
I recently bought a new BluRay player, as (I think I had mentioned above) my old one had given up. A Sony one, under £100. Disappointingly, I found that although the player can play just about every audio format (as far as I can see), the sound from Bluray discs still comes out only in stereo through my system!
It’s the amp (or “receiver”, is that it?), I eventually deduced. The amp is an old Kenwood model krf-v5030d, and looking at the manual online it plays AC3 audio and Dolby Digital, but I don’t see any mention of DSD. And DSD is what blu rays generally use, isn’t it? Must be because it has only been invented relatively recently, compared to the amp, yes?
Looking at the specs of all my blu rays, they all seem to be DSD audio. The one exception is The Beatles “1” Blu ray, which has an option to play via Dolby Digital/AC3 (and sounds AMAZING in surround sound).
Furthermore, I found much to my disappointment, the amp also can’t play surround sound from SACDs. I tested it by buying a relatively cheap classical music surround sound SACD and… sigh… it just comes out in stereo.
Don’t know what my point is. I suppose I need to buy a new amp. Sorry, “receiver”. Don’t I? Given how complicated all this is, you can see why people either just don’t bother, or just pay through the nose for an expensive system that just works without having to think about it.
My problem is I’m on a micro budget. I really can’t justify spending big money on this. Maybe will save up for next year.
dai says
What about speakers? if you are expecting 5.1 surround sound then you need (at least) 6 of them, 3 at the front, 2 at the rear and a subwoofer. If you can’t find places to plug all of them in on your receiver then you need to upgrade. Think I paid around $250 for a Denon one that is not top of the range, but does a decent job.
Arthur Cowslip says
Oh I have speakers, don’t worry. They are all wired up just dandy. As I say, DVD surround sound is excellent.
dai says
Sorry. Bad night’s sleep. Many Blu-ray have different audio options in their menus. Maybe you can find a compatible one there.
fentonsteve says
Dai’s right, Arthur. Try the audio options to see if there’s a Dolby Digital/AC3 soundtrack you can select.
DD/AC3 are lossy formats (think: mp3) used on DVDs.
BluRay discs carry lossless PCM (think: CD) audio in higher-than-CD quality, usually in 24-bit (where CD is 16-bit). Usually at 44.1kHz (CD rate), 48kHz (DAT), 88.2 (SACD) or 96kHz sampling rate.
SACD discs always carry DSD audio (can be mono, stereo or multi-channel) and sometimes (if a dual-layer disc) a stereo CD layer. DSD is roughly equivalent to 24-bit, 88.2kHz.
To access all these you probably do need a newer receiver, but almost any model from the last decade should do (only Sony and a handful of others can decode DSD from your SACDs).
Chrisf says
Dragging up this old thread just to say that the new Steven Wilson 5.1 surround mix of Gentle Giant’s “Free Hand” is rather splendid. If you ever doubted the point of listening to music in 5.1, this is one to convince you (and its a rather good album).
Paul Minnaar says
Thanks, will look for it
Arthur Cowslip says
Inspired by the depths of technical bobbins from Freddy Steady’s recent thread about soundproofing, I am resurrecting this thread yet again with a question that has been bugging me. It’s a dull, technical question, so dull, technical answers are very much appreciated.
Fenton says above, “SACD discs always carry DSD audio (can be mono, stereo or multi-channel) and sometimes (if a dual-layer disc) a stereo CD layer. DSD is roughly equivalent to 24-bit, 88.2kHz.”
I have a number of SACDs with 5.1 mixes on them, and my BluRay player (Sony BDPS700) can play SACDs. Now, as mentioned above, when I play them through my Kenwood amp (through the digital out via a phono cable) they come out in stereo only – which is fine, I know I would need to buy a newer amp and I need to connect with HDMI (because I’ve also since learned SACD signals don’t transmit over digital/phono).
So my question/s is/are:
– If SACD signals need HDMI and don’t transmit over a digital/phono output… how come I am hearing the SACD at all? Shouldn’t it just be silent? And before anyone says, no it’s definitely NOT just the stereo CD layer that is playing: I definitely have the output set to SACD not CD, and the proof is in the playback of my Tubular Bells SACD – the SACD surround mix is the ONLY mix that is the (very different) 1975 mix (with the alternative Vivian Stanshall bit an all), and the SACD stereo mix and CD mix (both on the same disc) are the original 1973 mix.
So I know I’m hearing the SACD surround mix… but in stereo. So how is this coming through the digital phono connection? (I’ve read numerous online comments saying absolutely you can’t do this, and that if you try it you will either just hear silence or the CD layer). And what is it I’m hearing, is it a fold-down/ mix-down by my amp or bluray player of all 5.1 channels into a pair of stereo channels? (It doesn’t sound like just the “front pair” of the surround channels: ie, it doesn’t sound like anything is “missing” in the mix).
