Post by mdt February 1, 2006 (81 of 163)
|
|
Claude said:
I don't think it's about making CDs sound better than SACD. For many music lovers SACD is simply not an option because of the software situation. They need a high end CD player to play the dominant format on the market, but it's not sure they'll want a SACD player if there are only a few dozen SACD titles that interest them.
They are just being pragmatic! It's not about which format is better.
What is the proportion of SACDs/CDs in your music collection? In mine it is 200/3500 (less than 6%), although I mainly listen to jazz and classical which are better represented on SACD than rock/pop, and I buy every SACD that presents some musical interest to me. I'm generally less critical on the musical content when it comes to SACDs, because the selection is so limited. I bought stuff on SACD which I would not have bought on CD.
As now more labels seem to abandon SACD, it is even more difficult to convince consumers to invest into expensive SACD equipment, and manufacturers to integrate SACD support in their high end CD players.
Can't go along with that. I bought my SA-CD player when there were even less SA-CDs then now, because it is an excellent RBCD player also, surpassing my previous (high end) player. So however SA-CD develops, i will allways have better sound from all of my RBCDs. With the brand i use, all of the players on the top of their line play SA-CD in addition to being excellent RBCD players, the simpler players offer only RBCD playback but are also lesser RBCD players then the SA-CD/RBCD players.
This approach makes very much sense to me, it can bring people to SA-CD who simply wanted to get a better RBCD player.
The example i gave is a high end manufacturer, but of course this principle can be used in analogy on the design of a line of players at any level.
|
|
|
Post by seth February 1, 2006 (82 of 163)
|
|
nickc said:
At least this month's Gramophone has a Channel Classics SACD as disc of the month (Walton -Serenade for Strings + Beethoven String Quartet 16)!
Cheers
Nick
Did they make any mention of the fact that the disc was a SACD?
|
|
|
Post by nickc February 1, 2006 (83 of 163)
|
|
seth said:
Did they make any mention of the fact that the disc was a SACD?
I only saw it on the website and unfortunately there is no real mention of SACD in the short review. Hopefully the full review will!
Cheers
Nick
|
|
|
Post by Peter February 2, 2006 (84 of 163)
|
|
nickc said:
I only saw it on the website and unfortunately there is no real mention of SACD in the short review. Hopefully the full review will!
Cheers
Nick
Nick, I'm afraid you hope in vain.
Edward Greenfield is the reviewer and he doesn't seem to have SACD facilities. In addition, the Praga/Beethoven Quartets/Prazak Quartet review while reviewing the music with perception makes no mention of the recording quality, nor SACD, nor does the review of Ruud's latest Grieg SACD nor Pontinen's Schoenberg/Berg SACD from Bis. The reviewer of the Kuijken Quartet's Mozart disc on Challenge admits he hasn't listened to the SACD layers.
Caetani's Shost8 review does mention SACD. If you want SACD/DVD-A news, The Gramophone isn't the magazine to provide it.
Latest Decca releases which ought to have been SACD include Ashkenazy playing a well reviewed Bach 48 and Akiko Suwanai playing the Bach violin concertos.
The first release in Keilberth's Ring gets a big thumbs-up, and there's a whole page about Joyce Hatto (those who refuse to buy CDs are missing out on hearing her work). There's also an excellent article on Hatto by Ates Orga on musicweb about this remarkable pianist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
nor Pontinen's Schoenberg/Berg SACD from Bis.
Probably because it isn't an SACD (sadly it got misposted on MDT as such but when my copy came through it was just a plain old RBCD).
|
|
|
Post by Peter February 2, 2006 (86 of 163)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Probably because it isn't an SACD (sadly it got misposted on MDT as such but when my copy came through it was just a plain old RBCD).
Gram review heading has it as SACD, too!
|
|
|
Post by jbpfrance February 8, 2006 (87 of 163)
|
|
DSD said:
Consumers are either afraid or unaware of their power. If everyone and I mean everyone refused to buy a new release unless it was on SACD, guess what every single release would be on SACD! That is the power we consumers have.
But consumers are afraid and try to improve CD sound instead, if they only knew their power SACD would completely replace CD in no time flat.
That is quite right !! A least, one in Europe (me) agrees ! And I know I am not the only one here !
The problem is if your ear perceives a difference between a SACD and a CD, maybe a lot do not !
But we certainly, like Teresa, are quite numerous.
Have you heard about this study ?
Quite interesting, when knowing the CD blocks all frequencies above 20000 Hz or so...
http://web.archive.org/web/19981206093954/www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
|
|
|
Post by raffells February 8, 2006 (88 of 163)
|
|
jbpfrance said:
That is quite right !! A least, one in Europe (me) agrees ! And I know I am not the only one here !
The problem is if your ear perceives a difference between a SACD and a CD, maybe a lot do not !
But we certainly, like Teresa, are quite numerous.
Have you heard about this study ?
Quite interesting, when knowing the CD blocks all frequencies above 20000 Hz or so...
http://web.archive.org/web/19981206093954/www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
I think cultural changes are also more relevant here. Most people now listen on the move to music as it is not considered worthy of the time spent sittng down and listening.Too many more important things to do with leisure time and too much competition for it..If they want real music they go to concerts and this is then a social event rather than serious listening.The Exception is classical.Otherwise they go to musicals and listen to Piped sound and mime.Most cannot tell the difference.!This problem is getting worse.
If people could download and copy sacd quality free like cd then yes they MIGHT go that direction.except if it took longer to download..which it does.
Scientific measurement has been more of a hinderance to progress in soncs as people have been repeated told they cannot hear sinewaves above 15k....then the word sinewave is ommited and the relevant test on how even deaf muzzos can notice the absence of these high frequecy harmonics becomes meaningless.Human nature dictates we only look at the Headlines...
Im not sure it helps when sacd people state that RCA LS and Mercury recordings from 1950s with a very limited bandwith
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
Im not sure it helps when sacd people state that RCA LS and Mercury recordings from 1950s with a very limited bandwith
Well ? Finish your sentence (please).
|
|
|
Post by raffells February 8, 2006 (90 of 163)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Well ? Finish your sentence (please).
Im not sure it helps when sacd people state that RCA LS and Mercury recordings from 1950s with their very limited bandwith. Does that help.?.
Eary Decca FFSS Wideband Lps also had this same limited frequency bandwith and they were refered to as Wideband because the centre of the label had a wider band not because of the sonic frequencies.The later once are called Decca Boxed in the USA...A lot of people prefer the early WB releases mainly because they think they sound better but mostly its the fact the preamp, amplifier and speakers that dont have to work much above the 15k rolloff point.If you are into amplifier design or electronics especially around 1960 you will know...The only real advantages of WB is due to lack of wear in the stampers.Sometimes they would use the same stampers on later pressings.Dave.
|
|
