headphones
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a
good system? No?
No, but I've heard multi-channel LPCM. And I've heardn 2 channel SACD v.
2-channel LPCM
Part of the difference is unquestionably the use of ambience
channels. Shutting them off produces an immediate degradation in
sound quality.
No. "Change" in sound. Does not necesarily equate to "quality".
Wrong again. See preceding response.
I sauggest the degradation may be entirely subjective, and is to do with the
overall experience rather than fidelity.
Another possibility is that the availability of ambience channels
removes the pressure of having to make a two-channel recording
that "sounds good" by itself. (Did I say that correctly?)
Nothing stopping multiple channels of LPCM...
No. But that wasn't the point. Regardless, audio-only Blu-ray disks
with multi-ch LPCM show a similar improvement in quality.
No, a similar change in excperience.
Though LPs are clearly inferior to CDs and SACDs, simply by "virtue"
of being beset by all kinds of mechanical colorations, my view is
that a good chunk of the audible differences among recordings of any
type are due to the choice / quantity / positioning of the mics, and
the amount of electronic equipment between the mics and the
recorder. Make bad choices, and they'll wipe out the superiority of
digital recording.
Not to mention inter-person and same person day-to-day changes in
aural and mental perception, which I suspect swamp the technical
factors by far.
All supposition. I've been listening to stereo and surround sound for
45 years. And I've made stereo and surround live recordings. Do you
comparable or better experience?
You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Your 45 beats my 30. Presumably your ears have not degraded in those 45
years as much as mine have in 30.
I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real
name, and we know who he is.
Hit a raw nerve somewhere have I ?
frank. Ooops, geoff.
|