Post by tream March 2, 2009 (281 of 321)
|
|
AELK said:
Quite evident you have hard ears.
I do not believe you go to Orchestras concerts and think DSP equalized Multi Channel sound is more near to live Orchestra music.
The only place you go regularly is the nearest Macdonald, the grease of meat rose to your brain and you wrote great foolishness.
Clearly you believe in the propaganda of Home Theater equipment makers that MC sound is high fidelity, this is the dream of all manufacturer of MultiCh Receivers.
You do not have the slightest idea of what is Hi-Fi and Hi-End. So I will told to you a hint:
The best amps in the world have always been tube amps, as Audio Note Japan (Ongaku SET), Audio Research (REF600/610 UltraLinear), Joule-Electra (VZN220 OTL Circlotron), Tenor Audio OTL, Wavac Audio (HE-833 SET), ATMA-SPHERE (MA-3 OTL Circlotron). If you use a Nelson Pass XA.5 or other fine transistor Class A amp its also a good second place. The best amps will ever be tube amps.
The only solid state came near a tube amp is the FM Acoustics Resolution Series at 17K euros for the entrance power amp model FM-111 ( 115W, 8 ohms ).
The 5.1 DSP equalized Receiver of MC users is a Mid Fi gear for low price mass consumers purposes.
Large recordings labels use a full mic tree cause they dont know how use 2 mics only and capture all the orchestra + hall reverb sound and do not have time to learn how to use Blumlein technique, plus they like to edit, mix up-down tracks and until use compressors.
Today 2009 you will find minimalist two mics recordings in audiophile labels as Chesky, Audioquest, and at the late Sheffield Labs which closing doors in 90's years, various labels were using minimalist recording as John Marks Recordings, Black Daliah and others I will not search for you.
Today Chesky use not two mics, but ONE STEREO MICROPHONE Soundfield Mark 5, if you read the SACD booklet of any recent release.
Puzzled yet, read this: In the begining of BIS label, they used recording with two mics only.
Before DSD, the best recordings on classical music since CBS created Stereo LP are firts place Sheffield Labs analog 30ips (better than RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence).
You should read some free Hi-End sites that dont accept advertisement and stop reading Home Theater stuff. Business grade ( $$$ ) magazines as TAS or Stereophile etc also have his neck hold by the money of the advertisers.
This thread is for Mr.Robert surveil the SACD public for BIS label. Lets stop this discussion.
Well.......as one who has attended many orchestral concerts in my life, in multiple venues, the ONLY time I have ever heard the sound of recorded music approach the experience of what I actually heard in the hall is through a multichannel system. I don't know about Kal, but I don't go to MacDonald's regularly. Let's see, now that I count it up I attend live concerts much more often than I go to MacDonald's.....
I have listened to some pretty expensive amps, and there are, as always, tradeoffs. For me, a lot of tube gear has the problem when dealing with massive orchestral music (like Mahler) of not being fast enough to handle the hairpin dynamics and transients. OTOH, tube gear can connect the black space between the notes in jazz and for small groups and provide a more musical experience than solid state, which may actually be benign distortion. I have aspirations one day of having a great 2 channel system (for my LP's and RTR tapes) with high end tube gear that I find is fast enough, and also to have a great multichannel system for my SACD's that will allow me to experience the full extent of the hall ambience and bloom that multichannel provides.
Two rooms....two dedicated systems... Gotta win the lottery.
|
|
|
Post by mahlerei March 2, 2009 (282 of 321)
|
|
This is a deeply depressing thread because it seems to imply that unless you have a huge budget and/or a huge house you can't hope to really enjoy music. Well, I've been listening to music for 30 years in a variety of formats and on a variety of gear (none of it esoteric) and enjoyed the experience immensely. Clearly there must be something wrong with me as I have just reviewed an Ansermet disc of Borodin, some of it recorded in the 1950s, and yes, I enjoyed that too (tape hiss and all).
|
|
|
|
|
|
mahlerei said:
This is a deeply depressing thread because it seems to imply that unless you have a huge budget and/or a huge house you can't hope to really enjoy music.
I would hope not. Of course, everyone has a different definition of "huge."
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't buy CD's anymore. Yes, I download. However, I do buy SACD's, DVD-Audio's, and Vinyl. These I will buy. CD's, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, after much soul searching I actually did purchase an RBCD about two weeks ago. One RBCD since 2002 but 638 SACDs. When will I buy my next RBCD? Maybe in another 7 yrs...but who knows? On the other hand I am ordering about a dozen SACDs at the end of this month including Gluzman's new disc on BIS.
Speaking of Gluzman, Robert, how about a Shostakovitch #1 coupled with the Schnittke #4? That would be an earth shaker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I buy only SACD and given the opportunity in the future will continue to do so except in the event that a superior medium is intoduced. I wouldn't even think of buying anything but SACD. If production were stopped tomorrow, I would buy as many left overs as I could afford.
|
|
|
Post by mahlerei March 3, 2009 (287 of 321)
|
|
Shakespear777 said:
I buy only SACD and given the opportunity in the future will continue to do so except in the event that a superior medium is intoduced. I wouldn't even think of buying anything but SACD. If production were stopped tomorrow, I would buy as many left overs as I could afford.
My point all along has been what if the music you want isn't available on SACD? No one seems willing to address that. And it's a sad fact that RBCD still has the lion's share of repertoire. The logic behind all these SACD-only posts is that if it isn't on SACD it doesn't exist, and that's a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mahlerei said:
My point all along has been what if the music you want isn't available on SACD? No one seems willing to address that. And it's a sad fact that RBCD still has the lion's share of repertoire. The logic behind all these SACD-only posts is that if it isn't on SACD it doesn't exist, and that's a shame.
I've addressed that many times already in this thread. Posters here seem to think like Teresa that somehow RBCD is the devil and that by eliminating them we will somehow have SACDs galore. Bissie has aleady pointed out that RBCD helps fund SACD production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
I've addressed that many times already in this thread. Posters here seem to think like Teresa that somehow RBCD is the devil and that by eliminating them we will somehow have SACDs galore. Bissie has aleady pointed out that RBCD helps fund SACD production.
What we need to do is write letters to get Gramophone, Stereophile, and all the other magazines to do their reviews of recordings in rbcd, sacd stereo and sacd surround and make appropriate comments concerning the relative merits of each recording. Most people who should know about SACD and would like to know about it, have never heard of it. I encountered another such case in the last concert I attended. The guy who ended up sitting next to me was hugely enthusiastic and wanted to know where he could audition such a system. Not being but a once per month visitor to the city during concert season I could not be very helpful with that!
If Bissie could sell enough SACDs then RBCDs would not help fund SACD production.
I think if enough people pointed out how Gramophone et al are failing their readership, maybe things would change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Bruce, Gramophone is failing their readership over more than just the SACD issue and they've been failing them for years.
|
|
