response 51 of 104:

Aug 24 19:15 UTC 2002

If it sounds better to you, great.  The claims made for it seem to
contradict what's known about how the human ear works, though, so I'm
skeptical.  I also know there are a lot of tricks they can do to make it
*seem* to sound better -- one easy one is to make the output level from the
player slightly higher when playing SACDs instead of regular discs.  People
will perceive the slightly louder music as "clearer".  Tinkering with the
mix is, as you mentioned, another option.

response 53 of 104:

Aug 24 19:36 UTC 2002

If I remember right, they're encoded at 24 bits instead of the 16 on a
regular CD, and at a 2.4 MHz sample rate instead of 44.1 kHz.  Note that
44.1 kHz is enough to accurately record any sound up to just under the
Nyquist limit of 22,050 Hz, and the human ear can only hear up to 20,000 Hz. 
Also, 16 bits is thought to have about 3 dB more dynamic range than the
human ear can actually pick out in music.  Hence my skepticism.

Mostly this is being pushed by record companies.  When CDs came out they
were able to sell everyone new copies of all the albums they'd previously
bought on LP -- profit with no expenditure on promotion or finding
new talent.  They're hoping to cash in on that again by getting everyone to
upgrade to SACD.

response 55 of 104:

Aug 24 21:02 UTC 2002

re: 51 / 53

That's something I've been confused by. I distinctly recall CD's being touted
as "perfect", in that they're able to reproduce the entire range of listenable
music. IIRC, the *only* limitation of CD's is the masters they're recorded
from. (Does anyone else remember the AAD/ADD/DDD specifications that used to
be printed on CD's?)

This is the same reason I don't entirely understand how a $2,000 "reference"
CD player can produce notably better sound than a $60 CD-changer. I mean, it's
just a digital stream. You can't really convert it in different ways. Yes,
I understand that the mechanism that turns that stream in to something my
receiver understands can be of varying quality. It's the reason my 200-disc
changer is connected with a fiberoptic cable, instead of two RCA cables. But
there's only so much improvement you can build atop the core technology.
Certainly not $1,940 worth.

In terms of pure technology and understanding of human hearing, I don't see
how it's possible for SACD (or DVD-Audio) to sound better than a CD, except
under very rare circumstances where the music pushes just beyond what a CD
is capable of. But for whatever reason, it does. There is a presence in
non-vocal music on SACD that isn't quite the same on CD. It seems more
lifelike, although I can't figure out how it possibly can be, other than
tinkering with the mastering of the disc.

Although I'm not yet willing to buy in to a Sony/Philips/RIAA consipracy, I've
always believed that mass-produced CD's haven't been mastered to their fullest
potential since the CD format gained complete consumer acceptance. It seems
noticably coincidental to me that an artist's debut album sounds (in terms
of clarity) better than following albums more often than not. Conspiracy?
Probably not. Laziness? Absolutely. Why spend days mastering, and remastering
something that you already know people are going to buy either way?

With SACD's (and formerly, CD's) there was a degree of uncertainty there. They
cost more than other formats, weren't as versatile in terms of being copyable
and/or playable in cars or portable units, and the players cost more money
than most people spend on components.

Writing this made me remember something...so I just tested my theory. Janet
Jackson's "Rhythm Nation" sounds very, VERY crisp and clear, despite the fact
that it's an AAD master from 1989. The same song ("Alright") sounds muddier
(albeit, slightly) on "Design Of A Decade" which was produced in 1995.

In 1989, you were lucky to pick up a component CD player for less than $150.
Portable and integrated CD systems were much more expensive (and prohibitively
so, for the teen audience that record companies target), and there wasn't
exactly a slew of CD's to be bought. In 1995, you could get a nice integrated
portable system, or disc changer for half of that price, and there were tons
of CD's available. Most anyone who wanted a CD player could afford one, and
because of that, there was no real need to convince anyone of the clarity that
CD's provided, because you could sell them on the convenience factor.

Whether the laziness was slowly accepted as cost-effective, or planned all
along is probably unknowable. Or maybe I've just been listening to CD's for
so long, that I associate older discs with how amazingly clear they seemed
to be. I dunno.

re: 52 

Super Audio Compact Disc, IIRC

response 57 of 104:

Aug 25 00:13 UTC 2002

Higher-end CD players tend to have better tracking subsystems, too.  My
1986-vintage Sanyo player, which was probably pretty expensive new, will
play discs that my Discman gives up on, and it skips less often.  This may
have something to do with the fact that the Sanyo splits the laser into
three beams for tracking purposes, while the Discman multiplexes a single
one.

There's also some room for tweaking in the analog filters that have to
follow the D/A converters.

response 59 of 104:

Aug 25 01:41 UTC 2002

What is twinkie doing here?

response 61 of 104:

Aug 26 03:32 UTC 2002

I think that's bordering on pretentious. 

Yes, any D/A conversion is going to have some degree of error, but we're
not comparing something with a 10% error rate to a 1% error rate. We're closer
to 0.73% vs. 0.03%.

response 63 of 104:

Aug 26 12:45 UTC 2002

Re 61:  You've never met a hardcore audiophile, have you?

response 65 of 104:

Aug 26 17:21 UTC 2002

  re #63:  bought a recording on LP or cassette tape lately?

           once a clear winner emerges from the battle between
           new "secure" digital formats, expect the record companies
           to start cutting back on which parts of the catalog they
           release on CD.  that won't compel CD owners to upgrade
           their existing collections, but it will force much of the
           market towards the new format.

response 67 of 104:

Aug 26 19:56 UTC 2002

re: 63

I have. They tend not to "border" on being pretentious ;-)

response 71 of 104:

Aug 30 13:07 UTC 2002

Thompson Multimedia has changed their MP3 licensing policy in a way that
makes it GPL unfriendly.  Apparently it's still free if you're producing a
free application, but royalties are due if the application is sold.  Or so
they say; they've removed the old language that exempted free players
entirely, so there's no longer any official assurance they won't exercise
their patents against free applications.

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26136.html

response 73 of 104:

Aug 30 16:39 UTC 2002

fag.