|
|
(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
In message , Keith G
writes Melanie Phonogenic/Not Just Another Pretty Face Who?? ... Nope Melanie Safka - dippy hippy type, I grew up with her. So did I, she was a Goddess in her day. Actually, the old Melanie albums sound much better on vinyl than CD. The transfer to CD is atrocious in that the transcribers cut all the tracks off slightly early to stop you hearing the master tape hiss. This was in the pre-Dolby days you know! It really annoys me. (I've got all the early Melanie is vgc on vinyl, though I guess they might not be worth much if I get skint) -- Chris Morriss |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:42:16 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote: The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today. What are these 'limitations'? Being made a long time ago? If so are you saying that no recent speaker made a long time ago could beat it? If so I guess that's kinda true. I'm not sure what 50s limitations have to do with the abilities of today's amps and speakers to show finely differentiate between high resolutions. Maybe the ESLs, or whatever your experiment used, couldn't show the difference, doesn't mean nothing ever will. Again, I'm not arguing that there IS (or isn't) an advantage of SACD over CD, only that your experiment isn't really as conclusive as you seemed to sugest. I'm certain CD resolution was influenced by what equipment then was able to reproduce. Therefore, since we now have better digital equipment, maybe we also need a higher res. Personally, I'm quite strongly against SACD (I tried to not let it colour this thread) on the grounds that, IMHO, a future-facing digital standard doesn't need the limitations of physical media. -- Jim H |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
A certain Andrew Walkingshaw, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Vinyl has more noise, in the statistical sense: however, it also has a theoretically higher resolution than CDs. No it doesn't. a) What is the maximum resolution of the ear? The million dollar question. b) What's the lowest practical noise-floor of vinyl? Around about -55db on the best ? (guess) -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
A certain Jim Lesurf, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
As an experiment I tried adding two rear speakers but found that this made only a marginal difference for classical music. I was very pleasantly suprised by just how good some DVD videos of classical items are. I was tempted at one point to wonder if this is due to the 48kHz sampling rate as opposed to 44kHz for CD. This is a pretty negligible difference. They're probably just well produced. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Chesney Christ" wrote in message
... A certain Keith G, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : Speaking personally, it doesn't let any air out of my balloon at all - for a remastering, I'll always insist on the *original* mastering as produced back in the day, for the reasons described above. I do not want a re-interpretation or a re-working. This is one reason why LP cutting masters bother me, BTW. It's the same deal with all those Star Wars fans who were justifiably upset when Lucas threw away (probably for good) the old special effects and replaced them with hi-tech CGI versions. I can relate to that. I seem to recall something (vaguely) about laserdisks being sought after because of this sort of thing, in some instances... Yes, a laserdisk is probably going to be better than VHS. The speakers, amp and sub can all be top-class but there's only so far you can polish a turd, and the built-in soundcards on computers are the absolute pits. It doesn't make sense that you'd spend thousands on a cartridge, then run it through a seriously bad soundcard. Great soundcards which are truly transparent can be had for £200-300 these days, and that'll often get you better-than-CD-quality digitization. How do you know I don't have a posh 'audiophile' soundcard? (I don't - but how do you 'know' that.....? ;-) Guessed :) Heh heh! - I'm just not the 'type' am I? :-) Asked the guy who runs the local computer supplies shop about these '£200 audiophile soundcards' when I was on a little project a month or three ago (some pix still on http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keith_g/show/show.htm) - he laughed so much he had to grip the counter! Tried to talk me out of the £30 card I bought and said it was 'over spec for what I wanted' - tried to sell me a £16 card instead! Yer hafta fekkin' larf........ ;-) |
(O/T) - Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
... In message , Keith G writes Melanie Phonogenic/Not Just Another Pretty Face Who?? ... Nope Melanie Safka - dippy hippy type, I grew up with her. So did I, she was a Goddess in her day. In my book, Joan Baez was the Goddess, Melanie was a Nymph! Actually, the old Melanie albums sound much better on vinyl than CD. Yup. Believe it or not I've got a 'Best Of Melanie' CD (I think) - must have played it once but I don'r treally remember...... The transfer to CD is atrocious in that the transcribers cut all the tracks off slightly early to stop you hearing the master tape hiss. This was in the pre-Dolby days you know! It really annoys me. (I've got all the early Melanie is vgc on vinyl, though I guess they might not be worth much if I get skint) Not a great deal - £4 or 5 a go? Nemesis Records (St Ives) had quite a few to choose from, the other day. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
"Keith G" wrote in message
How do you know I don't have a posh 'audiophile' soundcard? It's pure digital and it costs money. In your economy Keith that umm, doesn't compute. |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
In article ,
RobH wrote: The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today. Hey, within my limitations I'm the fastest sprinter in the world. Seriously, nice though the ESLs are they are seriously lacking in the lower registers. No more so than many modern speakers. Because the bass is so clean and resonance free, it can seem lacking to those not used to them. Of course, they are also very room and position sensitive. -- *A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory * Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Why do SACDs sound better? (Soft troll)
In article ,
Jim H wrote: The original Quad ESL saw the light of day in the '50s. Within its limitations, I don't think anything can beat it today. What are these 'limitations'? Being made a long time ago? Its limitations are a lower than perhaps what some want maximum SPL. Lower cutoff point of 40 Hz. Extremely directional. Room and position sensitive. Difficult load for an amplifier to drive. But within these parameters, it will sound better than the vast majority of modern speakers. If so are you saying that no recent speaker made a long time ago could beat it? If so I guess that's kinda true. I'd suggest you try and listen to a pair. -- *I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few. Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk