Post by Alan September 24, 2007 (21 of 33)
|
|
Perigo said:
I have just read Stereophile's "As we see it" the editorial by John Atkinson.
I don't understand why that review is so against SACD, but I noted that periodically appears on those pages the anatema for SACD.
To which issue of Stereophile are you referring? Is it October 2007?
|
|
|
Post by Perigo September 24, 2007 (22 of 33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
toddao said:
It must be somewhat ironic given that the October issue has three, yes three, reviews of SA-CD players! I used to buy the magazine every month but now it is down to one or two issues a year.To those idiots who say that cd playback is now as good as SA-CD,it's good to see Michael Fremer say that he would rather listen to SA-CD on one of the review players than its cd counterpart on ANY cd player.
Did you notice that neither of the reviews was done in the context of multi-channel? The name of the rag may be Stereophile, nevertheless I think that was an unfortunate oversight. People who regularly enjoy orchestral concerts in real concert halls are usually amazed when they first hear a well recorded multi-channel sacd on a good system.
Part, I think, of the problem with the less than wonderful take-off of SACD was the failure of these magazine gurus to actually check out the medium. Of course from an idiot who professes to enjoy his stereo more than a live concert (Sam Tellig - in a Stereophile piece he wrote a few years ago) one can't expect too much can one?
|
|
|
Post by toddao September 27, 2007 (24 of 33)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
Did you notice that neither of the reviews was done in the context of multi-channel? The name of the rag may be Stereophile, nevertheless I think that was an unfortunate oversight. People who regularly enjoy orchestral concerts in real concert halls are usually amazed when they first hear a well recorded multi-channel sacd on a good system.
Part, I think, of the problem with the less than wonderful take-off of SACD was the failure of these magazine gurus to actually check out the medium. Of course from an idiot who professes to enjoy his stereo more than a live concert (Sam Tellig - in a Stereophile piece he wrote a few years ago) one can't expect too much can one?
Yes, I certainly did notice and hope muli-channel will be covered in the"Music in the Round" column.It's for that bimonthly round up that I still look at the magazine, usually at Boarders and only buy it occasionally.Likewise, now with The Absolute Sound.
|
|
|
Post by Sigfred September 28, 2007 (25 of 33)
|
|
toddao said:
Yes, I certainly did notice and hope muli-channel will be covered in the"Music in the Round" column.It's for that bimonthly round up that I still look at the magazine, usually at Boarders and only buy it occasionally.Likewise, now with The Absolute Sound.
The author of that column (Kal Rubinson) is quite active on www.avsforum.com and has very nice speakers in his surround setup that is music only. He is very positive to multi-channel playback, as his posts will show you.
In the 2008 January issue there will be a review by him of Oppo DV-980H in combination with one of the new Onkyo receivers that can decode DSD. That review will be interesting to read.
People tend to forget that at least one reviewer in Stereophile is very positive to multi-channel music.
|
|
|
Post by Tito November 20, 2007 (26 of 33)
|
|
threerandot said:
I think Stereophile, like many, are looking at SA-CD through tunnel vision. They are not thinking about the fact that there are many countries throughout the world where SA-CD does very well. Japan is the one that first comes to mind. Also, the sales of SA-CD are very international, I think.
If you live in an area where there are hardly any players for sale and hardly any discs in your local record shop, this is not an accurate reflection of the status that SA-CD has. I should know, I live in such an area, but the enthusiasm shown here at SA-CD.net shows that there are plenty of people in the world who have embraced the format.
I am myself quite bewildered at this attitude that SA-CD is dead. It is absoulely true that the masses have no interest in this format. However, it is true that those who are devoted to it, are really devoted to it.
If Stereophile wants to do a report on the state of SA-CD, then maybe they should check online sales of the discs and interview people like us here at SA-CD.net for a more accurate picture of those who actually care about the products and who appreciate what the format has to offer. Just because someone is not the fastest in the world at what they do, doesn't mean they don't do their job well.
I leave in México an I can buy this discs format
|
|
|
Post by eesau November 21, 2007 (27 of 33)
|
|
Hi,
In Stereophile's December 2007 issue, they interview Klaus Heyman (the founder of Naxos)and he claims the following about SACD/DVD-A/HD DVD/BluRay:
1. They make 40-60 new multichannel surround recordings per year but they will not release them because they see that neither SACD nor DVD-A are really good mediums for them!!!
Further, DVD-A is superior to SACD because of the larger data amount it can
carry!!! (comment: both are using basically DVD-technology and I don't think
this comment is therefore valid)
SACD was never meant to be a surround medium but "an upmarket stereo medium".
(comment: this is what Sony was planning originally because Japanese market
does not care about surround sound at all, I guess)
Those people who buy hybrid SACDs only listen to the CD layer.
(comment: ... well I practically never listen to the CD layer ... except when
I'm ripping the music to my portable player)
People don't pay a premium for the higher production cost of SACD and Naxos
suffers if they produce SACDs. (comment: I think I almost constantly pay a
small premium to BIS, Pentatone, etc. and I'm glad to buy directly from the
record company's www-site, if possible)
2. Naxos expects to release their surround catalog in HD DVD or BluRay after either will have good enough market penetration ... and at the same cost as for SACD or DVD-A (!!??).
(comment: It seems that DVD-A supporters expect this still)
best regards,
Esa
|
|
|
Post by zeus November 21, 2007 (28 of 33)
|
|
eesau said:
In Stereophile's December 2007 issue, they interview Klaus Heyman (the founder of Naxos)and he claims the following about SACD/DVD-A/HD DVD/BluRay:
People don't pay a premium for the higher production cost of SACD and Naxos
suffers if they produce SACDs.
Given that Naxos' SA-CDs sold here for about three times what it cost to buy the exact same CD version, I'd agree with this assertion :-).
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus November 21, 2007 (29 of 33)
|
|
zeus said:
Given that Naxos' SA-CDs sold here for about three times what it cost to buy the exact same CD version, I'd agree with this assertion :-).
I can buy Naxos SACDs at Fish Fine Records in Sydney for twice the price of the CD equivalent. This is a high ratio for the SACD equivalent of the CD release. I so far own three Naxos SACDs and one of these was not satisfactory from a recording standpoint, so Naxos SACDs are of variable quality.
|
|
|
Post by Sam November 21, 2007 (30 of 33)
|
|
I remember years ago Naxos talked about releasing DVD-As with much more than the usual playing time. But they didn't do it; all the DVD-As and SACDs were CD-length.
Selling music in bulk is more in tune with the Naxos philosophy than releasing in premium priced audiophile formats. Naxos isn't known for sound quality (I'm not saying it's terrible, just that it's not an area of emphasis for them).
|
|
