Save SACD -Start a petition- Anyone interested?

[[email protected]]

I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html

Stick a fork in it folks, its done.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html

I doubt that signing a petition is going to do the trick. Buying lots of
SACDs might, however.

Norm

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 21 Mar 2005 22:07:58 -0800, wrote:

>I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
>awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
>signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
>http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>Thanks.
>

Good riddance to tweako technology. It is a hemorrhoid on the arse of
audio evolution. It is anti- American. God bless preparation H!

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
> Thanks.

If you want to save the format, go buy a lot of discs.
Nobody is going to pay attention to a petition. Petitions do
not make the companies money.

Actually, all SACD subjectively offers that makes it better
than the two-channel CD is surround sound, at least with
some versions, because many early releases were in
two-channel-only form. However, if one takes a good CD and
gives it some decent home-based DSP ambiance-simulation
work, it will probably sound as good as the SACD version.
Even Dolby Pro Logic II or DTS Neo:6 processing can do this,
and unlike some SACD releases (most of which are 4.1 and not
5.1 sound), DPL II and Neo:6 will derive a center channel.

Why can home processing of CD versions sound as good, or
even better? Because a lot of SACD surround releases are
taken from original masters that really had no surround
channel at all. The SACD mastering technician has to
fabricate the surround ambiance the same way you can do at
home with the CD version and a good DSP ambiance processor,
or even a basic receiver that has the more adjustable
version of Dolby Pro Logic II.

Of course, this mainly involves classical releases that have
the surround channels handling just the hall ambiance. With
pop music that often has discrete instrumentation in the
surround channels, all bets are off. Yes, in that case
(assuming one wants singers, drums, horns, pianos, etc. all
around you), SACD and DVD-A have an edge over the stereo CD.

By the way, don't lecture me about the "per channel" sonic
advantage of SACD (or DVD-A) compared to the CD. All you
gain is a bandwidth out into the supersonic realm and a S/N
ratio that is overkill, in light of the noise levels of
one's amp and preamp, not to mention the background noise
levels of typical listening rooms.

Incidentally, I will be publishing reviews of a number of
SACD releases in an upcoming issue of The Sensible Sound. I
have reviewed a number of DVD-A releases in previous issues.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> > awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> > signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html

> Stick a fork in it folks, its done.

And for good reasons:

1) The marketing was a disaster, as was the marketing for
DVD-A.

2) The implementation was idiotic. Bass management and
distance compensation were awkward to engage (if possible at
all), the hookups were goofy, and some recordings did not
even include the center channel.

3) The sound is not much (if any) better than what one can
get with a good stereo CD and some decent surround DSP work
right at home, including DPL II and DTS Neo:6. Note that
this only includes recordings that offered up ambiance in
the surround channels and not discrete instrumentation.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> > awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> > signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>
> I doubt that signing a petition is going to do the trick. Buying lots of
> SACDs might, however.

And unfortunately for SACD (and DVD-A) not much buying has
happened.

Howard Ferstler

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:54:10 +0000, Paul Dormer >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>On 21 Mar 2005 22:07:58 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
>>>awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
>>>signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
>>>http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>
>>Good riddance to tweako technology. It is a hemorrhoid on the arse of
>>audio evolution. It is anti- American. God bless preparation H!
>
>How's yer finger...

Fel newydd, diolch. Dafydd sends his love.

[Arny Krueger]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its
an
>>> awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
>>> signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
>>> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>
>> Stick a fork in it folks, its done.
>
> And for good reasons:
>
> 1) The marketing was a disaster, as was the marketing for
> DVD-A.

If it sounded better all other things being equal, then that should
have been easy to demonstrate with a bias-controlled listening test.
If it didn't sound better, then it had no reason to exist.

> 2) The implementation was idiotic. Bass management and
> distance compensation were awkward to engage (if possible at
> all), the hookups were goofy, and some recordings did not
> even include the center channel.

I wonder if there were patents related to Dolby Digital and/or DTS
that the SACD/DVD-A proponents didn't want to pay to license.

> at home, including DPL II and DTS Neo:6. Note that
> this only includes recordings that offered up ambiance in
> the surround channels and not discrete instrumentation.

Being able to mix your own recordings from multichannel masters with a
discrete channel for each instrument is something that not many
audiophiles have ever experienced.

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> >> Stick a fork in it folks, its done.

> > And for good reasons:
> >
> > 1) The marketing was a disaster, as was the marketing for
> > DVD-A.

> If it sounded better all other things being equal, then that should
> have been easy to demonstrate with a bias-controlled listening test.

It certainly should have sounded better than standard CD
stereo, simply because of the three additional channels. The
..1 subwoofer channel was also additional, but that was
really no big deal with SACD or DVD-A in terms of technical
needs. (All of the channels are full bandwidth down into the
low-bass range.) It was stuck in, because existing surround
systems already had a sub channel and 5.1 looks better on
ads than 5.0. It was used with DD and DTS, because movie
soundtracks already made use of the LFE channel in movie
theaters.

The problem is that most AV enthusiasts do not have surround
speakers or center speakers really good enough to handle the
discrete instrumentation found with a lot of pop releases.
With classical, the function of the surrounds would probably
mostly involve hall ambiance. However, with good DSP
ambiance simulation programs within home processors, or even
DPL II or Neo:6, a classical enthusiast could get surround
with his stereo CDs as good as most SACD or DVD-A releases.
This means that his whole record collection could instantly
become surround sound. Why invest in SACD and DVD-A when
this is possible?

In addition, many, if not most, SACD and DVD-A releases did
not have a center feed, or at best only had one at a very
low level (and basically nothing more than a L+R blend, at
that), whereas DPL II and DTS Neo:6 get a pretty good
derived center feed from two-channel sources. SACD and DVD-A
are mostly 4.1, whereas DPL II and Neo:6 are excellent
simulated 5.1, even if the extra three channels have to be
derived and extracted from the two-channel mix. With most
recordings those decoding schemes work really well.

A bizarre related feature that I have encountered when
reviewing some DVD-A and SACD releases is that absence of a
center channel with some remixes of older materials, while
at the same time the engineer/mixer has located soloists in
the two surround channels. They can put them in the
surrounds, but are totally averse to putting them in the
center, where much of the time they belong. The result are
pop or rock recordings that do not in any way resemble live
performances (I have harped on this elsewhere), which some
enthusiasts probably found unsettling. Admittedly, some
other enthusiasts love that sort of thing, but it has to be
stated that with some surround speakers (like the THX
certified, dipolar jobs) putting discrete signals into them
results in weird sound.

> If it didn't sound better, then it had no reason to exist.

And for the most part it did not sound better, at least to
those who have fooled with CD playback using good DSP
surround processors or even more simple surround-ambiance
circuits like DPL II or DTS Neo:6.

> > 2) The implementation was idiotic. Bass management and
> > distance compensation were awkward to engage (if possible at
> > all), the hookups were goofy, and some recordings did not
> > even include the center channel.

> I wonder if there were patents related to Dolby Digital and/or DTS
> that the SACD/DVD-A proponents didn't want to pay to license.

Well, I believe that Dolby has a big stake in DVD-A.
However, my take on this is that Dolby was still pretty
indifferent to whether or not DVD-A made it in the
marketplace. I mean, they could continue to dominate
surround sound if the DVD-A enterprise completely collapses.
Fortunately for those with DVD-A recordings, there are
alternate tracks on each disc that allow for often very good
DD (and DTS) playback. Most of the time, that is the way I
listen to DVD-A releases, because I can do so with any DVD
video player in any of my three systems.

In most of the discs of that kind I have auditioned, the DD
and DTS tracks were subjectively as good as the DVD-A
tracks. Indeed, they were sometimes considerably better,
because with most processors and systems you at least get
bass management and distance compensation with DD and DTS.
With most processors and players you get no such thing with
DVD-A, or SACD.

In addition, with the DD and DTS versions found on 6.1
processors and receivers you can manually engage the
"center-back" channel and make some pop/rock recordings with
discrete instrumentation in the surrounds sound even more
impressive. There is no way that I know of to engage that
center-back feed with DVD-A or SACD.

The problem that most SACD enthusiasts will be having once
the format folds is that when their players go belly up they
will only be able to listen to the alternate, PCM stereo
tracks. At least the DVD-A collectors will have DD and DTS
surround alternate tracks available. Of course, with those
stereo alternate tracks they can always engage the DSP
circuits in their supposedly fine home-based processors or
receivers and then synthesize some pretty good surround
effects. However, in that case they will have invested extra
money in those SACD releases for nothing. They could have
done just as well with the CD versions.

> > at home, including DPL II and DTS Neo:6. Note that
> > this only includes recordings that offered up ambiance in
> > the surround channels and not discrete instrumentation.

> Being able to mix your own recordings from multichannel masters with a
> discrete channel for each instrument is something that not many
> audiophiles have ever experienced.

I believe that some recording engineers are in the same
boat. Some, like Elliot Scheiner, have done a very good job
with their pop releases, and Jack Renner and John Eargle and
a few others have done some good work with classical
materials. Admittedly, Renner has been reluctant to put much
energy into the center channel, and he has also done some
weird stuff with the .1 channel by making it a vertical/up
channel instead of an low-bass channel. (I have profiled all
three of these gentlemen in The Encyclopedia of Recorded
Sound, by the way.)

However, quite a few engineers avoid the center feed like
the plague. Some probably just do so, because so many center
speakers are low in quality or poorly oriented or located.
They believe that using the center will screw up the
soundstage and the spectral balance. Others, however,
probably have a supposedly philosophical fear of a center
feed for no rational reason at all.

Howard Ferstler

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:46:51 +0000, Paul Dormer >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>How's yer finger...
>>
>>Fel newydd, diolch. Dafydd sends his love.
>
>Sorry... I don't speak Shyte.

You would if you thought I was Katherine Jenkins . . .

[Lionel]

Goofball_star_dot_etal a écrit :
> On 21 Mar 2005 22:07:58 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
>>awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
>>signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
>>http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Good riddance to tweako technology. It is a hemorrhoid on the arse of
> audio evolution. It is anti- American. God bless preparation H!

:-D

[Joseph Oberlander]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:

> On 21 Mar 2005 22:07:58 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
>>awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
>>signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
>>http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>
> Good riddance to tweako technology. It is a hemorrhoid on the arse of
> audio evolution. It is anti- American. God bless preparation H!

Well, I'd not say it that way, but like Sony's HDTV video
format, it's doomed to failure. DVD-A is what you get
on most DVDs and some movies these days, so it's forced
SACD into Betamax status.

[R]

wrote in news:1111471678.057680.123460
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I have heard alot of talk of the demise of sacd. And I think its an
> awesome audio format. Please sign my petition. With enough
> signatures, maybe we can make some waves.
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/SACD/petition.html
> Thanks.
>

You are kidding right? Not very funny. Mildly humorous at best.

If you are serious, don't waste your time with petitions. Just write the
labels and tell them to produce nothing but hybrid SACDs. If you still
want to do the petition, have people sign the SACD only petition then send
it to Universal, Naxos, etc.

r


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

[Powell]

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote

> Well, I'd not say it that way, but like Sony's HDTV video
> format, it's doomed to failure.
>
What_video_format is that?


> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
> Betamax status.
>
DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Joseph Oberlander" wrote
>
>> Well, I'd not say it that way, but like Sony's HDTV video
>> format, it's doomed to failure.
>>
> What_video_format is that?
>
>
>> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
>> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
>> Betamax status.
>>
> DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.

They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
> >> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
> >> Betamax status.
> >>
> > DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.
>
> They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.
>
“They”... the trail of offenders reaches back to audio
engineers and the politics of concusses based
committee standards (Red, Green, Yellow Book
type/compromises). It’s unfortunate that audio
doesn’t appear to have a relevant place in the largest
consumer innovation to date (High Definition Video).

