Thread:

Posts: 107
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Post by wolf359 May 15, 2009 (11 of 107)
I remember at the birth of RBCD a certain Famous Scottish turntable company was running a series of adverts against the invention of the CD which at the time was quite vitreolic. How times change, that same company now produce SACD's, RBCD and do downloads. I do not get Stereophile on principle and so cannot comment on the article, but it seems to me that there has long been the feeling that if SACD were to succeed it would be in spite of such opposition rather than because of it.

At a very basic level I cannot understand how anyone who professes to love music and the technology which makes it possible would want to not improve on that system to make it more palatable. This is what a well produced SACD does, any one who denies that SACD is not an improvement over RBCD is either biased,has vested intrests against SACD, or is unwilling to have thier cosy little world altered. The history of the world is littered with inventions which have been quietly buried because narrow minded people couldn't see beyond the confines of thier own mind and/or protect thier companies bottom line. Apart from the constant low level sniping against SACD or even worse the lack of mentioning it in the Hi Fi press what has this article done? All it has is confirmed what many on this site already belive that Stereophile is anti SACD and drum up some publicity for the publication. At its basest level any magazine is about massaging the egos of those who purchase it. It must be galling to be told that your oh so expensive RBCD player can be bettered by a much cheaper SACD player so to keep your advertisers and your readers happy and confirm thier beliefs attack is the becomes the best form of defence.

If the record companies who produce SACD's take notice of this article,and think about dropping SACD as a result they risk losing a large part of thier sales. Time and time again on this site people have said I would have bought it if it were available on SACD but it's not so I won't. Can any company who are providing music to a niche market such as classical afford to alienate a percentage of that niche market and see sales dip even further during a recession. I think not. Perhaps its the fact that SACD is still around after 10 years while CD sales are on a slide that is so infuriating to RBCD belivers who knows, who cares.

I am heartened however that there have been several new to SACD posters appearing on this site recently. I take this as a positive. For everyone of them there may be others who read this site and do not bother to post who are also new, and others who are new to SACD but do not know of this sites existence. Overall we are small in number but passionate and vocal. What we need to do is to be unified in our opposition to such comments and let those biased individuals/companies know we can fight back by not buying thier products that is far more effective that moaning on here. Money or lack of it is all thet really matters to these people

Post by michi May 15, 2009 (12 of 107)
Wolf, I would hope that some recording company folks may read this site and think otherwise.

I'm not holding my breath though. They probably listen to the wrong people.

The thing is the paradigm can shift really fast. All it would take is one or two equipment manufacturers, and one or two more recording companies to drop SACD and the impetus would start.

Because of that, I just hope this actually turns -around- instead. As can be seen by my library (and history on the AA) - i'm mostly pop/rock oriented but i've hung in there with SACD anyhow. I love it; and it's opened me up to blues and jazz, and -

-- to be honest, I'm about to the point where I want to speak to people here about classical to get me introduced; since i'm sure there are some phenominal SACDs im missing; I just don't know enough about the genre yet, but am certainly open...

But that said I hope MoFi isn't reading these reviews... (If you're listening MoFi - please don't stop the SACD releases.)

This year i've had no less than four of my friends find SACD through me, and they're also very enthusiastic about the format...

I don't see why anyone would "declare the format dead" before releases ground to a halt. And that has NOT HAPPENED. So it makes no sense to declare the format dead...

Post by hiredfox May 15, 2009 (13 of 107)
What you must remember is that Stereophile people generally (not all) are very much OLD-SCHOOL analogue people who have been and will be to their dying days pro-vinyl, pro-valves. They have never been willing to accept that solid state or digital playback even in RBCD form can be infinitely better than analogue taken EVERYTHING into account. The one chink in the RBCD armour that these people have remorselessly tried to expose, is that it has never really sounded wholly convincing.

Now at last with SACD we have a digital format that actually makes music sound REALISTIC so that one concentrates on the music rather than the flaws in it's presentation. A technology that indisputably will shake the walls of Jerrico (sic) if not isolated and destroyed!

Surely the vitriol being aimed at SACD by Stereophile is the inevitable desperate fusillade from the dying breed of analogue-istes who are trying to stop SACD in it's tracks at any cost before it gains the momentum to sweep analogue aside once and for all?

SACD is a far more dangerous enemy to them than ever was RBCD!

Luckily this is the age of the internet not hard-copy journals; so fora like this are able to counter the murderous sniping of certain so-called 'hi-fi' journals.

Post by michi May 15, 2009 (14 of 107)
What you must remember is that Stereophile people generally (not all) are very much OLD-SCHOOL analogue people who have been and will be to their dying days pro-vinyl, pro-valves.
So basically divide and conquer... Kill off SACD, and then the vinyl guys have at least one clear cut "enemy", that being RBCD? "The enemy you know"?

Not thrilled with the idea of "vinyl or nothing at all"... Granted I'm not exactly anti-valves, but ... maybe its that with SACD, with these guys, there's less to tweak, or maybe it's just too different.

Post by wolf359 May 15, 2009 (15 of 107)
michi said:

So basically divide and conquer... Kill off SACD, and then the vinyl guys have at least one clear cut "enemy", that being RBCD? "The enemy you know"?

Not thrilled with the idea of "vinyl or nothing at all"... Granted I'm not exactly anti-valves, but ... maybe its that with SACD, with these guys, there's less to tweak, or maybe it's just too different.

I would have thought that there must be very few old school Die hard pro valve analogue people left after all this time. If it is these people who are anti SACD they are surely wielding influence out of proportion to thier numbers. I am not anti vinyl I have a large number of discs which have not and are never likely to be released as any digital format. I agree that these people will never be likely to change thier viewpoint or opinions which is sad because they are the ones locked in the world of past glories where everthing that is digital is bad and SACD is the Devil in disguise. I hope that people view this article in Stereophile as a last kick of a dying breed. When I was younger I loved the ritual of playing a vinyl disc, The artwork of a large Sleeve ,taking the disc out of it's dust jacket ,the ritual cleaning etc, record playing was and is a cherished ritual which added to the sense of the occassion of listening to music. Nowadays we can all slap a disc into the player and get convienience and quality without the ritual, and of course if you challenge a persons rituals and beliefs too much they kick back.

Post by Jason Victor Serinus May 15, 2009 (16 of 107)
Arnaldo said:

Stereophile's website has posted an interview with Channel Classics's Jared Sacks. And even with the ridiculous assertion by the writer (Jason Victor Serinus) that "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format," Jared gets to make his case about the superiority of Super Audio (http://stereophile.com/news/channel_classics_continues_with_sacd/).

It is interesting that the magazine is not even trying to hide its lack of editorial balance, as seen in a number of recent articles. First on the list was Michael Fremer's cheap shots at the SACD format even while praising the Marantz SA-11S2. Then came the negative title assigned to Kal Rubinson's positive review of the Sony XA5400ES. And finally, Sam Tellig pulling a "Fremer" on the McIntosh MCD500 (see thread /showthread/37864//y?page=first).

The big joke is Stereophile's press kit, which starts with the following quote by its editor, John Atkinson: “Whatever the medium via which audiophiles choose to enjoy their music – be it two-channel or surround-sound, CD, SACD, DVD-A, MP3, LP or whatever – you will be able to read about it and how to get the best from it in Stereophile.”

The only thing they have worth reading (online only, of course) is Kal's column, specially his "Recording In The Round," which shows true musical appreciation. Unfortunately, it's not even a monthly feature. The laughable connection is the support the magazine shows to the overpriced Meridian gear, which as we all know, lost a bundle when it invested heavily in DVD-Audio. Coincidentally, a Meridian RBCD player was on the cover of the May edition, the same one with Kal's review of the Sony XA5400ES...

Boys and girls. Please, take some deep breaths.

Thanks to Jared Sacks for providing a reality check. I have written a positive, supportive article about SACD that contains, to some, one objectionable comment. Acknowledging what is repeated so often by American audiophiles, and which I have consistently countered in all my news articles on the subject - some American audiophiles continue to proclaim SACD a dead format, while audiophiles in other countries continue to embrace it - I have written a piece in which Jared extols the praises of SACD. How can you find anything wrong with that?

For those who would perpetuate conspiracy theories about Stereophile, John Atkinson has never - never ever - told me what to write. Never. Nor am I privy to editorial discussions in the Stereophile office, which transpire 2500 miles away. John of course edits my writing when it needs it, and occasionally hollers when my writing is in need of a total makeover, but he never ever suggests or changes the slant. As for my big features on VTL, Magico, and others coming down the pike - John says, "Why don't you do a feature on ____," and leaves the rest to me. Nor did John ever give me the 20-question quiz or ask me to sign a loyalty oath before my writing began to appear in Stereophile.

In short, the Stereophile conspiracy against SACD does not exist.

Speaking personally, I don't own an SACD player. Bias? Absolutely not. I review equipment for http://www.hometheaterhifi.com, not Stereophile. The few multi-format and SACD players that have come my way for have not been as good on SACD as is my Carmen II / Theta Gen. VIII Series 2 combo on well-recorded CD. That says NOTHING - I repeat - NOTHING about the quality of the format. It just says that, in the case of the few players I've heard at Casa Bellecci-Serinus, the Theta was superior. And since I don't have the funds to go out and buy a Cary or Krell or Classé or Ayre or dcs or EMM Labs or any of the many excellent SACD players on the market, even at accommodation price, the situation remains as it is.

