Thread: A CHALLENGE RB CD v SACD mainly for Teresa

Posts: 215
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22 next

Post by rammiepie December 8, 2009 (31 of 215)
If Urbo wants 4000 X 2000 he'll have to wait until 2017. If he or disbeliever want hi-rez sound, then either SACD or DVD-A is now available, and in surround .... something your precious RBCDs (with the exception of the scant 100 or so DTS RBCDs) cannot approach (even with DSP). If you want your RBCDs, too bad the BMG Club is out of business and can't offer you the 12 for a penny deal because obviously, you are both on the WRONG WEBSITE.

Post by Julien December 8, 2009 (32 of 215)
Disbeliever said:

Absolute nonsense....

Disbeliever,

We do not question everything you say, but your motives behind it. Apparently you are here to try to question the existence of SA-CD.net. Personally I agree that it's easy to be fooled between SACD and CD sometimes. For reasons related to human hearing ability or playback equipment. I too have a modded player on which CDs sound warmer and more transparent than SACDs on a Marantz. Big deal. SACD is still a step in the right direction over CD and is at least better because it contains much more information. This is a fact. Now, even if some people here "hear" the difference only in their minds, why do you feel you have to deny them the pleasure they experience, even if it's psychological? They are at least right to favor high resolution over low resolution. You are just being mean, and not even helping one single person on this site with any of your comments. And you only have rudimentary knowledge about audio. If what you live for every day is conflict, I suggest you take some boxing lessons, not pollute the world of very fine people.
When people were sugggesting to throw out Teresa I didn't agree because even though she shouldn't reiterate the same opinion all the time (everyone knows about it enough), she still does bring a lot to this site. For that we thank her.
What do you bring? Constructive debate? Your existence on this site is a shame.

Post by urbo73 December 8, 2009 (33 of 215)
zeus said:

With respect, while your experience has been otherwise, it's not in question for most here so I see little of a constructive nature arising from your continual assertions. You seem caught up in the numbers rather that relying on your own ears. Also listening solely for resolution rather than presentation. Lastly using as your reference a player that the manufacturer themselves doesn't recommend for analogue output. Your experiences are your own but if you want to be taken seriously I suggest a different attitude and wider listening is required. Maybe someone here lives close to you and you could listen to their system.

Continual assertions? The only posts I've had outside of this thread were those related to my own experience/impressions, in the 2 threads I started. What is wrong with defending my opinion in those cases? There were far worse posts coming back as replies, some even insulting...Why are those posts allowed? Many were completely off topic anyhow..

In this case, why is it not okay for me to reply when someone claims that CD 16/44 was a "flawed" format right at the start? It's not okay to question that? I'm at a loss to be honest. My posts are never insulting, and always on topic. This is a forum, no?

Your assumption that I'm caught up in the numbers is incorrect. As a musician, I listen to the music and performance first. I've said this before in reply in fact to one of your posts in my thread. Sometimes I said, even FM is fine with me, if the music is good and I don't have it elsewhere. The only time I listen for crazy details is when comparing SACD and CD layers on a hybrid (which BTW I've ordered a bunch more from some new recommendations I got here). I think many here are too caught up in subjectivism. Numbers are many times a way to explain why or why not, it's not that I'm caught up in them. I can't just start using fancy words that may mean something to me and completely nothing to everyone else. This is not how it works. It also doesn't help to really explain or understand anything.

My main point here, besides arguing the fact that CD 16/44 was not "flawed" out of the gate (Sony wasn't just picking random numbers at the time..), is really to show that analogies and comparisons to video simply don't work. And that IMO is, as I've said before, cause for confusion.

While no doubt most here can hear the difference between SACD and CD (2CH of course), my point was that I have not seen a study showing that this is real or imagined/psychological. If there is one, please point me to it. Then I can say it's my ears or my gear. I don't doubt people hear a difference - I don't think anyone is lying! But I wonder if that difference is real or imagined/psychological as I said.

I'm not sure why if my experience is different, I should not be allowed to express it. People can judge whether or not to take my posts seriously I believe. So far many have judging from many of the replies. The ones that have not, have taken silly jabs or gone off topic. I stopped posting in my own threads because of that. Objective people at least can tell. I'm not trolling or have any agenda. It seems that if one doesn't hear the difference, they should keep quiet? I thought you had said it's OK to have a differing opinion, as long as you stay professional about it. And I don't see where I have not. Again I'm getting the "equipment is not good, etc.". It's good enough to reveal a difference. Like I said, I shouldn't need to spend $20k to hear it. Others agreed.

To be honest, most of my musician friends have real crappy audio systems. They invest whatever little money they have into their passion. If there is someone in the Boston area who wants to offer me a test on a real expensive system, I'll gladly do it. Anyone?

EDIT: Perhaps the reason OPPO doesn't recommend their player for analog output has something to do with the fact that they are trying hard to push their Special Addition player with new DACs? Is it better? Maybe, but let's not fall for marketing..

Post by urbo73 December 8, 2009 (34 of 215)
rammiepie said:

If Urbo wants 4000 X 2000 he'll have to wait until 2017. If he or disbeliever want hi-rez sound, then either SACD or DVD-A is now available, and in surround .... something your precious RBCDs (with the exception of the scant 100 or so DTS RBCDs) cannot approach (even with DSP). If you want your RBCDs, too bad the BMG Club is out of business and can't offer you the 12 for a penny deal because obviously, you are both on the WRONG WEBSITE.

True, I'll have to wait for God-knows how long if I want 35mm rez on video. It may never even happen with paranoid studios, etc. Also not many studios care to scan all their films at 4K even today. Commercial garbage many times gets glorious DIs and transfers, while classics like Patton look like crap. My point was that 35mm, decades old, can still not be reproduced in the home. And the same is not true for audio. Do you really believe an SACD of a 60s recording will sound better than CD? If so how? That was my point. I know some folks (nor here that I've read) were disappointed that EMI did not release the Beatles remastered in 24/192 or at least 24/96 instead of 16/44. But I don't know there is anything in that catalog that CD 16/44 cannot reproduce. Recording methods were limited, production, etc. There is nothing "extra" in the source! 24/192 is of course the best way to master though as I've always said. DSD may be even better. Read the excellent book http://www.recordingthebeatles.com . Even if not a fan, quite an interesting and extremely in-depth account of each recording session with all the details. A beautiful book, informative for that decade.

Post by audioholik December 8, 2009 (35 of 215)
urbo73 said:

Do you really believe an SACD of a 60s recording will sound better than CD?

actually not only a master tape to DSD transfer will sound better than CD, but even a 24/96 vinyl rip will sound better than CD. Do you really believe that you can make a copy of a master tape using 16bit/44,1kHz resolution and what, let's say, Neil Young is doing doesn't make any sense?

Post by audioholik December 8, 2009 (36 of 215)
urbo73 said:

I know some folks (nor here that I've read) were disappointed that EMI did not release the Beatles remastered in 24/192 or at least 24/96 instead of 16/44.

But I don't know there is anything in that catalog that CD 16/44 cannot reproduce.

The Beatles remasters are already available in 24bit FLAC format.

Post by Ear December 8, 2009 (37 of 215)
While this is true it is just as ridiculous! EUR 227,99 This is the price for the apple containing the USB stick with the albums. For the same ammount they could have released a DVD-Audio set with download coupons. I find it very annoying that audiophiles are now being pushed to buy material without any physical artwork (this apple aside) and the have to do all the work themselves for the same price! They could also have included the 44/24 tracks on DVD-V/As contained in that a..rapingly overpriced stereo box set as some other decent bands/lables did. I know I do not have to buy that stuff and I don't and everybody who is happy with it shall be. But I really hate that trend that they try to push people in the direction where they pay the full price on an album and just get the right to download it someplace.
I do like the idea that people can choose and that if they own a decent computer based system they can get this (seemingly nicely done) package. But I find it an insult that just those people get access to the high resolution versions of the albums and all the other have to invest in DVD-Audio burning programms (IF you find one)and DVD-Rs and ink.
Rant over!

Post by FullRangeMan December 8, 2009 (38 of 215)
urbo73 said:
Dear Urbo,
As Audiophile already 35years, I have see many strange situations, so I can assure you SACD format are a huge improvment over RedBookCD, much better indeed.
The resolution in all digitals formats are meter in Sampling Rate, and SACD sampling rate is 64 times more than CD, this said it all.
I and others agree that there is some CDs that have good sound, and there is some SACDs that have less good sound that the usual, but this is not fault of the SACD format, but a poor recording or mastering job.
A usual DSD recorded SACD is a great leap over the RedBookCD.

In the past I work 2years in stage Pro-audio and I have to look other job cause this was damaging my hearing, so as a musician your hearing may not be OK.
Or as audio gear have many performance variables, may happen your audio set are giving to you a SACD sound less than the usual good, soft, analog like SACD sound, or other detail that we are missing.
Please, trust me my friend, SACD is the best format avaliable today 2009.
Regards

Post by Disbeliever December 8, 2009 (39 of 215)
hiredfox said:

I should point out to our more open-minded readers that this same Alvin Gold in whom 'Disbeliever' trusts so completely to assess his beloved XA5400ES is also the same Alvin Gold that penned in that same organ that the Marantz SA7-S1 "is the BEST SACD and CD player ever!"

Touche!

Head over Heart!

Humble Pie!

Hoist your petard!

HF I do not trust Alvin Gold at all or any other of today's reviewers for that matter, I only stated what he said . You deliberately put a wrong interpretation on what I posted.

Post by Disbeliever December 8, 2009 (40 of 215)
FullRangeMan said:

Dear Urbo,
As Audiophile already 35years, I see many strange situations, so I can assure you SACD format are a huge improvment over RedBookCD, much better indeed.
The resolution in all digitals formats are meter in Sampling Rate, and SACD sampling rate is 64 times more than CD, this said it all.
I and others agree that there is some CDs that have good sound, and there is some SACDs that have less good sound that the usual, but this is not fault of the SACD format, but a poor recording or mastering job.
A usual DSD recorded SACD is a great leap over the RedBookCD.

In the past I work 2years in stage Pro-audio and I have to look other job cause this was damaging my hearing, so as a musician your hearing may not be OK.
Or as audio gear have many performance variables, may happen your audio set are giving to you a SACD sound less than the usual good, soft, analog like SACD sound, or other detail that we are missing.
Please, trust me my friend, SACD is the best format avaliable today 2009.
Regards

Only if recorded properly and many Telarcs and others have failed.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 22 next

Closed