|
|
|
hiredfox said:
A topic guaranteed to stir me from apathy!
For this regular concertgoer stereo performed by a truly high end system with vinyl LP source can deliver 85% of the acoustic of the live performance with a very great deal of the accuracy.
I have yet to hear a mch system that can match this in any respect. Sounding spacious and different isn't the be all and end all of music reproduction. Sadly for mch fans 'they' have yet to find a way of doing it on vinyl.
I have a high end vinyl set up that I no longer bother with, whilst very good, it can not hold a candle to my mch SACD setup for the concert Hall musical experience and to infer that stereo vinyl is better is absolute nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
A topic guaranteed to stir me from apathy!
For this regular concertgoer stereo performed by a truly high end system with vinyl LP source can deliver 85% of the acoustic of the live performance with a very great deal of the accuracy.
I have yet to hear a mch system that can match this in any respect. Sounding spacious and different isn't the be all and end all of music reproduction. Sadly for mch fans 'they' have yet to find a way of doing it on vinyl.
Well. . . I'd hoped that we could have a bit of fun with our individual preferences (stereo vs. multi-channel), but since it appears that we're all piling on now, I hereby withdraw my previous comments - and although I really do prefer multi-channel hi-rez recordings, I still (truth be told!) do quite a bit of listening in plain old stereo. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
but the way Tommy Dorsey breathed and phrased on the trombone.
Those were the days, my friend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disbeliever said:
I have a high end vinyl set up that I no longer bother with, whilst very good, it can not hold a candle to my mch SACD setup for the concert Hall musical experience and to infer that stereo vinyl is better is absolute nonsense.
Agreed.
People believe what they want to believe. My vinyl set up left the back door over 35 years ago. In principle one could say: music is analogue, if the whole chain is analogue it must be better. Apart from the damage one does every time a record is played (think of a groove like a narrow canyon, where a sharp thing is swept against the sides for the stereo, stumbling over the rocks at the bottom, being the dust you won’t get out) those who know how they are made, know better. Every time the original sine wave is transformed (microphone, amplifier, tape, another amp and so on) distortion creeps in. And the manufacturer has to deal with less expensive turntables as well, limiting the dynamics to avoid the needle jumping out of the groove! Add this to jumble, whine, crack, pops, hiss and the constant clicks at the same spot every time you play, and one can understand why less nostalgic people prefer Super Audio, if possible in Multi-Channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
Those were the days, my friend
D'accord
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
He seems to have lost his monkey with the tin cup.
Oh, Euell, where's your sense of musical adventure?
|
|
|
Post by Mushroom July 15, 2015 (59 of 109)
|
|
I've got a somewhat different take on stereo versus multichannel playback listening options, based on being deaf in one ear.
I tend to focus on the quality of the sound overall and not too much the spatial ambience, since that is limited. My feeling is that there are inherent limitations in how many varied sounds can be reproduced at once time by speaker systems. When you hear a band or orchestra, you hear discreet instruments (unless you're sitting in front of that trombone, then that's about all you hear) that are combined in your head (ear) to produce the full sound effect. Just how many sounds a speaker can accurately reproduce at one time, I don't know. I suspect what we actually hear is some kind of rather bastardized meld of all the different sounds being fed into the speakers rather than collective, discreet sounds reassembled in our ears, as one would get from listening to a live grouping of actual instruments and/or voices. I also suspect that reproducing all of these different sounds thru a limited number of speakers would tax a system that has only a few physical speakers, resulting in a more muddled sound.
If you're putting a wide range of instruments and vocals thru a set of speakers, it seems you'll get the best results if these instruments are separated out and run thru different speakers. Multichannel systems would, in theory, do a better job of accurately reproducing these varied sounds than trying to "squeeze" all these sounds thru a few speakers. I picture it as a trying to funnel the myriad of sounds into a single funnel and listening to what comes out the small end. As a result, stereo would have limitations in that you'd be running all the sounds together thru fewer speakers.
The flip side is that with the surround sound type setup for multichannel systems, there will be perceived nearly sound-dead regions towards the side that I am deaf, besides the normal destructive interference that occurs as portions of the sound waves cancel each other out.
Unless all the speakers are lined up on one side and my good ear is facing that side, I'll miss out on too much of the sound. Further, it's easier to "overload" my ear with too much sound for one ear to decipher clearly so in that respect, stereo offers less fatigued listening.
I'd love to hear a good multichannel system and recording where all the speakers are set up to one side or in a way to see if I can get the clarity I'd would hope for that splitting the sound should offer, without the aural overload.
In the long run, since the media is capable of supporting both stereo and multichannel, why not offer both if both are available?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mushroom complete nonsense if one is not deaf in one ear, even if deaf in one ear its also nonsense. Stereo & mch are available on one disc.
|
|
