If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has long
been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that so-called
hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little or no
sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media Player,
DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on the vine
sales-wise.

For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA sales
statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf . What they show
is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has dropped by more than
half from 2003 to 2004. DVD-A sales increases failed to take up the slack.
Total first-half 2004 sales of recordings in both formats were about 600,000
units. which is about 0.2% of the sales of CD-Audio recordings. Even
cassette and vinyl which are even more lower-rez than CD-Audio vastly
outsold the two latest so-called Hi-rez formats!

While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere recordings
at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez formats such as MP3
and AAC were responsible for sales of millions and millions of players.
Sales of low-rez format recordings over the web are also booming.

There seems to be a lesson here, being that audio technology that can't
prove itself in ABX and other DBT listening tests, can resaonably be
expected to do poorly in the marketplace.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has long
been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that so-called
hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little or
no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player, DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on
the vine sales-wise.

For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf . What they
show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has dropped by more
than half from 2003 to 2004. DVD-A sales increases failed to take up
the slack. Total first-half 2004 sales of recordings in both formats
were about 600,000 units. which is about 0.2% of the sales of CD-Audio
recordings. Even cassette and vinyl which are even more lower-rez than
CD-Audio vastly outsold the two latest so-called Hi-rez formats!

While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere
recordings at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez formats
such as MP3 and AAC were responsible for sales of millions and millions
of players. Sales of low-rez format recordings over the web are also
booming.

There seems to be a lesson here, being that audio technology that can't
prove itself in ABX and other DBT listening tests, can resaonably be
expected to do poorly in the marketplace.



Arny,

You might want to look at the numbers again.
I prefer to look at number of units sold - not dollar amounts. It tells a
more accurate story and reveals additional information when compared to
dollars.

DVD-A units went up over 100%
DVD Video unit went up by over 100%
CD units went up by over 10%

Vinyl went down 8.4%
SACD went down by over 54%
Cassette went down over 68%
CD singles went down over 55%

While the clear loser in the DVD-A vs SACD war was SACD, SACD vs. cassette
shows analog tape the loser which is no surprise to me.

I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little or no
sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...fth/index.html
Sony/Philips may need to enforce some sort of quality control over SACD.

If SACD is dying so horribly, why did McIntosh introduce their first
universal (read SACD too) player this year? It wasn't because they felt
it would be a waste of time and money.

Putting all that aside, the interesting fact is that while the number of
DVD units went up 100%, the total dollars went up a bit over 50%. That
means that retails prices have dropped significantly. It is apparant that
DVD certainly is becoming more attractive in terms of price. Make it
cheap and they will buy.

Speaking of prices, have you compared the prices of DVD, DVD-A, SACD, and
CD lately? It would appear that Sony/Philips actually wants to kill off
the medium. Until Sony/Phillips actually makes it attractive to produce
hybrid CD/SACD, the format will likely fade away. As it is right now, the
retails prices are about $1.00 more for the hybrid over a plain CD.

Who will be the first to put a multichannel system in a car? More
importantly, will it be a universal player that plays all formats?

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=477
&pa
ge_number=2 says "...at January’s Consumer Electronics Show, three
companies — Eclipse, Kenwood, and Pioneer — announced DVD-A-ready heads
....." "Sony tells me there are no current plans to introduce a
car-specific SACD player. The company says it will someday, but there’s no
official timetable yet." This begs the question why? What is
Sony/Philips doing? Why wait? Why not push for SACD/DVD-A/etc in the
car? It does make someone wonder what the hell is going on at Sony and
company.

Compare the numbers on the link you gave to the numbers at
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingda...d_yr_chart.pdf which is
the 2002-2003 mid year stats.

SACD isn't there at all. What does that mean? It means that 2003 was the
first year that SACD was included.

My assesment? It is a bit early to tell. It all depends on what
Sony/Phillips does. SACD the next BetaMax? Could be. Maybe it will
become ubiquitous like the CD. Maybe it will all become a moot point if
the new Blu-Ray format takes off.

Here is another tidbit for those TV addicts. You may be watching more
commercials than you are now, TIVO or not.

"... Congress is getting ready to vote on the omnibus Intellectual
Property Protection Bill which has provisions tacked on that, if passed,
could prevent users from skipping commercials on DVDs and recorded
broadcasts [read TiVO], according to Public Knowledge, a public-interest
advocacy group."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2508

r



--
Proposed encyclopedia entry: Professional Liar: see Politician

"R" wrote in message
. 1
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has
long been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that
so-called hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A
offer little or no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player, DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on
the vine sales-wise.

For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf . What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004. DVD-A sales increases
failed to take up the slack. Total first-half 2004 sales of
recordings in both formats were about 600,000 units. which is about
0.2% of the sales of CD-Audio recordings. Even cassette and vinyl
which are even more lower-rez than CD-Audio vastly outsold the two
latest so-called Hi-rez formats!

While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere
recordings at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez
formats such as MP3 and AAC were responsible for sales of millions
and millions of players. Sales of low-rez format recordings over the
web are also booming.

