76.115.217.131
This Post Has Been Edited by the Author
In Reply to: RE: That's a very bold statement... posted by rlw on March 05, 2015 at 11:11:34
Perhaps. But if one has much experience about something that they know beyond the shadow of doubt to be true, it just might not be such a bold statement for that one to make, right?
BTW, there is no such thing as a "high quality" surround sound playback system. Well, if you're talking a very expensive system that looks "high quality" that's one thing, but that has nothing to do with the quality of sound.
If 2-channel systems fail miserably, it's a given that surround sounds fail even more miserably.
The life is in the recording itself, not in the number of channels you're spreading it across. And if the distortions induced by our electronics are so severe as to raise the noise floor so high that only a small percentage of all the music info embedded in the recording are audible (while the vast majority of music info remains inaudible due to the severity of the unversal distortions plaguing every last playback system), then it stands to reason that more electronics is even more destructive.
But that's not to say there's not pleasure to be had with the phenoena that a surround sound system brings. It just has little or nothing to do with reality.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2015, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]