Multi-channel SACD is the best!

[hesse5]

On a proper super audio system there is no comparison between 2 channel and multichannel. The key is to actually have the proper system.

 

[taff]

Interesting first post. Welcome.

Think I'll just grab the op: and wait..

 

[Voice_Coil]

On a proper super audio system there is no comparison between 2 channel and multichannel. The key is to actually have the proper system.

is this a fact, or one mans opinion ?

if the latter, it only really matters to you. :^

 

[vacdac]

Awesome!!! :nup: Why the feck has this:td: :td: :td:been posted up in 2ch??

You may be better off posting in the Audio Favella land that is AV Forums. :^

:yeah:

:cafe:

 

[hesse5]

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

- - - Updated - - -

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

 

[vacdac]

:yeah: :roll: :zzzz:

To this I can only add you have a lovely line in .......UTTER BOLLOCKS!!! Why even post this in the 2ch section of a predominantly two channel forum?? :doh: :KH:

"Some weirdo teenage Fapp Monkey"

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

 

[Voice_Coil]

well im just an average man, earning an average mans wage, that said, ill have to stick to an average 2 speaker system. ants:

 

[meninblack]

Pink Floyd. :rofl:

Do the lyrics get less rubbish in multichannel?

Being surrounded by Elton and the Pinks isn't really what I'm looking for, thanks all the same. :nup:

 

[Voice_Coil]

i bet the shads sound superb , lol

 

[Guest]

I heard one of those quadrophonic systems back in the 70s. Was 'meh' then and still is.

 

[meninblack]

I wonder how many new 5.1 SACDs come out every year? I buy a bit on SACD, but it's nearly all stereo or 3.0 at most. Probably more than quadrophonic records, mind.

 

[nick dartmoor]

There is an interesting school of thought (which I subscribe to) as to why music produced for surround listening has never become the big hit that some thought it would. No matter how advanced we become, as a species, we are still fundamentally slaves to our natures. Throughout our evolution, we have been accustomed to try, for reasons of survival, to remain aware of our surroundings. If you are trying to stay alive in a threatening world, you want to keep your back to the wall (or cliff, hill, tree etc) and to have anything that threatens you in front, so that you can make decisions as to how to deal with it. The sound behind you is the sound of the thing that eats you before you have time to turn around. Millennia of survival have hard-wired into us an inherent discomfort with sounds that come from behind, because they represent the unknown, the unseen, that might be our undoing. Hence finding a cave to live in, so you can focus your defensive attention on the entrance etc. For all our modern accoutrements, we are still at heart the same primitive instinctive beings we have always been, and this is why, no matter how good a surround-sound system may be, we will never be as comfortable with it as we are with 2-channel. For sure, the multi-channel sound may be initially very impressive, in its portrayal of realistic space, or total-immersion, but nonetheless, in terms of achieving a long-term sense of comfort and connection with it, we will always be defeated by our deeper instincts. We are just fundamentally happier knowing where our sound comes from, being able to relax, forget about what is behind us, and dive face-first into the listening experience. We have an inherent predisposition to face the things we listen to.

 

[Jelly Tussle]

I have a number of SACD's; many of which are multi channel. I also have a number of DVD-Audios also multi-channel.

And whilst I thoroughly enjoy (most of) these discs; I wouldn't presume to tell anyone that they are 'the best'.

Music and music reproduction is too personal a matter to make sweeping statements about.

Glad that you're enjoying your music though.

 

[Jelly Tussle]

There is an interesting school of thought (which I subscribe to) as to why music produced for surround listening has never become the big hit that some thought it would. No matter how advanced we become, as a species, we are still fundamentally slaves to our natures. Throughout our evolution, we have been accustomed to try, for reasons of survival, to remain aware of our surroundings. If you are trying to stay alive in a threatening world, you want to keep your back to the wall (or cliff, hill, tree etc) and to have anything that threatens you in front, so that you can make decisions as to how to deal with it. The sound behind you is the sound of the thing that eats you before you have time to turn around. Millennia of survival have hard-wired into us an inherent discomfort with sounds that come from behind, because they represent the unknown, the unseen, that might be our undoing. Hence finding a cave to live in, so you can focus your defensive attention on the entrance etc. For all our modern accoutrements, we are still at heart the same primitive instinctive beings we have always been, and this is why, no matter how good a surround-sound system may be, we will never be as comfortable with it as we are with 2-channel. For sure, the multi-channel may sound initially be very impressive, in its portrayal of realistic space, or total-immersion sound, but nonetheless, in terms of achieving a long-term sense of comfort and connection with it, we will always been defeated by our deeper instincts. We are just fundamentally happier knowing where our sound comes from, being able to relax, forget about what is behind us, and dive face-first into the listening experience. We have an inherent predisposition to face the things we listen to.

