Vote

sacd and dvd-a will never take hold....THERE IS NO CONSUMER NEED TO JUSTIFY THE TRANSISTION TO A MULTI-CHANNEL FORMATAND /OR AN EXPENSIVE PIECE OF 2 CHANNEL HARDWARE WHICH REQUIRES SOFTWARE AT DOUBLE THE EXISTING PRICE OF CURENT CD'S!COME ON FOLKS LET'S USE SOME COMMON SENSE HERE!

Thomas Edison singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb."

I don't have one particular piece of music, but my guess would be that live music recordings, and in particular very large scale music recorded in very large venues (Mahler's Symphony of a Thousand?) would benefit the most.

Mussorgsky's PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION would be interesting to hear. However, since I only have a two-channel system, the issue is moot for me.

Canzones by Gabrieli. Mahler's 8th.

I think Moby's PLAY would sound good with three other speakers. His music is very engulfing.

Vangelis' soundtrack to BLADE RUNNER.

The question misses the point - no one particular piece, but rather any naturally recorded work, could be rendered in a more convincing facsimilie of realistic soundfield immersion through a properly executed multi-channel process. Thus the musics that stand to benefit most will probably be those performed and recorded live in a space with good-sounding acoustics. But there will doubtless also be artistic possibilities to exploit in purely studio-created artificial soundscapes as well. The real difficulties in all this will reside with mastering the technical challenges of the new recording methods, and optimizing the more complex home playback system. The biggest downer, though, is that all previously existing historic recordings may never really benefit from the new capability - which in my case means that these technologies will be irrelevant to the musics I will always value most: 50's and 60's rock and roll, blues and jazz, plus some rock from the 70's and 80's. But I still might be tempted to invest anyway, just to experience the thrill of the illusion on newly recorded classical repertory software.

The question misses the point -- no one particular piece, but rather any naturally recorded work, could be rendered in a more convincing facsimilie of realistic soundfield immersion through a properly executed multi-channel process. Thus, the music that stands to benefit most will probably be that performed and recorded live in a space with good-sounding acoustics. But there will doubtless be artistic possibilities to exploit in purely studio-created artificial soundscapes as well. The greatest difficulties in all this will reside with mastering the technical challenges of the new recording methods, and optimizing the more complex home playback system -- not in finding appropriate music to record and release . The biggest downer, though, is that all previously existing historic recordings may never really benefit from the new capability -- which, in my case, means that these technologies will be irrelevant to the music I will always value most: 50s and 60s rock and roll, blues and jazz, plus some rock from the 70s and 80s. But I still might be tempted to invest anyway -- if only to experience the thrill of the generated illusion via the newly recorded classical repertory that will ensue.

It is just impossible to accomadate more speakers in my listening space. I do not want to spend more on these extra speakers, cables, amplifiers and multi-channel decoders. My suggestion to the labels is to continue the work and exploit the full potential of red book CDs.

The Allman Brothers' LIVE AT THE FILLMORE EAST. I would love to hear the audience behind me instead of infront of me. THAT would get my goosebumps going.

Don't need more than two channels, thank you.

No thank you!I don't want another pair of speakers in my room + a sub + center + more cables...

Multi-channel (>1) includes stereo.

None.

multichannel equals bucks, bucks, bucks...but not for me!

The Quadrophonic mix of Pink Floyd's DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. What else? Just zero out the center and sub channel.

Pink Floyd's THE WALL.

Pink Floyd's THE WALL.

I have few surrond sound CD's, to wich, I only listen to in stereo mode. In Surround mode, these otherwise OK recordings, sound a bit cheesey. What really scares me about DVD-A, is more often than not, studios currently produce an abudance of lousy two channel mixes. Now, we wan't to compound this problem, with six poorly mixed channels. If studios realy want to set milestones in the improvement of sound quality. Here's a hint, get it right in two channel first.

Frank Zappa's "Civilization Phaze III" would be the perfect kind of thing for surround mixing. The concept is in place in the CD already: people inside a piano. If you are inside the instrument anyway, why not have the sound bouncing all around you like a over-achieving superball? Since most of the music was created electonically in the first place, there is no real audio landscape to try to reproduce (unlike, say, a live recording in a small jazz club.) Further, most of the songs are book-ended (if that is a word) with bits of dialog. If the idea is that you, as the listener, are sitting down with a group of people inside this piano, the voices might as well surround you as they might if you walked into the middle of a conversation in any other venue. Who knows, it might be interesting.

Forget the complexity and especially the cost of multi channel sound. My money goes for quality two channel equipment and software. If more than 50% of voters choose "Here it is" or "Can't think" I want a recount.

Direct-to-digital five microphone live acoustic recordings, and heavily processed modern studio albums will sound best in surround. So any properly miked live material would work, as well as any new or remixed studio projects. Personally, I think DTS and HDCD have a better chance than either SACD or DVD-A. They've already met the magic price point of $200 and run at 20bit, 48khz. Samsung, Denon, Toshiba, Kenwood, and Harmon have these products. Universal players are being avoided, and the marketing people are pretending universal DACs don't even exist. A Phillips designer lied strait to my face at CES and said the Crystal DAC isn't in their new model 1000 DVD/SACD player. Go figure . . .

How many more Avantgarde Unos do you think that I can fit into my listening room!

A good center and surround channel can be a good substitute for an inadequate sound room. I just like the idea of a good solid digital connection compared to a noisy analog connection (for digital devices only, of course)

Non-electric acoustically recorded music & enviromental (nature) sounds.

DARK SIDE OF THE MOON -- the heatbeat, the voices, the running, the high frequencies. Pink Floyd and multi-channel will make the cost of admission worth it.

surround sound is for movies!

Beethoven's 9th, recorded in proper sound in, say, the Berlinhalle or Vienna. That woould really be like being there! I will only buy if and when Madrigal offer an upgrade to their No.39 (with trade-in). Why bother until it's proven. Besides, in 5 years they will only come out with something "even better."

Hasn't everything already been released on multichannel that fits the format? Multichannel sound is appropriate for any music where sound effects play an important part (movie soundtracks, some Techno, anything by Tomita). If you like Classical music, I really don't see the value of listening to multichannel because at most concerts the music comes to the listener from the stage (except when listening to the electronic-acoustic performances of music by Boulez). The listener does not sit inside the piano at a recital (unless it's John Cage). The surround experience occurs when someone tries to unwrap a cough drop (Classical concert) or when the person next to you is screaming half-remembered lyrics off-key (Rock concert). I haven't heard a multichannel set-up for music that sounded better than a good two channel set up. P.S. Whatever happened to dialog in movies?