Post by Espen R November 12, 2010 (11 of 45)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
The highest quality audio is MCH not Stereo. Even Ken Ishiwata now says so.
I think he ment that it is better with 2 channel of high quality equipment and a good stereo mix, than 5 channels with mediocore equipment and a not so good multichannel mix with the instruments in a intimate jazz-recording spread out in the back-channels.
Most of the people in the world lives in small apartments. How will a 5.1 multichannel set-up sound in those small rooms?
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox November 12, 2010 (12 of 45)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
The highest quality audio is MCH not Stereo. Even Ken Ishiwata now says so.
What does he know ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
What does he know ;-)
Probably more than you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Espen R said:
I think he ment that it is better with 2 channel of high quality equipment and a good stereo mix, than 5 channels with mediocore equipment and a not so good multichannel mix with the instruments in a intimate jazz-recording spread out in the back-channels.
Most of the people in the world lives in small apartments. How will a 5.1 multichannel set-up sound in those small rooms?
Many people are using Home Cinema 5.1 mch systems in small rooms and they probably play at a higher volume level than audiophiles
|
|
|
Post by Nicolas November 12, 2010 (15 of 45)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
The highest quality audio is MCH not Stereo. Even Ken Ishiwata now says so.
What do you like especially with MCH?
I don't know what is the highest quality audio but I don't like MCH for music because I've never felt great hearing drums, bass or whatever behind me.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie November 12, 2010 (16 of 45)
|
|
Harry Pierson of THE ABSOLUTE SOUND was not a proponent of m/c sound until a friend showed him how to "properly" set up a surround system and then he became a convert.
It's not about slapping 5 speakers in a room and expecting sonic bliss.
It takes time to properly set up a room for 5.1 (or 4.0) surround.
What annoys me is that SACD's versatility is being denigrated by not including an option for m/c. Is it NOT enough that a stereo SACD layer and RBCD layer are included as well?
I suppose the real issue is the lack of quality mixing engineers who arbitrarily place instruments in unnatural settings around the listener.
A good dense rock mix can truly benefit from the Elliot Scheiners and Bob Ludwigs who KNOW how to do an amazing surround mix where everything sounds homogenous and not artificial.
It will be interesting to hear Scheiner's upcoming 5.1 mix of Layla and Other Love Songs as opposed to the one Universal released a few years ago (which really was quite good).
If one does not have the space nor the resources to implement a surround system in their listening environment that is another story altogether.
But one should not criticize what they know very little about......Hey, with careful experimentation my main system is getting better and better all the time!
|
|
|
Post by rkimber November 12, 2010 (17 of 45)
|
|
Zeus, thanks for the heads up on this one Ordered 8 with 2 free (even though I prefer MCH)
|
|
|
Post by korowa November 12, 2010 (18 of 45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood November 12, 2010 (19 of 45)
|
|
Wooho going to place an order :)
D'oh just received another 4 :(
|
|
|
Post by Bear72 November 12, 2010 (20 of 45)
|
|
It is possible, with good equipment set up, in a properly treated room, to get an extremely "immersive" musical experience with 2 channel audio. I am not referring to such trickery as used in Amused To Death, and have heard it myself from good ol' Redbook.
Though this seems, again, to be veering well off topic! So to get back, the SHM SACDs that I do have are all (to my ears) excellent sounding, whether a function of the transfer, material, format or a combination. Can't say I care, but I would love to grab some more!
|
|
