Mig007, you know full-well what Tvad says about my Acoustic Revive, Synergistic Research, AVM, and Murata super tweeters, but here I am in agreement. |
I agree with TVAD and Mapman here. Plus I have never heard a multi-channel system that even approached a quality two way system. TAD gave up some time ago in having multi-channel systems at shows. I know why, the sound was awful. I heard their best sound yet at the RMAF-the rack mounted two ways used in two channel. |
Tvad, I entirely agree and resent the spirit of the initial posting. |
Mig007, joined at the hip??? What the hell are you talking about? Me and Tvad???
But again I agree with Tvad. Your posting is insincere and ill-founded. Don't like being called on such then don't post. |
Onhwy61,
The audiophile goal is to accurately reproduce whatever is embedded in the media.
Obviously, but that is as good as they can get. Nevertheless, the ideal is an excellent recording. Everyone constantly talks about "great" recording and "great" performances. When you get both it is thrilling. |
Mrtennis, I just returned from CES and heard the Pass/Kimber system. Only TAG Model Ones were used. For the first time on this limited number of recording did I find multichannel at all appealing. Of course, in this room you would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve the sound. |
Sorry! I once had a TAG preamp. |
2000! I had no idea there were anywhere near that number. |
Mig007, I just cannot under stand, why some cannot understand why the cost of doing multichannel for the limited use it has. I heard some benefit in Kimber's presentation at CES with well over $200,000 worth of equipment using his most limited recordings. Sorry, I just not interested. |
Mig007, if you think my posting is anything like your initial post, I think there is no value in any discussion with you. |
Mig007,"I just finished listening to Allman Bros 'Live at the Fillmore East" on SACD, and cannot believe the 2-channel 'Luddites' who have shunned multichannel sound. They probably shun fuel injected engines as well. Oh well, their loss, but Kal has it right."
tbg, "I have had the final production version for two weeks now. I loved the first one I had and thought it out-imaged anything I ever had, while having neither a tube or ss sound. Then I got the new one. I was unprepared for how much better it was. There is a sonic hologram before me with realism I have never heard or even approached before. Roger Paul tells me that it will be weeks before it is at its best. Lookout for another even more rave review. In 28 years of audio experimentation, I have never heard more of an improvement by adding one component."
I am sorry, but it is you who cannot admit to intemperate language, such as you are in denial, or professor of intolerance. You need help with civility I'm afraid. |
Mig007, I know better now than to take anything post seriously. I am surprised that you know the word retort.
I will not entertain you any more on this worthless discussion of multichannel versus two channels. Probably others who tried to contribute seriously, have long since left. |
I agree with Tvad and Pettyofficer, and I certainly wished all of my recordings rivaled the very best, but I must say that what I am hearing on the worst and the best of my recordings has improved greatly in the last ten years.
I well remember my first hearing of a Sheffield direct to disc recording and still have thirty or forty direct to disc records, although I seldom listen to them. I have many Shady Dog, Island, half-speed master, etc. recordings and do listen to them occasionally.
Finally, I do wish recording engineers paid attention to having all of their mikes are in the same absolute phase. |
