You're kinda mixing two things in your question: Hi-rez, and multi-channel. While a good *discreet, no gimmick* multi-channel recording of a symphony is unquestionably better than stereo, it's not bad going back to stereo after a few weeks of surround. What I find almost too hard to take is going from hi-rez DSD to redbook. Very hard. Surprisingly hard. |
i prefer 2 ch for music and 5.1 for movies,although i have heard a few well recorded ,mixed 5.1 DVD A,SACD that sound very good!well done 5.1 music can be very exciting to listen to,ive found myself in stores getting ready to buy a 5.1 disc,only to put it back on the shelf worried that ill get one with a mix that sucks.i would buy more 5.1 sacds if they also included a 2 ch sacd layer instead of the usual redbook cd layer,,, |
I certainly see Nandersons point. We are truly the disposable society---like none before us---Somewhere down the road there will be consequences. There must be 2000 computer towers dumped every day,worldwide.----- Now on to music; Like many I do HT and 2ch. I enjoy the visual along with the music. I'm sure I rented every classical LD available; back when.--As a music junky,I listen to something near 24/7 and enjoy a boombox and the car radio. I have newer 7.1 Marantz sr9300;receiver, which will make 7.1 out of 2ch. information. It gives me my little 7.1 fix; good for a short period of time. (Then there's the joy of remote pre-sets)(A first for me)I don't do the newer formats and probably won't. I got turned off by the first DTS 5.1 cds I bought.UGH! (Anybody listen to Moody Blues DOFP; dts version?--case closed) My first love,like many here is 2ch,were most of the upgrade bucks go. At 67,I understand the younger folks getting into that.---Just reading here I see they are doing ELTON in sacd---a good indicator of where the format is going. I won't say never;ELTON makes it tempting.(for me) |
Spoiled? You mean as in no imaging because of the use of the center channel which flattens the space out, or do you mean unmusical over the top bass because of the use of the .1 channel?
Every multichannel set up I have heard (including the "state of the art" Meridian system at Ambrosia Audio in Belair) sounds like mono, just the opposite of what one expects. For whatever reason 2 channel does a better job of giving the illusion of depth, seperation, and soundstage width. |
There are some excellent multichannel recordings but in general I can not get excited about the multichannel sound with DSP or discrete channels just too fatiguing and unnatural compared to the best of two channel (LP, CD, SACD, DVD running in 2 channel mode). Also, and not a small consideration, this world's resources can not put up with obsolescence by design formats that dump, for the purpose of keeping up, toxic ladden receivers and/or processors in our landfills or, worse, the roadsides of 3rd world countries. No longer can this be labeled tree hugging by some. Call it your last resort hugging. |
There are some excellent multichannel recordings but in general I can not get excited about the multichannel sound with DSP or discrete channels just too fatiguing and unnatural compared to the best of two channel (LP, CD, SACD, DVD running in 2 channel mode). Also, and not a small consideration, this world's resources can not put up with obsolescence by design formats that dump, for the purpose of keeping up, toxic ladden receivers and/or processors in our landfills or, worse, the roadsides of 3rd world countries. No longer can this be labeled tree hunging by some. Call it your last resort hunging. |
There are some excellent multichannel recordings but in general I can not get excited about the DSP sound just too fatiguing and unnatural compared to the best of two channel (LP, CD, SACD, DVD running in 2 channel mode). |
Newbee, I also am a music lover first. However, I don't think we can totally ignore the medium. If so, we folks from the 60's would still be listening to 8 tracks and transistor radios and single speaker phonos. My question had more to do with comparing apples to apples---which I did not make clear. If one listens to a good multi channel recording, can one then be just as satisfied listening to the same recording in redbook? |
Nov 26, 2004
I personally find the opposite than the above responses. For me multichannel sound especially with the HIGH RESOLUTION that accompanies it is fantastic and is a quantum leap forward. Two channel is like black and white TV by comparison. I have a set up tht can do two or 6 channel and I much prefer the multichannel. Much of the music I now buy is DVD-audio or at least DTS. Of course a lot depends on who did the mixing. You can have poor 5.1 and a great redbook CD. A properly mixed DVDaudio with its MLP no compression packaging will beat any "standard" redbook CD in my opinion.
Try Steely Dan's "Everything Must Go" or Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" in DVDaudio or 5.1 and you will see what I mean. The still pictures on DVD audio are a plus too.
Happy Thanksgiving to all AudiogoNers.
|
I agree with Slappy, I have many MC SACD's and DVD-A disca, I could easily do without the surround. |
ive messed around with DVD-A, not SACD though. Honestly, i'm not much for multichannel music, it just seems kind of gimmicky. when seeing a show yer not in the middle of the band, yer in the audience with them in front of you.
Personally i will keep multichannel for HT and stick with straight 2 channel for music. |
If all I could listen to was music of SACD and DVD A I'd drop this as a hobby. For me, its the music not the medium! |
