We are on the same page. However, not all of our audioholic brethren are even in the same library, let alone the same page. Here is a sampling from a thread I stopped watching because it just got plain weird.
Again, its a quote, I can't make this stuff up. For this, I don't even have the imagination.
Its only one paragraph out of 6 paragraphs this length in the response. At least he uses paragraphs.
"Even if you stick with 7.1, 5.1, or 3.1, Atmos is superior, because instead of mixing audio into discrete channels, producers can place them in space, and the decoder can figure out how to best represent that space on the available sound channels. Without Atmos or dts x, a producer would be required to mix a ridiculous amount of audio channels. Atmos theaters are either going or already using much more than a 7.1.4 configuration. Just from photos I've seen one theater with 16 different speakers, all discrete. Try fitting a 22+ channel soundtrack onto a Blu ray"
The poster goes on to recommend that "40 channels" is the appropriate number of channels for HT.
Obviously we are not qualified to consume the same thermally unstable and inconsistent air as folk who are able to conceive and implement 40 channel sound systems.
How did the listening go last evening? I assume your visitor brought CD's to consume. Any good selections? I have some more recommendations if you're ready
I agree, but that's from not understanding what everyone else is after.
I recall a time when Dolby started becoming fashionable. And then again when digital became so as well. But, they would then take analog recordings, apply the correct science, take the "noise" out and suddenly our analog stuff wasn't sounding so hot. Half of why I clung to vinyl as long as I did, dust pops and all. Great for recording to cassette and the digital reproductions certainly helped there, but hurt in other places. I still have some digital/anolog combinations on CD that I got years ago, that I have to raise and lower the volume on a song. It's seemingly muted, yet the vinyl stays constant, noise be damned.
I made a statement when I joined here, to the effect that I did not want to be spoiled by the numbers. It happened to me when learning to play piano and is what made me quit. I started becoming aware of the math involved with music and things that can be measured. Errors were becoming increasingly obvious to me, especially with the timing. I saw it happen to others who had taken up playing instruments as well. Now they are almost perfect, and they will practice until it is so otherwise, yet most everyone avoids them and their music because it is not ultimately pleasant. They are a nuisance with it, really. Now they sit on youtube and forums pointing out errors and telling who is better. "Oh and, btw, I'm a guitar (whatever) player too" ends up being the qualifier. "You should go listen to my channel." Basically so everyone can see what they know is right.
I'm willing to concede to the proven science and the theoretical. I just don't want to be disqualified for what is obviously a more raw, yet valid approach. By "obviously" meaning, just this thread alone sort of proves that others feel the same way. Perhaps even some that don't want to admit it. That there is an organic side to audiophilia that really doesn't need to be validated in a box.
I am betting, a group of us could get together, and pretty much unanimously agree on what sounds good, or better by our own hand, even with multiple people physically adjusting the values and without onboard, corrective implementation, like we used to do. At least with main speakers, nearfield fashion.
