Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Sony gets serious about high-resolution audio, again
In article ,
wrote: 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. Does it say what music is included, or can the customer choose from their catalogue? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Big High-Resolution Download Rip-off | High End Audio | |||
The AES Repudiates SACD, DVD-A, and the high resolution audio myth | Audio Opinions | |||
High resolution Recording available on line? | High End Audio | |||
Nesa one high resolution audio ologram | High End Audio | |||
Q: Very High Resolution Microphones | Pro Audio |