- Munich Show Coverage -

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi Everyone,

We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)

Enjoy the Music,

Steven R. Rochlin
www.EnjoyTheMusic.com
20 answers Last reply
More about munich show coverage
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    > Hi Everyone,
    >
    > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
    > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)

    Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz among
    others.


    Espen
  2. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Espen Braathen wrote:
    > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    >
    >>Hi Everyone,
    >>
    >> We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
    >>Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    >>http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)
    >
    >
    > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz among
    > others.

    So if SACD is dead for surround, does that mean it's dead, period?

    Frankly I have no interest in surround sound. I'm quite happy with
    my two channel setup. Will SACD continue on, or is it going to be
    DVD-Audio? Are we saddled with good ol' CD sound forever? Or
    should I just shutup and play my vinyl?

    Russ
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Russ,

    Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems like
    a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer support. Of
    note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to making a few
    new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the title used the SACD
    part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked good on paper, though
    the reality is that use of the SACD format was lackluster it appears.


    Enjoy the Music,

    Steven R. Rochlin
    http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com


    Where you can find:

    Superior Audio, The Absolute Sound,
    Review Magazine, The $ensible Sound,
    Audiophile Audition, The Audiophile Voice...
    ....and MUCH more!

    "Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
    news:d5l7i8013c8@news3.newsguy.com...
    > Espen Braathen wrote:
    >> <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    >> news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    >>
    >>>Hi Everyone,
    >>>
    >>> We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
    >>>Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    >>>http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)
    >>
    >>
    >> Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    >> surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz among
    >> others.
    >
    > So if SACD is dead for surround, does that mean it's dead, period?
    >
    > Frankly I have no interest in surround sound. I'm quite happy with
    > my two channel setup. Will SACD continue on, or is it going to be
    > DVD-Audio? Are we saddled with good ol' CD sound forever? Or
    > should I just shutup and play my vinyl?
    >
    > Russ
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
    > Russ,
    >
    > Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    > small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems like
    > a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer support. Of
    > note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to making a few
    > new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the title used the SACD
    > part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked good on paper, though
    > the reality is that use of the SACD format was lackluster it appears.

    So if SACD is dead, then does that mean that DVD-Audio is the winner?
    Are we going to have an upgraded format to listen to from now on, or
    are we stuck with regular good ol' CD format?

    Russ
    (head spinning from trying to read
    record labels while record is playing)
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Russ,

    My apologies for my typos..

    My previous posting should have read "...but most consumers who bought the
    title DID NOT use the SACD part of the disc." The Rolling Stones and Pink
    Floyd SACD releases to name a few released from Sony.

    i would not say there a 'winner' per se, though DVD-Audio is a set standard
    (while SACD was always proprietary) and with the DualDisc format using
    DVD-Audio it appears to be a format that may outlive SACD. As for where that
    leaves audiophiles, there will be new SACD titles released. Generally these
    will be from niche record labels though and not mass released by the Big
    Five labels.

    Enjoy the Music,

    Steven R. Rochlin
    http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com


    Where you can find:

    Superior Audio, The Absolute Sound,
    Review Magazine, The $ensible Sound,
    Audiophile Audition, The Audiophile Voice...
    ....and MUCH more!

    "Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
    news:d5p7ou03au@news4.newsguy.com...
    > Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
    >> Russ,
    >>
    >> Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    >> small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems
    >> like a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer
    >> support. Of note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to
    >> making a few new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the
    >> title used the SACD part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked
    >> good on paper, though the reality is that use of the SACD format was
    >> lackluster it appears.
    >
    > So if SACD is dead, then does that mean that DVD-Audio is the winner?
    > Are we going to have an upgraded format to listen to from now on, or
    > are we stuck with regular good ol' CD format?
    >
    > Russ
    > (head spinning from trying to read
    > record labels while record is playing)
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "Steven R. Rochlin" <steve@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    news:d5ot4s024m8@news3.newsguy.com...
    > Russ,
    >
    > Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    > small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems
    like
    > a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer support. Of
    > note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to making a few
    > new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the title used the
    SACD
    > part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked good on paper, though
    > the reality is that use of the SACD format was lackluster it appears.
    >
    >
    > Enjoy the Music,
    >
    > Steven R. Rochlin
    > http://www.EnjoyTheMusic.com
    >
    >

    The owner of SA-CD.net just posted the number of items added to his
    comprehensive list of over 3000 SACD titles. They averaged about 80+ per
    month from January through April, and already are over 50 in May. If you
    are a classical music fan or a jazz lover, you could hardly ask for more.
    Add 'em up ... that's 1000 per year without Sony or much from Warner. I
    don't know about you, but my budget doesn't stretch far enough to afford
    even the one in ten of these that I wish to buy.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
    > Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
    > > Russ,
    > >
    > > Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    > > small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems like
    > > a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer support. Of
    > > note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to making a few
    > > new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the title used the SACD
    > > part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked good on paper, though
    > > the reality is that use of the SACD format was lackluster it appears.

    > So if SACD is dead, then does that mean that DVD-Audio is the winner?

    No, the industry is putting its faith in Dual Discs for now. These
    *can* have a DVD-A layer, but don't necessarily have to. They can
    have a DVD-V (Dolby Digital) layer instead.

    > Are we going to have an upgraded format to listen to from now on, or
    > are we stuck with regular good ol' CD format?

    What was 'upgraded'; about SACD or DVD-A compared to CD, other
    than the surround-sound capacity?

    If you think it was audio quality, that was *never* demonstrated
    to be due to SACD or DVD-A formats per se. You'd think the industry
    would have attended to that little demonstration, and trumpeted
    the positive results throughout the land..assuming they got
    positive results.

    Yet they never did. Funny, that.

    I'd suggest people start agitating for better mastering of CDs.


    --

    -S
    It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
    before the House Armed Services Committee
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 10 May 2005 02:54:22 GMT, Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:

    >Steven R. Rochlin wrote:
    >> Russ,
    >>
    >> Seems Sony is no longer releasing titles. So there are now generally,
    >> small, niche companies that may release new titles though.... it seems like
    >> a dead format that never really had mainstream/mass consumer support. Of
    >> note is that SACD software sales figures may be skewed due to making a few
    >> new Sony titles SACD, but most consumers who bought the title used the SACD
    >> part of the disc. The sales figures may have looked good on paper, though
    >> the reality is that use of the SACD format was lackluster it appears.
    >
    >So if SACD is dead, then does that mean that DVD-Audio is the winner?
    >Are we going to have an upgraded format to listen to from now on, or
    >are we stuck with regular good ol' CD format?

    I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  9. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

    > I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    > will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    > any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.

    I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?

    Bummer.

    I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    channel if I can get it. Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    surround sound? And this is at the same sampling rate as
    conventional CD. Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    same? Bleah...

    Russ
  10. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
    > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

    > > I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    > > will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    > > any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.

    > I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    > possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    > the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    > happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?

    > Bummer.

    > I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    > channel if I can get it.

    If you want 'better two channel', agitate for better mastering.
    Because Redbook is fully as capable of relaying the benefits of
    that as well as SACD/DVD-A.


    Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    > that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    > surround sound? And this is at the same sampling rate as
    > conventional CD. Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    > same? Bleah...

    Not unless it's a better remaster than what's already available,
    or an remix, or in surround sound. "Better sound" isn't going
    to come from playback formats with mo' bits and mo' Hz than
    CD. It comes from excellent recording, careful A/D conversion,
    and good mastering.


    --

    -S
    It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
    before the House Armed Services Committee
  11. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
    news:d5rt8o0tc7@news2.newsguy.com...
    > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
    >
    > > I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    > > will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    > > any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.
    >
    > I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    > possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    > the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    > happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?
    >
    > Bummer.
    >
    > I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    > channel if I can get it. Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    > that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    > surround sound? And this is at the same sampling rate as
    > conventional CD. Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    > same? Bleah...

    No, both DVD-A (at 96/24 or 192/24) and SACD (using DSD) offer genuinely
    better audio....greater signal-to-noise in the sensitive midrange area,
    better transient response due to filtering at much higher frequencies, as
    well as the multichannel option. SACD's *always* have stereo tracks. Some
    DVD-A's do. Others just downmix on the fly from multichannel, with
    unpredictable results.

    As if the sloppy formats of DVD-A weren't enough, DualDisk loosens the
    controls even more. As a result, Sony DualDisks (since they won't use
    DVD-A) use only 48/16 bit stereo and Dolby Digital surround. And the folks
    who had been providing DVD-A sometimes do and sometimes don't on DualDisk.
    The only good thing as far as their output is concerned is that DualDisk
    does specificy some kind of stereo track on the DVD-V side. No more
    "downmix only".

    What a f...ing disaster this industry is when it comes to intelligent
    decisions at any level above teenybopper.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 11 May 2005 03:13:28 GMT, Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:

    >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
    >
    >> I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    >> will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    >> any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.
    >
    >I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    >possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    >the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    >happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?

    No, but the market doesn't care, and that's what really counts.

    >Bummer.
    >
    >I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    >channel if I can get it.

    16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
    as good as you'll ever hear.

    >Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    >that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    >surround sound?

    That's it's only *audible* advantage, as with DVD-A. But used
    properly, multichannel sound is definitely an improvement in fidelity.

    > And this is at the same sampling rate as
    >conventional CD.

    Essentially, although with SACD it's a sliding scale that gets a lot
    worse as frequency rises.

    > Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    >same? Bleah...

    Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
    for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
    working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  13. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

    > 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
    > as good as you'll ever hear.

    Hmmm... I have a number of recordings where I have them on
    both vinyl and CD. When I compare them, the vinyl invariably
    sounds more pleasing to me, surface noise notwithstanding.

    I recently acquired a Xitel Inport A to D converter and made
    a couple of CDs from vinyl recordings and then compared the
    Xitel created digital copies with the original vinyl. I did hear
    some minor degredation in the sound, and the imagine wasn't
    quite as deep either.

    Do you know anything about the Xitel Inport and it's level
    of quality?

    As Steven Sullivan keeps saying, it is the mastering which
    is key. Obviously there are two different mastering events
    when you're listening to a vinyl vs. CD copy of the same
    recording, and I have to agree. I have one recording of
    Johnny Hartman that is on vinyl, an American produced
    CD and a Japanese produced CD. All are different from
    each other, though the American CD sounds most like it
    was the same mix as the vinyl.

    > Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
    > for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
    > working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)

    DSOTM???

    I do have two vinyl copies of "Supersax Plays Bird" with one being
    a standard commercial release and the other being an MFSL
    half-speed mastered release. The MFSL release is quite audibly
    better. I'd like to think that a 24/192 recording would be audibly
    better than a standard 16/44, but I've never had the opportunity to
    listen, so I don't know.

    Russ
  14. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
    > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

    > > 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
    > > as good as you'll ever hear.

    > Hmmm... I have a number of recordings where I have them on
    > both vinyl and CD. When I compare them, the vinyl invariably
    > sounds more pleasing to me, surface noise notwithstanding.

    > I recently acquired a Xitel Inport A to D converter and made
    > a couple of CDs from vinyl recordings and then compared the
    > Xitel created digital copies with the original vinyl. I did hear
    > some minor degredation in the sound, and the imagine wasn't
    > quite as deep either.

    If it was a sighted comparison,
    I'm sure you did hear such things, but whether it was
    because of the *sound* of the two, cannot be determined by such a
    test.

    I suggest you pick up the current issue of Skeptic magazine,
    and read the articles on double-blind testing, and on
    the skeptical view of audiophilia.

    > Do you know anything about the Xitel Inport and it's level
    > of quality?

    Stellar, from what I recall. Which makes your experience all
    the more suspect, don't you think? If I were you I'd set up
    a blind test if only to make sure my Xitel wasn't broken. ;>


    > As Steven Sullivan keeps saying, it is the mastering which
    > is key. Obviously there are two different mastering events
    > when you're listening to a vinyl vs. CD copy of the same
    > recording, and I have to agree. I have one recording of
    > Johnny Hartman that is on vinyl, an American produced
    > CD and a Japanese produced CD. All are different from
    > each other, though the American CD sounds most like it
    > was the same mix as the vinyl.

    Yet a good digital copy of a vinyl record should
    sound indistinguishable from the record, when listener
    bias is taken out of hte picture.


    > > Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
    > > for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
    > > working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)

    > DSOTM???

    Dark Side of the Moon. It's been remastered a few times.


    --

    -S
    It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
    before the House Armed Services Committee
  15. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 12 May 2005 03:49:07 GMT, Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:

    >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
    >
    >> 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
    >> as good as you'll ever hear.
    >
    >Hmmm... I have a number of recordings where I have them on
    >both vinyl and CD. When I compare them, the vinyl invariably
    >sounds more pleasing to me, surface noise notwithstanding.

    That's *preference*, an entirely different matter. I'm talking about
    digital audio, where the evidence suggests that there's no audible
    improvement above 16/44.

    >I recently acquired a Xitel Inport A to D converter and made
    >a couple of CDs from vinyl recordings and then compared the
    >Xitel created digital copies with the original vinyl. I did hear
    >some minor degredation in the sound, and the imagine wasn't
    >quite as deep either.

    Have you tried a blind comparison of the two?

    >Do you know anything about the Xitel Inport and it's level
    >of quality?

    Sorry, never used that one.

    >As Steven Sullivan keeps saying, it is the mastering which
    >is key. Obviously there are two different mastering events
    >when you're listening to a vinyl vs. CD copy of the same
    >recording, and I have to agree. I have one recording of
    >Johnny Hartman that is on vinyl, an American produced
    >CD and a Japanese produced CD. All are different from
    >each other, though the American CD sounds most like it
    >was the same mix as the vinyl.
    >
    >> Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
    >> for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
    >> working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)
    >
    >DSOTM???

    Aaah, not a true audiophile, then.... :-)

    Dark Side of the Moon, an audiophile warhorse for more than 30 years
    now. Many audiophiles have several versions, as it has been
    'remastered' and re-released at least half a dozen times, the latest
    being on multichannel SACD (it was originally made as a 4-channel
    mixdown, so this is arguably the most 'real' version ever).

    >I do have two vinyl copies of "Supersax Plays Bird" with one being
    >a standard commercial release and the other being an MFSL
    >half-speed mastered release. The MFSL release is quite audibly
    >better. I'd like to think that a 24/192 recording would be audibly
    >better than a standard 16/44, but I've never had the opportunity to
    >listen, so I don't know.

    There's good reason why a half-speed mastered version would have
    better treble (I have about a dozen MFSLs), but there is *no* good
    reason why 24/192 would be *audibly* different from 44/16.
    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    On 12 May 2005 00:43:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <hlavo@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"Russ Button" <russ@button.com> wrote in message
    >news:d5rt8o0tc7@news2.newsguy.com...
    >> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
    >>
    >> > I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    >> > will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    >> > any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.
    >>
    >> I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    >> possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    >> the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    >> happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?
    >>
    >> Bummer.
    >>
    >> I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    >> channel if I can get it. Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    >> that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    >> surround sound? And this is at the same sampling rate as
    >> conventional CD. Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    >> same? Bleah...
    >
    >No, both DVD-A (at 96/24 or 192/24) and SACD (using DSD) offer genuinely
    >better audio

    An utterly unproven assertion, still a hot topic among pros.

    >....greater signal-to-noise in the sensitive midrange area,

    Considering that no known *master* tape has greater than 85dB dynamic
    range, please explain why more than 93dB is required from the
    distribution medium.

    >better transient response due to filtering at much higher frequencies,

    Another item not proven to have any audible benefit, especially in
    these 'upsampling' days.

    > as
    >well as the multichannel option. SACD's *always* have stereo tracks. Some
    >DVD-A's do. Others just downmix on the fly from multichannel, with
    >unpredictable results.
    >
    >As if the sloppy formats of DVD-A weren't enough, DualDisk loosens the
    >controls even more. As a result, Sony DualDisks (since they won't use
    >DVD-A) use only 48/16 bit stereo and Dolby Digital surround. And the folks
    >who had been providing DVD-A sometimes do and sometimes don't on DualDisk.
    >The only good thing as far as their output is concerned is that DualDisk
    >does specificy some kind of stereo track on the DVD-V side. No more
    >"downmix only".
    >
    >What a f...ing disaster this industry is when it comes to intelligent
    >decisions at any level above teenybopper.

