I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

On 3 Feb 2006 00:21:57 GMT, "DMHenrie" wrote:

I own neither, but plan to start soon.
You may have missed the boat. Both are waning.

What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
You can Google for the technical differences since they have been
described and debated ad nauseam. I prefer SACD simply because the
music I want to hear is on that format.
SACD: (mostly) classical and jazz
DVD-A: (mostly) pop and rock

Kal

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?


I think you will find bigger differences from title to title than
between the two systems. I suggest you get a universal player.


Scott

Perhaps an even better question might be why you would prefer either
over a wll-produced standard CD. Of course finding well-produced CD's
can be a problem. In that case you would go with the high-res format
that has the recording that you want.

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

Well, that would be a good question as well. Why Sacd and DVD-A over a
quality standard CD. I guess it would be because, as far as I know, Sacd and
DVD-A are 5.1. Am I correct in this? My bigger question would be, why Sacd
or DVD-A over a Music DTS DVD. Is the quality of sound better versus the DVD
?


"jwvm" wrote in message
...
Perhaps an even better question might be why you would prefer either
over a wll-produced standard CD. Of course finding well-produced CD's
can be a problem. In that case you would go with the high-res format
that has the recording that you want.

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why
would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why
would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Except that virtually all the industry professionals agree that 96/24 DVD-A
and SACD sound better than 44.1/16 or 48/16. I'll live with their antidotal
opinions, since they match my own. Reliable and repeatedable? Let's
see...did anybody ever do that with CD's vs. LP or Pre-recorded Tape?



SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.

SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially) and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music, it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical music.

DMHenrie wrote:
Well, that would be a good question as well. Why Sacd and DVD-A over a
quality standard CD. I guess it would be because, as far as I know, Sacd and
DVD-A are 5.1. Am I correct in this?


Not always. There are quite a few SACDs out there that are two-channel
only. And conversely there are some DVD-As that don't have a 'real' stereo
mix, but derive one from the multichannel mix.

Also, some multichannel mixes aren't 6-channel - 3, 4 and 5 channel
mixes are out there too.


My bigger question would be, why Sacd
or DVD-A over a Music DTS DVD. Is the quality of sound better versus the DVD
?

Theoretically yes, since DTS is a lossy compressed format (data is discarded
to shrink the size of the file). But in practice, you may well be hard
pressed to tell a good DTS encoding from SACD or DVDA or CD. And anyway it's rare
that a proper comparison is available , where the ONLY difference
is the encoding.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On 3 Feb 2006 15:34:23 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Multichannel is a significant difference.

Kal

On 3 Feb 2006 15:29:24 GMT, "DMHenrie" wrote:

Well, that would be a good question as well. Why Sacd and DVD-A over a
quality standard CD. I guess it would be because, as far as I know, Sacd and
DVD-A are 5.1. Am I correct in this? My bigger question would be, why Sacd
or DVD-A over a Music DTS DVD. Is the quality of sound better versus the DVD
?

In my experience based on primarily classical recordings, the care and
quality of production of MCH SACDs, as well as the lack of lossy
compression, accounts for their usually better sound quality on those
which I have been able to directly compare. New formats from Dolby
and DTS may change that.

Kal

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave
There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.


True - Hard disc's will change everything - but what format?

Michael wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave
There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.


True - Hard disc's will change everything - but what format?

so far, anything but SACD.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On 3 Feb 2006 15:29:24 GMT, "DMHenrie" wrote:

Well, that would be a good question as well. Why Sacd and DVD-A over a
quality standard CD. I guess it would be because, as far as I know, Sacd and
DVD-A are 5.1. Am I correct in this?

No, this only applies to *some* SACD and DVD-A recordings, and no one
is arguing against the *potential* superiority of more channels.

My bigger question would be, why Sacd
or DVD-A over a Music DTS DVD. Is the quality of sound better versus the DVD
?

There seems to be little or no evidence that this is so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.

When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.

So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).

In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role. However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.

So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd? Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on a
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.

Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.
According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.

I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders. It seems happening now. Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).


jwvm wrote:
Perhaps an even better question might be why you would prefer either
over a wll-produced standard CD. Of course finding well-produced CD's
can be a problem. In that case you would go with the high-res format
that has the recording that you want.

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

On 3 Feb 2006 18:30:14 GMT, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 3 Feb 2006 15:34:23 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Multichannel is a significant difference.

Apples and oranges, and already asked and answered.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Feb 2006 18:02:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why
would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Except that virtually all the industry professionals agree that 96/24 DVD-A
and SACD sound better than 44.1/16 or 48/16.

That is simply not true. A vocal minority do, that's for sure, but in
no possible way 'virtually all'.

I'll live with their antidotal
opinions, since they match my own. Reliable and repeatedable? Let's
see...did anybody ever do that with CD's vs. LP or Pre-recorded Tape?

No need - they *do* sound different.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.

SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially) and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music, it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical music.

Not a chance - although DD/DTS on DVDs certainly will be a round for a
long time

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 3 Feb 2006 18:31:23 GMT, Michael wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave
There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.


True - Hard disc's will change everything - but what format?

Best guess - AAC at 320kb/sec. I can get more than 400 full-length CDs
onto my 60GB iPod in that format, and I can't tell it from the
original CD, even though it compresses the data about 5:1.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"vlad" wrote in message
...
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.

When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.

So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).

In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role. However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.

So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd? Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on a
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.

Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.
According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.

I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders. It seems happening now. Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).



What a load of unvarnished crap!

As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about ten years) semi-pro
recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can tell you that CD
was rejected by many audiophiles for one simple reason....for the first five
years or so of its existence as a commercial medium, more often than not the
music reproduced via CD sounded like dreck versus that of LP. By the early
90's almost all audiphiles embraced CD because much of the technology was
shaken down (better DACs, universal use of dither, better analog output
stages, etc.). Some, many in fact, still believe that good LP reproduction
can equal CD and even SACD. I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality. As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

None of this has much to do with your speculative theories above.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 18:02:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why
would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Except that virtually all the industry professionals agree that 96/24
DVD-A
and SACD sound better than 44.1/16 or 48/16.

Certainly the majority on rec.audio.pro...and those who I have been lucky
enough to share AES dinner with.


That is simply not true. A vocal minority do, that's for sure, but in
no possible way 'virtually all'.

I'll live with their antidotal
opinions, since they match my own. Reliable and repeatedable? Let's
see...did anybody ever do that with CD's vs. LP or Pre-recorded Tape?

No need - they *do* sound different.


Different is not superior. It is superiority in reproducing music we are
talking about.


SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over
DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.

SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially) and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it
offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music, it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical music.

Not a chance - although DD/DTS on DVDs certainly will be a round for a
long time


Your opinion only. Versus mine.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:

DMHenrie wrote:
I own neither, but plan to start soon. What is the difference, and why
would
I prefer one over the other when I start buying them?
Dave

There is no difference in 'listening' quality. They both sound the same
and both are much better than Red Book CD.

Actually, there is virtually no reliable and repeatable evidence that
they even sound *different* from CD, which is likely one reason why
they are dying commercially.

Except that virtually all the industry professionals agree that 96/24
DVD-A
and SACD sound better than 44.1/16 or 48/16. I'll live with their
antidotal
opinions, since they match my own. Reliable and repeatedable? Let's
see...did anybody ever do that with CD's vs. LP or Pre-recorded Tape?



SACD seems to have won the format war. DVD-a is dying a painful death
and SACD is on life support but may make it. There are more SACD titles
with more labels devoted to bringing out SACD (www.SA-CD.net) over DVD-A.

But SACD will not last the decade. CD is also in declime as downloaded
music rises.

SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially) and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it
offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music, it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical music.

SACD and DVD-A have no digital outputs. I consider this an insult to the
high end community, and will never embrace either format.

Norm Strong

vlad wrote:
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.


I have my own pet theory about your pet theory.




When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:


1. It wasn't rejected
2. There was only one issue any audiophile I know ever had with CDs.




- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,


CDs never did that. It was just a new source. No one needed to go out
and buy any new speakers for new channels or buy a special preamp for
the source or anything of the like. CDs were actually if nothing else
quite compatable with hifi as it already existed. of course one does
have to overlook the markting hype that went with it. Anyone remember
ads about didgital ready speakers?




- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,


But that never happened. How could something that never happened be a
cuase of anything?



- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)


I do remember many misrepresentations like perfect sound forever.



- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,

Again you are simply out of touch with reality here. CDs were the
subject of many many such tweaks. I think CDs brought in a whole new
wave of such tweaks. Whle I am skeptical of many of them i undestand
the motivation. Audiophiles bought into the new medium, found it
wanting and were trying anything they could to make it better.



- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,


But they weren't. The sheer lack of titles was a huge problem for
years.


- etc.


And you mised the one real reason the only one you will actually find
the audiophiles you mock actually claim as their reason for not liking
CDs. The sound was quite disappointing. Now if you had been paying
attention you would realize that after the first four or five years CDs
started getting better through the efforts of those who recognized
their short comings. It was through the efforts of people who actualy
did careful work to get the best out of CD sound that such improvements
were made. Then and onl then did audiophils that prefered LPs started
to take a liking to CDs as well. YES audiophiles who largely prefer LPs
have also embraced CDs of merit as well! maybe you didn; know that? I
only know of one audiophile that still rejects CD as a medium rather
than on a title by title basis but then he didn't embrace SACDs.




So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).


Yeah, I did blame CDs on global warming. You gotme there.



In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role.


you are just making this up. There was hope that it would get better
and it eventually did. and was hen accepted.


However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.


It's doing quite well for something headed for extiction. Ironically it
will likely last longer than CDs.




So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd?


Well right now in bliss. CDs are better than ever, well made DVD-A and
SACDs are being prodced and the state of audiophile vinyl and
equipment is better than it ever was.


Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on that
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.


You really ought to conisder listening to what we say for a change.
your position on our position is pure fantasy.




Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.

This is just ridiculous. "A way out?" Out of what? Who amoung us have
claimed to not use CDs and to find all CD playback terrible? Show me
one person on RAHE or anywhere for that matter that takes the position
you claim we take as a group. I know of only one such person and he ha
not accepted SACD.



According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.


I see quotes. Who are you quoting?




I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders.


Like MP3? Guess again.


It seems happening now.


Now? You are quite out of touch. It has been happening with CDs since
some people have made the effort to make CDs sound good.


Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).


Finally one comment I agree with.

Scott

wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:


snip, irrelevant to below


SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially) and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it
offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music,
it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical music.

SACD and DVD-A have no digital outputs. I consider this an insult to the
high end community, and will never embrace either format.


Something about cutting off one's nose?............

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

vlad wrote:
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.
deleted


When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.


etc

Agreed. I have pretty much the same theory. I also explains why idiocy like
the green pen 'tweak' and belt-driven CD players were embraced by any
too many audiophiles. They needed *something* they could tweak
on CD.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

On 4 Feb 2006 15:22:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
...
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.

When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.

So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).

In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role. However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.

So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd? Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on a
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.

Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.
According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.

I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders. It seems happening now. Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).


What a load of unvarnished crap!

Looks like Vlad scored a very painful hit.............. :-)

As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about ten years) semi-pro
recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can tell you that CD
was rejected by many audiophiles for one simple reason....for the first five
years or so of its existence as a commercial medium, more often than not the
music reproduced via CD sounded like dreck versus that of LP.

What a load of unvarnished crap!

As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about thirty years)
enthusiatic recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can
tell you that CD provides a *far* closer match to the mic feed than
vinyl ever did.

However Harry tries to rewrite history, it remains a fact that CD
first gained wide acceptance *for superior sound* in the realm of
classical music, where most of the critical listeners reside.
So-called 'high end audiophiles' are of course basically boys playing
with big shiny toys, as is so aptly demonstrated in these newgroups.
Naturally, they hated the idea that the unwashed masses now had access
to sound quality far in advance of a $50,000 vinyl spinner.

By the early
90's almost all audiphiles embraced CD because much of the technology was
shaken down (better DACs, universal use of dither, better analog output
stages, etc.). Some, many in fact, still believe that good LP reproduction
can equal CD and even SACD.

You can indeed fool some of the people all of the time. However, vinyl
remains at around 1% of music sales, so it's good to see that hardly
anyone buys Harry's bill of goods........

I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap! The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.

As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

That of course *is* a genuine advantage, but SACD offers no advantage
over multichannel audio in other formats. It seems likely that 24/96
DTS will become the de facto standard in this arena, especially as
Blu-Ray takes off and audio data space will become essentially
unlimited.

None of this has much to do with your speculative theories above.

Judging by your reaction, not speculation but a very palpable hit!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what difference
does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound. And if you want
it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD anyway.....

What's your point?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 15:22:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
...
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.

When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.

So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).

In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role. However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.

So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd? Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on a
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.

Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.
According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.

I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders. It seems happening now. Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).


What a load of unvarnished crap!

Looks like Vlad scored a very painful hit.............. :-)

You wish!


As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about ten years) semi-pro
recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can tell you that
CD
was rejected by many audiophiles for one simple reason....for the first
five
years or so of its existence as a commercial medium, more often than not
the
music reproduced via CD sounded like dreck versus that of LP.

What a load of unvarnished crap!

What is it that you don't understand about the word "many"?


As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about thirty years)
enthusiatic recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can
tell you that CD provides a *far* closer match to the mic feed than
vinyl ever did.

However Harry tries to rewrite history, it remains a fact that CD
first gained wide acceptance *for superior sound* in the realm of
classical music, where most of the critical listeners reside.
So-called 'high end audiophiles' are of course basically boys playing
with big shiny toys, as is so aptly demonstrated in these newgroups.
Naturally, they hated the idea that the unwashed masses now had access
to sound quality far in advance of a $50,000 vinyl spinner.


Nice little rant, Stewart. What is it that you don't understand about the
word "many"?



By the early
90's almost all audiphiles embraced CD because much of the technology was
shaken down (better DACs, universal use of dither, better analog output
stages, etc.). Some, many in fact, still believe that good LP
reproduction
can equal CD and even SACD.

You can indeed fool some of the people all of the time. However, vinyl
remains at around 1% of music sales, so it's good to see that hardly
anyone buys Harry's bill of goods........


Ah, the old "McDonald's makes the best hamburgers argument"! Nice try, no
cigar!


I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just
that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap! The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.


I see, Stewart (without a SACD system) versu me (with two such systems)
knows better what I hear or don't hear. What is it that you don't
understand about "I happen to be among that group", Stewart?


As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

That of course *is* a genuine advantage, but SACD offers no advantage
over multichannel audio in other formats. It seems likely that 24/96
DTS will become the de facto standard in this arena, especially as
Blu-Ray takes off and audio data space will become essentially
unlimited.


Frankly, if you think current DTS surround sounds as good as DVD-A or SACD
surround, you've lost any pretense of audiophile credential, in my view.
And if you are saying that "FUTURE" DTS will win out because of its backward
compatibility, you are guilty of ignoring the realities of the marketplace
where Dolby Digital has a huge head start. You are also ignoring the fact
that essentially such DTS *will be* DVD-A, which of course in your opinion
has no legitimate reason to exist. Hard to imagine why it should become a
standard, then, isn't it, Stewart?



None of this has much to do with your speculative theories above.

Judging by your reaction, not speculation but a very palpable hit!


You wish! Everything you say is just your opinion, no better than
mine...and in many ways worse, since I quoted at least the basis for my
opinions...you do nothing but wave your hands in opposition.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
vlad wrote:
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.
deleted


When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.


etc

Agreed. I have pretty much the same theory. I also explains why idiocy like
the green pen 'tweak' and belt-driven CD players were embraced by any
too many audiophiles. They needed *something* they could tweak
on CD.



One theory I have is that the CD (and digital audio in general) has a
much higher dynamic range. The sudden change in loudness in some CD
recordings can be startling to someone who is used to music having an
audible, ever-present, noise-floor. That noise floor on vinyl perhaps
sounds similar to the always-present background noise in live concerts.

I also notice that vinylphiles sometimes do not really notice that noise
floor (hiss) from LP's because they are so accustomed to that noise.
Someone who has less experience with LP's will pick up the hiss always
immediately. Similarly, some vinylphiles feel that CD's sound
"unnatural" because of the absense of such a noise floor.

Of course, besides that noise, there are also the various vinyl
artifacts that are ingrained in the vinylphile's preception that any
lack of such artifacts would then be perceived as unnatural. Or not
accurate to their memory of what music sounds like, or not having the
right tonal balance, or fatiguing, and so on. Of course, not having a
break every 20 minutes or so can be fatiguing .

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Michael wrote:


snip, irrelevant to below


SACD is becoming an important niche market for Classical (especially)
and
Jazz (much less so), as well as an occassional Pop release. Since it
offers
multichannel music, which is particularly important for acoustic music,
it
has a very good chance of outlasting CD as a vehicle for classical
music.

SACD and DVD-A have no digital outputs. I consider this an insult to the
high end community, and will never embrace either format.


Something about cutting off one's nose?............

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

I didn't reject it because I couldn't copy it. I rejected it because of
what it says about the attitude of the industry towards its customers.
That, and the bass management problems that arose as a natural outcome of
the analog only decision. Outlaw Audio had to design a special component
just to overcome the bass management problem that resulted from the selfish,
shortsighted policy of the RIAA.

If I could think of some way to get the music I want without having to deal
with the RIAA at all, I'd jump at it in a heartbeat.

Norm

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006 15:22:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
...
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.

When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.

So it was a sign of real high-end audiophile to despise 'digital'
and blame CD for everything, including 'global warming' :-).

In the first years there was a hope that CD's will go away or at
least will be confined to the mid-res to low-res audio reproduction
role. However, with years it become clear that CD did not go away, but
LP's were reduced to the 'specialty' format for very few. To add
insult to injury new generation, people who were not even born in 1980,
en mass don't give a damn about analog ways of storing music, dooming
LP's to extinction.

So where does it leave 'high-end analogue' crowd? Many of them do
understand that digital is better and would like to jump on a
bandwagon, but they cannot do it after so many years denigrating
CD's. They would lose their face.

Suddenly there is a new kid in town - SACD. It is digital, of course,
but different from CD. For typical high-ender it provides the way out.
According to them they found digital format that "sounds analog",
in spite of being digital.

I kind of expected that any new digital format after CD will be
embraced by high-enders. It seems happening now. Too bad that SACD and
DVA-Audio have difficulties of taking off :-).


What a load of unvarnished crap!

Looks like Vlad scored a very painful hit.............. :-)

As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about ten years) semi-pro
recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can tell you that CD
was rejected by many audiophiles for one simple reason....for the first five
years or so of its existence as a commercial medium, more often than not the
music reproduced via CD sounded like dreck versus that of LP.

What a load of unvarnished crap!


Looks like Harry scored a pianful hit ;-)



As a music lover, audiophile, and yes (for about thirty years)
enthusiatic recordist with an excellent grasp of mic techniques, I can
tell you that CD provides a *far* closer match to the mic feed than
vinyl ever did.


Really? What recordings did you make that made it to both commercial LP
and commercial CD that allowed you to make the comparisons? How many
times have you compared mic feeds to LP playback and diital playback?
The only people I know of having done so were Doug Sax, James Boyk and
Kavi Alexander, all well respected recording engineers. All three of
which found the LP playback far more accurate than the digital
recording of that day.



However Harry tries to rewrite history, it remains a fact that CD
first gained wide acceptance *for superior sound* in the realm of
classical music, where most of the critical listeners reside.

Now you are trying to invent fatcs. The FACT is that the most critical
listeners are audiophile and the FACT remains that CDs were anything
but uniersally accepted amoung audiophiles when they first came out.


So-called 'high end audiophiles' are of course basically boys playing
with big shiny toys, as is so aptly demonstrated in these newgroups.
Naturally, they hated the idea that the unwashed masses now had access
to sound quality far in advance of a $50,000 vinyl spinner.


Looks like Stewart is now trying to rewrite history. do tell us how
many 50,000 dollar TT rigs existed when CDs first came out? Here is a
hint, the answer is none. The fact is the most popular high end TT rigs
of the time were from Linn, VPI, Oracle and SOTA. They were all under
2,000 dollars. The thing is the mega buck turntables didn't actually
exist until after the advent of the CD and certainly didn't gain
poplarity until well after the advent of the CD. So people who bought
such rigs already ha CDs as an option. The FACT of the matter is that
most, nearly all of those early CDs were very poorly mastered and did
not come close to the sound quality of LPs of the same title. so while
the masses thought they had access to superior sound, Those of us who
had a taste of the superior sound available via high end LP knew better
IF we were able to see past our pro digital biases.




By the early
90's almost all audiphiles embraced CD because much of the technology was
shaken down (better DACs, universal use of dither, better analog output
stages, etc.). Some, many in fact, still believe that good LP reproduction
can equal CD and even SACD.

You can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.


Yes CD marketing did a fine job of that.


However, vinyl
remains at around 1% of music sales, so it's good to see that hardly
anyone buys Harry's bill of goods........


Oh yeah, the old sales argument. Of course your argument has no real
meaning because it is filled with holes. how many of your 99% have
actually experienced high end vinyl playback? their choice is
meaningles without such experience. Then one has to ask how many such
people are so enthusiastic about excellent sound tht they would spend
the extra time and money needed to get the avantage LP playback offers?
More people buy Toyotas than lexus. Does that make it a better car?
More people buy Ginsu knives and believe they are really as good as
advertised than by high end cramic blades. Does that make the ginsu the
beter product? Hey rap music outsells classical by the same sort of
ratio so it must be the better product right?




I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap!


Looks like harry scored yet another painul hit. ;-)

The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.


Back at you dude. Do tell us about your comparisons between mic feeds
and LPs and CDs.





As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

That of course *is* a genuine advantage, but SACD offers no advantage
over multichannel audio in other formats. It seems likely that 24/96
DTS will become the de facto standard in this arena, especially as
Blu-Ray takes off and audio data space will become essentially
unlimited.

None of this has much to do with your speculative theories above.


You are the only one speculating Stewart. harry was speaking of HIS
experience. There was no speculation involved in his post.




Judging by your reaction, not speculation but a very palpable hit!


If that is how things are judged then subjectivists have been making
big hits aginst you for quite some time.


Scott

Chung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
vlad wrote:
I have my own pet theory about why SACD was embraced wholeheartedly by
hi-end audiophiles.
deleted


When CD's were introduced they were rejected by hi-end from the
start. Reasons for that a numerous:

- changing of the audio reproduction paradigm,
- devaluation of analog overpriced pieces of audio gear in possession
of high-enders,
- misinterpretation of principles of digital audio (remember 'step'
diagrams of analog curves?)
- no Shakhty, Mpingo, etc. tricks,
- huge collections of LP's were threatened to become irrelevant
quality wise,
- etc.


etc

Agreed. I have pretty much the same theory. I also explains why idiocy like
the green pen 'tweak' and belt-driven CD players were embraced by any
too many audiophiles. They needed *something* they could tweak
on CD.



One theory I have is that the CD (and digital audio in general) has a
much higher dynamic range. The sudden change in loudness in some CD
recordings can be startling to someone who is used to music having an
audible, ever-present, noise-floor.


That is an interesting theory. here is the problem with it. most
commercial CDs have been compressed. That aside how would you explain
the likes of Doug Sax having isues with early digital recordings and
CDs of the very music he recorded? He certainly was more aware of the
real dynamics of the original event s than anyone else? Do you really
think guys like him were startled by more dynamic range?



That noise floor on vinyl perhaps
sounds similar to the always-present background noise in live concerts.


Or maybe it was the lack of hall sound missing on so many CDs that was
distracting. That was something i noticed. I would also like to ad it
was with an LP that I was first started by dynamic range but i quite
liked it. sounded much more life like. It was the Dafos LP on Reference
recordings. How many commercial CDs do you think can match that LP for
dynamics?






I also notice that vinylphiles sometimes do not really notice that noise
floor (hiss) from LP's because they are so accustomed to that noise.


How do you notice that? Do you sit with such people , listen to high
end LP playback and comment on the noise floor and then get a response
of astonishment frm the vinylphile? I have a theory that you might just
be reading what you want to see into the words of "vinyphiles."


Someone who has less experience with LP's will pick up the hiss always
immediately. Similarly, some vinylphiles feel that CD's sound
"unnatural" because of the absense of such a noise floor.


Really? Please cite an example. note that a lack of hall ambience is
not absense of a noise floor. Also please note that hall ambience
sounds nothing like his or vinyl noise.




Of course, besides that noise, there are also the various vinyl
artifacts that are ingrained in the vinylphile's preception that any
lack of such artifacts would then be perceived as unnatural.


You are making things up now. The fact is that many people who prefer
LPs to CDs are quite familiar with the sound of live music and are
using that as their reference.



Or not
accurate to their memory of what music sounds like,


Please explain? How does one memory of live music coicide with vinyl
colorations? Do you have anything to support this idea other than pure
speculation?


or not having the
right tonal balance, or fatiguing, and so on. Of course, not having a
break every 20 minutes or so can be fatiguing .


You are now trying to dismiss a phenomenon that is widely reported by
those who are less satisfied with CDs. Listener fatigue is a common
sign of something being wrong with the sound of playback.


Scott

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what difference
does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound. And if you want
it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD anyway.....

What's your point?


Actually, *your* point was that a CD copy of the SACD's analog out
(through two additional conversions) sounded superb, which is great news
coming from you. Because you now admit that the CD *can* sound superb
given the right source material.

Of course, once you can copy it on CD, you can save it as losselessly
compressed file on hard disk or a portable player. You can share it with
friends who do not have SACD playback equipment. Yes, you can also
compress it using lossly formats, too. The important thing is that you
have a lot more flexibility from lossless to lossy once you get a
digital version of the recording that you can manipulate.

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like
my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such
recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD
recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what
difference does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound.
And if you want it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD
anyway.....

What's your point?

Actually, *your* point was that a CD copy of the SACD's analog out
(through two additional conversions) sounded superb, which is great news
coming from you. Because you now admit that the CD *can* sound superb
given the right source material.


Never argued otherwise...just that it rarely happened on CD until fairly
recently, and even then is hit or miss.
Notice that I did not say it sounded as good as the SACD, although on a
first generation recording, through a recorder with good ADC and played back
via my DTI Pro/Proceed DAC and analog electronics, the difference is subtle.



Of course, once you can copy it on CD, you can save it as losselessly
compressed file on hard disk or a portable player. You can share it with
friends who do not have SACD playback equipment. Yes, you can also
compress it using lossly formats, too. The important thing is that you
have a lot more flexibility from lossless to lossy once you get a digital
version of the recording that you can manipulate.

That was exactly my point...the only reason for copying a SACD via the
SP/DIF is eventually to keep it CD or reduce it's quality even further. So
SP/DIF per se is relatively unimportant.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like
my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such
recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD
recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what
difference does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound.
And if you want it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD
anyway.....

What's your point?

Actually, *your* point was that a CD copy of the SACD's analog out
(through two additional conversions) sounded superb, which is great news
coming from you. Because you now admit that the CD *can* sound superb
given the right source material.


Never argued otherwise...just that it rarely happened on CD until fairly
recently, and even then is hit or miss.
Notice that I did not say it sounded as good as the SACD, although on a
first generation recording, through a recorder with good ADC and played back
via my DTI Pro/Proceed DAC and analog electronics, the difference is subtle.


OK. You wrote on 1/12/06 that the difference between a new SACD player
and one three years older is not subtle. Here's what you wrote:

"I recently changed one three year old Sony SACD player with its
replacement model ..... the change was not subtle."

You are saying now that the difference between SACD and a CD made from
the semi-pro Marantz CD recorder, one that can be picked up on eBay
cheap these days, is subtle. We can therefore conclude that it is Harry
Lavo's opinion that the difference between a SACD and a dubbed CD is
less than that between two generations of SACD player. I can live with that.

Which makes the whole point of SACD rather moot (for 2-channel stereo),
since clearly the CD technology is capable of producing recordings that
differ less from SACD's than what we observe between two generations of
SACD players. And that is accomplished using semi-pro dubbing CD
recorders only. Thanks Harry for your insight.




Of course, once you can copy it on CD, you can save it as losselessly
compressed file on hard disk or a portable player. You can share it with
friends who do not have SACD playback equipment. Yes, you can also
compress it using lossly formats, too. The important thing is that you
have a lot more flexibility from lossless to lossy once you get a digital
version of the recording that you can manipulate.

That was exactly my point...the only reason for copying a SACD via the
SP/DIF is eventually to keep it CD or reduce it's quality even further. So
SP/DIF per se is relatively unimportant.

I thought your point was that the whole point of coping a SACD is to
convert then to MP3 or AAC files where the sound is further degraded. We
are saying that the copying to CD is also to be able to play it as CD's
or for archiving purposes. Without any further degradation.

On 5 Feb 2006 18:22:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap! The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.

I see, Stewart (without a SACD system) versu me (with two such systems)
knows better what I hear or don't hear. What is it that you don't
understand about "I happen to be among that group", Stewart?

I do have a SACD system - it sounds just the same as a CD system.

As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

That of course *is* a genuine advantage, but SACD offers no advantage
over multichannel audio in other formats. It seems likely that 24/96
DTS will become the de facto standard in this arena, especially as
Blu-Ray takes off and audio data space will become essentially
unlimited.

Frankly, if you think current DTS surround sounds as good as DVD-A or SACD
surround, you've lost any pretense of audiophile credential, in my view.

DTS 24/96 certainly has that capability - or didn't you know that
DVD-A multichannel is 24/96?

And if you are saying that "FUTURE" DTS will win out because of its backward
compatibility, you are guilty of ignoring the realities of the marketplace
where Dolby Digital has a huge head start.

Sure - but DTS is an option on an increasing number of modern DVDs.

You are also ignoring the fact
that essentially such DTS *will be* DVD-A, which of course in your opinion
has no legitimate reason to exist. Hard to imagine why it should become a
standard, then, isn't it, Stewart?

Marketing. DVD-A and SACD will die, but DTS is already established, so
DTS 24/96 is simply an upgrade to an existing system. The decoder is
already in place on most decent multichannel amplifiers/receivers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 5 Feb 2006 18:21:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what difference
does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound.

What makes you think that a 320kb/sec AAC is a 'downgrade' to the
original sound quality?

And if you want
it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD anyway.....

Sound quality is pretty much irrelevant as soon as you start the
engine.............

What's your point?

That SACD doesn't sound different from 16/44 PCM.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2006 18:21:00 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb 2006 21:42:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Why reject a superior format because you don't like copy protection.
Frankly, SACD via analog, recorded via a good semi-pro CD recorder like
my
Marantz sounds superb...so copying is not really an issue. Such
recorders
can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD
recording
has come to the fore.

So, you acknowledge that all the 'magic' of SACD can readily be
encompassed by standard 16/44 PCM? Fascinating........


If you ultimate goal is to convert them to MP3 or AAC files, what
difference
does it make where in the process you downgrade the sound.

What makes you think that a 320kb/sec AAC is a 'downgrade' to the
original sound quality?

Because the majority of those who use it feel that way, although
acknowledging that it is the best of all the codecs. I personally don't use
it, so am only reporting secondhand in this case. And in any case, they have
to convert to CD grade rates before they can encode AAC, so it is already a
downgrade from SACD whether it is a downgrade from CD or not.


And if you want
it for the car, then you have to eventually convert to CD anyway.....

Sound quality is pretty much irrelevant as soon as you start the
engine.............


My point exactly. So why do you need a SP/DIF transfer?



What's your point?

That SACD doesn't sound different from 16/44 PCM.


Nothing you've said here supports that in the least. Or even deals with my
overall POV. Just a Pinkerton hand-wave.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2006 18:22:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just
that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound
slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap! The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.

I see, Stewart (without a SACD system) versu me (with two such systems)
knows better what I hear or don't hear. What is it that you don't
understand about "I happen to be among that group", Stewart?

I do have a SACD system - it sounds just the same as a CD system.


Sorry, last time I checked you were still listening at other's houses and at
dealers. Well, welcome to the club.

To you, maybe, there is no difference. Expectation bias? Have you listened
in "direct mode"? Or did you buy a unit that converts DSD to PCM (in which
case I'd probably agree with you). But then tell us, why did you buy it if
you knew it didn't sound different? Did you also add a surround system?



As does it's ability to contain
multichannel reproduction, which can add immeasurably to the realism of
orchestral sound and the creativity of pop productions.

That of course *is* a genuine advantage, but SACD offers no advantage
over multichannel audio in other formats. It seems likely that 24/96
DTS will become the de facto standard in this arena, especially as
Blu-Ray takes off and audio data space will become essentially
unlimited.

Frankly, if you think current DTS surround sounds as good as DVD-A or SACD
surround, you've lost any pretense of audiophile credential, in my view.

DTS 24/96 certainly has that capability - or didn't you know that
DVD-A multichannel is 24/96?


Certainly I know that. But currently DTS is not lossless compression.



And if you are saying that "FUTURE" DTS will win out because of its
backward
compatibility, you are guilty of ignoring the realities of the marketplace
where Dolby Digital has a huge head start.

Sure - but DTS is an option on an increasing number of modern DVDs.


About one out of eight, by my count just browsing the shelves. And most
players don't auto-select, so unless the user knows it is there and changes
chapters to access it, it will not be heard.



You are also ignoring the fact
that essentially such DTS *will be* DVD-A, which of course in your opinion
has no legitimate reason to exist. Hard to imagine why it should become
a
standard, then, isn't it, Stewart?



Marketing. DVD-A and SACD will die, but DTS is already established, so
DTS 24/96 is simply an upgrade to an existing system. The decoder is
already in place on most decent multichannel amplifiers/receivers.


The decoder on current systems is a lossy-compression decoder and will
decode that way even after 24/96 is introduced, since 24/96 is designed to
do that (i.e. older decoders will play lossy-compression channels embedded
along with the newer lossless-compression channels.)

However much your engineering logic makes you wish, Stewart, my marketing
logic suggests DTS dominence ain't going to happen.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Feb 2006 18:22:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

I happen to be among that group, but nobody can
doubt CD's convenience and, on good equipment, its quality. It's just that
SACD sounds a bit better, particularly in ways that make it sound slightly
more "analogue", and thus tends to appeal to those seeking the highest
possible reproduced sound quality.

What a load of unvarnished crap! The same old tale, retold however
many times, remains a fairy tale.

I see, Stewart (without a SACD system) versu me (with two such systems)
knows better what I hear or don't hear. What is it that you don't
understand about "I happen to be among that group", Stewart?

I do have a SACD system - it sounds just the same as a CD system.

You are supposed to inform Usenet of the news every time
you buy some new gear. Didn't you know that?


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)