In Reply to: far too many ... posted by TBone on July 9, 2012 at 07:57:36:
Severely compressed excessively loud music (in your case, rock), often distorted, where musicians, many using "fake" instruments, are recorded on 24+ track tape, in widely scattered venues, some not even having met each other, during widely scattered time periods, in a "fake" venue and "fake" space, to generate "fake" sounds and "fake" noises, fake ambiance, all to create a discombobulated whatever that has *nothing* to do with a live venue. It *all* "fake" and you know it!
Let me tell you what else is "fake", vinyl's RIAA equalization that is the most severe and "faking" in the all of audio recording. Come on, how could 50s, 60s, 70s, technology undergo the brutal RIAA compression/expansion sausage making process and come out the other end without an audibly distinct signature? It can’t! And that is before the tone arm and stylus jump into the fray. If you don’t know that or more aptly, *hear* the colorful distortions then it is explicitly clear that *vinyl*, not live acoustic music, is your reference, it which case no recording format will ever challenge your vinyl standard.
Look, there is no denying that vinyl can sound damn great; that is not the issue. And I would never challenge your contention that it sounds better or more realistic to you than SACD in your system. But you have very limited knowledge about hi-end SACD multi-channel. It is abundantly clear by every post you have made in this thread that your experience with high-end SACD multi-channel is deplorably deficient (given that you have chosen to pontificate on it and make authoritative claims). You clearly don't have the requisite in home or in system experience to make anything other than misguided and erroneous conclusions about the format. This is especially true when conversing with audiophiles who are proficiently experienced with both high end vinyl and high-end multi-channel in the same system in a decent room (the room matters). Your “faking” pronouncement with regard to muti-channel make this all too clear.
Your reference with multi-channel seems limited to Home Theater (which is not SACD), based on your posts, and is not meaningful. That's OK. But for the record, just because a quality multi-channel recording utilizes 5 (or minimal) microphones to create 5 discreet channels, (instead of your likely reference of 20-30 microphones squeezed into two channels) make it "faking" hall ambiance.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Whoa! "faking hall ambiance"? ..Let me tell you what "faking" is - Robert C. Lang 01:03:57 07/10/12 (18)
- please get a grip on reality ... - TBone 06:07:56 07/10/12 (17)
- "faking hall ambiance" - Robert C. Lang 12:02:20 07/10/12 (16)
- again ... let's be clear ... - TBone 12:28:56 07/10/12 (15)
- Well, I'm rootin' for you - Robert C. Lang 17:34:19 07/10/12 (2)
- no need Robert ... - TBone 07:49:53 07/14/12 (1)
- Again not proselytizing....just some other points of interest - Robert C. Lang 01:09:13 07/16/12 (0)
- Wow. - Kal Rubinson 15:32:19 07/10/12 (11)
- c'mon KAL ... - TBone 16:38:46 07/10/12 (10)
- RE: c'mon KAL ... - Fitzcaraldo215 09:50:03 07/11/12 (1)
- spinning daftness ... - TBone 06:19:12 07/14/12 (0)
- c'mon - Kal Rubinson 17:07:55 07/10/12 (7)