Nor do I have multi-channel. It would require lots more wire, more speakers, and, basically, a new relationship. Sorry, but I chose the spouse over more channels.

One final note. Every SACD player sounds different. Have you heard the McIntosh MCD500? Is everyone certain that it may not in fact be rolled off or overly smooth on top? I haven't heard it, haven't read the review, and haven't seen the measurements, if there are any. It may not be. All I know is that the SACD function of the best multi-format player that I did review some years back was superior to CD in every aspect except the top end. But, then again, that was that player, which has since been upgraded if it is in fact still around.

Someday I will have an SACD player. (I sure have lots of SACDs that I'm dying to play on it). For now, I shall continue to support the format in print when opportunities come my way. I shall also continue to dispel the myth that the United States is the center of the universe, and that Americans speak for the rest of the world.

jason victor serinus

Post by Cherubino May 15, 2009 (17 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

Boys and girls. Please, take some deep breaths.

Thanks to Jared Sacks for providing a reality check. I have written a positive, supportive article about SACD that contains, to some, one objectionable comment. Acknowledging what is repeated so often by American audiophiles, and which I have consistently countered in all my news articles on the subject - some American audiophiles continue to proclaim SACD a dead format, while audiophiles in other countries continue to embrace it - I have written a piece in which Jared extols the praises of SACD. How can you find anything wrong with that?

For those who would perpetuate conspiracy theories about Stereophile, John Atkinson has never - never ever - told me what to write. Never. Nor am I privy to editorial discussions in the Stereophile office, which transpire 2500 miles away. John of course edits my writing when it needs it, and occasionally hollers when my writing is in need of a total makeover, but he never ever suggests or changes the slant. As for my big features on VTL, Magico, and others coming down the pike - John says, "Why don't you do a feature on ____," and leaves the rest to me. Nor did John ever give me the 20-question quiz or ask me to sign a loyalty oath before my writing began to appear in Stereophile.

In short, the Stereophile conspiracy against SACD does not exist.

Speaking personally, I don't own an SACD player. Bias? Absolutely not. I review equipment for http://www.hometheaterhifi.com, not Stereophile. The few multi-format and SACD players that have come my way for have not been as good on SACD as is my Carmen II / Theta Gen. VIII Series 2 combo on well-recorded CD. That says NOTHING - I repeat - NOTHING about the quality of the format. It just says that, in the case of the few players I've heard at Casa Bellecci-Serinus, the Theta was superior. And since I don't have the funds to go out and buy a Cary or Krell or Classé or Ayre or dcs or EMM Labs or any of the many excellent SACD players on the market, even at accommodation price, the situation remains as it is.

Nor do I have multi-channel. It would require lots more wire, more speakers, and, basically, a new relationship. Sorry, but I chose the spouse over more channels.

One final note. Every SACD player sounds different. Have you heard the McIntosh MCD500? Is everyone certain that it may not in fact be rolled off or overly smooth on top? I haven't heard it, haven't read the review, and haven't seen the measurements, if there are any. It may not be. All I know is that the SACD function of the best multi-format player that I did review some years back was superior to CD in every aspect except the top end. But, then again, that was that player, which has since been upgraded if it is in fact still around.

Someday I will have an SACD player. (I sure have lots of SACDs that I'm dying to play on it). For now, I shall continue to support the format in print when opportunities come my way. I shall also continue to dispel the myth that the United States is the center of the universe, and that Americans speak for the rest of the world.

jason victor serinus

Jason, I've always found your articles interesting and worth reading. Thanks for taking the time to set the record straight. Keep whistling.

Post by tream May 15, 2009 (18 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

Boys and girls. Please, take some deep breaths.

Thanks to Jared Sacks for providing a reality check. I have written a positive, supportive article about SACD that contains, to some, one objectionable comment. Acknowledging what is repeated so often by American audiophiles, and which I have consistently countered in all my news articles on the subject - some American audiophiles continue to proclaim SACD a dead format, while audiophiles in other countries continue to embrace it - I have written a piece in which Jared extols the praises of SACD. How can you find anything wrong with that?

For those who would perpetuate conspiracy theories about Stereophile, John Atkinson has never - never ever - told me what to write. Never. Nor am I privy to editorial discussions in the Stereophile office, which transpire 2500 miles away. John of course edits my writing when it needs it, and occasionally hollers when my writing is in need of a total makeover, but he never ever suggests or changes the slant. As for my big features on VTL, Magico, and others coming down the pike - John says, "Why don't you do a feature on ____," and leaves the rest to me. Nor did John ever give me the 20-question quiz or ask me to sign a loyalty oath before my writing began to appear in Stereophile.

