Spoiled by multichannel????

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.

I agree with Slappy, I have many MC SACD's and DVD-A disca, I could easily do without the surround.

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.

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?

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).