|
|
|
We have to come terms that the average punter has really bad hearing and eyesight. ;-)
Seriously, o consider myself an audiophile, and yet I wouldn't even, to continue the analogy, qualify for the audiophile nationals let alone the Olympics.
So it is no surprise that the average punter prefers tech that allows them to be social and where media is simpler, or more readily accessible.
You could argue the general public are correct, cos they are being more human, I.e. when our distant ancestors wanted song, they sung; it wasn't a hobby. That immediacy is available with online media.
Likewise, it is great to share your opinions with like minded people during a live event with likeminded people.
Increasing resolution beyond what we currently have brings small benefits, but sharing experiences is for the majority far more rewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
That immediacy is available with online media.
Interesting that you mention that. I tend to think that immediacy, while not 'sold' as such, is a very strong motivator for purchase/use.
I think the immediacy (of being able to select/skip tracks) actually was more important for the switch from vinyl to CD than the sound quality (lack of crackle and pop).
Similarly, I think immediacy in the sense of being able to download and access songs instantly was essential in the switch from CD to MP3 (rather than to SACD).
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 14, 2012 (23 of 30)
|
|
Seventh Taylor I never liked "crackle and pop" and other noises from LPs and I agree that is one of the main reasons people switched to CDs.
My parents collected LPs and I didn't like record noise. So my first stereo in the late 1960's was a Realistic 8 Track player/amp with two small bookshelf speakers that cost less than $100. From there I moved up to a Teac Reel to Reel deck, Kenwood integrated amp and Rectilinear 11a speakers and bought pre-recorded reel to reel tapes and then next to audiophile prerecorded cassettes first on a Luxman and then a Nakamichi. There was also a detour in which I added a turntable after hearing Harry James "King James Version" Sheffield Lab Direct-Disc LP in a stereo store. I was so impressed with the sound quality I bought a turntable despite abhorring the noise of LP in my youth, the dealer sealed it by telling how record cleaning products had improved since I lived with my parents. I later sold that turntable as LPs were a hassle and I liked the sound of tapes better.
I switched from audiophile cassettes in 1983 to CD because I read the ads promising "Perfect Sound Forever". Since, like always in my life, I was poor, in order to afford the $900 Sony CD-101 I sold my Nakamichi 480 cassette deck and all 150 of my audiophile cassettes. At first I liked the absence of noise a lot but within six months I couldn't tolerate listening to music on it anymore. I sold the CD-101 and pretty much quit listening to music for two years until I started reading about new audiophile LPs and a product called "Last Record Preservative", so I tried LPs again and was very impressed, and started building a collection. So my first real LP collection was not until two years after I sold my first CD player.
Still I didn't like all the adjustments and maintenance of the tonearm/stylus system and the cleaning of LPs. Thus I adopted 24/96 DVDs, then later SACD and DVD-Audio and then finally high resolution computer music files.
I do like the computer database and access, however I do play albums all the way through so I find SACDs just as easy to use.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle August 17, 2012 (24 of 30)
|
|
22.2???
It's not April First here in the northern hemisphere, but shouldn't this topic be moved to the You_Just_Have_To_Laugh thread?
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 17, 2012 (25 of 30)
|
|
Beagle said:
22.2???
It's not April First here in the northern hemisphere, but shouldn't this topic be moved to the You_Just_Have_To_Laugh thread?
Oh dear, a Luddite in a forum orientated towards hi-res 2.0 AND multi-channel audio; I wonder if you'll say that when you hear it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle August 17, 2012 (26 of 30)
|
|
Reproducing reality is an asymptotic process where a lot more precision nets only a little more accuracy. For example, the value of Pi had been calculated to the 5-trillionth decimal place -- so what? The difference between Pi to the 5th decimal place and the 22nd decimal place is a whopping two-and-a-half millionths.
I am not arguing against Hi-Rez but caveat reductio absurdum.
