|
|
|
bissie said:
The hardware companies don't want to produce something there's no use for, and the software companies don't want to invest in something that no hardware can handle.
Fair enough. No one will start offering DSD downloads based on a belief that maybe some manufacturers will start producing DSD-capable devices when they see their site. Probably a little communication between hardware and software companies interested in DSD files wouldn't hurt in this case...
|
|
|
Post by seth January 5, 2012 (82 of 87)
|
|
rammiepie said:
I think it unfair to judge a disc as to it's sound quality when one's system isn't up to par when others with better equipment render a higher SQ rating. A lot of posters, I'm sure, would not knowingly purchase a disc when three or more posters (whose value judgement we trust) rate it poorly (SQ~wise).
So everyone should submit their system specs to Zeus, he'll determine the best systems, and only these people will be allowed to write reviews?
And the same thing could be done with people who want to review the performance aspects of a recording -- they submit their musical qualifications.
These are the risks of a community based website.
And lastly, having a great system doesn't mean you can capably determine the sound quality of a recording.
|
|
|
Post by lennyw January 5, 2012 (83 of 87)
|
|
rammiepie said:
I think it unfair to judge a disc as to it's sound quality when one's system isn't up to par when others with better equipment render a higher SQ rating.
Hogwash. Reviews are surely relative, and one considers the SQ in relation to other recordings of the same piece, ensemble or in the same hall. A better recording will sound better no matter what the system (all-in-one boom-box players excluded).
|
|
|
Post by wehecht January 5, 2012 (84 of 87)
|
|
More importantly we don't even come close to agreement on what a great sounding recording actually sounds like. To oversimplify drastically (and with tongue planted firmly in cheek): some of the site's members, and occasional reviewers, adhere to the belief that stereo is perfect, as long as it's achieved in the manner Mr Blumlein specified and is then preserved in pure DSD, regardless of the fact that the resulting sound could never be heard in a concert hall, at least past the first few rows. Others of us argue for multichannel sound and wouldn't be caught dead taking a step backward, because we think mc sounds more like what we hear in the hall (which assumes that replicating concert hall sound is the object in the first place). Among the second group some purport to hear great differences between recording methodologies, while others find them marginal at best (and perhaps here system quality does in fact make a significant difference). SQ comments by members of either group are rather worthless to members of the other. For myself, I've pretty much learned whose reviews reflect my own priorities and stopped worrying about the rest. Although I do fret about the possibility of newbies being scared off by the occasional review that I think is simply wrongheaded (happens over performance matters too, not just SQ), which is really regretable when one of the "one liners" effectively cancels out the ****/***** rating of a thorough and well reasoned review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
lennyw said:
Hogwash. Reviews are surely relative, and one considers the SQ in relation to other recordings of the same piece, ensemble or in the same hall. A better recording will sound better no matter what the system (all-in-one boom-box players excluded).
lennyw, I don't know the last time YOU "washed" a "hog," but why overlook a recording that does indeed sound great and was downgraded by a reviewer whose system is incapable of decoding what's REALLY on that disc in terms of sound quality. Happens ALL the time.
Credit should be awarded where credit is due and SO MANY recordings have been denigrated in terms of SQ because of playback equipment deficiencies.
|
|
|
Post by lennyw January 5, 2012 (86 of 87)
|
|
rammiepie said:
...was downgraded by a reviewer whose system is incapable of decoding what's REALLY on that disc in terms of sound quality. Happens ALL the time.
Credit should be awarded where credit is due and SO MANY recordings have been denigrated in terms of SQ because of playback equipment deficiencies.
Examples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
lennyw said:
Examples?
In the Pop/Rock arena, for instance the Genesis' remasters have been ridiculed for their lack of bass, lack of focus, lackluster overall SQ by a number of posters as have some of the Elton John 5.1 remasters which I have found to sound exceptionally transparent in every area. The culprit, I have found are usually Universal Players using HDMI out which I find exceptional for BD/DVD but NOT for RBCD, SACD and DVD~A and also overdriving Receivers which are great gadgets but lack the zest and clarity of separates.
Lennyw, I am into multiple hi~def formats: BD, DVD~A as well as SACD and have been underwhelmed by so~called "professional reviewers" who discredit the PQ/SQ of a particular BD when on my system it is absolutely spectacular.
No, everyone cannot afford the Best (and really, what IS the best?) and I don't own the BEST but knowing the limitations of one's system is paramount when assessing PQ or SQ especially since it can destroy a product which when played on the best equipment is miles above what a reviewer, whether amateur or pro, has critiqued it as being.
I can almost guarantee you that if players of the caliber of the Playback Design MPS~5 (for SACD) and the Meridian 800 (for DVD~A) had been used initially to review both formats from the very beginning that vinyl would today be a distant THIRD. But such was not the case and both Hi~def digital formats got a very bad rap because even professional reviewers were using crapola players to assess both formats. Because discs from that era, both SACD and DVD~A sound amazing on modern equipment so it was NOT the fault of the discs, themselves, but rather the playback devices utilized to critique them!
Some things never change!
|
|
