Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 10056 times.

witchdoctor

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #60 on: 11 Oct 2017, 04:00 pm »
Roscoe beat me to it, but I'll post anywayTyson is giving us his report of what he heard- good and bad, and you go off on your pitch.  Were you there at RMAF?  If so, enlighten us.

You are right, new thread started:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=153182.msg1637110#new

FullRangeMan

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 10316
  • All Tweeters look like a target, then shoot them!
    • Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a straycat or dog. On the street they live only two years average.

Tyson

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #62 on: 11 Oct 2017, 04:14 pm »
Witchdoctor,

We all know your feelings about multichannel and MQA......

Re: immersive sound & witchdoctor, to quote from Hamlet - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".  :D



P.S.  I've gotta ask...   did I pass the introvert test?   :lol:


I think you were one of the few that passed :P
« Last Edit: 11 Oct 2017, 06:06 pm by Tyson »

Wind Chaser

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #63 on: 11 Oct 2017, 05:07 pm »
+2

+3

I'm getting sick and tired of this shit.

roscoe65

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 614
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #64 on: 11 Oct 2017, 05:47 pm »
I did hear the ELAC Atmos demo with $4200 worth of ELAC speakers and it was VERY impressive! It ultimately doesn't have the refinement, resolution, etc of a high end system but I'd love to have it for movies.

This is a valid statement.  The Elac system, along with a $800 Marantz SR6011 would be a better system at $5,000 than most people will ever hear in their lives, for HT or movies.  However, it is rare that we compare apples-to-apples.  This system is the HT equivalent of a $1,500 two-channel system.  I would say a typical two-channel rig for most AC members hovers around the $10-20K retail level.  The HT equivalent might be closer to $25-50K.

Multichannel adds expense and complexity if we maintain equivalent quality to our two-channel rigs.  This is aside from signal processing.  Where a two-channel rig is mostly constrained to D/A conversion, equalization and bass management, multichannel is now applying processing to manage as many as 11 discrete channels plus LFE channels.


Tyson

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #65 on: 11 Oct 2017, 06:09 pm »
This is a valid statement.  The Elac system, along with a $800 Marantz SR6011 would be a better system at $5,000 than most people will ever hear in their lives, for HT or movies.  However, it is rare that we compare apples-to-apples.  This system is the HT equivalent of a $1,500 two-channel system.  I would say a typical two-channel rig for most AC members hovers around the $10-20K retail level.  The HT equivalent might be closer to $25-50K.

Multichannel adds expense and complexity if we maintain equivalent quality to our two-channel rigs.  This is aside from signal processing.  Where a two-channel rig is mostly constrained to D/A conversion, equalization and bass management, multichannel is now applying processing to manage as many as 11 discrete channels plus LFE channels.


This is quite true.  IMO the first rule of audio is "do no harm".  2 channel with minimal processing and high quality components gets you the best sound.  I've heard high quality multichannel (native DSD multichannel, in fact) and meh.  I keep coming back to stereo.  Multichannel (even high quality multichannel) is just not interesting to me.

rpf

Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #66 on: 11 Oct 2017, 07:39 pm »
Thanks for the coverage Tyson. 

Odal3

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 872
Re: Tyson's half-assed RMAF 2017 coverage
« Reply #67 on: 12 Oct 2017, 01:40 am »
Glad to see that you shared your impressions again!  Thank you  :thumb: