Thread: Ingrained ignorance

Posts: 46
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Post by LC July 10, 2004 (41 of 46)
Khorn said:

Yes, what you say may be true but, if we are talking about the Average Joe here then forget about High Resolution altogether....period. An inexpensive DVD player that only decodes Dolby surround and a low end "theater in a box" is probably what 99.9% of these people have. They are quite content and (on their systems) couldn't hear the difference anyway as far as SOUND QUALITY goes.

I would rather listen to Hi Resolution two channel than Low Resolution surround.
This group is about High Resolution sound be it two or multi channel so don't bring the Average Joe into it 'cause it defeats any argument from both the stereo and multi-channel viewpoint.

Most people with high end equipment and interest are educated enough(on this topic) to understand the differences and decide for themselves.
The "Average Joe" couldn't give a "Flyin' Fidoo" or is even aware of "High Resolution" so yes they will be impressed with multi-channel but not in the sense that anyone here understands it.

I didn't bring the Average Joe into it. I was responding to others' points. And I agree there's not a lot of point discussing average people at a high resolution audio forum. I'm not sure the Average Joe even cares about music, let alone audio. (And hell, the *really average* Joe lives on about $2 a day a barely has clean water to drink, so we do need to restrict our categories here.)

That said, I'm not sure I follow your argument. If the Average Joe (among relatively affluent music listeners, say) has a crappy $499 HT-in-a-box, then as long as it includes a crappy universal player, he will be able to hear a big difference between SACD and CD, namely, the (crappy) multichannel surround sound. Ergo, multichannel (if anything) is what would sell the format to the Average Joe, not, as you say, sonic fidelity, except insofar as multichannel IS an aspect of fidelity, of course, which it can be with acoustic recordings.

On that point, I will say that I completely concur with your preference for high resolution stereo over crappy surround sound, the latter's very genuine (possible) contribution to fidelity notwithstanding.

Post by jdaniel@jps.net July 10, 2004 (42 of 46)
I've found that surround may not need the $tenderlovingcare$ that two-channel needs to fulfill all its duties. Maybe it's the shared responsiblities between speakers, or the fact that the symphony is spread between a few more mics....


In any case--and I feel as though I'm beyond the novelty stage of surround--textures are cleaner, clearer, and have gobbs of space around them to breath. I'ts the holy grail. If you've been following my posts, I hardly have things set up optimally--just 4 channels, no center, no sub; but the rears are set up at the proper 30 degrees back.

I was *so* two-channel oriented, but even 4.0 surround is just better--in ways that serve the music, not the gadget-happy. (I'll admit to you: it was a horrible psychological reset though to go from 2-channel minimalist quality to mulit-channel bi-amping, more wires, etc.)

Post by LC July 10, 2004 (43 of 46)
jdaniel@jps.net said:

I've found that surround may not need the $tenderlovingcare$ that two-channel needs to fulfill all its duties. Maybe it's the shared responsiblities between speakers, or the fact that the symphony is spread between a few more mics....


In any case--and I feel as though I'm beyond the novelty stage of surround--textures are cleaner, clearer, and have gobbs of space around them to breath. I'ts the holy grail. If you've been following my posts, I hardly have things set up optimally--just 4 channels, no center, no sub; but the rears are set up at the proper 30 degrees back.

I was *so* two-channel oriented, but even 4.0 surround is just better--in ways that serve the music, not the gadget-happy. (I'll admit to you: it was a horrible psychological reset though to go from 2-channel minimalist quality to mulit-channel bi-amping, more wires, etc.)

Just a few audio comments:

1) It's surprising that you seem to find multichannel set-up less fussy than stereo. I would think that each new audio "vector" would demand a more careful arrangement of the whole thing. Maybe it's harder to well, but easier to adequately.

2) I'm really not persuaded that multichannel per se is the "holy grail," and I say this as someone for whom imaging is one of the top priorities for an audio system. But I agree that *all other things being equal*, the more channels the better.

3) I can't understand how you run multichannel with no centre channel. Some multichannel recordings are 4.0, but most are not, and many of those that are not use the centre channel for very specific content. To take an extreme example, I gather that the multichannel mix of David Bowie's Heathen places all and only Bowie's vocals in the centre channel. If you played the multichannel version with no centre channel, you would literally not hear Bowie singing. Obviously most acoustic recordings would not have centre channel content quite this dedicated, but you get the idea. While the LFE channel may be optional, I cannot see how the centre channel would be.

4) Do you mean bi-amping, or just multiple channels of amplification? "Bi-amping" almost always refers to using multiple amps "vertically," i.e. independently driving each crossover/driver system in *each* speaker, via two or more pairs of independent terminals on the back of the speaker. The advantages of having each amp "see" only one crossover are real, but as with multichannel itself, the debate is about what you can get for any given amount of money. Some people argue that you're better putting all your money into one really well designed crossover network, one run of speaker cable and one amplifier (per channel, however many channels you have).

