 
|
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 |
In Reply to: You missed the point entirely... posted by Rich on April 05, 2001 at 10:45:45:
No medium survives solely by appealing to a niche audience, no matter if it's better than existing alternatives. Just look at what happened to Betamax - most people agreed that the picture quality was superior to VHS, then bought VHS anyway because the latter format could hold a few hours more at the slowest speed. Getting "early adopters" to buy a new technology is a step to mass marketing the technology, not an end in itself.SACD is unfortunately a medium without a reason to exist other than to enable Sony to milk some new money from their existing patents and licenses (and also to screw with DVD-A by intentionally sewing confusion about "format wars" among consumers). How many audiophiles are there in the USA? A few hundred thousand maybe? Once Sony sells an SACD player to every one of them, growth of SACD stops. Unlike, for example, DVD which has an obvious qualitative superiority to VHS on just about any TV, the average consumer will not see any reason to buy an SACD player. Plain old Redbook CD sounds great on their Bose lifestyle system or boombox or car audio system. The growth of Napster has largely been fueled by consumer resitance to the price of CDs; do you really think that people who balked at paying $16 for a Limp Bizkit CD will happily pay $30 for a Limp Bizkit SACD?
Follow Ups:
I hate to say this, but to my knowledge Sony get a royalty payment on DVD-A anyway! The arguements for SACD are really negated by the source material. Its ok to select source material that is well recorded, or remaster material that was badly mastered. But having been privy to equipement that vastly outperforms CD and SACD on a technical level, all I can say is any difference you are hearing is not really down to these players. 16 bit recording can quite easily outperform a lot of equipement in the studio chain, and almost anything available to the home listener. During a recording sesion, air noise of -60db onto tape is considered to be very, very good. Indeed I record in some very good accoustics that are considered to be some of the finest venues for recording and we often are working with background noise in excess of this. I often transfer material recorded on many different formats to CD, and I can tell you that what you get on the CD is exceedingly close to the original masters.
The bigest difference in the sound is usually the DA conversion in the CD player itself, together with the amplification and speakers. In actual fact I saw a CD from a well known record company where they claimed a 24bit recording which was covered with artificial 16bit reverb. How did I know the reverb was artificial? I record in the same venue, with the same band and it has very little ambience. Consequently my recording also had more detail and was definately 16bit.Roland
to have a clue about marketing. Stick to two-bit reviews or consider a career in politics. Either would suit you better.
Enjoy your wide variety of Jennifer Lopez and Toto SACD disks, pal. In a year or two when Sony drops support for the medium you can apologize.
been babbling on and on about what you erroneously believe I've said. Reading comprehension is obviously not a strength of yours.***Enjoy your wide variety of Jennifer Lopez and Toto SACD disks, pal. In a year or two when Sony drops support for the medium you can apologize.***
I couldn't care less and besides, who do you think you are? Beijing?
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 ]
