No, he doesn't trash it; in fact, he really likes it. I do, however, believe that his experience in surround is limited to 5.1, max.
I used to own a Power Plant and a Directstream DAC.I suspect Paul has an Atmos system for his personal surround. Its just that from a financial perspective, he limits his product to stereo - that is his market. And he and his family have been very successful at this.
I should disclose a tad of personal bias. I have owned PS Audio Power Plants since the first P300 back in 1999.
And my family room primarily 5.1 music system has a P15 Power Plant and 5 Stellar monoblocks. My reviews at AVS Forum have been quoted by PS Audio in several print ads in home theater and audio magazines, though the last quote was probably back in 2009. HA!
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps the mods can fold these posts into that thread.There is a pre existing thread for this somewhere on the forum.
The only PS Audio I own is their AC outlets, AKA power ports. They're quite rugged, quite tight grips on the plug pins, and they're something I don't worry about.I suspect Paul has an Atmos system for his personal surround. Its just that from a financial perspective, he limits his product to stereo - that is his market. And he and his family have been very successful at this.
I should disclose a tad of personal bias. I have owned PS Audio Power Plants since the first P300 back in 1999.
And my family room primarily 5.1 music system has a P15 Power Plant and 5 Stellar monoblocks. My reviews at AVS Forum have been quoted by PS Audio in several print ads in home theater and audio magazines, though the last quote was probably back in 2009. HA!
No, he doesn't trash it; in fact, he really likes it. I do, however, believe that his experience in surround is limited to 5.1, max.
IMHO, it will if the recording permits.not that a solo piano would benefit from surround sound.
Yeah where I gave Paul the birdie, such an idiot!There is a pre existing thread for this somewhere on the forum.
Sorry, Kirk Bayne, but not getting this analogy at all.IMHO we really need(ed) an "NBC TV Network of quad/surround sound" - NBC relentlessly promoted color TV, even through the lean years of the first half of the 1960s.
Yeah where I gave Paul the birdie, such an idiot!
The analogy here would be if had, say, Columbia decided to release everything they put out from 1973 on in quad that more people would have embraced the technology.IMHO, surround sound is a good idea (it's the norm on movies, [digital] TV, video games).
I agree that color TV would have happened without NBC promoting it so much, my point is that, because NBC stuck with color TV through the lean years, color TV became the norm a few years sooner than it would have otherwise.
RCA/NBC bore almost the whole cost of launching color TV (extra money in the TV show budget for color and by in the late 1950s, RCA was the only company making color TV sets). RCA/NBC was willing to absorb the costs of "launching" color TV (from 1953 to 1966).
I wish the big record companies had cut back to only releasing their biggest acts in quad when quad seemed to be fading away in ~1976 and sold the quad albums at stereo prices (absorbed the extra mixing and manufacturing costs, also, no separate stereo mix & release, no dual inventory).
By ~1975, the various quad decoders were fairly advanced, QS & SQ variable matrix & CD-4 with automatic F/B separation, they could have been included in the higher end receivers.
I think RCA had the right idea with single inventory CD-4 discs priced the same as stereo.
Kirk Bayne
Tube input stage, afaik.(the M1200 combine tube output with Class D
I mean, that's Apple Music right now.IMHO we really need(ed) an "NBC TV Network of quad/surround sound" - NBC relentlessly promoted color TV, even through the lean years of the first half of the 1960s.
Thanks Kal. My memory is aging!Tube input stage, afaik.
NBC pushed color TV so hard, in the 50's and 60's, because their parent company, RCA, invented the NTSC system that served us well until 2009. You'll notice ABC didn't rush into color (they started in 1962), and CBS held off until 1965 to regularly schedule color shows, due to the Paley/Sarnoff "feud". CBS had invented that clunky, electromechanical system that wasn't compatible with monochrome sets. The FCC originally gave CBS's system the nod, but there were practically no sets out there to view the programs on. RCA's system was compatible, so the rest is history. Since none of the networks had any financial interest in surround sound, it wasn't pushed that hard. Now, with digital TV, discrete surround is easily doable.Fortunately, the record companies keep trying trying quad/surround sound (~1969 to ~1977), then (~2000) and now with the DV, Rhino and SDE remixes and remasters.
IMHO we really need(ed) an "NBC TV Network of quad/surround sound" - NBC relentlessly promoted color TV, even through the lean years of the first half of the 1960s.
Maybe try to convince the record companies to add 1 (matrix encoded) surround channel to their stereo mixes (which could be kinda decoded with QS [incl the SM], SQ, DS), the added surround channel could be encoded so that it doesn't completely cancel out in mono.
Kirk Bayne
Enter your email address to join: