Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.


Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...news&tag=title

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
wrote:

One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.


Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...about-high-res
olution-audio-again/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


One thing that they don't say is whether these new Sony
"High-Resolution" Players will handle the DSD format or not. These look
like "me too" products to me.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
David E. Bath David E. Bath is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Audio_Empire writes:
In article ,
wrote:

One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.


Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...about-high-res
olution-audio-again/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


One thing that they don't say is whether these new Sony
"High-Resolution" Players will handle the DSD format or not. These look
like "me too" products to me.


According to the Sony press release link in the article:

"The flagship model, part of Sony?s ES (Elevated Standard) line,
HAP-Z1ES Hi-Res HDD Music Player features a one-terabyte hard disc
drive and DSD Re-mastering engine to convert and enhance virtually any
music files to DSD (5.6M) quality. As with all of Sony's ES products,
build-quality and sound performance technics have been instituted
including, Analog FIR filter, low-phase noise liquid crystal
oscillator, large capacity twin transformers and many more."

It goes on to say all the other new models can play DSD too.

http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-intr...e-and-quality/

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Friday, September 6, 2013 4:15:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.

Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...s-about-high-r
esolution-audio-again/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title



I think it's simply that the latest generation of DACs all support
hi-rez formats. Makes little sense not support them.
The on board storage is a bit more interesting and even better is the
control from my android tablet where I can select whatever I want with
a slide of my finger

If Sony wanted to knock it out of the park...they should offer a few
pre-loaded drive options. AE could get the classics...I would opt for
mix of blues and alternative. Doesn't Sony still have quite a
catalog?

ScottW


They should. They purchased Columbia Records' complete Archive of pop,
jazz and classical (Columbia Masterworks) and then continued to record
for the Sony Label, after that. They have the entire Columbia
discography of such musical luminaries as Miles Davis, Bruno Walter,
Leonard Bernstein, Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra, Georg
Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfinkle, The
Rock Band Chicago, pianist Glenn Gould, and guitarist John Williams , to
name a few.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Some have wondered about sony including some recordings on their new
products. This week's stereophile in their bit about the products says
that 20 recordings will be included.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

wrote:
One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.

Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...news&tag=title

It's a Sony. I suspect it's so crippled by Digital Restrictions
Management as to be unusable.

Andrew.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

wrote:
One might ask why high rez matters beyond a marketing plan. This when cd
blue book is not demonstrated to be distinguishable from it.

Sony has a new line of digital hardware that stores and plays most high rez
formats.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-57...s-about-high-r
esolution-audio-again/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title


It's a Sony. I suspect it's so crippled by Digital Restrictions
Management as to be unusable.

Andrew.


I wouldn't doubt that. Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to
screw the pooch somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing
the ideas (SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the
real marketing demands (BetaMax).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Audio_Empire wrote:

Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch
somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas
(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real
marketing demands (BetaMax).


I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It was
introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important feature
was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to many
others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable medium.
High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.

This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an unfortunate
coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto the cloud and
digital players, any format tied to a physical medium is a relic, no
matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony players don't allow the
user the freedom to listen to their music where and how they want
those players will fail, and deservedly so.

Andrew.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Audio_Empire wrote:

Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch
somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas
(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real
marketing demands (BetaMax).


I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It was
introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important feature
was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to many
others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable medium.
High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.

This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an unfortunate
coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto the cloud and
digital players, any format tied to a physical medium is a relic, no
matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony players don't allow the
user the freedom to listen to their music where and how they want
those players will fail, and deservedly so.

Andrew.


I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with SACD's
failure. People interested in SACD wouldn't be interested in MP3 at all.
Besides, very soon after Sony introduced the format, other record
companies were producing hybrid disks that would play as regular CDs
when played on a standard CD player and would play as a SACD on an SACD
player. When the CD layer was played, that could be ripped. The first
generation of Sony SACDs were SACD ONLY, and that was Sony's marketing
error, and was typical of Sony's arrogant marketing. They lost the
Betamax Vs. the VHS "war" for exactly the same kind of arrogant
marketing.

