Peter Carbines wrote:
On 03/08/2013 13:22, Richard G Elen wrote:
Not sure I see the point of bandwidth-limiting T. It was designed for a
world we no longer inhabit. We had issues with it at the time
I had an experimental IBA 2.5 channel UHJ decoder and FM tuner on loan
and set up in my home at the time of experimental broadcasts on
London's Capital Radio. In another room, I had my own domestic 2
channel UHJ decoder fed by a Quad FM tuner. This facilitated a
reasonable comparison although of course decoders, amplifiers and
speakers were different for each set-up.
It was generally agreed that the 2 channel UHJ decode sounded better.
Listeners present at the time of a live concert broadcast from the
Fairfield Hall in Croydon included technical staff from the IBA
Crawley Court HQ who had loaned their equipment.
--
Peter Carbines
Ok, let's scrap 2.5 channel UHJ, but still let us talk about the < real
proposals > which have been presented... Can we do this, still?!
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: I never should have written about the 2.5 channel case, if this is
what is now being discussed and nothing else. Because you guys will
admittedly destroy the "SHJ" case, which in my terms should be called <
academic > from the present perspective. I never have said you should
use this, BTW... O:-)
Look, MC (Michael Chapman) already has said a few things about, too. I
fully agreed, and maybe the discussion can go on for now...
If this is a proposed standard, then I would say:
-BHJ (2 channel) should not be used
(Unless there is no B format source, just the UHJ stereo version
available... My inmediate reaction.)
-SHJ (2.5 channel) should not be used (is bandwidth really a problem,
except for radio, these days?)
-THJ (3 channel) should only be used if the original material is three
channel
-PHJ (4 channel) is preferred
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
