The death of High Fidelity?

[Slippers On]

Going for a piss, just learn't that I've been ripped off for 30yrs:-(

[Mr Peabody]

I'll probably post a thread but I heard the Dynaudio Sapphires today and at $16.5k they must undoubtedly be the best value in speakers going. They have a unique cabinet design and finish and there are only going to be 1,000 pair made. You'd think a speaker of limited number and quality would cost much more. The Temptations are $35K. Going backward there were 2 Clayton Audio, Class A, 300 watt monoblocks, T+A preamp and SACD player. Wow, what an impressive system. This is not the first time I heard Clayton Audio but it is the first time I've been blown away by them, talking about power, and power in reserve. The bass response of the Sapphires being driven by the Clayton's was incredible. High Fidelity isn't dead, and you can get astounding sound but in this case it carries a price tag. There is much more expensive gear though and comparatively this system was fairly priced.

[MudFlap]

Okay .... Here's a post from the Audio Maven Peanut Gallery.

The death of HiFi....??

Nah.... as long as there's the few (or many) of us out there that appreciate the beauty of clean gear and perfect pitch there will always be room for HiFi.

Thank God.

My listening isn't as refined as many (or even most) .... but when I hear something special it keeps me wanting more.

mf

[pixelthis]

I just buy special editions and the like, hope for the best, you're really at the mercy of recording studios, so I stick to labels That I know love music.
As for a "mac" someday I will buy one, I USED TO LISTEN TO THEM FOR HOURS AT THE LOCAL AUDIO SHOP AS A TEEN, never heard anything better.
BTW anyone ever hear of Island records? They put out some pretty good jazz reissues
here a while back.
Nobody mentions the kinda blue SACD , which is amazing. If SACD surrives it will be the hope of audiophiles. I just hope it does

[Feanor]

I just buy special editions and the like, hope for the best, you're really at the mercy of recording studios, so I stick to labels That I know love music.
As for a "mac" someday I will buy one, I USED TO LISTEN TO THEM FOR HOURS AT THE LOCAL AUDIO SHOP AS A TEEN, never heard anything better.
BTW anyone ever hear of Island records? They put out some pretty good jazz reissues
here a while back.
Nobody mentions the kinda blue SACD , which is amazing. If SACD surrives it will be the hope of audiophiles. I just hope it does

The Kind of Blue SACD should lay to rest Melvin's quams about this album in stereo. As far as I know it is not available as a hybrid SACD however.

However, IMO, SACD's big advantage is multi-channel. All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).

[E-Stat]

All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).

Interestingly, the advent of the higher resolution formats has yielded better results for the lowly Redbook CD medium. The primary limitation of the 44.1k sample rate was not the resulting bandwidth per se, but rather the need for an abrupt filtering cutoff to assure that there is ZERO content above 22k. The original so called "brickwall" filters introduced phase shifts that lost resolution. My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are mastered at least at 192/24 allowing for a far more gradual filter slope (done digitally at that). Then remastered to 44/16. Win win for everyone.

rw

[Feanor]

... My understanding is that virtually all recordings today are mastered at least at 192/24 allowing for a far more gradual filter slope (done digitally at that). Then remastered to 44/16. Win win for everyone.

rw

I thought that filter high-frequency "noise" was necessary on playback. Does the pre-filtering you mention mean that for recordings done this way there is no need for filtering because there is no sound above 22kHz? I'm confused on this point because I thought you had the bits had to be at 44kHz in order to accurately reproduce 22kHz.

As understand it, there are DACs the neither oversample nor filter at all, (e.g. Audio Note?) If these DACs work and sound good, I'm wonder why all the fuss about over or upsampling???

[E-Stat]

I'm confused on this point because I thought you had the bits had to be at 44kHz in order to accurately reproduce 22kHz.

That is the so called Nyquist Theorem which states one must sample at least twice the desired frequency.

As understand it, there are DACs the neither oversample nor filter at all, (e.g. Audio Note?) If these DACs work and sound good, I'm wonder why all the fuss about over or upsampling???

I believe the over or upsampling schemes are designed to address the other difference between Redbook and the hi rez standards - the word size. That affects the ultimate low level resolution.

rw

[blackraven]

Here are 2 interesting addresses that I found a while back that are very interesting and concern upsampling.
http://www.audioholics.com/education...-digital-audio

http://www.audioholics.com/education...ats-technology

[Mr Peabody]

The first article is almost scary as some one who uses an Audio Note DAC. I think I must have missed the intended info on the 2nd link.

[blackraven]

The second link just FYI for anyone interested in other audio reviews.

[pixelthis]

The Kind of Blue SACD should lay to rest Melvin's quams about this album in stereo. As far as I know it is not available as a hybrid SACD however.

However, IMO, SACD's big advantage is multi-channel. All the high-end pundits say that SACD sounds better as a medium; however I can't vouch for that on my equipment, (including my ears: I don't hear much above 10kHz).

I liked the surround for awhile, even woried about buying a Blu-Ray since my Sacd is using my multichannel in.
BUT after listening in stereo for awhile I have concluded that I prefer the stereo, which is the way most of this was intened to be listened to.
If the surrounds could be used for ambience fine, but how do you do that? So a lot of "surround" is just instruments and vocalists bouncing around you.
Kinda distracting, really.
And I DONT NEED NO STINKIN HYBRID, HAVE THE cd

[blackraven]

I have to agree with you on multichannel sound. It never really appealed to me. However, after hearing 2ch SACD sound with the marantz SA8001 SACD player which is a 2ch SACDP, I'm convinced that it sounds better that standard CD. If I had mostly SACD's then this would be my favorite format. Also, magnepans fill my room with sound that who needs multi channel except for hometheater.

[pixelthis]

I have to agree with you on multichannel sound. It never really appealed to me. However, after hearing 2ch SACD sound with the marantz SA8001 SACD player which is a 2ch SACDP, I'm convinced that it sounds better that standard CD. If I had mostly SACD's then this would be my favorite format. Also, magnepans fill my room with sound that who needs multi channel except for hometheater.

SACD is my favorite format.
After talking about it, got out my kinda blue, sounded amazing as usual.
Gonna play my Ivan Linns complilation later.
Sacd has been a pleasant surprize, unlike DVDAUDIO its a non gimmicky high rez format,
and seems to be hanging in there.
Sony did it right, appealing to the high end listener , they knew that this was the main market.
I hope it makes it, there needs to be something for those of us who want a modern high rez format, the video game generation have their cheap Mp3s, the "audio conoseuirs
their scratchy LPS and distortion laden tubes.
WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, I've never heard you talk about SACD before. I'm surprised you'd have an all but dead format You'd think Sony being a music company and SACD being their baby they would have supported it longer. Maybe they just knew the big Blu-ray war was coming. It is interesting though that many manufacturers keep making either SACD or universal players.

[bobsticks]

SACD is my favorite format.
After talking about it, got out my kinda blue, sounded amazing as usual.
Gonna play my Ivan Linns complilation later.
Sacd has been a pleasant surprize, unlike DVDAUDIO its a non gimmicky high rez format,
and seems to be hanging in there.
Sony did it right, appealing to the high end listener , they knew that this was the main market.
I hope it makes it, there needs to be something for those of us who want a modern high rez format, the video game generation have their cheap Mp3s, the "audio conoseuirs
their scratchy LPS and distortion laden tubes.
WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also

I agree with Pix...and I'm not sure what to do about it.

[pixelthis]

I agree with Pix...and I'm not sure what to do about it.

I hear they are working on a cure.
As for SACD being a "dead" format, who told you that Mr p?
As you said, they keep making players and discs, theres a lot of discs out there, I have
several, for a "dead" format it seems to be doing Okay.
As for DVDAUDIO, that ones as dead as Abraham Lincoln's pecker, maybe you're thinking about that

[pixelthis]

Its my hope that Sony will keep this format alive, they should since it could be the new LP, a quality standard.
Pioneer kept laser alive for a decade, which was much more expensive.
If their track record on Minidisc is any indication, theres hope.
ITS A POPULAR FORMAT(kinda) its not like its Elcassette or something

[Feanor]

Pix, I've never heard you talk about SACD before. I'm surprised you'd have an all but dead format You'd think Sony being a music company and SACD being their baby they would have supported it longer. Maybe they just knew the big Blu-ray war was coming. It is interesting though that many manufacturers keep making either SACD or universal players.

SACD titles have grown at a steady but not exponential rate. But for pop/rock music SACD is dead -- in fact it was stillborn. But you pop/rock lovers need to realized that MP3 and horribly compressed CD is where that genre is at.

According to SA-CD.net, numbers of titles publishe are the following; (some might be discontinued):

• All SACDS - 4999, (Jan 3/08, 11AM EST)
• Classical - 2746
• Jazz - 882
• Pop/rock - 438

[GMichael]

SACD titles have grown at a steady but not exponential rate. But for pop/rock music SACD is dead -- in fact it was stillborn. But you pop/rock lovers need to realized that MP3 and horribly compressed CD is where that genre is at.

