On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So Paul, who would this be that things that everything
pretty much sounds the same

That would be Arnie Krooger.

and why is that comment relevant
here?

Because I'm replying to a post by Arnie Krooger.


But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the better
part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and another stack
of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

Eh? You'll have to explain that. The whole point of any format is that
one listens to random discs--that I believe is the typical consumer
experience, and the consumer is the point. If one can't hear an
improvement by listening to random discs then it clearly isn't an
improvement.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:14:18 GMT, Michael
wrote:


I can't tell the difference between DVD-A and SACD, BUT I can tell a
heck of a difference between red book CD and the other two. So I don't
really care which one survives so long as it is SACD (because I just
bought an SACD deck).


Indeed. And why did you not buy a universal player like the Pioneer.
We all did. :-)

I used an LP for comparison.

Eh?

On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

paul packer wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

You got me there- my technical incompetence shows. I
suppose that what is being corrected are the minor scratches and
imperfections. If not ,please do tell ME- always eager to learn.
Anyway the copies are perfect. Neither myself nor anyone else can tell
them from the original (blinded , yes!). I still can't get over the
wonder of that.
Sacd of course needs multichannel listening to be
appreciated.
I am old enough (sadly) to remember the introduction
of the first transistor gear. The "measurements" chapel crowd couldn't
get over the wonder of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I did because the
early transistor amplifiers were intolerable to listen to.
Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the screechy, sibilant
early CDs. They read that CDs were technical wonders and they heard
what they read.
SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press amongst the
professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who listens to the
old-fashioned instruments like the operatic human voice, piano, violin
or flute when you can have electric guitars ?
Ludovic Mirabel

George's dildo wrote :

That's an opinion you get to have.

How can you know since you don't know what's an opinion ?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
George's dildo wrote :

That's an opinion you get to have.

How can you know since you don't know what's an opinion ?

Maybe so, but "at least" I have an opinion of what an opinion is.

Middius' shadow wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
George's dildo wrote :

That's an opinion you get to have.

How can you know since you don't know what's an opinion ?

Maybe so, but "at least" I have an opinion of what an opinion is.

You cannot even imagine what it is, so...

On 13 Oct 2005 23:47:02 -0700, wrote:


paul packer wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

You got me there- my technical incompetence shows. I
suppose that what is being corrected are the minor scratches and
imperfections. If not ,please do tell ME- always eager to learn.
Anyway the copies are perfect. Neither myself nor anyone else can tell
them from the original (blinded , yes!). I still can't get over the
wonder of that.


Well, if that program does indeed correct the inherent errors in the
original then by making life easier for the player's error correction
it probably will improve the sound, at least in theory.

Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.
For one thing, ATRAC removes something like 7/8ths of the signal, in
theory leaving only that which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping
or near clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of their
power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the sound--I'm sure I
don't need to elaborate. These are the sorts of things the experts
overlook in their prejudice against a compressed--and therefore
"inherently flawed"--medium, despite the fact that in practise
minidisc reached an astonishiing level of transparency (though
unfortunately just a little too late).

Sacd of course needs multichannel listening to be
appreciated.

Does it? You mean I needn't bother buying any SACD discs while I'm
using only headphones?

I am old enough (sadly) to remember the introduction
of the first transistor gear. The "measurements" chapel crowd couldn't
get over the wonder of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I did because the
early transistor amplifiers were intolerable to listen to.
Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the screechy, sibilant
early CDs. They read that CDs were technical wonders and they heard
what they read.

Indeed. Just as the measurement crowd looked at the output of a
minidisc copy on their oscilloscopes and decided that, whatever their
ears might tell them, it couldn't possibly sound any good.

SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press amongst the
professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who listens to the
old-fashioned instruments like the operatic human voice, piano, violin
or flute when you can have electric guitars ?
Ludovic Mirabel

Sadly true. But it's all quantity over quality these days. SACD and
DVD-A are mediums of quality, but the young who dictate buying trends
don't care about quality or about sitting at home quietly listening to
music. So instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is, you can use them all day,
everywhere. And these are what we will all be stuck with. SACD and
DVD-A are already as good as dead, just like most other bastions of
quality these days.

Do I sound old?

"paul packer" wrote in message


Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first
began to be taken seriously (around '97) some listeners
reported that they found the sound BETTER than the
original. Of course their impressions weren't taken
seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better
than the original?

It's an old claim. People used to claim that their tape
transcriptions of LPs sounded better than the origional LPs.
The claim continued to be repeated into the day of cassette
tape.

The counter-claim has always been: "How can a transcription
sound better than the original. Isn't the transcription an
imperfect copy?"

And yet...under certain circumstances
it could indeed. For one thing, ATRAC removes something
like 7/8ths of the signal, in theory leaving only that
which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping or near
clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of
their power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the
sound--I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
involved with transcribing media?

Isn't the usual method line output to line input?

These are the
sorts of things the experts overlook in their prejudice
against a compressed--and therefore "inherently
flawed"--medium, despite the fact that in practise
minidisc reached an astonishiing level of transparency
(though unfortunately just a little too late).

What it comes down to is that when people prefer the
transcription, either its for non-audible reasons (i.e.,
exhuberance and/or buyer's excitement) or its that the
transcription omits audible information or changes audible
information. For example, a 7.5 ips transcription of a LP
might reduce the LPs inherent tracking distortion at very
high frequencies.



I am old enough (sadly) to remember the
introduction of the first transistor gear. The
"measurements" chapel crowd couldn't get over the wonder
of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I
did because the early transistor amplifiers were
intolerable to listen to.

I can relate to this because I was an early adopter of SS
who bounced back to a tubed Dyna system for a year or two
because I couldn't abide the problems of the every earliest
SS gear.

Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the
screechy, sibilant early CDs.

I doubt it - some early CDs were badly mastered, but others
sounded great. Discerning listeners just sort of stepped
around the badly mastered discs and enjoyed the ones that
were clearly superior, which predomianted from the start.

They read that CDs were
technical wonders and they heard what they read.

Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

Indeed. Just as the measurement crowd looked at the
output of a minidisc copy on their oscilloscopes and
decided that, whatever their ears might tell them, it
couldn't possibly sound any good.

Actually, 'scope traces from MD playback are
indistinguishable from the original. It takes something a
lot more sophisticated to show up the differences. And, a
lot of people such as myself who were part of the so-called
"measurement crowd" embraced MD. I just found my MD recorder
moldering away in a box on a shelf.

SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press
amongst the professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who
listens to the old-fashioned instruments like the
operatic human voice, piano, violin or flute when you
can have electric guitars ?

Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
Mirabel.

Sadly true. But it's all quantity over quality these
days. SACD and DVD-A are mediums of quality, but the
young who dictate buying trends don't care about quality
or about sitting at home quietly listening to music. So
instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is, you can use them all
day, everywhere. And these are what we will all be stuck
with. SACD and DVD-A are already as good as dead, just
like most other bastions of quality these days.

Do I sound old?

Paul, I seem to recall that you recently wrote that you have
not listened to either SACD or DVD-A.

If that's true Paul, then the above paragraph makes you look
very silly - whining about something you've never heard.

Just to review, I have a SACD/DVD-A player and a collection
of representative discs. Therefore my comments are at least
based on listening.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


And yet...under certain circumstances
it could indeed. For one thing, ATRAC removes something
like 7/8ths of the signal, in theory leaving only that
which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping or near
clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of
their power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the
sound--I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
involved with transcribing media?

I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do. The theory is
that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the amp and speakers, relieved
of the need to reproduce that 7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus
are operating more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.

These are the
sorts of things the experts overlook in their prejudice
against a compressed--and therefore "inherently
flawed"--medium, despite the fact that in practise
minidisc reached an astonishiing level of transparency
(though unfortunately just a little too late).

What it comes down to is that when people prefer the
transcription, either its for non-audible reasons (i.e.,
exhuberance and/or buyer's excitement) or its that the
transcription omits audible information or changes audible
information. For example, a 7.5 ips transcription of a LP
might reduce the LPs inherent tracking distortion at very
high frequencies.

Or it might be for the reason stated above.

I am old enough (sadly) to remember the
introduction of the first transistor gear. The
"measurements" chapel crowd couldn't get over the wonder
of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I
did because the early transistor amplifiers were
intolerable to listen to.

I can relate to this because I was an early adopter of SS
who bounced back to a tubed Dyna system for a year or two
because I couldn't abide the problems of the every earliest
SS gear.

Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the
screechy, sibilant early CDs.

I doubt it - some early CDs were badly mastered, but others
sounded great. Discerning listeners just sort of stepped
around the badly mastered discs and enjoyed the ones that
were clearly superior, which predomianted from the start.

Predominated, Arnie? Right from the start most of the players weren't
good enough to show how good the CDs were, which was often not that
good. One knows this by playing old CDs on modern players.

They read that CDs were
technical wonders and they heard what they read.

Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

I never thought LPs sounded bad. I just thought they were impossibly
fiddly and unacceptably vulnerable. In practise, for me, they just
didn't work.

Indeed. Just as the measurement crowd looked at the
output of a minidisc copy on their oscilloscopes and
decided that, whatever their ears might tell them, it
couldn't possibly sound any good.

Actually, 'scope traces from MD playback are
indistinguishable from the original. It takes something a
lot more sophisticated to show up the differences. And, a
lot of people such as myself who were part of the so-called
"measurement crowd" embraced MD. I just found my MD recorder
moldering away in a box on a shelf.

Moldering away? Please explain. And if you mean neglected, why?

SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press
amongst the professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who
listens to the old-fashioned instruments like the
operatic human voice, piano, violin or flute when you
can have electric guitars ?

Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
Mirabel.

A silly statement. Ungenerous too.

Sadly true. But it's all quantity over quality these
days. SACD and DVD-A are mediums of quality, but the
young who dictate buying trends don't care about quality
or about sitting at home quietly listening to music. So
instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is, you can use them all
day, everywhere. And these are what we will all be stuck
with. SACD and DVD-A are already as good as dead, just
like most other bastions of quality these days.

Do I sound old?

Paul, I seem to recall that you recently wrote that you have
not listened to either SACD or DVD-A.

If that's true Paul, then the above paragraph makes you look
very silly - whining about something you've never heard.

No, it doesn't make me look silly. It makes me look like someone who
makes the not unreasonable assumpton that SACD and DVD-A are at least
a small improvement over CD, for the purposes of debate.

Just to review, I have a SACD/DVD-A player and a collection
of representative discs. Therefore my comments are at least
based on listening.

Good. Have you told us yet what you think of these mediums? I can't
recall.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:22:07 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:38:41 GMT, (paul packer) wrote:

So instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is,

Properly compressed AAC, Apple Lossless or of course WAV sound surpringly
good on an iPod.

Irrelevant. The point is that they do not sound better than CD, thus
are not an upward move.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
snip
Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.
snip

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Jenn said:

Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

Unless one is listening to music :-)

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.

George Minus Middius a écrit :

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Why do you put a comma after "...Jenn or whatever" ?
It breaks the rhythm.
Even if you haven't anything interesting to say, try to say it with rhythm.
We are on an *audio* forum sacrebleu !!!

Jenn said:

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.


Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.


Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.

Huh, "George"? Geeze

Jenn said:

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.


Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.

Huh, "George"? Geeze


If iron knees killed, LOt:'S! ;-(

Thank's for, admitting popsuckett "Jenn" or whatever float's you're
boat this week that you, have absolutely no knowlege of what RAO
history is all, about Jenn.

Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!


LOL! ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
t

I'm looking to get a new CD-player and can't decide on
whether to get a SACD unit or DVD-a compatible one?

Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
above? Heck, even I have one!

My thinking is:

1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?

IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
format.

Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
becoming the dominant medium for new releases.

A sad comment on the state of new releases.

I question Harry's claim in any case. A visit to the
local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
that SACD is the dominant medium for new
classical releases. Most are still CDs. This
includes both 'new' new releases, and reissues.

Hard to argue with "becoming." Like SNL's Dan Quayle, SACD is "still
gaining acceptance."

In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
t

I'm looking to get a new CD-player and can't decide on
whether to get a SACD unit or DVD-a compatible one?

Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
above? Heck, even I have one!

My thinking is:

1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?

IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
format.

Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
becoming the dominant medium for new releases.

A sad comment on the state of new releases.

I question Harry's claim in any case. A visit to the
local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
that SACD is the dominant medium for new
classical releases. Most are still CDs. This
includes both 'new' new releases, and reissues.

Hard to argue with "becoming." Like SNL's Dan Quayle, SACD is "still
gaining acceptance."

In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.


Completely ignoring the fact that the classical music market is European
centered and most new release never see the inside of a U.S. bricks and
mortar store.

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Jenn said:


In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:


Jenn said:



Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.



Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.




Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.


Huh, "George"? Geeze



If iron knees killed, LOt:'S! ;-(

Thank's for, admitting popsuckett "Jenn" or whatever float's you're
boat this week that you, have absolutely no knowlege of what RAO
history is all, about Jenn.

Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!


LOL! ;-)

Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
RAO since many months now...
Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
reasons to avoid suicide...

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.

Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.


Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.

Huh, "George"? Geeze


If iron knees killed, LOt:'S! ;-(

Thank's for, admitting popsuckett "Jenn" or whatever float's you're
boat this week that you, have absolutely no knowlege of what RAO
history is all, about Jenn.

Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!


LOL! ;-)

I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.

Jenn said:

LOL! ;-)

I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.

Thank's Sockpoopet "Jenn" for admitting you dont speak Krooglish. Is this
the FAS kicking in or what?

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:21:09 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!


LOL! ;-)

I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.

They're pulling your leg, mate. The reference is to the way Arnie
Krueger writes posts. Don't worry about it. :-)

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:48:45 +0200, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:22:03 GMT, (paul packer) wrote:

The point is that they do not sound better than CD, thus
are not an upward move.

You said "low quality". CD's ripped to an iPod in WAV or ALF are still in
lossless 16/44 format.

I said that? Gee, I must know more than I thought. :-)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
t

I'm looking to get a new CD-player and can't decide on
whether to get a SACD unit or DVD-a compatible one?

Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
above? Heck, even I have one!

My thinking is:

1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?

IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
format.

Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
becoming the dominant medium for new releases.

A sad comment on the state of new releases.

I question Harry's claim in any case. A visit to the
local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
that SACD is the dominant medium for new
classical releases. Most are still CDs. This
includes both 'new' new releases, and reissues.

Hard to argue with "becoming." Like SNL's Dan Quayle, SACD is "still
gaining acceptance."

In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.

You should go to the classical section of Austin's Waterloo Records,
which has many more than two new classical SACD titles.

Stephen

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:21:09 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!


LOL! ;-)

I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.

They're pulling your leg, mate. The reference is to the way Arnie
Krueger writes posts. Don't worry about it. :-)

Yeah, I finally figured that out! :-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message


Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first
began to be taken seriously (around '97) some listeners
reported that they found the sound BETTER than the
original. Of course their impressions weren't taken
seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better
than the original?

It's an old claim. People used to claim that their tape
transcriptions of LPs sounded better than the origional LPs.
The claim continued to be repeated into the day of cassette
tape.

The counter-claim has always been: "How can a transcription
sound better than the original. Isn't the transcription an
imperfect copy?"

And yet...under certain circumstances
it could indeed. For one thing, ATRAC removes something
like 7/8ths of the signal, in theory leaving only that
which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping or near
clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of
their power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the
sound--I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
involved with transcribing media?

Isn't the usual method line output to line input?

These are the
sorts of things the experts overlook in their prejudice
against a compressed--and therefore "inherently
flawed"--medium, despite the fact that in practise
minidisc reached an astonishiing level of transparency
(though unfortunately just a little too late).

What it comes down to is that when people prefer the
transcription, either its for non-audible reasons (i.e.,
exhuberance and/or buyer's excitement) or its that the
transcription omits audible information or changes audible
information. For example, a 7.5 ips transcription of a LP
might reduce the LPs inherent tracking distortion at very
high frequencies.



I am old enough (sadly) to remember the
introduction of the first transistor gear. The
"measurements" chapel crowd couldn't get over the wonder
of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I
did because the early transistor amplifiers were
intolerable to listen to.

I can relate to this because I was an early adopter of SS
who bounced back to a tubed Dyna system for a year or two
because I couldn't abide the problems of the every earliest
SS gear.

Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the
screechy, sibilant early CDs.

I doubt it - some early CDs were badly mastered, but others
sounded great. Discerning listeners just sort of stepped
around the badly mastered discs and enjoyed the ones that
were clearly superior, which predomianted from the start.

They read that CDs were
technical wonders and they heard what they read.

Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

Indeed. Just as the measurement crowd looked at the
output of a minidisc copy on their oscilloscopes and
decided that, whatever their ears might tell them, it
couldn't possibly sound any good.

Actually, 'scope traces from MD playback are
indistinguishable from the original. It takes something a
lot more sophisticated to show up the differences. And, a
lot of people such as myself who were part of the so-called
"measurement crowd" embraced MD. I just found my MD recorder
moldering away in a box on a shelf.

SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press
amongst the professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who
listens to the old-fashioned instruments like the
operatic human voice, piano, violin or flute when you
can have electric guitars ?

Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
Mirabel.

Sadly true. But it's all quantity over quality these
days. SACD and DVD-A are mediums of quality, but the
young who dictate buying trends don't care about quality
or about sitting at home quietly listening to music. So
instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is, you can use them all
day, everywhere. And these are what we will all be stuck
with. SACD and DVD-A are already as good as dead, just
like most other bastions of quality these days.

Do I sound old?

Paul, I seem to recall that you recently wrote that you have
not listened to either SACD or DVD-A.

If that's true Paul, then the above paragraph makes you look
very silly - whining about something you've never heard.

Just to review, I have a SACD/DVD-A player and a collection
of representative discs. Therefore my comments are at least
based on listening.

Two excerpts:
" Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.

Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
Mirabel.
For statement better qualified as simply idiotic (rather than senseless
or self-pitying) take the top two lines. Anybody who does not know that
there are many superb LPs - especially in so-called classical music
category- tells us all about his musical interests we need to
know(nothing wrong with that- it takes all kinds)and his
discrimination. There are also many awful LPs made by awful
audio-engineers. And of course Mr. Packer is correct- LPS can be a pain
in the neck and they do require fussy expensive equipment which has to
be properly set-up.
If I did not recognise that there have also been excellent CDs issued
esp. in the last few years I'd have to put myself in the same dogmatic
simpleton category. Example: Janos Starker playing Bach solo cello on
EMI CD- as close to the real as I ever heard on recorded music.
Shame, Arny. You have been devious but seldom silly.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:10:00 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.

You should go to the classical section of Austin's Waterloo Records,
which has many more than two new classical SACD titles.

Well, Waterloo is one of those "special stores", isn't it? You can
create megastores all over the world, but you can't manufacture a
top-down love of music. That has to come from a "sense of purpose".
Waterloo has just that sense of purpose.

Jenn said:

They're pulling your leg, mate. The reference is to the way Arnie
Krueger writes posts. Don't worry about it. :-)

Yeah, I finally figured that out! :-)


Don't worry Jenn, every now and then I like to test the ole Krooglish
Koder.

Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Lionel said:

Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
RAO since many months now...
Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
reasons to avoid suicide...


I know, I'm too nice for this world.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal said:

Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)

Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
cant make him sodler, LOt"S.

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Lionel said:


Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
RAO since many months now...
Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
reasons to avoid suicide...



I know, I'm too nice for this world.

I can understand that, I was like you when I was young.

George Minus Middius a écrit :

Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
cant make him sodler, LOt"S.

George you are pathetic. Nostalgy will kill you.

George M. Middius said:


Sander deWaal said:

Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)

Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
cant make him sodler, LOt"S.


Hardly.

Been that, done there "George" back when in 1956 I discovered the
selective memory porcess by which, I was able to endure the
sceintifiic procces known, as "puberty" just, by pretending to be a
card-carrying member of the SWMTSWMTSWTSWMTSMSWT ;-).

Its like, cake over there that, look like, sceniice prooved that
jetfighters that go "BOOM" all by themselves Atkinsion just, as Shatki
Stone's are exposed, not as as the "test" but they exist in the last
millenniumium like, Sterophile is not a fraudilent ragazine LOL!!

As if, ever you darkened the door's of a LEDE room Stephen. NoT.

Whats it like Art to, not knowing an home from a vlot Wiel?


ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal a écrit :
George M. Middius said:



Sander deWaal said:


Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)


Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
cant make him sodler, LOt"S.



Hardly.

Been that, done there "George" back when in 1956 I discovered the
selective memory porcess by which, I was able to endure the
sceintifiic procces known, as "puberty" just, by pretending to be a
card-carrying member of the SWMTSWMTSWTSWMTSMSWT ;-).

Its like, cake over there that, look like, sceniice prooved that
jetfighters that go "BOOM" all by themselves Atkinsion just, as Shatki
Stone's are exposed, not as as the "test" but they exist in the last
millenniumium like, Sterophile is not a fraudilent ragazine LOL!!

As if, ever you darkened the door's of a LEDE room Stephen. NoT.

Whats it like Art to, not knowing an home from a vlot Wiel?


ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)

You sound like an ambulance now.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:10:00 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.

You should go to the classical section of Austin's Waterloo Records,
which has many more than two new classical SACD titles.

Well, Waterloo is one of those "special stores", isn't it? You can
create megastores all over the world, but you can't manufacture a
top-down love of music. That has to come from a "sense of purpose".
Waterloo has just that sense of purpose.

Of course. As for the high-rez formats, for them to succeed would take a
greater commitment from the major record and electronics corporations.
Imagine how slowly cds would have caught on if lps hadn't disappeared
from stores overnight.

Stephen

Lionel said:

ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)

You sound like an ambulance now.


As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

In , Sander deWaal wrote :

Lionel said:

ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)

You sound like an ambulance now.


As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)

But doesn't prevent you from draw fire. ;-)

In , Sander deWaal wrote :

Lionel said:

ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)

You sound like an ambulance now.


As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)

But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)