Interview with John Atkinson

[Ajani]

i find him to be quite honest and given his tempered responses to the idiots that keep shouting :CONSPIRACY, i find him to be very respectable. if you read the AA critics asylum, you'll see what i mean.

he has the unique position of being both a musician and equipment reviewer. from that perspective, i respect his stance on sound. he has been in journalism for quite a while as well. that all adds up to equal quality.

Try reading the Stereophile forums as well... JA shows incredible patience there with persons who come on his site just to accuse him and Stereophile of all manner of things... I have to admit that in his position, I'd suggest some activities the conspiracy guys could do with their mothers and a goat... So I have great respect for someone who can keep his cool day in, day out under constant attack....

[Ajani]

i have heard some ridiculous surround (eagles hell freezes over in dts) that oversteps sensibility like quadraphonic did with some of the SQ remixes from columbia. i prefer to hear the music as the audience does (as oposed to the stage mixes from AIX).

I believe that was JA's point: for recordings like Classical, where the aim is often to recreate the live event, then MC audio has the best potential... But for ones like Rock and Pop, which are totally studio derived (usually) MC audio is often used in a gimmicky manner...

[poppachubby]

i find him to be quite honest and given his tempered responses to the idiots that keep shouting :CONSPIRACY, i find him to be very respectable. if you read the AA critics asylum, you'll see what i mean.

Thomas Roy...Stereophile employee? It goes back many years ago. Atkinson and Roy were in the Marines together, forming a bond that would last for life. As they went seperate ways, Atkinson to audio and Roy to the C.I.A., they kept in touch. Upon retaining his position at....

How's that for a conspiracy Tommy? My gear has been conspiring against my ears, as a result I moved a bunch of stuff. Check your email later, I have to consult with you...

[E-Stat]

I believe that was JA's point: for recordings like Classical, where the aim is often to recreate the live event, then MC audio has the best potential... But for ones like Rock and Pop, which are totally studio derived (usually) MC audio is often used in a gimmicky manner...

Agreed. I find my observations and opinions very much parallel that of JA. He points out that only 20% of Stereophile listeners are enthusiastic about multichannel. I was amused with the comment that MC is "aimed at people who don't care about sound quality (without a picture)". I've heard a number of classical MC recordings where there was a space and its acoustic to reproduce and it did so compellingly. With pop music, however, there is no such paradigm. It is simply a different artifice than two channel. and frequently done poorly to the extent of sounding downright hokey. He goes on to say that while he enjoys well done MC, his system (like mine) is a better executed two channel one that optimizes more of his musical collection. One necessarily must compromise quality over quantity of channels. And neither he nor I has any vested interest in that preference. Amen.

Floyd Toole speaks of the immersion provided by multichannel and I would agree that radiating rear ambience is certainly one quality of the live experience. It is not, however, the only one. I have yet to hear a theater based MC system (including the best recent IMAX flavors) that has ever fooled me into thinking I was hearing music played live. The illusion for me is immediately destroyed by the sub-par quality of the amp-speaker chain itself. On the other hand, I have gotten the spookiest sense of realism through hearing a spectacular two channel system (not mine!) that not only made the walls disappear, the resolution was such that I truly thought I was listening to the musicians playing in the space.

I also noted his comments about hearing a system using three different grades of Nordost cable from their entry stuff to Valhalla and finally to Odin. I, too have heard Valhalla and Odin in several exceptional systems and most certainly agree.

rw

[hifitommy]

but the flashing charges were dropped. i admit to having a drink with JA and eliciting a free Dr. John ticket for BWK from wes phillips, but the rest is just conjecture.

i was on the up and up that time and had purchased my own ticket to see rebennack. highly recommended btw.

did i ever tell you about my 'fear and loathing' trip to the jan '78 vegas CES?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

20% of Stereophile subscribers(or listeners) are an extremely small amount of overall MC enthusiast, because all MC enthusiast are not Stereophile subscribers. That makes his point meaningless. It just means that a majority of their subscribers "prefer" two channel listening because A) it is the way they are used to hearing it B) the dominate way of delivery when they were introduced to it, and C) have invested heavily in two channel equipment and sources. Not any of these reasons has anything to do with accurately creating a more spatially realistic listening environment. This is why I give more credence to Floyd Toole's explanation of MC than JA. It is more based on the science of listening rather than any other parameter.

