[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:18:56 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:58:39 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

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.

I agree with the idea that any improved SQ from the new releases had to come
from the mastering.

The fact that the new format contributed nothing tangible is underscored by
the fact that depending on who you listen to, from 1/3 to 1/3 of all SACD
and DVD-A releases were made from lower rez masters, many 44/16 or 48/16.

Nothing tangible? I think the multi channel enthusiasts may have something to
say about that...

This eventually became more-or-less common knowlege, but I can't recall
anybody blowing the whistle on the producers until it did become known.

So skeptics like I have the entertainment of watching and reading all sorts
of self-professed golden ears whooping and hollaring over the improved SQ of
the new format, when the music had been previously in one of the old,
purportedly inferior formats.

So you are entertained by watching and reading about other people enjoying
SACDs and I am entertained by actually listening to really well mastered SACDs.
I guess in a weird way that works out for both of us.....

Actually, he said that he is entertained and amused by people getting
duped by purchasing recordings that they thought were SACD but which
were really just warmed-over 16-bit masters. Apparently, this is Mr.
Kruger's way of showing his disdain for the idea that there might be
audible merit to any of the so-called hi-res audio formats. At least,
that's what I gleaned from it.

Mr. Kruger is an old hand at skepticism here. He seems to be skeptical
of the entire high-end of audio. I'm not going to say that he is
entirely wrong in his skepticism either. There is much charlatanism
and out-and-out price gouging and greed motivating much of this
industry. On the other hand, when one puts on the mask of the
perennial skeptic, one must be careful not to throw the babies out
with the bathwater. If one gets a reputation of too much skepticism
and trots that skepticism out at every possible opportunity, one runs
the risk of losing credibility. Especially in a forum like this one.