    Seems to carry over to this forum at times, Harry...... :-)

    --

    Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:d5u90i030ls@news3.newsguy.com...
    > On 11 May 2005 03:13:28 GMT, Russ Button <russ@button.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
    > >
    > >> I suspect that the future lies in whatever format movie soundtracks
    > >> will use. High-end two-channel audio is dying - some would say that
    > >> any noticeable twitching is merely rigor mortis.
    > >
    > >I've been saying that for some time. Still it is obviously technically
    > >possible to produce media that support higher sampling rates than
    > >the standard used in conventional CDs. I thought that's what was
    > >happening win DVD-Audio and SACD. I'm wrong about that?
    >
    > No, but the market doesn't care, and that's what really counts.
    >

    They are better, but were so badly marketed that it is hard to tell whether
    the market cares, since the market doesn't even know. Without awareness,
    there can be no acceptance *or* rejection.

    > >Bummer.
    > >
    > >I have no interest in surround sound. All I want is better two
    > >channel if I can get it.
    >

    You are missing one great potential improvement in pop enjoyment and
    classical realism.

    > 16/44, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD listening test results suggest that CD is
    > as good as you'll ever hear.
    >

    Simply not true.

    > >Is it true that as Steven Sullivan noted,
    > >that SACD is just about putting more tracks on the media for
    > >surround sound?
    >
    > That's it's only *audible* advantage, as with DVD-A. But used
    > properly, multichannel sound is definitely an improvement in fidelity.
    >

    Simply not true.

    > > And this is at the same sampling rate as
    > >conventional CD.
    >

    No, the surround is usually 96/24 on DVD-A (some at 48/24). And it is pure
    DSD on SACD, which is roughly equivalent to 192/24. This gives superior
    results with analog transfers, high-res PCM recordings, and especially pure
    DSD recordings. Some releases have been made from 48/24 digital
    masters...and generally are "caught out" by sharp-eared audiophiles because
    of it.

    > Essentially, although with SACD it's a sliding scale that gets a lot
    > worse as frequency rises.
    >

    But is much superior to ordinary CD PCM in the critical lower, middle, and
    mid-range areas, an area where the ear is most sensitive.

    > > Geez. We should pay more for more of the
    > >same? Bleah...
    >

    First, the hi-rez's really are better despite the contrary commentary here.
    Second, the disks don't cost much more than ordinary CD's. And with SACD's
    especially, you get a CD layer (almost all SACDs have been hybrids for about
    three years), a stereo layer, and a multichannel layer. Well worth the few
    extra bucks. Especially since they are almost always remastered with great
    care.

    > Hey, it worked for LP, with DMM and half-speed mastering, it worked
    > for CD with 'digital remastering' and gold CDs, why shouldn't it keep
    > working? How many versions of DSOTM do *you* have? :-)

    Cynicism becomes you.....not!
  18. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote in message
    news:d5jgov0306i@news4.newsguy.com...
    > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    > > Hi Everyone,
    > >
    > > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
    > > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    > > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)
    >
    > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz among
    > others.
    >
    >
    > Espen

    In classical music there are far more SACD than DVD-A recordings. The
    problem with DVD-A is you never know exactly what you'll get - stereo?
    surround sound? both? 96khz? 192 khz? It was utterly brain dead not to
    lay down the law and come up with a standard that was actually a
    standard. My own pet beef about DVD-A is that the damn things are
    usually packaged in oversized cases that don't fit in my CD shelves.
    Why, oh why, did they have to do *that*?

    As for Sony not making SACDs any more, I have a number of SACD
    recordings and none of them are from Sony. Sony rarely produces a
    recording I'd want to buy. So SACD might well live on with or without
    Sony. (Now if BIS and Hyperion stop making SACDs I'll start believing
    in the medium's demise.)
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    John P. Green <xyzzy35@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > "Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote in message
    > news:d5jgov0306i@news4.newsguy.com...
    > > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    > > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    > > > Hi Everyone,
    > > >
    > > > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End Society's
    > > > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    > > > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon :)
    > >
    > > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    > > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz among
    > > others.
    > >
    > >
    > > Espen

    > In classical music there are far more SACD than DVD-A recordings. The
    > problem with DVD-A is you never know exactly what you'll get - stereo?
    > surround sound? both?

