Quote:
Ok, there are things in there I agree with, and I see your position better now. For a while, you were coming across as an apologist for whatever latest multichannel fad was being hoisted up the flagpole. |
Clarity is everything I guess because I am in the
exact opposite camp.
If I was into fads I would not to this day be using a fully
passive surround sound/ambience
extraction type system and on my main rig not even in the signal path until I hit a speaker selector box switch that actrivates the entire matrix so the left/right is "totally" isolated and pure.
I hate having all my music go
through something just to
add something so knowing this is not to be avoided am voicing what I think is at least the best of the worst knowing what has gone before and what at least worked with the least amount of "gotcha".
Quote:
The multichannel amps of today already suck. Jamming extra channels in them will only make them more compromised than they already are. |
Too bold in statement.Quality multichannel amps are out there just as quality two channel amps are.There are also crap multichannel amps just like there are crap two channel amps but even that does not matter.I am running and old Dynaco as my rear channels and even though not close to my front channel SET 300B amp meaningless in use.
the reason is one requirements and the surround parts need only approximate the front to be effective since once sound travels it is changed by whatever surface it refelcts off of.And "back wall" or "side wall" or "ceiling" relections severely limited in both bandwidth and actual tonal matchups.
Like playing to systems side by side and then flipping an A/b switch.There is no doubt who the artist is but there will also be no doubt the two do not sound alike in sirect comparison.Listen to AC/DC on the car radio can compare it to a CD of the same song over the same system and you will have tow different sounds even though the same artist yet you can enjoy both equally.
Have someone talk to you then go into another room and say the same exact thing while you reamina in room #1 and you will
KNOW who it is but no way will that person sound the same up close as they will from a distance.
Quote:
Maybe things won't change so much, and people will not notice the degredation in the sound but the specialist hifi people will rescue what they can of the signal for the rest of us. I've only got about $3k/per channel in amp/speakers for my stereo setup, and it blows visitors away, many of whom wax about the sound, brands and costs of their HT gear before they listen here. |
I should NOT be
forced to spend $3K per channel just to have acceptable sound.If not broken why do I need fix it but that is how things work.Break it then sell me the fix after telling me it is a step up.You can also piss on my leg and tell me it is reaining but I am not beleiving it
Quote:
The other saving grace is the rise of the DIY gear, facilitated by the internet. Apart from source, which is increasingly difficult to construct for the average diy'er, you can build a very competent system for a surprisingly reasonable amount of money, as long as you don't place a value on your time. |
DIYers are immitators not innovators mostly.No more than
tweak masters (?) who take the commercial ideas of others and plug in
fad or
boutique parts.More lemming than anything else once you "look under the hood" and actually see the same-ness in parts.Improvement ? At least not in the wallet area.Only the audio industry can sucker us into thinking a $50 RCA jack actually sounds better thana $45 RCA jack and the response is not "Yeah right ! Find another sucker pal".
Where else would you find a group that will pay $200 more for a cable just because it has a pretty $2 cover on it ?That MUST use techno babble to deveive and confuse or be recognised for the con artisits they are ?That eve the "so called" diyers copy and build copies not design so imitate the imitators and moutht he same babble ?that will with a straight face say
"this sounds pretty good and this sounds pretty good so it I combine the two with something else that sounds pretty good the end result MUST be better and then I can say it is something new and everyone will want one"
Common sense ? yeah.OK man.In my dreams maybe.Sameness and lemmings with not an original thought anywhere except on the "edges" and those are the ones who get attacked for being nuts.The outlaws and innovators usually do until there is a consensus and the "lemmings" find a new leader to follow but they are
always palying catch up instead of actually leading.I respect "true" DIY which is an attempt at bettering the art but not much of what passes for it.
Quote:
it was not hard to pack them away, even if the sound was not as good as the turntable when it wasn't popping, clicking, and rumbling. |
My vinyl system whips the hell out of my "fully tweaked and optimised" CD system head to head to this day and it is a modest one having not a lot of loot in it except in the phono stage where transformer costs are the sole reason for this
I don't care to have a
sample of the music which is
all digital is.What other time in the history of hi fi could someone look another person in the face tell them someothing is PERFECT (at 14 bit yet ) then a year later tell them "we need to
add noise to make it better" in the attempt to "fool" the end user into thinking he really was not lied to then this "perfect medium" needs more bits,then more,then more and now is "not good enough" and must be replaced even though you can not improve on perfection so which is the lie ?
That it is not perfect (obviously) ? That hi-res is
way better yet they need the "multichannel hook" to try and convince us ? That it does not matter because we
will get whatever they
give us and then we must
make the system conform to the medium just to get it to sound good but by that time there is a new format being pushed.
Took a long time to get to good sounding digital from a crap sounding "perfect" medium and just when things are being sorted out and consensus reached on what is and is not good digital they want to put everyone back to square one but this time complicate it so much the ones that always push the improvements will be shut out.Shut out because the chips are an
all inclusive closed system and not open architecture so experimentation off the list.
Buy the chip,put it in the product,close the lid,sell it.
Screw whoever does not like it is where we are headed.Everything in a sealed box,the large scale integrated circuit (LSI) chip that at most the high end guys will be able to put a pretty cabinet around to stand out once the chips go to full scale production so the cost can come down.
Real step forward there :Tube stage and a pretty chassis combined with ultra expensive RCA jacks and all for the bargain price of $9,000 for the external "fix" while the real problem is locked away in the chassis in a huge chip that no one has access to the internals of so are stuck with.Of course they will tell us it is better so we mostly will lie to ourselve and agree as always even though we sjould by now know better
7.1 Surround (even though said i would not
)
Left/center/right
front the 3.0 part-sets the stage,the performance area
left/right
side brings us to 5.0-fills in the area between the back wall and the stage,this is the actual audience area
left/right
rear the 7.0-sets venue size
A "true" sub woofer,deep and accurate bass is a must for realistic portrayal of "size"