There seems to be a lesson here, being that audio technology that
can't prove itself in ABX and other DBT listening tests, can
resaonably be expected to do poorly in the marketplace.



Arny,

You might want to look at the numbers again.
I prefer to look at number of units sold - not dollar amounts. It
tells a more accurate story and reveals additional information when
compared to dollars.

DVD-A units went up over 100%
DVD Video unit went up by over 100%
CD units went up by over 10%

Vinyl went down 8.4%
SACD went down by over 54%
Cassette went down over 68%
CD singles went down over 55%

While the clear loser in the DVD-A vs SACD war was SACD,

No problem there SACD took a big dive in both dollars and units. Regrattably
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for the SACD
losses.

Hirez 1H 2004 dollar volume: $11.53 million
Hirez 1H 2003 dollar volume: $15.66 million

Year-year loss in dollar volume for Hi Rez formats $4.13 million

SACD vs. cassette shows analog tape the loser which is no surprise to me.

IMO a totally ludicrous comparison.


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...fth/index.html
Sony/Philips may need to enforce some sort of quality control over
SACD.

Stereophile doesn't seem to believe in doing time-synchronized,
level-matched, bias-controlled comparisons. IOW their opinons are
meaningless. Furthermore, it is well known that as a rule, hi-rez
re-releases are remastered, which means that they are essentially different
artistic works.

If SACD is dying so horribly, why did McIntosh introduce their first
universal (read SACD too) player this year?

Because it took them way to long to come to market with that product?

It wasn't because they felt it would be a waste of time and money.

Since McIntosh is a vanity subsidiary of a large conglomerate, who knows
what money counts for them.

Putting all that aside, the interesting fact is that while the number
of DVD units went up 100%, the total dollars went up a bit over 50%.

My figures show that total hi-rez dollar sales dropped significantly when as
a new format, they should be growing dramatically.

That means that retails prices have dropped significantly. It is
apparant that DVD certainly is becoming more attractive in terms of
price. Make it cheap and they will buy.

Except that cutting prices didn't help increase sales in dollars or total
Hi-Rez sales in units.

Speaking of prices, have you compared the prices of DVD, DVD-A, SACD,
and CD lately? It would appear that Sony/Philips actually wants to
kill off the medium. Until Sony/Phillips actually makes it
attractive to produce hybrid CD/SACD, the format will likely fade
away. As it is right now, the retails prices are about $1.00 more
for the hybrid over a plain CD.

If there was a widely-perceived sonic advantage, $1 of more than a dozen
shouldn't matter.

Who will be the first to put a multichannel system in a car? More
importantly, will it be a universal player that plays all formats?

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...article_id=477
&pa
ge_number=2 says "...at January's Consumer Electronics Show, three
companies - Eclipse, Kenwood, and Pioneer - announced DVD-A-ready
heads ...." "Sony tells me there are no current plans to introduce a
car-specific SACD player. The company says it will someday, but
there's no official timetable yet." This begs the question why?

Probably because Sony is about ready to $#!#-can the format.


What is Sony/Philips doing? Why wait?

Why spend good money after bad?


Why not push for SACD/DVD-A/etc in the car?

They've pushed but there was a lot of resistance.

It does make someone wonder what the hell
is going on at Sony and company.

They're thinking of treating hi-rez audio like it was a business?

Compare the numbers on the link you gave to the numbers at
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingda...d_yr_chart.pdf
which is the 2002-2003 mid year stats.

SACD isn't there at all. What does that mean? It means that 2003
was the first year that SACD was included.

So what, the point here is to compare comparable stats.

My assesment? It is a bit early to tell. It all depends on what
Sony/Phillips does. SACD the next BetaMax? Could be. Maybe it will
become ubiquitous like the CD. Maybe it will all become a moot point
if the new Blu-Ray format takes off.

Here is another tidbit for those TV addicts. You may be watching more
commercials than you are now, TIVO or not.

"... Congress is getting ready to vote on the omnibus Intellectual
Property Protection Bill which has provisions tacked on that, if
passed, could prevent users from skipping commercials on DVDs and
recorded broadcasts [read TiVO], according to Public Knowledge, a
public-interest advocacy group."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2508

Being forced to watch commercials is just what everybody wants! ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with the
concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't hi-rez.

ScottW

"ScottW" said:

I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.

Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with the
concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't hi-rez.

Please don't confuse Ahnuld with facts.
Besides, he's always "right ;-)" , you know.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:07:47 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with the
concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't hi-rez.

ScottW

Just a note that the above quote isn't Arnold's.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:XJLnd.111761$bk1.92893@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following
article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with
the concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't
hi-rez.

http://www.dtsonline.com/consumer/pr...&yID=2004&cID=

"Swedish Radio and DTS announce that they have made two more pioneering
steps in delivering the highest quality surround sound ever in a live
broadcast: First, Swedish Radio is the first broadcaster to utilize DTS
96/24 high resolution digital surround sound for a live event; and second,
Swedish Radio proved the capability of offering DTS 96/24 via Internet
broadband streaming. These advances come one year after Swedish Radio
commenced the world's first broadcast of surround sound via satellite
utilizing the scalable DVB-compliant audio technology from DTS. Offering a
sample rate double that of standard DVDs, DTS 96/24 offers the highest
resolution available to broadcasters."

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=18971538

"Texas Instruments are to demonstrate an all-digital, universal system at
CES 2003 next week. The Texas semiconductor manufacturer has integrated a
FireWire IEEE-1293 interface, multi-channel digital signal processor and
digital amplifier technologies onto a single board, which will enable the
company to show attendees the ability to create an integrated
high-resolution path from source component to loudspeakers using TI
technologies."


"The Texas Instruments Semiconductor Division's demonstration of the
single-board system at CES, will take place at booth 6802 in the Las Vegas
Convention Center. Product capabilities include:
a.. Native IEEE-1394 networking
b.. Dolby Digital, DTS and full-resolution digital SACD and DVD-Audio
c.. Optional content protection for compatibility with high- resolution
formats
d.. High performance, flexible, multi-format audio decoding with a
re-programmable 32/64-bit audio processing
e.. TI PurePath DigitalT amplifiers
http://www.stereophile.com/news/110804dts/

"How can video save the audio star? Recent announcements from both Dolby and
DTS have revealed plans to add high-resolution lossless audio formats to one
or both impending High Definition video disc formats. And if one or both of
these primarily HD video formats takes off, high-resolution audio will be
along for the ride."
I suggest you do a little google searching next time, Scotty.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:07:47 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer
little or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the
following article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with
the concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't
hi-rez.

ScottW

Just a note that the above quote isn't Arnold's.

But it reasonbly paraphrases what I said in a previous post:

"If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has long
been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that so-called
hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little or no
sonic advantage."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"R" wrote in message
. 1
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has
long been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that
so-called hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A
offer little or no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player, DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on
the vine sales-wise.

For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf . What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004. DVD-A sales increases
failed to take up the slack. Total first-half 2004 sales of
recordings in both formats were about 600,000 units. which is about
0.2% of the sales of CD-Audio recordings. Even cassette and vinyl
which are even more lower-rez than CD-Audio vastly outsold the two
latest so-called Hi-rez formats!

While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere
recordings at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez
formats such as MP3 and AAC were responsible for sales of millions
and millions of players. Sales of low-rez format recordings over the
web are also booming.

There seems to be a lesson here, being that audio technology that
can't prove itself in ABX and other DBT listening tests, can
resaonably be expected to do poorly in the marketplace.



Arny,

You might want to look at the numbers again.
I prefer to look at number of units sold - not dollar amounts. It
tells a more accurate story and reveals additional information when
compared to dollars.

DVD-A units went up over 100%
DVD Video unit went up by over 100%
CD units went up by over 10%

Vinyl went down 8.4%
SACD went down by over 54%
Cassette went down over 68%
CD singles went down over 55%

While the clear loser in the DVD-A vs SACD war was SACD,

No problem there SACD took a big dive in both dollars and units.
Regrattably the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make
up for the SACD losses.

Hirez 1H 2004 dollar volume: $11.53 million
Hirez 1H 2003 dollar volume: $15.66 million




Year-year loss in dollar volume for Hi Rez formats $4.13 million

SACD vs. cassette shows analog tape the loser which is no surprise to
me.

IMO a totally ludicrous comparison.


Not really. Cassette, LP, and SACD all went down. However DVD-A when up
over 100%. Who in their right mind would pull the plug on DVD-A when they
just saw 100% growth? Hi-Res is far from dead and it isn't even feeling
poorly.


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following article.

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...fth/index.html
Sony/Philips may need to enforce some sort of quality control over
SACD.

Stereophile doesn't seem to believe in doing time-synchronized,
level-matched, bias-controlled comparisons. IOW their opinons are
meaningless. Furthermore, it is well known that as a rule, hi-rez
re-releases are remastered, which means that they are essentially
different artistic works.

You didn't read the article dammit. It was a implied test where even
sighted expectations were contrary to the truth.

I suggest the following:

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/artic...,114731,00.asp
"Once I heard SACD, I knew I could never go back to regular CDs."
"SACD and DVD-A make normal CDs sound like AM radio."

Bash the Hi-Res formats all you want, but the fact of the matter is many
people do hear a difference and a big one at that.


If SACD is dying so horribly, why did McIntosh introduce their first
universal (read SACD too) player this year?

Because it took them way to long to come to market with that product?

Maybe they waited for the royalties to drop in price. It has just
recently that the price to get SACD player to market has been attractive
to manufacturers.



It wasn't because they felt it would be a waste of time and money.

Since McIntosh is a vanity subsidiary of a large conglomerate, who knows
what money counts for them.


Do you think they are in the business to lose money? No. McIntosh is
very much alive and well and making money, thank you.



Putting all that aside, the interesting fact is that while the number
of DVD units went up 100%, the total dollars went up a bit over 50%.

