Post by zeus June 2, 2009 (31 of 61)
|
|
samboy said:
Enough of me. Do you have a reference to back up your claim that Steve Guttenberg is wrong about Sony Records no longer making SACD titles? Can you show proof that a SACD title has been released by Sony since Mr. Guttenberg made this claim. If you have a reliable source to back it up, I'll gladly include the information in the Wikipedia article.
I would also like to see references of recent SACD releases; a list of May 2009 SACD releases from reliable sources (press releases, etc) would help the Wikipedia article.
And, oh, please take a chill pill. Hi-resolution audio has won; every Blue Ray player has lossless high resolution audio support, and most Blue Ray players have Dolby TrueHD support. Indeed, there are already Blue Ray audio-only discs out there:
http://www.2l.no/epost/news2008may.html
This particular release also includes a hybrid SACD.
Thanks for the update. My only interest is in correctness, whatever your fave format is. Maybe it's you that needs to chill. I'm fully cognisant of Blu-ray releases. Maybe one day if/when the format has some traction in audio I may even buy a player.
As to continued SA-CD releases from Sony Music, one has only to check the Recent Additions here under the Sony Classical, DHM and RCA labels ... all nowadays part of Sony Music. If you want an external reference, here's one:
http://www.sonymasterworks.de/releases.php?category=VOE&page=1
|
|
|
Post by samboy June 2, 2009 (32 of 61)
|
|
Thanks for the update. My only interest is in correctness, whatever your fave format is. Maybe it's you that needs to chill. I'm fully cognisant of Blu-ray releases. Maybe one day if/when the format has some traction in audio I may even buy a player.
As to continued SA-CD releases from Sony Music, one has only to check the Recent Additions here under the Sony Classical, DHM and RCA labels ... all nowadays part of Sony Music. If you want an external reference, here's one:
http://www.sonymasterworks.de/releases.php?category=VOE&page=1
Thanks for the references; I have added it to the SACD Wikipedia article. I have also added a note on the talk page that SACD isn't entirely dead (Amazon.com is showing a few 2009 SACD releases).
As for Blue Ray, I feel it will probably take two or three years for it to start getting traction. The big advantage is that a hi-rez Blue Ray disc can play on any Blue Ray player.
- Sam
|
|
|
Post by zeus June 2, 2009 (33 of 61)
|
|
samboy said:
I would also like to see references of recent SACD releases; a list of May 2009 SACD releases from reliable sources (press releases, etc) would help the Wikipedia article.
I don't track new titles by release dates (which are different for different geographical regions) but do by the date they're added here. The following may help answer your question for the month in question:
/showadditions.php?year=2009&month=May
|
|
|
Post by azure June 3, 2009 (34 of 61)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by azure June 3, 2009 (35 of 61)
|
|
Name: Sam Trenholme
Details:Wikipedia editor
Location: Puebla, Puebla Mexico
HiFi: My main music player is a Nokia 53120 xPress music phone; I think 128k mp3s don't sound that good but the audio quality is acceptable around 160 kbps, and good around 200kbps.
Email:
Are you sure that this guy is not a troll?
|
|
|
Post by azure June 3, 2009 (36 of 61)
|
|
Wiki:
Sound quality of SACD vs CD
In the audiophile community, sound from SACD is generally considered substantially higher in quality compared to older format Red Book CD recordings. However, in controlled listening tests over stereo reproduction subjects have not been able to tell SACD recordings from their CD-quality converted version.[25]
[25]:
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran 775
Conventional wisdom asserts that the wider bandwidth and dynamic range of SACD and DVD-A make them of audibly higher quality than the CD format. A carefully controlled double-blind test with many experienced listeners showed no ability to hear any differences between formats. High-resolution audio discs were still judged to be of superior quality because sound engineers have more freedom to make them that way. There is no evidence that perceived quality has anything to do with additional resolution or bandwidth.
http://www.aes.org/journal/toc/AES-Sep2007TOC.cfm
|
|
|
Post by azure June 3, 2009 (37 of 61)
|
|
samboy said:
I personally feel that the future of high-resolution audio is Blue-ray, which supports two different ways (TrueHD and DTS-HD) of having lossless multi-channel 24/96 or 24/192 PCM (TrueHD wins out, since DTS-HD only allows stereo 24/192, but TrueHD allows 6-channel 24/192).
My favorite lossless format is actually FLAC which (in theory) supports lossless 24-bit 8-channel with up to a 655350Hz sampling rate, has a free reference implementation, and doesn't require any licensing or royalties to use.
I'd rather pay the royalties for DSD :-P
"The beauty of a 1-bit delta-sigma-modulated data stream is that it contains the analog signal within itself. Although the delta-sigma stream is digital, in that it toggles between two fixed levels ("1" and "0") rather than trying to describe a continuum of intermedeiate values, Fourier analysis of the data stream reveals the original analog signal embedded in the original band of frequencies, where it began. All that is needed to restore it is an analog low-pass filter to dump the digital trash!"
— Edward Foster, "Super Audio CD: Evolutionary or Revolutionary?," Audio, November 1999, Vol. 83, No. 10, pp. 40-47.
|
|
|
Post by samboy June 3, 2009 (38 of 61)
|
|
Are you sure that this guy is not a troll?
Like I warned you a few postings up (which you probably didn't bother to read), keep this kind of crap out of the Wikipedia or you will get kicked out of it. Actually, I have a feeling you're the "Wozwoz" editor who we had to kick off after repeated disruptive editing.
And, oh, unlike you I have the integrity to register with my full name; why don't you have any information about who you are in your profile here? Why do you have the need to stay anonymous?
So far, the only useful data you've given is evidence of a small, but thriving community of SACDs still being sold in Japan. Do you, per chance, have evidence of a double blind study where people can even hear the difference between 16/44.1 and DSD?
I don't want to hear more personal insults; double blind studies showing DSD sounding better would be far more helpful. I have a feeling you can't point to any such study, which is why you have to result to insults.
You're behavior isn't impressing me here and this kind of behavior on the Wikipedia sure as hell won't impress people there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
samboy said:
I would also like to see references of recent SACD releases; a list of May 2009 SACD releases from reliable sources (press releases, etc) would help the Wikipedia article.
And, oh, please take a chill pill. Hi-resolution audio has won; every Blue Ray player has lossless high resolution audio support, and most Blue Ray players have Dolby TrueHD support. Indeed, there are already Blue Ray audio-only discs out there:
http://www.2l.no/epost/news2008may.html
This particular release also includes a hybrid SACD.
- Sam
we have 2 titles in blu-ray audio, hi-resolution has won indeed - please take a chill pill yourself and stop trolling in sacd wikipedia article.
PS Could you post a complete list of blu-ray audio titles released by Sony in may?
|
|
|
|
|
|
samboy said:
The big advantage is that a hi-rez Blue Ray disc can play on any Blue Ray player.
a much bigger advantage of Hybrid SACD disc is that it can be played on any CD or SACD player and you don't have to buy a home theatre player.
|
|
