|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: 2 channel SACD existed 2 years before Multi-Channel debuted, but mkulfan is correct it never reigned. posted by Teresa on November 30, 2005 at 18:20:50:
Implicit in the “what came first†game is that multi-channel was an SACD afterthought. Let’s be clear multi-channel was not an afterthought, but was, and is, an integral, indispensable, part of SACD. In fact, SACD probably would not have reached its third birthday if it were not for the promise and delivery of multi-channel. SACD would have been buried (not alive) by DVD-A if it did not offer multi-channel. But even if multi-channel was a last minute addition, it doesn’t matter. It is every bit a part of SACD as the second and third chilldren of a family. It doesn’t matter “who came firstâ€.
I remember being surprised in 2002 by all of the multi-channel discs that I had in my inventory that I did not realize were multi-channel. I really sneaked up on me.
While two-channel came first it is very clear that multi-channel was part and parcel part of the SACD package for the initial specs. It was being demonstrated at the time of the SACD roll out in October 1999.
As a founding (smile) SACD adopter (1999) I recall Sony being heavily criticized, particularly by the DVD-A crowd and hi-rez critics for even rolling out SACD two-channel sans multi-channel. And let’s face it in 1999 SACD was half-baked at best. There was a skimpy 60 titles available, mostly analog transfers from the 50s, and all two channel. That was not the promise of SACD. Matters had improved quite a bit by the time you adopted the format in 2001.
And in 2001 when multi-channel did arrive, it quickly made up for lost time. I remember being surprised in 2002 by all of the multi-channel discs that I had in my inventory that I did not realize were multi-channel. I really sneaked up on me.
Most critics and music lovers who were aware of SACD in 1999 (and now) say they can't hear the difference. For them multi-channel is the *only* clear distinction between CD and SACD.
Even on this forum there seems to be a back to Redbook crusade among the high-end (expensive) hardware purveyor and buyer two-channel purist. More and more you hear them mentioning Red Book and SACD in the same breath. To many even, on this forum the distinction between Red Book and SACD has been reduced to an indistinguishable blur.
An when you consider even further that there are those, a growing number, who have bought into SACD *because* of the multi-channel option it is plain to see the future for SACD, bright or dim, is clearly tied to multi-channel.Again regarding any multi-channel vs. two channel attacks, that is about a silly as it gets because SACD is an elegant solution to both. For one “side†to gang up on the other “side†serves no useful purpose (other than to entertain).
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It was probably like 15 months or so. But it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. - Robert C. Lang 10:46:02 12/01/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
