Buying SACDs - my strategy

[Jack]

1. I really do not want to replace my existing
collection of CD's with SACD's unless of course
there is a DRASTIC improvement in the sound
quality of a specific album.

I will only buy brand new albums on SACD and
hopefully get the full benefit of the format.

2. A lot of older albums are being remastered onto
CD but I frequently see complaints about the sound
quality of these disks.

What is your opinion on these issues?

[Kalman Rubinson]

Didn't you post this elsewhere?

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:26:20 +0200, Jack > wrote:

>1. I really do not want to replace my existing
>collection of CD's with SACD's unless of course
>there is a DRASTIC improvement in the sound
>quality of a specific album.
>
>I will only buy brand new albums on SACD and
>hopefully get the full benefit of the format.
>
>2. A lot of older albums are being remastered onto
>CD but I frequently see complaints about the sound
>quality of these disks.
>
>What is your opinion on these issues?

[Jack]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> Didn't you post this elsewhere?

Yes I did.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jack" > wrote in message


> 1. I really do not want to replace my existing
> collection of CD's with SACD's unless of course
> there is a DRASTIC improvement in the sound
> quality of a specific album.

Which begs the question how do you determine an improvement in sound
quality, and what part of the production process do you expect this
improvement to come from? It is well known that simply increasing the
bandpass of recordings to extend above the CD limit of 22 KHz is
insufficient to provide a drastic improvement.

[Jim Gibson]

In article >, Jack > wrote:

> Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> > Didn't you post this elsewhere?
>
> Yes I did.

You have "multi-posted" a message. That is generally considered rude on
Usenet. If you want to send the same message to multiple newsgroups to
reach a larger audience or because you are not sure of the most
appropriate group to use, you should put the groups in the "newsgroups"
header of a single message. This is known as "cross-posting", and is
generally acceptable, if not abused. You should put a single newsgroup
in the "followup-to" header, however, so that followups will appear in
a predictable place.

The reason to do this is so that people who read two or more of the
groups to which you are posting will only read your message once. I
have, so far, read your message three times. Had you cross-posted the
message, the posts will all have the same message ID, and my newsreader
would have only shown me your message in the first group in which I
read it.

Also, if your post contains a question that has already been answered
in another group, then I am wasting my time by responding in another
group.

Continued behavior of this type will tend to get you kill-filed by some.

Thanks.