MQA Discussion

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

I have little hope that there will be enough music offered to entice me.

My sentiments, absolutely!

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Gbaby....I am sure that a well-optimised multichannel setup will sound amazing, but from a practical standpoint, it is basically impossible to optimise such a setup in the average room that 95% of audiophiles are limited to.

Then there is, of course, the WAF!

It is difficult to optimise 2 channel, imagine the nightmare to set up a multichannel system to perfection.

Then there is the issue of spreading the budget. For a budget of 30k for speakers, I am sure one would get much better sound quality by spreading it over 2 speakers.

Only very large budgets and a dedicated sound room will make it viable!

You do have a point, in a perfect world.

Rome was not built in a day and this applies especially for audio. I built my system over a long period of time, but I did not get serious until I invested in some Infinity Composition Preludes and their matching components after having read a glowing review of them in Stereophile and Stereophile Guide to Home Theater back in the late '90s. However, my electronics always sucked because I was using Sony receivers then Sony separates, then I purchased Carver amps, Krell amps, Arcam processor, Aleph J two channel amp, and a Bryston amp along with all silver cables along the way. So over time, I feel I was able to put a decent system together and surround from the SP3 is the best sound I have ever experience in audio, period. I guess my point is, I did not start off with a great system. I always felt something wasn't right. But, I'm satisfied now.

[imprezap2]

Originally Posted by gbaby

You are talking pure conjecture. I feel I already own a great multichannel processor in the SP3 and a great 2 channel system in the BDA-3. My main speakers are down -3db@ 32Hz and are full range. So, I can listen to great 2 channel and multichannel at will. The surround algorithms coupled with its clean design in the SP3 runs rings around all 2 channel sound from the BDA3. You can conjecture all you wish, you can stay in the dark ages, you can continue to cook on a wood stove, you can continue to ride a bike rather than an automobile for long distances, and you can continue to listen to music in mono. I have decided that after hearing both, multichannel wins.

I am sorry, but the set up you are discussing will loose out against a nice two channel set up costing the same amount, if you don't see that, there is not really a point to to discuss it anymore. It's always great to meet people who only value their own opinion.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by imprezap2

It's also a matter of economics, I am pretty confident that the 50000 dollar two channel set will have an advantage over a 50000 dollar multichannel set. (but both will be enjoyable)

That's probably the primary reason why 2 channels will prevail.

There's also the small matter of portability and catering for the dominant group of people whose primary means of listening is via a pair of headphones and an iPhone.

And history is also very much on the side of 2 channel audio, having seen off 4 channel LP in the 1970's and more recently, multi-channel SACD and DVD-A. Multi-channel audio has only ever been a niche product with a small group of dedicated and sometimes vocal supporters.

That said, it's not unreasonable to speculate MC viability now that music no longer requires a physical media, but the questions still remain over whether the artists or record labels will pay engineers to produce both MC and 2 channel mixes for download or streaming. Similarly, I once held out hope that engineers would provide album mixes with low levels of dynamic compression and zero loudness eq etc for traditional high fidelity replay in the home, but I've since given up all hope of that ever happening.

And of course there's that ever enduring demand for 2 channel vinyl LP, which last year managed to reach a 28 year high.

If the 2 channel horse is dead it's either very well embalmed or it's got the staying powers of Elvis.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by imprezap2

.... It's always great to meet people who only value their own opinion.

Your comment has a double edged sword.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

And history is also very much on the side of 2 channel audio, having seen off 4 channel LP in the 1970's and more recently, multi-channel SACD and DVD-A. Multi-channel audio has only ever been a niche product with a small group of dedicated and sometimes vocal supporters.

I remember quad well. You had to have a special cartridge as well as the proper electronics to play it. And, while two channel does have history on its side, it does not necessarily mean its better sounding than the surround formats. A well mixed 5.1 SACD or DVD-Audio is simply superior sounding than 2 channel. I call it ear candy. Also, have you heard Chicago in quad? It definitely sounds better than 2 channel. With the advent of home theater, SACD and DVD-A as well as quad has potential. However, I doubt it will grow an audience because great sound quality is only important to a niche audience like you and me, and those who frequent this forum.

[Sharp 1080]

Oh great now we are comparing 1970's"Quadraphonic to 2017 and multichannel lossless. I will repeat it again since it seems to be avoided for some reason. I have a high end 2 channel system (yes imprezap 50K) and it sounds fantastic but cannot match the same system when used as multi channel.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by imprezap2

It's always great to meet people who only value their own opinion.

Back at you.

[imprezap2]

Originally Posted by Sharp 1080

Oh great now we are comparing 1970's"Quadraphonic to 2017 and multichannel lossless. I will repeat it again since it seems to be avoided for some reason. I have a high end 2 channel system (yes imprezap 50K) and it sounds fantastic but cannot match the same system when used as multi channel.

So your main two channel set wouldn't have sounded better if you would have spent the money from the extra speakers, amps, wiring, etc. into your 2 channel set ?

I have no problem that people enjoy their multi channel systems, but personally I rather spent my budget on better 2 channel speakers, then spreading that budget over 7 speakers. And it seems in this thread that multichannel (even dolby prologic) beats the pants of any 2 channel set.

My apologies to the topic starter for moving away from the original topic (MQA)

[bart]

Olaf, I admire your zeal for 2-channel music.
I can only tell from my own experiences.
I'm living since quite a few years with a very good 2-channel system, and with a reasonably good multi-channel one.
My stereo components are indeed a notch above my surround equipment.
Still, for various styles, especially for large scale orchestral music, but even for some solo instrumental pieces, I often prefer 5.0.
For movies, always.