Thread: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT SACD?

Posts: 289
Page: prev 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 next

Post by rammiepie September 13, 2010 (251 of 289)
SA~CD replies: Rumours of my demise are greatly, greatly exaggerated. Just Look at the upcoming SACD titles announced for the last quarter of 2010 and 2011.

A Resurrection, perhaps?

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (252 of 289)
canonical said:

(1) I doubt it. It's just one teensy-weensy thread representing the view of one person ...

(2) It's also a bit sad that you have gone about it in the wrong way - buying SACDs that were recorded at CD resolution because they were cheap.

(1) Perhaps, but I never discount the possibility that someone wondering about SACD might read this. If it contributes in the least way, or even not at all, I would still be satisfied.

(2) I went back a few days ago and purchased many other SACDs, the majority of which I chose specifically for their glowing reviews here at sa-cd.net regarding their sonics. If you have a recommendation, tell me. In any case, doesn't SACD allow even old analog recordings to sound more natural?

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (253 of 289)
Arnaldo said:

In the meantime, the suspense is simply unbearable while we eagerly await his authoritative findings

For me to claim that my "findings" are authoritative would be ridiculous. I offer them simply as one person's experience with SACD. There's a lot of conflicting information, and I merely want to offer an honest opinion.

Just because I want to, and just because I can.

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (254 of 289)
rammiepie said:

A Resurrection, perhaps?

I'm all for resurrections.

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (255 of 289)
audioholik said:

SACD death pronouncements are so ubiquitous because every month some manufacturer releases new SACD-compatible hardware and the format becomes omnipresent.

Yes, and the irony of those death pronouncements I quoted was precisely that they were reviewing hardware that featured SACD compatibility.

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (256 of 289)
Arnaldo said:

Well, it's just amazing how gullible some people here can (or want to) be...

Name some names. Virtually everyone here has greeted my statements -- and even my questions -- with the utmost suspicion and even outright hostility. A gullible crowd this is not. If anything, the people around here have exactly the opposite problem of being too skeptical.

Post by jakeroux September 13, 2010 (257 of 289)
Perhaps next you should set out to enlighten the world as to the merits (or lack thereof) of XRCD, HDCD, SHM-CD, etc. etc.

I don't necessarily mean to equate the effectiveness of those formats to SACD; rather, I question your agenda and approach of apparently attempting to create a thread on SA-CD.net to educate the world as to [what appears to be] your initial hypothesis that two channel SACD is indistinguishable from RBCD, and your resulting conclusions.

Clearly, the public at large has been dis-serviced by your not conducting these observations 8 - 10 years ago for those of us who have concluded, through our own listening, that SACD has merit as a format.

My apologies if I misunderstood your mission or approach. As with Urbo73, we will anxiously await your conclusion.... (roll of the eyes)

btw - did you ever go back and check out that thread as I suggested to you about 15 pages back?

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (258 of 289)
Thanks to Polly for this; I found the link on his SACD humor thread. It's from a Time Magazine article from 1957. I liked it so much, I had to post it here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824654,00.html

Post by rammiepie September 13, 2010 (259 of 289)
Ernani71 said:

Thanks to Polly for this; I found the link on his SACD humor thread. It's from a Time Magazine article from 1957. I liked it so much, I had to post it here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824654,00.html

A very amusing and spot on article only in those days they didn't have $180,000 turntables, $20,000 cartridges or (of course) $80,000 SACD/CD players.

Times may have changed, but dedication or fanatacism to one's audio hobby remains unchanged.

Women still account for only a small percentage of the audiophile community and the boys and their toys syndrome continues, unabated.

I loved the last line about "My wife likes low fidelity and high frequency...." Probably still true today.

{Are we REALLY THAT Geeky???????}

Post by Ernani71 September 13, 2010 (260 of 289)
jakeroux said:

1. Perhaps next you should set out to enlighten the world

2. My apologies if I misunderstood your mission or approach.

3. As with Urbo73, we will anxiously await your conclusion.... (roll of the eyes) ... btw - did you ever go back and check out that thread as I suggested to you about 15 pages back?

1. The hyperbolic language is uncalled for. I've made no such claim.

2. Apology accepted.

3. I'm fairly sure Urbo's results weren't anxiously awaited, but his thread did garner very informative responses, and I am learning a lot from reading it. When you first drew my attention to it, I searched for the title and found nothing. However, now that you mentioned it again I tried searching the name Urbo73 and came up with the thread. I have only read the first few pages, but already I find much that is of interest, so I would like to discuss Urbo's thread here because some of the issues raised deserve more clarity. Despite what you think, I'm merely trying to learn about SACD and have no bias. I just spent about a thousand dollars on an SACD player and some SACDs; I would hardly have done that if I was already convinced that SACD was only for fools. I'm going to read the whole thing, but right on the first page I found the claim, posted by Disbeliever, that one can't really distinguish between RDCD and SACD by listening to the stereo section. I often encounter the cliam. If it is true, then I'm wondering why the FAQ says that all early SACDs were stereo-only and multi-channel was only added later. Why bother to initially release SACDs in stereo-only if one can only hear benefits in multi-channel? FAQ states in the "Can I Hear the Difference?" section: "the difference between regular audio CD and the high-density layer of SA-CD can be quite easily perceived, even to untrained ears." This is why I question the claim that SACD is good only in multi-channel. Surely it is more prounounced, but, if the FAQ is correct, then I hope to add to my musical enjoyment even if I only listen in stereo.

Another thing I found interesting in the Urbo thread is that comparing the CD and SACD layers can be tricky. Petrus put it this way, "comparing SACD and CD layers is not a reliable way of comparing the audible sound quality between RBCD and SACD. There might be and often are mastering differences. Another point is that for ideal comparason SACD layer should be DSD recorded, CD layer PCM. This, in turn, brings many unknown differences to the equation." RWetmore added, "Even if they are from the same master, the odds are extremely high they are not level matched. In order for any comparison to be valid, you have to level match to within 0.1 or at least 0.2. dB." I will keep this in mind, but all I really care about is whether I like the sound better. Whether the improvement derives from better sourcing or mixing, or just more care goes into making SACDs, that is all of secondary importance to me.

Page: prev 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 next

Closed