Redbook CD is the format that came out in the early 80's. SACD is a different format which is much higher resolution, and actually sounds good. So it has little in common with redbook CD! CDs can be played in an SACD player, but SACDs cannot be played in a standard CDP.
"Two channel" is merely indicating that is was designed to be used only in a stereo mode.
Unless I missed the mark AGAIN this is what you were looking for, was I wrong? |
I'm sorry for the confusion on my part. SACD is a vastly superior format than CD.
FWIW I have never been happy until the last year or so, with digital recordings and playback gear. After 20 years on the market CDs and CDPs are finally putting out good sound. The medium was flawed from the outset. But that's another arguement.
SACD is doing what CD pioneers claimed their original format would accomplish. The treble is not as harsh as redbook; the midrange is much more pure and natural than what we experienced before; the bass is deeper and fuller.
The sound from top to bottom is more natural.
I will still say that I prefer the sound of vinyl, but SACD is getting to where digital should be! If the format lasts long enough and the improvement continues as it did in redbook CDPs the potential improvement is incredible. This time they will be building on a solid foundation, as opposed to the sand they built redbook CD upon.
I hope that was more helpful! |
matchstikman, I am a strong proponant of vinyl, and I really think the labor issue is overblown. It takes time to get the original setup right, but after that there really isn't a lot to worry about, unlike some will indicate!
Get a little help from your friends, ultimately I think you will be happier with LPs. I could be wrong though. |
Matralla, that was a very good post! It brought to mind many things I had used in a paper I wrote in college back in the 80's about the CD format and why it was inferior to analog.
I also remembered the LSB (least significant bit) and MSB (most significant bit) and how a misread on the MSB could completely distort that signal. As I recall SACD does not employ error correction like redbook. Is this an admission on the part of redbook designers that the digital format is flawed from the outset???
Anyway, good post, very concise, and informative. |
Why is music that is not titled in English removed from the list??? The vast majority of all music ever played was not written in English! Does that mean it is not good enough to play?
Ritteri, how many hours a day do you listen that 500 SACDs would not be enough? Probably 2% of my music is on SACD, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the format.
Many of the arguments against SACD are simply sophmoric and not worthy of rebuttal.
One thing that is worthy of attention is that 44.1 has been known to be undersampled for nearly twenty years now. CDPs have been tweeked and twisted all this time so that now some of them are actually capable of reasonable sound quality. The obvious immediate benefit of SACD is that the sampling rate is up near where it should have been twenty years ago.
If SACD made no other improvement over redbook CD this would be enough to justify it's existance. What will SACD sound like twenty years from now with dozens of good companies trying to improve the quality of them???
SACD should not be compared to current CDPs, it should be compared to the first CDPs.
If music companies had not forced consumers to buy CDs they never would have lasted this long! Now people are not having SACD jammed down their throats. People who have it, bought it because they wanted to buy it!
...and Beta??? Are you kidding, Beta was far and away the better format. Twenty years later VHS still sucks! Beta died due to bad marketing, not poor quality!
If people are content with the poor quality of redbook CD as their musical medium of choice, stand aside and let SACD die, if people want something better than that they need to support new mediums. If people choose not to decide they still have made a choice! |
Jackcob I wonder if these arent't same people who cannot hear the difference between 'lamp cord' and hi-end speaker cable???
Ritteri it is obvious from your writing that you are not a very bright person. That may not be your fault. Perhaps you come from poor stock, or you attended the public school and never rose above the quality of your education, or maybe you just chose not to exercise the muscle between your ears. I have no way of knowing the real reason for this distinct lack of understanding, but it is evidenced in your posts. This is not intended as an insult, just a point of reference!
1) There are millions of people who buy music which includes lyrics that are not recording in their erste sprach, or original language! I personally own dozens of recordings in languages other than English (which actually was not my first language) including German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, and Japanese. Some of them I actually bought because of the alternate language! Am I a better person because I own these recordings? No, but... I would never discount the quality of a particular recording because of the language, regardless of whether I even speak that language!
2) If all you listen to is pop music, it's not even worth entering into a dialog with you! How pathetic is top 40 music!?! Did you get the latest Brittany Spears CD?
3) How can a 44.1 kHz recording contain as much information as a 96+ kHz? By definition there is less information on a lower sampled disc! What is the point of spending $5,000-12,000 on a "edge of the art" CDP to get less info from your disc? I have DSOTM and have listened to both formats, or should I say, all three formats since I have the LP also. The LP sounds better than both digital formats. Of the two digital, SACD is better. We could get into a big debate about the Nyquist Theorum, but I'm not sure anyone wants to sit through that!!! If you cannot hear the differnce, refer to my comment to Jackcob!
4) Though digital playback has been around for 20+ years SACD is still in it's infancy, and cannot be compared to a mature technology for the quality of tweaks and improvement. It has always been the companies like Sony who come up with the technology, but it's been the small high end companies who make them worth owning. When high-end companies begin making really good SACDPs then they can be compared to the best of the current CDPs.
5) It wasn't a good thing then, and it's still not now!
If people were forced fed SACD like they were Redbook CD this would not be an issue, but I think the fact that people are given a choice by Sony/Philips shows that they beleive in the medium.
6) How can you take offense at someone questioning a terrible example on your part, and reduce yourself to Ad Hominom attacks. It only calls into question your own intelligence!
7) The problem isn't that people are missing your point about SACD not being as good as Redbook CD, this issue is that you are wrong! I realize (at least I think I do) that your scientific background is poor, and therefore you are not aware of the lack of substance in your generalizations, but news flash: believing something does not make it true!
I hope we can set aside this fruitless arguement now. Perhaps you can go and do some studying with your spare time, or maybe the solution is as simple as having your hearing checked. Doctors say that most people already experience serious hearing loss before they become aware of the problem. Give it a try!
Hey Ritteri what do they call a person who can speak two languages? A: Bi Lingual
What do they call a person who can speak several languages? A: Multi Lingual
What do they call a person who can speak one language? A: American! |
It would help if someone on either side of this debate added some real scientific evidence rather than their own opinions! There are very few people posting on AudiogoN whose opinion I would accept apart from evidence, and none of those people are commenting on this thread.
I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes SACD. Show some evidence if the debate is going to continue. Ritteri, you claim to have made some factual statements. I have yet to see them. You have made bizarre generalizations and given poor examples, and then taken offense at those who questioned them. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS! How is anyone supposed to know what those words mean, if the meaning isn't clear in the words? What is any of this doing for the quality of our dialog?
I am not one of the 'measurements are everything' crowd, but neither am I willing to blindly accept the opinion of people I don't know.
Science indicates that 44.1 kHz is undersampled, 96 kHz is not. Which would be the better format? I am not asking who has the better transistors, capacitors, lenses, or op-amps inside their CDP or SACDP, I simple refer to the format. |
Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses.
I'm sure the reason for Mfgs staying with redbook CD rather than going to a new format has more to do with cost than an aversion to the new technology.
Your cymbal crash example goes along way to show the shortcomings of the 44.1 sampling rate, since not only does it begin in the bass registers, but it also exceeds audible listening levels. By removing the inaudible, audible ranges are effected. i.e. things you cannot hear affect things you can hear.
44.1 on an equal playing field will never be able to compete with 96 kHz. There is too much of the music missing! If you don't care about the quality of the music, continue to ridicule new formats thereby assuring that better formats will never become a reality. No one is forcing you to buy an SACD player, but don't use your junk science to talk others out of investing in a better future! |
Ritteri, the point I made with your cymbal crash was that it extends higher than 20 kHz, not that the bass wasn't being reproduced. The point is that 44.1 kHz cannot reproduce anything above 20 kHz, it has nothing to do with the bass.
44.1 cannot reproduce a single note beyond 20 kHz! That is the limiting factor built in a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. See the Nyquist theorum! It is impossible! 96 kHz can reproduce a signal up to about 48 kHz. How is the high end limited with that?
The music which is missing is due to the fact that it was not recorded because 44.1 kHz is simply too low to obtain all the information in the music.
Making an SACD copy of a 44.1 kHz recording is an exercise in futility. SACD can never add back what isn't on the recording to start with. This is one reason some SACD recordings do not sound as good as analog or higher resolution digital recordings. Rerecording a poor quality original is not going to improve it regardless of the format. When things are available that were recorded at 96 kHz then we will see the actual results of this new format. As of today, there are very few of those.
My point about SACD vs redbook has nothing to do with licensing fees. It is about all the technology involved in putting together a superior version of the basic Sony/Philips models. There is going to be a big financial outlay involved in redesigning a first rate unit.
Your continued comments attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you points out the fact that you are an idiot. You know nothing about me that could lead you to beleive anything other than that I disagree with you. On the other hand, you have 1) shown serious gaps in logic; 2) consistantly used poor grammer and spelling; 3) and resorted to ad hominum attacks when the proof for your point was not in evidence. Again, this may be a result of a poor education, or maybe you are just dumb.
I have no way of knowing the reason for all of these glaring errors, but then again I really don't care. If you want to make a point there is no need for resorting to name calling when the proof is there. |
I never claimed to be able to hear above 22 kHz! My point as I clearly made in a previous post is that sounds which are not audible affect sounds which are audible. Just like multiple waves on water affect oneanother, so higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. Sound does not stop at the point where the human ear can no longer hear!
You make my point when you suggest that the limits of studio recordings is the problem, not the 44.1 sampling rate! The problem is that studios using digital recordings do not record music, they record sine waves. Then they expect the undersampled 44.1 redbook CDP to playback what happened minus all the music which was never recorded.
Many SACD recordings are from the remastered analog tapes, which are vastly superior to any digital tapes. Those are typically the SACDs which sound good. You cannot blame the SACD format for undersampled 44.1 kHz digital recordings. That is like blaming a CD for tape hiss!?!
As even a man of your limited understanding would have to admit, there is a lot more to a good CDP or SACDP than the basics found in a Sony/Philips playback unit. If that is not the case why are so many companies making a healthy living modding CDPs and SACDPs??? There is room for considerable improvement, just like there was for CDPs when they first came out. Try not to forget that although this is similar to redbook CDPs, it is a new and different technology. Improvements to this will be different than those put into CDPs for the last twenty years.
To rebutt your second to last paragraph, you are the one who began resorting to name calling when your arguement was proven to be without substance. The first new barbs I assumed to be due to the heat of emotion, but the continued assult I attribute to your natural character. I may be guilty of responding in-kind, but your name calling does nothing to prove your point (which again, has been evacuated of any substance) and does a lot to cause others to question your credibility. You have not harmed me in any way, but you have hurt yourself!
I own a Sony SCD 777es. I have several 15-20 multi-layer redbook/SACD and have listened to all of them. I have never heard SACD to be inferior in any respect.
The issue might be: why are you defending the top-end of a format that has for 20 years been know to be overly bright. Should SACD continue with the mistakes of the previous format??? |
Stehno, what kind of music is available from Red Rose Music? |
