Aroc and the rest reading this thread: I appreciate the fact that someone understands my point of view.
And just to set the record straight, remember people, I also stated and fully acknowledged that SACD has more future potential than redbook. Its just that the potential isnt there...............yet.
Just like when CD came onto the market 20 years ago. It was great for what it was. But take a high end CD player from today, and pit it against a reference cd player from 20 years ago. There is going to be a big difference.
Right now, between todays high end CD players and SACD players that "big difference" doesnt yet exist, its sublt at best, and only on a few scattered discs. Im sure this will(if the format survives, but I would bet on DVD-A being the real future)change eventually, but that day is not here yet. |
SACD on paper is superior to redbook in that it has more future "potential", but presently the best "Redbook" cd players sound just as good or better than SACD players. In all reality its a proven fact that redbook cd's have still yet to come to their sonic limitations. And there is becoming more and more concensus among scientists that our ears would not be able to tell the difference between a redbook cd and an SACD or other format under identical conditions.
WHen people claim to "hear" differences in SACD or redbook cd's what they are hearing is actual differences in the actual studio recording process, not the quality or upsampling of the cd itself. But if the sound engineer puts as much time and effort in making a good recording on a CD as he would for an SACD, noone would be able to tell the difference. People with SACD players want to believe they have a superior product, but thats nowhere near the case at all. I worked for the Tweeter store that had the official unveiling of Sony's SACD player in Burlington Ma. back in 1999/2000. Sony's original statement SACD player on hand setup in our "high end" room with a pair of speakers with those "super tweeter's" on top, a pair of monoblocks and some straightwire IC's and cabling in which people were raving about the retail cost of the whole setup(around $90,000 is what they stated), but after listening to that setup for a few hours before the guests were to arrive, I can say how big a dissapointment it was. It was unanimous that everyone in the store liked the basic Adcom GFA5802/GFP750/GCD750 with the pair of Amati Homages so much better. It just goes to show that the source isnt necessarily an improvement, and in many cases since that day, I can say its not even as good. At this point I think that its a 100% complete waste of money, andits going to be quite a few more years before I probably end up changing my mind. |
Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player.
All this talk of extra "ambiance" or depth of soundstage or whatever you want to call it is all a joke CURRENTLY. If the disc sounds better, you can thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself. This is what I disagree with at an "extreme level". Even marketing executives at Sony stated a while back that some SACD's are getting better performance through recording process only just to help sell the format(and this has been back up by MANY magazines and publishings). They even have gone on to say that its done to help push the new format to the general public but due to current technology other than future potential its really no better sounding than current high quality recorded CD's.
As for differences in cable subtlty, the jury is still out in many regards as to what they actually do sonically other than noise rejection. But differences in cable sound can be due in part to noise rejection potential and attenuated frequencies(Like MIT and Transparant designs).Other than that though is something for another argument.
When an SACD(or whatever format)player comes out that truely is a step up from redbook, Ill be there in line to pick one up. Until then, its all marketing gimmicks.
Little Milton: I bet you were one of those tin ear'd snobs back in Dec.99' at the unveiling of the SACD right? ;)
You should have helped us convince the Sony reps to let us demo that SACD setup against our "basic" Adcom components for all the people who were invited to the unveiling. They didnt like the idea when we brought it up to them, wonder why? ;)
|
Its impossible to do a direct comparison with redbood cd's for one simple reason. The recording mastering process is different. Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". This could all change down the road Im sure, but at this time the future doesnt look anything better than cloudy.
Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms. |
Tireguy: Too bad alot of people dont believe your words(and alot of these people are in the industry), and this is from hands on experience. SACD does not garentee better sound. And as stated, if the recording sounds better, most likely its due to the remastering process. So why dont redbook cd's get remastered? How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed? Demand. If there isnt demand for it, who is going to waste money to re record tracks for such negligible performance increases? If SACD was such a grand stepping stone(which it isnt)and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players. WHich brings me to the next sentence............
One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path.
