Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

The problem with surround isn't the format, but inability to record great artists economically. Hardly anyone can afford to record a symphony orchestra in two-channel, much less surround.

Most people are happy with processed, synthetic surround, so the demand for high isn't sufficient for the producers to cater to audiophiles.

So I think surround, as an audiophile format, is DOA with no prospects for high rez development.

Meantime, the vinyl meisters have a giant treasure trove of high quality reissue material. The artists and performance quality matter way more than format, next comes resolution and finally format (with resolution maintained, not compromised).

Resolution of vinyl has reached incredible heights. Digital potential is equally good (my 1-bit recordings at 5.6MHz are stunning) but I think that vinyl will prevail, surprisingly, due to ease of operation. After the commercial failure of DVD-A and SACD who wants to commit to a new gamble on 5.6MHz digital? No one, I suspect.

Sorry if Gordon is "bored" with vinyl, but his quest for "spacial" aspects is likely doomed, in my estimation. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.

Dave

Holt's comment about missing midrange is right. After 17 yrs I had to replace an amplifier and what I discovered was bizarre. Interconnects filtering out overtones and increasing pitches. Amplifiers filtering out sound trying to sound more musical. While eliminating midrange and tonal qualities helps get rid of harmonic distortion from poorly mastered cd's and transitorized equipment, most of what makes music sound good is the overtones from the musical instruments, most of which is in the midrange. I've listened to systems worth in the $10,000 that have 80% of the sound missing. Soundstage is a nice effect, but not worth sacraficing high fidelity. If you want your recordings to sound musical, buy quality recordings by competent artists.

Is there an inverse relationship between equipment that can produce good soundstaging (the visual) and producing accurate and balanced sounds - ar the two at odds when designing an amplifier? a necessary tradeoff?

Don't really understand all the hype on " Hardware ". We could spend Ginormous amounts of $$$$$ and if the recording was badley made it is going to sound even worse. Let's spend a little more time and effort on making "GOOD"
recordings to play on these Megabuck systems everybody is trying to sell us and claiming how great they are.
Remember basics "Garbage In Garbage Out"

While I admire JGH for his past contributions to the field, his dark and pessimistic view today is not only a sweeping generalization but wholly incorrect. The majority of highly respected gear today is more neutral and transparent than in previous decades. Atmasphere is right, there are plenty of manufacturers that aim for neutrality and resolution above all else. Are there exceptions? Sure, but there always have been. Progress marches forward, sometimes rather circuitously, but forward nonetheless. 3 steps forward and 1 step back.

Even amplifiers from companies like Conrad Johnson, always known for their "golden" sound have become dramatically more neutral over the years. Listen to an ARC REF amp today and compare it to the ARC offerings from the 80s or 90s and it will make you giggle. B&W 801's, once a standard setting speaker sound quite antiquated (as do most speakers of that time) compared with todays best and even mid-level speakers.

We take in used gear all the time and it's always fascinating to compare a legendary amp or speaker from the 80's or 90s to the better gear today. In nearly every case the older equipment sounds much more colored, less extended at both frequency extremes, less controlled, more opaque....in short less real and less like live music.