<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Rip Van Woofer : <font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote (jeffsg4mac @ Jan. 22 2004,15:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I find ironic is how some audio snobs try to bash multi channel; yet when they demo some fancy smancy setup to you the first thing they say is " hey do you hear how deep that sound stage is? How 3 dimensional it sounds? Not as 3 dimensional as 5.1 buddy
I am really starting to dislike the audio snobs now, after all the years of lies they have been feeding people.
Ah, when I read things like that it warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of our hobby!
I'm an old (well, middle-aged) fart still stuck in stereo. My preamp is 30 years old. Because I'm a stereo snob? Au contraire! I'm just marking time till I can afford to make the leap to multichannel. Besides the crappy economy putting the pinch on my discretionary income, I still need to go to school on this stuff (this site sure helps!).
It's a mystery to me why the stereo snobs can't understand that a real center image is superior to a phantom center image*. Or is it because it's done digitally? After all, "digital" is still a dirty word to lots of 'philes.
Hell, when I read the stuff from on the CES pages about digital active crossovers, real-time room correction and stuff like that on top of multichannel sound at prices mere mortals can afford I feel like I'm falling in lust all over again! If this is the Brave New World of audio, bring it on, baby! I'm all ears!
Hmmm...those Sherwood separates sure look sweet...!
*A bit of historical trivia I ran across: when the early work on stereo was being done at Bell Labs in the '30's it included a center channel!</font></td></tr></table>
<font color='#000000'>Name calling is always a waste of time and space, as is responding to it.
Anyone who cannot hear a well defined 'center', a clearly delineated soundstage, and clear, defined sonic images on a two channel stereo system is listening to a poorly performing stereo system. I don't think there is anything 'snobish' about someone's personal preferences, whether it is in audio or choice of spirits.
For whatever reason, it's of no consequence, I much prefer my two channel system to any multi-channel that I have heard. This is particularly true of SACDs (I do not hear the same qualities in DVD-A). SACDs have greater depth, a better defined stage, and a more realistic center than regular CDs. To my easr, SACD does everything better, except the bass balance, which seems a little 'down' compared to CDs (an easily adjusted problem with the Richter Scale III balance knob).
I have no pronounced dislike of multi-channel, as long as the extra speakers (other than the unnecessary sub and center) are occupied solely with delivering room acoustics from the recording venue. Anything more reminds me of the "Ping Pong' effects often heard when stereo was new. It had nothing to do with the quality of the music, so it had no place on the recording. The same is true of the "middle of the band" seating position on some multi-channel recordings. I have never seen such a ticket for sale, and fear the bandstand would become far too crowded if they were. Some DVD-As seem overoccupied with such effects. My player will handle DVD-A, but i have none of the discs, and won't, until I badly want a piece of music that is unavailable in any other format.
I, as does an earlier writer, feel a bit of impending loss when I put a CD in the tray, now. I know in advance that I am not going to be allowed as deeply into the performance as I would be if it were an SACD, instead. It is no big disappointment; no more than the difference between some well done and poorly done CDs.
I have diana Krall's "The Look Of Love" on both CD and SACD, and the former never gets played anymore. The latter allows me to experience a lot more of the music and the artist than does the CD, so why would I choose less over more, since I have that option.
After 35 years in the hobby (speaker building), and a lifetime of loving music, I never expected to hear another quantum step forward to equal the new format. The superiority of an SACD would require several years of tweaking and refining to achieve, but yet, here it is, and for less than a thousand dollars, and no work but to make a couple of plug-in connections. It is quite a gift, and largely unexpected to boot. I had read some reviewers who could not hear the difference; I wonder what in hell they were using for a plaback system?!? Resolving ability has to be up to a certain standard, but it ceetainly need not be a $50,000.00 system to hear the difference. On the other hand, don't expect to have your sox blown off through a boom box.
SACD is definitely for real, and if one wishes to get as close to the music as possible, then it is a required addition to the system. I would not feel cheated, if I were to get a bill from Ms Krall for the "proximity fee" that I owe for the the additional depth into the music that I am allowed to experience with her SACD over the CD of the same performance. The price of the player was audio money spent as well as any I have ever invested before.
EdHeath</font>
