Post by Alumni February 9, 2014 (41 of 97)
|
|
AmonRa said:
Maybe because SACD has multichannel, and most good recordings done nowadays are published on SACD, even if the sound quality in stereo is not audibly better than CD. Reviews are here, you know...
If somebody can't hear the sonic benefits of stereo SACD, either their ears or their system is at fault.
|
|
|
Post by canonical February 9, 2014 (42 of 97)
|
|
Alumni said:
If somebody can't hear the sonic benefits of stereo SACD, either their ears or their system is at fault.
Well, I tend to agree ... but I also think we should allow for the fact that we are not all the same. When I've given demos to friends at home, some people pick the difference immediately, and others are just oblivious. So we are not all the same /// some people are sensitive to such differences, and others not. Which is fine ... I can't pick the difference between an American and Canadian accent, for instance ... though apparently many others can.
|
|
|
Post by jimwager February 9, 2014 (43 of 97)
|
|
Alumni said:
If somebody can't hear the sonic benefits of stereo SACD, either their ears or their system is at fault.
Perhaps it's the other way round. If you spent £500,000 on a system (which is possible: A.L.E horns, Kondo etc.) you might find that RB sounded better than SACD, other things being equal. This is why, back in the 1980s that some people honestly thought that CDs sounded better than LPs. Record turntables are expensive to make and most people had very bad ones. CD players are cheap to mass produce and, on average, they did sound better than most record players. I find CDs mastered in the 1980s sound better than CDs, SACDs or anything mastered today.
|
|
|
Post by Iain February 9, 2014 (44 of 97)
|
|
Alumni said:
If somebody can't hear the sonic benefits of stereo SACD, either their ears or their system is at fault.
Why are we getting into 2-channel rubbish, when everyone knows multi-channel is the best way to listen to anything?
Multi-channel will always have better sound and dimensionality. It's 2014, you know.
|
|
|
Post by Alumni February 9, 2014 (45 of 97)
|
|
Iain said:
Why are we getting into 2-channel rubbish, when everyone knows multi-channel is the best way to listen to anything?
That's like saying 3D movies are always better than 2D movies. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by Alumni February 9, 2014 (46 of 97)
|
|
canonical said:
Well, I tend to agree ... but I also think we should allow for the fact that we are not all the same. I can't pick the difference between an American and Canadian accent, for instance ... though apparently many others can.
Yes, that is true... however I think most of us have the ability to train our hearing. What bothers me is when people say "because I can't hear the difference, nobody can".
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 9, 2014 (47 of 97)
|
|
canonical said:
... I can't pick the difference between an American and Canadian accent, for instance ... though apparently many others can.
Canadians tend to round their "Os" and Flatten their "As." As in OUT .... Canadian: OOT; They don't say PASTA....... they say pace-ta.
The O and A vowels are dead giveaways. Charming as hell, canonical.
|
|
|
Post by Links February 9, 2014 (48 of 97)
|
|
rammiepie said:
Canadians tend to round their "Os" and Flatten their "As." As in OUT .... Canadian: OOT; They don't say PASTA....... they say pace-ta.
The O and A vowels are dead giveaways. Charming as hell, canonical.
Sorry to disappoint you rammiepie, but I am Canadian (Vancouver) and I guess not very "Charming"
as I don't say "OOT" nor "pace-ta"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alumni said:
That's like saying 3D movies are always better than 2D movies. To each his own.
I agree with to each his own. But, I also believe that the comparison to 3D movies is an extremely poor and misleading analogy. Yes, we see things in 3 dimensions, but today's implementation of 3D movies is poor, fraught with artifacts, dimmer than 2D and inconvenient for the viewer because of glasses, etc.
None of this is true for Mch sound, which is much more developed and advanced than 3D video. Mch audio is demonstrably able to reproduce an audible sound field that more closely resembles what we hear at live music concerts, both theoretically and actually. Take a good, properly set up Mch system and switch back and forth between stereo and Mch programs of the same SACD. The improvement in realism is quite obvious to anyone familiar with the sound of live music, although there is no question that stereo can provide music that is enjoyable. Mch just does it better by communicating more sonic information accurately from the recording venue to your listening room and to your ears.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But, if you have not done a demo like this yourself, you are just whistlin' Dixie.
|
|
|
Post by Mushroom February 9, 2014 (50 of 97)
|
|
Iain said:
Why are we getting into 2-channel rubbish, when everyone knows multi-channel is the best way to listen to anything?
Multi-channel will always have better sound and dimensionality. It's 2014, you know.
I'm new to the site and have enjoyed the reviews and discussions (mostly) and can hear an audible difference between the sound quality of SACD and most RB or regular CDs. Sometimes it actually is the dynamic range offered by SACD, sometimes it just seems to be better mastering. Since I've got monoaural hearing, multichannel is a waste of time. Too much sound coming into one ear from too many directions. I guess MC can compare it to watching a 3-D movie with one eye closed.
|
|