(Still awake? Second question)
– If the full SACD signal for the 5.1 mix is being transmitted to my amp, why exactly is it that my amp can’t interpret that as a surround mix, and play it through all the speakers? Why is it folding it down into a stereo mix (if that’s what it is doing)? Why can’t I just get a surround mix to play in surround, like I can with DVDs etc?
fentonsteve says
Allow me…
1. Yes, it is folding down to stereo. There are options to disable this should you want to – see pages 23 & 24 of the user manual (yes, I looked).
2. Is your surround amp capable of decoding DSD streams? The Kenwood mentioned above is not (yes, I looked).
Is it possible that you have the BD player set to convert to PCM stereo? If DSD Output Mode is set to Off, the HMDI output carries PCM stereo instead of DSD (surround, if the SACD carries it).
Arthur Cowslip says
…. That actually makes sense…. Thank you!
I’m not sure about your last point though – I think DSD Output mode is only for the HDMI connection, isn’t it? However, just before that in the manual (page 31!) it talks about Digital Audio Output:
“x [Digital Audio Output]
[Auto]: Normally select this. Outputs
audio signals according to the status of
the connected devices.
[PCM]: Outputs PCM signals from the
DIGITAL OUT (COAXIAL)/HDMI
OUT jack.”
“Coaxial” is the word I was looking for, not “digital/phono” (or even “doodah” which I was going to say). So I think it is turning the SACD surround output (this DSD thing) into PCM through the coaxial output. And, as you say, folding it down to stereo in doing so.
There might be dilithium crystals involved somewhere along the line as well, but I can’t be sure yet.
However, thank you very much! And yes, I think a more up to date amp that can decode DSD is on the cards at some point. For that matter, I’d be as well jumping on the Dolby Atmos bandwagon at the same time, so we’ll see!
fentonsteve says
Only HDMI* can carry DSD, not the Coaxial Digital (S/PDIF) so, yes, your BD player is downmixing DSD surround to PCM stereo.
(*) Or USB in a special mode, but that’s for just soundcards.
dai says
Actually had a not dissimilar question of my own for @fentonsteve
I have a 4K Apple TV that can apparently output Atmos signals. However in the sound settings it is not an option. Seems it knows that because the Denon receiver (AVR-S530BT 5.2-Ch) it is directly plugged into (via HDMI) can’t handle Atmos. It can handle DTS, Dolby 5.1 etc. So will this receiver take the Atmos signal and output the 5.1 components to my surround sound speakers or would I need a new receiver to handle it?
fentonsteve says
Yes, the TV knows what your Denon is capable of decoding (it is interrogated by a “handshake” over the USB data lines within the HDMI cable).
The Atmos stream includes mixes for mono, stereo, 4.0, 5.2, 7.2, and full-fat Atmos. So your receiver isn’t doing a fold-down from full Atmos to 5.1, it is just decoding the 5.1 mix within the stream.
Atmos really is a very clever system, it is a shame it wan’t invented 40 years ago.
dai says
Thanks @fentonsteve
Arthur Cowslip says
Hang on, so a dolby Atmos signal over hdmi to a surround sound amp will play in surround even if the amp itself doesn’t ‘do’ dolby Atmos as such? If that’s what you mean, that’s rather interesting and is starting to sell me on this Atmos thing!
NigelT says
Yes, I think so! I have played some of the Beatles Atmos mixes through my 5:1 amp which doesn’t handle Atmos, but it comes out as surround sound.
fentonsteve says
Yes. Obviously you need an Atmos-capable “end-point” (in Dai’s case, the Apple TV) to feed the surround amp.
For full-fat Atmos, you need an decoder in the amp, more channels, and more speakers (some at height, or even above, for the full effect).
The Atmos stream is really clever – it includes multiple ‘stems’ plus multiple mix information, and mixes them *in your kit* for best effect. Streaming Atmos is lossy (768kbps), Atmos from a BD is lossless at a very high data rate.
Paul Minnaar says
Hi all, I’m new here and just love 5.1 audio.
I have been listening to 5.1 audio discs for many many years and have around 60 titles, many that are mentioned in this thread.
To answer the original posts question, these are, in my opinion the very best (my top 20) 5.1 albums you can hear and enjoy, as they are discreet and lift the music to another level as opposed to just spreading it like some titles do.
1. Brothers In Arms – Dire Straits
2. Legend – Bob Marley
3. Yoshimi – Flaming Lips
4. Upstairs at Eric’s – yazoo
5. Machine Head – Deep Purple
6. Music for the masses – Depeche Mode
7. All DM albums actually
8. Wish you were here- Pink Floyd (all PF)
9. Love – Beatles
10. Mirage – Fleetwood Mac
11. Gaucho – Steely Dan
12. The hits – Sting
13. Say you will – Fleetwood Mac
14. Hotel California – Eagles
15. Yellow brick road – Elton John
16. War of the worlds – Jeff Wayne
17. Songs from the big chair – Tears for fears
18. 4 – Foreigner
19. Automatic For The People – REM
20. Hand cannot erase – Steve Wilson