His comments regarding MC folks not interested in music without pictures flies in the face of the current success(and reviewer acclaimed for audio quality) of the recent offerings of Surround and 2L record companies. Their classical works have no video, and have sold extremely well when compared to most two channel classical works. In many cases, Surround Records titles have often outsold their two channel products of the same work by 4 to 1. This shows how dated his comments are on this issue.

While I agree that there are artistic MC creations, it is not the dominating representation of multichannel music as a whole. An artistic MC creation is driven by different set of rules (or none) than a naturally recorded product. The art in artistic is not only instrumental, but spatial as well. Putting the listener in the center of the orchestra or band is just another perspective to hear music, and has nothing to do with anyone's reality or one persons ultimate spatial desire. It is part of the creative process, and what is ultimately created is as natural to the audio intent of the producer or mixer as a live performance. It may be a creation over time, but it is as natural as a single event, but driven by a different set of recording and mixing parameters.

A MC channel recording of a live event utilizes different set of rules. The spatial accuracy is based on exactly what happened in that live event. The placement of the instruments is directly correlated to where the instruments are placed during a the live performance, and the ambience is recorded and placed exactly where the specific microphones for that position where placed. There are no artistic decisions here, it is all about accuracy based on the live event. When one is open to MC, and not closed minded towards it, there is room for both kinds of MC products, both artistic creations, and accuracy based on the live events. If you are only open to one kind of MC, then your biases will push multichannel away as your preferred listening experience. This is where I place JA. He is only interested in one kind of MC experience, which leads him to not like more artistic expressions of MC, and preferring two channel.

I have a mutlichannel setup that employs a roll up screen that leaves the center speaker wide open to the room. With that screen rolled up, this is a MC music system, not a theater system. The constant references to theater system when describing MC music does not mention this kind of system which is optimized for both MC music and theatrical applications.

This same system also uses 7 Dunlavy SC-V's which I use to mix and monitor both music and soundtracks with. Does anyone really believe that two speakers which cost the same as 7 SC-V's would deliver a better audio presentation? This is why the "if all things were equal and point of diminishing returns" equations should be invoked into this argument. You do NOT have to compromise quality when choosing a MC system over a two channel system, it is a red herring of an argument. If I started off with a very high quality MC system, and a two channel system of simular cost was compared with that, you would still get a more accurate spatial presentation with the mulitchannel setup, and you would not have to give any ground on sound quality as well. The amount of air moved, and the sense of scale from seven slightly smaller speakers and a high quality sub can be greater than two larger speakers, that is a fact. Sometimes emotions are a driving factor for some comments made.

He made a comment that said that imaging from a multichannel system using a center channel is more narrow than a phantom image from just two channels. That is not true at all. If the mix utilizes the front channels(left,center,right) as one frontal soundstage, the three channels can convey a much wider(and accurate) frontal presentation than a two channel speaker system can - and from more seating positions as well. That is a fact proven by Bell labs back in 1934.

Using a IMAX sound system(or any theatrical sound system) in the context of this discussion is ridiculous. Comparing it to a high quality two channel home based system is even more ridiculous. Nothing there is equal which makes a comparison ridiculous. An "if all things are equal in quality" parameter was invoked, then the argument goes in the direction of multichannel.

At the software level a fair comparison is a mutlichannel mix, and a two channel mix of the same event, both optimized and compared over systems of equal quality in regards to pre-amps, amps, interconnects, speaker wiring and speakers. That is a fair comparison, not a comparison that pits two different recordings into two different quality systems designed for two completely different purposes. .

At some point your cost versus actual performance value diminishes considerably.

In the end, all of this is nothing more than personal preference and nothing more than that.

[Ajani]

20% of Stereophile subscribers(or listeners) are an extremely small amount of overall MC enthusiast, because all MC enthusiast are not Stereophile subscribers. That makes his point meaningless. It just means that a majority of their subscribers "prefer" two channel listening because A) it is the way they are used to hearing it B) the dominate way of delivery when they were introduced to it, and C) have invested heavily in two channel equipment and sources. Not any of these reasons has anything to do with accurately creating a more spatially realistic listening environment. This is why I give more credence to Floyd Toole's explanation of MC than JA. It is more based on the science of listening rather than any other parameter.

His comments regarding MC folks not interested in music without pictures flies in the face of the current success(and reviewer acclaimed for audio quality) of the recent offerings of Surround and 2L record companies. Their classical works have no video, and have sold extremely well when compared to most two channel classical works. In many cases, Surround Records titles have often outsold their two channel products of the same work by 4 to 1. This shows how dated his comments are on this issue.

While I agree that there are artistic MC creations, it is not the dominating representation of multichannel music as a whole. An artistic MC creation is driven by different set of rules (or none) than a naturally recorded product. The art in artistic is not only instrumental, but spatial as well. Putting the listener in the center of the orchestra or band is just another perspective to hear music, and has nothing to do with anyone's reality or one persons ultimate spatial desire. It is part of the creative process, and what is ultimately created is as natural to the audio intent of the producer or mixer as a live performance. It may be a creation over time, but it is as natural as a single event, but driven by a different set of recording and mixing parameters.

A MC channel recording of a live event utilizes different set of rules. The spatial accuracy is based on exactly what happened in that live event. The placement of the instruments is directly correlated to where the instruments are placed during a the live performance, and the ambience is recorded and placed exactly where the specific microphones for that position where placed. There are no artistic decisions here, it is all about accuracy based on the live event. When one is open to MC, and not closed minded towards it, there is room for both kinds of MC products, both artistic creations, and accuracy based on the live events. If you are only open to one kind of MC, then your biases will push multichannel away as your preferred listening experience. This is where I place JA. He is only interested in one kind of MC experience, which leads him to not like more artistic expressions of MC, and preferring two channel.

I have a mutlichannel setup that employs a roll up screen that leaves the center speaker wide open to the room. With that screen rolled up, this is a MC music system, not a theater system. The constant references to theater system when describing MC music does not mention this kind of system which is optimized for both MC music and theatrical applications.

This same system also uses 7 Dunlavy SC-V's which I use to mix and monitor both music and soundtracks with. Does anyone really believe that two speakers which cost the same as 7 SC-V's would deliver a better audio presentation? This is why the "if all things were equal and point of diminishing returns" equations should be invoked into this argument. You do NOT have to compromise quality when choosing a MC system over a two channel system, it is a red herring of an argument. If I started off with a very high quality MC system, and a two channel system of simular cost was compared with that, you would still get a more accurate spatial presentation with the mulitchannel setup, and you would not have to give any ground on sound quality as well. The amount of air moved, and the sense of scale from seven slightly smaller speakers and a high quality sub can be greater than two larger speakers, that is a fact. Sometimes emotions are a driving factor for some comments made.

He made a comment that said that imaging from a multichannel system using a center channel is more narrow than a phantom image from just two channels. That is not true at all. If the mix utilizes the front channels(left,center,right) as one frontal soundstage, the three channels can convey a much wider(and accurate) frontal presentation than a two channel speaker system can - and from more seating positions as well. That is a fact proven by Bell labs back in 1934.

