Post by fabiete May 22, 2009 (11 of 24)
|
|
There are people who don't care about sound quality or are simply unable to tell the difference and are more than happy to listen to CDs ............ and MP3 for that matter. I see that many of my friends fail to notice the huge difference in sound dynamics and the subtleties in frequency response when I ask them to compare the PCM and SACD layers of the same CD. To them, the majority, SACD is a non-issue, not a threat and they see us as rather pedantic people suffering from some kind of curious fixation. Fair enough, as long as we are able to buy SACDs (and SACDs keep being produced, which is to some extent a function of the latter).
Furtermore, I fully agree with Michelten.
To conclude, many thanks to all the record houses which keep producing high-quality SACDs, not least Channel Classics and Pentatone here in the Netherlands and Alia-Vox.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin May 22, 2009 (12 of 24)
|
|
DSD said:
I came here the very same day Stephen announced the site on the Hi-Rez Highway, and 2003 sounds about right.
If I was new to SACD and read your comments Teresa, I would never ever buy them. You are surely the biggest turnoff when it comes to promoting SACD's. Along with a few other DSD fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by emaidel May 22, 2009 (13 of 24)
|
|
Based on numerous posts at other audio websites, it would appear that many audiophiles/audio enthusiasts have chosen to purchase very costly outboard DAC's, and are firmly committed to the belief that nothing - anywhere, or ever - can surpass the sound they've now achieved after so much research, listening and selection. It would appear that they believe that since SACD's don't benefit from any outboard device, they just can't be any good. This goes hand in hand with the long standing credo of many audiophiles that the only decent piece of equipment is one that's been "modified," and since SACD players can't be modified via the use of an outboard DAC, or any other device, that they just can't be any good to begin with.
I own a large number of CD's, and some of them are truly outstanding, even surpassing the sound quality of some newly purchased SACD's. To the diehards, that would mean that SACD's, categorically, are inferior. Fortunately, I know better, as the better sounding SACD's that I own far and away wipe the floor with my older CD's, now matter how good those older discs sound.
I guess it boils down to a person's having spent a good deal of time researching equipment (specifically, DAC's), and then buying "the best there is," only to find out that something else (SACD's) out there is better, and just refusing to accept that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by jdaniel May 22, 2009 (14 of 24)
|
|
emaidel said:
Based on numerous posts at other audio websites, it would appear that many audiophiles/audio enthusiasts have chosen to purchase very costly outboard DAC's, and are firmly committed to the belief that nothing - anywhere, or ever - can surpass the sound they've now achieved after so much research, listening and selection. It would appear that they believe that since SACD's don't benefit from any outboard device, they just can't be any good. This goes hand in hand with the long standing credo of many audiophiles that the only decent piece of equipment is one that's been "modified," and since SACD players can't be modified via the use of an outboard DAC, or any other device, that they just can't be any good to begin with.
I own a large number of CD's, and some of them are truly outstanding, even surpassing the sound quality of some newly purchased SACD's. To the diehards, that would mean that SACD's, categorically, are inferior. Fortunately, I know better, as the better sounding SACD's that I own far and away wipe the floor with my older CD's, now matter how good those older discs sound.
I guess it boils down to a person's having spent a good deal of time researching equipment (specifically, DAC's), and then buying "the best there is," only to find out that something else (SACD's) out there is better, and just refusing to accept that possibility.
Emaidel, I think (much like "DSD" sometimes), you're missing the point. IMHO, one's enthusiasm should be ultimately linked to the performance over delivery method.
There are 20 years of recorded music on CD that will never be available on SACD, and some of it is indispensable. Some of the more "sensitive" ( I could care less, really), get a little annoyed to see their babies thrown out with the bathwater when SACD enthusiasts dismiss those 20 years outright because of blanket "unlistenability."