:goodone:

Enjoyed reading that.

It makes a lot of sense - even though I do like some multi-channel music! :^

 

[Muddy Funster]

There is an interesting school of thought (which I subscribe to) as to why music produced for surround listening has never become the big hit that some thought it would. No matter how advanced we become, as a species, we are still fundamentally slaves to our natures. Throughout our evolution, we have been accustomed to try, for reasons of survival, to remain aware of our surroundings. If you are trying to stay alive in a threatening world, you want to keep your back to the wall (or cliff, hill, tree etc) and to have anything that threatens you in front, so that you can make decisions as to how to deal with it. The sound behind you is the sound of the thing that eats you before you have time to turn around. Millennia of survival have hard-wired into us an inherent discomfort with sounds that come from behind, because they represent the unknown, the unseen, that might be our undoing. Hence finding a cave to live in, so you can focus your defensive attention on the entrance etc. For all our modern accoutrements, we are still at heart the same primitive instinctive beings we have always been, and this is why, no matter how good a surround-sound system may be, we will never be as comfortable with it as we are with 2-channel. For sure, the multi-channel sound may be initially very impressive, in its portrayal of realistic space, or total-immersion, but nonetheless, in terms of achieving a long-term sense of comfort and connection with it, we will always be defeated by our deeper instincts. We are just fundamentally happier knowing where our sound comes from, being able to relax, forget about what is behind us, and dive face-first into the listening experience. We have an inherent predisposition to face the things we listen to.

Nice posting, but I disagree.

We listen in an immersive environment. When we hear an orchestra playing live in a concert hall, our attention is drawn to the orchestra, but we unconsciously take in sensory information about the whole room. While that can be frustrating if the guy six rows behind you is intent on coughing up his own pelvis, I don't know many people who would take a stereo recording over the concert hall experience because the latter triggers atavistic fight-or-flight responses.

I think the problems with multichannel music are three-fold:

1. To do it properly takes a lot of space. The kind of living room space that only Americans routinely have at their disposal

2. To do it properly takes a lot of care, attention... and money. Think how much you spent on two channel and treble that sum

3. Audiophile inertia

I have heard several multichannel music systems that, frankly, blow the doors off most two channel systems, but each one was punishingly expensive, put together with obsessive care, created a hot-seat even smaller than a two-channel system and needed a large, almost square room to work well. Short change any of these variables even slightly and you get something closer to quadraphonic or home cinema. And the difficulty is, because home cinema is reasonably forgiving in installation, those who 'get' home cinema think that the requirement for multichannel music is... home cinema. So, anyone protesting that playing 5.1 channels of Beethoven is harder to do than playing 5.1 channels of Bruce Willis in a vest gets tarred and feathered by the AV know-all club.

While I don't have the space (or the budget) to do it properly, I find it a great shame that multichannel music failed to find a home with the audiophile community. It is something we dismiss too readily.

 

[paulf-2007]

oh dear a newbie, you are either winding us up or you are about to get torn to shreds by the resident wolf pack.

 

[JamPal]

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

You have a near perfect system! Wow! What is it? How do you know and by what measure? It sounds like it was the size and price which lead you to this modest conclusion.

 

[pmac]

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

Congratulations!

Only your second post and it is already right up there with the biggest pile of shite I've read on here for ages. :td:

Nice work, you should do well on here :nup:

oh, and welcome to the Wam btw ;-)

 

[rabski]

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!- - - Updated - - -

If you have a near perfection of a system. I mean no expense spared. Every channel perfectly equal. The room is perfectly acoustically treated and then the SACD multi is done to perfection. I once again say there is no comparison between the two. Most people that write on these threads do not have these systems because they cost too much and take up way to much space. Actually most studios don't even have these types of systems for similar reasons. I guess I am tired of hearing people that have never heard a perfect system playing Pink Floyd or even Elton John trying to argue there point. I am fortunate to have one of these systems due to dumb luck and I can tell you that with out a doubt the multi channel which is a minimum of three times as expensive (Not 4 times) cause obviously I am backing out the constants like the CD player is by far superior in sound quality and experience................!

So arrogant and stupid you needed to say it twice.

Yet it's still complete bollocks.

Such a shame most people who post here cannot afford your system.

'Dumb luck'? Very poor spelling I would suggest.