Using a IMAX sound system(or any theatrical sound system) in the context of this discussion is ridiculous. Comparing it to a high quality two channel home based system is even more ridiculous. Nothing there is equal which makes a comparison ridiculous. An "if all things are equal in quality" parameter was invoked, then the argument goes in the direction of multichannel.

At the software level a fair comparison is a mutlichannel mix, and a two channel mix of the same event, both optimized and compared over systems of equal quality in regards to pre-amps, amps, interconnects, speaker wiring and speakers. That is a fair comparison, not a comparison that pits two different recordings into two different quality systems designed for two completely different purposes. .

At some point your cost versus actual performance value diminishes considerably.

In the end, all of this is nothing more than personal preference and nothing more than that.

Interesting points... Here are my thoughts:

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role... as the difference between a high quality (and relatively expensive) speaker like a Dunlavy SC-V and another pair of speakers for double or triple the price, is likely much smaller than the difference between a good quality $1K set of towers and a $3K pair...

So let's take a more modest budget: I have the option to assemble either a 5.1 setup with the Revel Concerta series or a 2 channel setup with a pair of Revel Performa F32s.... The Concerta setup would allow me to gain the additional ambiance of a live performance, but the Performa setup would be far more detailed and refined.... Are you certain that the additional ambiance of the Concerta series would outweigh the improved detail and refinement of the Performa? Also, even assuming it does, what about the fact that my entire music collection is currently 2 channel?

So MC audio has suffered from the fact that persons with a heavy investment in stereo music are going to be very wary of spending their money to optimize their setup for MC... and diminishing returns may kick in heavily at points well beyond their current budget.... If my choice was between a Performa MC setup and a stereo pair of Ultima Studio 2s then dimishing returns might be more of a factor....

As JA said, the sound quality of a set of HT in a box speakers for $500 will sound like crap, but you could get a very nice pair of small monitors for that money...

Also, persons who own a high quality MC setup very probably set that up primarily for HT... Persons who don't care about HT (but are interested in audio) probably already had a stereo rig... So IMO, that is where JA's comments about MC persons not being interested in music without pictures comes in... I doubt he actually meant that MC users can't listen to music without an image on the screen, just that those guys are probably already video nuts. rather than just audio nuts with a MC music setup...

[E-Stat]

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role...

If you really enjoy musical reproduction, I find that level is in the multi-hundred thousand dollar range. I've heard a $100k Magneplanar based system using Edge and C-J electronics driven by an EMM Labs player and Valhalla cabling. It is a very nice system indeed (mostly used for HT with its ceiling mounted Sony projector and 100" screen), but that reviewer's two channel system is far better, albeit more expensive. There is no contest as to which sounds more live to these ears on 98% of recordings. With the exception of a handful of well done classical cuts, one system makes the walls disappear with virtually every recording while the other doesn't.

Multi-channel has its place largely in the movie world, but it is obvious that the vast majority of the music world has little use for it. Yes, there are some very nice classical releases, but in the pop world, one finds remastered oldies (which have no inherent MC paradigm in the way they were originally recorded) and "live" concert replays that are video based. If you can suffer the performance, then you get to hear more realistic crowd noise. Precious few artists release new album content on any MC format. When you go to Amazon.com and search for "multi channel" in the music department, you get ten hits. Over at the audiophile site, Acoustic Sounds, you get far more - 2263 - but they fall into those two categories of classical, sprinkled with vintage remasters of Ray Charles, Roy Orbison, Moody Blues, Diana Krall and of course Dark Side of the Moon!

I searched for "blu ray music" and got lots of hits, but virtually all are video concerts if that's your thing. After looking at the first several hundred, I was able to find "The Essential Barbra Streisand" and Simon and Garfunkel's "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme" in what appears to be a music-only format of remastered stereo.

rw

[Feanor]

...

