There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying one
model over another.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.


r

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

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

Most modern CD players have hardly any filtering at all. The improved sound
quality stems more from the increased resolution and bandwidth.


SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

Eventually SACD players will be priced similarly to CD players (i.e. next to
nothing). The main thing is to ask youself if you find it worthwhile to
purchase your entire CD collection anew in the SACD format, considering the
marginal increase in sound quality.

The main reasons that SACD for introducing we 1) another 20 years of
patent royalties for its developers (Sony and Philips). 2) the built-in
anti-piracy protection mechanisms which make it very lucrative for the
record companies (note that the DMCA prohibits the cracking of any
encryption; encryption is lacking on CD so it can be copied freely and
there's nothing the record companies can do about it, hence they are
screwing up the CD format by putting in so called anti-copying formatting)


I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

Obviously the increased resolution (24bits) and bandwidth (50Khz audio
signals can be recorded, which are beyond the human hearing range of 20Khz).
But in light of the limitations of the anallog audio tapes on which most
music is recorded, this may hardly be of any consequence.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

Most modern CD players have hardly any filtering at all. The improved sound
quality stems more from the increased resolution and bandwidth.


SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

Eventually SACD players will be priced similarly to CD players (i.e. next to
nothing). The main thing is to ask youself if you find it worthwhile to
purchase your entire CD collection anew in the SACD format, considering the
marginal increase in sound quality.

The main reasons that SACD for introducing we 1) another 20 years of
patent royalties for its developers (Sony and Philips). 2) the built-in
anti-piracy protection mechanisms which make it very lucrative for the
record companies (note that the DMCA prohibits the cracking of any
encryption; encryption is lacking on CD so it can be copied freely and
there's nothing the record companies can do about it, hence they are
screwing up the CD format by putting in so called anti-copying formatting)


I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

Obviously the increased resolution (24bits) and bandwidth (50Khz audio
signals can be recorded, which are beyond the human hearing range of 20Khz).
But in light of the limitations of the anallog audio tapes on which most
music is recorded, this may hardly be of any consequence.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

Most modern CD players have hardly any filtering at all. The improved sound
quality stems more from the increased resolution and bandwidth.


SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

Eventually SACD players will be priced similarly to CD players (i.e. next to
nothing). The main thing is to ask youself if you find it worthwhile to
purchase your entire CD collection anew in the SACD format, considering the
marginal increase in sound quality.

The main reasons that SACD for introducing we 1) another 20 years of
patent royalties for its developers (Sony and Philips). 2) the built-in
anti-piracy protection mechanisms which make it very lucrative for the
record companies (note that the DMCA prohibits the cracking of any
encryption; encryption is lacking on CD so it can be copied freely and
there's nothing the record companies can do about it, hence they are
screwing up the CD format by putting in so called anti-copying formatting)


I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

Obviously the increased resolution (24bits) and bandwidth (50Khz audio
signals can be recorded, which are beyond the human hearing range of 20Khz).
But in light of the limitations of the anallog audio tapes on which most
music is recorded, this may hardly be of any consequence.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

Most modern CD players have hardly any filtering at all. The improved sound
quality stems more from the increased resolution and bandwidth.


SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

Eventually SACD players will be priced similarly to CD players (i.e. next to
nothing). The main thing is to ask youself if you find it worthwhile to
purchase your entire CD collection anew in the SACD format, considering the
marginal increase in sound quality.

The main reasons that SACD for introducing we 1) another 20 years of
patent royalties for its developers (Sony and Philips). 2) the built-in
anti-piracy protection mechanisms which make it very lucrative for the
record companies (note that the DMCA prohibits the cracking of any
encryption; encryption is lacking on CD so it can be copied freely and
there's nothing the record companies can do about it, hence they are
screwing up the CD format by putting in so called anti-copying formatting)


I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

Obviously the increased resolution (24bits) and bandwidth (50Khz audio
signals can be recorded, which are beyond the human hearing range of 20Khz).
But in light of the limitations of the anallog audio tapes on which most
music is recorded, this may hardly be of any consequence.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a
low end SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

The SACD format has better overall frequency response and dynamic range in
the audio band than the CD audio format. Current technology provides
inexpensive converters that perform better than the CD audio format.
Therefore we can safely say that the technical performance even of a
modestly-priced optical disc player can be hamstrung by the limitations of
the CD audio format.

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now
or wait.

It has been announced that all new SACD players are multi-format. That means
that if the SACD of DVD-A format is dropped, they will remain useful as
players for other formats where new music is still being released, such as
the CD audio format.

I believe that Best Buy is currently selling a Pioneer multi-format player
for about $160. It is no doubt an adequate player for all the formats it
handles which include CD Audio, SACD, and DVD-A. Seems like buying it would
be no great risk.

Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might
help in deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much
in justifying one model over another.

You noticed eh? The really key performance aspects of an optical disc player
is the number of formats it plays what you are interested in, and how well
it plays those formats when the discs are in suboptimal condition. The
ergonomics of the player should be very important to you as well if you are
going to use it quite a bit.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

If you do a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening test of
various players, even inexpensive players, you will find that the actual
recording is the most important variable, by far.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a
low end SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

The SACD format has better overall frequency response and dynamic range in
the audio band than the CD audio format. Current technology provides
inexpensive converters that perform better than the CD audio format.
Therefore we can safely say that the technical performance even of a
modestly-priced optical disc player can be hamstrung by the limitations of
the CD audio format.

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now
or wait.

It has been announced that all new SACD players are multi-format. That means
that if the SACD of DVD-A format is dropped, they will remain useful as
players for other formats where new music is still being released, such as
the CD audio format.

I believe that Best Buy is currently selling a Pioneer multi-format player
for about $160. It is no doubt an adequate player for all the formats it
handles which include CD Audio, SACD, and DVD-A. Seems like buying it would
be no great risk.

Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might
help in deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much
in justifying one model over another.

You noticed eh? The really key performance aspects of an optical disc player
is the number of formats it plays what you are interested in, and how well
it plays those formats when the discs are in suboptimal condition. The
ergonomics of the player should be very important to you as well if you are
going to use it quite a bit.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

If you do a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening test of
various players, even inexpensive players, you will find that the actual
recording is the most important variable, by far.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a
low end SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

The SACD format has better overall frequency response and dynamic range in
the audio band than the CD audio format. Current technology provides
inexpensive converters that perform better than the CD audio format.
Therefore we can safely say that the technical performance even of a
modestly-priced optical disc player can be hamstrung by the limitations of
the CD audio format.

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now
or wait.

It has been announced that all new SACD players are multi-format. That means
that if the SACD of DVD-A format is dropped, they will remain useful as
players for other formats where new music is still being released, such as
the CD audio format.

I believe that Best Buy is currently selling a Pioneer multi-format player
for about $160. It is no doubt an adequate player for all the formats it
handles which include CD Audio, SACD, and DVD-A. Seems like buying it would
be no great risk.

Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might
help in deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much
in justifying one model over another.

You noticed eh? The really key performance aspects of an optical disc player
is the number of formats it plays what you are interested in, and how well
it plays those formats when the discs are in suboptimal condition. The
ergonomics of the player should be very important to you as well if you are
going to use it quite a bit.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

If you do a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening test of
various players, even inexpensive players, you will find that the actual
recording is the most important variable, by far.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a
low end SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

The SACD format has better overall frequency response and dynamic range in
the audio band than the CD audio format. Current technology provides
inexpensive converters that perform better than the CD audio format.
Therefore we can safely say that the technical performance even of a
modestly-priced optical disc player can be hamstrung by the limitations of
the CD audio format.

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now
or wait.

It has been announced that all new SACD players are multi-format. That means
that if the SACD of DVD-A format is dropped, they will remain useful as
players for other formats where new music is still being released, such as
the CD audio format.

I believe that Best Buy is currently selling a Pioneer multi-format player
for about $160. It is no doubt an adequate player for all the formats it
handles which include CD Audio, SACD, and DVD-A. Seems like buying it would
be no great risk.

Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might
help in deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much
in justifying one model over another.

You noticed eh? The really key performance aspects of an optical disc player
is the number of formats it plays what you are interested in, and how well
it plays those formats when the discs are in suboptimal condition. The
ergonomics of the player should be very important to you as well if you are
going to use it quite a bit.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.

If you do a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening test of
various players, even inexpensive players, you will find that the actual
recording is the most important variable, by far.

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.


r

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


It wouldn't surprise me at all. I have been called to assist a great many
people who bought a mic at the music store, hoping to get something better
sounding than the crappy mics at the computer stores. They think spending
$100 on a SM58 is somehow going to make their recordings less noisy or voice
commands more clear for the software. Since the person didn't know exactly
what they were doing, the clerks at the music store didn't know what to tell
them.

- FLINT

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.


r

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


It wouldn't surprise me at all. I have been called to assist a great many
people who bought a mic at the music store, hoping to get something better
sounding than the crappy mics at the computer stores. They think spending
$100 on a SM58 is somehow going to make their recordings less noisy or voice
commands more clear for the software. Since the person didn't know exactly
what they were doing, the clerks at the music store didn't know what to tell
them.

- FLINT

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.


r

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


It wouldn't surprise me at all. I have been called to assist a great many
people who bought a mic at the music store, hoping to get something better
sounding than the crappy mics at the computer stores. They think spending
$100 on a SM58 is somehow going to make their recordings less noisy or voice
commands more clear for the software. Since the person didn't know exactly
what they were doing, the clerks at the music store didn't know what to tell
them.

- FLINT

"Rich Andrews." wrote in message
.44...
There are a number of aspects to SACD that I am most curious about.

Would filtering be easier and thus cheaper with SACD thus enabling a low
end
SACD player to outperform the best high end CD players?

SACD has dropped considerably and I was wondering if I should buy now or
wait. Is there some technical aspect in a SACD player that might help in
deciding which player to purchase? Reviews don't help much in justifying
one
model over another.

I would like to know the technical reason why a given player sounds
bad/OK/good/excellent.


r

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


It wouldn't surprise me at all. I have been called to assist a great many
people who bought a mic at the music store, hoping to get something better
sounding than the crappy mics at the computer stores. They think spending
$100 on a SM58 is somehow going to make their recordings less noisy or voice
commands more clear for the software. Since the person didn't know exactly
what they were doing, the clerks at the music store didn't know what to tell
them.

- FLINT