SACD - DVD-a other stuff
Michael
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:
1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for computer burned CD's,
but is the format short lived?
2. DVD-a is highest quality, but who makes DVD'a Cd's, and I won't be
able to burn my own CD's.
The Marantz SA-11S1 has my attention.
Arny Krueger
news:JuR0f.9040$oO2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net
> 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?
Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
above? Heck, even I have one!
> My thinking is:
> 1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
> computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?
IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media format.
> 2. DVD-a is highest quality, but who makes DVD'a Cd's,
> and I won't be able to burn my own CD's.
You can make DVD-A's with a PC with the right software and a
regular DVD burner.
neilnew...@hotmail.com
Don't know anything about the Marantz. I do know that Pioneer offers
universal players that will play both DVD-A and SACD discs. Price is
maybe around $250(?), but I saw mail-order dealer (sorry, can't
remember who) selling them recently for $100. Try searching the web for
the best price. Anyway, if I were you I'd only consider a universal
player, so you'd always have a way to listen to any DVD-A or SACD discs
you buy now or in the future.
As for burning CDs, you might want to get a CD burner for your
computer. Or if you're considering buying a new computer eventually,
almost any computer sold now will include a CD burner, and often a DVD
burner too.
Michael
I am also trying to find a high-end DVD-a/SACD unit.
Arny Krueger
> Arny - can you reommend software for burning DVD-a?
I hear good things about discwelder. See google.
> I am also trying to find a high-end DVD-a/SACD unit.
Got money burning a hole in your pocket, eh?
I hear the Red Cross is collecting money for good causes...
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:UICdnR7FT-n...@comcast.com...
> "Michael" <mzei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:JuR0f.9040$oO2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net
>
>> 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?
>
> Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the above? Heck, even
> I have one!
>
>> My thinking is:
>
>> 1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
>> computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?
>
> IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media format.
Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is becoming the
dominant medium for new releases.
And only if you live in the US. SACD is doing much better in Europe and in
Asia.
>
>> 2. DVD-a is highest quality, but who makes DVD'a Cd's,
>> and I won't be able to burn my own CD's.
>
> You can make DVD-A's with a PC with the right software and a regular DVD
> burner.
And about $3 grand of recording gear. Because other than a smattering of
pop, there is precious little DVD-A out there. And now with DualDisk, the
"DVD-A" that is being released has been dumbed dow to 48/24, not 96/24 or
192/24.
Clyde Slick
Clyde Slick
Are they gonna bankroll your next rehab?
Kalman Rubinson
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?
Kal
paul packer
wrote:
Actually that's a good point, especially (as noted in a post below) as
you can buy a Pioneer universal player with excellent sound for under
$150 US. I'm supposedly an audiophool, but I don't believe in spending
money on high end just for the sake of it, and charitable
organisations ARE pretty desperate these days.
Clyde Slick
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4344850b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Really? I thought the Greater Detroit Mental Health
Society is flush with money. I hear they get
a 50% cut from the SWMMTS annual dues.
Bret Ludwig
these days. I don't think any of them suck. Maybe Gary Galo or someone
will do a nice mod article on one with a nice low impedance driver,
better filtering and shielding and a Big Knob volume control soon.
Arny Krueger
news:Bpedncjzc_fYn9ne...@comcast.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:UICdnR7FT-n...@comcast.com...
>> "Michael" <mzei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:JuR0f.9040$oO2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
>> above? Heck, even I have one!
>>
>>> My thinking is:
>>
>>> 1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
>>> computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?
>>
>> IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
>> format.
>
> Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
> becoming the dominant medium for new releases.
A sad comment on the state of new releases.
> And only if you live in the US. SACD is doing much
> better in Europe and in Asia.
Higher percentage of audiophools, it seems. Or maybe just
classical music buyers.
>>> 2. DVD-a is highest quality, but who makes DVD'a Cd's,
>>> and I won't be able to burn my own CD's.
>>
>> You can make DVD-A's with a PC with the right software
>> and a regular DVD burner.
>
> And about $3 grand of recording gear.
The only really nasty part of the mix is the microphones.
However, one can beat Harry's inflated estimate by 50% or
more if you know how to spell Earthworks.
>Because other than
> a smattering of pop, there is precious little DVD-A out
> there. And now with DualDisk, the "DVD-A" that is being
> released has been dumbed dow to 48/24, not 96/24 or
> 192/24.
Actually, its been smartened up, because higher sample rates
were always a sucker play. Now all they have to admit to
reality when it comes to word sizes.
Steven Sullivan
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Bpedncjzc_fYn9ne...@comcast.com
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:UICdnR7FT-n...@comcast.com...
> >> "Michael" <mzei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> news:JuR0f.9040$oO2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
> >> above? Heck, even I have one!
> >>
> >>> My thinking is:
> >>
> >>> 1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
> >>> computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?
> >>
> >> IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
> >> format.
> >
> > Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
> > becoming the dominant medium for new releases.
> A sad comment on the state of new releases.
I question Harry's claim in any case. A visit to the
local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
that SACD is the dominant medium for new
classical releases. Most are still CDs. This
includes both 'new' new releases, and reissues.
MINe 109
Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
Hard to argue with "becoming." Like SNL's Dan Quayle, SACD is "still
gaining acceptance."
Stephen
George Middius
Sillybot doffs his priestly mantle in favor of workman's clothes.
>A visit to the
>local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
>that SACD is the dominant medium for new
>classical releases.
Where's the diatribe demanding "proof" that SACD is a superior format? Where's
the denunciation of "flummery" inherent in "audiophile" software? I declare,
Sillybot, this dispassionate approach to a powderkeg issue like SACD casts a
pall over your Hivie credentials.
paul packer
wrote:
We don't want to hear about Big Knobs on this NG, thank you. :-)
paul packer
<artsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Actually that's a good point, especially (as noted in a post below) as
>> you can buy a Pioneer universal player with excellent sound for under
>> $150 US. I'm supposedly an audiophool, but I don't believe in spending
>> money on high end just for the sake of it, and charitable
>> organisations ARE pretty desperate these days.
>
>
>Really? I thought the Greater Detroit Mental Health
>Society is flush with money. I hear they get
>a 50% cut from the SWMMTS annual dues.
And what does all that mean to somebody from Oz?
George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> We don't want to hear about Big Knobs on this NG, thank you. :-)
Don't talk like that or Krooger will start yammering about "rain coats".
Michael
would one need a special recorder like the Tascam DV-RA1000?
I am looking to download lossless music from Musicgiants.com and then
burn DVD-A discs using your Discwelder recommenation and then I can play
the new discs using a Marantz DV9500 'universal' player.
p.s.
I already donated to the relief efforts.
GeoSynch
> Why not simply buy one that plays both?
Any truth to the rumor Sony has abandoned the SACD format?
GeoSynch
GeoSynch
The Denon 2910 universal player ($650 MSRP) was favorably reviewed
in The Absolute Sound a few issues back.
GeoSynch
Kalman Rubinson
If I had any solid info, I would share it.
Kal
GeoSynch
>>Any truth to the rumor Sony has abandoned the SACD format?
> If I had any solid info, I would share it.
So, you're hearing the same rumors, too?
GeoSynch
Kalman Rubinson
Only from sites like this. Nothing from anyone with authority.
Kal
GeoSynch
>>>>Any truth to the rumor Sony has abandoned the SACD format?
>>> If I had any solid info, I would share it.
>>So, you're hearing the same rumors, too?
> Only from sites like this. Nothing from anyone with authority.
Can you pose the question to - and get a definitive answer from - Kawakami?
GeoSynch
Kalman Rubinson
Yes, I have, and no, I didn't. But that was months ago.
Kal
Lionel
> Can you pose the question to - and get a definitive answer from -
> Kawakami?
What about your high-speed connection with the Trinity, eh Geogag ?
GeoSynch
>>>>>>Any truth to the rumor Sony has abandoned the SACD format?
>>>>> If I had any solid info, I would share it.
>>>>So, you're hearing the same rumors, too?
>>> Only from sites like this. Nothing from anyone with authority.
>>Can you pose the question to - and get a definitive answer from - Kawakami?
> Yes, I have, and no, I didn't. But that was months ago.
OK, thanks. Anything else noteworthy from that conversation, like why no new
SACD titles from Sony in such a long time?
GeoSynch
Arny Krueger
news:l1f8k155cguor07nb...@4ax.com
Good question.
BTW re: 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.
George Middius
Lionella, how can a true Catholic be envious of a mere Baptist?
>What about your high-speed connection with the Trinity, eh Geogag ?
Styncho receives his Holy Writs through pulpit-poundin' preachers. Have a cookie
and make believe it's God.
Lionel
> Lionella, how can a true Catholic be envious of a mere Baptist?
I don't know George... I am not your confessor. :-)
>>What about your high-speed connection with the Trinity, eh Geogag ?
>
>
> Styncho receives his Holy Writs through pulpit-poundin' preachers. Have a cookie
> and make believe it's God.
...Not really different than "have a dick and make believe it's a
cookie". Sorry George.
paul packer
wrote:
>BTW re: 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.
George Middius
Sluttie, are you still pretending to be a man?
>> Styncho receives his Holy Writs through pulpit-poundin' preachers. Have a
>> cookie and make believe it's God.
[Kroogerized line breaks repaired]
>...Not really different than "have a dick and make believe it's a
>cookie". Sorry George.
Glad you took care of your situation using the tools God gave you.
Arny Krueger
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:30:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>> BTW re: 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.
George Middius
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"?
Lionel
> Sluttie, are you still pretending to be a man?
Are you still pretending to be a human being ? ;-)
>>>Styncho receives his Holy Writs through pulpit-poundin' preachers. Have a
>>>cookie and make believe it's God.
>
>
> [Kroogerized line breaks repaired]
No problem for me poor George. Perhaps you should try to fix your
newsreader.
>>...Not really different than "have a dick and make believe it's a
>>cookie". Sorry George.
>
>
> Glad you took care of your situation using the tools God gave you.
And again you sound like McKelvy...
Michael
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.
elm...@pacificcoast.net
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
Clyde Slick
"Lionel" <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> wrote in message
news:434e94a3$0$16711$626a...@news.free.fr...
> George Minus Middius wrote :
>
>>
>> Glad you took care of your situation using the tools God gave you.
>
> And again you sound like McKelvy...
That's an opinion you get to have.
paul packer
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:
>
>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?
paul packer
> 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?
elm...@pacificcoast.net
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
Lionel
> That's an opinion you get to have.
How can you know since you don't know what's an opinion ?
Clyde Slick
"Lionel" <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> wrote in message
> George's dildo wrote :
>
>> That's an opinion you get to have.
>
> How can you know since you don't know what's an opinion ?
Maybe so, but "at least" I have an opinion of what an opinion is.
Lionel
You cannot even imagine what it is, so...
paul packer
>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On 13 Oct 2005 15:21:39 -0700, elm...@pacificcoast.net 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?
Arny Krueger
>
> 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?
It's an old claim. People used to claim that their tape
transcriptions of LPs sounded better than the origional LPs.
The claim continued to be repeated into the day of cassette
tape.
The counter-claim has always been: "How can a transcription
sound better than the original. Isn't the transcription an
imperfect copy?"
>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.
Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
involved with transcribing media?
Isn't the usual method line output to line input?
> 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).
What it comes down to is that when people prefer the
transcription, either its for non-audible reasons (i.e.,
exhuberance and/or buyer's excitement) or its that the
transcription omits audible information or changes audible
information. For example, a 7.5 ips transcription of a LP
might reduce the LPs inherent tracking distortion at very
high frequencies.
>> 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.
I can relate to this because I was an early adopter of SS
who bounced back to a tubed Dyna system for a year or two
because I couldn't abide the problems of the every earliest
SS gear.
>> Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the
>> screechy, sibilant early CDs.
I doubt it - some early CDs were badly mastered, but others
sounded great. Discerning listeners just sort of stepped
around the badly mastered discs and enjoyed the ones that
were clearly superior, which predomianted from the start.
>> They read that CDs were
>> technical wonders and they heard what they read.
Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
sounds better than the LP.
> 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.
