 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
38.223.231.249
Got one last Saturday and cannot believe the improvement in SACD performance but the best part is CD playback. Listening to CD's through this player I really have to question the need for SACD's. Well recorded and mastered CD's come within a breath of SACD performance. However if the CD is overly compressed, badly EQ'ed or just used sources generations removed, they are unlistenable.
On well done CD's all the detail, depth and soundstaging is presented with accuracy only previously achieved on SACD's or LP's. The only criticism that I have is that the DAC can only process up to 24/96 from external sources. Playing some of the Classic 24/96 DAD's via the Wadia they got a shot in the arm. The soundstage went wall to wall and clear through to the next house.
I finally feel liberated from hoping to get some SACD releases of my favorite music, CD replay is that good.
Follow Ups:
There is NO upsampling. The "i" designation provides for multiple digital inputs to allow the onboard DAC to accept signals from other sources. The 24/96 is the maximum digital rate that it accepts from external sources.
Wadia uses a series of algorithms for conversion to analog
I have BlueRay player, can upscale my regular DVD to 720p, they look OK, but not true HD as I see from blueRay disc.
your 24/96 DAC gets you a fake sound from a 16/44 CDs, period!
"your 24/96 DAC gets you a fake sound from a 16/44 CDs, period!
The numbers on a CD can be plotted as points on grid paper. If you do that accurately you will have all of the information on the CD. To turn it into an electrical signal that you can amplify and send to your speakers there are certain things that need to be done, and the main one that is germane to this discussion is to turn the dots into a continuous curve.
If you think this process is fake, so be it. But don't waste you time posting on any forum that involves digital music. Stick strictly to analog!
All that upsampling does is to draw a smooth curve through the original 44/16 points and turn it into a bunch of new points on a finer grid. And then these points need to be turned into a (hopefully similar) smooth curve and amplified. So yes, there may be twice as much "fakery" involved if this is what you want to call it. But if upsampled digital audio is fake then the original digital audio is at least half-faked.(Another word unavoidably comes to mind.) Even a NOS DAC is involved with the same "fakery": it turns dots into a staircase waveform instead of a smooth curve. Some people may prefer this, but it's not the waveform that was originally recorded by the ADC.
You will will better results upsampling 44.1 if you go to 88.2, 176.4, 352.8, etc., assuming that your DAC runs at multiples of 44.1, by the way.
(This may not be theoretically true, but it is certainly true in practice with all the SRCs that I've tested or seen tested.) Or you may get better results feeding your DAC with the original 44/16 material. It depends on the DAC and the upsampler and how good a job they do "connecting the dots".
Of course, if someone upsamples a 44/16 recording to 96/24 and then sells it as a 96/24 hi-res recording they are committing fraud. In most cases, such frauds can be easily detected by forensic analysis using ordinary audio editing software such as Sony SoundForge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, you should know better than to come on this forum and try to talk moderately - the voice of reason is soon drowned out.
Teresa, Hiro or MC-SACD will patronise you and basically tell you how to suck eggs, when I've no doubt you have more experience with higher rez formats than all three combined.
All I'll add of my own is a very simple analogy because I'm a very simple person.
If we view a landscape through a pane of clear glass, we know that the glass is adding distortion and that we are losing resolution of the landscape, even though out brains are extremely good at seeing past the distortions and loss of resolution.
Now add a second pane of glass and unbdeniably we have doubled the distortion and doubled the loss of resolution, yet I doubt anyone will subjectively notice this loss if both panes of glass a squeaky clean.
Of course, it would be easy to criticise anyone who did not notice the difference subjectively. They could be lambasted for not realising that one pane meant half the distortion, twice the resolution and the facts would back them up.
If they still did not admit that they could see the difference, the quality of the glass would be brought into question, the viewer's sight would be questioned and if they still insisted that two panes of glass provided ample resolution and insignificant distortion they could be regarded as 'one panel Trolls' and requested to stop giving their opinions in the face of such overwhelming proof!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"Teresa, Hiro or MC-SACD will patronise you and basically tell you how to suck eggs, when I've no doubt you have more experience with higher rez formats than all three combined."
Thank you, but I have no idea if this is true. I have decades of experience listening to tapes, LP and CDs, but only a few years working with and listening to hi-res digital. Most of my hi-res digital experience is with my own transfers of tapes and with around 100 Internet downloads. I do not play SACDs because I have a computer setup and Sony has locked up the format with patents and DRM. If SACDs were unrestricted then I think we would see widespread use of DSD downloads, DSD DACs, etc., but this is never going to happen. Sony has kept their technology proprietary and consequently the marketplace has passed it by.
I have not been purchasing any 44/16 recordings lately. I have a very large library of classical music and don't really need any new recordings. I am only interested in purchasing new recordings that pass all three tests: excellent composition, excellent performance, and excellent sound. The number of hi-res downloads available that meet these criteria presently exceeds my budget—unless this situation changes I won't be purchasing additional 44/16 material. I have no problem with free downloads of 44/16 material
My ears aren't what they used to be 50 years ago. But I still hear differences between hi-res material and the same hi-res material that has been passed through the 44/16 "knothole". Often this is even the case for material that has been digitized from cassette tape.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I'm currently listening to a CD which was recorded straight to 16/44 yet has the best bass I've heard on any format. The studio used multi-layer Mana equipment racks and took great care with ancillary equipment - the result is excellent.
Unfortunately for you it is trance music so may not be to your taste, although as one off I'm sure you'd find it a very interesting listen.
I don't normally buy into trance music myself, but this does have some musical merit and I'm even listening to it right now.
The CD is "Fast Floor - The Eternal Dream" by Mana Recordings.
Could take some finding as it's 11 years old, but if you're interested I'll burn a copy and send you one.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Creating new points on the curve by upsampling does help to smooth things out as there are more samples. The ones inbetween the recorded samples were "guessed at", it is much better to have the complete real samples that were recorded on location by the master recorder.
You of all people know why native high resolution (such as 24/96) sounds so much better than 16/44.1 upsampled, for example to 24/96. The first is real resolution the second is "fake" resolution and I KNOW you know which one sounds better.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
and, as you do not understand math, I'm not going to even try to clarify it.
Nothing is "guessed at." Higher sampling rates give you higher frequencies. But there is no guessing in either case. Every point between sample points is completely determined.
And upsampling does not give you higher frequencies, it only gives you more samples. So 16/44.1 upsampled to 96/24 has the "extra" samples which are not in the original 16/44.1kHz are either "guessed at" or repeated.
"Zarex HD's up-sampling process uses intelligent interpolation to fix 24 intermediate samples between every pair of samples in the original waveform, with contours chosen and adjusted by Dr Hohman in response to the unique musical attributes of each source program." Zarex upsamples Albany SACDs from 44.1kHz masters, I've heard these and while they are better than CDs they are not high resolution, I have since sold all of them.
Even though 96kHz has potential frequency response up to 44kHz because the original 44.1kHz sound recorded was limited to 20kHz that is still the highest frequency that one can have. But the better a system or program is at guessing the samples in between the recorded samples the better the resulting SACD will be.
That is why "REAL" high resolution is better than upsampling!
And yes I do understand math, perhaps you do not understand the difference between real resolution and upsampling?
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Teresa,
upsampling can smooth out the sound of low rez red book a bit, but it cannot recreate the original master sound (24bit/96kHz or DSD) resolution.
Analogically take for example telephone call quality which is 8bit/8kHz - Does anyone think that by upsampling it to 16bit/44,1kHz one can bring back CD quality from telephone call quality audio?
sorry, but it's ridiculous!
same for 16-bit/44,1kHz CD upsampled to 24bit/96kHz, does anyone think that one can bring back 24bit/96kHz quality?
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
thanks for the pictures,they were funny.
dvd audio
& multichannel sacds rule
"your 24/96 DAC gets you a fake sound from a 16/44 CDs, period!"
ALL audio systems give us 'fake sound' unless your's contains actual performing bands and artists?
Reproduction IS fake, and all audio system's do is try to convince us that we are listening to instruments and artists rather than bita and pits.
Some are more convincing than others, and according to the original poster it appears that the humble CD replay of his player is as convincing as it's SACD replay.
Oh dear!!!!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Oh dear, indeed!
The original poster may not have a pre-amp, amp and speakers that can reproduce ultrasonic frequencies. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as I have no problem with anyone enjoying CDs, but some people (yourself included) have a big problem with anyone preferring SACDs and stating why they prefer SACDs.
Chis this is the Hi-Rez Highway it is OK to love SACD here!!??!!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"but some people (yourself included) have a big problem with anyone preferring SACDs and stating why they prefer SACDs."
Think you'll find the original poster isn't really expressing any preference, which is what annoys SACD cheerleaders.
Must be his equipment...etc...etc... :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
nt
System One
Martin Logan CLS IIz
Frequency Response: 35–20000 Hz ± 3 dB
Audio Research LS25 MKII,
Frequency Response: +/-.5DB, 1.0Hz to 100kHz -3dB pionts below 0.2Hz and 400kHz
Audio Research VT100 MKII
Frequency Response: (-3dB points at 1 watt) 1Hz to 100 kHz
System Two
Magnepan 3.6R
Frequency Response: 34-40kHz ±3dB
Conrad Johnson ET-250S Hybrid
Frequency Response (at 10 Watts): 20 Hz to 20 kHz (+/- .25dB)
Conrad Johnson CT5
Frequency Response (at 10 Watts): 20 Hz to 20 kHz, +/- .25 dB
I looked and I could not find any ultrasonic response quoted for the Conrad Johnson equipment but since they are down only .25dB they should have some but how much? There is a lot of equipment, even high end equipment that is HF limited due to philosophies of the designers and I don't know if Conrad Johnson is one such company. I searched for Power Bandwidth specifications and found none. I am sorry, if the owner's manual gives a power bandwidth specification and it goes beyond 40kHz it should be fine, otherwise I would swap components to get all the ones that reproduce ultrasonics in the same system.
If you could combine the AR preamp (to 400kHz) and amp (to 100kHz) of System One with the Magnepan speakers (to 40kHz) in system Two you would have a system perfect for all high resolution sources. As it is now the one system is limited by the speakers the other by the electronics.
Once you get all the ultrasonic equipment in one system I believe you will hear the huge difference between SACD and CD on the Wadia.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Here we go again. A guy with two very good systems, WAY beyond anything that "normal" (sorry Tommytunes - not saying anything about you personally!) people have, yet without careful mix and match the systems aren't up to your standard for playing back SACD's. How are the common folk going to get the benefit of the universal multi layer SACD's that you're pushing for (and you do often say they'll be seduced by the better sound of high res) on the systems that most people play back music through? Let me quote you from another post, "SACD/CD hybrids need to be of NEW MUSIC especially Pop, Rock, Rap and Hip Hop released as soon as there is radio and TV play. In other words when they are HOT!!!!! You do this and the majority will want SACDs for the music, for the high resolution and for the multichannel sound." You suggest they'll want SACD's for the high resolution but they're listening through systems that don't hold a candle to systems that by your logic aren't up to showing the qualities of SACD. Get consistent please.
Also, you're taking a huge leap of faith in trusting that quoted specifications (in the case of speakers often measured at 1m in a anechoic situation) will be sustained in a home environment. Have you ever looked at JA's 1m measurements in stereophool and then the in-room measurements?
For example, the YG Acoustics Anat Reference is close to flat out to 30Khz on axis when measured quasi-anechoically at 50", but when measured in Wes Phillips Room at normal listening distance and with room furnishings absorbing high frequencies it's about 10db down at 20kHz.
Another - Burmester B25 spec'd to 45kHz (+-3db) measured anecholically flat to 30kHz, in room -7db at 30kHz.
Just because something is specified out to a given frequency doesn't mean it produces that in room. Most Electronics will do just fine, but speakers in a typical room often don't.
Dear Teresa,
This is Yoav Geva, designer of the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II Professional. Please allow me to elaborate on the issue of anechoic response versus in-room response:
First, you are absolutely correct in that a speaker with a flat anechoic response may not have a flat in-room response. Every room has its own acoustics.
However, anechoic response is nonetheless critical. When listening, we first perceive the direct sound, before any echoes arrive. This is the signal that provides our brain with most of the soundstage and tonal information in the recording. A signal with a flat frequency response and no relative phase deviations will provide us with a lifelike experience in these aspects.
Next, the first reflections arrive. These have hit room surfaces only once, and therefore are "colored" once by the room, and also by the speaker's dispersion. After all, the signal for these echoes leaves the speaker at an off-axis angle. Please note that a musician playing live music in the same room would cause the exact same effect - the direct sound is neutral, and the first reflections are "colored" once by the room. The first reflections are used by our brain mainly to determine the size of the room, and also have some (but less than direct sound) contribution to the tonality of the speaker. Therefore a more neutral room is still superior to a heavily "colored" one.
Last, more echoes arrive. These later reflections have hit room surfaces multiple times, and are far more "colored" by the room than the first reflections. They "tell" our brain mostly about the room, and less about the musical performance.
A good speaker, therefore, must have both a flat anechoic response and uniform dispersion. But even with those two, its in-room response will heavily depend on the room. And while heavily "colored" rooms may affect the perceived tonality in some respect, the direct ("anechoic") sound is mainly responsible for our perception of tonality, which means that even if the in-room response is not flat when averaging direct sound and echoes without looking at timing (which is what in-room measurements typically do), it may be perceived as completely flat if the time until the echoes arrive is long enough, and the speaker's dispersion is uniform enough to make sure that only the room colors the echoes, rather than the speaker.
Last but not least, there is one thing which I don't know whether you have paid attention to (if you have, please accept my apologies): you are comparing the in-room responses of two speakers, measured in two different rooms. It is important to note that in-room measurements of two speakers can only be compared if the rooms are identical. The Burmester B25 was measured in LG's room, whereas the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II Professional was measured in WP's room. While I cannot clearly state at this time which room is "better" (I would need to look at measurements with timing information to know more), it is quite clear that they are very different.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Please use the "Contact Us" screen on my website, or this forum.
Best,
Yoav Geva
President
YG Acoustics LLC
Yoav Geva (Gonczarowski)
YG Acoustics
I've been building loudspeakers using tweeters that in lab measure flat to 50 kHz but in my room in my seating position they only measure - 3 or 6 db at 20 khz.
Theresa do not belive specs, most of them are exagerated to fool people like you. Get yourself a mic and a program that can measure frequency response in your seat and you will see that you would be lucky to get
20 kHz.
I would say most families have Surround sound even if it's only a surround sound in a box. They will still get Surround Sound that sounds way better than stereo on their CDs or downloads.
Plus even though some may not be able to reproduce the ultrasonics on SACDs, SACDs are superior in the critical midrange and bass as well. And they can experience the overall more relaxed sound of SACD.
Also the differences between CD and SACD are even greater at the lower price points that 99% of the music public is at, even in systems limited to 20kHz.
Ultrasonics are important to hear all that SACD can do but by no means is an absolute requirement.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"Ultrasonics are important to hear all that SACD can do but by no means is an absolute requirement."
So systems don't need to have the 'ultrasonic' HF extension to hear the maginificence of SACD, yet there's only you who immediately jumps on anyone who doesn't bow at SACDS's feet claiming that their system isn't capable of ultrasonics and so is not clearlt demonstrating SACD's superiority.
Yes, the midrange IS critical, and this is where lowly, castrated CD is actually BETTER than SACD!!!
You are tying yourself in knots Teresa, but do continue...
NL: From Sony again:
"Although the bit numbers is just 1/16 of that used for the CD-format, the sampling frequency is 64 times higher. DSD can accommodate more than 4 times the information as the current format."
4 times more information could not be wrong? Or is the depth of bits more important?
IÖ: The number of the bits is much more important. Actually the DSD-system is theoretically less dense in information than the CD-system. Even when the data is packed (as it is on an SACD) it is still not much better.
When Sony declares that DSD-format can store 4 times the data, they probably mean that there is 4 times the space on the SACD-disc compared to CDs. But since the DSD-coding is so ineffective, the real information is considerable lower.
The resolution/ information doubles when you double the sampling frequency (it is possible to be more specific, but for this example it is enough). But to double the resolution using PCM, you only have to add one more bit. If you go from 1 to 16 bits (adding 15 bits which use approximately 15 times more storage space), the resolution increases 65,536 times (from one step to 65,536 steps).
There is also another essential difference; the increase in resolution you achieve from raising the sampling frequency will be frequency dependant. A one-bit system will therefore have high resolution at low frequencies (where the information theoretically is low) and have low resolution at high frequencies (where the information theoretically is high).
By the use of noise shaping of high order, it is possible to increase the resolution at "quite high frequencies" at the expense of resolution at very high frequencies, but only for static, non transient signals. Transient signals will have poor resolution in a one-bit system. If the signal does not endure for a long enough time, the error will not be minimised by the noise shaper of the one bit system.
That's why you can read in documents from Burr Brown (who manufactures both one-bit and multi-bit converters) that you should use multi-bit converters for "waveform synthesis applications requiring very low distortion and noise". They have not written this for nothing.
A one-bit converter (i.e. the DSD system) cannot regenerate a short pulse with stringent form. It will change form from moment to moment. Every identical recorded pulse will show up with a new form.
One can always discuss the audibility of such behaviour, and if it is audible, one can discuss how much it disturbs. Objectively good reproduction is not important for everyone. So if the presentation of music is changed in some way, some people might see this as a minor problem, others think it is more serious.
It is beyond discussion that the lower resolution of one-bit systems is a problem under circumstances more precision demanding than audio. When you need both super precision and stability, when you need to know that a generated waveform looks like it is suppose to, nothing but multi-bit converters will do.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
The problem with DSD is that it can not be linearized. If there were two bits then proper dither could be used and noise modulation eliminated. As it is, there will always be some noise modulation with any 1 bit system. (More than 2 bits are necessary with noise shaping, roughly speaking the order of noise shaping has to be less than the number of bits.) If you look at the software documentation for the Weiss Saracon, you will see that there are many caveats associated with the conversion of PCM to DSD. These same issues exist when converting live analog signals. DSD playback is not so complex because it doesn't need to include any non-linear feedback.
Modern converters (ADCs and DACs) designed for the highest quality are multi-bit. They do the necessary conversions to/from DSD. So much for "pure DSD".
I don't think DSD is inefficient in its use of bits. It uses 2/3 the bits of 176/24 PCM but has been reported as having roughly comparable quality. It is possible to apply lossless compression to both DSD and PCM—my numbers relate to the uncompressed samples.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Never can there be a discussion focused on one thing. You just pull stuff from every where.
And you argue and argue and go on and on and on.................
Everyone understands your views.
Many disagree with them.
Give it a rest.
navman
I never just pull stuff except when I am quoting myself or others and most of that is saved on my hard drive to answer questions. Not everyone has been here since the beginning of SACD, so do not assume that everyone knows how I feel on any subject. If they did they would not ask questions.
Hope this helps you to understand!
And if you don't have anything positive to contribute perhaps you should excuse yourself and butt out,
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
were you able to find out if your Condrad Johnson gear reproduces ultrasonics and how far out? I spent over an hour searching on the Internet and could only confirm to 20kHz.
Your AR preamp goes to 400kHz, now that is extremely impressive! And the AR power amp to 100kHz. Have you tried the AR with the maggies which go to 40kHz? The AR stuff is perfect spec wise for SACD.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Trying to drive Maggie 3.6's with a VT100 MKII would be impossible. You can believe all you want in specs. I listen to music. If it sounds closer to the live event that is proof positive that it sounds good.
Just last night I played the RBCD of the latest Dave Holland album. I just saw them live at Birdland and the RBCD sounded very close to the live show. Would a DSD recording on SACD sound better yes. No one is arguing with you but it's not available and will never be.
Teresa, no one is disputing that SACD and pure DSD recordings are superior to RBCD. The problem is that it's a format that is limited to new Classical recordings of which I have no interest. I don't understand why you can't understand that.
I'm a firm beliver in the DSD format, I utilize DSD to needle drop my best LP's and create a pure DSD disc for playable on my Sony 5400.
How can I put this so you will understand. There is simply not enough sales to justify major record companies to support the continual release of SACD. You are fortunate that your musical taste is available on SACD releases, but please stop the cheerleading of a non-format for most other music.
I started this thread because I felt that this unit was the best I've heard (there are obviously better units but I haven't heard them) on SACD and CD. Many are interested in units that perform well on both formats because they don't limit themself's to music that is only released on a specific format.
My Infinity Reference Kappa 7's are 4 ohm speakers but the impedance drips down to 1 ohm. So I had to find a power amp in my budget that could handle a 1 ohm load and that did limit my choices. So I do understand about hard to drive speakers and it is possible that your Conrad Johnson gear does reproduce ultrasonics it's just after spending a whole hour searching I gave up. The specs in your manual may give a wider frequency range with a wider +/- range, this is just something I do not know. I even scanned a few reviews and couldn't find anything on ultrasonics. Your AR gear is very wide range and it is a shame it won't drive your Maggies.
I agree one of the problems of the SACD format is it being limited to new Classical recordings, while great for me it is not great for most people as Classical music lovers are a very small minority. This is something I am actively trying to change and showing companies why it is to their benefit to release only SACD/CD hybrids and why it is worth the extra pressing costs.
I have read posts in the Computer Audio Asylum from posters recording LPs using DSD and others using 24/96 PCM and it seems from what I have read DSD does get the best results.
I am glad you are enjoying your new SACD player!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Really who gives a damn?
He bought equipment. He reported what he found. Thats it.
There is nothing more to discuss.
You believe he is listening to crap. He believes otherwise.
But you go on and on.
And then you cry (sniff sniff) people are attacking you.
Grow up.
navman
LOL Teresa strikes again. THE WORLd SAVIOR OF SACD, Have to laugh at her post she is hysterical.
and it upsets you when anyone tries.
You posts are getting very, very tiresome.
I suggest you take your own advise and quit butting into other peoples discussions.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Doesnt upset me in the least if someone tries to get the best sound from SACD.
I dont have anything against the SACD format.
I personally believe it sounds better than RBCD (as I have said many times)
However I believe it is a dead format.
I find your arguing tiresome.
Cheerleading is funny for a while, but the continual rubbish you post irritates.
------------------SACD trolls cry like wounded badgers stuck in a trap
navman
It seems like that when I read your posts.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
I don't have to make anything up because it all true and verified with real life experiences, DUH!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
navman
especially if you are going to bring opinions (and strong ones at that).
Random people come by and ask questions/help ...no problem.
But if you come to pontificate, then register.
Show some balls.
navman
I really wish this site was like every other one I belong to, that before you can post, you must register....
I really don't understand the "logic" of not doing this way?
Rick
So far I have agreed with them. I seems he really loves SACD and he knows why it is vastly superior to any other digital format.
This is the Hi-Rez Highway BTW which so happens to be about SACD. It would be nice if he registered but not required.
The fact that he can find non-audio metaphors to illustrate his points about the superiority of high resolution digital over low resolution digital must really rub you the wrong way.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Hes or she or it is a TROLL.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
We need a thousand more excellent posters like MC-SACDs and Hiro to shut and your other of low resolution loving friends up once and for all.
THIS IS THE HI-REZ HIGHWAY NOT THE LOW-REZ HIGHWAY
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
without being registered.......it could be anyone.As a result I don't give a FF what he/she/it says.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
Edits: 03/20/09
Why does it get under your skin the fact that some of us actually enjoy the music our SACD players produce?
And I care what MC-SACDs has said so far as it makes perfect sense and he appears to be someone who enjoys the music SACD presents. We need thousands of more intellegent posters just like him!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
register and put up their systems.
Otherwise they look awfully like trolls.
--------Too many SACD trolls put people off SACDS and kill it quicker.
navman
The trouble is, the Asylum forums exist for the discussion of audio, but teresa thinks this particular forum is some sort of promotional, marketing platform for SACD and any discussion or post which casts SACD in anything but a positive light should be banned.
The solution could be to split High-Rez into two forums, one called "High-rez Forum", the other called "SACD chearleading/propoganda statements".
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
What you want is two forums: one for you called the "SACD bashing forum" in which you are are free to attack high and resolution and SACD in any way you feel is fun.And then the "Hi-Rez Highway" which is about is new high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. For those of us actually like SACD and appreciate high resolution and is free from CD-trolls such as yourself.
I would never want to visit the "SACD bashing forum", instead I will visit the "Hi-Rez Highway" to read about the latest SACDs free from CD-trolls. That would be heaven indeed!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Edits: 03/24/09
So 'SACD bashing' equals any statement which doesn't acknowledge SACD as being the second coming.Example; "I have just bought a new SACD player and although SACD is great, on many recordings CD is just as enjoyable".
Teresa's response - "Castrated CD is ONLY LOW RESOLUTION and if you cannot hear OBVIOUS improvement when you listen to SUPER HIGH RESOLUTION SACD you must have very poor system which does not reproduce HIGH FREQUENCIES of SUPERIOR SACD, or you are CD loving, SACD BASHING TROLL!!!!!
Why do you post on SACD forum to bash SACD? You are truly EVIL man and I have given SACD thought police your ISP so you will be DRAGGED from your TROLL BASHING house and publicly FLOGGED so the people can see such deviant thoughts WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! YOU MUST DIE!!!!!"
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Edits: 03/24/09
When someone has trouble hearing the vast superiority of high resolution SACD over low resolution CD I do everything I can think of to help improve their SACD playback, It usually ends up being a limiting factor is amplification or speakers not reproducing ultrasonics, this is something that can be fixed. They also might have been inadvertently converting DSD to low-rez PCM by using signal processing in their pre-amp or receiver.This is why I wrote an article to help listeners hear all that SACD offers, it is designed to help 2 channel listeners as the differences between stereo and multichannel are usually very obvious.
How to get the best from 2 Channel Stereo SACD and 50 recommended recordings.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/sacd.htmAnd of course they could also be "SACD bashing" and be a troll. I've seen both.
I hope you can start your new "SACD bashing forum" SOON so that you will leave us alone on the "Hi-Rez Highway" to enjoy SACD and not be attacked for doing so.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Edits: 03/24/09
when you read a thread about this or that player, CD playback needs to be taken into account. Just as in this thread, which I started, once the subject of CD playback is mentioned you (Teresa) begin the CD bashing. Most members here are just plain tired of you endless anti CD stance and bait you, just to watch you react.
In one leg of this thread you even said the reason I don't appreciate SACD was because of the limitation of my equipment, which is just plain silly unless the entire audio community are deaf except for you. A statement that I'm sure you agree with.
I also remember a couple of years back when your SACD broke and then you went on to champion vinyl as absurdly as you do SACD.
I do have a simple question for you. If the need to have equipment that can reproduce the upper frequency response of SACD is the only way to truely appreciate its benefit then why do 15 and 30ips master tapes sound so much better than any SACD? To my limited knowledge there are no tape desks that even come close to your requirements.
"I do have a simple question for you. If the need to have equipment that can reproduce the upper frequency response of SACD is the only way to truely appreciate its benefit then why do 15 and 30ips master tapes sound so much better than any SACD? To my limited knowledge there are no tape desks that even come close to your requirements."
Tommy I have heard 15 IPS master tape copies in Stereo and Quad. Back in the 1970's a speaker manufacturer "Orchestral Sound" in my home town of Tulsa had 4 Track 15 IPS copies of many of Vox master tapes, including the ones released by MFSL on SACD. And I also got to hear the 2 Track 15 IPS master tapes of the Merlin Fidelity + Direct to Stereo recordings my company "Aesthetic Audio" released on audiophile cassettes. At 15 IPS frequency response extends to beyond 35kH which means a lot of ultrasonics are reproduced. Stereophile has measured SACD and DVD-Audios from analog master tapes and they have a lot of ultrasonic detail up to 40kHz.
In my humble opinion many DSD recorded SACDs are better overall than the master tapes I've mentioned by 2 Track 15 IPS analog Reel to Reel does indeed sound superb.
I also mentioned in previous post SACDs are superior in the audible range as well not only the critical midrange where voices sound "shockingly real" and the bass which has nearly all the warmth and impact of live music. That is why I feel SACD be at every price range including entry level boomboxes and mini systems.
By the way I still champion Vinyl and Analog tape and have even written a book on the subject which is available here in PDF from or from Amazon as a Kindle book, see link below.
My defense of SACD, 24/96 DVD, 24/96 downloads, LPs or analog tape is not absurd!
I would love to hear your new SACD player with your AR electronics and Maggies speakers if you could find a way to make them work together.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
sounds like an excellent idea.
navman
You won't find me there as I prefer a forum that is actually about SACD releases and high resolution technology and free of CD trolls and SACD bashing. Good luck to Chris on his new "SACD bashing forum",
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
that if you didnt post here for six months, this would be a very peaceful forum.
And you might say the same of me, if I left, but that is certainly not true, as many times I dont post but you are here fighting and trolling and flame baiting all the time.
----------SACD trolls are really tough till they are called on their nonsense and then have little tantrums attempting to ban those that they disagree with.
navman
It would be totally peaceful here as well if all the CD trolls found another place to bug people and leave. It is that simple. I have all of their names and if I am ever made monitor I will clean up the Hi-Rez highway so it can be the great place it was in the past.
You seem to be projecting as I only defend SACD and defend those who speak out in it's favor. Something I should not have to do on the Hi-Rez Highway.
With the CD trolls gone the Hi-Rez highway would be a very peaceful forum just like SA-CD.net is.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
This will happen on the day that all CD releases have an SACD layer.
Low resolution isn't everything; it's the only thing!
"I have all of their names and if I am ever made monitor I will clean up the Hi-Rez highway so it can be the great place it was in the past."
You crack me up!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
As usual
navman
Did you hear the Ayon cd2?? this is the best single box RBCD player I've heard and it upsamples to 24bit/192kHz ( NPC SM 5847 )
The triode output stage is pure class A
Been listening to it for a week, just marvellous. Most SACD players don't hold a candle to it!
for under $200 Photoshop SW, you can makeup a photo in anyway as you wish from orignal one? you can make a 6.2Mpx original picture to any size you want, 10, 20 Mpx...they may look good, but not same as orignal one for sure. Can a fake 20 M pic be better than orginal 20 Mpx one? no way!
If you use a crappy lens to take the large pixel resolution picture, and a great lens on a smaller pixel resolution picture, you'll get a better picture with the smaller one. Resolution is just one aspect. "All else being equal" rarely exists.
Fencing with the Troll I see..............
navman
Edits: 03/20/09
If something sounds good, you improve your system until it sounds bad. When your system is at the top level, everything sounds bad.
Tommy,
"Got one last Saturday and cannot believe the improvement in SACD performance"
Compared to what other players?
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Sony SCD-777ES, Sony SCD-XA-5400ES, Marantz 8001, Marantz SA11S2, Ayre C-5xeMP, Esoteric X-5. I did think that the Meridan 505 was a superb CD player.
You are making comparisons to players not even half the $11,500 price tag...
I suggest listening to players at around the same price point, such as the Playback Designs MPS-5 or similiar, then let us know.
I don't think your enthusiasm really has a reference point when you compare a $11,500 player to a $1,500 player...
I am curious thought...
Glad you like it and enjoy!
Rick
k
Which of these worked best with RBCD??? I did not try any of these, but I tried the SA11-1, the Esoteric 03, a few Luxman but none of them satisfied me with RBCD.
There simply is nothing that I've tried that comes close to the Wadia on RBCD.
Hi Allen;
You must get frustrated hearing comments from casual users about some
CD or SACD players that are "great" perhaps compared to some old poorly
(by current standards) performing players they have been using for too
many years now! Usually the postings here are about some nice brand
name players that are at a bargain price and a bit better in some aspect
or two than their previous player. Times are tough for many now, but for
true music lovers time must be taken to compare in their own system what
really sounds better, not just different! Show them what can be done.
Offer regulars to this site a 1 or 2 week use of one of your superb
recent upgrade models ( perhaps for $100 dollars ) and let them hear
how good a musical reproducer you have created---they can not go to a
local store to hear your offering and of course it is a rarity to ever
if ever to see any of your more recent upgrades listed on audiogon or
Ebay.SILLY is the nicest word I can use to describe the unbelievable
original posting that " poor CDs sound worse (with a better player)".
All experienced listeners and reviewers know the opposite is true. The
BEST PLAYERS DO NOT ADD TO OR EXAGGERATE FLAWS IN SOURCE.PERIOD!
Yes, I may seem biased as the owner now of four of your recent upgrades
but it is still true that no manufacturer of a less than $10,000 player
has been willing to submit one for my usual review process as noted in
my review articles. I do not blame them... Sincerely,
Karltoo
As fine as excellent CDs sound, even in stereo SACD is even better...
"As fine as excellent CDs sound, even in stereo SACD is even better... "
No argument with that but what would you do if you had 1650 RBCD's which I love because of the music it contains and only own +_ 60 SACD's.
Would you buy a good SACD player or A great RBCD player that improves the majority of your software??
This is my personal dilemna.
Most to the SACD players I tried (within my price range) do not play
RBCD well as my current RBCD player.
Could be a great player. The phrases such “this DAC is so much better than… ever most SACD cannot…” are often misleading and not correct.
A $10,000.00 could be better… but better than what?
Most orchestral instruments have far more rich harmonics than you can think of. The are way above 20kHz.
Instruments With Harmonics
Fig. Instrument SPL Harmonics Percentage
(dB) Visible To of Power
What Freq.? Above 20 kHz
1. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 96. > 50 kHz 0.5
2. Trumpet (Harmon mute) 76. > 80 " 2.
3. Trumpet (straight mute) 83. > 85 " 0.7
4. French horn (bell up) 113. > 90 " 0.03
5. French horn (mute) 99. > 65 " 0.05
6. French horn 105. > 55 " 0.1
7. Violin (double-stop) 87. > 50 " 0.04
8. Violin (sul ponticello) 77. > 35 " 0.02
9. Oboe 84. > 40 " 0.01
Instruments Without Harmonics
Fig. Instrument SPL 10 dB Above Percentage
(dB) Bkgnd. to of Power
What Freq.? Above 20 kHz
10. Speech Sibilant 72. > 40 kHz 1.7
11. Claves 104. > 102 " 3.8
12. Rimshot 73. > 90 " 6.
13. Crash Cymbal 108. > 102 " 40.
14. Triangle 96. > 90 " 1.
15. Keys jangling 71. > 60 " 68.
16. Piano 111. > 70 " 0.02
a 44/16 recording CD sample rate at 20 kHz is only few points though.
Throwing a few sample points into the wave from a $10,000 DAC does not make any difference. this is why you need a DSD recording to reach over 100KHz and over 120 dB dymanic. music waveform is very complex, to keep natureness of the sound you need keep those higher freq rich harmonics.
Truth is that it dose not matter how expensive of your DAC if you listen to a 16/44 CD.
It may fool you at a low listen level. Once turn up at > 110 dB level, you will hear that a good orginal DSD recording far far better and natural....
here is an analogy, a photo taken from 3.5 Mp camera can be enhanced by photoshop to 10 Mp. While comparing to a original photo taken by 10 Mp camera, it may fool you at 5x7 inch prints, but truth will be seen once they were blew up to 24 x 36 inch.
I completely agree you need a bandwidth out to 100khz as a MINIMUM. We have found with our preamps that two decades either side of the conventional "audio bandwidth" of 20Hz to 20khz sounds the best of all.
But no current recording technology allows this, so 100khz will have to suffice. But no magor manufacturer allows anything like 100kHz, even the SONY SCD-1 with it's "Custom" rear panel switch is a crock, as it extends the basic 45 khz bandwith only out to maybe 55kHz. All in an effort not to upset amplifiers.
Our Upgrades have a 3rd octave filter at just under 100khz and there has only been one claim for a damaged amp - and we believe that was far more a sign of a badley designed unstable amp than too much bandwith in the player - and that's from over 500 Upgrades! The amp designer even said the amp was "hairtrigger"...
Extreme bandwidth brings all sorts of unexpected sonic benfits - like often far better bass end when the treble end is extended.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
I do not know why you are talking technicalities, at the end of the day my ears tells me what sounds best in my system, in my room.
As simple as that!!
I listen to a bigger variety of music than most, jazz, chamber, opera, orchestral, experimental, organ, world etc.
And I am able to tell when something sounds right or wrong.
You seem the type that believe specifications of cheap Japanese gear that have more power, less distortion, great frequency response than
good audio equipment but still sound like c..p.
You ears should be the sole judge.
Low resolution can be make to sound quite good, a good example is a low resolution pre-recorded cassette on a properly adjusted Nakamichi cassette deck. It can sound great but it is not high resolution.
A perfect example of poor sounding high resolution is the absolutely terrible sounding Pioneer DV-578 SACD player. It is possible you might enjoy CD playback on a megabuck CD player more than SACD playback on this poor sounding unit, but even this lowly Pioneer SACD player has more resolution than any CD player, it just it's resolution doesn't sound good.
CD cannot do high resolution and so far I have not heard great sound from CD either, but if you are happy that is fine with me.
But please forgive us for actually wanting both high resolution and great sound. And that my friend is why MC-SACDs is pointing out the technical inadequacies of the low resolution CD format. I really hope this helps you understand the differences?
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"I do not know why you are talking technicalities, at the end of the day my ears tells me what sounds best in my system, in my room.
As simple as that!!"
Sure, you can stick with your path for a $10,000 DAC on your 16/44 CDs. I do not care....
Buidling on an expensive DAC on low rez CDs is fundmantal fraud! Indeed is ripoff for a customer, while high-rez mediums available in today technologies.. Believe or not.
"You ears should be the sole judge. "
I see this type statement too often... it is not worth to read...and argue
I really do not know what you are talking about, I do not have a 10000$
D/A converter as I could not afford one.
and you obviously do not trust your own ears and I do not understand why you get upset, being a music lover should be fun not stressful.
I think that you are loosing it!!
(MC SACD is a) troll. Otherwise register, post up your system and stand by whatever view you wish.
navman
Edits: 03/20/09
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
You act like you really know MC SACD.
No one knows who he/she is.
How do you know MC is even a "he"?
Weird.
--------------SACD trolls keep trolling. SACD will remain a niche till it dies. A miserable protracted death.
navman
I don't have the need to know every little detail about everyone who posts on the Audio Asylum especially when they agree with me.
I intend SACD/CD hybrids to wholesale replace single-layer CDs as the only way recording companies are going to save themselves. So your death wish for our format is a little premature.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
everything released as Hybrid SACDs.
But you will fail.
Not for lack of trying.
But because the format died years ago.
And whatever you think of my views, I supported the SACD format hard in teh early days. But I have had to move with the times.
navman
So have you actually moved on or regressed? I am really curious because as good as 24/96 downloads are they don't hold a candle to DSD recorded SACDs.
Don't leave SACD so soon the best is yet to come.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"The best is yet to come"
Or the best never actually came.
I would like to believe you. But sanity prevails still!
navman
"I supported the SACD format hard in teh early days. But I have had to move with the times"
ROTFLMAO
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
"pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on..."
Can't be much room left in the SACD caravan now Hiro, not since 'MC-SACD' moved in.
I'll assume the caravan has two beds, and one of those seats that folds down into a bed, so if anyone else wants to get on board the SACD caravan they're going to have to squeeze under the sheets with one of you two...I mean three.
Just make sure you change underwear as frequently as possible, and that the SACD caravan toilet is emptied daily otherwise there could be tensions.......
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
caravan |ˈkarəˌvan|
noun
• any large group of people, typically with vehicles or animals traveling together, in single file : a caravan of cars and trucks.
If it was me I might have called it the SACD convoy.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"any large group of people, typically with vehicles or animals traveling together, in single file : a caravan of cars and trucks."
If the SACD enthusiasts were walking single file, the 'caravan' wouldn't be as long as one car never mind a truck.
I prefer my definition (of course I would do), so you just make sure Hiro and MC-SACD wash their socks at regular intervals, and beware of them starting to get frisky in such a confined space.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
they like to share to a fault!
navman
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"It may fool you at a low listen level. Once turn up at > 110 dB level, you will hear that a good orginal DSD recording far far better and natural...."
So unless I'm playing under 110 DB I'm not getting the benefit from SACD? As I listen with peaks about 90db it would seem that I don't need to chase any more SACD's at this stage.
With regards to the high end harmonics, a lot of speakers in room (as opposed to stated specifications) don't actually put very much out above 15kHz, let alone 50kHz so do you believe there is still benefit to be had in those circumstances?
The strongest defenders of SACD seem to totally disregard the subjective pleasure that many listeners get from RBCD. Why is this? Why are a handful of people SO defensive about formats? It strikes me that most people here will agree that a well recorded, produced and mastered SACD sounds better than the equivalent RBCD. The big problem is that unless you're mainly a classical listener the opportunities to enjoy this level of sound is limited to the extreme. Of the 40 or so discs I've purchased this year, four have been SACD's and they sound pretty good, but the ones I return to more are on RBCD as they're musically more enjoyable. Potential sound quality is only one factor in my music buying and it's fairly near the bottom.
Most people will not get the hear the full capabilities of the SACD format unless they love classical music. When Pop and Rock performers start making REAL recordings using DSD with no monkey business, no phony add-on sound killing enhancements including artificial reverb, just real honest to god recordings in a real concert space. When that happens then and only then will non-classical lovers discover the gigantic difference between low resolution CD and high resolution SACD.
SACD gives the capability of an extremely realistic musical presentation that is the closest digital has gotten to real live acoustic music. But it cannot work miracles, if the master tape is crap, then crap is what you get. Rock and Pop performers need to clean up their acts and start recording with high resolution in mind!
BTW most of the early adapters back when SACD was a 2 channel stereo format adopted SACD precisely because they hated the anti-sound of low resolution CD.
From Sony's first SACD brochure: "SACD is the realization of an audiophile’s dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. The secret is Direct Stream Digital™ encoding. It’s one bit, 2.8224 MHz (64 fs) sampling produces nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution."
Truer words were never spoken! ANYONE who derives pleasure from RBCD has NOT truly heard what DSD recorded SACD is capable of! And how great the divide between CD and SACD is. Personally I am not defensive about formats? I like most of them: SACD, 24/96 DVDs, 24/96 downloads. Reel to Reel and LPs but I have never considered RBCD as a real format but an stopgap measure until the powers that be could get Digital right.
The main thing you do not understand is SACD but it's very nature of sounding more like analog than digital attracts lots of listeners who hate CDs and 44.1kHz digital.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"" Truer words were never spoken! ANYONE who derives pleasure from RBCD has NOT truly heard what DSD recorded SACD is capable of! And how great the divide between CD and SACD is ""
As TBone suggested, -that is the most ridiculous thing you've ever typed.
If even 5% true, - it means that you have some real problems, and total POS player, - not only for CD but for SACD as well....
Sheesh....
He puts forth a quarter-ounce green rosette
near the summit of a dense but radiant muffin of his own design.
He turns to us and speaks
The Cowboy Junkies: Open and somehow I don't think you would like this one. Plus even though it is DSD and on a label that usually makes natural sounding recordings, Rounder. It does not sound like a good example of DSD recording to me.
Unless you develop a taste for Classical music or unless some Rock band finally makes a natural sounding DSD recording you will never heard what SACD can do sonically.
Rock music on SACD may be an improvement over what RBCD can do, but you are hearing less than 25% of SACDs capabilities.
Once you can finally hear a well make DSD recorded SACD you will know what a total fraud the CD format is. An absolute and total fraud on any equipment anywhere I have heard on Planet Earth. And I would rank my equipment among the most natural sounding I have heard at any price. So insult someone else's equipment not mine, it will not work or get you any brownie points.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"Once you can finally hear a well make DSD recorded SACD you will know what a total fraud the CD format is. An absolute and total fraud on any equipment anywhere I have heard on Planet Earth."
Now seriously and slowly, please explain to me how I get so much pleasure from RBCD if it is such a fraud? Once more, for a lot of people this hobby isn't totally reliant on absolute fidelity, rather the music itself is the reward.
and will be shocked you were ever able to actually listen to them.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
So you've never got goose bumps while watching a concert/musical footage on TV or when listening to the radio in the car? You've never experienced the times when the power of the music overpowers the deficiency of fidelity to move you? I'm not arguing that RBCD is perfect sound or even the best sound, what I am arguing is that there is sufficient quality for a huge percentage of the worlds listeners to enjoy, become involved in and to be passionate about the music it contains. You say you have nothing against other people listening to red book but that is wrong as you believe such people are delusional. You're never ever going to understand that it's the music not the fidelity that a lot of people crave. I'm sure you love your music via SACD and that's a great thing as music has the power to bring an area beauty and pleasure to our lives, but please don't look down quite so far on those who enjoy music a different way.
I listened to MTT's most recent (I believe) Mahler SACD a few nights ago. Das Lied von der Erde. It sounded great. Rich and present. However I have heard this in a real hall and the SACD was maybe only 20% of what I heard in a real hall. I have CDs of this as well. They may achieve 15%. This is all very subjective, but the point is neither gets anywhere close to the real event. So if the SACD is 33% better than the CD, that is a big difference in one sense. But the difference between 15% and 20% is pretty small in another sense.
in the past. They are not a good example of utilizing the capabilities of the SACD format.
I find the best Telarc, Exton, PentaTone and Channel Classics DSD recorded SACDs get me to about 95% of what I hear live in a real hall compared to CD that gets me about 5%.
Here is one to help you hear what SACD is indeed capable of:
Michael Gandolfi: The Garden of Cosmic Speculation
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra
Robert Spano (conductor)
Telarc SACD-60696
My system can not only duplicate the correct tonal characteristics and feeling of music in a real acoustic space but also the shape and size of an orchestral shell if the recording and format is up to the challenge! The MTT SACDs are not, SACD has the capability for very realistic sound, it is up to the engineers to deliver it to us, most still do not!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
I like Robert Spano (conductor) too, I have his other one:
Rainbow Body (Theofanidis, Barber, Copland, and Higdon) SACD-60596.
Listening by flop between mc sacd and cd on this disc, what a day and night diff.
No, your number is not right. You might fell that way, but not true at all. This is because your system did not pick up full potential of the SACD that record/coded.
Here is simple example to illustrate my point.
Supposed a instrument strikes a sound like sawtooth wave, say like:
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Sawtooth_Wave.html
So this sound wave in the studio or live concert to hits a microphone which is to pickup. A 16/44 CD cannot code this wave correctly at all. It poorly coded, so that all the higher order harmonics will be mis-coded. Plus, CD cutoffs at 20kHz, now assume this sound wave fundamental is at 2kHz, so over 30% of harmonics (above 20kHz) are chopped off in this case. Yes I said over 30%.
Now for a DSD recording on SACD, that is 64 times resolution and cutoff at 100kHz, that can far better code this waveform.
Lets illustrate this point, listen to this 100 Hz adding only 15 orders..
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Law_of_Superposition.html
just imaging if this waveform is at fundamental is at 2kHz, can upto 50 order harmonics recorded on SACD…. Now,if your system can or cannot pickup that much info from that SACD is another matter. If so, as the link show as an sample..
You will hear how much diff if miss or wrong weights of harmonics…..
Concept of using low rez CD is a fundamental fraud in terms of recording Classical music, DSD recording is way to go. I do not care for other types of music that has no sensitive attributes on this matter.
The only thing thats a fraud is SACD cheerleading.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
I don't understand why you own three SACD players and are such a downer on the format? I know you like Rock/Pop and I wish there was more selections available and I am working towards that end.
I know I would get depressed if I checked SA-CD.net week after week and there was no new releases I wanted because it's music I don't like.
OK now to my basic question. Does it make you feel better to try to bring us all down to your level of depression? I am really curious? Because if anyone dares to love SACD you automatically call them a cheerleader and poke fun at them. You do know this was ZS KEKL's tactic don't you?
Perhaps when everything is available on SACD by default you will be a happier person?
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
I don't understand why you own three SACD players and are such a downer on the format? I know you like Rock/Pop and I wish there was more selections available and I am working towards that end.
I have told you many times on this forum, and was met with ridicule from the likes of you and your shadow buddies, that when the format came out I championed it. I was amazed by the sound quality, and tried to support the format the best I could. If either DVD-A or SACD had to win, I was on the side of SACD.
I know I would get depressed if I checked SA-CD.net week after week and there was no new releases I wanted because it's music I don't like.
You might but I dont get depressed. I admit I used to be a bit dissapointed, waiting for material I could enjoy listening to
OK now to my basic question. Does it make you feel better to try to bring us all down to your level of depression? I am really curious? Because if anyone dares to love SACD you automatically call them a cheerleader and poke fun at them. You do know this was ZS KEKL's tactic don't you?
I dont know who "us" is. Unless you mean you and the two trolls Hiro and MCSACD. I dont believe anyone feels depressed by my posts. Many people have discussed their SACD collections, new SACDs they have bought and the equipment they are buying. I never say anything to poke fun at them. The only people I poke fun at is you (and your shadow friends).
Perhaps when everything is available on SACD by default you will be a happier person?
I am a happy person. I would hope my happiness doesnt depend on waiting for when everything is available on SACD because that day will never happen. You may wish it too happen, but that alone isnt enough. You may blog about SACD but that is not going to do anything. This is a personal difference of opinion. As I have stated many times, I do not believe SACD will take over the CD market. I believe they are on the way out. For me that is not depressing but a fact.
Give me high resolution or remain silent
Sounds like "my way or shut up" which really typifies some of what bugs people about your posts.
navman
Edits: 03/24/09 03/24/09
Sadly, you do not know what you are LOL….
You seem not cable to understand even a fraction of nature of this subject.
Do you know why record industries go with SACD for classical music?
Do you know how much and what levels of instruments produce sound beyond 20 kHz?
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm#link5
Do you know why people buy expensive tweeters, even their ears cannot hear that high freq (you think they stupid, or you are so smart to know all)?
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=293
Do you know why ones (myself in this case) need a Lowther PM4A driver has so huge magent (2.1 T -- world strongest magnet for a speaker – over 20 lb in weight) while it only needs 1 -2 watts to drive?
Ye, go back to your Rock/Pop music, you find yourself trapped here without a clue of meaning on “a perfection of sound reproduction”. You cannot just cannot, just not capble to define such “reference” for your sound reproduction. Sure, there are live Rock concert, most are “electronic” sound through speakers….only couple (or few) sound source points played on the stage…..As for studio recording, often lack of meaning “liveness”. I bet you never went a classical music concert expericed such hundred instruments, played as each natural sound source propagates through air to your ears. you will never understand how the composited sound waveform reaches to your ears are far complex and rich at time point. So, for crows, like you, who pro-CD and Rock/Pop lovers, has no clue of SACD benifits: Hi-Rez Recording industries have no interesting wasting time and effort on your Rock/Pop.... no needed, indeed.
checked your hobby, you seem to like photograph too. I bet if you ever took nature and landscape photos and enlarged over 26 x 32 " prints.
You probally stick with your 35mm camera or low Rez digital. Have you used medium or large format cameras before??? I bet not.
You will never understand what really means of perfection of "Sound reproduction" and "imaging reproduciton"...
get lost...
at You.
navman
One day of MC-SACDs posts have been more enlightening than 10 years worth of yours.
He really understands high resolution and SACD to a "T". I am so glad he came to the Hi-Rez highway.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
desperate?
navman
And leave the Hi-Rez highway to people who still like SACD and are not down on the format for not providing the music they want. Your negativity is not good for a struggling format. Perhaps some of the energy might be better directed at the record companies that are not releasing the SACDs you want? That way it would be constructive and might do SACD a world of good?
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
But never have I found a person like you.No that is untrue.
Other forums have their strange ones, but they are less irritating than you. The only other person as irritating as you was KEKL. Imagaine how you felt with his posts. I would bet many here on this forum feel the same way when they read your posts.You antagonize people. Whether here, the DVD-A forum, the Vinyl forum. I dont know about the Tape Trail as I havent worried about tape since the early 1980s. But I wouldnt be surprised if you didnt piss of a few people there too.
navman--SACD trolls are thankfully few and far between. Unfortunately they are noisy and sound like a badly recorded and badly played back RBCD with steely headache inducing highs, and an artificiality and inauthenticity that is just plain horrible.
Edits: 03/24/09
And Tape Trail remains calm as does SA-CD.net because you are not there, pure and simple.
CD Trolls have infested the Hi-Rez Highway, DVD-Audiobaun and Vinyl Asylum. It is a shame the monitors allow them to infest.
Like I say I prefer SA-CD.net as it is about SACD and free of CD-trolls. I have never pissed anyone, anywhere off. I do get a few trollers upset when I catch on to their activity and reveal them for what they are.
I have outed you as a troll so many times over decades it is not even funny anymore. Please quit trolling!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
as usual
navman
> > ANYONE who derives pleasure from RBCD has NOT truly heard what DSD recorded SACD is capable of! < <
Honestly, I thought you'd reached the pinnacle of truly stupid comments some time ago, yet ... you keep proving me wrong.
TB1
You are the one defending CD format are you not? LOL!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
advertising.
It was supposed to make people believe a certain way.
Independant objective reviewers would be a more reliable source to base an argument on.
Remember CD also said perfect sound forever (or something like that) for CD. Do you also believe that?
They are in the business to make money. They dont give a damn about quality unless it brings home teh bacon. There might be audiphiles working at Sony, but they dont have say to what the Co strategy would be.
navman
CD advertised as "Perfect Sound Forever" was and is indeed a lie, and I hated Sony for decades because of it. I was one of the original CD users suckered into purchasing Sony's first CD player the CDP-101, I sold it after six months because it destroyed music for me.
With SACD Sony/Philips have redeemed themselves in my eyes and many years ago I forgave both of them on this very forum.
The best DSD recorded SACDs have proven this to be 100% true:
"SACD is the realization of an audiophile’s dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. The secret is Direct Stream Digital™ encoding. It’s one bit, 2.8224 MHz (64 fs) sampling produces nothing less than a quantum leap in music resolution."
Indeed and bravo Sony and Philips!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
SACD is another product like the minidisc, Betamax, PSP movies that Sony will support (rightly) till it is completely in the grave.It was marketed badly. Sony didn't support the hardware with the software to pull it off.
The world has moved on.
Apparently some people have not.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
Edits: 03/20/09
You can't go back and re-record all the wonderful music that has been created over the years. I'm not a fan of most contemporary performers, so the point is moot. I'm a music lover first and an audiophile second. I simply want to hear recordings that I love in the best possible sound.
I also want convenience, the incredible 45rpm sets currently being issued by audiophile labels clearly surpass most recorded formats. However, when I have to get up every 8 minutes to flip the record it kills the flow.
Teresa, I'm not a classical music fan but I'm sure that you can even agree that many of the best performance of classic repertoire were recorded in the golden age of stereo. So do you just want music that has the most realistic sound or do you want the best performance of the music?
I would love to see my cherished favorites lovingly transferred from their original analog sources to SACD's. I'd buy them for the third, fourth or even fifth time but with SACD hitting the ten year mark, I'm a realist and know this will never happen.
"Teresa, I'm not a classical music fan but I'm sure that you can even agree that many of the best performance of classic repertoire were recorded in the golden age of stereo. So do you just want music that has the most realistic sound or do you want the best performance of the music?"
Believe it or not I want both great performaces and great sound! And I admit this is easier to do in the Classical word than Rock as many famous musicians are either dead or no longer have the talent they had when they were younger. Perhaps if Rock music started paying more attention to the sound maybe it might inspire musicians to make better music?
I used to think I couldn't live without the performances on golden age recordings but not anymore especially as more and more stunning performances come out on DSD recorded SACDs.
I recently replaced two of my favorite Fritz Reiner RCA Living Stereo SACDs with modern performances recorded DSD that surpassed those treasured favorites in every way possible.
Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra, Music for Strings Percussion and Celesta
Saito Kinen Orchestra
Seiji Ozawa (conductor)
Philips SACD 475 6201 - DSD recorded
This is the absolute best versions of either of these works I've heard yet and this is the best sounding Philips SACD, and I believe one of their last one's, a real shame.
Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition, Night on Bald Mountain, Prelude to "Khovanshchina"
Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
Paavo Järvi (Jarvi) (conductir)
Telarc SACD-60705
This is a little slower tempo than the Reiner but it feels "right" and drama and excitement is unsurpassed. The bass drum is almost as realistic as a real bass drum in a concert hall, Telarc usually gets close in this department but this SACDs sounds and more importantly "feels" like live music though my stereo. By contrast the Reiner merely sounds like a good recording.
So I look forward to many more excitingly realistic DSD recorded SACDs!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"You can't go back and re-record all the wonderful music that has been created over the years. I'm not a fan of most contemporary performers, so the point is moot. I'm a music lover first and an audiophile second. I simply want to hear recordings that I love in the best possible sound."
but you can go back and transfer all original master tapes into high resolution DSD, actually Sony already did that, they transferred many master tapes into DSD but they are not yet released as SACDs.
It's a pure comedy in 2009 to transfer master tape (which has musical information up to 50kHz) into ultra low resolution 16-bit/44,1kHz format.
wake up people - today even blu-ray video concerts are recorded in 24bit/48kHz resolution! ultra low resolution 16-bit/44,1kHz CD is a digital standard from 1980 :(
It's high time we finally got all original master tapes transferred into DSD, and it's especially needed today, as we all happily see drastically dropping CD sales and the CD format is dying, it's most natural thing to see a high definition successor of old compact disc...
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Whether CD dies means nothing. No one wants to see it survive. No one agrees it sounds like it doesnt need to be superceded.
An advantage of transferring master tapes to DSD is to avoid the playback problems inherrent with the CD format. In the photography world one transfers old film to newer formats to preserve what existed with hopefully less of the potential deterioration over time. There are good reasons to transfer older material to newer formats. Even the much despised Casino Royale soundtrack that audiophiles loved so much.
Like DVD-A, SACD is dead. It exists as a niche and will till it dies. Hopefully that is sooner, so whatever format/delivery system takes over comes quicker.
I wish to see CD die, so we get beyond it. But SACD dies with it.
-Poor delusional SACD fanboys/girls/and other assorted creatures BARK. Poor sorry losers. Woof woof.
navman
Are you guys now part of the Teresa?Hiro circus!!!?????
It's like a strange bizarre movie that sucks you in and makes you almost believe the weirdness.
Sorry. I got carried away.
navman
"There are good reasons to transfer older material to newer formats."of course there are good reasons, RCA Living Stereo SACDs are great example of that..
All Original Master Tapes should be transferred to DSD, and released as Hybrid SACD's
Including high resolution DSD layer and low resolution 16-bit/44,1kHz layer assures everybody can enjoy what he or she likes, which is very important as I've recently found out (see the attached link) there are people who actually prefer worse sound of mp3 to CD so maybe there are also people who prefer CD to high resolution SACD :/ anyway, as I said Hybrid SACD can deliver both high resolution and low resolution music so everybody can enjoy music in format he or she prefers - there's completely no reason for getting upset navman, Hybrid SACD is backwards compatible, so you can play low resolution CD layer on legacy CD player.
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Edits: 03/20/09
To expect a record company to spend even 10 cents extra per unit to produce a DSD master and then make a hybrid disc in a time where physical disc sales an profits are dropping quickly is a very big ask as it will not get them a financially significant increase in sales. Company's that are currently producing SACD's, realising there are going to be low sales and so are recouping their costs through higher prices are also getting panned here. I honestly believe that there are not enough people interested in SACD's, DVD-A's etc to warrant any expenditure at this juncture. Rather investment should be going into hi-res downloads as that is the inevitable direction that music delivery is headed. Physical media is unfortunately old technology that has little or no appeal to a large percentage of music buyers, and that's all music buyers, not just the pimple on the bottom of that group that is the SACD crowd.
Their penny pinching ways are going to be the death of them.
from my newest blog: Is there a conspiracy against Super Audio CD? http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-there-conspiracy-against-super-audio.html
Also check out my previous blog: An open letter to the world's recording companies. http://sacdlives.blogspot.com/2009/02/open-letter-to-worlds-recording.html
Including an SACD layer on every single CD including Mono and Stereo recordings is the only sane and logical choice for their survival, hopefully the best companies will realize this before it is too late.
SACD/CD hybrids offer a DSD Multichannel program on the SACD layer in high resolution surround sound, a DSD Stereo program on the SACD layer in high resolution 2 channel stereo and a CD layer for all devices that play CD.
Nothing else can do that not even high resolution downloads. Their is no music product that offers everything except SACD.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"Including an SACD layer on every single CD including Mono and Stereo recordings is the only sane and logical choice for their survival, hopefully the best companies will realize this before it is too late. "
Please tell me what this (and the extra cost involved) will do to help record company's survive? Adding one layer (SACD) that 0.5% of the buying public want and another (M-Ch SACD) that 0.05% of the buying public want doesn't seem to improve the chances of physical media surviving in a world that is moving towards downloaded everything at a very fast rate. How much extra should they be allowed to charge for the extra time, effort etc?
You are simply deluded.
"You are simply deluded. "
no, it is you who are totally and completely deluded.
as although PCM 24/96 files are of worse quality than DSD/SACD, audio magazines already start hyping them as the next big thing LOL and as I see some people got confused :))
If they delude more people, record labels will be able to cut costs of producing beautifully released SACD's (just look at Alia Vox SACDs for example), costs of printing covers, booklets, packaging, pressing, distributing and at the same time they can price these downloads even higher than SACDs.. it's hilarious !!
additionally when you look at music servers they fall into two categories, toys capable of playing 16bit/44k downloads like squeezebox for example and PC computers repacked into hi-fi looking designs hailed as hi-end (read: very pricey) music servers
look for example at linn majik ditital stream player:] the truth is when audio manufacturer eliminate laser, transport etc and sell PC as hi-end audio player instead, its costs will drop, yet music servers prices are very high
As there are potential benefits (higher margin and ROI) for audio manufacturers (that's why there will soon probably be even more sponsored articles in audio magazines), unfortunately I don't see any benefit for myself, PCM 24/96 sounds worse than DSD, I don't get any cover, booklet... only a file and there's no choice in both software and hardware.
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
I dont know why im posting.this craps been all said before.we dont need anymore hi rez/theres 1,000s of rock or what ever titles on ebay or were ever you buy them from.buy them then be happy.If I want hi rez I buy it.quit bitching about what you dont have.please be happy!!
ps most any oop disc can be bought for the right price.sad but true.
dvd audio
& multichannel sacds rule
There are over 20 million SACD players with more being sold everyday, the music that most people want on SACD is being withheld from them.
SACD/CD hybrids need to be of NEW MUSIC especially Pop, Rock, Rap and Hip Hop released as soon as there is radio and TV play. In other words when they are HOT!!!!! You do this and the majority will want SACDs for the music, for the high resolution and for the multichannel sound. Don't do this and your record company will die as traditional 44.1kHz is easier and less expensive to get as a download. Pure simple logic! Did you even bother to read the two articles I linked?
SACD owners prefer physical formats and are often forced to buy the CD version as the SACD layer is being withheld from them. SACD is doing an OK job of taking care of classical listeners, don't the lovers of other music deserve just as much consideration?
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Please let me know how many of those 20 million SACD players were purchased on the strength of the SACD aspect. Then let me know how many of the people who own those SACD players have systems that are capable of showing the difference? (You have already said that you have to have a high resolution signal chain from beginning to end with 40 of 50 kHz needed from the speakers.) Also, the SACD isn't being withheld from anybody, it isn't even mastered. Please speak to 100 people in the street and ask them if they would like better quality sound from a physical media product (I think Sony asked this question for a number of years actually and gave up when the answer wasn't changing) and you'll find very, very little interest. Hell, even among audiophiles who care about sound, the majority can't be bothered with SACD.
"Rather investment should be going into hi-res downloads as that is the inevitable direction that music delivery is headed."
I'm not so sure whether investment should be going into hi-res downloads, actually record labels generate much lower revenues from music downloads than from selling physical media
not to mention 24/96 PCM FLAC files that are currently available are of worse quality than SACD (DSD).
from business side, and most of all customer side.. hi-res downloads are not that great :(
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Remove the greedy big labels. So what if they cant make money from downloads. Might open it up to more talented artists releasing better quality material.
Remove the middle man and recorded material downloads can be cheaper for the consumer and bring bigger profits to the artist.
The Shiny disc is dead. Limited capacity, always to be superceded. Why lock oneself in as CD was locked into the 650MB format?
Makes no sense.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
"Remove the greedy big labels. So what if they cant make money from downloads."
if they can't make money from downloads it also means artists can't make money from them, sound engineers etc. as there's less money for everybody
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Nope.....Record companies take almost everything. With downloads most of the money will go back to all the rest who make the album.
The balance has to shift.
The way things were run, has ruined music, stifled creativity and killed of the physical formats for good (including SACD)
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
"With downloads most of the money will go back to all the rest who make the album"
yeah right, do you really believe it?
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Yes. At least for the smaller web sites.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Smaller outfits having a more direct channel to their audience might allow a greater number of decent music to be available. It's like the old days when bands made it big as they performed at live avenues and sometimes produced better more "authentic" music when without the burden of major labels imposing all sorts of restrictions on them and swindling them from their rightful profits.
Sorry if that sounds like pontificating, but as you can see I'm not a fan of the big labels.
navman
"The Shiny disc is dead. Limited capacity, always to be superceded. Why lock oneself in as CD was locked into the 650MB format?
Makes no sense."
650MB CD makes no sense - that I can agree.
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Why limit oneself?
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
"Why limit oneself?"
4,7GB (SACD) is enough for high resolution music, even blu-ray is not required in this case as there's no point in recording high resolution music on 4,5GB leaving 40GB of BD disc space not used.
SACD is not limiting anything, it's hi-rez ready!
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
Storage is cheap. And why would I want a laser mechanism that is prone to it's on artifacts? Solid State seems a better way.
The shiny disc is old and outdated.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
"Storage is cheap. And why would I want a laser mechanism that is prone to it's on artifacts? Solid State seems a better way.
The shiny disc is old and outdated."
even DVD players for $200 can read discs correctly, and optical media storage is much more reliable than your hard drive
RBCD is old and outdated as it's not capable of delivering high definition music - but SACD ? It's hi-rez ready, you can easily record on it hi-rez DSD stereo layer, hi-rez DSD multichannel layer, and there's even space for low rez "cd quality" for backwards compatibility - SACD is not limiting anything.
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
WOOF WOOF
navman
Im not upset.And I know SACD is backwards compatible. You are stating the obvious. (Pssst I own hybrid SACDs, and I like them for the reason that if the world never has a SACD player one could still easily extract the "other layer").
Cheers!
-SACD Trolls Keep barking and never understand what others say because they are fanatics.
navman
Edits: 03/20/09
You said "(Pssst I own hybrid SACDs, and I like them for the reason that if the world never has a SACD player one could still easily extract the "other layer")."
Not me I tolerate the CD layer for backwards compatibility to bring more listeners into the realm of SACD. If for some reason in the distant future I cannot get a working SACD player I will sell the SACDs as I have no use for the low resolution CD layer. That is why I want to always have at least one spare SACD player, if I was rich enough I would stockpile a couple of dozen.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
SACD is a dead format for me.
Useless.
I'll let you know if I bring myself to sell them. I'm a bit of a collector and like antiques.
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
"SACD is dead"
"I like them for the reason that if the world never has a SACD player one could still easily extract the "other layer"
^LMAO
navman, you are upset pro-CD troll trolling on SACD audioasylum forum (yes I know, I'm stating the obvious)
--
pro-CD trolls bark, but the hi-rez SACD caravan goes on...
I'm curious what you own.
Maybe I need to buy the same SACD player so i can at least get a feel for where you are coming from.
I have a number of SACD players. One more cant hurt.
navman
'Hiro' and 'MC-SACD', both fanatical about audio and SACD, but neither of them have posted details of their system...I mean systems, even though they have bags of time on their hands and posting their systems would lend at least a modicum of substance to their opinions.
As it is, with no equipment for readers of their posts to use as a reference, Hiro and MC-SACD are farting in the wind every time they post.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Funny how MC atatcked me on what I have put up on my profile but doesnt register or allow others to know what she/he/it owns.
MC is the typical SACD troll.
navman
Since MC-SACD can hear the huge difference between low resolution CD and high resolution SACD there is really no need to post his system.
The only time I look at anyone's system is when they have a hard time hearing the difference between CD and SACD to see if their system passes ultrasonic information, if it does not I make suggestions to help them hear the extra resolution that is afforded by the SACD format. Thus they can get all the benefits of SACD playback.
So as I said it is up to MC-SACDs to post his system or not. But based on his posts he can hear the difference!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"Since MC-SACD can hear the huge difference between low resolution CD and high resolution SACD there is really no need to post his system."
That's fine - it just proves that the most vocal posters who cheer-lead SACD don't even have an SACD player or system worth mentioning!!!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
If they can hear the difference that MEANS THEY HAVE A HIGHLY RESOLVING SYSTEM with good ultrasonic response. Your attacking high resolution will not work here, all you do is wast everyones time and create unnecessary posts.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"If they can hear the difference that MEANS THEY HAVE A HIGHLY RESOLVING SYSTEM with good ultrasonic response."
That may be a correct logical deduction. Unfortunately, hearing a difference and claiming to hear a difference are not the same thing. One could be deluded in their claims of hearing a difference or one could be a dishonest troll.
I am skeptical of all unregistered posters. Unless their posts prove otherwise I consider it likely that any unregistered poster is a troll. Some of the AA forums are closed to posts by unregistered inmates. I believe this rule should be applied to Hi-Rez Highway.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"If they can hear the difference that MEANS THEY HAVE A HIGHLY RESOLVING SYSTEM with good ultrasonic response."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah!!!!!!
Nice one, but now give me a serious response please.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Physical media is on its last leg. Dying and soon to be dead.
Middle aged farts have no influence on the direction the music industry takes.
Listening to a few obscure performances by a handful of SACD nerds cannot and will not keep it alive.
Stick ur fingers in your ears and scream LALALALALALALALALALALALA all you want........but it doesnt change a thing.
Cheerio (you nostalgic physical media worshipper)
---SACD trolls are bitter angry losers losing a lost war.
navman
The Hi-Rez Highway is about New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.
Perhaps if Hiro were outing you in General, or Digital Drive you could call him a troll but not here.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
SACD isn't the only Hi Rez.
The DVD-A forum was created because of trolls like you and KEKL.
navman
This is not rocket scienceHi-Rez Highway
New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.DVD-Audiobahn
New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.Computer Audio Asylum
Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.Vinyl Asylum
Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers!I visit all four of these boards everyday and I don't get them mixed up, maybe you should try harder to understand why there are different asylums and choose the correct place to post.
Hi-Rez Highway is about New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.
