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