But now with ambiophonics... He, who knows?! (don't answer to this
)
As I said, I don't even think my ears need hi-res. I'm not so enthralled with myself and my supposed "absolute", "special", "pure", "analytical" "above average" etc hearing. Hell, I'm not <eargiant. I come from another place. It's still mainly about content for me. The way subject matter from music relates to all aspects of life. One might draw me into buying expensive equipment if one could demonstrate that his deeper and broader understanding of the motifs the artist sings about come from that one nuance of difference in sound that can only be achieved with at least 8k amp (or Cd or whatever).
For me, there is something perverse in listening to Tracy Chapman via a cable which coasts more than what she owed before becoming famous.
And there is absolutely something perverse in a notion that there's something I'm not getting because I have a 2.0 stereo with relatively neutral speakers.
In the end, to try and stop this thread from sidetracking, no, an alarm clock wouldn't suffice then. Communication through music gets encoded in several ways (using the word "encoded" here as one might in linguistics like i.e. McLuhan). You have lyrics with semantics, rhythm, rhyme, phonetic properties and so on and you have music which also bears an emotional property and one should understand that reducing some or many of those frequencies is like cutting out few lyrics. A piece of message gets lost because a piece of emotional charge gets lost.
This is why I'm about flat response, no sound signatures or as few as possible, no coloring... I want to hear something as close as what the artist agreed upon when he heard the master. Mark Walter actually describes me when he says "sonic documentaries", although he says he is not about that. I might say I am. That's why he doesn't mind surround and I do.