Multi-channel has its place largely in the movie world, but it is obvious that the vast majority of the music world has little use for it. Yes, there are some very nice classical releases, but in the pop world, one finds remastered oldies (which have no inherent MC paradigm in the way they were originally recorded) and "live" concert replays that are video based. If you can suffer the performance, then you get to hear more realistic crowd noise. Precious few artists release new album content on any MC format. When you go to Amazon.com and search for "multi channel" in the music department, you get ten hits. Over at the audiophile site, Acoustic Sounds, you get far more - 2263 - but they fall into those two categories of classical, sprinkled with vintage remasters of Ray Charles, Roy Orbison, Moody Blues, Diana Krall and of course Dark Side of the Moon!
...

rw

This is the crux of the matter: far too few (really good) MC recordings. Why invest much more money in an MC system when 95% of your music is stereo? Better to spend your spare cash on improving your 2ch setup.

I have quite a few MC classical SACDs. But a minoriy of them really do justice to MC, (or conversely, MC justice to them). Granted that those the get it right convey an astounding sense of a real venue that stereo simply cannot.

[Ajani]

If you really enjoy musical reproduction, I find that level is in the multi-hundred thousand dollar range.

Yep... For many audiophiles diminishing returns is well beyond their current budget (or any conceivable budget they will ever have), so it may never play a significant role in a Stereo VS MC setup decision for them...

[E-Stat]

Yep... For many audiophiles diminishing returns is well beyond their current budget (or any conceivable budget they will ever have), so it may never play a significant role in a Stereo VS MC setup decision for them...

But, don't get me wrong about the superiority of MC in its place. Four years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of having HP walk me through his selection of favorites that you find in The Absolute Sound sampler of MC stuff on Telarc. He begins the liner notes with these comments:

"This disc is my unabashed effort to put together a sonic spectacular that will rot your shocks, and to demonstrate the superiority of the DSD multi-channel system so convincingly that there will be no doubt about which high-resolution digital medium is the technological best".

Each selection was chosen to showcase some aspect of the medium and hearing it on his system was quite enjoyable (also got a copy of the disc). He finds that the center channel provides a unique ability to showcase the woodwinds. I certainly get all that especially with the in-person guided tour. For many folks like JA and me, it is a case of musical content over musical audiophilia. While HP has separate systems, he has always spent more time behind the spectacular two channel one whenever I've visited. For a mere $250k or so, he could convert it to an equivalent MC flavor. Now, that would be interesting to hear!

rw

[E-Stat]

This is the crux of the matter: far too few (really good) MC recordings.

And really zero that offer any *true* acoustical superiority in the popular vein where recordings are made in the studio, not in a concert hall. Engineers just get more sliders with which to pan and process all the studio miked sources. My first "surround" system consisted of Double Advents using a Dynaco Quadaptor back in '73. It was cool for a while, but I abandoned it in favor of a higher quality two channel system. About fifteen years ago, I purchased a surround processor to supplement the Acoustat 2+2s. It, too, was cool for a while and "enveloped you" with its simulated space, but ultimately I retired it as well.

Here's my idea of MC. That's Connie of Sound Lab seated in the back with Ray Kimber's statement system. 6 kW should satisfy those who like it loud, too.



rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Interesting points... Here are my thoughts:

At some point diminishing returns will certainly play a role... as the difference between a high quality (and relatively expensive) speaker like a Dunlavy SC-V and another pair of speakers for double or triple the price, is likely much smaller than the difference between a good quality $1K set of towers and a $3K pair...

Agreed

So let's take a more modest budget: I have the option to assemble either a 5.1 setup with the Revel Concerta series or a 2 channel setup with a pair of Revel Performa F32s.... The Concerta setup would allow me to gain the additional ambiance of a live performance, but the Performa setup would be far more detailed and refined.... Are you certain that the additional ambiance of the Concerta series would outweigh the improved detail and refinement of the Performa? Also, even assuming it does, what about the fact that my entire music collection is currently 2 channel?

Based on the review of the F12 in Stereophile you lose very little going from concerta line to the performa line, so I would say what you gain by adding a center channel, and two surrounds would give you a more realistic presentation with the 5.1 system than the two channel system. So what you really have for an arguement is your last statement, your investment in your two channel collection. Still, that has nothing to do with getting a more "you are there" presentation, so we are back to preference.

So MC audio has suffered from the fact that persons with a heavy investment in stereo music are going to be very wary of spending their money to optimize their setup for MC... and diminishing returns may kick in heavily at points well beyond their current budget.... If my choice was between a Performa MC setup and a stereo pair of Ultima Studio 2s then dimishing returns might be more of a factor....

Exactly!

As JA said, the sound quality of a set of HT in a box speakers for $500 will sound like crap, but you could get a very nice pair of small monitors for that money...

Do you see how low a price point he had to go to make this argument?

Also, persons who own a high quality MC setup very probably set that up primarily for HT... Persons who don't care about HT (but are interested in audio) probably already had a stereo rig... So IMO, that is where JA's comments about MC persons not being interested in music without pictures comes in... I doubt he actually meant that MC users can't listen to music without an image on the screen, just that those guys are probably already video nuts. rather than just audio nuts with a MC music setup...

But then he leaves out those who system is optimized for both, and enjoy both. The bottom line is this is all about preference and nothing more. For those who have invested heavily in two channel equipment and software for whatever reason, do so as a preference. Those who have a high quality surround system and buy multichannel software to listen on their systems do so for the same reason....preference. You can go around the block five hundred times with various explaination, but it all boils down to preference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If anyone looks around and only finds concert videos under blu ray music, they have not been looking hard enough. Surround Records has released 35 titles on the market.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?studioid=51

2L has eight releases

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?studioid=93

And AIX is going to start releasing music only content on Blu ray as they have gotten their first check discs from their replicator.

The great thing about surround concert discs(especially classical) is that you can turn the monitor off and still enjoy the music. You do not have to look at the video to enjoy the music. I watched Asia in concert on Blu ray, and enjoyed it with the video and without it as well.

[E-Stat]

Surround Records has released 35 titles on the market.

Add those to the two I mentioned and you get 37! Of that number, 7 are sound effects recordings and only 8 of the remaining classical cuts even bother to mention the orchestra and performers. You'll find nothing on the cover. Huh? Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to know who I'm listening to. Great science projects there.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Add those to the two I mentioned and you get 37! Of that number, 7 are sound effects recordings and only 8 of the remaining classical cuts even bother to mention the orchestra and performers. You'll find nothing on the cover. Huh? Call me crazy, but I'd kinda like to know who I'm listening to. Great science projects there.

rw

First, Alexander Jero recordings are not sound effect recordings, they are sound scape recordings of classical music transcribed to the synthesizer. I know, I own them all.

Second, when you buy the disc, all of the information about the artists and orchestra is in the liner notes. I know this because I have all 35 of surround records discs, and 6 of 2L as well.

Those two things aside, all of these recordings are of very high quality, with 2L's recordings done in DXD (32bit 358.4khz sample rate) with extremely high quality microphones, an ultra-tranparent mixing board, and downsampled to DSD or 24/192khz 5.1 using PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD.

Surround records are done in 24bit in 96 or 192khz 5.1. The CD might as well be MP3 when stacked against these two companies products. Neither of these two companies use any processing whatsoever in post production.

Once again, any concert video title can still be heard without the picture, it is not required for playback.

[E-Stat]

First, Alexander Jero recordings are not sound effect recordings, they are sound scape recordings...

My apologies for not recognizing the difference.

Second, when you buy the disc, all of the information about the artists and orchestra is in the liner notes.

Interesting marketing decision. How many folks will buy our obscure stuff cold without knowing in advance what they're getting until they open the package? I'm thinking the BR camp needs to find some meaningful content to get the format on the map.

Those two things aside, all of these recordings are of very high quality, with 2L's recordings done in DXD (32bit 358.4khz sample rate) with extremely high quality microphones, an ultra-tranparent mixing board, and downsampled to DSD or 24/192khz 5.1 using PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD.

It's a shame such is not the case for music folks actually want to hear.

Once again, any concert video title can still be heard without the picture, it is not required for playback.

I'll repeat: if you can suffer the performance quality, then go for it! Your experience may be different than mine, but I find that live pop concerts are always sonically compromised in one way or the other. Folks don't attend live concerts for the sound quality. They want to watch their favorite performers on stage. If you've already decided to compromise your equipment quality to provide more than double the number of amplification stages and speakers, then why not keep the tube on? JA was spot on about that.

rw

[Ajani]

Agreed



Based on the review of the F12 in Stereophile you lose very little going from concerta line to the performa line, so I would say what you gain by adding a center channel, and two surrounds would give you a more realistic presentation with the 5.1 system than the two channel system. So what you really have for an arguement is your last statement, your investment in your two channel collection. Still, that has nothing to do with getting a more "you are there" presentation, so we are back to preference.



Exactly!



Do you see how low a price point he had to go to make this argument?



But then he leaves out those who system is optimized for both, and enjoy both. The bottom line is this is all about preference and nothing more. For those who have invested heavily in two channel equipment and software for whatever reason, do so as a preference. Those who have a high quality surround system and buy multichannel software to listen on their systems do so for the same reason....preference. You can go around the block five hundred times with various explaination, but it all boils down to preference.

Diminishing Returns is best applied on an individual basis: So for some audiophiles a $100K pair of speakers might be their point of DR, while others might select $1K... Kal Rubinson found the Concerta F12 to be a low cost parallel to the Ultima Studio... Other Revel owners claim that there is a world of difference between the Concerta and Performa lines... and a comparison between Concerta and Ultima is unfathomable... So whether the MC experience adds more than it subtracts, at a given price range, is an indiviual decision (preference is probably still the right word even when talking about DR)...

So far we've discussed Videophiles who take advantage of their HT setup to listen to MC and Videophiles who have a setup optimized for both HT and MC... What about Audiophiles with just a MC setup (so no use for HT or maybe minimal HT use)?

If I was interested in HT and hence had invested in a HT setup, then MC would be a no-brainer.... I would buy the MC discs without a moment's hesitation... However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...

MC is associated so stongly with HT and being a videophile rather than audio... All the major proponents of MC (I can think of at the moment) are as much (if not more) videophiles than audiophiles and right or wrong, that does make selling the concept of MC as a superior audio format to stereo more challenging....

For MC to really take off with audiophiles (who are not also videophiles) the number of titles will have to increase dramatically and dealers will have to set up rooms optimized to MC... The best setup would be one that compares a MC setup with a Stereo setup of equivalent cost, playing MC and Stereo versions of the same music...

[E-Stat]

However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...

Don't forget that if the future of MC is Blu Ray oriented, then you must necessarily buy a video oriented processor that supports HDMI. Forget the majority of high end audio vendors. There is no bypassing the HT component when the source requires it.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

May I suggest that folks actually hear stuff before calling anything suffering or compromised in performance quality. Commenting before listening is not helpful, whether we are talking equipment or software.

You cannot compare what is heard through a PA system, to what is recorded on a hard drive or tape. The live event could sound terrible coming through the PA, and sound glorious on the tape. Any experience in recording tells you this.

I do not think anyone would call 7 SC-V's, 2 TSW -IV tower subwoofer systems powered by Bryston 28BSST amps a compromised system.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Diminishing Returns is best applied on an individual basis: So for some audiophiles a $100K pair of speakers might be their point of DR, while others might select $1K... Kal Rubinson found the Concerta F12 to be a low cost parallel to the Ultima Studio... Other Revel owners claim that there is a world of difference between the Concerta and Performa lines... and a comparison between Concerta and Ultima is unfathomable... So whether the MC experience adds more than it subtracts, at a given price range, is an indiviual decision (preference is probably still the right word even when talking about DR)...