Sony demonstrated Beta to RCA who wanted to license Beta as their home
recording format. When RCA told Sony that they liked the format EXCEPT
that they needed for Sony to modify Beta so that it could record 120
minutes (the original BetaMax format was 90 minutes of record time
maximum). Sony responded by telling RCA that what they demonstrated was
THE WAY BetaMax was and they had no intention of changing it. RCA then
said thanks but no thanks and chose VHS over Beta because it could
record 120 minutes. Eventually, Sony came out with Beta 2 which was half
the speed and would give 180 minutes on a standard tape, but by then, it
was too late. Likewise, Sony never made hybrid SACD/CD discs initially
and by the time they decided to allow it, the audio world had decided
SACD was too limiting. It''s the same arrogant marketing stance and it
seems that they never learned that Sony NEEDS to follow the market, not
try to force the market into following Sony.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Audio_Empire wrote:

Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch
somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas
(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real
marketing demands (BetaMax).


I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It
was introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important
feature was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to
many others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable
medium. High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.

This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an
unfortunate coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto
the cloud and digital players, any format tied to a physical medium
is a relic, no matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony
players don't allow the user the freedom to listen to their music
where and how they want those players will fail, and deservedly so.


I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with
SACD's failure. People interested in SACD wouldn't be interested in
MP3 at all.


I think you're denying my existence.

Besides, very soon after Sony introduced the format, other record
companies were producing hybrid disks that would play as regular CDs
when played on a standard CD player and would play as a SACD on an SACD
player. When the CD layer was played, that could be ripped. The first
generation of Sony SACDs were SACD ONLY, and that was Sony's marketing
error, and was typical of Sony's arrogant marketing.


Indeed. Mind you, dual-layer hybrid SACDs weren't all that easy to
make at the time, and it wasn't clear how well legacy CD players would
cope with them. Producing SACD-only discs was the safest thing to do
from an engineering point of view.

And I still think a major motivation for the SACD was to be
unrippable. If you look at the engineering effort that went into the
copy-prevention features of SACD, there's a lot to support that view.

Andrew.

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Audio_Empire wrote:

Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch
somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas
(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real
marketing demands (BetaMax).

I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It
was introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important
feature was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to
many others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable
medium. High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.

This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an
unfortunate coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto
the cloud and digital players, any format tied to a physical medium
is a relic, no matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony
players don't allow the user the freedom to listen to their music
where and how they want those players will fail, and deservedly so.


I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with
SACD's failure. People interested in SACD wouldn't be interested in
MP3 at all.


I think you're denying my existence.

Besides, very soon after Sony introduced the format, other record
companies were producing hybrid disks that would play as regular CDs
when played on a standard CD player and would play as a SACD on an SACD
player. When the CD layer was played, that could be ripped. The first
generation of Sony SACDs were SACD ONLY, and that was Sony's marketing
error, and was typical of Sony's arrogant marketing.


Indeed. Mind you, dual-layer hybrid SACDs weren't all that easy to
make at the time, and it wasn't clear how well legacy CD players would
cope with them. Producing SACD-only discs was the safest thing to do
from an engineering point of view.

And I still think a major motivation for the SACD was to be
unrippable. If you look at the engineering effort that went into the
copy-prevention features of SACD, there's a lot to support that view.

Andrew.


Maybe, but since ripping CDs for one's own use on one's own portable
players is considered "fair use" under US as well as the laws of many
other countries, I don't think ripping to MP3 is what Sony had in mind
when they designed such a powerful anti-copy system into SACD. I believe
that they were thinking more along the lines of disc "cloning" than of
making markedly inferior MP3 copies for iPods, etc.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:44:56 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,

Andrew Haley wrote:



Audio_Empire wrote:




Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch


somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas


(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real


marketing demands (BetaMax).




I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It was


introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important feature


was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to many


others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable medium.


High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.




This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an unfortunate


coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto the cloud and


digital players, any format tied to a physical medium is a relic, no


matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony players don't allow the


user the freedom to listen to their music where and how they want


those players will fail, and deservedly so.




Andrew.




I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with SACD's

failure.


Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are really well mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl. IOW they are the rarest of beasts, physical media that is on the rise.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Scott wrote:

On Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:44:56 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,

Andrew Haley wrote:



Audio_Empire wrote:




Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch


somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas


(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real


marketing demands (BetaMax).




I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It was


introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important feature


was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to many


others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable medium.


High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.




This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an unfortunate


coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto the cloud and


digital players, any format tied to a physical medium is a relic, no


matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony players don't allow the


user the freedom to listen to their music where and how they want


those players will fail, and deservedly so.




Andrew.




I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with SACD's

failure.


Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of new SACDs
coming out each week and many of them are really well mastered. SACDs are
about as dead as vinyl. IOW they are the rarest of beasts, physical media
that is on the rise.


Yes, of course SACD is alive and well in the "audiophile market", but,
then so is vinyl. saying that a product is successful in the audiophile
market is sort of a left-handed complement. CD sold millions of players
and billions of CDs, SACD has sold, probably, THOUSANDS of players and
perhaps hundreds of thousands of discs. Were it not for the audiophile
market (and the dual-layer, hybrid SACD disc) the format would be as
dead as a doornail, and nobody would be doing it any more.

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.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Scott wrote:

Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of
new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are really well
mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl.


Well, yes. So what are their sales, then? I can't find out. However,
there seem only to be threee pressing plants capable of making them,
so there can't be many.

The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.

Andrew.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

"Scott" wrote in message
...

Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market.


Yes, but that is a tiny niche compared to the original intentions.

Lot's of new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are really well
mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl.


Good metaphor.

IOW they are the rarest of beasts, physical media that is on the rise.


When you are basically nowhere, its easy to show gains. In this case the
amount of data that is required for even just one song mitigates strongly
against downloads.

Let's face it. High Resolution audio has turned out to be a techno-jargon
saled pitch for remastering, or an oxymoron, depending.


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Scott wrote:

Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of
new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are really well
mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl.


Well, yes. So what are their sales, then? I can't find out. However,
there seem only to be threee pressing plants capable of making them,
so there can't be many.

The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.

Andrew.


Well, while it's probably not the LAST thing we need (that would be
another manufacturer of $4000+ one-meter interconnect cables ), it is a
niche audiophile market, just like vinyl.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:58:19 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...

Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market.


Yes, but that is a tiny niche compared to the original intentions.


So what? This is an audiophile forum is it not? The interest here is
excellent sound no? Why is that an issue? Niche markets are often the
best source for excellent products. What do you want, carefully
crafted niche products or mass produced garbage? I'll take carefully
crafted niche products thank= you

Lot's of new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are
really well mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl.


Good metaphor.


Indeed. they are now the #1 and #2 sources for excellent sounding
source material.

IOW they are the rarest of beasts, physical media that is on the rise.


When you are basically nowhere, its easy to show gains.


Vinyl is pretty far from nowhere. The bottom line is that both formats
are where one finds the majority of the best sounding new releases and
the best mastered reissues. As audiophiles does anything else really
matter?


  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:58:03 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:
=20
=20

=20
Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of

=20
new SACDs coming out each week and many of them are really well

=20
mastered. SACDs are about as dead as vinyl.

=20
=20
=20
Well, yes. So what are their sales, then? I can't find out. However,
=20
there seem only to be threee pressing plants capable of making them,
=20
so there can't be many.


I don't know what their sales are but I do know it is good enough for audio=
phile labels to release many new titles on a regular basis. I can barely ke=
ep up. No, I can't keep up. I would have to say more than enough to sustai=
n a healthy niche market. From a very personal selfish perspective that is =
plenty.

=20
=20
=20
The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.
=20
=20


Why? Ss an audiophile that makes me very happy. What is the downside?=20

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

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

Scott wrote:



On Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:44:56 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:


In article ,




Andrew Haley wrote:








Audio_Empire wrote:








Sony has great ideas, but they always manage to screw the pooch




somehow. They either don't follow through with marketing the ideas




(SACD) or they stubbornly refuse to fit the product to the real




marketing demands (BetaMax).








I don't think SACD was so much badly marketed as badly timed. It was




introduced at the same time as MP3 players, and an important feature




was that SACDs couldn't be ripped. It looked to me (and to many




others) like that was the real purpose of SACD: an unrippable medium.




High-res was just a teaser to get people to buy them.








This belief was perhaps wrong, and the timing was just an unfortunate




coincidence. But with people's listening moving onto the cloud and




digital players, any format tied to a physical medium is a relic, no




matter how good it can sound. If the new Sony players don't allow the




user the freedom to listen to their music where and how they want




those players will fail, and deservedly so.








Andrew.








I don't think that being not "ripp-able" had anything to do with SACD's




failure.




Failure? SACD is alive and well in the audiophile market. Lot's of new SACDs


coming out each week and many of them are really well mastered. SACDs are


about as dead as vinyl. IOW they are the rarest of beasts, physical media


that is on the rise.




Yes, of course SACD is alive and well in the "audiophile market", but,

then so is vinyl. saying that a product is successful in the audiophile

market is sort of a left-handed complement.


No, it's simply stating a fact. Again, this is an audiophile forum. I was assuming we are all audiophiles who care about sound quality here. I would think the "audiophile market" would be the one we actually collectively care about.

CD sold millions of players

and billions of CDs, SACD has sold, probably, THOUSANDS of players and

perhaps hundreds of thousands of discs.


And McDonalds has sold billions of burgers. So what?

Were it not for the audiophile

market (and the dual-layer, hybrid SACD disc) the format would be as

dead as a doornail, and nobody would be doing it any more.


yeah! Thank goodness for...us....I guess. Not sure at this point. Am I the only one here buying SACDs?



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.



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

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: ---
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.


Well, while it's probably not the LAST thing we need (that would be
another manufacturer of $4000+ one-meter interconnect cables ), it is a
niche audiophile market, just like vinyl.


I don't think that vinyl is an audiophile-only product: it's the
trendy kids who like retro-everything who are buying it. The trouble
for SACD is that it doesn't have that market.

Andrew.

  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:09:54 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:


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.


Kind of obfuscates around the question...are they superior due to mastering
or are they superior due to the media?



Excellent question. The answer is, in my opinion, that the production
(which includes mastering) if far more important than the format
(media)! I have (and have made) CD-quality recordings that sound far
better than many SACD or other so-called high-resolution recordings. A
poorly recorded or mastered performance, irrespective of it's hi-res
pretensions is simply not going to sound very good. An analogy would be
a high-definition video of an out-of-focus image. The 1080p does it no
good, and in fact, an in-focus standard NTSC video image would be much
better than an out-of-focus HD image!

I'm convinced it's the mastering. I've got CD remasters that are better than
original release, and some DVD-A releases that I can't tell from the original
CD. I've also got some CD original releases that sound as good as anything.


Which just serves to underline my comments.

That leaves me less than interested in rushing out to buy a new player just
to support another format which is ultimately why I think SACD didn't really
take off.


Well, that's part of it, perhaps. Mostly it was that the music-buying
public saw no value in the new format. The players were more expensive,
and so were the discs. The average music buyer, including many with
decent playback equipment, heard no real difference between the SACD and
the regular CD release of a title. The idea of paying up to $10 more for
an SACD title that, in many cases, could only be played on one's new,
expensive, SACD player (and not on any other player that the buyer might
own, including his car player) just wasn't that appealing.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.


Well, while it's probably not the LAST thing we need (that would be
another manufacturer of $4000+ one-meter interconnect cables ), it is a
niche audiophile market, just like vinyl.


I don't think that vinyl is an audiophile-only product: it's the
trendy kids who like retro-everything who are buying it. The trouble
for SACD is that it doesn't have that market.

Andrew.


Well, let's just say that vinyl is ALSO an audiophile product. Mikey
Fremer has a lot of fellow travelers.

I still enjoy vinyl. I have a huge collection (that I didn't dump when
the CD came out) and I enjoy listening to them. I also enjoy trying new
record decks, arms, cartridges and phono preamps as they come out. In
spite of some posters' protestations to the contrary, modern phono
equipment does elicit more information from those record grooves than
was possible during vinyl's heyday. The best designed new tables have a
lower noise floor and less wow and flutter than did their predecessors.
Modern arms have lower resonances, less bearing friction, and track
better than did earlier designs and modern cartridges can have better
and flatter frequency response, track better with lower distortion and
generally cause less record wear than did cartridges in the 1980's.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:24:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:

In article ,


Andrew Haley wrote:




The last thing we need is a niche audiophile-only format.




Well, while it's probably not the LAST thing we need (that would be


another manufacturer of $4000+ one-meter interconnect cables ), it is a


niche audiophile market, just like vinyl.




I don't think that vinyl is an audiophile-only product: it's the

trendy kids who like retro-everything who are buying it. The trouble

for SACD is that it doesn't have that market.



