|
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: Please don't misunderstand me.... posted by Sordidman on May 10, 2006 at 10:33:56:
I agree that the paucity of rock releases and/or the lack of good quality rock releases has been damaging to multi-channel in general and to SACD as a format. I am not a rock fan at all, but I have always recognized its value to SACD and have staunchly rooted for more rock releases because of its importance.Using the same reasoning I believe every SACD advocate should, at a minimum, root for the success of multi-channel, whether they like it or not, because for most music listeners multi-channel is the only real difference between SACD and CD. Even in this forum more and more of us say we can't hear the difference. And the chorus has been growing louder. (I can't comment on that because I have so few new generation CDs). Even in rabid anti-SACD forums such as Rec. Audio High-End when you introduce multi-channel into the equation in the middle of a SACD bashing thread it can take the wind out of the bashing. Because even they recognize that multi-channel *is* a clear difference between CD and SACD where few (most will say no) other differences otherwise exist. In other words, multi-channel, like it or not, is the last and only hope for SACD. Fortunately, the manufactures understand that which is probably why it is almost impossible to buy a new recording that does not have a multi-channel program on it.
I agree that classical music is a shrinking pond. But I am glad to see that the retreat has seemly halted judging by ticket sales at the symphonies around the country and that record sales (according to "Bill Board") have actually shown a slight increase. But you are correct there is no way that classical music devotees can carry a format like it ushered in CD 23 years ago. (Although, classical music has carried SACD on its back for the last few years). And actually that too bad with respects to multi-channel because that's where it can really close the gap between a sound system and live music.
I also agree that the costs for high-end entry into multi-channel are over the top. This can cause a catch 22 because of the high cost and difficulty in setting up a system even close to correctly. For practical reasons many listeners will just piggy back their SACD multi-channel with their Home Theater systems and then have a poor experience which they then report back to the group.
Regarding the suggestion of 6 speakers arranged in a semi-circle in front of the listener, that might be appealing visually, but if the science behind 5.1 is any where close to being good science (and it may be flawed) then either the semi-circle would not work very well or (and this I believe is more likely) the channels in the semi circle arrangement would have to be mixed in such a way to "sound" like 5.1 is today.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Ditto...Please don't misunderstand me.... - Robert C. Lang 14:30:14 05/10/06 (3)
- WOW!! Robert, that was a very, very, good point... - Sordidman 15:05:31 05/10/06 (2)
- Multichannel - Robertc88 03:37:19 05/12/06 (0)
- Thank you - Robert C. Lang 17:45:54 05/10/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
