Search the Community

There's Nyquist, there's the actual bandwidth limited range in relation with the actual microphones range and arguments for 192 helping reconstructing transients. However there might be a better argument for using even more space disk : multichannel even for stereo. I'm convinced that what I discovered with MCH Electric Ladyland goes far beyond eventual differences in remastering talents or marketing strategies (Bernie Grundman signs the Stereo that is soso while Eddie Kramer signs the MCH ; the latter supervised the gorgeous Mono LP Axis signed by the former who delivers a soso Mono Mix in the recent SACD where the Stereo shines...). Fact is MCH is more than 2.5 x heavier than the Stereo and I bet it's better use of space than 192 vs 96. Maybe it is also due to LFE and engineers daring to go deep low but MCH downfolded into Stereo via HQP offers aural sculptures of the bass line and of the kick drum that are really reminiscent of live gigs impressions. Even soundstage is deeper that what I'm accustomed to. I'm thus starting a journey into MCH (to be played on my stereo) and suggestions and comments are welcome. As of Rock/Pop I start with https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/TabbedPollChart.htm Edited on December the 5th : I have not experimented with Classical or Acoustic Jazz but dig that when MCH aims at recreating natural acoustics, reverb, etc, down mixing to Stereo is a non sense. However, when reproducing (better, those who know say) the natural acoustics of the concert hall etc is not the goal, ie with Talking Heads, Steely Dan or Bjork, MCH to Stereo offers better bass delineation, smoother and more natural vocals and more noticeable soundstage vs the standard Stereo.