99.232.225.117
In Reply to: RE: it is simply easier (for me) using “live” as a reference posted by Robert C. Lang on April 16, 2008 at 12:55:17
>>One conclusion, though, is almost unmistakable, in my opinion. That is, that multi-channel SACD has a far greater potential in bridging the huge gap between recorded and live music when compared to vinyl (or most any two-channel I have heard) even factoring in the live music issues you accurately describe.<<
I will always hesitate to compare any reproduced format to live music, apples & oranges, but I can somewhat relate...
I've only heard one MC system capable of holding my interest long term, and it was a well built and very expensive setup - playing "live" recordings. Indeed, I was very impressed, especially its dynamic capability, lack or compression (compression instantly kills reality) and true instrumental impact.
However, although my experience with MC is rather limited, the vast majority of MC examples I've heard to date are "skewed" way beyond fine stereo reproduction.
All I ask of my main system is the ability to help suspend belief for a period of time - to place the musicians and performance (either live or studio) within my rooms bounderies. I don't expect it to sound live - because its NOT live.
I've heard various sources within my system that accomplish the above, although with varying degrees of success. I still think its software dependent, no analog or digital rig will recreate the illusion of reality if its playing back poorly mastered music.
However, on an absolute level, in my room/system, vinyl easily trumped SACD when attempting to recreate a pseudo "live" illusion. It does so because it sounds impactful, emotional, lacked compression & sounded realistic, not because it "skews" my perception of reality - or seduced me with tonal colorations.
TB1
Follow Ups: