In Reply to: Re: Bass management case study . . . posted by Martin419 on December 4, 2005 at 04:26:23:
I'm sure multi-channel recordings like the Steely Dan “Everything Must Go†do exist and that's unfortunate. It's recordings like that that give multi-channel a "bad name". In those cases a listener without a .1 effects channel will most certainly opt for the two-channel layer. That same listener is most apt to post in a forum like this saying "music on my system sounds better in two-channel than in multi-channelâ€. Because in a case, where there is, in essence, "bass restriction" in all channels but the optional .1 channel the two channel version *will* sound better, and in the case of the Steely Dan recording, much better than the multi-channel layer. That should never be.
To be sure, I have on occasion, with popular and jazz (not classical) preferred some tracks (rarely the entire disc) in two channel over multi-channel, but never for the reason of multi-channel bass restriction experienced with Steely Dan's, "Everything Must Go". I will be on the look out for that.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Bass management case study . . . - Robert C. Lang 11:53:25 12/04/05 (6)
- Re: Bass management case study . . . - Martin419 12:26:35 12/04/05 (5)
- Re: Bass management case study . . . - Robert C. Lang 12:58:06 12/04/05 (4)
- Re: Bass management case study . . . - Martin419 05:42:53 12/05/05 (3)
- DVD-A and SACD - Robert C. Lang 15:14:01 12/05/05 (2)
- Re: DVD-A and SACD - csuzor 05:22:19 12/07/05 (1)
- Re: DVD-A and SACD - Robert C. Lang 09:25:24 12/07/05 (0)