True but it is multi-channel and supports fans of multi-channel remixes of old stereo recordings that were done in multi track. Not my cup of tea but it is a meaningful market



  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Friday, September 20, 2013 3:59:22 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
=20
Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

=20
In article ,

=20
=20
=20
SNIP
=20
=20

=20
SACD was envisioned as a replacement for the "flawed" and=20

=20
=20

=20
less-than-audiophile-quality CD. It turned out that the for the vast=

=20
=20
=20

=20
number of music buyers in the world, the CD was "good enough" and the=

=20
=20
=20

=20
general market essentially ignored SACD and other high-definition aud=

io=20
=20
=20

=20
formats. The truth is that few consumers have equipment that will=20

=20
=20

=20
resolve any difference between regular Red-Book CD and SACD or any ot=

her=20
=20
=20

=20
so-called hi-res format for that matter. In fact, there are=20

=20
=20

=20
knowledgeable people who post here all the time who regularly state a=

nd=20
=20
=20

=20
restate that there is NO audible difference between these formats and=

=20
=20
=20

=20
are quite willing to cite studies that purport to prove that assertio=

n.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger[_5_] Arny Krueger[_5_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

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.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:24:54 PM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:09:54 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20

=20
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 res=
tate. I don't care what studies say. I care about superior sound and bette=
r mastered SACDs are a great source for that.
=20
=20
=20
Kind of obfuscates around the question...are they superior due to masteri=

ng or are they superior due to the media?

The question is mute and I have lost all interest in it. I have heard great=
sound from LPs. I have heard great sound from CDs and I have heard great s=
ound from SACDs. It is quite clear that regardless of whether or not any of=
these media are or are not transparent they are all capable of superb soun=
d and the mastering is usually the most obvious variable (I would say with =
the exception of euphonic colorations from vinyl). But the bigger point is =
sometimes the better mastering is on vinyl, sometimes it's on SACD and some=
times it's on CD. Yeah, CD! If someone hasn't experienced great sound from =
all three media I would say that they are out of the loop and painfully ill=
informed by their experience. The relevant question isn't whether or not S=
ACD is more transparent than CD as a medium. The relevant question is which=
titles sound better on which masterings. And since one can find the best v=
ersions on all three media at this point depending on the title the the que=
stion of which media is technically superior lacks real world relevance. So=
I am not obfuscating the question. I am pointing out that unlike SACD the =
question itself is dead.=20
=20
=20
=20
I'm convinced it's the mastering. I've got CD remasters that are better =

than original release, and some DVD-A releases that I can't tell from the o=
riginal CD.
=20
I've also got some CD original releases that sound as good as anything.
=20
=20
=20
That leaves me less than interested in rushing out to buy a new player ju=

st to support another format which is ultimately why I think SACD didn't re=
ally take off.

But it is taking off and there are some really well mastered SACDs that you=
are missing if you choose to bypass SACD.


=20
=20
=20
At some point I'll get a new player that will support it....and also 4k v=

ideo


That is an excellent call!

  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

ScottW wrote:

That leaves me less than interested in rushing out to buy a new
player just to support another format which is ultimately why I
think SACD didn't really take off.

At some point I'll get a new player that will support it....and also
4k video


Probably. And hopefully it will be one of the super Oppo players,
which will play just about any silver disc.

Andrew.

  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Saturday, September 21, 2013 9:58:39 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...

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.




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.....



  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Andrew Haley Andrew Haley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

Scott wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:24:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that vinyl is an audiophile-only product: it's the
trendy kids who like retro-everything who are buying it. The trouble
for SACD is that it doesn't have that market.


True but it is multi-channel and supports fans of multi-channel
remixes of old stereo recordings that were done in multi track. Not
my cup of tea but it is a meaningful market


Hmm, I'm not sure about that any mo recent hi-res multichannel
releases I've bought have been Blu-Ray or DVD.

Andrew.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire Audio_Empire is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
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.


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.

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.


I have hundreds of SACDs. Many are SACD copies of old analog recordings
from the Columbia Records catalog. Things like Miles Davis' "Sketches of
Spain" and "Kind of Blue", Bernstein conducting "Rhapsody in Blue" and
"An American in Paris" by Gershwin, Szell conducting Wagner, etc. All of
these were analog master tapes and transferring them to SACD is legit.
Not that I notice any real difference between these SACD remasters and
the regular CD remasters of these same recordings, but there it is.
OTOH, I have a number of SACDs from Telarc and I can assure you that
they were all recorded direct to DSD as were the newer Sony stuff. A lot
of SACDs MAY have been remastered from 16-bit originals, but I suspect
that was mostly then current pop stuff.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Saturday, September 21, 2013 3:41:41 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2013 4:24:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:




I don't think that vinyl is an audiophile-only product: it's the


trendy kids who like retro-everything who are buying it. The trouble


for SACD is that it doesn't have that market.




True but it is multi-channel and supports fans of multi-channel


remixes of old stereo recordings that were done in multi track. Not


my cup of tea but it is a meaningful market




Hmm, I'm not sure about that any mo recent hi-res multichannel

releases I've bought have been Blu-Ray or DVD.



Andrew.


Here is the listings at Acoustic Sounds
http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/4/SACD
1,632 titles on SACD
http://store.acousticsounds.com/inde...&categoryID=10
794 titles of multi channel SACDs
http://store.acousticsounds.com/c/6/DVD
120 DVD and BluRay titles combined 50 of which are just plain DVDs as in movies.

Looks to me like in the audiophile world the SACDs are the format that is thriving.

  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Saturday, September 21, 2013 3:46:39 PM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2013 8:05:20 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:

In article ,




I still enjoy vinyl. I have a huge collection (that I didn't dump when
the CD came out) and I enjoy listening to them. I also enjoy trying new
record decks, arms, cartridges and phono preamps as they come out. In
spite of some posters' protestations to the contrary, modern phono
equipment does elicit more information from those record grooves than
was possible during vinyl's heyday. The best designed new tables have a
lower noise floor and less wow and flutter than did their predecessors.
Modern arms have lower resonances, less bearing friction, and track
better than did earlier designs and modern cartridges can have better
and flatter frequency response, track better with lower distortion and
generally cause less record wear than did cartridges in the 1980's.


I'll agree on some carts measured performance improvement...though it
is still modest and questionably audible. My old Signet cart tracked
every bit as well as my new AT OC9 and the best tracking cart ever
tested is no longer in production.


The improvement here is that the level of tracking once only available in
a Shure V15, is now commonplace. While many MC cartridges are still
too hot on the top end, strides in materials technologies and manufacturing
processes have made many MM and VR cartridges finally equal to MCs in
their ability to retrieve information from the records and even have most of
the MC's other attributes (such as speed) without being +10dB at 17 KHz.

I think carts are like mics. Different makes/models don't sound alike
but the specs rarely offer clear insight as to why and as such the
positive or negative of said differences remains subjective. What you
might like in a cart someone else may not.


That should be obvious. But, there are other things that make choosing
cartridges problematical as well. For instance, due to the combinations
of mass and compliance, not all cartridges will work optimally in all
arms, yet, not even lip service to this problem is given by the industry.
Since the required information to make the required calculations to
find the resonance of a particular arm/cartridge combination is often
not forthcoming from either manufacturer, the only way to find out
whether your arm can accommodate the cartridge in which you are
interested is to try it. With today's cartridge prices, that can be an
expensive proposition.

I also find your table comments really questionable. For example...if
wow and flutter and noise floor are below audible levels...what will
measured improvement bring to the listeners ear? I don't think modern
players improvement in these areas offer any real audible improvement.
I do think labels like classic records and analogue productions have
improved the noise floor of the media but it remains by far the
limiting factor in vinyl playback, on either the latest or good
quality vintage players.


OBVIOUSLY, if an older table had noise, wow and flutter and resonance
specs that were already below audibility, then any improvement in
their modern counterparts due to improved materials and manufacturing
methodology is going to be academic at best. But in the case of low-end
turntables, these new methods and materials yield 'tables that
today, perform far above the levels available for that price range of record
decks back in the day. Yesterday's state-of-the-art is still excellent, but the
delta between yesterday's price-is-no-object designs and todays more
affordable offerings is getting smaller. These are the improvements that
I am referring to when I talk about new materials and new methodologies.


ScottW

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Audio_Empire[_2_] Audio_Empire[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 235
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

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.


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 6:50:24 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
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.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off Audio Empire High End Audio 11 July 28th 11 02:59 PM
The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 40 November 7th 07 08:09 PM
High resolution Recording available on line? RalphH High End Audio 168 August 26th 07 03:57 PM
Nesa one high resolution audio ologram kaen High End Audio 0 September 23rd 05 01:56 PM
Q: Very High Resolution Microphones Jonathan Dewdney Pro Audio 9 March 15th 04 05:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"