I hope this helps and you finally know how things work and why you must give up trolling the Hi-Rez Highway. I am sorry you have become so negative about the future of the SACD format, those of us who are positive about SACD DO NOT WANT YOU BRINGING US DOWN! I have yet another reason for my quest to be successful, if I can get the powers that be to release everything on SACD/CD hybrids maybe I can turn your negative attitude into a positive one. <;-)
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Edits: 03/21/09
SACD isn't the only Hi Rez.
The DVD-A forum was created because of trolls like you and KEKL.
navman
As I said before this is not rocket science, surely you are not as dumb as you pretend to be. Just look again at what it says at the top of the page, surely you are not blind? Maybe you just don't pay attention?
LOOK AGAIN AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN IN YOU ENTRANCE TO THE HI-REZ HIGHWAY, Here is what it says:
Hi-Rez Highway
New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.
There are other areas of the audio asylum for other forms of high resolution:
DVD-Audiobahn
New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.
Computer Audio Asylum
Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.
Vinyl Asylum
Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers!
Why do I have to baby sit you? Isn't it time you grow up?
You said "The DVD-A forum was created because of trolls like you and KEKL."
This is a bald face lie, the spilt was caused because the SACD supporters and the DVD-Audio supporters couldn't get along.
I have never been a troll. And it would be impossible for me to troll on the Hi-Rez highway because I am a very stanch supporter of the SACD format. The only way I could troll is if I took my high resolution SACD feelings and posted on Digital Drive. I REFUSE TO DO THAT BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN TROLLING.
You on the other hand are a KNOWN troll on the Hi-Rez highway and you are on my list of the 10 worst offensive trolls.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Sheesh.
Your posts are actually too repetitive.
I dont care what you think of me. I see you as a troll. A propagandist.
Some say you have a passion for SACD. There are some people on these forums who are passionate about the sound of SACD.
You on the other hand border on something very strange indeed.
As if your life was dependent on it.
CDs will never be marketed as hybrids.
SACDs will never become a popular medium.
And your have researched and half baked ideas on physics and psycho-acoustics impress very few indeed.
You just go on and on ad nauseum.
Sad really.
Actually you and Kekel were major losers ripping at each other. The rest did fairly well over the long run.
As I have said many times, you have created discontent on many forums with your silly, opinionated posts.
The Vinyl forum is a good example. You kept trolling about SACDs till you had people telling you to get lost.
Your posts either over value other posters or ridicules them.. Nothing in between. Thats not honesty. That is immaturity.
Over the years you put people down, ridicule then and patronize them.
And then you're surprised that you get a harsh response, or people don't take you seriously.
I agree with some things you say. Many things I disagree with.
SACD is better than RBCD.
Upsampling cannot recreate information lost.
Everything else you post is nonsense. Some is opinion, yes, but a lot is just babbling thrash.
I say, you are a troll. You haunt whatever forum you are on, an like the attention you get with your silly, pointless, offensive comments.
navman
You seem to have no reading ability or reading comprehension. You can't even retain what the Hi-Rez Highway is, even though it says what it is PLAIN AS DAY at the page when you enter the forum. "Hi-Rez Highway - New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology." I am getting tired of posting this again and again, when will it seep into your brain? All you have to do is look at the upper right hand side of the page when you enter the "Hi-Rez Highway" and read!That was a good picture of you Mr. Troll. As I have said I have never trolled in my entire life. On the other hand you troll daily.
I am glad to see you agree with
SACD is better than RBCD.
Upsampling cannot recreate information lost.
At least that is a start, and I don't require you agree with everything I say, no writer can expect that.Nothing in my writing is nonsense as you claim, as I research and try to be as correct as possible in the presentation of both facts and opinions. A lot of work goes into my writings and even just everyday posts.
I don't make silly, pointless, or offensive comments as you claim. I try to stay on topic and am usually the one correcting someone else's misstatements or misunderstandings. Or defending posters unjustly under attack by CD Trolls such as yourself. In fact it is the Trolls who make offensive comments when they are losing some stupid discussion over something they said that even they know could not be true.
If you are referring to my wanting the Hi-Rez HIghway to actually be about SACD software and hardware there is nothing silly, pointless, offensive about that unless of course one is a troll such as yourself. I really wish you would go troll somewhere else as I am tired of you attacking me, Hiro and now MC-SACDs. Why do you do this?
The funniest thing of all is you pretend not to know what an SACD/CD hybrid is? And why it is so important as the eventual replacement of the ancient single layer CD format of the 1980's, which will eventually disappear as it is not versatile enough. The CD layer on SACD hybrids is there for a reason and the reason is transition. How could you have read thousands of posts on the Hi-Rez highway and not know that? I wouldn't give up on SACD never becoming a popular medium just yet, the best is yet to come! Of course this is only my opinion.
You are wrong about CDs never being marketed as hybrids, I just awarded two companies my "Dedicated SACD Hybrid Revolution" Award for recording all new projects in DSD and releasing only single inventory SACD/CD hybrids. (see link)
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Edits: 03/24/09
5.6MKz DSD encoding is available, so why be saddled with inferior 2.6MKz SACD's. I myself, utilize 5.6MKz for achieving.
So you really prefer the inferior sound of DSD recordings done at only half of the DSD rate?
This just proves that SACD’s are old technology. Isn't it time you saddle up your horse and take on Sony to release HD-SACD to take advantage to the higher resolution?
since it was first announced in 2004.
BluRay is PCM not DSD, if Sony had went with Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki’s Super DVD format I would say yes.
Posted by Teresa (R ) on February 26, 2009 at 13:36:37
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=254038
RE: One may have to wonder what SACD brings to the table that Blu-ray cannot provide.
Posted by Teresa (R ) on September 22, 2008 at 18:46:57
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=248720
You are correct I will not support either to of the major contenders, I support DSD Video via Super DVD
Posted by Teresa on August 21, 2004 at 16:38:38
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=186473
Actually it's Super DVD offering both HD Video and DSD Audio that will replace DVD
Posted by Teresa on August 19, 2004 at 21:00:19
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hirez&n=186275
I'm glad 5.6MKz DSD encoding is working out so great for your vinyl archiving.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
But I believe that went "whoosh" above her head.
navman
Yes it is.
Well a couple of points I agree with.
The rest is rubbish.
navman
"You can't go back and re-record all the wonderful music that has been created over the years"
And for some who are obsessive, will reject anything that doesnt meet a specific set of criteria.
For people who value music and the artistic contrbutions throwing away or dismissing what is important to them is silly.
I dont think most would argue that SACD is superior to redbook. But redbook done well is enjoyable for many.
If someone can afford a redbook capable player of extracting the maximum, themn more power to them.
Who am I to snipe and moan and complain about it?
navman
"Most people will not get the hear the full capabilities of the SACD format unless they love classical music. "
Which means most people will not get to hear it's full capabilities. Sad but true fact. I love a lot of music, but not classical.
" When that happens then and only then will non-classical lovers discover the gigantic difference between low resolution CD and high resolution SACD."
You keep going on about the gigantic difference. Why is it that so many audiophiles who post on this forum, posters who I might add have much higher resolution systems than the VAST majority of consumers, still find the quality all over the place, acknowledge that well done SACD can sound better, but that RBCD can also make enjoyable music that often brings just as much musical pleasure as their SACD's? Is everybody else tone deaf? Do you actually need golden ears for SACD?
"Rock and Pop performers need to clean up their acts and start recording with high resolution in mind!"
I listen to neither rock nor pop, but I suggest they make recordings with making money in mind. Another sad but true fact.
"BTW most of the early adapters back when SACD was a 2 channel stereo format adopted SACD precisely because they hated the anti-sound of low resolution CD."
If only there'd been enough of them to make the format viable. It's currently left to zealots like yourself to attempt to breath life into a format that doesn't appear on the radar of 99.99% of people who consume music.
"From Sony's first SACD brochure: . . . Truer words were never spoken!"
And Sony believe that so much that they've abandoned the format as well. It was a solution for a problem that the general public didn't know existed and simply didn't care about. If sound quality was an issue for music buyers, then MP3's wouldn't be selling by the bucket load.
"ANYONE who derives pleasure from RBCD has NOT truly heard what DSD recorded SACD is capable of! "
That is a ridiculous argument. I derive pleasure from RBCD because I enjoy the music, I enjoy the feeling that I get and I can pursue my interest without having to change the genre's that I like to fit a format. I have a few SACD's that sound better than all my RBCD's but the sound isn't the main factor. What aren't you understanding here? My experience of music isn't simply about sonics, it's about enjoying and hopefully understanding the music as it was recorded. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I can spend a day listening to mono recordings of early Louis Armstrong and just be wrapped up in the music. The sonics are crap, but the music is stunning.
"The main thing you do not understand is SACD but it's very nature of sounding more like analog than digital attracts lots of listeners who hate CDs and 44.1kHz digital."
The main things you don't understand are that a massive percentage of people don't care anything about sonics, by your words getting to hear these sonics is not an easy task and seems to be beyond virtually everybody, and that the "lots of listeners who hate CD's" are not a big enough group to make a difference where it counts and than unfortunately is at the cash registers of retailers and manufacturers. There simply aren't enough people who dislike RBCD and who care enough to vote with their money to make a difference.
Teresa,
And until you hear a SACD player with the FULL potential bandwidth of 100kHz, I say you haven't even heard SACD yet!
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
and that the human ear responds to frequencies up to 80kHz. Ultrasonic frequencies are "felt" not heard as sound. As you state "results in more accurate redition of acoustic space, and musical tonal accuracy."
Allen my Yamaha S1700 and S1800 universal players do not give a +/- range for SACD, they just say frequency response extends over 100kHz, it does give +/- for PCM sources. So like many other players I have a hunch that it must use a slow slope analog filter at 50kHz and is probably down considerably by 100kHz thus no +/- specified. If you removed the filter to get flat 100kHz response I only have one component that has frequency response out to 100kHz, my Adcom GFA-555II, my AMC tube preamp goes to 80kHz and my speakers to 45kHz.
So since my Infinity Reference Kappa 7 speakers are down 3dB at 45kHz would I need to install 100kHz supertweters? I know we can perceive frequencies that are 50dB down but even at that I doubt there is much beyond 60kHz.
Thanks for your insights,
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Teresa,
You asked me:
"So since my Infinity Reference Kappa 7 speakers are down 3dB at 45kHz would I need to install 100kHz supertweters? I know we can perceive frequencies that are 50dB down but even at that I doubt there is much beyond 60kHz. "
Adding supertweaters may give you more wins than you could expect, but it's not needed to enjoy wider bandwidth from your electronics. My ears now struggle to get to 10kHz on a pure sine wave test, but I can clearly hear the benefit of extending the bandwidth of an SACD player from 40kHz to 100kHz, or an amplifier from 200kHz to 2 MHz.
Why? I dunno but it's really obvious when you hear it.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
This appears to get to be a smaller and smaller target. It seems that you need not just a SACD player (from your comment Allen not all have the full 100kHz bandwidth?) and an SACD, you need the right SACD (how do you work out which one that is when ordering), you need to basically enjoy classical (I hate to point this out, but that is a fairly small subset of all music buyers), then you need one of the rare speakers that have output up to God knows what kHz. Can you see why this failed spectacularly to capture the public imagination?
I'm not anti SACD, I just believe it's a very limited resource for a limited number of people. I'm hopeful that hi-res downloads can offer audiophiles an opportunity to get top level playback in a hopefully wider range of music in the future. Until then, I'll continue to be happy buying the music I love on RBCD primarily and the odd SACD for novelty value.
"(from your comment Allen not all have the full 100kHz bandwidth?)"
Not all, not even some, NONE have the full specified 100kHz bandwidth.
Bandwidth doesn't seem to be a logical thing, one can hear bandwidth increases in electronics on speakers (and ears) that do not have a fraction of the same badwidth capability.
Increased bandwidth well beyond the "audioband" mostly results in more accurate redition of acoustic space, and musical tonal accuracy.
But don't askme to explain why.
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
Thanks for that. I'm beyond expecting there to be concrete answers for all the different aspects of musical reproduction that seem to matter. I guess what confuses me most about the high frequency aspect is that a lot speakers struggle to get above 20kHz in room so it seems to me that the extreme top end isn't even finding it's way into the listening room for me to sense or feel or whatever. I don't know, I'll leave this in the too hard basket.
Allen is right.
the resolution, bandwdith,and dyanmics are the key benifits of SACD.
If frequencies above 20 kHz produced by instruments are picked up by the recording system and stored on SACDs, then your system shall reproduce them and output through supper tweeter to the air. It is not the matter if you can hear or not those high frequencies, but it is the matter of reproduction of original tonality sound. A sound wave/tonality/”music”/signature is supposition of all the frequency components associated with, so-called “ Fourier” components – in math. Yes, all the frequencies output by you speakers through the air to hits your ears composite the original waveshapes by which your brain can identify as if same as in the air of live concert.
Yes, all the frequencies output by you speakers through the air to hits your ears composite the original waveshapes by which your brain can identify as if same as in the air of live concert.
What? That didnt make sense.
And what is this supposed to mean?
"A sound wave/tonality/”music”/signature is supposition of all the frequency components associated.............."
I think you betray a lack of understanding the theory. It seems all you do is regurgitate bits and pieces of parroted info, and it comes out all wrong.
Where have I seen that before? Hmmmm.
navman
"What? That didnt make sense."
Doubt anything from one of The three Amigos ever does.
Even if ultrasonic frequencies are reproduced, they are so directional that you would have to virtually aim each speaker at your ears with a laser, both on the horizontal and vertical plane, and then strap your head in a vice.
The sad truth is that the Three Amigos have very poor source components - Teresa's is a budget DVD player for instance - where CD replay is even poorer than SACD.
The other two Amigos are too embarrassed to even mention their sources. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
They are not as hard to detect as you pretend they are and they make a big difference in the liveliness and realism of music especially in the "feeling" of being in the presence of real live musicians. After going to a full range system up to 45kHz, I would never go back to one limited to only 20kHz. In fact Allen Wright has nearly convinced me to upgrade my system to a full 100kHz which would include removing the 50kHz filter from my SACD player and adding 100kHz super tweeters to my speakers.
"Teresa, and until you hear a SACD player with the FULL potential bandwidth of 100kHz, I say you haven't even heard SACD yet!
Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)"
I think ultrasonics is the "something missing" I always notice when listening to CDs, that is the ones that are not unpleasant to hear. That is the other reason I never took to CDs as LPs have frequency response up to 35kHz from tape and up to 50kHz if recorded Direct to Disc. I used to have the Alpha Genesis 1000II Moving Coil Cartridge whose frequency response was 10-75kHz +/- 1dB, so SACD was not the first ultrasonic format I've owned. Indeed even before SACDs there was 24/96 DVD DADs from Chesky, Classic Records and a few others. Even those show how poor CD is by comparison.
Why you still worship the frequency response and resolution limited CD format is just one of many enigma's that I can't comprehend.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Since you are so hung up on HOW MUCH SOMETHING COSTS. You would rather I listen to my older $1,500.00 Sony DVP-S9000ES or my older $1,695.00 Xindak SCD-2 instead of the one I like the best my $450.00 Yamaha DVD-S1800. How dare me like something inexpensive! This just shows what a elitist "monetary" aristocrat you are believing money is everything!
Anyway I love the Yamaha and you will not change that or shame me into listening to something I do not like.
Now as far as CD playback the Yamaha DVD-S1800 is supposed to be a giant killer in that as well, from a letter to the editor of Playback Magazine in which the writer compared the 1700 to the 1800, he really liked the 1800 a lot better especially on CDs, comparing them to his $2,500 Great Northern Sound modified Bel Canto DAC2. (see link below)
Why you have trouble living with the fact that many music lovers find CDs not suitable for playing music, even on $5,000 and $10,000 CD players is beyond me. You seem to be clueless why SACD was invented, why modern masters are recorded at 96kHz PCM or higher, DSD or DXD or even why people are flocking from CDs to LPs. All of this just goes right over your head.
Chris you are proof positive that trolls, such as yourself, love to attack people and their equipment because you cannot win in an honest debate.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Sorry to burst your bubble Teresa, but the more you pay for a component the better it usually is WHEN WELL DESIGNED.
You've had some half-decent players but nothing special, yet you feel qualified to comment on source components which are far superior to anything you have had in your system.
Of course cheaper systems and source components can be extremely musical and great to listen to, and I'd never criticise anyone for claiming that they had a great system which also happened to be reasonably priced.
The problem you have however is that you are quite specific in suggesting that your system is highly resolving, and in fact more resolving than ANY system which is capable of great CD replay - bizarre!
I can tell you knwow that if you replaced all your interconnects with the best silver, your system would make massive gains in resolution and you would realise that it was not nearly as resolving as you thought.
I am confident that here are thousands of enthusiasts out there listening to CD replay which is far more resolving than the SACD replay you are experiencing, but if you are happy with your SACDs then all well and good, I wish you well.
I notice that in the letter to Playback Magazine you link to, the guy mentions that the player is better with copper ICs to warm the sound a little; in other words, silver cables which reveal the true sonic signature of the player should not be used SO RESOLUTION is reduced by using copper.
It is obvious therefore that in a true high resolution system, the cheap Yamaha DVD player would be exposed for what it is, and so it is best used in similar priced systems which are themselves LOW RESOLUTION.
CD rolls on - the SACD caravan has a flat tyre and no spare.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Law_of_Superposition.html
He's a downer and he will bring you down if you let him.
And what you said made perfect sense to me and it does to Allen as well, as we perceive ultrasonic frequencies but they are not turned into sound but registered by the brain.
The cochlea - a spiral-shaped, fluid-filled inner ear structure; is lined with cilia (tiny hairs) that move when vibrated and cause a nerve impulse to form. These vibrate up to 80,000 times a second or 80kHz. The highest audible "sound" that can be "heard" is around 27kHz and that is when you are a teenager as you get older you start to loose upper hearing and many older adults are lucky to hear to 15kHz. But even if hearing is damaged in the audible range, in the super sonic range we usually can still respond up to the full 80kHz.
The ultrasonic frequencies are so safe from damage that many "deaf" people can now perceive speech by transposing it to the ultrasonic range. This is still in the experiment stage, but this is a very promising field of study and would have many positive benefits to mankind.
You are correct Allen has confirmed the importance of the frequencies between 50kHz - 100kHz by the removal of the 50kHz filters on SACD players thus restoring their 100kHz frequency response.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"The highest audible "sound" that can be "heard" is around 27kHz and that is when you are a teenager as you get older you start to loose upper hearing and many older adults are lucky to hear to 15kHz. But even if hearing is damaged in the audible range, in the super sonic range we usually can still respond up to the full 80kHz."
Perhaps an explanation (or a reference) is in order that explains how one responds to "sounds" that cannot be "heard".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree...a reference would be helpful.
Supersonic refers to speed beyond the speed of sound and really isnt related to the cochlea with regards to the mechanics of hearing on a day to day basis.
"We can still respond up to the full 80kHz" really requires a reference.
navman
Say two sound sources: A and B, both generated pure tones above 20 kHz at frequency f(A) and f(B), respectively. For most people, if you play one source at time, they will not be able to hear.
Now if you play two sources A and B at same time, then they one can hear. The superposition of f(A) and f(B) can form a wave at fundamental freq below 20 kHz. There are three parameters in each f, called amplitude, phase and frequency. For these two sources, if you vary those 6 parameters, you can hear various tones.
Now if there are 10 instruments played in the stage that output some harmonics modes above 20 kHz, that catched by mic in recording….. this is why you need your system to reproduce those higher freq modes….
Hope this is helpful.
so you are saying that 2 (or more) ultrasonic sources interact in such a way as to create an audible tone under 20 kHz.Great. I can believe that. Guess what. That audible tone will be captured by a normal microphone and will be reproduced by a normal non-ultrasonic system.
You don't need to reproduce ultrasonics at all to capture this alleged effect.
Give me low resolution or give me death!
Edits: 03/25/09
"Say two sound sources: A and B, both generated pure tones above 20 kHz at frequency f(A) and f(B), respectively. For most people, if you play one source at time, they will not be able to hear. Now if you play two sources A and B at same time, then they one can hear."
This is a plausible hypothesis. Do you know if tests like this have actually been published? It would be interesting to know how loud the test signals need to be to provoke sufficient non-linear distortion in the ear for audibility of the beat tone.
If you try tests like this, take care not to burn out your tweeters in a quest to hear something. This kept me from trying the test at any significant volume level, so I was not able to hear any beat tones, except when I artificially introduced them by mixing the two tones in one channel and deliberately introducing distortion using SoundForge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
sorry my mistake on this test. YOu do need a lower fundmantal f.
Using a woofer as a source of f below 20kHz, say at 5 kHz. And make sure two tweeters are close enough (and paralle each other). then hear the sound tone's change as vary the paramenters of f(a) and f(b) sournces....
responding to two seperate frequencies (above 20kHz) that produce a sound wave below 20kHz is a function of the hearing apparatus operating within it's biological design. Makes sense. Also makes sense that one should have teh ability to record sound waves beyond the usual human hearing.... however this has nothing to do with hair cells in the cochlea vibrating at 80kHz. That part sounds a little fantastical, unless there is a reference.
BTW you still trolling? Register. What are you afraid of?
----------SACD trolls squel like stuck pigs.
navman
I never said people in general can hear ultrasounic... read my posts very carefully.
Regarding a reference, I already sited you some materials to read and learn. here is another one:
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/tech/world_beyond_20khz.pdf
once again at you
I never said you said "people in general can hear ultrasonic..." read my post very carefully.
On the other hand when you say "read my posts carefully" which posts are you alluding to?
-----------SACD trolls are strange shadowy trolls.
navman
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Wasnt that MC SACD teaching ultasonic theory a while back?
Gawd. You are not making sense again.
navman
We need thousands more SACD lovers to come to the Highway to shame you away from ever trolling here ever again.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"as we perceive ultrasonic frequencies but they are not turned into sound but registered by the brain."
Unfortunately, audio reproduction is all about how a system sounds, which is why SACD has sunk, apart from two or three die-hard enthusiasts in a rickety old caravan!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"Unfortunately, audio reproduction is all about how a system sounds...."
I do not think you understand the "system sounds"
the music sound waveforms consist of all the higher frequencies modes, some of them are way beyond 20 kHz. This has been known for long time. Although Sony/Phillps came up SACD extened to 100kHz products only about 10 years ago, but they started working on this way over 20 years....
Do not act like you are smarter than others...
Still LOL!
navman
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I did have no choice but to defend MC-SACDs superb and insightful posts from unwarranted attacks by the same trolls that attack anyone one who dares to love SACD and hate CD. How dare us, in our own home "The Hi-Rez Highway", to not only love SACD but to even know why!
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
"....and hate CD."
That, in a nutshell, is your problem. Your love of SACD is eclipsed by your hatred of CD and it shows in every post you make, even in your tagline.Let it go Teresa.
You and CD just didn't work out together, it happens, but you have to move without always looking back.Yes, CD may have treated you badly, but some of us have a rewarding, mutually beneficial relationship with CD and are making the union work.
We are very happy, and just because you and CD were incompatible it doesn't mean CD is bad to the bone.
In fact, treat CD with respect and CD can treat you very well. CD realises you have found love with SACD and is happy for you, so please don't hate CD as it is obviously tarnishing what should be a very happy period in your life.Let it goooooooooo..................
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Edits: 03/24/09
your call was on the money!
Give me low resolution or give me death!
If the trolls had not jumped all over poster MC-SACDs I would have had nothing to say in this thread as MC-SACDs said nearly everything I was thinking. Horay MC-SACDs and Hiro! We desperately need thousands more just like them to shut-up those who like to attack anything positive uttered about SACD by anyone.
Give me high resolution or remain silent,
Teresa
Give me low resolution or give me death!
as well as the unregistered person who also has an interesting style of writing.
navman
nt
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]