In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
SNIP
SACD was envisioned as a replacement for the "flawed" and
less-than-audiophile-quality CD. It turned out that the for the vast
number of music buyers in the world, the CD was "good enough" and the
general market essentially ignored SACD and other high-definition audio
formats. The truth is that few consumers have equipment that will
resolve any difference between regular Red-Book CD and SACD or any other
so-called hi-res format for that matter. In fact, there are
knowledgeable people who post here all the time who regularly state and
restate that there is NO audible difference between these formats and
are quite willing to cite studies that purport to prove that assertion.
Again, so what? When I get a new SACD that is beautifully mastered and it
sounds amazing I really don't care about what people here state and restate.
I don't care what studies say. I care about superior sound and better
mastered SACDs are a great source for that.
Obvioiusly, you do care or you wouldn't be in this debate...
Seriously, though. I agree with you in spirit. In the audiophile
community, a niche market by any reckoning, SACDs are still being sold ,
and new ones are being introduced all the time but that doesn't make it
a successful consumer product by any stretch of the term. It's hold on
the audiophile market is tenuous at best and that kind of low market
penetration can evaporate overnight like a wisp of smoke.
I myself do all of my "mastering" to DSD. I'm convinced that the format
sounds better than CD and even 24-bit/96 KHz (or 192 KHz, or 384 KHz,
etc.) LPCM. My enthusiasm for the format (or yours, for that matter)
doesn't translate into marketing success. That's the only point here.
Sony launched SACD as a replacement format for CD and it didn't take
hold in the market. Eventually, even Sony all but abandoned it.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---