Post by jdaniel@jps.net July 10, 2004 (44 of 46)
LC said:

Just a few audio comments:

1) It's surprising that you seem to find multichannel set-up less fussy than stereo. I would think that each new audio "vector" would demand a more careful arrangement of the whole thing. Maybe it's harder to well, but easier to adequately.

2) I'm really not persuaded that multichannel per se is the "holy grail," and I say this as someone for whom imaging is one of the top priorities for an audio system. But I agree that *all other things being equal*, the more channels the better.

3) I can't understand how you run multichannel with no centre channel. Some multichannel recordings are 4.0, but most are not, and many of those that are not use the centre channel for very specific content. To take an extreme example, I gather that the multichannel mix of David Bowie's Heathen places all and only Bowie's vocals in the centre channel. If you played the multichannel version with no centre channel, you would literally not hear Bowie singing. Obviously most acoustic recordings would not have centre channel content quite this dedicated, but you get the idea. While the LFE channel may be optional, I cannot see how the centre channel would be.

4) Do you mean bi-amping, or just multiple channels of amplification? "Bi-amping" almost always refers to using multiple amps "vertically," i.e. independently driving each crossover/driver system in *each* speaker, via two or more pairs of independent terminals on the back of the speaker. The advantages of having each amp "see" only one crossover are real, but as with multichannel itself, the debate is about what you can get for any given amount of money. Some people argue that you're better putting all your money into one really well designed crossover network, one run of speaker cable and one amplifier (per channel, however many channels you have).

3) I can't understand how you run multichannel with no centre channel. Some multichannel recordings are 4.0, but most are not, and many of those that are not use the centre channel for very specific content.

I listen to Classical only. Just a couple of things: A center channel is coming. I *believe* the L and R mics of the orchestra pic up enough of the center to avoid a hole in the middle; I certainly don't hear one. I tell the machine that there that there *is* a center, so that there is no fold down or processing.

1) It's surprising that you seem to find multichannel set-up less fussy than stereo. I would think that each new audio "vector" would demand a more careful arrangement of the whole thing.

The 30 degree placement of the rears is important--it seems as though this is how the soundstage expands so dramatically L and R. Vandersteens have very good imaging and focus, for lack of a better word.

4) Do you mean bi-amping, or just multiple channels of amplification?

Multiple channels of amplification. I wanted my Musical Fidelity integrated to handle the L and R mains *directly* so that I feel as though the Vandy's are getting the best and cleanest sound possible. The other amp runs the rears, a future sub, and maybe a future center; and the MuFi doesn't even know there's a mistress in the house. ;) Balancing wasn't hard at all, though a player with *distance compensation* for the rears is something I will look for in an upgrade.

Post by ssully July 14, 2004 (45 of 46)
LC said:

The question isn't whether the Average Joe *can* tell the difference (i.e. in a controlled hearing test)- it's whether he *will* tell the difference (i.e. in his living room).

Actually the question is moot because a properly controlled comparison between the formats has never been published (or perhaps never even been *done*).
Isn't that interesting? If SACD and DVD-A are as great a leap forward in sonics as advertised, then gathering some slam-dunk blind comparison results should be aa snap, as well as being great advertising. Maybe that's what the formats need to jump-start their sales.

Post by LC July 14, 2004 (46 of 46)
ssully said:

Actually the question is moot because a properly controlled comparison between the formats has never been published (or perhaps never even been *done*).
Isn't that interesting? If SACD and DVD-A are as great a leap forward in sonics as advertised, then gathering some slam-dunk blind comparison results should be aa snap, as well as being great advertising. Maybe that's what the formats need to jump-start their sales.

I don't see why the question is moot. Whether large numbers of people hear a difference, because of the higher resolution or the multichannel, or for that matter their imagination, seems to be the issue for the success of SACD. Of course, whether they *care* about what they hear will also matter, but it has to come down to what they do hear. My expectation is that, given the three choices and given how most people listen, multichannel will be the dominant force that keeps up consumer interest in either of the high resolution digital formats.

I'm touched by your faith that the general public would be concerned with a careful, double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment about *anything at all*, let alone the difference between 16/44 and 24/96 or DSD. I'm laughing right now trying to imagine the new ad compaign. I guess they could try a "Pepsi challenge" type thing. But what impresses the public, if anything does, about Scientific Experiments is the spectacle, not the rationale for the procedure. The one market that one would think would be *most* receptive to proof of subtle but discernable enhancements, the audiophile market, is actually quite uninterested in controlled hearing experiments. If anything, it's hostile. (I confess that I myself have owned a number of items that I've enjoyed having but wouldn't actually have bet money on my ability to discern in a controlled experiment!) I think the SACD people had better stick with roaring lions and meek kitty-cats.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5

Closed