|
|
|
Johnno said:
It seems that the majority of young people have no interest in sound quality as such and are perfectly happy to download MP3 files at almost criminally low bit transfer rates, while magazines like "Gramophone" are encouraging downloading from what appears to be an increasing number of outlets, including companies like Linn, which is now offering downloads it claims are the equal of SACD in sound quality (one assumes stereo-only, however -- or are they encoded multichannel?).
This source of musical material is only going to expand as broadband services improve and more people buy computers. We are fighting this -- are we going to win?
What's even worse is the claim -- from both record companies and reviewers -- that compressed formats are equal in sound quality to RBCD. This seems to be based on the reasoning that "if it's digital, it must be perfect", regardless of the bit rate.
A good example of the error of this thinking is Dolby Digital (for films). It has a persistently coarse, flat, grainy quality that's easily audible (at home, if inot in a theater).
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrizzledGeezer said:
A good example of the error of this thinking is Dolby Digital (for films). It has a persistently coarse, flat, grainy quality that's easily audible (at home, if not in a theater).
Well is that why "in the theater" is always inferior to "at home" or do they just use lousy equipment? Sure its LOUDER, (but so what)! It is frustrating that all we grizzled geezers, most of whose hearing is way inferior to that of 15 to 20 yr olds, know this and the kids do not!
So how many kids have you invited to hear your sound system this month. If you are like me it's zip. That is something we need collectively, but acting as individuals, to do something about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The longer reverb time of an auditorium, combined with the inferior quality of most theater speakers, would tend to hide problems with the sound.
Knowing how to listen, and what to listen for, are largely learned skills that young people lack. One can have no response above 10kHz, yet be a better judge of reproduction than someone 30 or 40 years younger.
I have no desire to train the "young'uns".
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrizzledGeezer said:
I have no desire to train the "young'uns".
Neither do I really, but if someone doesn't what will happen to quality sound reproduction.
I wouldn't mind at all working with young people if I thought they would be receptive, its the distaste for rejection that inhibits me. What makes you so shy of it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Neither do I really, but if someone doesn't what will happen to quality sound reproduction.
I wouldn't mind at all working with young people if I thought they would be receptive, its the distaste for rejection that inhibits me. What makes you so shy of it?
There are better things to do with my time, such as doing work that needs to be done, or sitting and listening to music.
Besides, I don't know any young'uns that are into serious music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrizzledGeezer said:
I don't know any young'uns that are into serious music.
THAT is the major problem. If they liked classical music, it would probably be really easy to demo superior sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
threerandot said:
does anyone else here have any more ideas to promote SACD?
The best way to promote SACD is to put out quality product at a fair price.
|
|
|
Post by jdaniel November 1, 2010 (48 of 54)
|
|
audioholik said:
The best way to promote SACD is to put out quality product at a fair price.
Sadly I believe SACD has arrived a little too late, with hi-rez downloads looming; it's almost like inventing/promoting an extra-long, gilded buggy whip at the dawning of the automobile.
I've been pondering a high-end CD/SACD player--I currently listen via a $250 Sony which has a wonderful, (adequate for my ears) liquidity and warmth--but I'm sitting on the sidelines and will probably get a mid-fi DAC w/usb port in a couple of years. I'll certainly miss a physical library to covet and drool over, but my Lp's take up enough room already.
Not to mention that one can currently buy a couple of rental/Condo's in California for the cost of a dCS trio...
|
|
|
|
|
|
jdaniel said:
Sadly I believe SACD has arrived a little too late, with hi-rez downloads looming; it's almost like inventing/promoting an extra-long, gilded buggy whip at the dawning of the automobile.
jdaniel, don't believe the hype, Hi-rez downloads are a very small niche, and physical discs are still selling.
I'll take a stereo/multichannel Grimm SACD over a 24/96 download anyday!
|
|
|
Post by Tim-sacd November 1, 2010 (50 of 54)
|
|
I'm not using social network sites, but it could be a good, cheap and easy way to promote them.
The biggest problem is ... too convince people of superior soundquality, they need to have "hardware" (decent stereo-hifi...)
Only illegal hi-res/lossless downloads are doing well, I've heard that some major companies that wanted to start with "lossless downloads" already have been given up the idea, because of a lack of interest. As long as iTunes doesn't offer them, it will never work. Conclusion: they're waiting for iTunes. But I don't see Steve Jobs as a die hard audiophile.
At audiophile websites the hi-res downloads sell only a fraction of the LP, SACD and other audiophile carriers (gold, shm,...).
|
|