My figures show that total hi-rez dollar sales dropped significantly
when as a new format, they should be growing dramatically.


My point was that in the grand scheme of things, people spend a certain
amount of money for entertainment. If they get a bigger bang for their
buck with a DVD, guess where the dollars go? Straight to DVD with little
left over for other forms of entertainment. Why spend $15.00 or more for
audio only when one can get audio and video for $10.00?


That means that retails prices have dropped significantly. It is
apparant that DVD certainly is becoming more attractive in terms of
price. Make it cheap and they will buy.

Except that cutting prices didn't help increase sales in dollars or
total Hi-Rez sales in units.

It is apparant that price cutting only occured in the DVD area, not
others.


Speaking of prices, have you compared the prices of DVD, DVD-A, SACD,
and CD lately? It would appear that Sony/Philips actually wants to
kill off the medium. Until Sony/Phillips actually makes it
attractive to produce hybrid CD/SACD, the format will likely fade
away. As it is right now, the retails prices are about $1.00 more
for the hybrid over a plain CD.

If there was a widely-perceived sonic advantage, $1 of more than a dozen
shouldn't matter.

But most people don't care. The average consumer is lucky to be able to
tell the difference between a 128k MP3 and a CD. Why do you think Bose is
still n business? The average consumer is either ignorant or stupid.


Who will be the first to put a multichannel system in a car? More
importantly, will it be a universal player that plays all formats?

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...=7&article_id=
477
&pa
ge_number=2 says "...at January's Consumer Electronics Show, three
companies - Eclipse, Kenwood, and Pioneer - announced DVD-A-ready
heads ...." "Sony tells me there are no current plans to introduce a
car-specific SACD player. The company says it will someday, but
there's no official timetable yet." This begs the question why?

Probably because Sony is about ready to $#!#-can the format.


That is not apparant nor obvious. If they fail to market the format any
further over the next 12 months, then it will become clearer. DVD-A had a
much larger head start. As a matter of fact SACD was the solution that
Sony/Philips came up with in response to the DVD/DVD-A.


What is Sony/Philips doing? Why wait?

Why spend good money after bad?


That certainly is one conclusion. Maybe there is a completely different
plan in the wings. I do know of several people who would know, but they
aren't talking, so anything you and I may say would be pure speculation
based on little or no facts.



Why not push for SACD/DVD-A/etc in the car?

They've pushed but there was a lot of resistance.

The resistance isn't at the consumer level I assure you.


It does make someone wonder what the hell
is going on at Sony and company.

They're thinking of treating hi-rez audio like it was a business?


Maybe, they are rethinking things. Maybe Blu-ray is going to be the
proverbial "IT". One format for all. CD/DVD/Hi-Res-Audio all on one
disc. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Until we have either a good working crystal
ball or some inside info because someone blabbed, we won't know for sure
what is going on at Sony/Phillips.


Compare the numbers on the link you gave to the numbers at
http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingda...d_yr_chart.pdf
which is the 2002-2003 mid year stats.

SACD isn't there at all. What does that mean? It means that 2003
was the first year that SACD was included.

So what, the point here is to compare comparable stats.


But is it fair to make a supposition based on the stats whike a format is
in it's infancy?

My assesment? It is a bit early to tell. It all depends on what
Sony/Phillips does. SACD the next BetaMax? Could be. Maybe it will
become ubiquitous like the CD. Maybe it will all become a moot point
if the new Blu-Ray format takes off.

Here is another tidbit for those TV addicts. You may be watching more
commercials than you are now, TIVO or not.

"... Congress is getting ready to vote on the omnibus Intellectual
Property Protection Bill which has provisions tacked on that, if
passed, could prevent users from skipping commercials on DVDs and
recorded broadcasts [read TiVO], according to Public Knowledge, a
public-interest advocacy group."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/one.php?id=2508

Being forced to watch commercials is just what everybody wants! ;-)

I appreciate your sarcasm. Personally I think that if they keep it up,
both video entertainment and the internet will turn into a advertising
wasteland like broadcast radio unless the people speak up.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:XJLnd.111761$bk1.92893@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little
or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the following
article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with
the concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't
hi-rez.

http://www.dtsonline.com/consumer/pr...&yID=2004&cID=

"Swedish Radio and DTS announce that they have made two more pioneering
steps in delivering the highest quality surround sound ever in a live
broadcast: First, Swedish Radio is the first broadcaster to utilize DTS
96/24 high resolution digital surround sound for a live event; and second,
Swedish Radio proved the capability of offering DTS 96/24 via Internet
broadband streaming. These advances come one year after Swedish Radio
commenced the world's first broadcast of surround sound via satellite
utilizing the scalable DVB-compliant audio technology from DTS. Offering
a sample rate double that of standard DVDs, DTS 96/24 offers the highest
resolution available to broadcasters."

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=18971538

"Texas Instruments are to demonstrate an all-digital, universal system at
CES 2003 next week. The Texas semiconductor manufacturer has integrated a
FireWire IEEE-1293 interface, multi-channel digital signal processor and
digital amplifier technologies onto a single board, which will enable the
company to show attendees the ability to create an integrated
high-resolution path from source component to loudspeakers using TI
technologies."


"The Texas Instruments Semiconductor Division's demonstration of the
single-board system at CES, will take place at booth 6802 in the Las Vegas
Convention Center. Product capabilities include:
a.. Native IEEE-1394 networking
b.. Dolby Digital, DTS and full-resolution digital SACD and DVD-Audio
c.. Optional content protection for compatibility with high- resolution
formats
d.. High performance, flexible, multi-format audio decoding with a
re-programmable 32/64-bit audio processing
e.. TI PurePath DigitalT amplifiers
http://www.stereophile.com/news/110804dts/

"How can video save the audio star? Recent announcements from both Dolby
and DTS have revealed plans to add high-resolution lossless audio formats
to one or both impending High Definition video disc formats. And if one or
both of these primarily HD video formats takes off, high-resolution audio
will be along for the ride."
I suggest you do a little google searching next time, Scotty.

I suggest you be a little more specific as DTS and DTS 96/24 are hardly the
same thing to any reasonably qualified audio engineer.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:jZNnd.111772$bk1.49879@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:XJLnd.111761$bk1.92893@fed1read05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I think your assertion that "HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer
little or no sonic advantage." should be tempered with the
following article.


Why are you including DTS in this discussion of hi-rez formats?
It clearly isn't higher rez, seeks a slightly different market with
the concert video vs just music and is multichannel. But it ain't
hi-rez.

http://www.dtsonline.com/consumer/pr...&yID=2004&cID=

"Swedish Radio and DTS announce that they have made two more
pioneering steps in delivering the highest quality surround sound
ever in a live broadcast: First, Swedish Radio is the first
broadcaster to utilize DTS 96/24 high resolution digital surround
sound for a live event; and second, Swedish Radio proved the
capability of offering DTS 96/24 via Internet broadband streaming. These
advances come one year after Swedish Radio commenced the
world's first broadcast of surround sound via satellite utilizing
the scalable DVB-compliant audio technology from DTS. Offering a
sample rate double that of standard DVDs, DTS 96/24 offers the
highest resolution available to broadcasters."
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=18971538

"Texas Instruments are to demonstrate an all-digital, universal
system at CES 2003 next week. The Texas semiconductor manufacturer
has integrated a FireWire IEEE-1293 interface, multi-channel digital
signal processor and digital amplifier technologies onto a single
board, which will enable the company to show attendees the ability
to create an integrated high-resolution path from source component
to loudspeakers using TI technologies."


"The Texas Instruments Semiconductor Division's demonstration of the
single-board system at CES, will take place at booth 6802 in the Las
Vegas Convention Center. Product capabilities include:
a.. Native IEEE-1394 networking
b.. Dolby Digital, DTS and full-resolution digital SACD and
DVD-Audio c.. Optional content protection for compatibility with
high- resolution formats
d.. High performance, flexible, multi-format audio decoding with a
re-programmable 32/64-bit audio processing
e.. TI PurePath DigitalT amplifiers
http://www.stereophile.com/news/110804dts/

"How can video save the audio star? Recent announcements from both
Dolby and DTS have revealed plans to add high-resolution lossless
audio formats to one or both impending High Definition video disc
formats. And if one or both of these primarily HD video formats
takes off, high-resolution audio will be along for the ride."
I suggest you do a little google searching next time, Scotty.

I suggest you be a little more specific as DTS and DTS 96/24 are
hardly the same thing to any reasonably qualified audio engineer.

LOL!

It's amazing Scott how low you or Sander will sink to avoid admitting you
made a mistake.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has long
been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that so-called
hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer little or no
sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player,
DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on the vine
sales-wise.

Congratulations, Arny, on your triumph over high fidelity.
Thanks to you, we are doomed to listen to mp3.

Unless you're not omnipotent.

"Robert Morein" wrote in
:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has
long been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that
so-called hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A offer
little or no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player,
DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying on the vine
sales-wise.

Congratulations, Arny, on your triumph over high fidelity.
Thanks to you, we are doomed to listen to mp3.

Unless you're not omnipotent.




Personally I don't understand his vendetta against high res formats.
There are too many people arguing for it including some highly respected
labels like Telarc.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has
long been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that
so-called hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A
offer little or no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player, DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying
on the vine sales-wise.

Congratulations, Arny, on your triumph over high fidelity.

Horsefeathers.

Thanks to you, we are doomed to listen to mp3.

That's a choice you get to make.

Unless you're not omnipotent.

And of course I'm not omnipotent, but true science comes closer.

"R" wrote in message


Personally I don't understand his vendetta against high res formats.

They are snake oil,

There are too many people arguing for it including some highly
respected labels like Telarc.

They are only trying to serve themselves at the expense of the public and
the art and science of audio.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.
...
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for the
SACD losses.

It appears that hybrid SACDs that are racked and sold as CDs -- the Rolling
Stones and Bob Dylan releases, for example -- are tallied as CDs, not SACDs
in the RIAA sales statistics. I do not know if this will change the picture.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
If you check the records of Usenet groups, you will see that it has
long been known, based on ABX and other blind listening tests, that
so-called hi-rez audio formats such as HDCD, DTS, SACD, and DVD-A
offer little or no sonic advantage.

So what is the box score for the market sucess of these formats?

Well, HDCD is now reduced to being a subfeature of the Windows Media
Player, DTS is no longer in the news, and DVD-A and SACD are dying
on the vine sales-wise.

Congratulations, Arny, on your triumph over high fidelity.

Horsefeathers.

Thanks to you, we are doomed to listen to mp3.

That's a choice you get to make.

Unless you're not omnipotent.

And of course I'm not omnipotent, but true science comes closer.

No, really, I offer my sincere congratulations to you for the despoilation
of audio.
You've conquered it and salted the earth.
Rejoice!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
news
"R" wrote in message


Personally I don't understand his vendetta against high res formats.

They are snake oil,

There are too many people arguing for it including some highly
respected labels like Telarc.

They are only trying to serve themselves at the expense of the public
and the art and science of audio.




Arny,

This time I am going to say you are wrong and leave it at that. Nothing
that I could say or do will convince you otherwise so I am dropping the
issue. Continue slamming the hi-res multichannel formats all you want. I
don't care.

I hope you have a nice day and a happy holiday.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.
...
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for
the SACD losses.

It appears that hybrid SACDs that are racked and sold as CDs -- the
Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan releases, for example -- are tallied as
CDs, not SACDs in the RIAA sales statistics. I do not know if this
will change the picture.

Why would that appear to be the case?

I've always thought that the highly-touted Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan
releases for Christmas season 2002-2003 contributed to the far higher
reported SACD sales for 2003.

"R" wrote in message
. 1
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
news
"R" wrote in message


Personally I don't understand his vendetta against high res formats.

They are snake oil,

There are too many people arguing for it including some highly
respected labels like Telarc.

They are only trying to serve themselves at the expense of the public
and the art and science of audio.

This time I am going to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Unsupported opinion noted.

Nothing that I could say or do will convince you otherwise

There's lots of things you could say, like "I did a time-synched,
level-matched DBT comparing one of these hi-rez recordings to a version of
it that differed only by downsampling to 16/44, and reliably heard a
difference."

so I am dropping the issue.

Obviously, you have nothing factual to contribute.

Continue slamming the hi-res multichannel formats all you want. I don't
care.

Just the facts!

I hope you have a nice day and a happy holiday.

Yup, me and all my hi-rez audio gear. Seriously.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I suggest you be a little more specific as DTS and DTS 96/24 are
hardly the same thing to any reasonably qualified audio engineer.

LOL!

It's amazing Scott how low you or Sander will sink to avoid admitting you
made a mistake.

Inability to refute my point is noted.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in
:

"R" wrote in message
. 1
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
news
"R" wrote in message


Personally I don't understand his vendetta against high res formats.

They are snake oil,

There are too many people arguing for it including some highly
respected labels like Telarc.

They are only trying to serve themselves at the expense of the public
and the art and science of audio.

This time I am going to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Unsupported opinion noted.

Nothing that I could say or do will convince you otherwise

There's lots of things you could say, like "I did a time-synched,
level-matched DBT comparing one of these hi-rez recordings to a version
of it that differed only by downsampling to 16/44, and reliably heard a
difference."

so I am dropping the issue.

Obviously, you have nothing factual to contribute.

Continue slamming the hi-res multichannel formats all you want. I
don't
care.

Just the facts!

I hope you have a nice day and a happy holiday.

Yup, me and all my hi-rez audio gear. Seriously.




Arny,

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched test you
would likely not believe me. I am just not interested in debating the
issue with you. You made it abundantly clear how you feel and I don't
agree with you.

Have a nice evening and a nice holiday.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said to ****borg:

No, really, I offer my sincere congratulations to you for the
despoilation
of audio.

You're going to ignite Harold's envy.

You've conquered it and salted the earth.
Rejoice!

If salting the earth was Krooger's intention, why does he hoard all the
feces? I assumed it was for fertilizer, at least partly.

For the nitrates.

"R" wrote in message
. 1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched test
you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what the results
of that test would be.

I am just not interested in debating the issue with you.

Except you keep going back on your word and vainly attempt to make the last
point.

You made it abundantly clear how you feel and I don't agree with you.

It's not a matter of how I feel, its a matter of what the facts of the
matter actuall are.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:14:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"R" wrote in message
.1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched test
you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what the results
of that test would be.

Ype, let's just throw science out the window...

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:14:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"R" wrote in message
. 1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched test
you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what the
results of that test would be.

Ype, let's just throw science out the window...

How is that comment relevant?

Or Weil, do you think that scientific experiments that have been performed
thousands of times by thousands of people will suddenly start giving
different results?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"R" wrote in message
. 1


I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what the
results of that test would be.


The 'scientific mind' at work!

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:44:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:14:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"R" wrote in message
. 1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched test
you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what the
results of that test would be.

Yep, let's just throw science out the window...

How is that comment relevant?

Or Weil, do you think that scientific experiments that have been performed
thousands of times by thousands of people will suddenly start giving
different results?

You need to supply proof that it would be impossible for the above
individual to be able to tell the difference. Otherwise, you're just
blabbering.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the RIAA
sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.
...
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for
the SACD losses.

It appears that hybrid SACDs that are racked and sold as CDs -- the
Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan releases, for example -- are tallied as
CDs, not SACDs in the RIAA sales statistics. I do not know if this
will change the picture.

Why would that appear to be the case?

I've always thought that the highly-touted Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan
releases for Christmas season 2002-2003 contributed to the far higher
reported SACD sales for 2003.


JA is correct. Over here (SEAsia), Rolling Stones (Hybrid) are sold as CDs.

Old news but maybe still relevant

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=19307808


"

"Chelvam" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the
RIAA sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.
...
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for
the SACD losses.

It appears that hybrid SACDs that are racked and sold as CDs -- the
Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan releases, for example -- are tallied as
CDs, not SACDs in the RIAA sales statistics. I do not know if this
will change the picture.

Why would that appear to be the case?

I've always thought that the highly-touted Rolling Stones and Bob
Dylan releases for Christmas season 2002-2003 contributed to the far
higher reported SACD sales for 2003.

JA is correct.

Not necessarily. He's made an unsupported assertion, as have you.


Over here (SEAsia), Rolling Stones (Hybrid) are sold as CDs.

However, that says zilch about how they are accounted for in RIAA stats. I'm
going to take a wild leap of faith and suggest that the people who produce
these discs know what they are.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:44:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:14:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"R" wrote in message
. 1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched
test you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what
the results of that test would be.

Yep, let's just throw science out the window...

How is that comment relevant?

Or Weil, do you think that scientific experiments that have been
performed thousands of times by thousands of people will suddenly
start giving different results?

You need to supply proof that it would be impossible for the above
individual to be able to tell the difference.

I'm going to take my second wild leap of faith for the morning and suggest
that he's human, and neither a bat nor a dog.

Otherwise, you're just blabbering.

First cure yourself of that disease, Weil.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

dave weil said:

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched
test you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what
the results of that test would be.

Ype, let's just throw science out the window...


The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more
intractable with every passing year. Your reference to science
reminds me we should reflect on how real scientists work.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

2. Study all available data to see how they relate to the problem.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

3. Formulate various hypotheses to explain all of the known facts.

All is a big word, but here are a few places that cover some of the more
important relevant facts:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/

4. Design an experiment to test the validity of the hypotheses,
starting from the most general.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm

5. Conduct the experiment, using a control if practical.

http://www.pcabx.com/

6. Evaluate the results to determine whether the hypothesis under
test was supported or invalidated.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_bino.htm

7. Repeat these steps for all hypotheses until only one is still
valid.

Left as an exercise for the reader.

* * * * * * * * * * * *


That's what real scientists do in the real world. It's rigorous, but
it's supposed to be. The objective is to execute an experiment that
another scientist can run and see if it works another time.

Now let's pop in on the Hive....


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Middius' High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now
-- it simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all
that time- consuming hypothesizing.

In the high end world this is done all the time. For example, the means for
doing it have been rigorously described in Stereophile Magazine several
times, most notably as "The Listener's Manifesto"

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent
rationalizations to show that these data are "better" than others.

In the high end world this is done all the time. For example, the means for
doing it have been rigorously described in Stereophile Magazine several
times, most notably as "The Recommended Components List"

Also, if time permits, jot down some notes on why data reported by
people with whom you disagree shouldn't be considered in your
"experiments."

In the high end world this is done all the time. For example, the means for
doing it have been rigorously described in Stereophile Magazine several
times, most notably as "Blind Listening"

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is
already known, so go on to the experiments.

In the high end world this is done all the time. For example, the means for
doing it have been rigorously described in Stereophile Magazine many times
in every issue.

4. Set up an experiment that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.

Again, please see any issue of Stereophile.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure
to fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

In the high end world this is done all the time. For example, the means for
doing it have been rigorously described in Stereophile Magazine several
times, most notably as the William P. Banks & David Krajicek Amplifier
listening tests and Atkinson's attempts to do about the same thing.


6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as
obnoxiously as possible. Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone
who criticizes your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your
conclusion. Experience has shown that you can usually deflect
criticism, no matter how well-founded it is in reality, by impugning
the motives of your critics.

For many examples of this go to the Stereophile web site and search on
*blind*.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that
you've "proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be
brought to bear on this issue.

Again, just search the Stereophile web site using the word blind. Also see
the Stereophile article "The Highs And Lows of Double Blind Testing".

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:34:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Chelvam" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the
RIAA sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.
...
the unit volume AND dollar increase in DVD-A failed to make up for
the SACD losses.

It appears that hybrid SACDs that are racked and sold as CDs -- the
Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan releases, for example -- are tallied as
CDs, not SACDs in the RIAA sales statistics. I do not know if this
will change the picture.

Why would that appear to be the case?

I've always thought that the highly-touted Rolling Stones and Bob
Dylan releases for Christmas season 2002-2003 contributed to the far
higher reported SACD sales for 2003.

JA is correct.

Not necessarily. He's made an unsupported assertion, as have you.


Over here (SEAsia), Rolling Stones (Hybrid) are sold as CDs.

However, that says zilch about how they are accounted for in RIAA stats. I'm
going to take a wild leap of faith and suggest that the people who produce
these discs know what they are.

Well, since the RIAA stats are pretty inaccurate in the first place,
I'm not sure if it really makes that much of a difference.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:37:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:44:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:14:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"R" wrote in message
. 1

If I said that I did a double blind, time synced, level matched
test you would likely not believe me.

I would know if you were telling the truth, becauase I know what
the results of that test would be.

Yep, let's just throw science out the window...

How is that comment relevant?

Or Weil, do you think that scientific experiments that have been
performed thousands of times by thousands of people will suddenly
start giving different results?

You need to supply proof that it would be impossible for the above
individual to be able to tell the difference.

I'm going to take my second wild leap of faith for the morning and suggest
that he's human, and neither a bat nor a dog.

Lack of proof noted.

Arny Krueger wrote:


While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere recordings
at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez formats such as MP3
and AAC were responsible for sales of millions and millions of players.
Sales of low-rez format recordings over the web are also booming.


That's just great. Come 2010 we'll all be hoarded about by our global
president, jeb bush, we'll all just watch the fox news channel "they
report, they decide" and for entertainment listen to downsampled mp3's
of AC/DC and Kiss and NOT charlie haden (for instance), and
seventhousandeighthundred songs all comprrresssssed and stuck into one
CD for our convinience! Evolution, improvement, preference,
enhancement, enrichment, excellence, luxury, quality shall not be
tolerated! All your bases are belong to us! Resistance is futile! Heil
the kroogborg! ... Not.

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


While the so-called hi-rez formats were struggling to sell mere
recordings at an annualized rate of 1.2 million units, lower-rez
formats such as MP3 and AAC were responsible for sales of millions
and millions of players. Sales of low-rez format recordings over the
web are also booming.

That's just great.

In the context of helping people enjoy more music more often, I agree.

The good news for me is that some portable players now have enough storage
capacity that they can handle uncompressed audio very nicely, thank you. I
love my NJB3 and all the ripped CDs that reside within in uncompressed .wav
file format. iPods can do this, as well.

Come 2010 we'll all be hoarded about by our global
president, jeb bush, we'll all just watch the fox news channel "they
report, they decide" and for entertainment listen to downsampled mp3's
of AC/DC and Kiss and NOT charlie haden (for instance), and
seventhousandeighthundred songs all comprrresssssed and stuck into one
CD for our convinience! Evolution, improvement, preference,
enhancement, enrichment, excellence, luxury, quality shall not be
tolerated! All your bases are belong to us! Resistance is futile! Heil
the kroogborg! ... Not.

Agreed, your vision of 2010 is not one that I would look forward to.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:3sOdnQFe5ZDqYTzcRVn-
:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

2. Study all available data to see how they relate to the problem.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

3. Formulate various hypotheses to explain all of the known facts.

All is a big word, but here are a few places that cover some of the more
important relevant facts:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/

4. Design an experiment to test the validity of the hypotheses,
starting from the most general.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm

5. Conduct the experiment, using a control if practical.

http://www.pcabx.com/

6. Evaluate the results to determine whether the hypothesis under
test was supported or invalidated.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_bino.htm

7. Repeat these steps for all hypotheses until only one is still
valid.

Left as an exercise for the reader.




I feel there is one important step missing and that is the duplication of
the experiment by others. In many circles this is called a peer review.
Remember cold fusion from the late 80's? Everything was going well until
other tried to duplicate the experiment. Then it all fell apart. You can
have all of the consistent results you want but until it can be verified
by others, it is just another experiment. There are many other cases
illustrating the point. There are even a few cases where the original
author so strongly believed in his results, that he dismissed the results
of others and continued to believe his results. He would loudly proclaim
that the others were incompetent, conspiring against him, or any other
number of unsubstantiated claims. At that point, the original author is
usually dismissed by the community as a mentally ill and for good reason.
As a result, he and any further ideas he may have are usually ignored.

r


r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Agreed, your vision of 2010 is not one that I would look forward to.


Ah, so you would not be looking forward to consuming the very same ****
you are trying to propagate? Curious.

Arny Krueger wrote:
For recent information about the latter two formats, check the
RIAA sales statistics posted at
http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...midYrStats.pdf. What
they show is that same-half-year sales of SACD recordings has
dropped by more than half from 2003 to 2004.

False claim.