"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:33:13 GMT, Michael
wrote:


I'm looking to get a new CD-player and can't decide on
whether to get a SACD unit or DVD-a compatible one? My
thinking is:
SNIP

Why not simply buy one that plays both?

Good question.

BTW the death of SACD. Companies like Sony rarely just
up and dump formats. No doubt their business plan will be
something like coming up with a sequel to SACD based on
their Blu-Ray technology, and then phasing that in as a
replacement for SACD. That way nobody in top management has
to admit that they made a billions-dollar mistake.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:30:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


BTW the death of SACD. Companies like Sony rarely just
up and dump formats. No doubt their business plan will be
something like coming up with a sequel to SACD based on
their Blu-Ray technology, and then phasing that in as a
replacement for SACD. That way nobody in top management has
to admit that they made a billions-dollar mistake.

Of course, one of the problems of believing that everything sounds
pretty much the same is it makes improved formats redundant before
they're even introduced, since of course there's nothing to improve.
But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously listened to SACD or
DVD-A, and if so what was your impression? This is not a trick
question.

And BTW, I haven't listened to either.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:30:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


BTW the death of SACD. Companies like Sony rarely
just up and dump formats. No doubt their business plan
will be something like coming up with a sequel to SACD
based on their Blu-Ray technology, and then phasing that
in as a replacement for SACD. That way nobody in top
management has to admit that they made a billions-dollar
mistake.

Of course, one of the problems of believing that
everything sounds pretty much the same is it makes
improved formats redundant before they're even
introduced, since of course there's nothing to improve.

So Paul, who would this be that things that everything
pretty much sounds the same and why is that comment relevant
here?

But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the better
part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and another stack
of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

The Krooborg dares to be daffy.

Of course, one of the problems of believing that
everything sounds pretty much the same is it makes
improved formats redundant before they're even
introduced, since of course there's nothing to improve.

So Paul, who would this be that things[sic] that everything
pretty much sounds the same and why is that comment relevant
here?

Or, put another way:

"Who is Arnii Krooger?" -- Arnii Krooger, RAO, Sept. 2005

But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

Of course not. Listening counts for nothing.

Robert, if you're reading this, what's the 'borg counterpart to "the wisdom of
the Krell"?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So Paul, who would this be that things that everything
pretty much sounds the same

That would be Arnie Krooger.

and why is that comment relevant
here?

Because I'm replying to a post by Arnie Krooger.


But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the better
part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and another stack
of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

Eh? You'll have to explain that. The whole point of any format is that
one listens to random discs--that I believe is the typical consumer
experience, and the consumer is the point. If one can't hear an
improvement by listening to random discs then it clearly isn't an
improvement.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


So Paul, who would this be that things that everything
pretty much sounds the same

That would be Arnie Krooger.

There ain't no such person.

and why is that comment relevant
here?

Because I'm replying to a post by Arnie Krooger.

A figment of the demented mind of George Middius.

But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously
listened to SACD or DVD-A, and if so what was your
impression?

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the
better part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and
another stack of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is
not a good way to judge differing formats.

Eh? You'll have to explain that. The whole point of any
format is that one listens to random discs--that I
believe is the typical consumer experience, and the
consumer is the point. If one can't hear an improvement
by listening to random discs then it clearly isn't an
improvement.

Comparing disc players by playing random discs makes about
as much sense as judging resturants by comparing appetizers
from one resturant to desserts at another. After all if you
choose random menu items, you just might end up doing just
that.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I own a Pioneer combo player, have owned it for the better
part of a year. I have a stack of DVD-As and another stack
of SACDs.

My impression is that just listening to random discs is not
a good way to judge differing formats.

I agree. However, I have done some A/B comparing between
assorted 5.1 releases and their two-channel versions (either
older originals or new releases that were done as both 5.1
and two-channel versions), with the latter listened to both
in "pure" form and with Yamaha processor DSP ambiance
enhancement and additional channels, and this did allow for
some reasonably solid conclusions about what one can expect
from both situations.

Conclusion number one: a good 5.1 release will usually sound
better than the equally good two-channel version, assuming
the remastering job was handled with reasonable expertise.
This will be true whether the 5.1 is SACD, DVD-A, DTS, or
Dolby Digital.

Conclusion number two: a good 5.1 release will usually sound
no better than, and sometimes a bit worse than, the equally
good two-channel version after the latter has been given a
really good DSP ambiance simulation job by a home-based
processor. Much will depend upon the expertise of the
technician who did the 5.1 work.

Note that this only includes recordings where the surround
channels are dealing with hall ambiance and not discrete
instrumentation. With pop releases that put instruments all
around the listener all bets are off. Actually, many 5.1
releases are only 4.1 channels (no solid center feed), and
so a good DSP device that also can derive a steered center
feed from the two-channel version's phantom image will
usually soundstage better than the re-engineered 5.1 version
- particularly when the listener is not in the sweet spot.

For me, this is good news. Purchase a good DSP device and
some additional speakers and one's entire recording
collection will probably be significantly upgraded -
overnight. This is a lot cheaper and faster than opting to
purchase an SACD or DVD-A player and whole new 5.1
collection one disc at a time.

Howard Ferstler

I can't tell the difference between DVD-A and SACD, BUT I can tell a
heck of a difference between red book CD and the other two. So I don't
really care which one survives so long as it is SACD (because I just
bought an SACD deck). I used an LP for comparison.

paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:30:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



BTW the death of SACD. Companies like Sony rarely just
up and dump formats. No doubt their business plan will be
something like coming up with a sequel to SACD based on
their Blu-Ray technology, and then phasing that in as a
replacement for SACD. That way nobody in top management has
to admit that they made a billions-dollar mistake.


Of course, one of the problems of believing that everything sounds
pretty much the same is it makes improved formats redundant before
they're even introduced, since of course there's nothing to improve.
But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously listened to SACD or
DVD-A, and if so what was your impression? This is not a trick
question.

And BTW, I haven't listened to either.

Michael wrote:
I can't tell the difference between DVD-A and SACD, BUT I can tell a
heck of a difference between red book CD and the other two. So I don't
really care which one survives so long as it is SACD (because I just
bought an SACD deck). I used an LP for comparison.

paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:30:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:



BTW the death of SACD. Companies like Sony rarely just
up and dump formats. No doubt their business plan will be
something like coming up with a sequel to SACD based on
their Blu-Ray technology, and then phasing that in as a
replacement for SACD. That way nobody in top management has
to admit that they made a billions-dollar mistake.


Of course, one of the problems of believing that everything sounds
pretty much the same is it makes improved formats redundant before
they're even introduced, since of course there's nothing to improve.
But tell me, out of curiousity, have you seriously listened to SACD or
DVD-A, and if so what was your impression? This is not a trick
question.

And BTW, I haven't listened to either.

Of course you can tell the difference. Same as anyone familiar
with the sound of unamplified instruments in an acoustically good
concert hall.
It goes against the credo of those who listen not with their
memory of the real thing or never heard the real thing and substitute
the content of their undergrad textbooks for their ears and their brain
cortex
But that's too bad. It takes all kinds...
Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

paul packer wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

You got me there- my technical incompetence shows. I
suppose that what is being corrected are the minor scratches and
imperfections. If not ,please do tell ME- always eager to learn.
Anyway the copies are perfect. Neither myself nor anyone else can tell
them from the original (blinded , yes!). I still can't get over the
wonder of that.
Sacd of course needs multichannel listening to be
appreciated.
I am old enough (sadly) to remember the introduction
of the first transistor gear. The "measurements" chapel crowd couldn't
get over the wonder of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I did because the
early transistor amplifiers were intolerable to listen to.
Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the screechy, sibilant
early CDs. They read that CDs were technical wonders and they heard
what they read.
SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press amongst the
professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who listens to the
old-fashioned instruments like the operatic human voice, piano, violin
or flute when you can have electric guitars ?
Ludovic Mirabel

On 13 Oct 2005 23:47:02 -0700, wrote:


paul packer wrote:
On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, wrote:

Incidentally the burning software I use is Exact Audio Copy.
It keeps correcting the errors it encounters in the original disk,
which can be either exasperatingly slow, or desirable if you're not
impatient. Details in their website and the "Radified" website which
has lots of other useful information
Ludovic Mirabel

OK, so you've discovered the secret of how to make a copy better than
the original. Is "Exact Audio Copy" shouting this from the rooftops?

You got me there- my technical incompetence shows. I
suppose that what is being corrected are the minor scratches and
imperfections. If not ,please do tell ME- always eager to learn.
Anyway the copies are perfect. Neither myself nor anyone else can tell
them from the original (blinded , yes!). I still can't get over the
wonder of that.


Well, if that program does indeed correct the inherent errors in the
original then by making life easier for the player's error correction
it probably will improve the sound, at least in theory.

Here's something to contemplate. When minidisc first began to be taken
seriously (around '97) some listeners reported that they found the
sound BETTER than the original. Of course their impressions weren't
taken seriously, for how could a compressed medium sound better than
the original? And yet...under certain circumstances it could indeed.
For one thing, ATRAC removes something like 7/8ths of the signal, in
theory leaving only that which is audible. Now if an amp was clipping
or near clipping, if speakers were being used near the limits of their
power handling, minidisc could indeed improve the sound--I'm sure I
don't need to elaborate. These are the sorts of things the experts
overlook in their prejudice against a compressed--and therefore
"inherently flawed"--medium, despite the fact that in practise
minidisc reached an astonishiing level of transparency (though
unfortunately just a little too late).

Sacd of course needs multichannel listening to be
appreciated.

Does it? You mean I needn't bother buying any SACD discs while I'm
using only headphones?

I am old enough (sadly) to remember the introduction
of the first transistor gear. The "measurements" chapel crowd couldn't
get over the wonder of it all because they were told that tubes were
oldfashioned and dead.
You could get a good Dynaco for next to nothing. And I did because the
early transistor amplifiers were intolerable to listen to.
Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the screechy, sibilant
early CDs. They read that CDs were technical wonders and they heard
what they read.

Indeed. Just as the measurement crowd looked at the output of a
minidisc copy on their oscilloscopes and decided that, whatever their
ears might tell them, it couldn't possibly sound any good.

SACD for one reason or another did not get a good press amongst the
professionals. So it is no good. Anyway, who listens to the
old-fashioned instruments like the operatic human voice, piano, violin
or flute when you can have electric guitars ?
Ludovic Mirabel

Sadly true. But it's all quantity over quality these days. SACD and
DVD-A are mediums of quality, but the young who dictate buying trends
don't care about quality or about sitting at home quietly listening to
music. So instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
quality but high quantity--that is, you can use them all day,
everywhere. And these are what we will all be stuck with. SACD and
DVD-A are already as good as dead, just like most other bastions of
quality these days.

Do I sound old?

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:14:18 GMT, Michael
wrote:


I can't tell the difference between DVD-A and SACD, BUT I can tell a
heck of a difference between red book CD and the other two. So I don't
really care which one survives so long as it is SACD (because I just
bought an SACD deck).


Indeed. And why did you not buy a universal player like the Pioneer.
We all did. :-)

I used an LP for comparison.

Eh?