In Reply to: Re: So many problems... posted by Robert C. Lang on November 28, 2005 at 23:13:57:
You make very good arguments here and raise some important points.The thing that struck me about your response, and also what Kal often says, - is that there are an ever increasing amount of recordings that use multi-channel effectively for much better sound/realism than can be achieved with stereo.
I must admit:
1. I'm not really a classical musical fan. And, although I was arguing as a "devil's advocate," and presenting my arguments from the perspective of an "unexperienced" music playback gear consumer: multichannel (good recordings) are mostly confined to classical. Speaking for myself, the only reason why I have 2 channel SACD is because of APL's incredible value, and SACD as an afterthought that I'd happily live without to be able to play DVDs and listen to the incredible redbook: as there are well under 50 SACDs that I would want to own, and less than half of those are perceptably better than redbook, - IMO. (Yes, - rock and some jazz recordings mostly suck, - IMO, - there's a lot of room to improve upon redbook both in recording and playback).
2. As classical music continues to die, fade, and no longer becomes economically viable for software manufacturers, adding a new hardware, playback system to improve it is a fools errand: especially given the expense, and the "layman's" or "rookie's" ability to get confused with hiRez formats in general; how it relates to home theatre, and/or the ability to build a good sounding system.
The first thing that my cosongwriter/guitarist friend asked me at CES was, "what the hell is SACD?"
Cheers R...
"Swimming in the river that floods the neighborhood, I could call to you, but it would do no good"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Nice post - Sordidman 09:32:21 11/29/05 (0)