My Take on SACD

[[email protected]]

The Nazi prohibition of digital output is one big killer, because
people like outboard DACs.

But Ferstler's allegation that the reluctance of producers "to put
much energy in the center channel" reinforces my belief that 5.1
requires, philosophically and practically, the same quality for each
speaker and electronics associated with it. Buying three more speakers
of EQUAL quality and another three monoblocks (or two stereo amps) is
the only sensible approach. That's why as he himself says they don't.

3.1 would have made so much more sense IMO.

But the bottom line is that market forces want you to have less and
not more quality. SACD and DVD-A are more quality. How much more is
debatable, that it is an effort to provide better audio at higher build
cost is not.

So when the record industry completely implodes-which I think at this
point has to happen-so that it can either rise from the ashes or die
out leaving the world to amateur parlor music (or its modern equivalent
the garage band) and state sponsored classical music,such as old commie
Pete Seeger advocated half a century ago, we can at least say, I told
you so.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> The Nazi prohibition of digital output is one big killer, because
> people like outboard DACs.

Anybody who knows anything about audio technology and the current
mainstream audio marketplace, whether music or HT, knows that the real
motivation for digital outputs relates to the fact that the converters
belong way downstream, just before or part of the power amps.

> But Ferstler's allegation that the reluctance of producers "to put
> much energy in the center channel" reinforces my belief that 5.1
> requires, philosophically and practically, the same quality for each
> speaker and electronics associated with it.

There is an obvious need for equal devotion to quality for the front
speakers, however many there may be. Three seems like the chosen
number, but its not the only reasonable number. If anything the center
channel speaker has the greater sonic demands place on it, in a
well-balanced system. Technically its often the tougher problem
because of physical constraints on its size and location.

> Buying three more speakers
> of EQUAL quality and another three monoblocks (or two stereo amps)
is
> the only sensible approach. That's why as he himself says they
don't.

Surround or ambience speakers generally need not be quite of the same
quality as the mains and center. By mentioning monoblocks, Cal
positions himself in the lunatic fringe, but we knew he was there well
before this.

> 3.1 would have made so much more sense IMO.

> But the bottom line is that market forces want you to have less and
> not more quality. SACD and DVD-A are more quality.

Cal shows his marketing ignorance, yet again. Market forces in audio
are always for more quality and smaller costs. The only thing that can
be negotiated is the balance between the two. In fact sound quality
for a given price level has improved over the past 50 years, including
the past 10 years.

> How much more is
> debatable, that it is an effort to provide better audio at higher
> build cost is not.

This farily incomprehensible run-on sentence does nothing to
strenghten Cal's failed arguments and claims.

> So when the record industry completely implodes-which I think at
this
> point has to happen-so that it can either rise from the ashes or die
> out leaving the world to amateur parlor music (or its modern
> equivalent the garage band) and state sponsored classical music,such
> as old commie Pete Seeger advocated half a century ago, we can at
> least say, I told you so.

Will the record industry in general implode, or will the record
industry as Cal knows it implode? I think the latter is possible, only
because Cal's views are so outmoded and unstable.