The future, present, of audio...

Read this, long but great...

 

Come on Antonio! It maybe makes you feel great if you are an owner of one the two mentioned pieces of equipment....which happenes to be the case with you .....but it's just one long Arcam butt licking article. I wonder how much Arcam paid them for it

OK, the Arcam AV8 and DV27 are good, sure, but not that good. There's no way they are so far ahead of all other AV kit in the way the article describes. For the same money there are any number of setups which would be just as good - at that level it's just a matter of personal preference. Either those guys are being paid a lot of money by Arcam or they haven't really heard as many AV setups as they claim.

Michael.

 

For my purpose of listing this article, as the name of the thread implies, the kit mentioned is irrelevant... :JPS:

 

Yep my 2900 (c/w enhancements) shits all over the DV27 in every area, to my (and a number of visitors) eyes and ears, all for 60% of the cost.

And as I can't be arsed to read the article, if it is in anyway suggesting that we are lucky that the future of audio is likely to be rooted in multichannel, then it is nothing more than another industry financed attempt to garner interest in their useless new products.

 

In that case, the real future then of audio is solid state media.


regards

 

Sure Merlin,

Your usual "mine is bigger" comment, very constructive... :club:

 

With respect Antonio, that article isn't particularly constructive either. It's pure BS and clearly written by someone who has no clue.

As articles go, it's more likely to put people off multichannel than make them think about it.

Here are some choice quotes:

"That's like the soundfield imaging we hear from our carefully set up Arcam-based system. You can literally hear the alternative space itself, as presented by the recording, and you hear it as an active protagonist, a giant musical instrument radiating its own characteristics at you from all angles (note that these characteristics differ for different incoming angles, just as they would if you were actually in that alternative space)."

"That's the kind of contrast we experienced from the Arcam-based system we were able to set up, compared to the previous best surround sound systems we've heard. That's the kind of transformed experience you too can have. And it is all made possible because this new system was finally able to conquer the final frontier, space itself."

"In other words, this new Arcam-based system is so skillful at conquering space that it can extract and portray surround space from mere two channel sources, so convincingly that you would swear you were listening to recent surround sound recordings. Just imagine what your huge library of vinyl and CDs (not to mention two channel radio and TV broadcasts) would sound like if they had been encoded in true surround sound, so that you could be aurally transported to the original event in the original venue. That's what this new Arcam-based system can give you."

"But most other surround processors also feature such controls, and yet they cannot conquer space as these Arcam units can."

" These Arcam units are so good that they are the first multichannel signal processors that merited our whole battery of purist sonic tests that we would normally reserve for the best state of the art stereo components - sonic tests that other multichannel processors fail miserably, but which these Arcam units passed with excellent flying colors."

...and so on, and so on etc, etc, etc. Arcam we love you, John Dawson you are our hero, PLEEEASE can we polish your shoes and lick your botty. :SLEEP: :SLEEP: :SLEEP: :chunder:

I don't think I've ever seen more drivel written about hifi anywhere!

Michael.

 

check out the digital BS by the same guys then

 

What an absolute load of tosh! I must admit I gave up after page 2 - but really, who writes this stuff?

 

Actually no Antonio

Just pointing out that the DV27 aint the last word in anything as painted by the comical review that you posted a link to.

To be honest, the reviewer has clearly lost his marbles. Either that or he has received a considerable incentive from Arcam. It is IMHO a total load of twaddle.

I'm sorry Antonio, but, for me, multichannel music is merely a marketing excercise, brought on by the software suppliers seeing the window of opportunity that the home cinema boom promised. It's current application owes nothing to the persuit of musical pleasure and everything to the accountants of the ailing Japanese Multinationals.

Crap like that OTT review printed by IAR just perpetuates the myths. Don't get me wrong Antonio, both the DV27 and AV8 are good solid products (but not earth shattering as the review suggests). And I accept that the future of hifi will probably revolve around some form of multichannel format. For all the very worst reasons however.

Why on earth do you think Silver hifi became fashionable again?

 

Arcam are on shakey ground at the moment, they're just done a Tag, and had a dealer re-organisation IE you got to stock, at least 12 of the products from the whole range, if you wish to be an Approved Arcam dealer, seems a lot of dealers said Bon voyage'
They've been in a little spot of bother for a while now, and maybe things aint what they used to be
The deal they did with Richer sounds maybe about to back fire
dealers, got a bit miffed at the richers deal, having an Arcam av200 next to a sherwood, doesn't do their image any favours, so I've been lead to believe Wm

 

Speaking about the DV27 I happen to own is not what I found provoking in this article, actually I don't believe this kit is better then all the others, and I agree they exagerated a bit...

But I enjoyed their description of the advantages of good surround...

 

I've only two ears so two speakers should do.

Some of these reviewers must have 5.1 ears

 

The .1 is their asses?

 

Main L-R = ears
Centre = (pardon the expression - not meant ratially) the "Japseye"
.1 = butthole (for fartwarbling in reverse frequencies)
Rears = eyes (since you need 5.1 channels of audio to make most modern films tolerable, since the plot is thinner than a supermodel and with even less content than a supermodel's brain).

MC = TC.

 

Actually, you don't need 5 speakers to produce surroundsound. It can be done electronically using two speakers and suitable processing. This technology has been around since the 80's (or was it the 70's) and is known as 'Binaural' processing. If memory serves, JVC had a lot to do with its development. Not sure if they invented it. In the early days you had to listen with headphones in order to get the full effect but the results were quite spooky. It was fun to see people jump when a recording was played of someone whispering from right behind their ear Full 3D direction and distance were reproduced.

With modern digital processing, it should be possible to improve on this technology in order to produce a full surroundsound effect from two stereo speakers.

 

Of course if they want to buy 5 speakers I don't feel that we should try to stop them.

 

it's also possible to get pseudo surround by wiring one speaker out of phase I believe, eh Mick

 

In case you guys didn't understand, surround is supposed to recreate the original acoustics of those great, and not so great, auditoriums in our less then perfect rooms...

Helicopters and so on are bonuses... :JPS:

 

Ambience of the auditoriums is one thing but aren't we also supposed to get a realistic impression of the audience, including the man to your left shouting out stupid comments at every opportunity and the couple behind you with tuberculosis?

... And, helicopters may be just a bonus to you Antonio but can anyone else honestly claim that their music collection would amount to a hill of beans without the helicopters, earthquakes and car chases? Do you just listen to baroque or what?

Good to be back.