dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:56:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:37:28 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Glenn Zelniker wrote:

Neither sales claim is very impressive. But the picture is
even more dismal than either claim would indicate. Would
anybody care to guess how many of the people who purchased
the Stones, Dylan, Cooke, and DSOTM re-releases (i.e., the
titles that account for the bulk of the format's sales)
actually made the purchase because of the SACD layer?

Not I, but I think we share the same concern here.

I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of
buyers knew about, cared about, or utilized the SACD feature.

As would I. I checked out some of these products during
Christmas 2002, when they were first released. The packaging
was pretty coy about the fact that there was even a SACD layer
present. I think a lot of people took them at face value -
they were first and foremost Stones CDs.

Apparently the hold-up has more to do with music publishing than
consumer demand. Some publishers are asking to be paid for each
layer of a high-res disc, so stereo, 5.1 and DTS (or whatever)
would require triple payment.

It's a little deeper than that. Last Christmas was supposed to be
the make-it or break-it holiday for SACD. Somehow it got a
reprise despite the disappointing sales. Then Sony started
laying people off, and Warner re-organized.. I hear that Sony's
SACD development team has been disbanded, for example.

Well, SACD got developed... Still, not good news.

Consumers would be just as happy with hybrid discs for the same
price, while audiophiles would enjoy the potential benefits of
new masterings and multichannel sound.

It still costs extra money to produce both layers. Given that
even plain old CD sales have tanked, and there's so little
interest in the SACD layer, where's the profit in the extra
expense of the hybrid disc?

If you're Sony/Phillips, license fees, which will soon run out for
cd.

High-res can exist as a niche market.

There's a fundamental problem - there is no practical need for
higher-res formats than the hi-res format that totally dominates the
market today. All popular formats since CD-Audio's introduction in
1983 have had equal or lower resolution.

A Telarc or MoFi disc is expensive enough that the slight extra
cost is easily absorbed.

I just visited Amazon and listed out Telarc discs. I found discs
priced from $5.99 to $20.98 and many price points in-between. I
think you have to prove that Telearc discs actually sell, on the
average, for significantly higher than average prices.

MoFi pursued that business strategy, right into bankruptcy in 1999.

So? Inability to show linkage noted.

Inability to learn from other people's mistakes noted.

So, "time-wasting" is one of your strategies for "fun".

Sure, while my work ethic is in pretty good shape, I have no feelings of
compunction about wasting a little time having fun.

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

I've noticed some of the vicious responses you got from the SACD peanut
gallery. Proof enough as to what I say.

Any port in a storm, eh GT?

--

I call it as I see it, dude...

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

I'm concerned with neither, lest you consider exposing your illogical
and contradictory statements as attacking you personally.

When your questions started to get inane and petty, I saw where you were
going with it. Lie all you want to about it. That's not going to
change
anything.

Translation: When I insisted that you actually answer the questions,
you decided to call them "inane and petty."

Because they WERE, ric. I knew where you were going. I know when
somebody's trying to wear me down. I've played that game before....


After 40 posts or so, you were beginning to bore me with your
semantics and silly details.

Translation: I wouldn't let you get away with posting statements that
were very hazy in meaning, or outright falsehoods. Example, from "Bad
news for ric." [Message-ID: :

Translation: I already posted them so I already got away with it, anyway.
It's really that you didn't like my attitude more than anything.


"What's going on, ric? What's going on? I thought you said you were
'right'?"

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...


Yeah, posting the URL of an article that quotes the RIAA as saying
that
SACD outsold DVD-A 3.25 to 1 is surely planting a seed of doubt. And

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles
that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

Do you know what an EXAMPLE is, ric?


That's a 'seed of doubt' as far as I'm concerned.... They can't even
agree
on anything amongst themselves.

No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but *sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine. And the 'twain no
meet', which means it's up in the air as far as I'm concerned. There's no
consensus.


[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.


SACD isn't a "propritary [sic]" format. It is a backwards compatible
format.

It's a format for *audiophiles* that I predict, will sink just the way
the
Betamax did.

And that (your opinion) has nothing to do with your calling it a
"propritary [sic]" format. Do you know what a proprietary format is?

Sure, it's an attempt by company to generate (in this case) their own audio
format. The reason for developing a proprietary format is pretty simple.
It's called "profit". You build up business and try to develop a revenue
stream behind it. It's something you get to call your own and you can issue
licences to others so they can be able to use it.

Do I have the exact $$ and %% for all this SACD garbage?

Nope.

But I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some. I have no doubt about
that.

This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down your
opponent, I see...


Besides, I think in the next 10 years or so, the CD format will be no
more.
We'll be downloading all our music (for a fee) and listening to it off
our
hard-drives. That will be *the standard* for music listeners and it's
already happening as we speak. And it will go way beyond what current
mp3
technology has to offer. Not this primitive format mess that the
consumer
has to wade through.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles. The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll see.

When I see an explosion of hybrid CDs and players, then I'll come on board.
But I'm gonna waste my money listening to a bunch of shills hyping the next
latest thing.

I used to go over to stevehoffman.tv a lot until it became a 'crybaby forum'
for SACD audiophiles begging for the next thing to be issued in their
precious format. Blah... I wanna know what's out NOW, not what's not
there. All this ridiculous begging and wishing got sickening so I left and
never looked back.

Until now.... (laughs)


--

-GT- wrote:

"What's going on, ric? What's going on? I thought you said you were
'right'?"

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...

Repeat it again? This is one of the questions you have refused to answer.
Keep delaying until you think of an answer, GT? Answer the question and
you won't be "worn down" any more. Quit the tap dancing.

The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but *sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down your
opponent, I see...

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is

_____________________________.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

Legally?

I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles. The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll see.

I've already found 60 labels that support SACD, and I just looked at
one site, including a few releases from Time Records. Go figure....

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:38:51 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:41:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Are you a happy man, Mr. Krueger?

I'm having way too much fun.

Now *this* is a sad commentary. Apparently, his idea of fun is
jousting with Marc, dave, Stereophile/JA, TD, SdW, and stroking Tom
Nousaine's...ummm...ego.

I am perfectly fine with saying that I enjoy jousting with the lot of you.

As far as Tom goes, he posts almost exclusively in RAHE and I post almost
exclusively in NGs where he doesn't post.

As usual Weil, you exemplify the self-awareness of a rhinoceros. Obviously
your idea of fun is jousting with me.

No, actually my idea of fun was the hour and forty-five minutes I
spent listening to Aimee Mann tonight.

Well that and shooting the show with my new Canon 10D.

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:09:26 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil - - lundi 14 Juin
2004 22:06 wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:41:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" said:

Apparently all that good music did nothing for the hatred that
festers inside you, Weil.

Why does everything in your life revolve about old-biblical terms and
events?

Say what?

I keep seeing words like "hatred", "revenge", etc. in your posts.

Hatred yes. I don't think that there is any controversy about the vast
amount of hatred that has been directed my way by you for example, Sander.

Are you a happy man, Mr. Krueger?

I''m having way too much fun.

Now *this* is a sad commentary. Apparently, his idea of fun is
jousting with Marc, dave, Stereophile/JA, TD, SdW, and stroking Tom
Nousaine's...ummm...ego.

Coming from you Dave, it's a little bit ironic.
Be honest, your daily schedule is perfectly established Arnold wakes up
first and you follow him 2 or 3 hours later for about 2 or 3 hours of
trolling.

....and what about *your* schedule?

It's a little early for you to be tracking my every move, isn't it?
And how about your Pavolvian responses to Boon or Scott Wheeler?

If you don't have any pending subject to reheat you pick-up something new in
one of Arnold's answers of the day...

Don't be so modest, Dave, you are surely one of the most humdrum RAO
regulars.

Why thank you.

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT- wrote:

"What's going on, ric? What's going on? I thought you said you were
'right'?"

Yet nothing in the article even concerned what I have said, much less
proved me wrong. So, *exactly* what were you referring to? (I know...
another silly detail.)

Good grief, I have to repeat it to you again? More wearing down your
opponent...

Repeat it again? This is one of the questions you have refused to answer.
Keep delaying until you think of an answer, GT? Answer the question and
you won't be "worn down" any more. Quit the tap dancing.

That SACD is the future. That everything we'll be released as hybrids. How
can that be with a small market share like that?

These articles tell me that the future isn't as rosy as you would have me
believe

Capice?


The *other* one I cut and pasted here said quite the opposite. Two
articles that say the opposite thing. Who are we to believe? You?

See? There you go again! I haven't even speculated on the subject of
SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003 (the subject of both stories.) What
have *I* said about SACD vs. DVD-A popularity in 2003? (Oops...another
silly detail.)

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

The subject of SACD vs. DVD-A popularity. A theme I've been going back to
for the last 40 posts or so. Who will win out in the format wars. I've
also been to some of these audiophile forums, recently. There's a lot of
'wishing' on there that DVD-A would just go away...

Why won't it, ric? Why won't DVD-A just go away....


No, it just shows you how you can use numbers to bolster both sides of
a
story. The *survey* (done with 2900 phone calls) favored DVD-A, but
*sales
figures* favored SACD by a 3.25 to 1 margin. The more accurate
barometer
should be obvious, even to you.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

But it's what YOU want to believe in, ric.


[BTW...I was taught in a "Statistics" class that the result of any
survey or poll should include the *exact* wording of the questions
asked in that survey or poll. The RIAA results omit this.]

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?


This is all obvious, ric. You already know this. More wearing down
your
opponent, I see...

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is


It probably won't be around in the next five years, so why bother.... Just
like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

_____________________________.

So for the next 10 years you will be a Luddite? You gonna stop buying
CDs because they will be "no more" in 10 years? Figures....

Nope. For the next 10 years, they'll be plenty of non-SCAD hybrid
material
being reissued. There's no rush out there (for SACD) like you seem to
believe there is.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Call it my own personal consumer boycott, ric. How's that....


Besides, most of my music I now download as mp3s anyway, so it's a moot
point.

Legally?


P2P software isn't illegal and not everything out there is copyrighted.

The cops haven't broken down my door. All those trades I do result in a lot
of CD-Rs that I and others enjoy.

So bust me....


I also believe many labels aren't gonna bother with the added expense of
putting an SACD layer in their CDs, except with certain audio titles.
The
ones that do are small in numbers. You think it'll grow, fine. We'll
see.

I've already found 60 labels that support SACD, and I just looked at
one site, including a few releases from Time Records. Go figure....

60 labels isn't very much, ric. It's a drop in the bucket.

There are thousands out there who probably couldn't be bothered with the
added expense of putting an extra layer on their CDs. Just to please the
audiophile spectrum of the population.

But I've told you that before. You don't want to listen.


--

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Glenn Zelniker wrote:

I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of a percent of buyers
knew about, cared about, or utilized the SACD feature.

As would I. I checked out some of these products during Christmas 2002,
when
they were first released. The packaging was pretty coy about the fact that
there was even a SACD layer present. I think a lot of people took them at
face value - they were first and foremost Stones CDs.

Good point. If you go to amazon.com and look up these new reissues, the
SACD feature is buried down in the middle of their webpage liner notes.
It's not even in the headline, right next to the title. I guess it isn't
even considered a big selling point.

The makers of SACD know it can't survive on it's own, unless it piggybacks
on to another format. Those Stones CDs would've sold as is, without the
SACD layer.

But don't tell that to the elitist audiophile.

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me, and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

But once again, don't tell that to the elitist audiophile. 'That's not
good enough'

-GT wrote:

"What's going on, ric? What's going on? I thought you said you were
'right'?"

That SACD is the future. That everything we'll be released as hybrids. How
can that be with a small market share like that?

These articles tell me that the future isn't as rosy as you would have me
believe

And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

You didn't have to say anything. I used that as an EXAMPLE.

An example of *what*, GT?

The subject of SACD vs. DVD-A popularity. A theme I've been going back to
for the last 40 posts or so. Who will win out in the format wars. I've
also been to some of these audiophile forums, recently. There's a lot of
'wishing' on there that DVD-A would just go away...

Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.
I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

That's right. You have your numbers and I have mine.

Wrong again, Einstein. All of the above numbers were the RIAA's numbers.
None of them were mine.

But it's what YOU want to believe in, ric.

Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you
already know this.

You taught a statistics class? Well no wonder you're anally-rententive.

I see you have a reading comprehension problem, as well. It clearly says:
"...I WAS TAUGHT IN a statistics class..." not that I taught a class.
Any other learning disabilities we should consider when reading your
posts?

Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?

Pot - Kettle - Black.

But honestly, only a reading comprehension problem or the deliberate
distortion of what I have written can explain your posts lately.

OK. I'll "stop wearing you down." Just provide an answer to the following:

Given that:

* SACD compatible players will also play CDs and often DVDs, and
* Hybrid SACDs also play on normal CD players, and
* The current retail price of SACDs is about the same as normal CDs,

the downside in making your next DVD or CD player SACD compatible is


It probably won't be around in the next five years, so why bother....

So why bother? To enjoy better quality audio at little or no extra cost,
using a backwards compatible system. That's why.

Just like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your
CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or
as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite
ludicrous.

Never said there was a rush. Just that your reasons for avoiding SACDs
were idiotic.

Call it my own personal consumer boycott, ric. How's that....

Well, since you only listen in you car, perhaps MP3s are fine for *you*.

But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

-GT wrote:

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me, and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

ric wrote:
-GT wrote:

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the
Stones catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good
enough for me, and far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

Since we're talking different mastering jobs here, the differences could be
fairly pronounced. Therefore, the means by which differences might be heard
in a car is:

(1) A good car audio system

(2) Good ears

Well I did used to own a home stereo back then. Any more stupid questions?


"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT wrote:

Besides, I already have most of the European CD versions of the Stones
catalog that I bought in the early 90s. They sound good enough for me,
and
far better than those crummy ABCKO domestics.

In your car? How would you tell the difference?

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"ric" wrote in message ...


And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all. Which makes
(hybrid) SACDs
sales figures even more minuscule in terms of CD sales, overall.

I still see those tiny sections up at the record store that still carry
SACD-only CDs on their shelves. They don't look like they're moving very
well, ric. Now why is that....


Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.

Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because you
know I'm right.

I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread. And then you
went off an a tangent about something else. Go back an read my first post
again, ric.


Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you
already know this.

Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you
arguing with me? Obviously you have something at stake here....



Patronizing me again, ric? Another ad hominem attack of last resort?

Pot - Kettle - Black.

Hey you're a pretty good patronizer. 'wow...'


But honestly, only a reading comprehension problem or the deliberate
distortion of what I have written can explain your posts lately.

Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already know
this by now.


So why bother? To enjoy better quality audio at little or no extra cost,
using a backwards compatible system. That's why.

At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

I'm sure they'll be a great match for your $129.95 SACD hybrid player from
Wal-Mart.


Just like the DIVX disc. Another stupid scam. And if DVD-A just
happens to win
out in the marketplace, what then....

Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your
CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or
as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite
ludicrous.

Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there,
maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot.
Unless you've got plenty of rack space to go along with those $600 - $2,000
Denon players...


Well, since you only listen in you car, perhaps MP3s are fine for *you*.

It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you
audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of style.
It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots.


But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.


--

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:49:53 -0400, "GT" wrote:

"ric" wrote in message ...
But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-)

Kal

GT wrote:

And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all.

Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*,
not *all have*.

Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.

Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because you
know I'm right.

That statement is so idiotic, it's as if sum1 made it.

I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread.

You mentioned *what* ?? That I have a player that plays both DVD-A
and SACD? That I prefer SACDs over DVD-As? You sure don't express
yourself very well.

Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again, you
already know this.

Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you
arguing with me?

Because you keep making asinine statements like:

* "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over
every note."
* "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything."
* "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT
player."
* "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One?
Two? Three?"
* "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a
pile of unstandardized junk."
* "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not
enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with
expensive SACD versions
* "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and
spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile."
* "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric."
* "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats
like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc
(and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where
consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped
out from under them after only a few years."

That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD
has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were
anywhere close to being backward compatible.

Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying
that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles",
but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum
*aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Then there's your "GTisms" such as "six times less" in price. That one
provided more than a few chuckles.

Add to that the URLs that you posted, saying they showed I wasn't right,
when in fact they did no such thing.

And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that
I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was
taught in a statistics class that..."

Man, there is so much more. But onward....

Obviously you have something at stake here....

If it's so obvious, tell us what it is.

Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already know
this by now.

I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such
as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter
nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your
listening room is your car.

At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system
than you do for a normal CD system.

Then you play your SACDs as SACDs on your SACD player, or as CDs on your
CD player, and continue to use your SACD player as a CD player, and/or
as a DVD player (as most are.) See, your comparison to DIVX is quite
ludicrous.

Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there,
maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot.

My neighbor's DVD player was SACD compatible (many are) and he didn't
even realize it. He knew it played CDs, but he was clue less about SACDs.

People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility
at little extra cost is just a bonus.

It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you
audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of style.
It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots.

Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"]

But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs.
That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a
comprehension problem, don't you?

And you wonder why I continue to answer your posts...

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-)

Quite rare. I think I've seen a $1000+ tube player that wasn't
recommended for regular CDs.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:49:53 -0400, "GT" wrote:

"ric" wrote in message
...
But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-)

Or that even rarer CD player that won't play SACDs. /;^)

"ric" wrote in message ...
GT wrote:

And this has *what* to do with your assertion that you "thought you
said
you were 'right'" ?? I *never* said that SACD is *the* future, or that
everything will be released as hybrid SACDs. What I have *constantly*
said was since SACD players also play normal CDs and/or DVDs, and
since
hybrid SACDs play on normal CD players, that there is no risk in
getting
involved in SACDs. I also said that most *SACDs* will be released as
hybrid SACDs. Those "articles" address NONE of these issues, and your
assertion that they somehow prove me wrong is just ludicrous.

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all.

Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*,
not *all have*.

Semantics again, ric.... semantics.... I know what you said, but *I'm*
saying it. For your benefit.


Again, this has *nothing* to do with your statement "Who are we to
believe? You?" since I have not offered an opinion on the subject.

Of course you haven't. You don't have an opinion on the matter because
you
know I'm right.

That statement is so idiotic, it's as if sum1 made it.

Hey, it's true. Oh well.... (head-shaking...)


I obviously don't know which format will become dominant, since I
got a player that plays both DVD-A and SACD. I have only said that
I prefer SACDs over DVD-As. But you know this. You've been told
countless times. You just enjoy acting obtuse.

I mentioned that in very first post I made to that thread.

You mentioned *what* ?? That I have a player that plays both DVD-A
and SACD? That I prefer SACDs over DVD-As? You sure don't express
yourself very well.

Well obviously I've expressed myself well enough that I've gotten your
attention for the last 50 posts or so.


Why? I have no vested interest in either format. Again, and you know
this already, my player plays BOTH formats. The only comment *I* have
is that the actual sales figures are a better barometer than is a poll
of 2900 consumers (much like telephone election polls versus the
actual
election results. Only the actual results really count.) But, again,
you
already know this.

Well if you have no vested interest in either format, then why are you
arguing with me?

Because you keep making asinine statements like:

No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...?


* "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over
every note."
* "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything."
* "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT
player."
* "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One?
Two? Three?"
* "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a
pile of unstandardized junk."
* "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not
enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with
expensive SACD versions
* "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and
spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile."
* "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric."
* "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats
like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc
(and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where
consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped
out from under them after only a few years."

That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD
has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were
anywhere close to being backward compatible.

I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but
so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records
has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner.
Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers....

In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining
how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm....


Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying
that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles",
but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum
*aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself,
with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate...


Then there's your "GTisms" such as "six times less" in price. That one
provided more than a few chuckles.

Add to that the URLs that you posted, saying they showed I wasn't right,
when in fact they did no such thing.

I said there's *no consensus* out there, ric. That was the main point.
That's why I asked; "What's going on, ric?"


And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that
I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was
taught in a statistics class that..."

More patronizing again, ric?



Obviously you have something at stake here....

If it's so obvious, tell us what it is.

I dunno, ric. You tell me. You're the one that's been slowly getting more
and more hysterical with each subsequent post.


Give it up, ric. You're not gonna sell me on it. You should already
know
this by now.

I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such
as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter
nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your
listening room is your car.

You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't
think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why
don't you just accept that?


At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system
than you do for a normal CD system.

Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD
thing, again? Yes? No?



Well assuming that most people already have a good CD player out there,
maybe one that isn't SACD capable, then the SACD machine would be moot.

My neighbor's DVD player was SACD compatible (many are) and he didn't
even realize it. He knew it played CDs, but he was clue less about SACDs.

Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player?
Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since
SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least
make that selling point known to the general public.

I guess it's sort of analgous to the SACD not being embossed on the front of
those Stones remasters... Or why amazon.com buries that feature down in the
middle of their description on their webpage....

The 'fine-print', huh ric...


People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility
at little extra cost is just a bonus.

Yes and wonder how many new (or reissue) CDs are coming out every week that
are non-SACD compatible.... As opposed to those that are....


It's the future, ric. Better get used to it. I know many of you
audiophiles were having withdrawl symptoms when the LP went out of
style.
It was so bad, some of you all needed rabies shots.

Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"]

Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to
sleep.... (laughs)


But for *others*, the no risk venture into SACDs is highly worth
considering.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs.
That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a
comprehension problem, don't you?

Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD
benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions.....

Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right....



And you wonder why I continue to answer your posts...

Whatever you say, ric.....whatever you say.....

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:35:32 -0700, ric wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

Only if you find that 'rare' SACD player that won't play CDs. ;-)

Quite rare. I think I've seen a $1000+ tube player that wasn't
recommended for regular CDs.

Not recommended is not the same as not compatible.

Kal

"Arny Krueger" said:

Hatred yes. I don't think that there is any controversy about the vast
amount of hatred that has been directed my way by you for example, Sander.

Like I said before, I don't hate anyone, Arny. That includes you.
How would it be possible for me to hate someone 20.000 kms away who
writes messages to a newsgroup?

Do you hate other people, Arny?

Are you a happy man, Mr. Krueger?

I''m having way too much fun.

But are you a happy man?

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

Hatred yes. I don't think that there is any controversy about the
vast amount of hatred that has been directed my way by you for
example, Sander.

Like I said before, I don't hate anyone, Arny. That includes you.

Saying that doesn't make it be so.

How would it be possible for me to hate someone 20.000 kms away who
writes messages to a newsgroup?

How would such a thing be impossible?

Do you hate other people, Arny?

That would be an irrelevant question, Sander. we're talking about your
bizarre behavior.

Are you a happy man, Mr. Krueger?

I''m having way too much fun.

But are you a happy man?

Typical of your bizarre behavior Sander, the fact that you see no connection
between fun and happiness.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Like I said before, I don't hate anyone, Arny. That includes you.

Saying that doesn't make it be so.

I think that depends on one's definition of "hatred".

How would it be possible for me to hate someone 20.000 kms away who
writes messages to a newsgroup?

How would such a thing be impossible?

I think that depends on one's definition of "hatred".

Do you hate other people, Arny?

That would be an irrelevant question, Sander. we're talking about your
bizarre behavior.

But do you hate other people, Arny?
Do you hate *me*, 20.000 kms away writing messages on a newsgroup?

Are you a happy man, Mr. Krueger?

I''m having way too much fun.

But are you a happy man?

Typical of your bizarre behavior Sander, the fact that you see no connection
between fun and happiness.

But are you a happy man, Arny?

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

-GT wrote:

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all.

Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most will*,
not *all have*.

Semantics again, ric.... semantics....

Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty,
sum1 style.

No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...?

Another statement that makes no sense. What are you trying to say, dude?

* "They are formats for anal-retentive audiophiles who obsess over
every note."
* "Besides, you have to buy two ****ing players in order to cover
everything."
* "You'll be stuck with the equivalent of an old laserdisc or DAT
player."
* "And how many models are out there that'll cover everything? One?
Two? Three?"
* "And those that are stuck with the losers product, wind up with a
pile of unstandardized junk."
* "And yes, there is a difference, I never said there wasn't. But not
enough for me to justify replacing my current collection with
expensive SACD versions
* "No, you were making a suggestion that by default, he go out and
spend lots of money and turn himself into an audiophile."
* "You are missing out on great sound...." How 'bout saving on the
pocketbook, ric."
* "All one has to do is look back and see what happend [sic] to formats
like Beta, DAT, MiniDisc (in the U.S.), Laserdisc, Videodisc
(and maybe some others that I can't remember offhand) where
consumers thought they had a good thing, only to see it ripped
out from under them after only a few years."

That's one of my favorites, since the backward compatibility of SACD
has been explained to you countless times, and none of the above were
anywhere close to being backward compatible.

I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time, but
so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower Records
has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner.
Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers....

In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front explaining
how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm....

So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in
your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is
the problem?

Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying
that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive audiophiles",
but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum
*aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to myself,
with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate...

So you will take the side that fits your need at the time? Is your
last name Kerry?

And your reading comprehension problems, such as claiming that I said that
I "taught a statistics class". My statement clearly stated that "I was
taught in a statistics class that..."

More patronizing again, ric?

No, it's called ridiculing.

I'm not trying to sell *you* on it. Just trying to post some FACTS (such
as backwards compatibility, pricing, etc.) to counter some of the utter
nonsense that you are posting. Why should I try to convince you? Your
listening room is your car.

You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I don't
think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why
don't you just accept that?

Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's
your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue.

At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system
than you do for a normal CD system.

Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of SACD
thing, again? Yes? No?

No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or
speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on
my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without
a clue. [that, too, was ridicule]

Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD player?
Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think since
SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at least
make that selling point known to the general public.

Congratulations! You've now offended the Christians as well as the
audiophiles. Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all
of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course
not.

People buy new DVD or CD players all the time. Getting SACD compatibility
at little extra cost is just a bonus.

Yes and wonder how many new (or reissue) CDs are coming out every week that
are non-SACD compatible.... As opposed to those that are....

Non-SACD compatible? What is that? Any CD or SACD being released will
play in a SACD compatible player. Another example of you not expressing
yourself very well, GT.

Rabies shots, eh. For withdrawal symptoms? [My new favorite "GTism"]

Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to
sleep.... (laughs)

Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your
rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense.

Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs.
That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a
comprehension problem, don't you?

Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD
benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions.....

Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right....

But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying
that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when
compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part.

Does anyone hear banjo music?

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT wrote:

Only *some* have been released as hybrids, ric. Not all.

Reading disorder strikes again? Please note above that I said *most
will*,
not *all have*.

Semantics again, ric.... semantics....

Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty,
sum1 style.

The amount of SACD hybrids out there is very small, ric. I'm being very
honest about how I see it. You think it's 'wrong' and that's fine. What
you're being blindsided with is your unremitting optimism about it.


No vested interest.... Are you sure that's all, dude...?

Another statement that makes no sense. What are you trying to say, dude?

C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long?


I know you've been repeating "backward compatible" for quite some time,
but
so what.... There's still plenty of SACD-only discs around. Tower
Records
has little section of them off all by themselves, in one little corner.
Funny those say "SACD-only" on the covers....

In fact, some of them have a little black sticker on the front
explaining
how they will only play in SACD players. Hmmm....

So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in
your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is
the problem?

But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards compatible
logic' isn't working here.....

(laughing)


Not to mention your opposing statements, such as in one breath saying
that "obsessing over every last note" is for "anal-retentive
audiophiles",
but later complaining that "hybrid" players don't get the "maximum
*aual* [sic] benefit" from SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Yes, that's true. With the former statement, I was being true to
myself,
with the latter statement, I was playing the devil's advocate...

So you will take the side that fits your need at the time?

Absolutely. I take the devil's advocate from time to time to illustrate my
point. If it got lost on you, that's your problem, not mine...



No, it's called ridiculing.

Yes I've run into sore losers before. When all else fails, the argument of
last resort.



You over a format that I don't believe will be around in 5 years? I
don't
think that's utter nonsense at all and I've told why I believe so. Why
don't you just accept that?

Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's
your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue.

Well finally some progress, ric. I can accept all the 'backwards
compatibility' hangups you mention, but they're meaningless unless SACD
catches on to the public at large. And I mean the SACD layer itself, ric.
Not the piggyback hybrid the SACDphiles are desperately using in order to
keep this by-the-wayside format alive with.


At "little or no extra cost"? You mean the $1,000 dollar + amps and
the
$10,000 + speakers to go with it?

Ignorance again. You don't need the above any more for an SACD system
than you do for a normal CD system.

Oh but aren't 'we' back to getting back to the 'full, aural benefit' of
SACD
thing, again? Yes? No?

No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or
speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on
my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without
a clue. [that, too, was ridicule]

Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes, that
too was ridicule]


Well isn't there a little logo they emboss on the front of each SACD
player?
Isn't it printed on the outside of the cardboard box? I would think
since
SACD is the considered the 'second coming of Christ', they would at
least
make that selling point known to the general public.

Congratulations! You've now offended the Christians as well as the
audiophiles.

Pray for me.


Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all
of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course
not.

Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be terribly
unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large.



Human rabies, ric. It was pretty bad. Maybe they should've been put to
sleep.... (laughs)

Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your
rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense.

Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric. The argument of last resort,
again.... (yawn...)


Sure, if all you're willing to settle for is limited choices.

How's that? It'll play all that a normal CD player will, plus SACDs.
That's *more* choice, not "limited choices." You *do* have a
comprehension problem, don't you?

Let's see what....2,000 titles where one can take advantage of the SACD
benefit...out of out of tens of thousands...millions.....

Yeah that sounds like a lot of big choices all right....

But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying
that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when
compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part.

It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on your
logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take
advantage of that SACD feature. Would you play an SACD hybrid CD in an SACD
hybrid player in the CD mode?

You're starting to bore me again, ric. Please do little jig for us....
(laughs)


--

-GT wrote:

Changing my written "most" to "all" is semantics? No, it's dishonesty,
sum1 style.

The amount of SACD hybrids out there is very small, ric. I'm being very
honest about how I see it. You think it's 'wrong' and that's fine. What
you're being blindsided with is your unremitting optimism about it.

As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used
the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother
looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid CDs in new
releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change
what I said, again. I suspect the latter.

C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long?

Because you're such an easy target with all your asinine statements.

So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in
your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is
the problem?

But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards compatible
logic' isn't working here.....

(laughing)

GT strategy: Losing a point of debate, make a joke and laugh. Sophomoric.

Your "opinion" that it won't be around in 5 years I can accept. It's
your other asinine statements (listed above) with which I take issue.

Well finally some progress, ric. I can accept all the 'backwards
compatibility' hangups you mention, but they're meaningless unless SACD
catches on to the public at large.

Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD
compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid
SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else*
buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments.

No. In fact, I enjoy SACDs the most with just headphones (NO amps or
speakers needed.) But the improvement in sound is quite evident on
my 15 year old, $150 dollar speakers as well. You are again without
a clue. [that, too, was ridicule]

Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes, that
too was ridicule]

Nice try, but you've never heard a SACD with headphones, have you? Do
you have headphones in your car? I'm beginning to suspect that you've
never heard a SACD at all.

Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all
of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course
not.

Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be terribly
unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large.

Thank you for making my point.

Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your
rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense.

Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric.

No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna
sugar coat it.

But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying
that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when
compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your part.

It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on your
logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take
advantage of that SACD feature.

I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to
listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player
and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something
completely different.

That's the only way your argument ends up as being correct.

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

"ric" wrote in message ...
-GT wrote:

As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used
the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother
looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid CDs in new
releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change
what I said, again. I suspect the latter.

And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases
vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise. But then you would
have to admit to your error, or try to change what I said.


C'mon, what's the REAL reason why you've gone with me this long?

Because you're such an easy target with all your asinine statements.

Well I will admit to one thing, ric. I've been laughing a lot at you the
last 10 posts or so. That I will admit to.

(more laughs)


So, if you have any of the non hybrid discs, you simply play them in
your SACD player, as always. Is this so hard to understand? Where is
the problem?

But I don't have an SACD player, ric. I'm afraid your 'backwards
compatible
logic' isn't working here.....

(laughing)

GT strategy: Losing a point of debate, make a joke and laugh. Sophomoric.

What point, ric... That I'm laughing at you?

Ok, I'm laughing at you.... And I don't feel bad about that at all.


Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD
compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid
SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else*
buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments.

Yes and most players are still being made *without* the SACD capability.
What about them? And what about DVD-A? There are still very few players
out there that will play both. The cheap-o Pioneer and the expensive Denons
are the only ones I know of.

But I'm sure you'll come up with some audiophile makes, designed to blow the
consumer's wallet wide open.


Ah, a *subjective difference* on ric's headphones. Very good. [yes,
that
too was ridicule]

Nice try, but you've never heard a SACD with headphones, have you? Do

Nope. Never have. I hate headphones. I never use them.

you have headphones in your car? I'm beginning to suspect that you've
never heard a SACD at all.

Uh-oh, more stupid jumping-to-conclusions.

When I do happen to listen to music at home, it's through my computer's CD
drive which also doesn't have SACD capability. I haven't tried hybrids with
that, but then why bother when the standard CD or mp3s are readily
available. I don't need to buy a hybrid to replace it.


Are you suggesting that you knew, or cared, what all
of the little logos on the box of your, say VCR, meant? Of course
not.

Well obviously your neighbor didn't. So unless he happens to be
terribly
unusual, I suspect that's also the case with the public at large.

Thank you for making my point.

What point? That SACD isn't a big marketing point among manufacturers out
there? If that's your point, then you're right.

The fact that it isn't was also my point.


Yeah, stupid, laugh it off. That doesn't change the fact that your
rabies shots for withdrawl symptoms comment made no sense.

Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric.

No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna
sugar coat it.

Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee....


But you weren't referring to "just" SACD advantages. You were saying
that having a SACD compatible CD player gives you limited choices when
compared to a standard CD player. Another asinine statement on your
part.

It does give the one geared towards SACD a limited choice. Based on
your
logic, if you had an SACD hybrid player, I'm sure you'd want to take
advantage of that SACD feature.

I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to
listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player
and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something
completely different.

But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who know
that the only way their precious format will survive is to piggyback it on
to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it.

They probably don't emphasize the hybrid fact because it would confuse the
average buyer out there even more. If they see the SACD format emphasized
(even on a hybrid), then they might pass up buying it thinking that the CD
wouldn't even be compatible with their players, which would lead to less
sales overall than they would get if they stuck to a CD-only format.

I'll bet 99% of those hybrid buyers will never get the chance to listen to
the SACD layer. It's only on there to kiss the audiophiles ass. People who
are anal-retentive, who worry about every drop-out, every pop, every
tape-hiss, every artifact that shows up in the original source material.
They forget that it is the music itself that should be enjoyed for what it
is, instead of crybabying because something isn't perfect. Whaaa...whaaa...


That's the only way your argument ends up as being correct.

It's a phyrric choice, ric. Looks good, but it won't last.


--

Perhaps I could interject a question he

Is there such a thing as a hybrid SACD/CD in which the SACD layer is
5.1 channel surround sound? If so, does such a disc also include a
DVD compatible Dolby Digital surround sound version of the SACD track?

DVD-A discs usually include a DD track so that one can play surround
sound on an ordinary DVD player as well as a DVD-A player.

Thanks,

Norm Strong

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:29:15 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Perhaps I could interject a question he

Is there such a thing as a hybrid SACD/CD in which the SACD layer is
5.1 channel surround sound?

Your question seems vague. The SACD layer can accommodate a stereo
track and a multichannel track of up to 6 channels, including 5.1
channels.

If so, does such a disc also include a
DVD compatible Dolby Digital surround sound version of the SACD track?

AFAIK, there are no DD tracks on any SACD.

DVD-A discs usually include a DD track so that one can play surround
sound on an ordinary DVD player as well as a DVD-A player.

True.

Kal
Thanks,

Norm Strong

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:29:15 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Perhaps I could interject a question he

Is there such a thing as a hybrid SACD/CD in which the SACD layer
is
5.1 channel surround sound?

Your question seems vague. The SACD layer can accommodate a stereo
track and a multichannel track of up to 6 channels, including 5.1
channels.

Let me see if I can clarify my question. We start with a hybrid
SACD/CD; the SACD layer is 5.1 surround sound. Presumably, the CD
layer is a mixdown of the 5.1 SACD recording. Is this mixdown also
present on the SACD layer, so that a person who wants SACD quality,
but doesn't have surround sound, can listen to the high-rez recording?

I guess another way of saying this is: Are there any SACD players
with headphone output? What is fed to the headphone output when the
original is a surround sound SACD?

Norm Strong

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:05 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Let me see if I can clarify my question. We start with a hybrid
SACD/CD; the SACD layer is 5.1 surround sound. Presumably, the CD
layer is a mixdown of the 5.1 SACD recording. Is this mixdown also
present on the SACD layer, so that a person who wants SACD quality,
but doesn't have surround sound, can listen to the high-rez recording?

Yes. There is always a high-rez stereo track which may be a mixdown
or a separate mix.

I guess another way of saying this is: Are there any SACD players
with headphone output?

Yes. I have two Sonys now with headphone jacks/VCs.

What is fed to the headphone output when the
original is a surround sound SACD?

Depends. If you play the high-rez stereo tracks (or the RBCD tracks),
you get stereo. If you play the MCH tracks, I suspect that you get
only the front L/R tracks but I have not tried it since it seems only
reasonable to play the stereo tracks if one is listening in stereo.

Kal

-GT wrote:

As usual, your reply has nothing to do with the question at hand. I used
the word "most will be". You changed it to "all". If you would bother
looking, you would see hybrid SACDs outnumber non hybrid SACDs in new
releases. But then you would have to admit your error, or try to change
what I said, again. I suspect the latter.

And if you bothered looking, you would see that new standard CD releases
vastly outnumber SACD releases, hybrid or otherwise. But then you would
have to admit to your error, or try to change what I said.

As usual, your reply has *nothing* to do with what I said. I said new
hybrid SACD releases outnumber non hybrid SACD releases, contrary to
what you wrote. Your commenting on the number of non SACD releases is
about as relevant as comparing it to DVD releases. Totally irrelevant.
You were wrong, so you changed the subject. Typical.

Wrong again, Einstein. The fact that I can play my CDs on my SACD
compatible player, SACDs on my SACD compatible player, or my hybrid
SACDs on any CD or SACD player is true whether or not *anyone else*
buys SACD format equipment. It's irrelevant, like many of your arguments.

Yes and most players are still being made *without* the SACD capability.
What about them? And what about DVD-A? There are still very few players
out there that will play both. The cheap-o Pioneer and the expensive Denons
are the only ones I know of.

Again, irrelevant to the point being discussed. You said that the backwards
compatibility of SACDs depends on if the SACD "catches on to the public at
large." That's what my above reply is about. Again, you were wrong so you
attempted to change the subject. How transparent.

Uh-oh, more ad hominem attacks from ric.

No, just a fact. When you make no sense (which is often), I'm not gonna
sugar coat it.

Did I hurt your touchy-feely feelings, ric? Aww... Me so saw-wee....

*YOU'RE* the one moaning about attacks, not me. What a moron.

I would rather have a SACD compatible player and have the CHOICE to
listen to SACD recordings when available than have a standard CD player
and NOT have that choice. Now, twist that around to mean something
completely different.

But I don't need that choice, ric. That's a choice for audiophiles who know
that the only way their precious format will survive is to piggyback it on
to the CD format. It can't stand on it's own an *you* know it.

Again, this has *NOTHING* to do with your erroneous statement that
getting a SACD compatible player limits one's choice. Again, you try
to change the subject because your original statement was erroneous
and could not be defended.

Notice a pattern here?

Anybody else hear banjos?

--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...

JBorg wrote:

Fishing for hints in ocean full of lies.

What you need Borg is not a hint. You need a clue!

Arny said:

What you need Borg is not a hint. You need a clue!

So how are those A/B comparisons between your HD-580s and the new 650s going,
****head?

LOL!

Boon

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 6/17/2004 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

JBorg wrote:

Fishing for hints in ocean full of lies.

What you need Borg is not a hint. You need a clue!









Here is a hint/clue for you.
Entry Word: hint
Function: noun
Text:
1
a slight or indirect pointing out of something and especially of the way to an
end give me a hint on how you would deal with the matter
*Synonyms: clue,* cue, indication, inkling, intimation, notion, suggestion,
telltale, wind

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:54:05 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Let me see if I can clarify my question. We start with a hybrid
SACD/CD; the SACD layer is 5.1 surround sound. Presumably, the CD
layer is a mixdown of the 5.1 SACD recording. Is this mixdown
also
present on the SACD layer, so that a person who wants SACD quality,
but doesn't have surround sound, can listen to the high-rez
recording?

Yes. There is always a high-rez stereo track which may be a mixdown
or a separate mix.

Thank you for this info. If there's a surround recording, and also a
stereo recording, then I gather that the total time on the disc will
be quite a bit less than the 74 minutes normally possible. Of course
if the stereo signal is a mixdown, it could be done on the fly with no
added extra disc space.

A second question. Is it possible to make a 2 layer SACD-only disc
wherein the second layer is just a continuation of the first? If so,
is it a RSDL disc?

And finally, is the new 2 sided DVD-A disc, currently being test
marketed, slightly thicker than the standard thickness?

Thanks,

Norm Strong

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:10:52 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote:

Thank you for this info. If there's a surround recording, and also a
stereo recording, then I gather that the total time on the disc will
be quite a bit less than the 74 minutes normally possible.

Not necessarily since this is not a CD.

Of course
if the stereo signal is a mixdown, it could be done on the fly with no
added extra disc space.

Does not happen. All SACDs have a discrete stereo DSD track.

A second question. Is it possible to make a 2 layer SACD-only disc
wherein the second layer is just a continuation of the first? If so,
is it a RSDL disc?

Dunno. Doubt it.

And finally, is the new 2 sided DVD-A disc, currently being test
marketed, slightly thicker than the standard thickness?

I believe so.

Kal