PETITION TO SAVE SACD

[briang]

Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.

Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

Hi Seawolf. After reading your post, it seems to me that we may not disagree at all. IMHO, we here in this forum are the exceptional case, not the rule. So, maybe I was not as well written as I had hoped, let me attempt to revise and extend for clarity.

My comments were observations of the broader market. In this forum, where sound quality matters to all of us, I expect most of us to rip most of our mp3 files at 320 and listen via good headphones.

However, my observations show me that, in general, the average consumer values mp3 for convenience and maximum capacity over fidelity. (FWIW, I don't think that the consumer is wrong either, they want what they want.) My concern is that the recording industry may follow the market and not place any value in high fidelity recording formats.

If my observations and conclusions are correct, the broader market will service the greater demand first (as most economic models say it should) and those who want the highest fidelity formats will likely be served later, at a higher price or not at all (hopefully the former and not the latter).

FWIW I can tell the difference between an MP3 ripped at 320 and an SACD/DVD-A of the same music. The difference isn't large, but it is there and relatively obvious when listening seriously. Most of us, even here, don't spend all of our time listening "seriously". In a car, at the office or traveling, given the convenience of portability of MP3, I will gladly sacrifice some fidelity for convenience. However, I still want the highest fidelity options to remain available for listening at home on my main system. It is my hope the recording industry can accomodate both audiences.

[SEAWOLF97]

Hi Seawolf. After reading your post, it seems to me that we may not disagree at all. IMHO, we here in this forum are the exceptional case, not the rule. So, maybe I was not as well written as I had hoped, let me attempt to revise and extend for clarity.

My comments were observations of the broader market. In this forum, where sound quality matters to all of us, I expect most of us to rip most of our mp3 files at 320 and listen via good headphones.

Pretty much agree with all you have said here. I dont listen to MP3s (no matter how good they are) on the main system. They are for convienience (traveling or off-to-sleep at night)

[jim3860]

i will have to agree with most of the posts with the reason why sacd has not took off, and why pretty much all hi res audio and video formats are not embraced by the public as a whole.and yes i think that its ok to listen to music on your ipod. mp3. vinyl. cd. car radio. or any other available source. and is signing a petition likely to save sacd? no probally not. but i also feel that this is something i can do. by signing this petition i am not idly standing by while another hi quality format bites the dust. is this akin to pissing in the wind? most likely. but i can say i did something. you cant win the lottery if you dont play. its a way of showing my support is all. REGARDS SNOW

[Thom]

Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.


Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

I'm not posting to tell you how strident 320 is and that I can instantly tell it from CD. I haven't tried it and I'm pretty sure that at least on some systems you cant hear the difference. I don't have specs in front of me but I would think that it must be somewhat lossy or you wouldn't be able to get so much music in such a small package. I don't have a bone to pick with anyone but praying for the continuance of high resolution material and then recording it to and listening to it from a media with (probably) much less resolution than the media that one doesn't want to have to be stuck with just struck my irony bone. It's like you go into the store and they fire up this big buck system into these big buck speakers through this expensive cable and turn on the radio. I used to see that all the time. I don't know if it's still common or not. Anyway I'm sure that one person was talking about the HiFi mp3 and another about the hi res disk.

As far as those ear buds, are you real happy with them. I bought a pair and they're OK but they aren't what I expected for the price.

I'm still playing with my current system, but a system I had in the past I could instantly tell the Revox from an LP unless it was running at 15 ips and there was so much missing from even the best FM that to me it was unlistenable. The tape thing really bumbed too because I wanted a way to play music without having to babysit a turntable. Oh cassettes were out of the question but I never got a chance ti try a nak with metal tape so I don't know how that would have been. I doubt that Mp3's would have sounded like CD's on it.
Anyway it was just about demanding hi res and then listening to pretty low res.

[Titanium Dome]

SACD and DVD-A are specialty markets that the music manufacturers don't know how to serve. Hell, it's obvious they don't really know how to serve the mid-fi CD market.

It's a testament to the power of music and the love that people have for it that the asinine, ignorant, and greedy behavior of the labels hasn't destroyed the industry entirely. We love the music so much we put up with the shit that goes along with it.

Sending them a petition is an act of activism that I can support, but the realist in me knows that the only industry response will be related to money.

Things like MP3 players, iPods, iTunes, eMusic, and others will offer the only real shot at changing the industry's mentality by wresting the commercial clout away from the record companies and forcing them to compete on product quality rather than on monopolistic and conspiratorial practices.

We'd be better served sending a petition to Steve Jobs if we want to insure high quality source material for the future.

[SEAWOLF97]

As far as those ear buds, are you real happy with them. I bought a pair and they're OK but they aren't what I expected for the price.

Shure E2C's are not ear buds. They are ear canal blockers. If you do not fit them correctly , they sound like $hit.

The trick is to reach over the top of your head with the opposite hand, pull UP on the top of the ear, while inserting the plug with the other hand. If done correctly, a seal is made , and sound becomes REALLY NICE. Fantastic bass , no outside noise. In your own little world. (as long as you stay inside the house - also good for ignoring your better half)

[Thom]

I tried different size sleeves. Haven't tried them in a while. Just kicked myself for spending that much and threw them on a shelf. Guess I'll have another go. I've never had that much lucK with the disposable hearing protectors and from what you say that's how you should install them. Should they sound as good as a really good head set?

[Thom]

SACD and DVD-A are specialty markets that the music manufacturers don't know how to serve. Hell, it's obvious they don't really know how to serve the mid-fi CD market.

It's a testament to the power of music and the love that people have for it that the asinine, ignorant, and greedy behavior of the labels hasn't destroyed the industry entirely. We love the music so much we put up with the shit that goes along with it.

Sending them a petition is an act of activism that I can support, but the realist in me knows that the only industry response will be related to money.

Things like MP3 players, iPods, iTunes, eMusic, and others will offer the only real shot at changing the industry's mentality by wresting the commercial clout away from the record companies and forcing them to compete on product quality rather than on monopolistic and conspiratorial practices.

We'd be better served sending a petition to Steve Jobs if we want to insure high quality source material for the future.

Since the media you are talking about is all inferior to CD I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that anyone willing to put up with the quality of a CD will be willing to live with the quality of these other media and the convenience of the other media will leave more discerning listeners as the only potential audience for CD's? Sorry to have jumped in late with all the questions.

[Titanium Dome]

Since the media you are talking about is all inferior to CD I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that anyone willing to put up with the quality of a CD will be willing to live with the quality of these other media and the convenience of the other media will leave more discerning listeners as the only potential audience for CD's? Sorry to have jumped in late with all the questions.

No.

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files, so I cannot affirm your first assumption. I have around 2,500 CDs and 2,500 MP3 or AAC files, plus a handful (less than 130) SACDs and DVD-As and 500 LPs. I'm not one to believe that any format is inherently better than another, except for cassettes I guess.

Second, appreciation of music exists on many levels, and the majority of it is different than that sought by purists and audiophiles.

Third, in a market-driven economy, mainstream companies will be chasing the dollars, not the art or the science. Only as the art and/or the science creates dollars will companies pursue a particular level of musical appreciation.

Fourth, physical media is inconvenient and cumbersome, and given the chance, people will divest themselves of the burden.

Fifth, any technology created to replace physical media will chase the most profitable level of musical appreciation as soon as possible, which is the low- and middle-levels, where market share can be created and volume can be grown.

Sixth, if we want high-level musical appreciation to be served, we'd better appeal/request/demand it of those who will control the distribution and format of the nonphysical media.

Since "record" companies are too greedy and stupid to figure out how to do this, it falls to Bill Gates (not likely), Steve Jobs (likely) or another to bring about the genesis of the distribution system, the format, and the level of quality. They're the ones who need to bring the quality upstream, not the nimrods at a record label or two or a recording association. The download sites like eMusic, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. already are serving the low and middle levels, and at least one is doing quite well. Now, how do those who want high level musical quality get it going forward?

My point was that a petition to save SACD probably won't be the answer to that question, though I support the activism behind it.

[SEAWOLF97]

I tried different size sleeves. Haven't tried them in a while. Just kicked myself for spending that much and threw them on a shelf. Guess I'll have another go. I've never had that much lucK with the disposable hearing protectors and from what you say that's how you should install them. Should they sound as good as a really good head set?

If you are unhappy with them , wanna sell ?

[Robh3606]

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files,

Hello TDome

You have me scratching my head on that one. Typically MP3 AAC are compressed versions from the original wave files. How can the compressed file be superior to the originals assuming the same source??? Or are you just saying that you have heard CD's that sounded worse than the compressed formats made from a good CD "master"??

Rob

[Titanium Dome]

Hello TDome

You have me scratching my head on that one. Typically MP3 AAC are compressed versions from the original wave files. How can the compressed file be superior to the originals assuming the same source??? Or are you just saying that you have heard CD's that sounded worse than the compressed formats made from a good CD "master"??

Rob

Some of the early CDs I have (Brothers In Arms, Dark Side of the Moon) sound great, while others sound like crap. A number of them were on-the-job-training for some guys who were cutting their teeth on mastering CDs. They could be bright, thin, edgy, ugly...

Take the 1990 imagine that by the O'Kanes on Columbia or the 1983 touch by the eURYTHMICs on RCA. Horrible, just horrible mixing, bad sound levels, unacceptable distortion...awful. (Both are from analog sources, BTW.)

The 192kbit AAC tracks I have of these albums are so much easier and satisfying to listen to. If one were to measure it out, I can imagine the CDs would produce better numbers, but they do not produce better sound.

[SEAWOLF97]

Take the 1990 imagine that by the O'Kanes on Columbia or the 1983 touch by the eURYTHMICs on RCA. Horrible, just horrible mixing, bad sound levels, unacceptable distortion...awful. (Both are from analog sources, BTW.).

look at the legend printed on every CD..
AAD
ADD
DDD

that is the process path
A=analog D=digital
The 3someome code is RECORDING,MIX,ENCODE
The final will always be "D" on a CD

AAD is analog recording,analog mix, dig encoding
ADD is....analog recording, dig mix
DAD is ....dig rec, analog mix
you get the picture.

and of course DDD is the best.

[Thom]

No.

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files, so I cannot affirm your first assumption. I have around 2,500 CDs and 2,500 MP3 or AAC files, plus a handful (less than 130) SACDs and DVD-As and 500 LPs. I'm not one to believe that any format is inherently better than another, except for cassettes I guess.

Second, appreciation of music exists on many levels, and the majority of it is different than that sought by purists and audiophiles.

Third, in a market-driven economy, mainstream companies will be chasing the dollars, not the art or the science. Only as the art and/or the science creates dollars will companies pursue a particular level of musical appreciation.

Fourth, physical media is inconvenient and cumbersome, and given the chance, people will divest themselves of the burden.

Fifth, any technology created to replace physical media will chase the most profitable level of musical appreciation as soon as possible, which is the low- and middle-levels, where market share can be created and volume can be grown.

Sixth, if we want high-level musical appreciation to be served, we'd better appeal/request/demand it of those who will control the distribution and format of the nonphysical media.

Since "record" companies are too greedy and stupid to figure out how to do this, it falls to Bill Gates (not likely), Steve Jobs (likely) or another to bring about the genesis of the distribution system, the format, and the level of quality. They're the ones who need to bring the quality upstream, not the nimrods at a record label or two or a recording association. The download sites like eMusic, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. already are serving the low and middle levels, and at least one is doing quite well. Now, how do those who want high level musical quality get it going forward?

My point was that a petition to save SACD probably won't be the answer to that question, though I support the activism behind it.

Actually I believe the potential for cassette is higher than Mp3 if we're talking metal tape and a high end nak deck. (dam I wish they had put some of the cassette technology into reel to reel) I have heard cassette A/B with LP and could not tell. Today that might not mean much. I have no idea if my ears are very discerning or not but at the time that was good. Analog the limits are somewhat theoretical but with digital the limits are cold and hard unless other things limit you to less than your digital limit. But you are complaining about being limited to a media with certain numerical limits and then singing the praises of a media with cold solid numerical not theoretical limits that are vastly inferior to CD. You may not hear it. I've got a 7.2 meg camera that I love and I don't see anything wrong with the pictures except that the photographer isn't too good but it records in JPEG. I can argue about it all day long but it only kept a certain amount of the information. It's the same with your Mp3. Lots of people used to play records with a ceramic cartridge and they are in heaven. Others know, but Mp3 can sound real good and it's real convenient so they use it. You could even argue about whether or not you could tell the difference on the equipment that Mp3's are usually played on, but you are saying that it is at least as good and the numbers don't lie. It's not like speaker specs. However many bits of information it can record is it. What ever the high cut off is, is it etc and its not close to CD. They supposedly put a lot of scientific research into it to determine what data was real important to us and which wasn't quite as important. If you are buying real expensive media for its full range and then just listening to it in Mp3 you are not getting your moneys worth. If the material you buy is special mixes or performances then maybe that is something else.

[Titanium Dome]

look at the legend printed on every CD..
AAD
ADD
DDD

that is the process path
A=analog D=digital
The 3someome code is RECORDING,MIX,ENCODE
The final will always be "D" on a CD

AAD is analog recording,analog mix, dig encoding
ADD is....analog recording, dig mix
DAD is ....dig rec, analog mix
you get the picture.

and of course DDD is the best.

Thanks, Seawolf97, but I already knew that.

I'd agree to this: DDD has the potential to be the best. It isn't always.