And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd. |
Any Wadia player,Linn,Burmeister,ML,CLasse,BAT,a few select Adcom units, a few select CAL units, among many others.
As for DSD recordings, how many discs are released? Read the Betamax comment.
Im going to be more in line that DVD-A will be the next mainstream upgrade over the CD, but who knows whats going to happen in the next few years........ |
Yes, it probably was a bad analogy but I think it was close enough to get the point through =) |
First off, I have had TOO MUCH experience with SACD players. I sold them for 3 years since they were formally intruduced to the USA at MY STORE back in 99'/00'
I have also owned about a half dozen players including the SCD-1 by Sony. They have all long since been sold off over the last year.
As for listening to improperly setup equipment, I always take note of a product if it is setup improperly.
As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign.WHy dont you do your homework first? Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS. Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere. If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements.
As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released. After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred.WHo released most of em? Sony. Thats not going to get me hopping up and down, and alot of them dont garner better sound. For every company you can name that has made one, I can name another 10 companies that wont be making a SACD player. But this isnt really my argument here.
What disc's you say sound better on redbook? Here is a small starter list:
Dark side of the Moon: Pink Floyd(would you care to hear Roger Waters take on SACD?)
Ambassador Satch: Louis Armstrong( if you think SACD sounds better, time to upgrade your speakers and CDP)
Jazz at the Plaza: Miles Davis (imaging and seperation are far superior on Redbook)SACD sounds really compressed.
Couldnt Stand the weather: Stevie Ray Vaughn
Reflections: BB King
These are just a few.But my point is, there shouldnt be ANY that sound better. If SACD was truely at this point in time a step better than regular ol cd's there wouldnt be ANY ARGUMENT from anyone, but there is because presently SACD hasnt shown what is supposedly capable of. There are a few SACD's that did sound better, but like I stated, alot of that is the recording process. |
Jade: Let my comments stick. Let the record show that I have also had quite a few different high end CDP's and DAC/Transports to do direct comarison with SACD players.
Doing comparisons with SACD players were done through 2 preamps I owned at the time last summer including the Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way. And if your stating that a good quality preamp can change the test results for the SACD players I had vs. a few cd players(some used digital volume control, some actually went through the same Preamp), then you are simply driving my point home further.
SACD has yet to really seperate itself as being "better sounding" than redbook. And this is the whole point. THen you add to the fact how lethargic the format is evolving, add the very limited library available and you have a doomed format. As for universal players some people speak about. I would be open to one, but I have yet to find many(maybe one or 2)that perform excellent on all formats. |
Little Milton: Your telling me that there wasnt a few hundred CD players out for sale in the mid 80's?There was no format war worth speaking of back then to slooooow progress down compared to today. Oh please prove me wrong here.Show me where Im putting up BS. Please be aware that I sold audio/video for many years.
And please update me on how many SACD models are currently available. You say its BS about only a few dozen players available?, well prove me wrong here. You wont be able to.
And telling me that its BS that SACD isnt going anywhere is also a bit premature. Have you checked to see how poor sales are on SACD's??? If it dont sell it wont stay afloat. Just remember there is a wider audience than just the USA. Globally the other format is doing better. And Global sales normally is a good indication of what becomes mainstream.
As for DVD-A, I personally could care less about DVD-A or SACD currently. Please start reading my threads a bit more carefully. As I will state again, the potential is there, but its going to be a few years before anything groundbreaking comes out from any of the next generation formats. But if I had to choose, Ill take DVD-A as my future choice based on real world potential.
If you want to pull out the BS card on me, thats fine, but put up some links or something to back it up. You cant do that on any of my comments. |
Little_milton: Thats a pretty obvious copout for an answer.
So you want proof? Here are the majority of SACD players available: http://www.avguide.com/players_recorders/sacd_players.jsp
Why dont you try and list 2-3 dozen more SACD players for us?How about just 1 more dozen? It shouldnt be hard to name off 12 more SACD players the way your talking so go right ahead. That would basically be half of my claim of only 3-4 dozen SACD players in existance or under current production. Its not gonna happen, youll probably put up another " i dont have to prove anything" post.Thats normally what people do when they dont have anything intelligent to post.Your user name fits you to date. I bet your foot tastes good though.
