In Reply to: It depends on the material posted by wazoo on May 20, 2007 at 11:14:33:
Your juxtaposition of multi-channel and "long live SACD" is significantly related.
As more and more listeners in *this* forum have opined that well done SACD sounds no better than well done Redbook it seems logical that, if this is true, there is no reason for two-channel SACDs to exist. This is certainly what the market seems to be saying.
So, it would seem that the best (only?) chance for SACD to survive is to capitalize on, exploit if you will, to the greatest extent possible its technical advantage to do what CD can't do, hi-rez multi-channel. I could argue that if SACD had not vigorously adopted multi-channel it would not be alive today.
Indeed, even those SACD supporters who do not support multi-channel should be thankful that multi-channel exists because multi-channel has truly raised the music reproduction bar and made SACD relevant.
For the record, I am not one who says that Redbook is the equal to or near equal to SACD. I own very few (probably 5 or 6) "recently recorded" (last 10 years) CDs so I really don't have an opinion on what is better.
I do know that, in my system, with two channel given an equal shot (actually preferential treatment and resources) multi-channel sounds *far* superior and is getting better all the time, while the quality level of two-channel is static.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Very appropriate/on target connection - Robert C. Lang 13:05:24 05/20/07 (0)