(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:


The end products sound OK, just as good as CD in most cases, but
technically it sucks.

As an audiophile and music lover why is it important to me if SACD is
technically inefficient? If the end product sounds as good as anything else
available and at the same time is far more versatile than CD shouldn't I
just let the technocrats worry about whether or not it technically sucks?
Isn't it far more important that the software offerings, especially the
multi-channel software offerings are the best hi-rez offerings available.

And while the Sony/Phillips marketing team may have more acumen and
resources than the DVD-A forces is that *really* the sole reason why SACD
has an edge in the hi-rez market? I may be mistaken but isn't the group that
promotes DVD-A the same group that fumbled away the *huge* early lead to
DVD+R in the DVD-R vs. DVD+R battle?

But more to the point, isn't the quality and the quantity of the software an
important consideration? I'm attending CES specifically to narrow my choices
for a universal player so I can listen to DVD-A as well as SACD and CD. But
the reality is as I have looked to purchase DVD-As in anticipation of
getting a player, compared to SACD there has been a genuine dearth of
quality DVD-As, especially classical and jazz surround selections. And it is
not just me saying that, it is the purveyors of DVD-A that are chagrined and
who acknowledge the lack of quality software. That to me is far more
influential than Sony's undeniably superior marketing skills.


As far as Sony goes, I am far
from the only person who has commented on the difficulty of finding a
hybrid disc where the SACD and CD mix down is identical. Do *you* not
wonder why this is so, and why the SACD layer invariably sounds better
on Sony discs?

Does this matter anymore, if it ever did? As far as I'm concerned and many
agree, whether or not SACD survives has *nothing* to do with the sound.
Particularly since even those who oppose SACD or who are indifferent say
that it sounds no different than CD or DVD-A anyway. Besides, early on when
I was interested in identical mix downs Telarc and others made it a point to
say that their two-channel mix downs were identical. So they are available.
And those that support SACD rarely listen to the CD layer, especially for
serious listening. But almost 4 years later, unless I'm missing something,
why are identical mix downs important, if they ever were? To be able to make
A/B comparisons or what? Plus surround makes identical mix downs a non issue
for almost all listeners in my opinion. And as far as Sony producing
superior sounding SACD layers, Sony hybrid disc are new to the US, in fact,
I never seen one yet.

Robert C. Lang

Actually, SACD is not at all compatible with either CD or DVD. It must
either have its own hardware chain, or be converted to PCM if it is to
be usable in a 'universal' player.

Why does this matter?

"langvid" wrote in message
...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:


The end products sound OK, just as good as CD in most cases, but
technically it sucks.

As an audiophile and music lover why is it important to me if SACD is
technically inefficient? If the end product sounds as good as anything
else
available and at the same time is far more versatile than CD shouldn't I
just let the technocrats worry about whether or not it technically sucks?
Isn't it far more important that the software offerings, especially the
multi-channel software offerings are the best hi-rez offerings available.

And while the Sony/Phillips marketing team may have more acumen and
resources than the DVD-A forces is that *really* the sole reason why SACD
has an edge in the hi-rez market? I may be mistaken but isn't the group
that
promotes DVD-A the same group that fumbled away the *huge* early lead to
DVD+R in the DVD-R vs. DVD+R battle?

But more to the point, isn't the quality and the quantity of the software
an
important consideration? I'm attending CES specifically to narrow my
choices
for a universal player so I can listen to DVD-A as well as SACD and CD.
But
the reality is as I have looked to purchase DVD-As in anticipation of
getting a player, compared to SACD there has been a genuine dearth of
quality DVD-As, especially classical and jazz surround selections. And it
is
not just me saying that, it is the purveyors of DVD-A that are chagrined
and
who acknowledge the lack of quality software. That to me is far more
influential than Sony's undeniably superior marketing skills.


As far as Sony goes, I am far
from the only person who has commented on the difficulty of finding a
hybrid disc where the SACD and CD mix down is identical. Do *you* not
wonder why this is so, and why the SACD layer invariably sounds better
on Sony discs?

Does this matter anymore, if it ever did? As far as I'm concerned and many
agree, whether or not SACD survives has *nothing* to do with the sound.
Particularly since even those who oppose SACD or who are indifferent say
that it sounds no different than CD or DVD-A anyway. Besides, early on
when
I was interested in identical mix downs Telarc and others made it a point
to
say that their two-channel mix downs were identical. So they are
available.
And those that support SACD rarely listen to the CD layer, especially for
serious listening. But almost 4 years later, unless I'm missing something,
why are identical mix downs important, if they ever were? To be able to
make
A/B comparisons or what? Plus surround makes identical mix downs a non
issue
for almost all listeners in my opinion. And as far as Sony producing
superior sounding SACD layers, Sony hybrid disc are new to the US, in
fact,
I never seen one yet.

Robert C. Lang

Actually, SACD is not at all compatible with either CD or DVD. It must
either have its own hardware chain, or be converted to PCM if it is to
be usable in a 'universal' player.

Why does this matter?


It seems to me that it feeds into Stewart's animosity towards SONY. The
most charitable thing I can say is that offends his engineering sense since
he feels (as do some others) that DVD-A is a "purer" solution. However I
suspect it goes deeper than that since he shows the same animosity towards
Linn and a few other companies.

You are right of course. SACD is "winning" and as I pointed out elsewhere,
the "universal" players may save DVD-A as an alternate format. Both do
multichannel, which is a big gain if you are open to the musical
implications, both classical and pop.

The thing that I still wonder about, though, is a fairly major consensus
among early adopters that SACD sounds less fatiguing and more analog-like.
That has certainly been my experience. In fact the only DVD-A that plays
for me without irritation is the "Buena Vista Social Club" of the eight I
own. But among SACDs, only the 1981 early 48/16bit master of Glenn Gould's
Goldberg Variations has that same irritation. I keep wondering if DSD and
PCM create different kinds of artifacts that may strike the ear/brain
musical processing system in different ways.

I'd like to see the above explored by both pro-SACD and anti-SACD
researchers in neurology, psychology, physiology, audiology, and
engineering. However until that is done, I will just buy the music that
strikes me as worthwhile, with SACD getting the edge everything else being
equal (which in my system it is not).

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:34:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

It seems to me that it feeds into Stewart's animosity towards SONY.

Excuse me? I have *no* animosity towards Sony, indeed we have 4 Sony
TVs and a Sony VCR, while my main music system uses a Sony FM tuner
and, most critically, a Sony CD player. My beef is with those who try
to trumpet the 'superiority' of SACD, which is arguable at best, and
is based on a discredited technology which is no longer used for
critical recordings.

The
most charitable thing I can say is that offends his engineering sense since
he feels (as do some others) that DVD-A is a "purer" solution.

Quite so.

However I
suspect it goes deeper than that since he shows the same animosity towards
Linn and a few other companies.

Absolute rubbish! My 'animosity' towards Linn has a quite different
base - aside from the shoddy design and construction of the LP12.

You are right of course. SACD is "winning" and as I pointed out elsewhere,
the "universal" players may save DVD-A as an alternate format. Both do
multichannel, which is a big gain if you are open to the musical
implications, both classical and pop.

Indeed yes, multichannel is *definitely* the way forward for genuine
increases in the realism of home reproduction.

The thing that I still wonder about, though, is a fairly major consensus
among early adopters that SACD sounds less fatiguing and more analog-like.

Unfortunate that no such consensus exists among recording engineers.
OTOH, if I had paid the several grand 'early adopter' player price,
I'd be convinced that it sounded better, and I'd certainly tell all my
audiophile friends that it did!

BTW, I certainly hope that you don't mean that SACD sound more like
vinyl, since that would indicate *serious* deficiencies! :-)

That has certainly been my experience. In fact the only DVD-A that plays
for me without irritation is the "Buena Vista Social Club" of the eight I
own. But among SACDs, only the 1981 early 48/16bit master of Glenn Gould's
Goldberg Variations has that same irritation. I keep wondering if DSD and
PCM create different kinds of artifacts that may strike the ear/brain
musical processing system in different ways.

The only difference is that SACD produces quite horrendous levels of
RF noise, which may introduce baseband artifacts due to HF
intermodulation distortion. It seems unlikely that this has any
beneficial effects! OTOH, this is *exactly* how Pioneer's 'Legato
Link' works, so this may, as with vinyl, prove to be a euphonic
distortion. Of course, if sonically beneficial, it's easy to *add*
such an artifact to the essentially linear DVD-A.

I'd like to see the above explored by both pro-SACD and anti-SACD
researchers in neurology, psychology, physiology, audiology, and
engineering. However until that is done, I will just buy the music that
strikes me as worthwhile, with SACD getting the edge everything else being
equal (which in my system it is not).

That's fine, no problem with personal preference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10 Jan 2004 17:09:26 GMT, "langvid" wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:

The end products sound OK, just as good as CD in most cases, but
technically it sucks.

As an audiophile and music lover why is it important to me if SACD is
technically inefficient?

It's not important at all, since well-made CD is already adequate for
2-channel. However, DSD was trumpeted by Sony as the answer to all
things audio, and this turned out not to be the case.

If the end product sounds as good as anything else
available and at the same time is far more versatile than CD shouldn't I
just let the technocrats worry about whether or not it technically sucks?
Isn't it far more important that the software offerings, especially the
multi-channel software offerings are the best hi-rez offerings available.

Yes, this is absolutely correct, but maybe you should be telling that
to Harry, not to me?

And while the Sony/Phillips marketing team may have more acumen and
resources than the DVD-A forces is that *really* the sole reason why SACD
has an edge in the hi-rez market? I may be mistaken but isn't the group that
promotes DVD-A the same group that fumbled away the *huge* early lead to
DVD+R in the DVD-R vs. DVD+R battle?

Yes, they have all the common sense of a sand salesman in
Nevada................

But more to the point, isn't the quality and the quantity of the software an
important consideration?

Yes.

I'm attending CES specifically to narrow my choices
for a universal player so I can listen to DVD-A as well as SACD and CD.

Pioneer DV-868 - accept no substitute! :-)

But
the reality is as I have looked to purchase DVD-As in anticipation of
getting a player, compared to SACD there has been a genuine dearth of
quality DVD-As, especially classical and jazz surround selections. And it is
not just me saying that, it is the purveyors of DVD-A that are chagrined and
who acknowledge the lack of quality software. That to me is far more
influential than Sony's undeniably superior marketing skills.

Yes, there is indeed a great lack of top-class DVD-A material, but
since DVD truly is the most universal standard, hopefully this will
change, and SACD will become the new BetaMax and Elcaset. After all, a
DSD-Wide master (which actually *is* hi-res PCM, not true DSD) *can*
be converted to 24/96 multichannel DVD-A with no audible loss.

As far as Sony goes, I am far
from the only person who has commented on the difficulty of finding a
hybrid disc where the SACD and CD mix down is identical. Do *you* not
wonder why this is so, and why the SACD layer invariably sounds better
on Sony discs?

Does this matter anymore, if it ever did?

It does to those who are interested in whether SACD has any *real*
audible superiority over CD, but not to anyone else. I'm happy to
acknowledge that well-made SACD does not sound *worse* than well-made
CD, so the point is indeed moot so far as I am concerned. The
multichannel aspect is vastly more important.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

The thing that I still wonder about, though, is a fairly major consensus
among early adopters that SACD sounds less fatiguing and more analog-like.
That has certainly been my experience. In fact the only DVD-A that plays
for me without irritation is the "Buena Vista Social Club" of the eight I
own. But among SACDs, only the 1981 early 48/16bit master of Glenn Gould's
Goldberg Variations has that same irritation. I keep wondering if DSD and
PCM create different kinds of artifacts that may strike the ear/brain
musical processing system in different ways.

this has been my experience as well. to change topics, but to make a
worthwhile musical comment:

the slightly more recent State of Wonder CD (with HDCD encoding) which
includes both the 1955 and 1981 Gould recordings blows the socks off the
single layer SACD release you mention above. i am hoping for and will
gladly buy a SACD re-release of that, should it ever become available.

in the meantime, the CD is highly recommended!

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Snip discussion with Harry Lavo
BTW, I certainly hope that you don't mean that SACD sound more like
vinyl, since that would indicate *serious* deficiencies! :-)


The funny ha ha sign must be intended to convey to the reader that you mean
the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying- yes?

Is it because you read the recent interview in the "Stereophile' with the
designer of your favourite Krell transistor amplifier, Mr. D'Agostino who
said that he was working hard trying to reach the standards set by the vinyl
music reproduction and felt that he was nearly there. But not quite yet.

Alternately talk about hugging a viper to your bosom!! In your listening
room yet!

Ludovic Mirabel

I have absoulte no bias on SACD or DVD-A, because I cannot tell the
difference. I like my original redbook CD better.

My concern is, Sony and Philips they created CD long long time ago, so long
that their patent is about to expiry. So, not very soon, people selling CD
do not need to pay Sony and Philips!

As to maintain the upper-hand, they created something new, the SACD. And I
believe they will do whatever they can to make sure that SACD will again
dominate the whole world. Thinking of a combine effort by Sony and Philips,
who on earth can come close? Might be Bill Gate team up with QE2?

May be at that moment the quality of a SACD is not as perfect as they
claimed or as they intended to be, but you bet sooner or later they will
make it as good as you can imagine.

At the present time, any discussion(s)/debate(s) on whether SACD or DVD-A
will win the battle is far too soon. You asked me, I will place my little
bet on SACD, not because SACD is better than DVD-A (as I mentioned at the
beginning, I can't tell the difference), but because of the past huge
success (revolution?) of CD invention by Sony and Philips (btw, why always
Sony and Philips, but not Philips and Sony?), I know they can and they will
do it again to regain the huge profit from patent.

That's all.

Lawrence Leung

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible), is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass" market, then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Wouldn't you rather sell a couple of ten's of millions of SACD/DVD-A's at
$15-20 bucks *plus* MP3's at $.99 per song, than you would like to sell
MP3's only?. I would.

Harry Lavo wrote:

Wouldn't you rather sell a couple of ten's of millions of SACD/DVD-A's at
$15-20 bucks *plus* MP3's at $.99 per song, than you would like to sell
MP3's only?. I would.

As I understand it, the record industry's general strategy has been to pray
for a few blockbusters that can pay for all the duds. The blockbusters of
tomorrow are more likely to be MP3s than silver disks of any resolution. At
some point, the disk market shrinks to the point where it just doesn't make
sense to put every new release out that way, because a blockbuster disk is
no longer possible. From there, it's a slippery slope.

Once MP3s become the primary way the mass market gets new music, that will
mean the death knell for the ALBUM. Singles (downloaded) and albums (on
disk) would require two different marketing campaigns. At what point does
that expense not become worth it?

I don't think disks will die completely. Sony still makes Walkmen, and
stores still sell prerecorded cassettes to play in them. That's a possible
fate for disks. Perhaps SACD and DVD-A simply came along too late to
establish themselves in the marketplace before the marketplace collapsed on
them.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

Robert Lang wrote:
With respect to the article you shared while it was aimed at both SACD and
DVD-A, it only provided sales data (reliable or unreliable) for DVD-A. I
believe it was poor writing or merely convenient (lack of homework) to lump
both formats together with respect to sales data.

Probably not fair to bash a reporter for failing to track down a figure that
isn't available, at least from a reliable and credible source. I suspect
RIAA doesn't have SACD sales figures because so many of them are hybrids,
and are sold as CDs. (In fact, I'll bet Sony begged RIAA not to track SACD
sales, precisely because it would MISS hybrids!) Nonetheless, the article
probably led a lot of people to assume that SACD sales were as moribund as
DVD-A. They aren't, although all evidence suggests they're nothing to write
home about, either. But the author did mention that some hybrid SACDs were
selling well. I think (can't seem to access that article today) he
specifically mentioned the Stones reissues.

Also articles like this
tend to embolden or deflate one side or the other until the next article
comes out. So, we will just have to wait and see. Nevertheless, I am too
fearful that hi-rez both formats are in danger, hence my quote above
expressing that.

And you should be fearful, methinks. Whatever SACD's real sales figures are,
I suspect the vast majority of buyers have no idea what an SACD even is, let
alone that they own one! Now, maybe someday some salesman at Best Buy will
convince them that they ought to buy this "new, improved" CD player that
will make their Stones/Police/Dylan disks sound even better. But for the
moment, those aren't really SACDs, because they're not used that way.

BTW, I suspect a fair number of consumers who see the term "Super Audio CD"
assume that's just marketing hype--that it's a plain old CD and somebody
slapped this fancy label on it to make it seem special.

It is also should be noted that the articles, the MSN one which painted a
negative picture for both formats and the article out of London that I
offered last week, that painted a positive future for SACD, are both
speaking to the success in the mass market, not to us audiophiles. CDs are
mainstream. SACD is not mainstream and even the most avid supporters
(consumers) of SACD are not betting the store on whether or not it will
ever
be. But as I see it a format or product can attain various degree of
success
(economic or otherwise) without necessarily
becoming "mainstream". I am sure there are numerous yard sticks to
measure success and mine is may be less stringent than most, certainly less
than Sony/Philips.

Here's mine: When the next Britney Spears-clone's NEW record comes out on
hybrid SACD, that's when SACD will have arrived. And if that doesn't happen
soon, SACD will be the new laserdisk.

They are aiming for mass acceptance of the format and the
replacement of CD. Well, that has never been by hope. My hope is a lot more
self-serving. Currently, there are far more quality hybrid/multi-channel
SACDs being released that I could practically hope to buy and listen to.

Sure, but of all the music I own or have on my current (extensive) wish
list, how many are available on SACD? Maybe 1%. That's why I'll be a late
adopter.

And these SACDs sound better, to me, and are cheaper than other audiophile
offerings from, say those of JVC XRCD, and others. And if something is
released that is not available on SACD I can always by the CD and play it
on
my SACD hardware or buy the vinyl. It may be selfish or myopic on my part
but that is successful or mainstream enough for me personally.

If SACD survives as a high-end format, such as the limited distributed
high-end gear that many of us on this forum include in our audio systems I
will be extremely happy. I could care less if there is mass-market
penetration in the Circuit City or Wal Mart crowd. Although, I realize that
the reality may be that you can't have one without the other.

Maybe. Although I suspect the boutique labels labels alone could keep the
format going indefinitely if there are enough players out there, and I doubt
Sony/Philips will give up the ghost anytime soon.

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that *CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the CD in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around in 2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD, without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible), is there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

Well, the manufacturing capacity to release/reissue everything on SACD or
DVD-A doesn't exist yet, for one thing. And there's a chicken-and-egg
problem: That capacity won't exist unless the market--the mass market--wants
this product. Given that you've basically conceded that the mass market
doesn't give a hoot about this product...

Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-SACD, if I were in the market for a new
disk player, I'd probably get a universal machine, or at least an SACD
player, simply for the flexibility. (The cost premium is trivial.) I just
don't feel that the current and prospective software is enough to compensate
me for the trouble of convincing my wife that we need yet another black box
inthe living room.

bob

"Bob Marcus" wrote in
news:hbIPb.118939$8H.298726@attbi_s03:

Harry Lavo wrote:

Wouldn't you rather sell a couple of ten's of millions of
SACD/DVD-A's at $15-20 bucks *plus* MP3's at $.99 per song, than
you would like to sell MP3's only?. I would.

As I understand it, the record industry's general strategy has been to
pray for a few blockbusters that can pay for all the duds. The
blockbusters of tomorrow are more likely to be MP3s than silver disks
of any resolution. At some point, the disk market shrinks to the point
where it just doesn't make sense to put every new release out that
way, because a blockbuster disk is no longer possible. From there,
it's a slippery slope.

Once MP3s become the primary way the mass market gets new music, that
will mean the death knell for the ALBUM. Singles (downloaded) and
albums (on disk) would require two different marketing campaigns. At
what point does that expense not become worth it?

I don't think disks will die completely. Sony still makes Walkmen, and
stores still sell prerecorded cassettes to play in them. That's a
possible fate for disks. Perhaps SACD and DVD-A simply came along too
late to establish themselves in the marketplace before the marketplace
collapsed on them.

bob

I would think the other way.

How many downloads it will take to make a song? As we all know, you'll be
lucky to find two or three songs that you like in one album. Strictly
business sense, the record industries would prefer you pay some $10-$15
to buy a whole album then paying $2 to download two songs. You have to
realise that, it is the totally depends on the record industries to
"allow" the existence of the download music "industry", if there is a
conflict of interest, they can simply just pull the plug.

Don't forget, other than the Pop music, the market still has a lot of
difference kind of music, take classical music or opera for example, how
much they would like to charge you to download one 15 minutes long music?

I personally don't think MP3 will take over the dominance of the CDs,
because hey, you and I all know how bad the sound from a MP3 decoded
song.

Lawrence Leung

Bob Marcus wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

Wouldn't you rather sell a couple of ten's of millions of SACD/DVD-A's at
$15-20 bucks *plus* MP3's at $.99 per song, than you would like to sell
MP3's only?. I would.

As I understand it, the record industry's general strategy has been to pray
for a few blockbusters that can pay for all the duds. The blockbusters of
tomorrow are more likely to be MP3s than silver disks of any resolution. At
some point, the disk market shrinks to the point where it just doesn't make
sense to put every new release out that way, because a blockbuster disk is
no longer possible. From there, it's a slippery slope.

Once MP3s become the primary way the mass market gets new music, that will
mean the death knell for the ALBUM. Singles (downloaded) and albums (on
disk) would require two different marketing campaigns. At what point does
that expense not become worth it?


We're all talking MP3s , but currently the most succesfull commercial
downloadables operation is iTunes, which doesn't use MP3 format, it uses
a different lossy compression algorithm. WMA is another popular non-MP3
compressed format. So it may not be MP3 per se that takes over.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Bob Marcus wrote:

Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-SACD, if I were in the market for a new
disk player, I'd probably get a universal machine, or at least an SACD
player, simply for the flexibility. (The cost premium is trivial.) I just
don't feel that the current and prospective software is enough to compensate
me for the trouble of convincing my wife that we need yet another black box
inthe living room.

But if it's replacing a current DVD player, and possibly a CD player as well,
that would be at worst an even swap, at best a reduction by one box. ;



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:
All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


You have a point about MP3 - my 13 year old daughter is begging for one of
those cute, pastel mini-iPods. But like cassettes never replaced LPs or CDs in
spite of the proliferation of the Walkman in the '80s, I believe that surround
media (SACD and DVD-A) will proliferate, and CDs (like LPs today) will remain.
Each will have its own successful niche which is the trend today. Look at all
of the new niche magazines, for example. Something for everybody...
Regards,
Mike

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible), is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass" market, then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I and
other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in servers
too by then.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

In article ,
Lawrence Leung wrote:

I personally don't think MP3 will take over the dominance of the CDs,
because hey, you and I all know how bad the sound from a MP3 decoded
song.

It's not necessarily going to be MP3 -- it could be any computerized
form of music (including lossless compression like FLAC or the
appropriate WMA variety, or even just WAV).

The key, though, is that the format is going to be decoupled from the
media. Music might be delivered on a CD-ROM, on a DVD-ROM, or just
downloaded -- but there'll be nothing about the physical format that
relates particularly to the music's format. The SACD/DVD-A notion
that digital format is inextricably bound to media format, and that
music is primarily played directly from the media, is obsolete.

--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/

Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


You have a point about MP3 - my 13 year old daughter is begging for one of
those cute, pastel mini-iPods. But like cassettes never replaced LPs or CDs in
spite of the proliferation of the Walkman in the '80s, I believe that surround
media (SACD and DVD-A) will proliferate, and CDs (like LPs today) will remain.

Like I said..a *niche product*. Not the industry standard, as CD was.

Each will have its own successful niche which is the trend today. Look at all
of the new niche magazines, for example. Something for everybody...

Like I said...oh just read it again.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:

Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-SACD, if I were in the market for a
new
disk player, I'd probably get a universal machine, or at least an SACD
player, simply for the flexibility. (The cost premium is trivial.) I
just
don't feel that the current and prospective software is enough to
compensate
me for the trouble of convincing my wife that we need yet another black
box
inthe living room.

But if it's replacing a current DVD player, and possibly a CD player as
well,
that would be at worst an even swap, at best a reduction by one box. ;

Right. It's not the new box in the living room. It's the new box on the
credit card statement.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx

Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54:

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I
and other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already
anticipating moving everything I listen to, to a digital media
server; I'm pretty sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with
those silver discs much if at all, assuming that surround formats can
be stored in servers too by then.

Please don't do that. I guess you know how much information will be lost
during the conversion from a CD to MP3, rougly calculation, one CD track is
about 40MB, one MP3 is about 5MB, like compressed/degraded 800%?

MP3 is for people want one or two songs from an album and would like to
carry it in their walkman, suffer for the signal lost. It will stay, it
will become more and more popular, but it will not replace the CD, or the
SACD/DVD-A, or the XRCD, or anything after that.

Lawrence Leung

"langvid" wrote in message
news:SnCPb.119251$na.113548@attbi_s04...
If SACD survives as a high-end format, such as the limited
distributed
high-end gear that many of us on this forum include in our audio
systems I
will be extremely happy. I could care less if there is mass-market
penetration in the Circuit City or Wal Mart crowd. Although, I
realize that
the reality may be that you canÂ't have one without the other.

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many
reasons. While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the
CD in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around
in 2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible),
is there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

If the "war" depends on people like me to embrace either format, the
way is over and both sides lost. I will never buy either SACD or
DVD-A or the equipment to play them. Is the *CD* in trouble? With
whom? From my consumer point of view, I can't think of any problem
with CD that will be solved by the high-rez formats. If CD is in
trouble it's with the industry, not the consumer.

I'll repeat what I posted a while ago: Proving the superiority of
high-rez is much more difficult than proving the inferiority of
16/44.1K. And so far nobody's done even that.

Norm Strong

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many
reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the
CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around
in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible),
is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are
now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass" market,
then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I and
other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in servers
too by then.


Have you ever lost a hard disk with your email, your financial records, your
first novel? How would you feel losing your entire music collection with
no physical back up?

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

Lawrence Leung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54:

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I
and other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already
anticipating moving everything I listen to, to a digital media
server; I'm pretty sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with
those silver discs much if at all, assuming that surround formats can
be stored in servers too by then.

Please don't do that. I guess you know how much information will be lost
during the conversion from a CD to MP3, rougly calculation, one CD track is
about 40MB, one MP3 is about 5MB, like compressed/degraded 800%?

Compressed, yes, audibly degraded...not necessarily. I have posted
before about different codecs and different bitrates making
an audible difference.

Tell you what, I'll send you a comparison disc I
made, and you tell me which of each pair of 1-minute
selections is the CD, and which is the MP3.
There are 19 such pairs on the disc. The order
of formats in each pair was determined by coin toss.
The encoding was done by ripping the tracks from
CD to .wav on hard disc using Exact Audio Copy
with full error-correction enabled, then cut'n'pasting
the first minute of music using Waverepair, then encoding
the 1-min segment to variable bitrate MP3 using LAME, as per
recommendations on www.hydrogenaudio.org.
The .wav and the .mp3 were then burned as
CD audio to CDR with Stomp RecordNow MAX
at maximum speed.

(Anyone else who'd like to take this test, just let me know).


MP3 is for people want one or two songs from an album and would like to
carry it in their walkman, suffer for the signal lost. It will stay, it
will become more and more popular, but it will not replace the CD, or the
SACD/DVD-A, or the XRCD, or anything after that.

Compressed digital formats are *already* on their way to replacing CD as the
dominant storage and playback medium.
And even if you are morally opposed to lossy compression, there are other
forms of encoding that are *lossless*, as others have noted here.

I presume , too that you don't watch DVDs -- they're compressed.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many
reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the
CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around
in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible),
is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are
now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass" market,
then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I and
other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in servers
too by then.


I've been in computers one way or another for the last 20 years...but I
suspect those Sony SACD jukeboxes that hold 300 or 500 disks, along with
titles and even tracks, are more convenient for the average person than a
computer server, *assuming* that you are still willing to or desire to buy
the disks. The server only becomes an option if most of your music is
downloaded. Thus, a server for pop. I expect a jukebox for jazz or
classical.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many
reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded the
CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is around
in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward compatible),
is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers (both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are
now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass" market,
then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I and
other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in servers
too by then.


Have you ever lost a hard disk with your email, your financial records, your
first novel? How would you feel losing your entire music collection with
no physical back up?

Terrible -- if I had no means of reconstituting it. Either hard drive
backup onto physical media or onto another drive, would suffice.

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

You *do* back up your hard drive occasionally, don't you?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:kDZPb.105306$nt4.342212@attbi_s51...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:TXDPb.117664$8H.277629@attbi_s03...
langvid wrote:

But let's look at another angle. Forget about DVD-A and SACD for
a
moment.
The article you shared as well as *many* other articles suggest
that
*CD*
may be going down in flames. *CD* is in trouble. And for many
reasons.
While
it is a testament to the genius of Philips/Sony who masterminded
the
CD
in
the first place, what other late '70s digital technology is
around
in
2004?
And given that SACD and DVD-A have so much more to offer than
CD,
without
giving up anything (especially SACD which is backward
compatible),
is
there
really any reason for CD to exist? Seriously.

All signs point to CD being replaced not by SACD or DVD-A , but
by pre-digitized (e.g., downloaded) or user-digitized (i.e.,
archived collections) music stored in computers/media servers
(both
stationary and portable) with
large-capacity hard drives. This is also beginning to happen for
movies.

SACD and DVD-A will thus remain niche products from here on.


Supposing they stay "niche" on a somewhat larger scale than they are
now,
using single inventory versions of both.....played mostly on
universal
players.

If you (and others) are right about MP3 taking over the "mass"
market,
then
these little silver disks become the only remaining really
profitable
product (other than the downloads themselves), don't they?

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I
and
other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in
servers
too by then.


Have you ever lost a hard disk with your email, your financial records,
your
first novel? How would you feel losing your entire music collection
with
no physical back up?

Terrible -- if I had no means of reconstituting it. Either hard drive
backup onto physical media or onto another drive, would suffice.

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I
won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

You *do* back up your hard drive occasionally, don't you?


Yep, doesn't matter.

A three or four hundred megabyte backup becomes big business in terms of
equipment and dollar cost. And regardless, when you need the backup is when
you'll find out that some bug has crept in between the time you verified the
backup protocol and the actual backup you need to use. :-) Murphy's Law
has a whole new wing on the Law School Building when it comes to computers.

"Bob Marcus" wrote:

....snip to content......

Lest anyone accuse me of being anti-SACD, if I were in the market for a new
disk player, I'd probably get a universal machine, or at least an SACD
player, simply for the flexibility. (The cost premium is trivial.) I just
don't feel that the current and prospective software is enough to compensate
me for the trouble of convincing my wife that we need yet another black box
inthe living room.

bob

You need to be more creative. Master the art of equipment "trading" with
friends so that nobody's spouse knows exactly who owns what at any given time.

Harry Lavo wrote:


Have you ever lost a hard disk with your email, your financial records, your
first novel? How would you feel losing your entire music collection with
no physical back up?

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.


With the price of hard disks so low now, there is really no excuse for
not backing up critical data on external HD's or redundant internal
HD's. I bought a 120GB external firewire/USB2.0 HD for $120 last month.
And even before then, I have never lost important data because of a HD
failure, because I do back-ups and also because there are usually
warnings when a HD is about to go.

I think music servers will become more and more common, although I am
not sure if they would replace CD's in the next 5 years. I believe
SACD's or DVD-A will always be a small niche market. The CD format is
really good enough, and mastering makes a much bigger difference than
that between redbook CD and any hi-resolution format. Today's consumer
dollars are heading in the direction of HDTV displays, home-theater
audio systems, and iPod-like portable devices. I can't get anyone
younger than 30 years old to be interested in SACD/DVD-A for audio
reproduction.

Steven Sullivan wrote:

....snip to content ....

Compressed digital formats are *already* on their way to replacing CD as the
dominant storage and playback medium.
And even if you are morally opposed to lossy compression, there are other
forms of encoding that are *lossless*, as others have noted here.

I presume , too that you don't watch DVDs -- they're compressed.

Not meaning to be argumentative DVD and mp3 formats are not "compressed" but
are subject to data reduction. The term compression has a different technical
meaning in audio denoting a different mechanism from data reduction.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I
won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

You *do* back up your hard drive occasionally, don't you?


Yep, doesn't matter.


Really? I've found it to matter crucially.

A three or four hundred megabyte backup becomes big business in terms of
equipment and dollar cost. And regardless, when you need the backup is when
you'll find out that some bug has crept in between the time you verified the
backup protocol and the actual backup you need to use. :-) Murphy's Law
has a whole new wing on the Law School Building when it comes to computers.

Harry, you're talking in today's terms, and I suspect you're just
spinning your wheels, and trying to spin mine.
In ten years time a 400 Mb backup will be trivial....
it's fairly trivial already (my PC's current hard drive is 80 Gb...well under
the capacity of available backup drives.)

For that matter, right now, your CD collection is in danger of being wiped out
if there's a fire! What will you do?




