Can you hear bit rate?

@erik_squires 

 There are many variables involved comparing a 2-channel setup to an immersive ditto, and likely it means comparing two completely different setups where the core 2-channel audio will be the deciding factor by the end of the day

Not really in my case, because my 2-channel setup is the same, whether used stand-alone or effectively embedded as the main channels in an immersive set up.

Most audiophiles would probably agree that speakers are the most important part of any 2-channel set up.  My main speakers are either Quad ESL2905 or KEF Reference 1.  Not too shabby.  They are driven by a 2-channel Krell Class A amplifier, again not too shabby.  They can be fed from analogue record players (Garrard 301 and soon a Holbo air-bearing system) via a Krell pre-amplifier.

So far pretty standard 2-channel.

But for silver disks, including CD, SACD, Blu-ray and 4K, I use a Reavon player as a transport and feed a Marantz AV-8802 pre-processor via HDMI.  The Marantz contains 7 high quality dacs from AKM. It can handle everything I can throw at it, including native DSD, multi-channel high resolution PCM, Dolby Atmos and 4K movies.

Two Marantz output channels feed the Krell amplifier, and six more go to a Perreau chassis containing three 2-channel amplifiers.

The difference between 2-channel and surround can be quite subtle, depending on what the producer wanted to capture, or it can be awesome.  Going to immersive sound is not subtle but unambiguously creates an experience way beyond 2-channel.

Now this observation seems odd to me, but many 2L.no recordings place instruments all around the listener.  I don't notice my rear speakers being any worse than my front speakers - I just hear great music coming from an integrated venue.  Same with Deutsche Grammophon Dolby Atmos organ recordings from Notre Dame in Paris, where my four Klipsch in-celling speakers contribute seamlessly, to my ears at least.

@devinplombier 

It sounds like HT and SACD have made immersive sound possible for quite a number of years, yet the uptake seems to have been minimal and you hardly ever hear about it. I wonder why? It does sound like a good idea.

This is something I am trying to change!  In a way, it seems like another North America versus the rest of the world thing.  Arguably, it took Dire Straits to kick-start CD in Europe.  They have just re-released Brothers in Arms in surround on SACD and I think the sound is just brilliant.  Dark Side of the Moon has just been released on Pure Audio Blu-ray using Dolby Atmos encoding - absolutely mind blowing!

It is not helped when the two major audiophile magazines don't look beyond two-channel.  Why are high-end SACD players incapable of playing more that the 2-channel content on SACDs which also have the same music as 5-channel content?  Why persist with an antiquated 2-channel digital standard, I2S, designed without error detection or recovery, for transferring digital music between boxes?

On a side note, wouldn't the recording / mastering / processing issues that already plague two-channel media be compounded / complicated by an order of magnitude by multichannel?

The classical view

Well, I think you can be sure that any classical recording team that goes to the trouble of setting up for surround or immersive recording will be highly focused on sound quality, to justify the extra setup time and expense.  By and large, they find the right microphones and the right locations for them, and let the conductor and the players balance the sound, like Mercury did with Living Presence.

To me, SACD releases declare that "We cared about the sound".  Further, as orchestras take control of their recordings, it makes sense for them to invest to permanently equip their venues for surround.  The Berliner Philharmoniker has a major investment in its Digital Concert Hall, which encompasses multi-channel, streaming and automated video facilities including remote programmed cameras.

LSO Live similarly releases all its new recordings on SACD, and at low cost because the performances are regular concert performances.

2L.no seems to have a standardised microphone tree and places the musicians around the microphones, rather than positioning the microphones to suit the orchestra.

The multi-mike, multi-track, mixed-later view.

No extra expense or difficulty during the recording sessions, and I would have thought a lot more delivery flexibility afterwards.  There's money to be made re-mixing for multi-channel and if the original tracks are good, the re-releases can be superb.  They can also be terrible if the guy doing the mixing is near deaf, Rolling Stones!

@richardbrand  - You meant to quote @phusis , not me. 

Did any of you guys take the Dr. AIX test?  I did and couldn't tell the difference reliability between 44.1 and high rez.  I feel like my system has plenty of ability to get the most out of these files, but still couldn't hear a difference.  Benchmark DAC3, Benchmark amp, and ATC speakers.

@erik_squires 

@richardbrand  - You meant to quote @phusis , not me. 

Sorry Erik - my mistake entirely!  No excuses ...

I am finding this an interesting thread - thanks for starting it