To reiterate what I said: Hi-rez *multi-channel*, correctly engineered
and implemented is "da bomb", vastly superior to two-channel CD or hi-rez,
in my opinion. No hyperbole there. I did not say ("proclaim") that DSD or
192/24 (two channel) was "da bomb" when compared to two channel Redbook
PCM, as your post suggests I said. We do agree that DSD recordings sound
better (for whatever reasons). But here I am not even saying that. I'm only
saying that hi-rez multi-channel, correctly implemented is far and away
closer to the real thing than two channel DSD, DVD-A or CD.

To risk an analogy, to me two channel anything is like a dial up
connection, hi-rez multi-channel is like a broadband connection.
Once you experience the new way correctly implemented you really
don't want to go back unless you just have to. Hey, I still listen to
mono recordings on occasion. And I enjoy them. There are some enjoyable
mono SACDs for that matter. But still its a leap toward reality to
have a great stereo recording and still another leap to get to
a great multi-channel recording (which there are now more than I can
afford to buy, including originally recorded DSD material).

Robert C. Lang

"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message
...

Well, I daresay I'm a bit underwhelmed by the difference. OK, it is quite
noticeable and if I get the choice, I prefer the high-res playback, but to
proclaim DSD or 192/24 "da bomb" is IMHO an extreme case of hyperbole.

Apart from this, I'd like to attract attention to the fact that the
majority
of SACDs actually contain no more than the original digital master (48kHz
or
even 44.1kHz) converted to DSD.





"Robert Lang" wrote in message
...
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:Qw8Ab.309404$9E1.1556391@attbi_s52...
I can't hear any difference between either of these hi-rez
formats and a standard CDDA disc, and I won't be buying into either.

Norm Strong

Hi-rez multi-channel, correctly engineered and implemented is "da
bomb", vastly superior to two-channel CD or hi-rez, in my opinion..
There are many arguments not to support multi-channel, including
cost, space, availability (this was a key weakness of SACD cited by
many in this group early on), etc. Another argument often cited is
that multi-channel goes against the "original intent" of the artists
and engineers, that the recordings were made for two channel playback
only. That argument, along with availability of software, is rapidly
waning. Reading industry magazines, such as "Billboard" and listening
to artist interviews, it has become apparent to me that many artists
are taking to multi-channel like a duck to water. It is pointing in
the direction that multi-channel, like many recordings of the 70s and
some of the original stereo recordings that were really three
channels, is the "original intent" of the artist, not two channels.
On many new recordings, even those purchased on CD, you may be (you
probably are) missing out on much what the artist and the recording
has to offer. And if you don't like the multi-channel presentation,
stick with the two channel CD or hi-rez on the same disc.

Robert C. Lang

Hi-rez *multi-channel*, correctly engineered
and implemented is "da bomb", vastly superior to two-channel CD or hi-rez,
in my opinion. No hyperbole there. I did not say ("proclaim") that DSD or
192/24 (two channel) was "da bomb" when compared to two channel Redbook
PCM, as your post suggests I said.

Oops, my apologies - I misread you.

Although I can thoroughly enjoy some multichannel albums I do have some
second thoughts on multichannel as well:
From mono to stereo did not just add a second position. It added a
dimension - lateral positioning (height and depth are present in good mono
as well). Any position between the speakers can be sonically represented in
stereo. Multichannel only adds a second stereo arc in the rear and a few
discrete positions to the side (the stereo illusion does not translate to
the sides). In a sense, multichannel is in no way the same quantum leap as
from mono to stereo. Also the fact that the sweet spot is no longer only
constrained left-to-right but also back-to-front is at times a
disappointment.

It is often forgotten that just like stereo is only an illusion,
multichannel too does not reproduce a real sound field. Not 5.1. Not 10.2.
Not even uhh 20.4.
Not that we need real acoustic holography. We should wonder why it is that
we need more than two channels while our ears number only 2. An enveloping
sound illusion should be possible using 2 channels only. To get an idea of
what can be done, get hold of an album by "Orb", "Live '93". Several tracks
were mixed using one of the first HRTF boxes, the Roland RSS10 (a battery of
them). In spite of the limitations of these early processors, the surround
sound experience, including the elusive sides, is stunning. On 2-channel
stereo.

Unfortunately, these magical experiments were abandoned in favour of a
system which required multiple loudspeakers (which are, due to budget
constraints, of lesser quality) multiple amplifiers etc, under the pretext
that it's better to have the sound really coming from behind you than only
to create the illusion. Whatever for? The sound wasn't really coming from
between the speakers either.

Cheers,

Bruno