In short, the Stereophile conspiracy against SACD does not exist.

Speaking personally, I don't own an SACD player. Bias? Absolutely not. I review equipment for http://www.hometheaterhifi.com, not Stereophile. The few multi-format and SACD players that have come my way for have not been as good on SACD as is my Carmen II / Theta Gen. VIII Series 2 combo on well-recorded CD. That says NOTHING - I repeat - NOTHING about the quality of the format. It just says that, in the case of the few players I've heard at Casa Bellecci-Serinus, the Theta was superior. And since I don't have the funds to go out and buy a Cary or Krell or Classé or Ayre or dcs or EMM Labs or any of the many excellent SACD players on the market, even at accommodation price, the situation remains as it is.

Nor do I have multi-channel. It would require lots more wire, more speakers, and, basically, a new relationship. Sorry, but I chose the spouse over more channels.

One final note. Every SACD player sounds different. Have you heard the McIntosh MCD500? Is everyone certain that it may not in fact be rolled off or overly smooth on top? I haven't heard it, haven't read the review, and haven't seen the measurements, if there are any. It may not be. All I know is that the SACD function of the best multi-format player that I did review some years back was superior to CD in every aspect except the top end. But, then again, that was that player, which has since been upgraded if it is in fact still around.

Someday I will have an SACD player. (I sure have lots of SACDs that I'm dying to play on it). For now, I shall continue to support the format in print when opportunities come my way. I shall also continue to dispel the myth that the United States is the center of the universe, and that Americans speak for the rest of the world.

jason victor serinus

Jason - while Jared's comments are positive and welcome, and therefore the entire article is welcome, you do start with a remark that attorneys would say lacks foundation and gives a negative slant to the first paragraph. By indicating that "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format" you cover a lot of ground, editorially. Do you mean to state "many audiophiles"? This would be acceptable and true. If you are trying to state the majority of audiophiles, I submit that you have not provided evidence of this, and therefore the statement lacks foundation. BTW, you could have just as easily written that Kal Rubison has stated that SACD is the best format, and while the large multinationals have abandoned the format the number of smaller labels adopting SACD has grown and the format is gaining wider acceptance outside of the US. This would be supported by more evidence than what you actually wrote, and would also have been less inflammatory. I an an audiophile in the US and don't support the concept that SACD is a dead format, but the way you have worded your remarks would include me.

I don't believe that Stereophile has an anti-SACD editorial policy - John Atkinson is actually on record as stating that SACD sounds better than RBCD. However, I have been disappointed in Stereophile's coverage of SACD for two reasons:

1. They decided to take a passive role in coverage of SACD instead of embracing the format from the start and promoting it from an editorial standpoint. I realized after vainly waiting for positive coverage of SACD that Stereophile, as an institution, is a reactor to events and not a creator. If memory serves, Kal's column started in 02 or 03, years after the launch of SACD. I suppose reporting on events rather than leading them is a proper role for what is, after all, a journalistic exercise, but after the years of negative reporting on RBCD I expected more.

2. John Atkinson really should have taken a heavy editorial marker to Tellig's columns where Tellig, in print, insulted those of us who like SACD in the basest terms. That kind of crap has no place in a serious journal and serves to undermine not only Tellig, but the other writers as well. In the last survey I read, Tellig was unaccountably Sterephile's most popular columnist, even if he has less to add than others like Kal, Art Dudley, John Marks, and yes, Michael Fremer. (Yep, my opinion, but I have read Tellig's stuff now for about 25 years). Atkinson's failure to exercise proper editorial judgement gives me great cause for concern. Does he even inquire into the reasons for Tellig's open hostility to SACD? Did he ever ask about Tellig's love affairs with Musical Fidelity and a few others that caused serious embarassment to the magazine? Perhaps he is hesitant to cross swords with his most popular columnist, but he needs to if Stereophile is to continue as a magazine that is taken seriously.

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (19 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

And since I don't have the funds to go out and buy a Cary or Krell or Classé or Ayre or dcs or EMM Labs or any of the many excellent SACD players on the market, even at accommodation price, the situation remains as it is.

you're mentioning some hi-end players here but as a reviewer you probably also review players in $500, $1000, or $1500 price ranges, what are your findings?

did you compare for example how
$500 CD player sounds compared to $500 SACD player or
$1000 CD player compared to $1000 SACD player or
$1500 CD player compared to $1500 SACD player?

Post by audioholik May 15, 2009 (20 of 107)
Jason Victor Serinus said:

In short, the Stereophile conspiracy against SACD does not exist.

If Stereophile wasn't anti-SACD we would be now reading articles about 10th year anniversary of most successful hi-rez format SACD, and not 1999-2009 RIP BS

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 next

Closed