Oh thats right, lets go on the list of available SACD's, I claimed how many? 3-400 maybe?? OK here some more links:http://www.buy.com/retail/music/searchresults.asp?search_store=6&querytype=music&qu=sacd&loc=109&dclksa=1
Here is another:http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buyer/outpdir.jsp?OVRAW=sacd%20&OVKEY=sacd&OVMTC=standard&doSearch=y&search=sacd
The above links are the 2 places that have the most titles.
Sony stated they would have over 2000 titles in 2001. Were almost in 2004. I dont think there are even close to 500 out. And alot of those 500 arent even worth purchasing.
So I need to face what? I got no what?Proof? :eyes rolling: "THe burden of proof lies in the believer" Ill have to remember that line. I bet you use that one alot when you have that size 12 stuck between your gums.
"thanks for playing"............. |
Tireguy: OK lets take that list of SACD's and filter out the ones NOT in English. OK, this knocks off quite a few hundred right off the bat.
Then lets filter out the "SACD's" that you cant even buy! Alot of these titles have yet to be released even! And in many cases will never be released.
That brings us down to about how many? 4-500 as I stated?
Sony stated over 2500 titles would be out 3 years ago?
Quote from Tireguy: "Ok now take everything I typed out of context and tell me that I am wrong, that would really be beneficial to everyone here"
Yep, you are wrong.
Hows that free "sampler" disc treating you? Guess how many of those will never see a SACD player? Probably your copy and a few other people here on Agon. I bet thats not too far off from the truth either.
How does your size 12 taste Tireguy? =)
|
Again, look at all those titles. Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. And were still not even at 1000. I claimed "hundreds" of true released SACD's. That claim still holds folks.
If anyone has more than 100 or even 1000 SACD's I feel sorry that they wasted all that money because most of them havent even been "remastered" to 96khz and are no better(and from alot of articles actually WORSE)than redbook cd's.
Plus I noticed that noone will even challenge the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. I made alot of points, you folks are only trying to zero in on one small point.
And lets be real, looking at that "wonderful" list of SACD's isnt getting my juices pumping very much to go run out and buy another SACD player.......
Someone should read Onhwy61's comment up above too. It adds alot of weight to my arguments. |
LittleMilton: Expected response from you. Other than the really weak argument for the Pro SACD people about there being more LIGITIMATE SACD's than a few hundred(which NONE of those lists show), noone has even tried to argue the other improtant facts like the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market still and that alot of the true high end mfgs of high end audio wont even touch SACD with a 10 foot pole. And with many good reasons.
Little Milton: you may have a very few limited backers on this particular thread, but the real fact is that its widely known that SACD isnt what its supposed to be currently.From the actual recording, to the actual players, to the very limited software available(and this can be subcategorized down to specific types of music available), and even from the support of mfgs. Being a previous owner of an SACD player, its still not a worthwhile investment on a format that has still yet to prove itself. |
Little_Milton has already proven that his is nothing more than a child, I dont even bother copying his links...........
Rsbeck: I am actually well aware that there are probably even fewer DVD-A audio titles, but how many people own a DVD player today?I actaully dont know anyone who doesnt have at least one. DVD-A makes alot more sense and already technically has better public backing due to this fact. If anything has the ptoential to quickly replace the cd format its DVD-A. |
Yes that is correct, but more and more DVD players are coming standard with the ability to play DVD-A audio. Something they all should be doing already, but obviously dont which is too bad. Give it a few more years.........I dont think we will see a true format change though until around 2010 at the pace were on......... |
Nrchy: Though I applaud your response, there are some area's that need to be adressed.
1. Why non-English titles should be removed from the list.
I personally listen to music written in my native tongue(assuming were talking about music with VOCALS here)as most people do. Im sure there are sime bi lingual people, but this is a very small minority comparitively.
