|
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: There are precious few products from the 50’s that I find superior to products today posted by jazz1 on August 20, 2010 at 23:05:25:
***" If a recording label were to make a corporate decision to return to the 50s way of recording/engineering I would look elsewhere to purchase my music (probably back to my Lp collection).***
Actually, when I made that statement I was not thinking of multi-channel at all. I was thinking of "recorded music", not two channel vs. SACD multi-channel.
I have found that the technical differences between the two while notable are not as far different as a lot of people think. Actually they are very similar. As I said in this thread they are "kissing cousins". For me personally (others may approach it differently) a well done multi-channel system starts with well done two-channel.....that's the foundation. And what I have learned about the micing requirements of multi-channel is that it is merely an extension of what it is for two-channel. Multi-channel does not turn this philosophy on its head. I have yet to find a multi-channel recording that "saved" its two channel counterpart. It does make an already good two channel recording better...even *much* better, but it can't resuscitate a bad recording, in my experience.
At the risk of an invalid or exaggerated (or both) analogy its kind of like a chimp and homo sapiens sapiens. Supposedly the DNA difference is less than 2%. But wow what a difference that 2% makes!
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- This is not a two-channel vs. multi-channel issue....far from it - Robert C. Lang 00:20:29 08/21/10 (1)
- analogies......... - jazz1 01:05:03 08/21/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
