[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Whether DSD is a more-accurate method of recording than PCM is
debatable. * But the fact is that many (if not most) SACDs have
significantly better -- more-realistic -- sound than CDs. Why is
another matter.

Actually more realistic, or simply 'different' (for whatever reason) which
causes those who have paid money, or have a predisposition to 'believe' ?

Actually more realistic. Have you heard multi-ch SACDs played over a good
system? No?


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.


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.


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.

I might vehemently disagree with Arny. But at least he uses his real name,
and we know who he is.