    That particular problem has plagued SACD too. There's a whole passel
    of SACDs that are two-channel only. Another quetsion is with whether
    you'll get a CD layer or not. Sony didn't include them in most of its
    initial run of SACD; for some other releases, whether you got a hybrid
    disc depended on what country you bought the disc in.


    > 96khz? 192 khz?

    Not that that has been shown to matter, really-- particularly for
    *playback*. In fact guys like Dan Lavry are convinced that 96 kHz
    is more than enough for the recording side of things.

    > It was utterly brain dead not to
    > lay down the law and come up with a standard that was actually a
    > standard. My own pet beef about DVD-A is that the damn things are
    > usually packaged in oversized cases that don't fit in my CD shelves.
    > Why, oh why, did they have to do *that*?

    Product differentiation. I agree, it's a nuisance..but it does at
    least allow for larger cover art than CD's pitiful standard.

    > As for Sony not making SACDs any more, I have a number of SACD
    > recordings and none of them are from Sony. Sony rarely produces a
    > recording I'd want to buy. So SACD might well live on with or without
    > Sony. (Now if BIS and Hyperion stop making SACDs I'll start believing
    > in the medium's demise.)

    If the medium ends up a being supported only by the likes of Hyperion
    and BIS, that's hardly a sign of vitality.


    --

    -S
    It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
    before the House Armed Services Committee
  20. Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

    "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
    news:d65kdm0q64@news3.newsguy.com...
    > John P. Green <xyzzy35@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > "Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote in message
    > > news:d5jgov0306i@news4.newsguy.com...
    > > > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
    > > > > Hi Everyone,
    > > > >
    > > > > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End
    Society's
    > > > > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
    > > > > http://www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon
    :)
    > > >
    > > > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
    > > > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz
    among
    > > > others.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Espen
    >
    > > In classical music there are far more SACD than DVD-A recordings. The
    > > problem with DVD-A is you never know exactly what you'll get - stereo?
    > > surround sound? both?
    >
    > That particular problem has plagued SACD too. There's a whole passel
    > of SACDs that are two-channel only. Another quetsion is with whether
    > you'll get a CD layer or not. Sony didn't include them in most of its
    > initial run of SACD; for some other releases, whether you got a hybrid
    > disc depended on what country you bought the disc in.
    >

    But SACD's are clearly labeled, so you can decide on these things.

    >
    > > 96khz? 192 khz?
    >
    > Not that that has been shown to matter, really-- particularly for
    > *playback*. In fact guys like Dan Lavry are convinced that 96 kHz
    > is more than enough for the recording side of things.
    >

    You went to the show. Take a look at the impulse composite picture handed
    out at the ISOmike demonstration. It shows analog, 44.1, 48, 96, 192, and
    SACD. Only SACD esstentially duplicates the analog response. DVD-A at 192
    is close, but with more pre-ringing and a lower pulse level. The remainder
    were pretty abysmal. That's one reason why studios are rapidly moving to
    192, now that firewire is here to make computer input simple.

    > > It was utterly brain dead not to
    > > lay down the law and come up with a standard that was actually a
    > > standard. My own pet beef about DVD-A is that the damn things are
    > > usually packaged in oversized cases that don't fit in my CD shelves.
    > > Why, oh why, did they have to do *that*?
    >
    > Product differentiation. I agree, it's a nuisance..but it does at
    > least allow for larger cover art than CD's pitiful standard.
    >

    A rationalization at best.

    > > As for Sony not making SACDs any more, I have a number of SACD
    > > recordings and none of them are from Sony. Sony rarely produces a
    > > recording I'd want to buy. So SACD might well live on with or without
    > > Sony. (Now if BIS and Hyperion stop making SACDs I'll start believing
    > > in the medium's demise.)
    >
    > If the medium ends up a being supported only by the likes of Hyperion
    > and BIS, that's hardly a sign of vitality.
    >

    Or Concord, or Telarc, or Channel Classics, or Phillips, or Pentatone.....
Ask a new question

Read More

High-End Audio Audio Music