Vote

DVD-Audio is promising, if and only if the artists themselves use the 5.1 to full use. It would interesting to hear a new band pioneer the quadraphonic format.

I do not understand what all the hoopla is about. Only a small percentage can ever listen to the surround signals properly. Can't do it in my car, on my portable with headphones, in the office. So Why? I don't want my music to become like the movies.

The worst aspect of our beloved hobby is the darned hot spot—I can't enjoy a decent soundstage together with my family, it's a one-person-at-a-time type of activity, which is the last thing I need after a long day at work and having only a few hours to spend with my wife and son. If multichannel can fix that, more people will get interested in high-end audio.

As a matter of fact, I think a center channel is more important than surround speakers in the 5.1 world, but I could perfectly live with SACD two-channel playback, which I think is better than two-channel DVD-Audio playback. I have five identical speakers that I use for music surround with a Meridian 565. Good surround sound requires a perfect match of the surround speakers with the left and right speakers (and center). Very few speakers are capable of that, and certainly not the type of surround speakers they are selling right now for watching movies. Bad surround processors, bad speakers, and bad software is a recipe for disaster in surround-sound music.

No preconcieved notions, Iam ready to wait till the prices come down and it will be more clearer whether it is worth the wait or not

NO COMENTS

I live (for now) in Germany and hope to hear the format for myself at the annual Frankfurt Audio Show this spring. I won't buy it until it is in my meager price range, but I'm looking forward to hearing it. The whining I hear now sounds a lot like what I heard in the '80s when CDs were just starting out. Now nearly everyone except the megabuck analog curmudgeons accept digital. Yeah, it still has its flaws, but when you spend $3k on a one-box, most of the warts come off. $3k is a little less than I paid for my whole system. Just sit back and enjoy. It can only get better.

I don't have enough room for more large horns!!

DVD-Audio has only major interest, if it supports 5-channel music reproduction

High End Surround is a Reality today.

O K......next

Good 2 channel works! So far 5.1 has not. Especially with video. e.g. if I see the drummer front & center I should here the same. Without video I don't like hearing instruments behind me, that if I was there would be in front of me.

Gee, I kinda liked mono.

High resolution surround, when done well, sounds great!

Two channel done right sounds way better than 5 channel done average. It is very difficult to get 2 channels correct. I just don't want to spend the time and money to get the other channels up and running that will outperform my 2 channel system. I think it can be done, but at what cost and effort? I do enjoy my surround sound movies, but in a separate setup and room. I am very happy with the sound of my two channel vinyl.

Two years ago I was enthusiastic about it, now I just want to HEAR it; period.

I believe that the processing and the equipment necessary for decoding can only further degrade the recorded sound. Also the cost of adding speakers, wires and processors-probably of lesser quality than a typical stereo system- is unjustified.

Stereophile shows have given me many opportunities to hear state-of-the-art two-channel and multichannel demos. I've yet to hear a successful multichannel music demo. I've heard lots of unnatural musical effects and have never heard a subtle surround demo. The two-channel demos have thrilled me. Multichannel seems to attract the "let's watch Top Gun again with the subs turned up" crowd.

The jury is still out on this question. I have not heard DVD-Audio. However, I heard Diana Krall on a DTS sampler played in surround mode in the EgglestonWorks room at CES 1999. The digital front-end was all Theta (Casablanca, I think). I don't remember what amplication was used. The left and right front speakers were the Fontaines. There was a center-channel speaker and two rear-channel speakers. The sound was marvelous. I will reserve judgment until my ears have conducted a test-listen of a properly set up system. In the interim, I'll stick to two-channel audio.

Sounds like a good idea but it will have to be different then surround used for HT.

haroldbroberts

Does it enhance my appreciation of the composer's or performer's art? Does it grab me emotionally? "No" on both counts, from what I've heard so far.

This sounds like a good idea for the audio nerds, those folks who absolutely must analyze british spelling) and sit perfectly still in that one, narrow sweet spot. For those of us who listen to music which requires some involuntary movements, surround sound for music seems too restraining.

Still skeptical . . . very skeptical (but I will definitely attempt to give it a fair listen) . . .

definite mass market appeal which is only good for "purist" 2-channel 192 kHz audiophiles

i'm concerned that many recording engineers will err on the side of sound effects instead of reality of sound reproduction

I will give in and buy a complete surround system when the man on the street knows what HDCD means.

let's see sacd!! we need the hi res format NOW

Surround sound is stupid, as it causes the soundstage to go flat, and in music you really don't need sound behind you. Stereo will fill up the sides and depth from in front of your face to about 20 to 30 feet back if you place your speakers correctly!

It seems like a moot point. DVD-Audio has been hosed by the greed of the record companies.