|
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: Looking for inmate opinions about multichannel posted by hiredfox on September 29, 2016 at 04:38:01:
Several thoughts. One is it seems clear to me that you have not heard a quality Mch system properly set up upon which to base your beliefs.
"Five channels of poor quality information cannot give more insight of tonal accuracy or precision than Two."
It is possible to infer from this that Mch recordings are somehow are of poorer quality than stereo recordings. But, since Mch is invariably in hi rez, that inference would, of course, be false. And, many Mch recordings are just different mixes/masterings of the same mike feeds as their hi rez stereo equivalents.
I do subscribe to the imperfect information theory that all recordings are imperfect in capturing all the information one hears live. But, it is also clear that 5 or more channels of information relayed to your listening room conveys several times more of the information from the live event than two. That is particularly true of spatial information, as Kal mentioned.
It has been shown empirically many times that most listeners in the hall hear a 360 degree sound field consisting of direct and reflected sound. Stereo is capable of reproducing about 60 degrees or so of the frontal sound field, occasionally slightly more as you suggest outside that arc. But, the notion that your room can resynthesize the diffuse sound field of the hall's reflections from just two channels is a fallacy going back to the Bose 901 speakers. I also say that having been unconvinced by coincident pair Blumlein, etc. stereo recordings, which require an unusual speaker layout and which have been unsuccessful commercially for many decades.
Why do you maintain that properly done Mch recordings produce nothing but a "'wow' factor of some artificial room filling effects"? Discretely recorded hi rez Mch is no more artificial sounding than stereo. Actually, it is less so IMHO, which gets back to my opening paragraph. What have you actually listened to that gives you this belief? Granted, there are artificial synthesis systems that do what you say from stereo recordings. Some listeners like those, but I do not, and I do not advocate for them.
The proof, as always, is in the listening. I have a circle of close friends, all with decades of experience with stereo in all media formats, all with very fine and costly systems, who agree that Mch comes closest to accurately reproducing the live concert event. I have also heard many, many very costly stereos. Some of those were heard with reviewer friends and inspired rave published reviews. But, no stereo I have heard equals high quality Mch. To me, it is not close.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Looking for inmate opinions about multichannel - Fitzcaraldo215 09:20:02 09/30/16 (7)
- RE: Looking for inmate opinions about multichannel - ahendler 15:24:48 09/30/16 (6)
- RE: Looking for inmate opinions about multichannel - Kal Rubinson 18:34:06 09/30/16 (0)
- Then you, too, have not heard a properly set up multichannel system. - jeffreybehr 18:32:07 09/30/16 (4)
- RE: Then you, too, have not heard a properly set up multichannel system. - ahendler 21:37:25 09/30/16 (3)
- RE: Then you, too, have not heard a properly set up multichannel system. - Disbeliever 23:54:07 09/30/16 (2)
- RE: Then you, too, have not heard a properly set up multichannel system. - ahendler 10:14:29 10/01/16 (1)
- RE: Then you, too, have not heard a properly set up multichannel system. - Disbeliever 12:06:16 10/01/16 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
