Thread: How Many SA~CDnet Posters would switch to Multichannel if..........

Posts: 102
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Post by Disbeliever November 14, 2010 (11 of 102)
Fugue said:

I switched to multichannel last year and can hardly stand to listen to two-channel recordings anymore! The palpable sense of the concert hall simply transforms the recording into a more pleasurable listening experience. There's no turning back for me!

Quite frankly SACD is only mostly worthwhile in MCH despite what Teresa spouts.

Post by big sur November 14, 2010 (12 of 102)
I had a MC setup with expensive processing unit/amps in a big gated community home with tennis courts and community club house with Olympic size pool. No more. I now have a modest five-thousand dollar stereo setup consisting of speakers, integrated amplifier, and disc player in my 1200 square foot home and have never been happier.

Post by Disbeliever November 14, 2010 (13 of 102)
hiredfox said:

Therein lies the conundrum. The world is not comprised of what-ifs. How could we know?

I am content with my present horizon, the grass beyond may indeed be greener but green is also the colour of envy and that I do not possess.

Be thankful for what you have because as financial markets are compelled to remind us outcomes can go down as well as up.

I regret to note that Hired Fox continues to keep the size of his listening room a secret. Mine is only 12.5 ft wide but fortunately 25.5 ft long, so I can sit equidistant between my speakers and get excellent mch sound.

Post by clem November 14, 2010 (14 of 102)
For me its been multi channel. From Quad days till now and I will take MCH in any format..Insomuch .

Post by hiredfox November 14, 2010 (15 of 102)
Disbeliever said:

I regret to note that Hired Fox continues to keep the size of his listening room a secret. Mine is only 12.5 ft wide but fortunately 25.5 ft long, so I can sit equidistant between my speakers and get excellent mch sound.

No secrets and not really the issue. Martin Logan guidelines on speaker positioning and distances to seating position for Mch determines the optimum room size I would need. Having calculated the optimum, my room isn't large enough; a debate on here will not increase it's size, which is a blessing as there is no way of justifying the extra cost involved either.

My experience of Mch has been mostly of friend's systems usually mid to lower high-end in nature. Not one in my experience has matched the tonal accuracy or positional precision of sound-staging achieved in 'my' stereo set-up.

If people prefer the Mch effects that's fine by me but we need to be grown up about other people's preferences and the reasons that lie behind them. Too many people on here rubbish SACD stereo with absolutely no experience of listening to it on high end systems.

There is a difference between preference and prejudice you know

Post by Kal Rubinson November 14, 2010 (16 of 102)
hiredfox said:

If people prefer the Mch effects that's fine by me but we need to be grown up about other people's preferences and the reasons that lie behind them. Too many people on here rubbish SACD stereo with absolutely no experience of listening to it on high end systems.

There is a difference between preference and prejudice you know

I do agree with your concluding statement but I object to the reference to "Mch effects." We are not talking about imposing any effects but about discrete recordings, so, I hope, we are all talking about experience and preferences.

Kal

Post by rammiepie November 14, 2010 (17 of 102)
By initiating this post, I did not mean to discredit or criticize proponents of stereo. The other night, I spent quite a few hours listening in stereo only and can attest to the pleasures of listening to a convincing soundstage exerted by that tried and tested format.

I was trying to elicit responses from posters who might change their minds if space and budget permitted to try to keep multi~channel from disappearing from the format entirely (as the current trend in pop/jazz and even classical releases suggest).

DSD listens to movie soundtracks in stereo, only......and IMO, these sonic marvels are created from the onset with a multi~channel approach in mind. In fact, most DVDs are encoded with some type of surround scheme and even SONY/BMG has just released six of Charles Gerhardt's Classic film scores in Dolby Surround on RBCD (please consider an SACD release of these superb scores).

It's a survey rather than an indictment of people's listening habits.

When I first started collecting DVD~As over SACDs, it was because of the multi~channel option and a lot of early DVD~As even included 192/24 stereo options. My foray into SACD, of course, was prompted by Sony's decision to include a multi~channel and RBCD option which IMO, was a grand idea.

Releasing SACDs in stereo only, IMHO, is like the government putting a ban on what one can eat/drink and is a sort of "implied" censorship of how the public chooses to listen to their music.

Allowing the public to decide what layer they choose to listen to has been one of the selling points of the SACD format.

Addenda: Even some current DVD~As are eliminating the MLP option instead offering only DTS 96/24 and DD. At least Blu~Ray is not only remastering some of the old classics for 5.1 but WISELY offering the original MONO soundtracks, as well. Choices are GOOD and both DVD~A/SACD releasing companies should not tamper with a person's freedom of choice!

Why mess with a good thing now?

Post by ~~Phil~~ November 14, 2010 (18 of 102)
This can be a tricky question as some mixes sound far better in the stereo format they were intended to be heard in. I personally listen in MCH most of the time, however not every disc is in this format sounds good or is even available... When I hear a great stereo mix that is mastered correctly it is as good as it gets for me, but I also feel the same about MCH - when it is done right. - So, if cost is not an issue, I don't think anyone has to 'choose'... why not just enjoy both...???

Post by DSD November 14, 2010 (19 of 102)
rammiepie said:

DSD listens to movie soundtracks in stereo, only...

Not just the soundtracks I prefer movies in 2 channel stereo.

Post by rammiepie November 14, 2010 (20 of 102)
DSD said:

Not just the soundtracks I prefer movies in 2 channel stereo.

Even Walt Disney back in 1937 experimented with surround sound (Fantasia) and when you watch modern movies in stereo only you're really missing half the experience, IMO.

Let's be perfectly frank. ALL home audio is a mere representation of the actual event (whether recorded in a studio or live). Surround, both in motion pictures and music, seeks to expand that illusion by expanding the boundaries of the listening room.

How one listens is not my immediate concern but to those releasing music on SACD, please don't eliminate the multi~channel option (and I'm not calling for the elimination of the stereo track, in any way). In the end it will be a win win situation for ALL (and will attract new blood to the format).

Give Peace A Chance!

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Closed