So far we've discussed Videophiles who take advantage of their HT setup to listen to MC and Videophiles who have a setup optimized for both HT and MC... What about Audiophiles with just a MC setup (so no use for HT or maybe minimal HT use)?

If I was interested in HT and hence had invested in a HT setup, then MC would be a no-brainer.... I would buy the MC discs without a moment's hesitation... However, not caring for HT, then MC would have to convince me to buy all the extra speakers and electronics, solely on the basis of it's performance relative to Stereo (and of course have an acceptable selection of music).... I think that's the tough sell that MC continues to face with audiophiles...

MC is associated so stongly with HT and being a videophile rather than audio... All the major proponents of MC (I can think of at the moment) are as much (if not more) videophiles than audiophiles and right or wrong, that does make selling the concept of MC as a superior audio format to stereo more challenging....

For MC to really take off with audiophiles (who are not also videophiles) the number of titles will have to increase dramatically and dealers will have to set up rooms optimized to MC... The best setup would be one that compares a MC setup with a Stereo setup of equivalent cost, playing MC and Stereo versions of the same music...

All of your points are correct. But I would like to offer this. MC music right now is being produced is of much higher quality than any vinyl and CD ever was. If listening to the high quality audio is what audiophiles are all about, then they should immediately ditch CD and vinyl, as both of them(based on JA words) are compromised, and JA also mentioned as bit and sample rates are increased, any issues with digital audio fade away.

I am left with the impression that audiophiles are more married to their equipment than listening to music recorded at the highest quality ever attained.

[Ajani]

All of your points are correct. But I would like to offer this. MC music right now is being produced is of much higher quality than any vinyl and CD ever was. If listening to the high quality audio is what audiophiles are all about, then they should immediately ditch CD and vinyl, as both of them(based on JA words) are compromised, and JA also mentioned as bit and sample rates are increased, any issues with digital audio fade away.

I am left with the impression that audiophiles are more married to their equipment than listening to music recorded at the highest quality ever attained.

I suspect that many audiophiles are more in love with a particular technology or their gear than music.... However, I think the real test of audiophiles will occur when more High Res material is available in both stereo and MC.... The market I'm watching is High Res downloads: it is still years away from being mainstream, but I just don't see another audio disc format becoming more than a niche market product.... Hate it or Love it: the iPod changed the game...

A number of high end manufacturers have embraced the music server concept and are attempting to jumpstart the high res download market (Linn and Naim being examples)... If MC ever truly takes off, I expect it to be as an offshoot of that market (not SACD or BluRay)...

It will be interesting to see if audiophiles still clutch their LPs with their dying breaths, even when a higher quality format hits the mainstream....

[poppachubby]

I'll repeat: if you can suffer the performance quality, then go for it! Your experience may be different than mine, but I find that live pop concerts are always sonically compromised in one way or the other. Folks don't attend live concerts for the sound quality. They want to watch their favorite performers on stage. If you've already decided to compromise your equipment quality to provide more than double the number of amplification stages and speakers, then why not keep the tube on? JA was spot on about that.

rw

No I don't agree Ralph. I have been slowly collecting a DVD jazz series put out by a company called Salt Peanuts. Each disc features different performances by the artist. Sure , not all of them are winners, but some performances are second to none. They have remastered them however, and some sound fantastic.

As Terrence said, I play some with no video. Chet Baker: Live in 64 and 79 has become my favorite recording to listen to of his.

[poppachubby]

It will be interesting to see if audiophiles still clutch their LPs with their dying breaths, even when a higher quality format hits the mainstream....

Spoken like someone with no analog experience.

[Ajani]

Spoken like someone with no analog experience.

No... You just missed the point... There is a good reason to use analog currently: sound quality... Take that out of the equation and what reason is there to hold on to it, other than nostalgia?