Actually, 'scope traces from MD playback are
indistinguishable from the original. It takes something a
lot more sophisticated to show up the differences. And, a
lot of people such as myself who were part of the so-called
"measurement crowd" embraced MD. I just found my MD recorder
moldering away in a box on a shelf.
>> 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 ?
Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
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?
Paul, I seem to recall that you recently wrote that you have
not listened to either SACD or DVD-A.
If that's true Paul, then the above paragraph makes you look
very silly - whining about something you've never heard.
Just to review, I have a SACD/DVD-A player and a collection
of representative discs. Therefore my comments are at least
based on listening.
paul packer
wrote:
>>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.
>
>Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
>involved with transcribing media?
I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do. The theory is
that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the amp and speakers, relieved
of the need to reproduce that 7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus
are operating more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.
>> 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).
>
>What it comes down to is that when people prefer the
>transcription, either its for non-audible reasons (i.e.,
>exhuberance and/or buyer's excitement) or its that the
>transcription omits audible information or changes audible
>information. For example, a 7.5 ips transcription of a LP
>might reduce the LPs inherent tracking distortion at very
>high frequencies.
Or it might be for the reason stated above.
>>> 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.
>
>I can relate to this because I was an early adopter of SS
>who bounced back to a tubed Dyna system for a year or two
>because I couldn't abide the problems of the every earliest
>SS gear.
>
>>> Ditto with CDS. The same crowd swooned over the
>>> screechy, sibilant early CDs.
>
>I doubt it - some early CDs were badly mastered, but others
>sounded great. Discerning listeners just sort of stepped
>around the badly mastered discs and enjoyed the ones that
>were clearly superior, which predomianted from the start.
Predominated, Arnie? Right from the start most of the players weren't
good enough to show how good the CDs were, which was often not that
good. One knows this by playing old CDs on modern players.
>>> They read that CDs were
>>> technical wonders and they heard what they read.
>
>Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
>sounds better than the LP.
I never thought LPs sounded bad. I just thought they were impossibly
fiddly and unacceptably vulnerable. In practise, for me, they just
didn't work.
>> 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.
>
>Actually, 'scope traces from MD playback are
>indistinguishable from the original. It takes something a
>lot more sophisticated to show up the differences. And, a
>lot of people such as myself who were part of the so-called
>"measurement crowd" embraced MD. I just found my MD recorder
>moldering away in a box on a shelf.
Moldering away? Please explain. And if you mean neglected, why?
>>> 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 ?
>
>Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
>Mirabel.
A silly statement. Ungenerous too.
>> 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?
>
>Paul, I seem to recall that you recently wrote that you have
>not listened to either SACD or DVD-A.
>
>If that's true Paul, then the above paragraph makes you look
>very silly - whining about something you've never heard.
No, it doesn't make me look silly. It makes me look like someone who
makes the not unreasonable assumpton that SACD and DVD-A are at least
a small improvement over CD, for the purposes of debate.
>Just to review, I have a SACD/DVD-A player and a collection
>of representative discs. Therefore my comments are at least
>based on listening.
Good. Have you told us yet what you think of these mediums? I can't
recall.
paul packer
<fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:38:41 GMT, pac...@iprimus.com.au (paul packer) wrote:
>
>>So instead we have MP3 and ipod, which are mediums of low
>>quality but high quantity--that is,
>
>Properly compressed AAC, Apple Lossless or of course WAV sound surpringly
>good on an iPod.
Irrelevant. The point is that they do not sound better than CD, thus
are not an upward move.
Jenn
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
snip>
> sounds better than the LP.
Unless one is listening to music :-)
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
> > sounds better than the LP.
> Unless one is listening to music :-)
Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
have test tones.
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:
Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
responding to Jenn.
Lionel
> Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
> have test tones.
Why do you put a comma after "...Jenn or whatever" ?
It breaks the rhythm.
Even if you haven't anything interesting to say, try to say it with rhythm.
We are on an *audio* forum sacrebleu !!!
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > Thank you Jenn or whatever, your name is for admitting that LP's do not
> > have test tones.
>
> Yes, the name is Jenn. That's why your newsreader says that you are
> responding to Jenn.
Thanks scokpupett "Jenn" for admitting you're newsreader lies to you.
