Post by canonical December 4, 2009 (61 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
[ long ramble ]
Tough crowd here...But curiously I don't see any replies explaining WHY SACD sounds better. Just that it does. OK.....
Oops. It was my understanding that you clearly understood why SACD should sound better ... your difficulty was just that you personally couldn't hear it (much like me with American/Canadian accents ... just can't pick the difference, much as I try).
But now you are asserting that ... you don't understand WHY the SACD format should sound better, and you want people here to explain it to you. ?? Maybe try the FAQ ~~~>
|
|
|
Post by sibelius2 December 4, 2009 (62 of 234)
|
|
The tone and direction of this thread remind me of a sign posted on the office door of my high school band director:
"The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves."
Urbo73: you are quickly learning that there are posters here who support SACD, and then there are posters here who are out to burn the heretics at the stake until they embrace the one true religion. I applaud you for engaging with the former, and I'm sorry you had to take so much flak and brimstone from the latter. Just try to remember that it's all just text on your computer screen (sticks and stones, etc.) and that you can't go too far wrong by simply ignoring a truly outrageous post.
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (63 of 234)
|
|
sibelius2 said:
The tone and direction of this thread remind me of a sign posted on the office door of my high school band director:
"The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves."
Urbo73: you are quickly learning that there are posters here who support SACD, and then there are posters here who are out to burn the heretics at the stake until they embrace the one true religion. I applaud you for engaging with the former, and I'm sorry you had to take so much flak and brimstone from the latter. Just try to remember that it's all just text on your computer screen (sticks and stones, etc.) and that you can't go too far wrong by simply ignoring a truly outrageous post.
I know - and thanks for that recommendation. SACD or CD, that is one fine piece of material!
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (64 of 234)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
This whole thing smelled like a trap from the beginning and it's just sad that so many took the bait. Some nice friendly guy shows up from nowhere, mentions Meyer/Moran in the first post, and then kindly asks for disc recommendations.
Well, surprise, but now it turns out that your newfound friend already had a few preconceived notions in mind, and was kind of just waiting for the right moment to slowly start laying them out in the open. It's just amazing how many fell for it.
An absolute waste of time...
Tarnation! I've been found out, by no less than Inspector Clouseau himself! But you better be careful with all that headphone listening. Some may say you can't hear the difference with headphones...
Seriously, this is the funniest reply yet. "guy shows up from nowhere" - classic!
|
|
|
Post by urbo73 December 4, 2009 (65 of 234)
|
|
canonical said:
[ long ramble ]
Long ramble = factual information that you can't reply to. So you pick on something else. It keeps on getting funny.
|
|
|
Post by zinkear  December 4, 2009 (66 of 234)
|
|
The anxciety grows when the true believers find the scientific factual (imagined and misunderstood actually) base they stand on slowly disapearing. It is quite amazing how clueless many if not most of the most vocal memebers here are about numbers and the tecnology behind audio and digital audio in particular. Sad evidence about the need for better science education for the consumer class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zinkear said:
It is quite amazing how clueless many if not most of the most vocal memebers here are about numbers and the tecnology behind audio and digital audio in particular. Sad evidence about the need for better science education for the consumer class.
zinkear,
there's really no need to insult Jared Sacks, Groot Geluid, prof Keith O. Johnson and many other sound engineers (and record labels recording and releasing music in high resolution) like that.
|
|
|
Post by sibelius2 December 4, 2009 (68 of 234)
|
|
urbo73 said:
I know - and thanks for that recommendation. SACD or CD, that is one fine piece of material!
I'm glad you enjoyed that Adderley quintet recording. I must admit I was a little surprised that you picked it - I wondered if maybe you had missed the part of my description where I called the piano sound distorted and the drums "distant." The image came into my mind of you strapping on your fancy headphones to listen to that distorted piano in all its glory, only to shake your fist at the heavens and curse my (fake) name.
I will say that you picked up on an important psychological factor surrounding SACD. At both ends of the chain (production and playback) the expectations are much higher, precisely because everyone knows that the potential for SACD is higher than for RBCD. In the case of this Cannonball recording, which involves an analog-to-digital remaster, Kirk Felton at Fantasy Studios knew he was expected to turn out an audiophile-quality product, and his employer gave him the time and equipment to do so. One can easily hear on '80s / early '90s 'AAD' releases that nothing close to this level of care was enacted.
At the playback end, you discovered that the level of care put into the DSD layer transferred over to the PCM layer. While you were unable to find signifigant audible differences between them, I would argue this: when listening to the DSD layer, you can be confident that the format is not getting in the way. I know that's not the same as making something better, but I'd say it counts for a lot.
So for me, at least, I enjoy the listening experience more when I know for a fact that I'm feeding my speakers with the highest-quality signal possible (that I can afford.) When I'm listening to the DSD layer of Cannonball in San Fransisco, I know that the piano sounds distorted because that's how the master tape turned out, and thus it cannot be attributed to my gear or the format; so I let it go, and just enjoy.
...although I also make a point of tracking down recordings where none of the instruments sound distorted!
|
|
|
Post by zeus December 4, 2009 (69 of 234)
|
|
I'd like to thank urbo73 for sharing his findings. He gave the format his best shot and was brave enough to relate his experiences here, openly. His findings aren't the same as mine, nor of most here, but it's a given with audio ... as with most things ... that there'll be a wide range of views. Nobody should be attacked for their views. Nor should one necessarily expect a consensus. If you feel threatened by the views of others, maybe it's insecurity.
Forums by their nature have an unfortunate tendency to veer towards the empirical. Saying that something sounded good (or not) to you has no real currency, but pointing to figures and graphs do. Whether these figures and graphs have any bearing on what you hear is debatable. I don't understand why it is that everybody here thinks they're an expert in audio science. It's clear that even some in the industry don't really have a grasp on all the variables (though they think they do). Frankly, it's pathetic and I really wish people would take this sort of "technical" discussion elsewhere, interesting to some though it may be. I've read enough over the years to know that there's no resolution to these discussions and all they do is waste bandwidth. If you have a genuine interest in the field, there are plenty of other avenues to explore this.
|
|
|
Post by Petrus December 4, 2009 (70 of 234)
|
|
Deleted by zeus.
|
|
