HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.18.221.227
In Reply to: The demonstrations I have heard of multi-channel have been pretty bad and going mc would be too expensive. posted by Norm on March 11, 2007 at 12:05:24:
Norm,Were these SACD multi-channel demonstrations or were these home theater multi-channel demonstrations? Home theater demonstrations, mostly not very good that I have heard, are very easy to run across or to arrange.
SACD multi-channel demonstrations, especially good ones, are *very* difficult to find, especially one that is well administered. So I definitely know what you are talking about. In the realm of high end multi-channel audio has only recently began to be taken seriously and probably only because of products like EMM Labs that the high end respects (due in part because of profit margins?). In terms of respect and emphasis, without regard to sound quality I think vinyl is still #1, CD is #2, HT #3, SACD a very distant #4 and and multi-channel SACD (which many mistakenly lump in with HT) is barely on the radar.
In order to get a good demonstration its like getting a demo for two channels only much more so in that you have to educate yourself first then have a dealer arrange a demonstration with you specifying what you want to hear. I know that sounds backwards. But I have found if you really have to know more than the salesperson about multi-channel SACD to get a top notch demo. Two years ago when I was in the market most of the sales staff really did not know or did not make a clear distinction between multi-channel audio and HT. They put their collective noses in the air even though I was auditioning an EMM Labs deck. That attitude probably has not changed that much.
I can sometimes find it difficult enough to get an exceptional *two channel* demonstration. SACD multi-channel is far more difficult.
Regarding the expense, there is no question that an exceptional sounding SACD multi-channel system will cost more, probably significantly more, than a comparable two channel system. Also, I agree a good two channel system is superior to just an OK multi-channel system. But if you really love your two channel system as is then you can save significant bucks by building around it.
There is no question that good multi-channel SACD is not an easy sale.
Robert C. Lang
Follow Ups:
If SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward?
If SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward I would take a closer look at DVD-A. Otherwise, I would give equal opportunity to the other two-channel formats, including CD (that I come to realize can sound extremely good at its best), vinyl (I have a large collection and have purchased ½ dozen so far this year), and SACDs.I do find two-channel SACDs to be superior to CDs and in this hobby where *any* improvement is "huge", that is important to me.
But with all due respects to two-channel SACD, until multi-channel SACD came along (and I’m sure multi-channel DVD-A as well, which I have not heard to good advantage), on the software and electronics side, there have been no clear cut tangible improvements in audio since stereo was perfected (as far as it goes) in the 60s and 70s. That includes CD and two-channel SACD at their zenith.I also believe that SACD is still alive *because* of multi-channel and *not* because of two-channel. The vast majority of audiophile/consumers don't buy that SACD sounds better than CD. Even in this forum there has been a lot of wavering on this issue among those who were staunch SACD devotees. But, at a minimum, those that have heard both, agree, unamiously, that SACD multi-channel is greatly *different* from CD. And in some forums, such as rec.audio.highend, many anti-SACD listeners do acknowledge that multi-channel (SACD/DVD-A) is an improvement over two-channel, even if they have no intentions of buying in because of room limitations, costs, etc.
In other words, I believe, that if SACD recordings only included two channel for classical and jazz recordings going forward that would spell the final end for SACD as a consumer format. If SACD ever throws in the towel I believe it will be as a two-channel/multi-channel format.
Robert C. Lang
Had SACD or DVD-A at their inception been launched as multichannel formats for automotive surround, the format would probably have reached a large market & achieved critical mass. Hi-rez audiophiledom could have travelled on the coattails of 1000W systems in ghetto low-risers and Mercedes & Caddys with Levinson surround systems. But now it's too little too late for SACD & SACD Mch formats, and SACD Mch is relegated to a tiny niche-within-a-niche in the diminishing market for classical music. No doubt though that SACD sounds great with or without Mch.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: