|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Why is surround sound not "high end"? posted by Raymond Leggs on July 14, 2012 at 21:27:41:
Traditionally "Receivers" are not considered high-end but mid-fi.A 2 channel stereo high-end system would consist of a separate preamp and power-amp. The pre-amp would ideally have only a volume control and an input selector, if tone controls are included there needs to be a way to bypass them such as "Audio Direct". A high-end turntable will be completely manual. Thus if there are any convenience features or signal processing on board high-end audiophiles shy away. We actually want to pay for "sound quality" not "bells and whistles", and believe that convenience features actually detract from performance.
Many audiophile recordings brag about using no equalization, no or little processing and are recorded with a very high quality single stereo microphone, or at most 2-3 microphones.
Enter multichannel with 5 channels or more of audio and high-enders cringe. For multichannel to even be considered for the designation of high-end at the very minimum one would need a six channel preamp with no processing on board and a six channel power-amp, or three stereo power-amps.
Their are people who I respect who are impressed with Audyssey's electronic room correction, however it's use is counter to the audiophile ideal of no equalization. Audiophiles prefer acoustic room treatments such as diffusors and absorbers and keeping the music flat.
I have heard actual multichannel high-end systems at C.E.S. and T.H.E. show and I still like 2 channel stereo better. But that is just me.
Edits: 07/14/12
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Different mind sets. - Teresa 23:32:29 07/14/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