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 17, 2012 (27 of 30)
|
|
Having heard 22.2 surround sound, I can say with confidence that it delivers a very effective 3-dimensional sound; much more so than 5.1. As I said earlier in the thread, 5.1 envelopes the listener horizontally whereas 22.2 surround sound envelopes the listener horizontally and vertically to make a cube-like sound field.
Impressed as I was with the 22.2 experience and being a fan of multi-channel audio, I was and remain excited at the possibilities of how it could be utilised for hi-res multi-channel audio in the future. Hopefully you'll get to hear it one day and you can make an experiential opinion about it.
p.s. I apologise for implying you were are Luddite, there's no excuse for negative rhetoric like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
windhoek said:
Having heard 22.2 surround sound, I can say with confidence that it delivers a very effective 3-dimensional sound; much more so than 5.1. As I said earlier in the thread, 5.1 envelopes the listener horizontally whereas 22.2 surround sound envelopes the listener horizontally and vertically to make a cube-like sound field.
I haven't heard it myself but I'll believe it does. I think however the effect can be achieved fairely effectively with far fewer channels -- as few as 7.1 (5.1 with two (front) 'height channels' as can be delivered by current DTS systems and (not discrete but matrixed) DPL IIz. Or even with the six channels provided by SACD, the sixth channels to be reproduced by a ceiling-mounted speaker. See discussion of Sacred Feast - Gaudeamus in /showthread/19238 and /showthread/31924//y?page=1 (or other discussion regarding 2+2+2 recordings).
|
|
|
Post by Beagle August 17, 2012 (29 of 30)
|
|
windhoek said: p.s. I apologise for implying you were are Luddite
We all have our own personal Ludd Level:
At work I administer an on-line data-system but at home I mow the lawn with a hand-mower. I do NOT own an iPod, iPhone or iPad (but I still have a 1984 Mac upstairs in its original pack-sack); we have a 32" HDMI screen and Blu-ray and watch maybe 4 movies a year -- but never ever 'TV'. And although I drive an internal-combustion vehicle daily, I confess that there are numerous powered devices towards which I would cheerfully lead an angry mob: Boom-cars, ATVs, Sea-doos, Sno-mobiles, garden-tractors, Kawasakis, leaf-blowers, pressure-washers, whipper-snippers....
|
|
|
Post by windhoek August 17, 2012 (30 of 30)
|
|
|
Here is an image of the 22.2 speaker setup. There's also a PDF link with more info about it.
Channel: Label: ...Channel Name:
1 .....M-F-L .....Middle layer - Front - Left
2 .....M-F-L/C ...Middle layer - Front - Left/Center
3 .....M-F-C .....Middle layer - Front - Center
4 .....M-F-C/R ...Middle layer - Front - Center/Right
5 .....M-F-R .....Middle layer - Front - Right
6 .....M-S-L .....Middle layer - Side - Left
7 .....M-S-R .....Middle layer - Side - Right
8 .....M-B-L .....Middle layer - Back - Left
9 .....M-B-C .....Middle layer - Back - Center
10 ....M-B-R .....Middle layer - Back - Right
11 ....U-F-L .....Upper layer - Front - Left
12 ....U-F-C .....Upper layer - Front - Center
13 ....U-F-R .....Upper layer - Front - Right
14 ....U-S-L .....Upper layer - Side - Left
15 ....U-S-C .....Upper layer - Side - Center
16 ....U-S-R .....Upper layer - Side - Right
17 ....U-B-L .....Upper layer - Back - Left
18 ....U-B-C .....Upper layer - Back - Center
19 ....U-B-R .....Upper layer - Back - Right
20 ....L-F-L .....Lower layer - Front - Left
21 ....L-F-C .....Lower layer - Front - Center
22 ....L-F-R .....Lower layer - Front - Right
23 ....LFE-L .....LFE - Left
24 ....LFE-R .....LFE - Right
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/IBC2007_08040907.pdf
|
|