It would be like dismissing Furtwangler because he's only available on mono. Silly, really.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir May 22, 2009 (15 of 24)
|
|
jdaniel said:
Emaidel, I think (much like "DSD" sometimes), you're missing the point.
There are 20 years of recorded music on CD that will never be available on SACD, and some of it is indispensable. Some of the more "sensitive" ( I could care less, really), get a little annoyed to see their babies thrown out with the bathwater when SACD enthusiasts dismiss those 20 years outright because of blanket "unlistenability."
It would be like dismissing Furtwangler because he's only available on mono. Silly, really.
Make that at least 50 years! And thanks for a great post, John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teresa already dismisses Furtwangler because he is in mono. She doesn't listen to mono recordings at all. She also doesn't like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, or Tchaikovsky symphonies.
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 22, 2009 (17 of 24)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Teresa already dismisses Furtwangler because he is in mono. She doesn't listen to mono recordings at all. She also doesn't like Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, or Tchaikovsky symphonies.
I like Dvorak and Tchaikovsky, it is just I like their symphonic poems better than their Symphonies. Although Dvorak's New World is quite enjoyable.
But you are so right I don't like Mono and I don't care for most of the output of Beethoven and Brahms. I love the orchestral version of Brahms Hungarian Dances, the Violin Concerto is OK too, but not too crazy about the rest.
That is what is so nice about classical music, the field is so vast one can pick and choose what I likes.
|
|
|
Post by DSD May 22, 2009 (18 of 24)
|
|
Edvin said:
If I was new to SACD and read your comments Teresa, I would never ever buy them. You are surely the biggest turnoff when it comes to promoting SACD's. Along with a few other DSD fanatics.
Edvin that is really sad. (;-) I am shocked you would let any person, anywhere keep you from enjoying music.
I would never let anyone keep me from buying what I like or to keep me away from a superior format. You have reviewed SACDs, so I know you are not boycotting SACDs because of me.
So why I'm I a turn-off for you? If it is because I never liked CDs even the least little bit? If that is why, you do realize it is arrogant to insist other people listen to CD, especially when they have tried everything possible and find no joy in the format.
Is it because I prefer DSD recordings? Is it because I prefer 2 channel stereo? Is to because I have my own blog? I love SACD only because to me it is the most musical.
So what have I done to you that would make you turn away from great sound in spite?
|
|
|
Post by toddao May 22, 2009 (19 of 24)
|
|
It would be like dismissing Furtwangler because he's only available on mono. Silly, really.
Well shock horror, while I would not "dismiss "Furtwangler, when I want to listed to Beethoven's Ninth, it cetainly would not be his version but Vanska's in BIS surround sound. Mono is Mono and not good for much save for preserving similar historic recordings as those of Herr Furtwangler!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the thing is that you pretty much cannot be an SACD-only person if you are a dedicated fan of anything but classical music (I know someone will 'proove' me wrong...)
You certainly can't be, say, a film score fan since there's maybe a total of 20, including the Telarc rerecordings of Rozsa, Epics, and that nautical one (ok 20 might be a bit of an understaement, but it's small).
Certainly even with the rock and pop offerings that DO get released, it's minimal.
Jazz is better of course, but it's still pretty slim pickings.
(And not even to mention video game music, where there's exactly one release that I know of, and it's problematic for anyone who doesn't like to keep the same recording across discs)
Obviously classical has the advantage of the music itself being as important as who actually preforms it, so there's less of a disadvantage to one recording not being on SACD, as another can take up the slack. This simply isn't true elsewhere, where either the artist maters fully, or there's simply only one way to ever get the music and it'll likely never get released again.
Everyone has their tastes, so fans have to go with what the record companies provide, or go without. Companies are starting now more than ever to make stuff DL-only, and I've read many times that that's indeed "the future". It's bothersome, especially with the lossy compression (even if it's 'only' CD quality, at least lossless is lossless, with all that entails) being the only available source -- EVER -- for some music unless you're part of the record company and have access to the masters.
|
|
