Home
AudioAsylum Trader
General Asylum: RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"? by pictureguy

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

RE: Why is surround sound not "high end"?

108.225.233.177


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread:  [ Display   All   Email ] [ General Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Which part?
5.1 from 2ch not quite 'right'? I'm not a big effects guy, I guess.
or
....and it's a 2-parter.
Current recording practice? 2ch or multi is now being done. How much evolution will it need before it's right, or do you think they've got it 'down' now? I'd think that just like when stereo came out, it took a while for the recording engineers to understand and make best use.
Or perhaps converting the vast body of 2ch or doing remixes on old master tapes?

I know it isn't a perfect fit, but I look at 3D in a similar way. It is glitzy and looks good, but does it add to the movie? Will it catch on?....(HT and multi channel obviously has). I know SACD, which I understand is multi channel oriented sure hasn't....set the world on fire.

Please link something to read:


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  



Topic - Why is surround sound not "high end"? - Raymond Leggs 21:27:41 07/14/12 ( 67)