According to SA-CD.net, numbers of titles publishe are the following; (some might be discontinued):

• All SACDS - 4999, (Jan 3/08, 11AM EST)
• Classical - 2746
• Jazz - 882
• Pop/rock - 438

And the 438 listed for "pop/rock" are mostly rock. Almost nothing for the pop audience. They are happy with their 192k Ipods and MP3's.

Pix, while I agree with your "WE TYPES WHO JUST LOVE GOOD, PURE, ACCURATE AUDIO deserve our little piece of land also" statement, I don't understand why you don't feel the same way about video.

[Mr Peabody]

I believe Sony quit pressing SACD's over a year ago. I remember that being a big announcement. If they have begun again, please enlighten me. SACD is barely surviving as a nitch product. It would be interesting to from somebody like Acoustic Sounds what their LP & SACD sales figures are. My guess is vinyl sells more than SACD.

When listening to SACD vs Redbook on high quality players and equipment I just didn't hear enough difference to warrant the trouble of getting into another format. The high end shops in this area don't show support for it either which strikes me as odd because all of them carry the players. But really the manufacturers said for get making 3 or more different format players and started making universal players so you can't help but to have something that plays SACD. This also strikes me as odd that most all manufacturers would offer a unit that at least will play SACD for a catalog of 4,999. The electronics industry is starting to look like the government when it comes to common sense. So now you can buy a universal player that does the job of at least 3 players and I'm expected to believe the sound is just as good through these all in one box units as a stand alone player. I don't think so. It strikes me odd that an audiophile faction would embrace such a universal player while thumbing their noses at a receiver. Video circuits were so degrading to audio that Bryston and Classe had HT processors with no video ins/outs. I don't know if isolation has gotten better or they caved in to sales pressure, I know Classe processors do video now, I'm not sure about Bryston.

It also strikes me odd that some one who uses the word "pecker" would be kicking back and digging on the type of music available on SACD

[blackraven]

This issue with SACD's also helped me decide on going with the cambridge azur 740c/840c over the Marantz SA8001 SACDP. SACD does seem to be dying. The 740c sounded so much better in standard CD mode and approached the sound of SACD that it wasnt worth it to go with SACD.

[Feanor]

....

When listening to SACD vs Redbook on high quality players and equipment I just didn't hear enough difference to warrant the trouble of getting into another format. The high end shops in this area don't show support for it either which strikes me as odd because all of them carry the players....

I agree with you, Mr.P, that the sound quality difference between SACD and really well recorded RBCD is insignificant. Although check our AA's Hi-Rez forum to find a lot of people who strongly disagree.

What I would most regret about the passing of SACD would be the one high-quality multi-channel medium actually available. Obviously neither LP nor CD deliver this. Personally I would be content with a CD quality M/C medium, (DTS?), but for all intents and purposes there ain't one.

I've said it before and will say it again: vinyl might not kill CD as some have suggested, but it will (or already has) killed SACD. A pity because vinyl is the inferior medium from every rational perspective.

....
... But really the manufacturers said for get making 3 or more different format players and started making universal players so you can't help but to have something that plays SACD. This also strikes me as odd that most all manufacturers would offer a unit that at least will play SACD for a catalog of 4,999....
...

Not at all: for most consumers it's easy to avoid SACD. Universal players are more costly than the mass market offerings, and by no means all high-end DVD players support SACD.

Audiophiles who like SACD would like dedicated SACD players but have been abandoned by the makers. And most available, dedicated SACD players are stereo only, e.g. the Marantz SA8001.

....
It also strikes me odd that some one who uses the word "pecker" would be kicking back and digging on the type of music available on SACD

Huh?? Did I miss something here

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, my last comment was referring to something Pix said in his post, something like, "DVD-A is as dead as Lincoln's pecker", see post #42. He has quite a way with words.

I wouldn't mind hearing a good MC recording where the mixing and engineering was done properly. The few DVD concerts I've heard in 5.1 give some ambience but most of the surrounds just give clapping fill. And I don't think it's natural to have instruments coming out of the rears. Maybe for Classical and you were getting the perspective of the conductor. I've always wanted to hear the MC mix of Dark Side Of The Moon (Pink Floyd) to see what they done to that.

[E-Stat]

I wouldn't mind hearing a good MC recording where the mixing and engineering was done properly.

You need to hear a recent Telarc MC recording.

And I don't think it's natural to have instruments coming out of the rears. Maybe for Classical and you were getting the perspective of the conductor.

That's the difference between a recording that was mixed for MC as opposed to recorded for MC.

I've always wanted to hear the MC mix of Dark Side Of The Moon (Pink Floyd) to see what they done to that.

While you may get *cool sounding* results, you could never attain the underlying objective for MC - real time multi channel recording of the original event. I don't like hokey effects either.

rw