2. Alot of the SACD titles arent even popular music or top 40. Not all of us listen to 25 different variations of "Allegro" or even care to. Get the point?
3. 44.1 is/was/whatever known to be undersampled, but with some of the breakthru's of the edge of the art cd players, CD is proving that there is still life and has shown to have just as much musical information as some of the newer formats currently.
One such example I have used on occasion for people who want a demonstration is the DSOTM CD from Pink Floyd. Maybe with a basic cdp its only so-so compared to an SACD version. But with a few SERIOUS high end CDP's the SACD doesnt sound as great as once thought. Again this is just an example and nothing more. You would think SACD would be head and shoulders above ALL current cdp's, not just the ones you would pick up at circuit city.
4. SACD's SHOULD be compared to current cd's, as that is what they are supposed to replace and be 100% superior to isnt it? You want to compare em to cd's from 20 years ago?Might as well compare em with 20 year old cdp players too. If that is the case, they should be better. BUt I could go get an $60 cd player from circuit city that sounds better than some of the "reference" players from back then too.
5. CD's were jammed down people's throats? At the time I think that was a good thing. Never was a fan of cassette tapes, and LP's have alot more downside than people realize, especially 20 years ago.
6. As for the Beta comment, you must really be thick headed, it was used as a poor analogy and nothing more. Dont be a complete moron please.
7. As for supporting new mediums Im all for it. But that medium had better be a BIG STEP UP from CD. Not a marginal at best step up, and in the case of the current Edge-of-the-art CDP's SACD isnt a really a step up at all, and in fact in many cases(how well the cd has been recorded and mastered) is a step down CURRENTLY(which means down the road this may change). Thats the whole point. A point alot of people here are missing completely. |
Little Milton: You are a serious retard arent you? SO when are you going to name off some of my lists from up earlier? Still cant find more than a couple dozen SACD players?
In rebuttal to your 7 useless points from not thoroughly reading my above earlier posts
1. My opinion holds alot more weight than your poor rebuttals that have yet to show any significant intelligence whatsoever.
2. Once again you take a "figurative statement"(do you even know what a figurative statement is?) and show the true size of your small brain.
3. And SACD is?? LOL!
4. Already named off quite a few up above, but once again you show the "horse blinds" that are stuck to your head. SInce I already know that you have never truely heard a top tier CDP, this argument with you is a moot point.
5. Intellect? And you have shown some with your child like remarks?
6. I wouldnt expect someone like you to understand a poor analogy, you have yet to show any ability to take one's words in proper context.
But to put all of this aside I would be willing to put up $10,000 of my money vs. a measly $100 of your money that you couldnt tell the difference between a SACD player or high end CDP. In fact I would be willing to extend that bet that you couldnt tell the difference between a DAT tape or a SACD player. I have a few DAT units too.....
SO you want to make a quick "easy" $10k? Im dead serious and invite you to my place to show me how good you think your ears(and wit) really are. Bring your SACD player and your favorite SACD's(which have a CD counterpart)and well see if you walk away $10k richer. Just let me know if you need me to call a local newspaper to see if they have a paper route in your area where you can make a few extra bucks to save up that $100 on your end.......... |
Little Milton: And to keep this thread rolling here is an exerpt from an article which is basically a CD vs. SACD vs DVDA article:
Introduction
For a while I have been interested to find out how good the new high resolution formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio really are? I have visited some demonstrations, but not been impressed which may be due to other causes than the sound formats.
After reading many replies at different forums, it seemed like many audiophiles considered SACD to be better than DVD-Audio. I also thought so until recently read what Ing. Öhman wrote in the Swedish Audio Technical Society * journal
(*A non-profit organisation for sharing interest and knowledge in audio and sound reproduction)
The following are quoted from what Ing. Öhman wrote in the journal:
"It is nothing less than a tragedy that Sony/Philips system SACD still is considered to be a real competitor to DVD-A, though it has lower real resolution than the CD-system in the highest octave.
DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does.
SACD is in the high frequency range quite mediocre, even compared to a good CD-system one-bit DAC, and of course clearly inferior to a CD-player with a real multi-bit converter.
On the contrary, DVD-A is in theory 250 times better than the CD-system at all frequencies!
In todays reality though, it is hard to achieve such hyper-resolution, but maybe in the future? If the potential exists, recording and playback technology can evolve. Today the DVD-A resolution is about 16 times better than the CD-system and the bandwidth extends up to 100 kHz to be compared with 22,050 Hz for CD."
Now I became curious! This is the opposite of what I thought. I asked Öhman for a follow up ...
You can get the full scoop here:http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm
Though I dont expect you to fully read this article(let alone understand alot of the BIG LONG words), I will plug up a few more to keep in interesting. SACD has alot more limitations than most people realize, and its very sad and true that they are even considered by MANY to be inferior to CD's in a few important ways(noise, high frequency reproduction etc). Cant wait for another intelligent "rebuttal" from ya! You just email me when you have that hundred bucks saved up.......
|
Wow, "Industry reports" from a "Sony webiste". Getting news from a Sony website is like reading the National Enquirer.
Sony has never grossly inflated numbers before right people?........... :yawn:
As for those Sales numbers again very misleading. The Sales numbers are purchase orders from dealerships for past and present orders(and knowing Sony, probably future orders that may or may not be filled), not the actual people who own a SACD player. I bet the number of actual people who own a SACD player numbers is in the 10's of thousands at best.
Want real info on how well SACD does? Check out the Wall Street Journal and other trade publishings. Your going to get a better picture of the real story.
People here should be rooting for DVD-A anyway. Its potential is so much greater vs. the crippled SACD format. |
http://dvdaudiodaily.com/cgi-bin/FrameIt.cgi?Url=http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0903/03.wea.shtml&ConfigFile=FrameIt.cfg
Good reading........ |
Jadem6:I have worked for more than one retailer and Tweeter sure isnt my calling card as I have worked for a number of true high end audio dealers in the area(the only reason I may have brought up working for Tweeter in past threads is due to the official US release of SACD being intro'd at the Burlington Ma. Tweeter store, plus Adcom has always been a regular staple for Tweeter which I have alot of hands on knowledge). But this isnt what I make as my argument. But if you must know more about my background, I have gone to Boston University's School of Music for multiple courses in Music Theory along with courses from the UNH system. And it doesnt hurt to have played the Violin and Clarinet since I was a child either. Nor do the years working at The Boston String Co. as a Violin appraiser. But working for many of these audio stores give me an inside perspective on alot of components and allows me the ability to play with and use extensive amount of gear in my own personal time for enjoyment and evaluation.I can honestly claim to have had MILLIONS of dollars worth of great gear in and out of my home over the couse of the last few years. How many people can honestly claim that? Not too many. I sure can claim to have had alot more hands on experience that the average "Audiophile" with their copy of "Stereophile" or "Hifi Times" being the basis for their info.
|
Jadem6: Also you own comparison of my personal system is pretty funny. Calling my system "harsh and edgy" without ever hearing is is a complete and total joke. I doubt you have ever even heard the combo. So how can you otherwise comment? More BS opinion.
So you have personally "heard" voodoo cables on an extensive basis?Did you know that my Voodoo cables are not the 100% silver cable that they advertise and sell? They are actually cryogenically treated Silver/copper hybrids of the Silver reference, very similiar in design to the Vahalla's and almost identical in presentation/voicing. You've had the chance to sit down with an 861se extensively too? How about the Palladiums? How about Palladiums with some specific modifications? My god! Your running a Class A SS Plinius amp and calling my Aragon's as "harsh and edgy" when you run an amp that has very similiar voicing!Plinius sounding like single ended tube amp? I want a smaple of what your smoking! LOL! Extensive listening again?How about the SCD-1, which Ive also owned in the past? If ever there was a player you can call a bit harsh and edgy its this player! Even with the audiocom superclock mod to help clean up the jitter problem. Harsh and edgy!? You got to be kidding me. So you must have heard all the components combined too right? Especially in a room thats been EQ'd correctly? This is what people need to read less of. Talk about "limited views", Id have to say that you may be the ultimate hypocrite for stating what you just did.
But how would you know my system is "harsh and edgy"? Sure isnt from experience.Sure wasnt from a trip to my house.Sure isnt what other members form Agon have stated from real experience listening to my system. Its too bad alot of opinions come from people like you with knowledge that doesnt extend past your keyboard.
And stating that the Adcom 750(or X2) preamp in bypass mode hardens the sound shows me that your mind tells you more than your ears actually do. Especially on the X2.
Just curious, why do you have $25,000 worth of cabling driving $5000 speakers which are above average at best? You make mention of all the "mods" done,some internal components are mentioned(like black gate caps etc)etc. but if you ever cracked open those SCIVA's you would find some really poor quality components populating the crossover boards. Upgrading those crossover components alone would equate to a bigger sound improvement than all the cables and component mods put together that you've already done. :rolls eyes:
|
factual errors? Alot of people feel the same way I do. Its a perception and nothing more. Alot of real engineers feel the same way.Alot of sound critics also feel similiar. Translating what looks good on paper pressed into reality doesnt always garner the expected results. Im not alone here. And from the gathering on this thread, more people tend to agree with some of my opinions and facts(backed up with some excellent links) than people who dont.
Rsbeck: One thing you amongst other pro-SACD consumer folks have in common. You take an angle on a specific comment I made(and make it more than it is)and twist it. If you actually had alot of daily real world experience with alot of top gear you would probably feel different. But you dont. Most people base their experiences on magazine artlicles,hearsay and limited experience of what they may hear in a showroom(which is more than likely setup very poorly with equipment they dont even have). Very few people can claim that they have had dozens upon dozens of amplifiers,source units,speakers,cables etc in their own home in a well setup room for critical evaluation over the course of weeks and or months at a time. The ones that can normally are part of the industry directly and/or are very rich. How many people here can say they actually have the luxury of owning an RTA or other critical listening/setup tools to help EQ their room quickly an easily and to allow fair comparison when judging equipment? Little things like these tools help to gain real world experience. I still have my own personal opinion. I may even have some bias(who doesnt?)too, but at least I can honestly say "I see the big picture". Alot of you I dont think honestly can(at least you state that with some comments that on the surface seem just as ignorant as you may think my comments are), and prove that with moronic/childish rebuttals at best.
If this isnt the case and I am wrong, then my original comment on SACD having more future potential over redbook would have also been brought up. But alot of people seem to have let my original comments get lost with many hypocritical statements. |
Rsbeck: Once again you took a figurative statement I made about the "hall ambience" as me claiming fact which is the farthest thing from the truth of the matter. What you should have done is to focus on what was said on the posts before and after that figurative statement was made. Your own statements made in your last post should have already pointed you what I have said earlier. You do a good job of pointing out some of my own statements that is put in a figurative wording and of an opinion, but do an equally good job of avoiding points that show some downsides to the medium that is in question.
|
Nrchy: Seriously, dont be an idiot. I posted a few links with much SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE on some of the downfalls(pros and cons) of SACD. There is also much scientific evidence that will back up the fact that the 44.1khz isnt necessarily the limiting factor for sound quality but rather the actual recording process itself in the studios.A reason why alot of mfgs continue to make imrpovements on redbook players while forgoing SACD presently.
Take a cymbol crash. Its all midrange and high frequency range right? Wrong. A cymbol crash's frequency response actually starts right around 15-20hz all the way up into the subsonic stratosphere where our ears cant even hear em.Most studio's dont relay 15-20hz information onto a disc. Many of them take a stereo signal in the bass range and sum it into mono signal, not the best thing to do to help SQ potential. You want a real big improvement in sound quality? Talk to the folks with the budget for recording the disc to begin with. Dont put it all on a disc being undersampled. THats just alot of horse sh!t. |
Quote from Nrchy: "Links that repeat your opinion are of little value. There are many places on the web to read absolute foolishness, not just your responses".
Oh, so first you state that I posted no scientific proff, then you state that scientific proof that backs up some of my points isnt valid? You are an idiot. And a very closed minded idiot at that.
Quote from Nrchy: "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."
Actually the liscensing fees for SACD is alot cheaper than for redbook presently. Sony is doing all they can to get mfgs to jump on their bandwagon with their technology to produce SACD players and SACD software. I would post the link proving this fact too, but considering how you just admitted to us all that you are a close minded moron on scientific links its kind of pointless.
Quote from Nrchy: "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."
Once again your IQ shines through. It has nothing to do with limitations of 44.1khz. 44.1khz can register a 15-20hz bass note no problem, it can also reproduce a note beyond 20khz no problem. The real problem lies at the hands of the budget and recording of the artist themselves, and how much time and effort they want to put into a recording, not 44.1khz. Do you want me to post a few scientific links on this as well? Or is it null because it backs up my point?
QUote from Nrchy: "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!"
Well guess what bud, were not on an equal playing field. And SACD has proven to have shortcomings in high frequency reproduction. Why is this? Read the above scientific links to validate the point. As for stating that there is too much of the music missing, your just backing up my claim even further. It is missing. But its not due to 44.1khz, its due to the actual recording artist and engineers themselves. And one of my points up above were that some of the SACD that DO sound better than their redbook counterparts is in large part due to the fact that the recording process was done properly to begin with.
No the fact that it samples a 96khz.
As for talking others out of investing in a format, I do no such thing. But I will point out, the "better future" doesnt necessarily lie with Sony's SACD format which is far from perfect. I dont ridicule new formats. I hope they do come out and soon, but I also hope they are a true step up in sound reproduction. SACD currently is not in many respects. Will it be in the future. Im sure it will at some point. But to be honest with you, I hope DVD-A gets it straight and comes on strong because DVD-A has alot more potential than SACD without the high frequency reproduction and noise floor problems inherant in SACD's format. I want their to be a next generation format thats universally accepted and soon like everyone else here Im sure. |
Nrchy quotes: "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."
OK, even so, do your ears register anything above 20khz? Most people's ears dont register anything past 15-16khz. A 2nd point made was that just by improving the bottom 2 octaves(and a bit below even)dramatically improves what we percieve on the midrange frequencies and beyond. You dont need an SACD to do this do you? If recording studios put more time into properly reproducing the low range of the recording there may even be a stronger debate on the side of Pro redbbok people. Like I stated before and I will do it once again. The biggest limiting factor is the studio recording itself, not the 44.1khz smapling rate.
Nrchy quotes: "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?" I believe it can reproduce a perfect signal up to 22khz. You can hear 22khz signal? You can hear 48khz signal? Wow. I bet the govt is gonna want to have u in for testing..........
Nrchy quotes: "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."
Well I guess the human race has been missing out on alot of music beyond 20khz for a very very long time.
Nrchy states: "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."
Well guess what? Most(not some) SACD recordings are from original redbook recordings. Another point of mine your helping me drive home. Just another reason why SACD currently isnt what its all cracked up to be.
Nrchy states: "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."
Technology involved? Whats put inside the magical SACD box in design thats not put into a redbook player? A few chips that can decode a 96khz signal? There Nichicon caps that cost more than chips used to decode SACD. It doesnt cost a mfg. necessarily anymore to produce a quality SACD player than it does to build a quality redbook player.
Nrchy states: "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 believe that anything you point out to me could apply to you even further from your above quote. ANd if your going to point to me using poor grammer from me not really caring about a spellcheck, it just furthers my point about you avoiding what the real topic is at hand.
Why dont you tell me this? SACD can reproduce an unheard musical note past 22khz, but why is it inferior to redbook in the AUDIBLE high frequency range to begin with then? Its almost a catch 22. |