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:
> Jenn said:
Huh, "George"? Geeze
Sander deWaal
>Huh, "George"? Geeze
If iron knees killed, LOt:'S! ;-(
Thank's for, admitting popsuckett "Jenn" or whatever float's you're
boat this week that you, have absolutely no knowlege of what RAO
history is all, about Jenn.
Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
milennnuim! NOT!
LOL! ;-)
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Steven Sullivan
> In article <di3hnm$a2k$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > > "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Bpedncjzc_fYn9ne...@comcast.com
> > > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:UICdnR7FT-n...@comcast.com...
> > > >> "Michael" <mzei...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > >> news:JuR0f.9040$oO2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net
> > > >>
> > > >>> 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?
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not get a player that is compatible with all of the
> > > >> above? Heck, even I have one!
> > > >>
> > > >>> My thinking is:
> > > >>
> > > >>> 1. SACD will play CD's and that would be great for
> > > >>> computer burned CD's, but is the format short lived?
> > > >>
> > > >> IMO SACD is already dead as a mainstream audio media
> > > >> format.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you are interested in classical music, where it is
> > > > becoming the dominant medium for new releases.
> >
> > > A sad comment on the state of new releases.
> >
> > I question Harry's claim in any case. A visit to the
> > local CD emporium (Tower) does not support the idea
> > that SACD is the dominant medium for new
> > classical releases. Most are still CDs. This
> > includes both 'new' new releases, and reissues.
> Hard to argue with "becoming." Like SNL's Dan Quayle, SACD is "still
> gaining acceptance."
In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.
Harry Lavo
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dirmj5$9jk$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Completely ignoring the fact that the classical music market is European
centered and most new release never see the inside of a U.S. bricks and
mortar store.
Lionel
Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
RAO since many months now...
Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
reasons to avoid suicide...
Jenn
Sander deWaal <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > LOL! ;-)
> I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.
Thank's Sockpoopet "Jenn" for admitting you dont speak Krooglish. Is this
the FAS kicking in or what?
paul packer
wrote:
>> Its like, the US Army relies on ABX to, fixx radar's in the, snow
>> whether or not knowlege, of of blizzard's was so flawed in the last
>> milennnuim! NOT!
>>
>>
>> LOL! ;-)
>
>I'm sorry; I guess that I'm slow, but I don't understand any of this.
They're pulling your leg, mate. The reference is to the way Arnie
Krueger writes posts. Don't worry about it. :-)
MINe 109
Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
You should go to the classical section of Austin's Waterloo Records,
which has many more than two new classical SACD titles.
Stephen
paul packer
<fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:22:03 GMT, pac...@iprimus.com.au (paul packer) wrote:
>
>>The point is that they do not sound better than CD, thus
>>are not an upward move.
>
>You said "low quality". CD's ripped to an iPod in WAV or ALF are still in
>lossless 16/44 format.
I said that? Gee, I must know more than I thought. :-)
Jenn
pac...@iprimus.com.au (paul packer) wrote:
Yeah, I finally figured that out! :-)
elm...@pacificcoast.net
Two excerpts:
"> Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something that
> sounds better than the LP.
>
> Just the usual senseless, self-pitying posturing from
> Mirabel.
For statement better qualified as simply idiotic (rather than senseless
or self-pitying) take the top two lines. Anybody who does not know that
there are many superb LPs - especially in so-called classical music
category- tells us all about his musical interests we need to
know(nothing wrong with that- it takes all kinds)and his
discrimination. There are also many awful LPs made by awful
audio-engineers. And of course Mr. Packer is correct- LPS can be a pain
in the neck and they do require fussy expensive equipment which has to
be properly set-up.
If I did not recognise that there have also been excellent CDs issued
esp. in the last few years I'd have to put myself in the same dogmatic
simpleton category. Example: Janos Starker playing Bach solo cello on
EMI CD- as close to the real as I ever heard on recorded music.
Shame, Arny. You have been devious but seldom silly.
Ludovic Mirabel
dave weil
wrote:
>> In the 'new releases' displays in the classical section of Virgin,
>> I counted 2 SACD releases out of ~45 new releases (almost all of
>> which were new recordings, not reissues). Both were Mahler symphonies.
>> One other recording was a DSD recording, but released as CD. That's it.
>> 'Dominance' of the genre's new releases seems a long way off.
>
>You should go to the classical section of Austin's Waterloo Records,
>which has many more than two new classical SACD titles.
Well, Waterloo is one of those "special stores", isn't it? You can
create megastores all over the world, but you can't manufacture a
top-down love of music. That has to come from a "sense of purpose".
Waterloo has just that sense of purpose.
Sander deWaal
>> They're pulling your leg, mate. The reference is to the way Arnie
>> Krueger writes posts. Don't worry about it. :-)
>Yeah, I finally figured that out! :-)
Don't worry Jenn, every now and then I like to test the ole Krooglish
Koder.
Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)
Sander deWaal
>Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
>Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
>RAO since many months now...
>Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
>reasons to avoid suicide...
I know, I'm too nice for this world.
George M. Middius
Sander deWaal said:
> Just installed a new PC, it seems to work well :-)
Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
cant make him sodler, LOt"S.
Lionel
> Lionel <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> said:
>
>
>>Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! Ahhhhhh !!!! It's a good one !
>>Thank you Sander for reminding us a guy who has nearly disappeared from
>>RAO since many months now...
>>Thank you for being so charitable, thank you for giving George thin
>>reasons to avoid suicide...
>
>
>
> I know, I'm too nice for this world.
I can understand that, I was like you when I was young.
Lionel
> Thanks Mr. Dowell for, admitting that you don't know how to setup a
> computer porprerlly. ITs like you can lead a nerd to the network but, you
> cant make him sodler, LOt"S.
George you are pathetic. Nostalgy will kill you.
Sander deWaal
>Sander deWaal said:
Hardly.
Been that, done there "George" back when in 1956 I discovered the
selective memory porcess by which, I was able to endure the
sceintifiic procces known, as "puberty" just, by pretending to be a
card-carrying member of the SWMTSWMTSWTSWMTSMSWT ;-).
Its like, cake over there that, look like, sceniice prooved that
jetfighters that go "BOOM" all by themselves Atkinsion just, as Shatki
Stone's are exposed, not as as the "test" but they exist in the last
millenniumium like, Sterophile is not a fraudilent ragazine LOL!!
As if, ever you darkened the door's of a LEDE room Stephen. NoT.
Whats it like Art to, not knowing an home from a vlot Wiel?
ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)
Lionel
You sound like an ambulance now.
MINe 109
dave weil <dwe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Of course. As for the high-rez formats, for them to succeed would take a
greater commitment from the major record and electronics corporations.
Imagine how slowly cds would have caught on if lps hadn't disappeared
from stores overnight.
Stephen
Sander deWaal
>> ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)
>You sound like an ambulance now.
As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)
Lionel
> Lionel <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> said:
>
>>> ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)
>
>>You sound like an ambulance now.
>
>
> As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)
But doesn't prevent you from draw fire. ;-)
Lionel
> Lionel <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> said:
>
>>> ROTFLMAO!!! ;-)
>
>>You sound like an ambulance now.
>
>
> As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)
But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)
Sander deWaal
>>>You sound like an ambulance now.
>> As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)
>But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)
My function here in RAO is somewhat like a lightning rod.
Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
comes from my wife :-)
Lionel
> Lionel <rf....@siupahc.lenoil> said:
>
>
>>>>You sound like an ambulance now.
>
>
>
>
>>>As long as I'm not chasing them..... :-)
>
>
>
>>But doesn't prevent you from drawing fire. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> My function here in RAO is somewhat like a lightning rod.
Ruthenium or platinum coated ?
> Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
> comes from my wife :-)
Does she use silver bullets ?
Sander deWaal
>> Fire, from whatever direction, doesn't affect me at all, unless it
>> comes from my wife :-)
>Does she use silver bullets ?
Worse. She uses her voice :-)
Arny Krueger
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:07:15 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Point of order here - how do speakers and power amps get
>> involved with transcribing media?
>
This is going to be "good"! ;-)
> The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
> amp
> and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
> 7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
> more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
> were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.
One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
definately does not do is remove any significant amount of
energy from the audio signals that it encodes or decodes
unlesss it is introducing very large audible chances, which
ATRAC most certainly does not do. Certainly not 7/8 of the
energy. Not even 1/8 of the energy.
<snip remaining equally ill-formed thinking>
Arny Krueger
news:jennconducts-5B49...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> In article <pZadnVLK5qv...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> snip>
>> Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something
>> that sounds better than the LP.
>
> Unless one is listening to music :-)
Unless one never heard that music before the LP format
butchered it.
Howard Ferstler
> 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
Howard Ferstler
> 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.
Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
manipulated source material, and so the ATRAC feature would
not have any impact.
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> 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.
elm...@pacificcoast.net
Arny , I wasn't going to restart the stale LP vs. CD polemic but you
insist.
First of all I must question your right to lay down the law on the
subject. You said once that you consider prolonged listening a waste of
time. Well, this is the only way I do listen. I sit down and *listen*.
To play the kind of music I most often play as background is not only
wasteful- it is irritating. (exception: some of the pop I enjoy becomes
obnoxious after 20 minutes)
Secondly: For LP listening good equipment is paramount. What kind of
turntable, arm , cartridge and phono preamp did you have before you
decided that LPs always "butcher" your music (while CDs never
do?)?.
But I should not complain. It is thanks to people like you that I've
been getting sonically superb LPs for $ 1:00 in 2nd hand stores. Last 5
days: Almeida playing Spanish guitar music, Muti conducting Chabrier;s
Espana, Maazel conducting "The rite of spring on "London",.Van
Cliburn playing Liszt and Monteux conducting Prokofiev. Not only great
sound but also great performances.
Keep in touch
Ludovic Mirabel
Want a list of good CDs? They also exist.
paul packer
wrote:
>> I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.
>
>This is going to be "good"! ;-)
>
>> The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
>> amp
>> and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
>> 7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
>> more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
>> were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.
>
>One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
>definately does not do is remove any significant amount of
>energy from the audio signals that it encodes or decodes
>unlesss it is introducing very large audible chances, which
>ATRAC most certainly does not do. Certainly not 7/8 of the
>energy. Not even 1/8 of the energy.
Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true digital audio
recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme, called ATRAC, is excellent..
(Sony prefers not to use the term compression and refers to ATRAC as
"data reduction.) In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC employs a
5:1 "reduction" ratio -- meaning that it discards 80% of the audio
data. Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it sounds great even
with material that would sound bad if compressed with MP3 -- which is
normally uses a 10:1 ratio."
Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this delusion, Arny.
This is not from a technical site and I quote it simply because it
apes everything I've read on the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews
--namely, that it "discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
technical person I only have one definition of "discards". You may
have another.
Arny Krueger
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:23:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> I thought I didn't need to elaborate--obviously I do.
>>
>> This is going to be "good"! ;-)
>>
>>> The theory is that by removing 7/8ths of the signal the
>>> amp
>>> and speakers, relieved of the need to reproduce that
>>> 7/8ths, have a much easier time and thus are operating
>>> more within their limits. Hence, especially where both
>>> were hitherto operating near their limits, better sound.
>>
>> One thing that ATRAC (or any other perceptual coder) most
>> definately does not do is remove any significant amount
>> of energy from the audio signals that it encodes or
>> decodes unlesss it is introducing very large audible
>> chances, which ATRAC most certainly does not do.
>> Certainly not 7/8 of the energy. Not even 1/8 of the
>> energy.
>
> Quote: "While Minidisc recorders do not produce true
> digital audio recordings, Sony's "compression" scheme,
> called ATRAC, is excellent.. (Sony prefers not to use the
> term compression and refers to ATRAC as "data reduction.)
> In normal record mode, called LP1, ATRAC employs a 5:1
> "reduction" ratio -- meaning that it discards 80% of the
> audio data.
So what?
Just because you discard 80% of the detailed information
riding on a far larger very audible signal, has the energy
contained in that larger signal been necessarily diminished
by 80%? No!
>Yet the fidelity is surprisingly good, and it
> sounds great even with material that would sound bad if
> compressed with MP3 -- which is normally uses a 10:1
> ratio." Clearly I'm not the only one suffering from this
> delusion, Arny. This is not from a technical site and I
> quote it simply because it apes everything I've read on
> the subject of ATRAC in Hi-Fi reviews --namely, that it
> "discards" around 7/8 of the signal. Not being a
> technical person I only have one definition of
> "discards".