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

A three or four hundred megabyte backup becomes big business in terms of
equipment and dollar cost.

In ten years time a 400 Mb backup will be trivial....

I hope you both mean GB, because a 400MB backup is already trivial --
burn it to a single CD-R and move on.

But yes, Harry's right that backup is an issue. Given that home
file/media servers are inevitable, home backup is going to get some
real attention soon.

--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/

In article Vh_Pb.103654$5V2.389223@attbi_s53,
"Harry Lavo" writes:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:kDZPb.105306$nt4.342212@attbi_s51...

You *do* back up your hard drive occasionally, don't you?


Yep, doesn't matter.

A three or four hundred megabyte backup becomes big business in terms of
equipment and dollar cost. And regardless, when you need the backup is when
you'll find out that some bug has crept in between the time you verified the
backup protocol and the actual backup you need to use. :-) Murphy's Law
has a whole new wing on the Law School Building when it comes to computers.

Nowdays with DVD-RW discs holding over 3 Gigabytes and costing $2 and
with DVD-RW burners at $100, it's much cheaper than you think to back
up a hard drive full of music.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:47:38 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54:

Don't know, but the question is, who would buyt them, once you and I
and other old fuddy duddies are dead? Actually, I'm already
anticipating moving everything I listen to, to a digital media
server; I'm pretty sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with
those silver discs much if at all, assuming that surround formats can
be stored in servers too by then.

Please don't do that. I guess you know how much information will be lost
during the conversion from a CD to MP3, rougly calculation, one CD track is
about 40MB, one MP3 is about 5MB, like compressed/degraded 800%?

He said nothing about lossy compression. One 120GB hard disk can store
around 200 CDs with no compression at all, or 250-300 with lossless
compression. Judging by the last decade, in ten years, the average
home PC is likely to have that much *RAM*, let alone mass storage.

MP3 is for people want one or two songs from an album and would like to
carry it in their walkman, suffer for the signal lost. It will stay, it
will become more and more popular, but it will not replace the CD, or the
SACD/DVD-A, or the XRCD, or anything after that.

I entirely agree, and MP3 has *nothing* to do with hard-disk music
servers per se.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 23:25:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:iNVPb.100423$Rc4.637206@attbi_s54...

Actually, I'm already anticipating
moving everything I listen to, to a digital media server; I'm pretty
sure that in ten years I won't be bothering with those silver discs
much if at all, assuming that surround formats can be stored in servers
too by then.

Have you ever lost a hard disk with your email, your financial records, your
first novel? How would you feel losing your entire music collection with
no physical back up?

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

In that case Harry, it might be a good idea if discovered that
interesting device known as the CD-R backup...............

Although, with the price of hard disks continually reducing, a big
10-disk RAID is a more convenient solution.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:55:17 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:kDZPb.105306$nt4.342212@attbi_s51...

Harry Wrote:

I've been in computers for 20 years; for the last fifteen of those I won't
trust a computer any further than I can throw it; the bigger, the less I
trust it.

You *do* back up your hard drive occasionally, don't you?

Yep, doesn't matter.

A three or four hundred megabyte backup becomes big business in terms of
equipment and dollar cost.

Oh yeah, a $50 CD burner and one 50 cent CD-R are going to make
somebody a real fortune.....................

And regardless, when you need the backup is when
you'll find out that some bug has crept in between the time you verified the
backup protocol and the actual backup you need to use. :-) Murphy's Law
has a whole new wing on the Law School Building when it comes to computers.

That's why I do a full monthly backup, and a daily incremental backup,
fully automated so no hassle at all, aside from feeding the burner.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
too by then.


I've been in computers one way or another for the last 20 years...but I
suspect those Sony SACD jukeboxes that hold 300 or 500 disks, along with
titles and even tracks, are more convenient for the average person than a
computer server, *assuming* that you are still willing to or desire to buy
the disks. The server only becomes an option if most of your music is
downloaded. Thus, a server for pop. I expect a jukebox for jazz or
classical.

Your suspicious and expectations arise because you persist in imagining
that things will stay as they are now. Yet one can *already* download
classical and jazz from the current services. It will only increase.
I predict the average person in ten years will find their media center
more convenient for playing their copy of the Ring Cycle than SACD
jukeboxes. Teh server also becomes an option for people like you,
when a device is invented that feeds 500 CDs into a ripper for
encoding, after which the CDs themselves can be stored away in a closet
as 'backup'. That's far and away the least convenient aspect of
archiving a collection today.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Nousaine wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

...snip to content ....

Compressed digital formats are *already* on their way to replacing CD as the
dominant storage and playback medium.
And even if you are morally opposed to lossy compression, there are other
forms of encoding that are *lossless*, as others have noted here.

I presume , too that you don't watch DVDs -- they're compressed.

Not meaning to be argumentative DVD and mp3 formats are not "compressed" but
are subject to data reduction. The term compression has a different technical
meaning in audio denoting a different mechanism from data reduction.

True, but the vernacular term 'lossy compressed' e.g., refers to that data reduction.
Compression as in dynamic range reduction is of course a whole 'nother
thing.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Harry, you're talking in today's terms, and I suspect you're just
spinning your wheels, and trying to spin mine.
In ten years time a 400 Mb backup will be trivial....
it's fairly trivial already (my PC's current hard drive is 80
Gb...well under the capacity of available backup drives.)

For that matter, right now, your CD collection is in danger of being
wiped out if there's a fire! What will you do?

What will be more likely? Your computer crashed, hard drive went bad,
everything gone; or house on fire? I will pick the first one. Because the
first one cannot be prevent, but the second one can.

