|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
|
|
Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology. |
|
In Reply to: How many of those 4 SACDs were DSD recorded using excellent full range microphones in a REAL acoustical space? posted by Teresa on March 20, 2009 at 02:13:13:
"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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: How many of those 4 SACDs were DSD recorded using excellent full range microphones in a REAL acoustical sp - Interested 03:14:42 03/20/09 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
