|
|
|
Peter said:
...and the Mussorgsky/Stokowski disc, too.
Yes. I think that is a rather wonderful disc. I haven't critically compared it to any of the better PentaTones, but standing on its own, it gave me a lot of satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by seth February 28, 2006 (112 of 163)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
You must come from the bad old days of Naxos. Naxos has done quite well with sound and performance on redbook and a few of their SACDs are quite nice. Today, they are known for excellent quality and the reviews accurately show this.
Excellent sound quality isn't limited to their SACDs. Alsop's Weill and Adams redbooks are very satisfying, both sonically and musically. I just ordered her Michael Daugherty disc which everyone says is terrific.
|
|
|
Post by raffells March 2, 2006 (113 of 163)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
You must come from the bad old days of Naxos. Naxos has done quite well with sound and performance on redbook and a few of their SACDs are quite nice. Today, they are known for excellent quality and the reviews accurately show this.
Just a note to say that Ive been in touch with Naxos once again confirming what their position on DVDA and Sacd is ..
reply
Unchanged.....They will not be issuing any new releases.
Theres plenty of the items left BTW Except |Shosty Jazz Suites and Mozart Requiem on sacd .
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Ear March 2, 2006 (114 of 163)
|
|
raffells said:
Just a note to say that Ive been in touch with Naxos once again confirming what their position on DVDA and Sacd is ..
reply
Unchanged.....They will not be issuing any new releases.
Theres plenty of the items left BTW Except |Shosty Jazz Suites and Mozart Requiem on sacd .
Dave
Interesting, To me they said exactly the opposite. But it was Naxos Germnay and they said they could not tell when the next release would be since this is a decision will be made in HongKong, at they get notified on a shot term base.
But they definetly said they will continue in SACD!
|
|
|
Post by djcowboy March 2, 2006 (115 of 163)
|
|
Ear said:
Interesting, To me they said exactly the opposite. But it was Naxos Germnay and they said they could not tell when the next release would be since this is a decision will be made in HongKong, at they get notified on a shot term base.
But they definetly said they will continue in SACD!
I think we all realize what a small group we are and suggest trying not to get too worked up because as a young lady said to me at FRY"S ( large SACD selection @Gwinnett Place)....maybe SACD is on the way to wherever Lasordiscs went....we are such a small percentage of the business and the music we love makes up such a small percentage of the larger companies profits...why would they pay any attention...they should have converted all their discs to hybrids and sell them all together...the SACD would be a added bonus for customers to upgrade( curiosity) and the cost of advertisement is built in...the volume of sales would trickle down to the smaller labels in the form of lower overhead because the software would be less expensive. This would have solved most of the issues and reduce redundance...the days of selling and reselling are coming to an end...remaster...K2...XRCD...XRCD2....20bit remaster....HDCD...SACD...DTS 5.1....DVD-A....how many copies of the same album do you get before you call it quits...I replaced some vinyl and maybe a couple of the Redbook versions when SACD came out....never again...I still have a 20 year old turntable in mint condition...when I want a copy that sounds as good as the SACD...I burn a copy on my Philips Home Audio Recorder...you would be amazed at the quality
|
|
|
Post by seth March 2, 2006 (116 of 163)
|
|
djcowboy said:
I think we all realize what a small group we are and suggest trying not to get too worked up because as a young lady said to me at FRY"S ( large SACD selection @Gwinnett Place)....maybe SACD is on the way to wherever Lasordiscs went
Except that LaserDisc was around for over 20 years (though, because it was a hit in Japan). I believe that Pioneer continues to manufacture a LaserDisc player.
|
|
|
Post by Ear March 2, 2006 (117 of 163)
|
|
seth said:
Except that LaserDisc was around for over 20 years (though, because it was a hit in Japan). I believe that Pioneer continues to manufacture a LaserDisc player.
It was big in the US as well. I remember being there in 93 and it was just amazing how many titles they had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
It's not as much as what is missing from CD but what is "artificially" added. The cold sterile sound of CD is something I have never heard from live music, or recorded LP, RTR or cassette. The sound of massed strings on CD is more irritating than fingernails scraping a chalkboard. I have a harder problem listening to CD, as its problems are most effective in the area when my hearing has a spike. I hear frequencies between 14kHz-17kHz boosted by +4dB and it sloops down from there to the end of my hearing range at 24kHz. Other people without such a spike in their hearing may be able to tolerate CD better than I can.
A friend once suggested I get a equalizer to cut the frequencies -4dB between 14kHz-17kHz. I don’t like equalizers and I cannot take one with me to a live concert.
Happy listening,
Teresa
Hmm, let me get this straight, you dismiss the CD medium based on the peculiarities of the frequency response of your hearing? You mention taking an equalizer to a live concert... if live music bothers you, what is good, correct sound? If you can hear up to 24khz, I wonder what speakers you own, as most roll off above 10 to 15khz, or at best have extremely ragged response at those frequencies and above. Also, what are you using for CD playback? In (true) high end equipment, anything less than a $1k player is dreck. Not to mention the rest of the equipment. Now to me, between the RIAA EQ errors of every phono preamp, the intrinsic mistracing of the record groove except at two points on the LP disk, the need to adjust VTA for each record, S/N ratios at best at 50-60 db the built in noise and distortion of LPs, which wear and deteriorate with each play, as does the stylus on the cartridge, the need to clean an LP with a machine that costs more than 95% of the turntables ever produced, wow and flutter that is a given, as well as speed inaccuracy, and an entry level LP playback system of any real stature well into the kilo-bucks, which is the true failed medium? But yes, the un-comb-filtered, sans second harmonic distortion CD playback does sound sterile in comparison, particularly first and second generation players giving barely 14 bit resolution, the worst of both worlds. I love my CD playback, albeit as complex as it is, transport, dejitter devices and DAC. I like SACD too, it can be better, but on a cheap SACD player my red book system wins, ironically mostly in the bass. I am truly sorry if your ears do not allow you to enjoy CDs, but it seems that is not all that sounds poor to your ear, and to dismiss it on that basis alone is questionable at best. It is odd that SACD is fine to your ear, given it's identical response with CDs in the region you mention. BTW, there are detractors of SACD as a hi res medium in the scientific community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
coherent_guy said:
Hmm, let me get this straight, you dismiss the CD medium based on the peculiarities of the frequency response of your hearing? You mention taking an equalizer to a live concert... if live music bothers you, what is good, correct sound? If you can hear up to 24khz, I wonder what speakers you own, as most roll off above 10 to 15khz, or at best have extremely ragged response at those frequencies and above. Also, what are you using for CD playback? In (true) high end equipment, anything less than a $1k player is dreck. Not to mention the rest of the equipment. Now to me, between the RIAA EQ errors of every phono preamp, the intrinsic mistracing of the record groove except at two points on the LP disk, the need to adjust VTA for each record, S/N ratios at best at 50-60 db the built in noise and distortion of LPs, which wear and deteriorate with each play, as does the stylus on the cartridge, the need to clean an LP with a machine that costs more than 95% of the turntables ever produced, wow and flutter that is a given, as well as speed inaccuracy, and an entry level LP playback system of any real stature well into the kilo-bucks, which is the true failed medium? But yes, the un-comb-filtered, sans second harmonic distortion CD playback does sound sterile in comparison, particularly first and second generation players giving barely 14 bit resolution, the worst of both worlds. I love my CD playback, albeit as complex as it is, transport, dejitter devices and DAC. I like SACD too, it can be better, but on a cheap SACD player my red book system wins, ironically mostly in the bass. I am truly sorry if your ears do not allow you to enjoy CDs, but it seems that is not all that sounds poor to your ear, and to dismiss it on that basis alone is questionable at best. It is odd that SACD is fine to your ear, given it's identical response with CDs in the region you mention. BTW, there are detractors of SACD as a hi res medium in the scientific community.
Coherent,
Teresa doesn't listen to cds. They're against her religion. She doesn't listen to SACDs any more either.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir June 26, 2006 (120 of 163)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Coherent,
Teresa doesn't listen to cds. They're against her religion. She doesn't listen to SACDs any more either.
I absolutely, positively love this site! You guys are great!
|
|
