|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Sorry, Charley. posted by Charles Hansen on October 21, 2017 at 13:06:03:
At that time 2001 - 2005 era, Stereophile and The Absolute Sound were doing their reasonable best to promote surround-sound talking about how much better it was and how much more potential it had over 2-channel.
We must remind ourselves these are mainstream "high-end" audio publications and the mainstream (the majority) that follow them rarely cares about performance because the vast majority of the mainstream including its leaders couldn't punch their way out of a musical bag if their lives depended on it.
No. As usual, the mainstream audience gave surround-sound a 5 second thought and considered it logical i.e. more speakers implies more sound and more sound implies improved quality of sound. Just as I suspect many give MQA a 5 second thought and if they can only see that little green light turn on, then they can rest assured they are hearing Master Quality Authentication.
The publications were trying to create a need by steering the mainstream market toward surround-sound because that would have generated a need for more cables, more wires, more amplifiers, muti-channel preamps, sources, etc, etc.
In other words, more products and more products implies more and bigger manufacturers, more products implies more confusion which in turn implies more reviews, more reviews impies a greater dependency on experts and more business, more business implies more revenue, and more revenue implies a more lofty / secure lifestyle.
The mainstreamers tried to latch on to surround-sound but couldn't so the mags slowly wound it down and it eventually disappeared when nobody was looking. Just like the mainstreamers are trying to latch onto MQA but again they're finding it's just soap bubbles. You pop a soap bubble and there's nothing there.
As usual mainstream leaders always, always care about quantity over quality and of course the end justifies the means.
I suspect much like they've tried to do with MQA. But in the case of MQA, it seems to be more of a wholesale sell-out which to me implies external motivation. As usual with mainstream, the sound / performance actually has very little to do with anything.
What's the difference between MQA and surround-sound? I'm guessing not much.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Actually, Charles, you may want to rethink this.... - stehno 10/21/1715:23:42 10/21/17 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
