Hi-Rez Highway

RE: far too many ...

198.228.201.149

This Post Has Been Edited by the Author

In Reply to: RE: far too many ... posted by TBone on July 09, 2012 at 07:57:36

We are all entitled to our opinions. But, all of our experience is bounded in some way, including mine and yours.
I do not want to get into whether one form of music is "better" than another. Your preference is apparently for rock. Mine is for classical. I respect some of rock for its artistic creativity, and I have nothing against your preference on musical grounds. But, I think this makes for a rather dramatic differences in our entire listening results and priorities. I cannot say that I have much listening experience to rock, nor you, apparently, to classical, either recorded or live. How many live classical concerts do you go to? And, how many classical recordings have you used in you evaluations?
First, there is not that much rock on SACD in comparison to classical, especially not in Mch. It is a constant complaint at sa-cd.net.
Second, most rock is recorded in relatively dead studios with one (or more) mike per performer, usually with vocalist in a booth with headphones. Each instrument is essentially in its own space on a searate track for final mix down. The final result is an engineered mix that creates an artificial sense of the musical event, often quite skillfully. But, there is no singular live event that was recorded in real space.
The exception may be rock concerts, typically in large venues that are not acoustically particularly good without gobs of amplification. This creates a major disparity in sound for comparisons of live vs. recorded music. The rock concert is inevitably miked much more closely than any audience member can experience, in order to steer clear of the effects of the Hall's amplifying sound system.
And, third, rock is mostly performed on electronically amplified instruments, whose sound tends to vary much more under different circumstances than acoustic ones. Even, live acoustic rock is usually done in even small venues with mikes and amplification. Different mikes and amplified speakers vary the sound from venue to venue, from instrument to instrument.
Not much of this is true with classical recordings, with extremely rare exception, at least not nearly to the same extent. Again, I am not saying which is the superior musical form. The classical standard is unamplified acoustic instruments playing in a hall with reasonably good acoustics, creating a unified live musical event. The recording engineers can go into the hall and hear the singular event for themselves, and seek to reproduce that in their final product. That is usually not possible with rock, especially not the studio recordings, which predominate.
There are likely thousands of well engineered classical SACDs and Blu-rays that provide in Mch a unified replica of the live event in the hall. They do not use artificial ambience or reverb in the mix, unlike much Mch rock. Yes, the hall is filled with reflections that color the sound, but most decent classical halls have more similarities than differences. Unamplified outdoor concerts sound pretty crappy by comparison. The point is that music sounds natural to classical music listeners with the effects of a hall, its reflections and colorations. Ideally, we want recorded music to reproduce a sense of that, with the performers up front and the sense of hall reflected energy enveloping us, as in a live concert. There are countless of successful examples of that in hi Rez Mch recordings that give the illusion of sitting in a very good center seat.
Perhaps the key difference between you and I is that I can go to a live concert, as I do often. Then, I can go home and expect a reasonable facsimile of that sound. Rock just does not have that opportunity in abundance. I honestly do not know what rock listeners can use as a standard for judging their sound systems. But, it surely is not the sound of live acoustic music.
Sorry, if you have had a bad experience with SACD players, especially in comparison to CD. While some claim to hear no difference, you are the first to claim that CD sounds consistently better than SACD. I do not know anyone else in my circle of friends, even rock listeners, who agrees with you. But, then we have no idea which recordings you are talking about. It certainly is unlikely to be classical recordings.
The higher residual background noise of LP is unmistakeable to everyone I know in any system, including some quite superlative ones. I am at a loss to understand why your comparative listening has failed to reveal it. Certainly, measured technical specs confirm it to be there.
You are revealing your total inexperience with live vs. recorded Mch when you claim that Mch is fake. With classical recordings, Mch is picked up by actual discrete mikes in the hall. Again, we have no clue as to what you were listening to.
The addition of a discrete center channel plus surrounds is definitely capable of phantom imaging the sound much more into the room toward the listener vs. stereo. The frontal depth of image is enhanced quite naturally, as a result. But, it needs proper source material to be able to hear it. Mch classical recordings do just that, but I do not think there is much rock material that exhibits the same effect.
So, we disagree quite sharply on a number of issues. Our differing musical preferences clearly play a major roll in that. But, you are entitled to like what you like, as am I. But, there is not need to be hostile and bitter about it.

Edits: 07/10/12

Follow Ups: