What to be of SACD?
dle
of budget SACD players from Sony & Philips, I can't help but think that SACD
is here to stay or is it?.
Will it have a similar life expectancy as Digital Audio Tape ( DAT ) and
pass us by or even vanish without a trace ( i.e. Beta Video ).
I have read claims that vaguely stated that SACD is better than CD because
it reproduces music with more information. But we all know that "more" does
not necessarily mean "better".
I have heard a Top of the Range sony SACD player at a Local Hifi dealer. It
sounds great but I still doubt if it is better than CD player since it was
demonstrated in a great music room and in with Top of the Range
Electrocompaniet mono blocks and the B&W Nautilus 801.
I just like to know if anyone has ever compared a CD player against a SACD
player ( in the same league ) playing the same music title with one being
Compact Disc & the other is SACD disc. And can conclude that SACD is better.
Or if you are currently using SACD players, I would also like to hear from
you.
Cheers
Dle
Eiron
> With all the positive claims from SACD owners out there and the bombardment
> of budget SACD players from Sony & Philips, I can't help but think that SACD
> is here to stay or is it?.
> Will it have a similar life expectancy as Digital Audio Tape ( DAT ) and
> pass us by or even vanish without a trace ( i.e. Beta Video ).
The whole concept of SACD is fundamentally flawed.
The one-bit sigma-delta encoding is ok as an intermediate step
in a d-a process but a dumb way to store data on a disc.
DVDA is the future.
Phil Allison
*** Repost from: " rec.audio.pro" 14 -6 2004, by Arny Krueger:
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0404/30.dvda_sacd.html
"The RIAA has recently released a sales report for recorded music for 2003,
along with comparisons to years past, for all recorded media. CD sales still
ruled supreme in 2003, with nearly 756 million total discs sold.
"DVD-Audio sales remained stagnant in 2003, with a 0.08 percent increase in
sales to approximately 400,000, says the RIAA's "2003 Yearend Statistics"
report.
"SACD sales were tracked for the first time in 2003, showing 1.3 million
discs sold during the year.
After more than enough years (at least 3) for DVD-A and SACD to make an
impression on the marketplace:
SACD market share is 1.3 / 756 or 0.17%
DVD-A market share is 0.4 / 756 0.065%
There are said to currently be about 2000 SACD titles.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=16666776
The average SACD title sold about 650 copies, per RIAA statistics (above).
There are said to currently be about 730 DVD-A titles.
http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=234433&temaid=1935829
The average DVD-A title therefore sold about 548 copies, per RIAA
statistics (above).
Can anybody be making money with sales like these?
To put the sub-1,000 sales per SACD and DVD tiltle into perspective:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4352.cfm claims that in 2001 27,000
CD titles were released (most recent data I could find)
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0404/30.dvda_sacd.html says that 756
million CDs were sold in 2003.
Doing the math:
About 28,000 copies per average CD title.
Reviewing, less than 1,000 copies per DVD-A or SACD title, even after what 3
or more years of trying to push the formats.
Is this what a market failure looks like?
Francis Xavier Holden
>I just like to know if anyone has ever compared a CD player against a SACD
>player ( in the same league ) playing the same music title with one being
>Compact Disc & the other is SACD disc. And can conclude that SACD is better.
See if you can get a SACD that is the same as the CD - that is not a
re-master of some kind. No information available as to if this is
possible. Lack of market information.
SACD another attempt at fleecing the audiophool.
See this weeks AGE Green Guide where a resident *Hi Fidelity* audio
reviewer recommends getting a new $2500 SACD player - oh and you'll
need to upgrade speakers to a $4297 set to hear these mythical
differences in the SACDs - of which there are fuck all to buy at $40.
$6800 to feel superior to a few *hi end* OCDs?
Come in Spinner!
..
F X Holden
Sir Real
news:6ljqd0tje6nc6cahv...@4ax.com...
There are quite a few hybrid recordings around now which enable you to
listen to various formats on the one disc. The normal 'construction' is as
follows:
Layer 1: Normal reflective Redbook CD format
Layer 2: Semi-transmissive high density SACD format
plus 2 channel stereo, multi channel capability,
additional data, text, graphics & video.
Personally, I find well-recorded discs offer a better quality sound from
the SACD format, due to
- the use of Direct Stream Digital recording technology (as opposed to
multi-bit PCM)
- extended frequency response (up to 100,000 Hz)
- extended dynamic range ( from 96dB on a CD to 120
dB on an SACD recording)
On some hybrid discs, even the SACD's 16 bit layer sounds better than the
same recording on a conventional Redbook CD if it's built on the Direct
Stream Digital studio master. I have 3 2-disc sets (one disc Redbook CD &
the other SACD) that I have listened to many times to ensure that any
audible improvements were not just a case of the 'placebo effect', on some
occassions with other people present, and in EVERY case, the SACD format was
the preferred option.
That said, I wouldn't rush out & pay $2500 for an SACD player, as the choice
of recordings is still small & is likely to remain that way; an 'audiophile'
format for people willing to pay up to 3 times the price of the same thing
on Redbook CD format.
I was upgrading my old DVD player, and so chose a new player that could
handle HDCD's, SACD's, DVD-A's & mp3's (as well as DVD's :-). It was a demo
model that I paid slightly less than $1000 for, and I consider it a very
good purchase, even though it's CD playing ability is a tad below the
dedicated CD player it replaced.
Hope this helps you make up your mind.
-- sir_real --
Andrew Reilly
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:08:54 GMT, "dle" <dieml...@msn.com> wrote:
>>I just like to know if anyone has ever compared a CD player against a SACD
>>player ( in the same league ) playing the same music title with one being
>>Compact Disc & the other is SACD disc. And can conclude that SACD is better.
About the only ways that SACD can be better than CD, in any
practical sense is if (a) 5-channel surround sound is important to
you *and* the music that you want is being recorded and produced
in surround or (b) the recording that you want to listen to is
only available in SACD format.
Given the market realities that Phil posted, I doubt that you'd
bet on (b) happening any time soon.
I happen to think that (a) (discrete surround) is a really good
justification for going to the extra effort, but it's obviously
not enough to get me to actually buy an SACD player or any disks, yet.
> See if you can get a SACD that is the same as the CD - that is not a
> re-master of some kind. No information available as to if this is
> possible. Lack of market information.
Given that one of the supposed advantages of both SACD and DVD-A
is a wider dynamic range, I'd be pretty surprised if there are
*any* combination/dual-release disks that are pure transcriptions
in one direction or the other. They're *bound* to be mastered
specifcally for each.
What you *could* do, though, is get a good, professional ADC and
sample a 44100/16 version for yourself.
Actually, even more likely: get an SACD disk that *doesn't* have a
CD compatability layer, and an SACD player that has an S/PDIF
output (combined SACD/DVD-V players usually do, I think), and let
the player down-convert to 44100/16, and play that through your
A/V receiver. Probably be indistinguishable, barring level
differences.
> SACD another attempt at fleecing the audiophool.
Well, to be as fair to Sony and Philips as possible, it does seem
to have the possibility of being a reasonable archival format for
their tape archives, which were rapidly curling up their toes, and
gives them a shot at curtailing some of the copyright violations
that are reputedly going on. Regardless of any putative
performance advantages. Of course, 96000/24 PCM would have been
just as good, and a whole lot more useful...
--
Andrew
Francis Xavier Holden
<areilly-...@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote:
>Francis Xavier Holden wrote:
>> See if you can get a SACD that is the same as the CD - that is not a
>> re-master of some kind. No information available as to if this is
>> possible. Lack of market information.
>
>Given that one of the supposed advantages of both SACD and DVD-A
>is a wider dynamic range, I'd be pretty surprised if there are
>*any* combination/dual-release disks that are pure transcriptions
>in one direction or the other. They're *bound* to be mastered
>specifcally for each.
So therefore no real comparison is possible. Apples Oranges Chalk
Cheese.
..
F X Holden
Francis Xavier Holden
>On some hybrid discs, even the SACD's 16 bit layer sounds better than the
>same recording on a conventional Redbook CD if it's built on the Direct
>Stream Digital studio master. I have 3 2-disc sets (one disc Redbook CD &
>the other SACD) that I have listened to many times to ensure that any
>audible improvements were not just a case of the 'placebo effect', on some
>occassions with other people present, and in EVERY case, the SACD format was
>the preferred option.
Unless you used double blind or triple blind tests you cant eliminate
*placebo* effect.
However I suspect you dont understand placebo effect. What is more
likely operating here is sighted bias and hindsight effect in addition
to expectation bias and naivety.
..
F X Holden
Sir Real
> > On some hybrid discs, even the SACD's 16 bit layer
> > sounds better than the same recording on a
> > conventional Redbook CD if it's built on the Direct
> > Stream Digital studio master. I have 3 2-disc sets
> > (one disc Redbook CD & the other SACD) that I
> > have listened to many times to ensure that any
> > audible improvements were not just a case of the
> > 'placebo effect', on some occassions with other
> > people present, and in EVERY case, the SACD
> > format was the preferred option.
> Unless you used double blind or triple blind tests you
> cant eliminate *placebo* effect.
Tell me something I don't know. Of course you can't eliminate it, but with a
modicum of common sense, such as blind listening, and a half dozen different
listeners, you can ensure that it's effects are minimised to the point where
a majority decision as to which format sounds better can be made without too
much subjective input clouding the issue.
However I suspect you dont understand placebo effect.
Do you? And on what do you base your suspicions? Fact? Knowledge of my SACD
collection or my equipment? Hundreds of hours of listening? Hmmm?
> What is more likely operating here is sighted bias and
> hindsight effect in addition to expectation bias and
> naivety.
What is more likely operating above is newsgroup heroics tinged with
bullshit-baffles-brains pseudo science.
Your obviously biased viewpoint is worthless.
I suspect (:-) that you don't even own an SACD player, much less tried to
determine if there really is a worthwhile difference between the two
formats.
I may not have nailed down the comparison, but at least I have tried to
determine whether or not SACD's are worth the effort, rather than just
dismiss the whole exercise with a wave of the hand and a mouthful of words.
Come back when you've walked the talk.
-- sir_real --
Mr Peter Wong
you are really pathetic... evading the question if you have listened to sacd or
not. have a listen first and then make your judgements.
>..
>F X Holden
>
>
Arny Krueger
news:qaaDc.65044$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au
>I just like to know if anyone has ever compared a CD player against a SACD
>player ( in the same league ) playing the same music title with one being
>Compact Disc & the other is SACD disc. And can conclude that SACD is
better.
One little dirty not-so-secret dirty aspect of the production of dual-format
high resolution recordings has been the fact that the legacy (CD) and
high-resolution (DVD-A or SACD) portions of virtually all of these
recordings distributed until recently, have been produced in ways that are
sufficiently different that it is reasonable to expect them to sound
different. This audible difference would be aside from any purported
benefits of high resolution formats.
IOW, the high resolution layers sound different from the legacy format
layers because they were produced in such a way that they would sound
different, even if distributed in the same format. On the one hand SACD
advocates
invite comparison of the two formats, but behind the scenes they stack the
deck.
Here a well-known mastering engineer Steve Hoffman brags about a recording
he remastered for recent release:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=482300&postcount=174
"....those of you who have the SACD I mastered of Credence "Willie And The
Poor Boys", put on "FORTUNATE SON". Play the CD layer first and listen to
just the ECHO SEND on the drums on the intro of the song. When the snare
hits, the echo responds, correct? Now, switch over to the DSD layer and
listen to the same thing. Notice how you can now not only hear a bit more of
the echo, you can more clearly hear in what stereo direction it is going in
the sound picture? That is what I mean by MORE resolution on the DSD layer.
There can't be anything above 15k on that song; it's mainly midrange
energy."
Here's how Steve Hoffman describes how he produced the SACD and CD layers of
that release:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=482680&postcount=181
"The DSD and CD mastering was done at the same time via a split feed in the
studio."
This can be interpreted is a clear representation that the DVD and CD tracks
differ only in terms of their format.
I was recently made aware that this statement has been disputed by others.
After reviewing the following technical data, I'm prone to side with the
skeptics.
Background: In their day, CCW had a reputation for technically clean
productions. Willie and the Poor Boys was no doubt recorded using some of
the better staff, techniques and equipment that were available in 1969. I
presume that we're talking analog tape, and maybe 24 KHz bandpass.
Therefore, there's very little bandwidth in the original tracks that can't
be accurately reproduced by a traditional CD (22 KHz bandpass).
This might lead you to believe that the CD layer on Steve Hoffman's
production of this music is the same recording as the DVD layer, just with
less resolution.
Now, let's look at a technical analysis of this recording:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=TZCCc.3%24v04.305%40news2.e.nsc.no&output=gplain
"thomh" <th...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:I2fCc.9301$eH3.1...@news4.e.nsc.no
"I compared the CD and SACD layer of the song Fortunate Son off of Steve
Hoffman's Willie And The Poor Boys Analog Productions SACD. This is the song
from the SACD that was discussed in the link I provided.
"Notice from the JPG links that the CD layer is mastered quite hot. In fact,
it clips over 200 times.
"I believe Hoffman is too much of a pro to let this happen unintentionally.
This should NOT happen on an audiophile release IMO.
http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_CD.JPG
http://home.online.no/~thomh/Fortunate_Son_SACD.JPG
"Anyway, here are the stats from the CD layer and SACD layer of Hoffman's
Fortunate Son mastering. These cannot be the same mastering, can they?
<Audition statistical analysis, 50 mSec windowing>
SACD
----
Min Sample Value: -32768 -30383
Max Sample Value: 32759 30397
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.65 dB
Possibly Clipped: 2 0
DC Offset: -.002 -.002
Minimum RMS Power: -96.34 dB -96.34 dB
Maximum RMS Power: -9.99 dB -10.24 dB
Average RMS Power: -17.44 dB -17.18 dB
Total RMS Power: -16.68 dB -16.52 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits
CD
--
Min Sample Value: -32768 -32768
Max Sample Value: 32767 32767
Peak Amplitude: 0 dB -.01 dB
Possibly Clipped: 226 50
DC Offset: -.001 .062
Minimum RMS Power: -69.89 dB -70.51 dB
Maximum RMS Power:-8.57 dB -8.75 dB
Average RMS Power: -16.13 dB -15.8 dB
Total RMS Power: -15.31 dB -15.09 dB
Actual Bit Depth: 16 Bits 16 Bits
------------ end of Thomh's technical analysis and quotes on this topic from
his post ----------
I see no way that these recordings differ only in format. The Cd audio
version seems to be a clear victim of "pissing in the soup" I find the
apparent representations that they should be compared to be offensive, as
that would be an insult to the intelligence of any technically-minded
reader.
If you follow this link, you will find the details of similar apparent
malfeasance perpetrated by Michael Bishop of Telarc:
http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=4780
So the bottom line is that high resolution formats are being pushed by
record labels that doctor what might be comparable recordings of the same
basic work in such a way that they are likely to sound different, even if
they were recorded in the same format. And they compound these deceptions,
by publicly claiming that it doesn't make a difference or that there is in
fact no difference.
Arny Krueger
> With all the positive claims from SACD owners out there and the
> bombardment of budget SACD players from Sony & Philips, I can't help
> but think that SACD is here to stay or is it?.
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0404/30.dvda_sacd.html
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=16666776
http://miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=234433&temaid=1935829
However, the SACD & DVD data includes titles released over about 3 years, so
we need to adjust the CD sales and title counts accordingly.
Doing the math:
About 9,000 copies per average CD title.
Rod Crawford
I have a moderately priced SACD player (Sony XB940) and am more than happy
to pay $40 for good SACD recordings, particularly of classical music. To me
the SACD layer sounds much more natural than the CD layer on hybrid discs.
My choice has nothing to do with feeling superior - just what I like doing.
Some people spend their money on cars, some on booze etc- you pays your
money and makes your choice. Hopefully consumers in hifi have moved away
from the dictatorship of the thought police with everyone doing/enjoying the
same. And from the manufacturer's point of view there is nothing wrong with
niche marketing in hifi - most other areas of the market do it.
Rod
(Dr) Rod Crawford
for Legend Acoustics
www.legendspeakers.com.au
Phil Allison
"Sir Real" <sir_...@optushome.com.au>
> "Francis Xavier Holden" <fxho...@softhome.net
>
> > Unless you used double blind or triple blind tests you
> > cant eliminate *placebo* effect.
>
> Tell me something I don't know.
** Knowing about a scientific concept and possessing a good *UNDERSTANDING*
of it are quite separate matters.
> Of course you can't eliminate it, but with a
> modicum of common sense, such as blind listening, and a half dozen
different
> listeners, you can ensure that it's effects are minimised to the point
where
> a majority decision as to which format sounds better can be made without
too
> much subjective input clouding the issue.
** Then you clearly have NO understanding - democracy is not a way to
discover facts.
> Do you? And on what do you base your suspicions? Fact? Knowledge of my
SACD
> collection or my equipment? Hundreds of hours of listening? Hmmm?
** Pathetic, straw man worthless argument.
> > What is more likely operating here is sighted bias and
> > hindsight effect in addition to expectation bias and
> > naivety.
>
> What is more likely operating above is newsgroup heroics tinged with
> bullshit-baffles-brains pseudo science.
> Your obviously biased viewpoint is worthless.
** Your obvious bad temper and pig arrogance blinds you to even considering
the technical facts.
You do not presently know and you will never know because, fundamentally,
you do not want to know.
BTW Your new name is "surreal" - Laurie.
............... Phil
Sir Real
news:2k6l27F...@uni-berlin.de...
"Sir Real" <sir_...@optushome.com.au>
"Francis Xavier Holden" <fxho...@softhome.net
> > > Unless you used double blind or triple blind tests
> > > you cant eliminate *placebo* effect.
> > Tell me something I don't know.
> ** Knowing about a scientific concept and possessing
> a good *UNDERSTANDING* of it are quite separate
> matters.
Oh, so FXH has a another alias called Phil Allison does he?
> > Of course you can't eliminate it, but with a
> > modicum of common sense, such as blind listening,
> > and a half dozen different listeners, you can ensure
> > that it's effects are minimised to the point
> > where a majority decision as to which format sounds
> > better can be made without too much subjective input
> > clouding the issue.
> ** Then you clearly have NO understanding -
> democracy is not a way to discover facts.
??? Read what you have said again Mr.Allison & then read it again. Makes NO
sense, does it?
Democracy is indeed the ONLY way to discover facts. There aren't too many of
them kicking around in North Korea, are there?
> > Do you? And on what do you base your suspicions?
> > Fact? Knowledge of my SACD collection or my
> > equipment? Hundreds of hours of listening? Hmmm?
> > ** Pathetic, straw man worthless argument.
But unlike yours Mr. Allison, it is based on actual experience & not just on
words.
No blind testing, double or triple from you, is there?
Nothing more or less than an opinion, without ANY testing of anything at
all.
And you have the audacity to call my argument pathetic.
Sheeeesh!
> > > What is more likely operating here is sighted bias
> > > and hindsight effect in addition to expectation bias
> > > and naivety.
> > What is more likely operating above is newsgroup
> > heroics tinged with bullshit-baffles-brains pseudo
> > science.
> > Your obviously biased viewpoint is worthless.
> ** Your obvious bad temper and pig arrogance blinds
> you to even considering the technical facts.
Oh, so now Im bad tempered, pig ignorant & blind am I?
Tell me Mr. Allison, what technical facts are you elluding to? Spell them
out so we call all judge for ourselves whether your argument is right or
wrong.
- What type of SACD player do YOU have.
- When was the last (or even the first) time you listened to
a hybrid SACD/CD to see if you could hear a
difference?
Tell us oh wise one. We are waiting with baited (:-) breath to see your
pearls of wisdom in print.
>You do not presently know and you will never know >because, fundamentally,
you do not want to know.
What utter tripe. The converse is true: I didn't know and so I took steps to
find out. I DO want to know, and am a damn sight closer to knowing than a
tragic old man who sits alone in his flat listening to his CD's on a 1980's
first generation player ever will.
>BTW Your new name is "surreal" - Laurie.
> Bugger. I lost my bet. You only took 4 weeks to work out who I was & not
the 6 I allowed you. Just got lucky I guess. But I'll win next time.
Say goodbye to Sir Real Mr. Allison :-).
-- sir_real --
Phil Allison
"Sir Real" - also posting as: roughplanet, Laurie Dare, nemesis,
ordiofile ......
>
> Oh, so FXH has a another alias called Phil Allison does he?
>
> Democracy is indeed the ONLY way to discover facts.
>
> Oh, so now Im bad tempered, pig ignorant & blind am I?
>
> >BTW Your new name is "surreal" - Laurie.
>
> > Bugger. I lost my bet.
** Laurie lost his marbles a long time ago.
........... Phil
Alan Rutlidge
"Rod Crawford" <leg...@webone.com.au> wrote in message
news:40dde9de$0$24742$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
I have to agree with you Rod. I have the Sony SCD-XA333ES SACD / CD player
and I'm quite happy with reproduction of both SACD and CD from this machine.
IMHO when comparing the SACD layer with the CD layer, the SACD layer usually
wins hands down every time.
I've been a keen CD collector since '83 and have accumulated thousands of
them. I don't knock the format nor do I claim that they are inferior. I've
heard some stunning reproduction from CD as well as some shocking stuff on
SACD and DVD-A. In the end a lousy recording mixed by some tone deaf
engineer is going to sound pretty awful no matter what the format. However
my personal observations indicate to my ears that a well recorded and
engineered effort can benefit from the higher resolution formats. In some
cases the difference is not dramatic but then again it can also be difficult
to pick the differences between a $10,000 system and a $20,000 one. Is
there twice the quality or twice the resolution? I doubt it.
At the end of the day it's my money and I believe I should have the right to
spend it how I feel fit. If I'm an "audiophool" for buying a $3,000 SACD
player then so be it. Many other people would spend just as much on a fancy
PC.
It does somewhat disappoint me that a post that was simply a question on the
future of SACD has degenerated (as usual) into a mud slinging match between
this newsgroups' more colourful identities.
Cheers,
Alan
Mark Hathaway
starting at 100 USD that allow anyone to release a high resolution disk , as
apposed to DSD prices that are intended only for the high end recording
world (10k USD and beyond), and coupled with the fact the main stream
recording industry is falling apart, there could just be a fighting chance
for dvd-audio
Mark Hathaway
"dle" <dieml...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qaaDc.65044$sj4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Eiron
> Democracy is indeed the ONLY way to discover facts.
Thanks for a jolly good laugh.
Does anyone know in what format the mastering and mixing of SACDs
takes place? As it is rather difficult to manipulate, I suspect
that a more normal format such as 24 bit 96Khz would be used
and that it is converted to SACD at the end.
Phil Allison
"Alan Rutlidge"
God save the S-A-C-D
the fascist's CD,
they made you a moron
a potential H-bomb.
God save the S-A-C-D
It ain't no better thing,
There is no future
in Audiophools dreaming
Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need.
There's no future
there's no future
there's no future for S-A-C-D
God save S-A-C-D
we mean it man
we love our CDs
God save S-A-C-Ds
God save the S-A-C-D
'cos suckers are money
and our overhead
is not what it seems
Oh God save the DVD-A
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
all crimes are paid.
God save the S-A-C-D
we mean it man
there is no future
in wankers dreaming
No future
no future for you
no future for S-A-C-D
( apologies to Johnny Rotten)
.......... Phil
Jeremy
> player ( in the same league ) playing the same music title with one being
> Compact Disc & the other is SACD disc. And can conclude that SACD is better.
>
> Or if you are currently using SACD players, I would also like to hear from
> you.
I have a Pioneer universal player and a Trichord (Pioneer-based CD
player). With the hybrid SACD/CD discs I have the SACD layer sounds
better than the CD layer when played in the Pioneer. There could be a
number of reasons for this many no doubt raised elsewhere in this
thread. Addig this experiece to other comparisons I've made with other
players and discs I'd (over)generalize that SACD sound better than CD
(of the SAME recording) in about the same way that and to the same
extent that an audiophile lable release sounds better than a
mass-market release. This is referring to stereo SACD not surround.
Since SACDs can be often found for ther same or less than audiophile
label CDs I buy the SACD in preference to the CD when I have the
choice. I am willing to pay extra for an SACD especially when the
re-issue has been carefully re-mastered.
It is often easy to find non-hybrid SACDs for very low prices ($10-15)
as stores and individuals discover that these discs cannot play on
their CD players.
Jeremy
VS
> "Sir Real" <sir_...@optushome.com.au>
> > "Francis Xavier Holden" <fxho...@softhome.net
> >
> > > Unless you used double blind or triple blind tests you
> > > cant eliminate *placebo* effect.
> >
> > Tell me something I don't know.
>
>
> ** Knowing about a scientific concept and possessing a good *UNDERSTANDING*
> of it are quite separate matters.
Agreed.
But, my completely unscientific observation of this and some other
Hi-Fi related forums leads me to believe that the 'placebo effect'
defense is most often used by those that just can't believe that there
could possibly be something better than what they think is the current
champion.
> > Of course you can't eliminate it, but with a
> > modicum of common sense, such as blind listening, and a half dozen
> different
> > listeners, you can ensure that it's effects are minimised to the point
> where
> > a majority decision as to which format sounds better can be made without
> too
> > much subjective input clouding the issue.
>
>
> ** Then you clearly have NO understanding - democracy is not a way to
> discover facts.
And you, sir, have mixed placebo effect with the power of
conformity. :-) While our esteemed member of the society, knighted Mr
Real, might understand the 'placebo effect' (I am not going to pass
judgment on that), he clearly seems susceptible to the influence of
the masses.
Now back to the topic at hand. Is SACD better than CD? It sounds
better _to me_. If it's just a placebo effect or if it's real, _I
don't care_. I like it. :-) And that what Hi-Fi is all about, isn't it?
Cheers,
Saso
Phil Allison
"VS"
>
> Now back to the topic at hand. Is SACD better than CD? It sounds
> better _to me_. If it's just a placebo effect or if it's real, _I
> don't care_. I like it. :-)
>
>And that what Hi-Fi is all about, isn't it?
>
** Self delusion is definitely not what hi-fi is all about.
That is another activity entirely.
............ Phil
Alan Rutlidge
Phil Allison
"Alan Rutlidge
> "Phil Allison"
** He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see
Isn't he that boring, horrible old fart called Alan Rutlidge ?
............. Phil
Alan Rutlidge
Paul Mellish
news:40e01f5a$0$24771$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:2kaajbF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > God save the S-A-C-D
> > > Yeah, whatever Phil........
> Yeah, whatever Phil.........
why is this guy Phil Allison such a rude person? I was going to ask a
question about my Yamaha AV amplifier but I don't think I'd better now.
Paul
VS
Mister Allison,
It heartens me to notice that you dropped the issue of people mixing
placebo effects with peer pressure powers, or powers of
conformity. Such topics are better left to other forums.
> "VS"
> >
> > Now back to the topic at hand. Is SACD better than CD? It sounds
> > better _to me_. If it's just a placebo effect or if it's real, _I
> > don't care_. I like it. :-)
>
> ** Self delusion is definitely not what hi-fi is all about.
Au contraire, my dear friend. It seems to me that self delusion reigns
supreme in Hi-Fi circles. How else could one explain the masses that
stick to their position that technically inferior sound format is in
fact better than the superior product?
How else can one read all those posts where people want to compare
cars with horse and buggy and then complain that cars should turn off
their engine and rein in a horse to drag them, so that the comparison
can be made 'on equal grounds'? Lowest denominator comparisons do not
show stengths and weaknesses of products compared.
Best Regards,
Saso
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison"
>
> It heartens me to notice that you dropped the issue of people mixing
> placebo effects with peer pressure powers, or powers of
> conformity. Such topics are better left to other forums.
** And to folk who understand them - which counts you out for a start.
> > >
> > > Now back to the topic at hand. Is SACD better than CD? It sounds
> > > better _to me_. If it's just a placebo effect or if it's real, _I
> > > don't care_. I like it. :-)
> >
> >
> > ** Self delusion is definitely not what hi-fi is all about.
>
>
> Au contraire, my dear friend. It seems to me that self delusion reigns
> supreme in Hi-Fi circles.
** There is a sub set of listeners to whom self delusion "reigns
upreme" - aka the "audiophools". Audiophools are to hi-fi what cancer is
to a healthy person.
Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's home is the
aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about. It is essentially an
engineering exercise carried out for the most part by ill informed amateurs
in whatever room they have available - so the results achieved vary
enormously.
What the self deluded **audiophools** do is to confuse everyone, including
themselves, by insisting that things that do not matter at all are actually
the most important ones.
.............. Phil
VS
Dear Phil,
> > It heartens me to notice that you dropped the issue of people mixing
> > placebo effects with peer pressure powers, or powers of
> > conformity. Such topics are better left to other forums.
>
>
> ** And to folk who understand them - which counts you out for a start.
Agreed, if the old saying that 'one needs to experience it to
understand it' applies in this case as well.
> ** There is a sub set of listeners to whom self delusion "reigns
> upreme" - aka the "audiophools". Audiophools are to hi-fi what cancer is
> to a healthy person.
And, if I may be so bold to make a guess, just like cancer, their
numbers are growing daily and they're slowly becoming the prevailing
majority[1].
> Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's home is the
> aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about.
Thank you for this definition.
So, according to this definition, I was completely correct to state
that a certain reproduction of sound recordings from a certain sound
format sounds truer to live performance than from a certain other
sound format.
Having said that, I agree that the format the sound is recorded in
plays just a part in the overall system and is by no means a be all
end all part. I also will not state that the format in question is
better than some other formats, including one that is closer to the
way nature means it - gentle curves, not harsh on/off state.
> It is essentially an engineering exercise carried out for the most
> part by ill informed amateurs in whatever room they have available -
> so the results achieved vary enormously.
Which leaves the potential that some of those amateurs, by sheer luck,
get it right. They're still in huge minority, but there surely must be
some of those around.
>
> What the self deluded **audiophools** do is to confuse everyone, including
> themselves, by insisting that things that do not matter at all are actually
> the most important ones.
And I assume I would not be far off the mark if I speculated that
industry supports them and encourages them, for they are the best
customers one can only wish for.
Best Regards,
Saso
[1] "Majority is always wrong."
- Lazarus Long
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison"
>
> > ** There is a sub set of listeners to whom self delusion "reigns
cancer is
> > to a healthy person.
>
> And, if I may be so bold to make a guess, just like cancer, their
> numbers are growing daily and they're slowly becoming the prevailing
> majority[1].
>
** Supposedly, the rate is one new one per minute - still got nothing to
do with what hi-fi is all about though.
>
> > Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's home is
the
> > aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about.
>
> Thank you for this definition.
>
** It was not a definition.
> So, according to this definition, I was completely correct to state
> that a certain reproduction of sound recordings from a certain sound
> format sounds truer to live performance than from a certain other
> sound format.
** Only in Looney la la land would there be any connection.
( snip worse egomaniac drivel)
>
> > It is essentially an engineering exercise carried out for the most
> > part by ill informed amateurs in whatever room they have available -
> > so the results achieved vary enormously.
> >
> > What the self deluded **audiophools** do is to confuse everyone,
including
> > themselves, by insisting that things that do not matter at all are
actually
> > the most important ones.
>
>
> And I assume I would not be far off the mark if I speculated that
> industry supports them and encourages them, for they are the best
> customers one can only wish for.
** They *are* the typical buyers of all the overpriced status symbols and
snake oil scam items.
Plus, they have taken over the review writing business which fuels
all such scams.
.............. Phil
VS
Phil,
> ** Supposedly, the rate is one new one per minute - still got nothing to
> do with what hi-fi is all about though.
Just like P.T. Barnum said[1].
> > > Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's home is
> the
> > > aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about.
> > Thank you for this definition.
> ** It was not a definition.
It certainly seemed like one to the untrained eye; it came across with
an authority of a definition.
> > So, according to this definition, I was completely correct to state
> > that a certain reproduction of sound recordings from a certain sound
> > format sounds truer to live performance than from a certain other
> > sound format.
> ** Only in Looney la la land would there be any connection.
And why is that so? It seems like a logical connection to me.
> ( snip worse egomaniac drivel)
I'll take that as a compliment. :-)
> ** They *are* the typical buyers of all the overpriced status symbols and
> snake oil scam items.
>
> Plus, they have taken over the review writing business which fuels
> all such scams.
So where does one get true, well-informed and unbiased advice on all
things related to Hi-Fi?
Kind Regards,
Saso
[1] "There's a sucker born every minute."
- P.T. Barnum
Phil Allison
> "Phil Allison
>
> > ** Supposedly, the rate is one new one per minute - still got nothing
to
> > do with what hi-fi is all about though.
>
> Just like P.T. Barnum said[1].
>
> > > > Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's
home is
> > the aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about.
>
> > > Thank you for this definition.
>
> > ** It was not a definition.
> It certainly seemed like one to the untrained eye; it came across with
> an authority of a definition.
** A definition of hi-fi would have to include much more than just the aim.
>
> So where does one get true, well-informed and unbiased advice on all
> things related to Hi-Fi?
** I can tell you three places to avoid - hi-fi shops, hi-fi magazines
and NGs.
.............. Phil
Eiron
> So where does one get true, well-informed and unbiased advice on all
> things related to Hi-Fi?
From Phil, obviously.
Arny Krueger
news:83oen45...@ns.jasico.si
> But, my completely unscientific observation of this and some other
> Hi-Fi related forums leads me to believe that the 'placebo effect'
> defense is most often used by those that just can't believe that there
> could possibly be something better than what they think is the current
> champion.
Why don't you experience the placebo effect, as it applies to audio, for
yourself?
Check this site out - www.pcabx.com .
Rod Williams
"VS" <Sa...@VSecureIT.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>
> > ** They *are* the typical buyers of all the overpriced status symbols
and
> > snake oil scam items.
> >
> > Plus, they have taken over the review writing business which
fuels
> > all such scams.
>
> So where does one get true, well-informed and unbiased advice on all
> things related to Hi-Fi?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Saso
>
In the long-term, I suppose you have to start from scratch and learn the
electrical and accoustic sciences yourself. In the short-term, there are no
easy answers except to say, just like buying a car or house or gem cutting
machine, the risk of wasting money is proportional to how little you know
about the product. :D
If you earn enough money that mistakes will not bother you (chalking them up
to 'learning experiences') then I guess you are a lucky individual, although
still ultimately none the wiser without knowing the fundamental theory.
Rod
--
Personal website: Movies - Aussie Censorship - Journal - Junk Food
www.cosmos.net.au/~hologram/
Alan Rutlidge
"Paul Mellish" <sm18...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:40e033b8$0$25464$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> why is this guy Phil Allison such a rude person? I was going to ask a
> question about my Yamaha AV amplifier but I don't think I'd better now.
>
> Paul
>
Because he is and he can be.......
Don't worry Paul, most of us have become immune to him, hence "Sure
Phil......Whatever Phil......"
Get the picture? :)
Cheers,
Alan
VS
Dear Phil,
> > > > > Obtaining high quality reproduction of sound recordings in one's
> home is
> > > the aim of hi-fi - that is what hi-fi is all about.
> >
> > > > Thank you for this definition.
> >
> > > ** It was not a definition.
>
> > It certainly seemed like one to the untrained eye; it came across with
> > an authority of a definition.
>
>
> ** A definition of hi-fi would have to include much more than just the aim.
Contrariwise, my esteemed friend. Hi-Fi is well defined by defining
the aim it pursues.
> ** I can tell you three places to avoid - hi-fi shops, hi-fi magazines
> and NGs.
Paradoxically, this includes your opinions stated here. Truth be told,
I think you're quite right in the statement above -- NGs are full of
people with one-liners that state something they can't back up and
change subject the moment they are queried about it; alternatively,
they resort to the last of the debating weapons -- that of personal
attacks. ;-)
Phil, it was great fun. *plonk*
Cheers,
Saso
Phil Allison
"VS" <
> "Phil Allison"
>
> > ** I can tell you three places to avoid - hi-fi shops, hi-fi
magazines
> > and NGs.
>
> Paradoxically, this includes your opinions stated here.
** Since you asked for places, places are what I supplied.
>Truth be told,
** Not very likely from a total imbecile.
> I think you're quite right in the statement above -
** Yep.
........... Phil
Paul Mellish
OK & thanks Alan. Here's my question. I have an old AV amplifier - one of
the early models with Dolby ProLogic and that's it, although it does have
provision to add a subwoofer, but only a self-powered model.
Can I buy an add-on unit so that it can play 5.1 DTS, or THX or whatever the
newer sound systems are called, or do I have to buy a new amp?
That's it. A simple question which hopefully will only attract simple
answers, and not a whole heap of abuse.
Thanks in advance,
Paul
VS
Arny,
> > But, my completely unscientific observation of this and some other
> > Hi-Fi related forums leads me to believe that the 'placebo effect'
> > defense is most often used by those that just can't believe that there
> > could possibly be something better than what they think is the current
> > champion.
>
> Why don't you experience the placebo effect, as it applies to audio, for
> yourself?
>
> Check this site out - www.pcabx.com .
Thanks for that.
My statement still stands: many will resort to 'placebo effect'
defense (yes, I know placebo effect real - in a sense that reality is
what one perceives it to be) when everything else fails.
As they said in the Ancient Rome: De gustibus et coloribus non est
disputandum. And that is why this is a debate with no clear winners. ;-)
Goodwin's Law should be amended for Hi-Fi related newsgroups to
replace Hitler with 'placebo effect'.
It cuts both ways, that nasty little psychological phenomena. If I
anticipate something to sound better, then it just might - to me. If
you anticipate something to sound exactly the same as something else,
then it just might - to you.
Great site, thought. I will certainly use PCABX to train my hearing
and report later on how it goes.
Best regards,
Saso
TT
TT
Ian Mitchell
> "Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
> news:40e17f4a$0$24747$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Paul Mellish" <sm18...@spamex.com> wrote in message
> news:40e033b8$0$25464$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Paul, read this http://liquidtheater.com/editorials/50 for a simple
explanation of the formats.
Paul Mellish
news:vbsEc.97$qd4....@news.optus.net.au...
"Paul Mellish" <sm18...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:40e23d10$0$25463$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Paul, read this http://liquidtheater.com/editorials/50 for > a simple
explanation of the formats.
Thanks Ian. That has cleared up the whole mystery. I'll take TT's advice
and just buy a new AV amplifier.
Paul
TT
: "Ian Mitchell" <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au> wrote in message
You did say you wanted a simple answer ;-) Also have a look here as
it will clear up nearly all of your other questions as well.
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Now comes the fun part - which one to buy? As a suggestion work out
how much you want to spend and what features you are looking for and
then venture into some *reputable* hi-fi/HT specialist shops. Get an
idea of what they have to say and then *go home* and think on it a day
or so and maybe even ask some questions here or over at
aus.audio-visual.home-cinema NG and see what they say.
*DO NOT* buy the first thing you see from the first shop! Or even the
second one. Do your own research.
Regards TT
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> writes:
>
> Arny,
>
>>> But, my completely unscientific observation of this and some other
>>> Hi-Fi related forums leads me to believe that the 'placebo effect'
>>> defense is most often used by those that just can't believe that
>>> there could possibly be something better than what they think is
>>> the current champion.
>>
>> Why don't you experience the placebo effect, as it applies to audio,
>> for yourself?
>>
>> Check this site out - www.pcabx.com .
> Thanks for that.
enjoy!
> My statement still stands: many will resort to 'placebo effect'
> defense (yes, I know placebo effect real - in a sense that reality is
> what one perceives it to be) when everything else fails.
Their mistake was probably to not cite the placebo effect first.
> As they said in the Ancient Rome: De gustibus et coloribus non est
> disputandum. And that is why this is a debate with no clear winners.
> ;-)
Sometimes it is better to not win the debate, but allow people to convince
themselves in privacy.
> Goodwin's Law should be amended for Hi-Fi related newsgroups to
> replace Hitler with 'placebo effect'.
I don't see that at all.
> It cuts both ways, that nasty little psychological phenomena. If I
> anticipate something to sound better, then it just might - to me. If
> you anticipate something to sound exactly the same as something else,
> then it just might - to you.
That's only true for people who haven't actually played the game. In fact,
people behave like they are hard-wired with a need, a desire, an instinct to
perceive differences, whether there are any to perceive or not. I've seen
many people who clearly knew better knock themselves out to hear some
technological change or proposed improvement.
> Great site, thought. I will certainly use PCABX to train my hearing
> and report later on how it goes.
Enjoy!
The price is *right*
Ian Mitchell
Glad to help, re what brand to by, I have a Yamaha but wouldn't recommend
them to anyone (lots of features, but basic audio quality is terrible). Of
the brands I've auditioned (Marantz, Denon, Onkyo and Sony) the Marantz was
easily the best for basic audio quality followed by Denon. I have'nt heard
the NAD but reports are that it is very good as well.
TT
TT
Ian Mitchell
"TT" <sw...@swat.com.au> wrote in message
news:40e2f143$0$27218$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
It's the RX-V595 and in two channel it will make your ears bleed.
Supprisingly, in any of the theatre modes it's not nearly as harsh. I'm
using the pre-outs to my ME-550II at the moment, which is better. I'm
driving VAF DC-X/2/4 combo.
TT
channel with the "effect off" and "Processor Direct"? This should give it a
straight through signal path with as little as possible signal "tampering".
I have heard that the lower spec. model RXs do have a "brightness/harshness"
to the sound. Mine suffered a little from this when driving AR speakers
with Titanium tweeters as well. A cheap short term solution is to use very
fine multi-strand speaker wire to "strangle" the top end sound.
As a test if your CD player has a variable volume control try running it
direct into the ME and thus eliminating the receiver all together and see
what it then sounds like. If it is still the same your problems lies
elsewhere.
Regards TT
Ian Mitchell
"TT" <sw...@swat.com.au>> Snap. Same power amp here as well. Are you
running the RX-V595 in 2
> channel with the "effect off" and "Processor Direct"? This should give it
a
> straight through signal path with as little as possible signal
"tampering".
>
> I have heard that the lower spec. model RXs do have a
"brightness/harshness"
> to the sound. Mine suffered a little from this when driving AR speakers
> with Titanium tweeters as well. A cheap short term solution is to use
very
> fine multi-strand speaker wire to "strangle" the top end sound.
>
> As a test if your CD player has a variable volume control try running it
> direct into the ME and thus eliminating the receiver all together and see
> what it then sounds like. If it is still the same your problems lies
> elsewhere.
>
> Regards TT
>
I've jumped through these hoops already, and yes, driving the ME directly
with my Marantz 6000 CD player eliminates the harshness by 99% the problem
is with the front-end of the Yamaha. It may be that the more expensive
Yammies don't exhibit this characteristic.
TT
TT