|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Since you asked... posted by jfz on January 5, 2007 at 20:19:56:
When you quoted me and wrote **"like the real thing"*** you left off two very key words, *to them*. The quote should read "like the real thing to them". That addresses the entire issue you had about "personal preference" which I was aware of and accounted for in my response.Regarding the "by definition" issue, it is true a properly set up two channel system is not spelled out as a specific requirement for good multi-channel in ITU specifications. But it is certainly implied. I methodically set up my multi-channel system, including the use of pink noise measurements and in the process I made my two-channel system, around which my multi-channel was built, the best it has ever sounded. To be sure, I should have accomplished this long before I upgraded to multi-channel, but the recommendations that pink noise measurements be used to optimize a multi-channel system and the specific ITU requirements that state that all speakers be equidistant from the listener "forced" me to optimize my two-channel system in the process.
Sure there are compromises to be made along the way, with any system, two-channel or multi-channel. But given the constraints of these compromises the two-channel portion of a multi-channel system (again assuming that you plan to do serious two-channel listening) should sound as good as it would if you had no multi-channel set-up. But even slight compromises in favor of multi-channel over two channel in a given system should not materially interfere with the listener’s decision to decide which one s/he prefers in a direct comparison.
One thing I am patently clear about, it is hell of a lot easier and definitive to make comparisons between multi-channel and two channel than between "Redbook and SACD" or between "SACD and vinyl", between "PCM and DSD", between Redbook and vinyl", "amp A and amp B, and on and on, that listeners in this forum and elsewhere seem to be able to accomplish with an absolute certainty. And they make these comparisons involving different systems on different days and sometimes different decades! Making a comparison in a single system between multi-channel and two-channel, in which are *clear* differences, with the convenience of the brilliantly implemented two layer SACD, is a slam dunk.
So, I will say again: if a multi-channel listener has her/his system set up properly and if that same system is also used for two channel listening then they are in a great position to compare the two layers and decide which one sounds the most like the real thing *to them*. A two-channel only listener does not have that choice.
Your issue regarding costs and choices, I agree with 100%.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Since you asked... - Robert C. Lang 21:45:23 01/05/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