Your idea here is just plain wrong, Paul.
>You may have another.
I really don't care as much about marketing blurbs, I mostly
I care about what actually happens.
As I mentioned before I have a Sony ATRAC recorder, and I've
actually tested its performance.
I've found that if I record a CD whose energy I determine by
measuring with my ATRAC recorder, the ATRAC-encoded version
of the CD measures up with about the same amount of energy.
This is also true with MP3 and AAC encoding. The human ear
measures loudness primarily based on energy, not
informatiion.
Therefore, any form of encoding that causes a significant
loss of energy will make an obvious change in how the music
sounds. ATRAC is better than that! It does corrupt the sound
quality a bit, but its not bad particularly compared to
common forms of analog recording such as cassette tape,
consumer analog tape, and vinyl.
Just because a signal has more information, doesn't mean
that it has more energy, and vice-versa.
For example, consider an audio signal with a 1 volt
amplitude. Its information content, according to Shannon's
information theory, is based on its dynamic range and its
bandwidth. If you attenuate the audio signal by 6 dB,
neither its dynamic range nor its bandwidth need be reduced.
Therefore, its information content is unchanged. However,
attenuating it by 6 dB reduces its energy by about 75%.
If you have a relatively wideband, noise-free amplifier; you
can amplify the attenuated signal by 6 dB with neglible loss
of dynamic range or bandwidth. When you amplify it by 6 dB
youo restore its energy levels, but its information content
remains essentially unchanged.
In the case of ATRAC encoding, the information is lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same.
Arny Krueger
news:1129508190.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-5B49...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>> In article <pZadnVLK5qv...@comcast.com>,
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> snip>
>>>> Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot to have something
>>>> that sounds better than the LP.
>>> snip
>>>
>>> Unless one is listening to music :-)
>>
>> Unless one never heard that music before the LP format
>> butchered it.
>
> Arny , I wasn't going to restart the stale LP vs. CD
> polemic but you insist.
As usual Ludovix, your narrow view of audio has created a
controversy that exists only in your mind.
I am not comparing LP and CD, I'm comparing live sound and
master recordings in any modern format to LP transcriptions
of them.
I still remember when I learned about what LP mastering
really involves, and heard a comparison between a master
tape and supposedly high quality LP playback. I learned that
the essence of making a LP is to take music from a
high-resolution clean format to an audibly lower-resolution,
dirtier format.
Arny Krueger
news:4352CF52...@attglobal.net
In practice ATRAC has a slight impact on distorted music.
However, ATRAC does not as a rule impact music like consumer
analog tape, particularly cassette.
paul packer
wrote:
>> Amp clipping and the like would appear downstream from the
>> manipulated source material,
Yes, it would.
>and so the ATRAC feature
>> would not have any impact.
Yes, it would, for that reason. Is your mind running upstream, Howard?
>In practice ATRAC has a slight impact on distorted music.
Eh?
>However, ATRAC does not as a rule impact music like consumer
>analog tape, particularly cassette.
Agreed.
Gee, Arnie, we actually agreed.
paul packer
wrote:
Well, I don't care much about what you've measured frankly. My point
was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC as a system assure us that 80%
of the signal is removed. It has been interpolated from that, not by
me, that this may make the signal easier to handle by amps and
speakers operating near their limits, and thus lead to better sound.
If you have an issue with that, I suggest you take it up with those
who first suggested it, or simply ignore it--whatever you wish. The
point about this debate is that you seemed to be denying what Sony and
others themselves tell us about ATRAC. That puts you on fairly shaky
ground.
Arny Krueger
Of course Paul - unbiased facts mean nothing to you.
In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is
lost
permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal
remains about the same.
> My point was very simple: the marketers of ATRAC
> as a system assure us that 80% of the signal is removed.
No, they say that 80% of the information was removed.
Paul, can you even get the simplist thing right?
Information and energy are not the same thing.
paul packer
wrote:
>Paul, can you even get the simplist thing right?
Probably not. I don't even know what that word means.