Say, you want to copy all your CD collection into your hard drive, just the
plain format, without compression, will be at least 450MB (typical 10 songs
of 45MB each), a 120GB HD can hold about... 26 of them, a normal IDE
computer connection (the cheapest one, of course you can go for external
USB drive or even SCSI, but the add out cost will be very high) can hold
say eight IDE device (with an extra IDE card), minus one for CD-ROM drive,
minus one for the program drive, you can only have 6 IDE HD for music
backup, which will hold 156 CD, sounds more than enough?

But what if one of the HD fail? Oh, yes, I've seen it so many times, a HD
can fail for no reason at all, the 100,000 hours MTBF will not warranty any
data lost, the most you can get back is a brand new HD.

What about play back ability? Are you going to connect your computer sound
card to a Pre-amp? I wonder what type of sound card can give you such good
quality? What about noise from the computer transformer, case fans?
Audiophile components companies tried so hard to reduce noise in their
components, but you want to hook up a computer that constantly generated
audioable: "wu wu wu wu wu..." while you listening to your music?

Might be someday, but not now!

Lawrence Leung

Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:joeQb.134073$na.209807@attbi_s04:

Your suspicious and expectations arise because you persist in
imagining that things will stay as they are now. Yet one can
*already* download classical and jazz from the current services. It
will only increase. I predict the average person in ten years will
find their media center more convenient for playing their copy of the
Ring Cycle than SACD jukeboxes. Teh server also becomes an option for
people like you, when a device is invented that feeds 500 CDs into a
ripper for encoding, after which the CDs themselves can be stored away
in a closet as 'backup'. That's far and away the least convenient
aspect of archiving a collection today.


Ummmm... don't predict "in ten years" time. Because, by then, might be a
all-in-one mini system which everybody can buy from a local department
store can sound far more better than a Hi-End system that cost
$20,000.00... easily... I guess.

In article ,
Lawrence Leung wrote:

Say, you want to copy all your CD collection into your hard drive, just the
plain format, without compression, will be at least 450MB (typical 10 songs
of 45MB each), a 120GB HD can hold about... 26 of them

You're off by a factor of 10: 260. Losslessly compressed, you can
double that to 520. 120GB is small enough that you can easily back
that up to an external USB 2 drive. The cost of both drives will be
under $300, which is hardly exotic.

What about play back ability? Are you going to connect your computer sound
card to a Pre-amp? I wonder what type of sound card can give you such good
quality? What about noise from the computer transformer, case fans?
Audiophile components companies tried so hard to reduce noise in their
components, but you want to hook up a computer that constantly generated
audioable: "wu wu wu wu wu..." while you listening to your music?

Sigh. The point of a server is that it has clients. There are a
significant number of devices that would be entirely at home in your
A/V rack, and can get the music from a server sitting anywhere on your
home (wireless, if you like) network.

Look at Turtle Beach's AudioTron, at Slim Devices' Squeezebox, or a
half-dozen other products that are out there.

--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/

Lawrence Leung wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Harry, you're talking in today's terms, and I suspect you're just
spinning your wheels, and trying to spin mine.
In ten years time a 400 Mb backup will be trivial....
it's fairly trivial already (my PC's current hard drive is 80
Gb...well under the capacity of available backup drives.)

For that matter, right now, your CD collection is in danger of being
wiped out if there's a fire! What will you do?

What will be more likely? Your computer crashed, hard drive went bad,
everything gone; or house on fire? I will pick the first one. Because the
first one cannot be prevent, but the second one can.

Say, you want to copy all your CD collection into your hard drive, just the
plain format, without compression, will be at least 450MB (typical 10 songs
of 45MB each), a 120GB HD can hold about... 26 of them,

Lawrence, you are off by an order of magnitude. It's 260.

a normal IDE
computer connection (the cheapest one, of course you can go for external
USB drive or even SCSI, but the add out cost will be very high) can hold
say eight IDE device (with an extra IDE card), minus one for CD-ROM drive,
minus one for the program drive, you can only have 6 IDE HD for music
backup, which will hold 156 CD, sounds more than enough?


You are way off. A 250GB can be bought for $150 now. That's easily 500
CD's even if you do not use lossless compression.

That's only if you want to keep all the songs, and I seem to recall you
said that you are lucky to find 2 or 3 songs you like in an album...

But what if one of the HD fail?

What's the problem if you have access to the original disc? Or if you
had backups? Or if you can download them?

There are also redundant HD schemes that work if only one HD fails.

Oh, yes, I've seen it so many times, a HD
can fail for no reason at all, the 100,000 hours MTBF will not warranty any
data lost, the most you can get back is a brand new HD.

What about play back ability? Are you going to connect your computer sound
card to a Pre-amp? I wonder what type of sound card can give you such good
quality? What about noise from the computer transformer, case fans?
Audiophile components companies tried so hard to reduce noise in their
components, but you want to hook up a computer that constantly generated
audioable: "wu wu wu wu wu..." while you listening to your music?

These are problems that are eminently solvable. Nowadays, you can get a
USB external sound card that decouples all the power supply noise from
the main PC. And, of course, you can use S/PDIF connections. Within the
next year, you'll see devices that let you wirelessly connect from your
PC in a different part of the house, to a simple music server that
receives the data and convert them to S/PDIF and/or analog outputs.

The advantage of having any and all of your music at the click of a
mouse button is tremendous. And there is really no compromise in quality
either.

I have an iPod, and I have iTunes installed on my PC. When I need music
while working on my computer, I start iTunes, and I have access to about
60 hours of music. It's great! While I am in my family minivan, I can
plug the iPod into the car's stereo, and we have instant access to 60
hours of music. We love it!


Might be someday, but not now!

Lawrence Leung