Perhaps when the standards for 64 bit audio processing
are set they will have developed a better frequency/bit depth
scheme (noticeable audio improvement). OTOH, the
microphone as it exists today is not up to the task
(antiquated technology) along with most of the recording
engineers who use them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
>>>> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
>>>> Betamax status.
>>>>
>>> DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.
>>
>> They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.
>>
> "They"... the trail of offenders reaches back to audio
> engineers and the politics of concusses based
> committee standards (Red, Green, Yellow Book
> type/compromises). It's unfortunate that audio
> doesn't appear to have a relevant place in the largest
> consumer innovation to date (High Definition Video).
>
> Perhaps when the standards for 64 bit audio processing
> are set they will have developed a better frequency/bit depth
> scheme (noticeable audio improvement).

64 bit audio is a totally unecessary update for us humans.

> OTOH, the
> microphone as it exists today is not up to the task
> (antiquated technology) along with most of the recording
> engineers who use them.

It's true that many of the most popular microphones that are used for
recording aren't flat up to even 8 KHz.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >>>> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
> >>>> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
> >>>> Betamax status.
> >>>>
> >>> DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.
> >>
> >> They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.
> >>
> > "They"... the trail of offenders reaches back to audio
> > engineers and the politics of concusses based
> > committee standards (Red, Green, Yellow Book
> > type/compromises). It's unfortunate that audio
> > doesn't appear to have a relevant place in the largest
> > consumer innovation to date (High Definition Video).
> >
> > Perhaps when the standards for 64 bit audio processing
> > are set they will have developed a better frequency/bit depth
> > scheme (noticeable audio improvement).
>
> 64 bit audio is a totally unecessary update for us humans.
>
You said the same thing about ISA vs PCI sound cards.


> > OTOH, the
> > microphone as it exists today is not up to the task
> > (antiquated technology) along with most of the recording
> > engineers who use them.
>
> It's true that many of the most popular microphones that are
> used for recording aren't flat up to even 8 KHz.
>
Lack dynamic range, sensitivity and on-and-on.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>>> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
>>>>>> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
>>>>>> Betamax status.
>>>>>>
>>>>> DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.
>>>>
>>>> They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.
>>>>
>>> "They"... the trail of offenders reaches back to audio
>>> engineers and the politics of concusses based
>>> committee standards (Red, Green, Yellow Book
>>> type/compromises). It's unfortunate that audio
>>> doesn't appear to have a relevant place in the largest
>>> consumer innovation to date (High Definition Video).
>>>
>>> Perhaps when the standards for 64 bit audio processing
>>> are set they will have developed a better frequency/bit depth
>>> scheme (noticeable audio improvement).
>>
>> 64 bit audio is a totally unecessary update for us humans.

> You said the same thing about ISA vs PCI sound cards.

No, I was quoting Jeff White saying that. My response was:

"This is all fine and good, but there is this bomb ticking under ISA,
and
when it goes off, new PC's won't have ISA. The ISA bomb was originally
set
for 1998, but has been set back a year. I don't know about you, but
if I
have a $200+ audio card that still makes sense in terms of function,
and
performance, I sure would not have to scrap it the next time I switch
PC's."

Bottom line, I've been pushing PCI sound card for at least 6, myabe 7
years.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:25:46 +0000, Paul Dormer >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>>>How's yer finger...
>>>>
>>>>Fel newydd, diolch. Dafydd sends his love.
>>>
>>>Sorry... I don't speak Shyte.
>>
>>You would if you thought I was Katherine Jenkins . . .
>
>Why.. is she supposed to be attractive or something?

When one is used to sheep, yes.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >>>>>> DVD-A is what you get on most DVDs and some
> >>>>>> movies these days, so it's forced SACD into
> >>>>>> Betamax status.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> DVD-A and SACD are consumer duds.
> >>>>
> >>>> They failed to provide a reliably perceptible advantage.
> >>>>
> >>> "They"... the trail of offenders reaches back to audio
> >>> engineers and the politics of concusses based
> >>> committee standards (Red, Green, Yellow Book
> >>> type/compromises). It's unfortunate that audio
> >>> doesn't appear to have a relevant place in the largest
> >>> consumer innovation to date (High Definition Video).
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps when the standards for 64 bit audio processing
> >>> are set they will have developed a better frequency/bit depth
> >>> scheme (noticeable audio improvement).
> >>
> >> 64 bit audio is a totally unecessary update for us humans.
>
> > You said the same thing about ISA vs PCI sound cards.
>
> Bottom line, I've been pushing PCI sound card for at least 6,
> myabe 7 years.
>
Quack, quack, quack...

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:28:06 +0000, Paul Dormer >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>>>Sorry... I don't speak Shyte.
>>>>
>>>>You would if you thought I was Katherine Jenkins . . .
>>>
>>>Why.. is she supposed to be attractive or something?
>>
>>When one is used to sheep, yes.
>
>Now you mention it.. she's absolutely bovidaecious!

Its's like you would kick her out of bed Lot's, mr. Dumer. LOL!

>
>[Some say jacking off in/on socks may provides pleasure..
> ..any stories to tell?]

Not along those lines, no.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:10:55 +0000, Paul Dormer >
wrote:

>"Goofball_star_dot_etal" emitted :
>
>>>>>>>Sorry... I don't speak Shyte.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You would if you thought I was Katherine Jenkins . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>Why.. is she supposed to be attractive or something?
>>>>
>>>>When one is used to sheep, yes.
>>>
>>>Now you mention it.. she's absolutely bovidaecious!
>>
>>Its's like you would kick her out of bed Lot's, mr. Dumer. LOL!
>
>I would kick her out of the house and onto the street!

Most tweakos are gay, I will note.

[Howard Ferstler]

Paul Dormer wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler", documented wrongdoer, said:
>
> >If you want to save the format, go buy a lot of discs.
> >Nobody is going to pay attention to a petition. Petitions do
> >not make the companies money.
>
> Ignored.
>
> >Actually, all SACD subjectively offers that makes it better
> >than the two-channel CD is surround sound, at least with
> >some versions, because many early releases were in
> >two-channel-only form. However, if one takes a good CD and
> >gives it some decent home-based DSP ambiance-simulation
> >work, it will probably sound as good as the SACD version.
> >Even Dolby Pro Logic II or DTS Neo:6 processing can do this,
> >and unlike some SACD releases (most of which are 4.1 and not
> >5.1 sound), DPL II and Neo:6 will derive a center channel.
>
> Ignored.
>
> >Why can home processing of CD versions sound as good, or
> >even better? Because a lot of SACD surround releases are
> >taken from original masters that really had no surround
> >channel at all. The SACD mastering technician has to
> >fabricate the surround ambiance the same way you can do at
> >home with the CD version and a good DSP ambiance processor,
> >or even a basic receiver that has the more adjustable
> >version of Dolby Pro Logic II.
>
> Ignored.
>
> >Of course, this mainly involves classical releases that have
> >the surround channels handling just the hall ambiance. With
> >pop music that often has discrete instrumentation in the
> >surround channels, all bets are off. Yes, in that case
> >(assuming one wants singers, drums, horns, pianos, etc. all
> >around you), SACD and DVD-A have an edge over the stereo CD.
>
> Ignored.
>
> >By the way, don't lecture me about the "per channel" sonic
> >advantage of SACD (or DVD-A) compared to the CD. All you
> >gain is a bandwidth out into the supersonic realm and a S/N
> >ratio that is overkill, in light of the noise levels of
> >one's amp and preamp, not to mention the background noise
> >levels of typical listening rooms.
>
> Ignored.
>
> >Incidentally, I will be publishing reviews of a number of
> >SACD releases in an upcoming issue of The Sensible Sound. I
> >have reviewed a number of DVD-A releases in previous issues.
>
> Ignored.

Ignorance is bliss, pal.

Howard Ferstler