Post by Karlosak June 23, 2010 (21 of 70)
|
|
AmonRa said:
If you look at any specks even 14/44 beats all analog formats by wide margin. 16/44 even better.
Wrong. Frequency response to name one.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr June 23, 2010 (22 of 70)
|
|
AmonRa said:
If you look at any specks even 14/44 beats all analog formats by wide margin. 16/44 even better.
Why do you post here?
You clearly think that sacd is a bogus scam and unworthy of a listen.
If you make your posts on AA hi rez you would be asked to leave and post in the proper forum.
While you may not like the colored glasses of most posters here, this is, afterall, an sacd forum and if everyone adopted your position there wouldn't be a forum for you to post on.
Being a constant thorn in the side only goes so far...........
And when you post, the subject matter generally becomes YOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trolls crave one thing - attention.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa June 23, 2010 (24 of 70)
|
|
Karlosak said:
Wrong. Frequency response to name one.
Good analog tape machine does extend the high frequency slightly past 22 kHz, that is true, but at the low frequency end digital is much better, and that you can feel (the hi-freq part you can not hear, and old mics did not reproduce it either).
Name another spec where old analog is better than basic 16/44.1 digital? Dynamic range, no. Impulse response, no. Wow and flutter, no. Speed errors, no. All sort of distortions, no. Frequency response flatness, no. Dynamic limiting, no.
When you (not Karlosak, but several others) run out of facts, personal attack mode is turned on. Tells a lot.
Besides, I am not attacking SACD, only questioning the wisdom of releasing tecnically inferior material that would easily fit on a RBCD on SACD for suckers to buy. How is this anti-SACD? I call it consumer education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
If you look at any specks even 14/44 beats all analog formats by wide margin. 16/44 even better.
Gee, so that's why all those people are buying more analog and the analog market has only increased the past few years. Talk about someone not knowing anything--you win the booby prize.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa June 23, 2010 (26 of 70)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Gee, so that's why all those people are buying more analog and the analog market has only increased the past few years. Talk about someone not knowing anything--you win the booby prize.
I would bet that the analog section of total audio recording sales and digital downloads has diminished and not gotten bigger, even if LP sales have risen slightly for nostalgic reasons. We have to count all audio sales and pirated downloads and calculate the analog sales against that figure.
If I do not mention that slightly more people have been buying LPs during the last years than before in a thread with headline "Why sell historic recordings in SACD" , that means that I do not know anything about the technical merits (or lack of them actually) of old analog tape machines compared to digital recording systems? Quite funny logic there... By your logic MP3 must be the best format, as its use has exploded during the same timeframe.
I think my observations about the stupidity of releasing old mono and stereo recording on SACD follows exactly the topic of this thread. Question asked, question answered with relevant tecnical arguments, without any personal insults from my part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
People don't buy into a medium only for nostalgic reasons. Try again.
As for your questions asked, questions answered stand, you haven't answered anything from a technical standpoint, only stated an opinion, like any other person here. You are no engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further, mono recordings are greatly improved with SACD. I have had the Furtwangler recordings in both RBCD and SACD and the SACD is head and shoulders better than their RBCD counterparts. Clarity and fidelity are improved through the transfer. In addition, I have had all the incarnations of the Reiner/Scheherazade recordings put on RBCD (including the XRCD from Japan) and again the SACD in all areas is better than the RBCD counterpart.
There is one thing you have succeeded in doing--bringing together ALL the people here to show you how stupid you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa June 23, 2010 (30 of 70)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
People don't buy into a medium only for nostalgic reasons. Try again.
As for your questions asked, questions answered stand, you haven't answered anything from a technical standpoint, only stated an opinion, like any other person here. You are no engineer.
OK, I found one Otari mastering analog machine which is still manufactured ($7875). Some other makes might have been slightly better, but not much.
http://www.otari.com/product/recorder/mx5050/spec.html
Some highlights at the highest tape speed 15 inc/sec:
- Frequency response: 30 Hz to 20 kHz +- 2 dB (truly awfull compared to RBCD: 5 to 22 kHz +- 0.05)
- Signal to noise: 70 dB (unwtd), 73 dB (wtd) (RBCD: 98 dB, Otari compares to a 12 bit digital system)
- Total harmonic distortion: 0.3% (15 ips (38.1 cm/s), 1 kHz, 250 nWb/m, AMPEX 456) (RBCD: 0.05%)
- Crosstalk: better than 55 dB (RBCD: none)
- Speed accuracy: better than 0.2% (RBCD: practically perfect)
- Wow & flutter: less than 0.06% (RBCD: none)
Engineer or no engineer, read the figures and stop wading in a sea of unrealistic nostalgia. A professional analog tape machine is clearly inferior compared to even a basic 16/44.1 digital recorder. If they were not, they would still be used and manufactured in great numbers. The only plus point is the slight frequency extencion past 20 kHz, but even that is of low quality.
Your call...
|
|
