Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

The problem with surround isn't the format, but inability to record great artists economically. Hardly anyone can afford to record a symphony orchestra in two-channel, much less surround.

Most people are happy with processed, synthetic surround, so the demand for high isn't sufficient for the producers to cater to audiophiles.

So I think surround, as an audiophile format, is DOA with no prospects for high rez development.

Meantime, the vinyl meisters have a giant treasure trove of high quality reissue material. The artists and performance quality matter way more than format, next comes resolution and finally format (with resolution maintained, not compromised).

Resolution of vinyl has reached incredible heights. Digital potential is equally good (my 1-bit recordings at 5.6MHz are stunning) but I think that vinyl will prevail, surprisingly, due to ease of operation. After the commercial failure of DVD-A and SACD who wants to commit to a new gamble on 5.6MHz digital? No one, I suspect.

Sorry if Gordon is "bored" with vinyl, but his quest for "spacial" aspects is likely doomed, in my estimation. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.

Dave

Camino, I think that subjective testing is partially in response to people like Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review, claiming that if you couldn't measure a difference there would be no audible difference. We now know that he wasn't measuring everything.

We still can't measure everything, hence the use of blind and double blind testing. Even A-B comparisons are valid, it's just a matter of degree and the experience of those testing.

I do agree that lack of objective evidence has led to marketers taking advantage of insecure audiophiles. I'm amazed, in all fields, at how few people make their buying decisions based purely upon their own senses. MOST people want to be told what to buy.

I can hear the differences between power cords and you can't, so you shouldn't spend any money in that area. I'm willing to spend money in that area, but only a little bit. As I listen to more and more expensive power cords, I hear less difference. In fact, occasionally a hyper expensive cord will sound way, way worse than my $99 cords. Lots of people will spend $1000 on a really bad cord because someone claimed it to be ne plus ultra. Sad but true.

It's amazing how much energy goes into advocating double-blind testing and yet it seldom is done. I wonder, if some audio club would dedicate themselves to DB testing and posting the results on the www, what would happen. I think it could actually be done, if a group were willing to get together twice a month and commit to a routine. We'll see, maybe.

Dave

"Dcstep, a audio club recently did and discovered they could not hear any difference between items under test. Interesting comment by them-but what does it say?"

Well Psacanli, maybe there was no difference; however, some will say the test was flawed. I say that doing the test correctly is, indeed, difficult. I'll start another thread where I propose a methodology for repeatable DB testing, using 1-bit 5.6MHz sampling.

Dave

$3000 in 1967 dollars is about $18,000 today. I don't have that much invested today.

Dave