[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
One thing that Steve didn't mention in his "insanely detailed" posting is that some titles, such as
many of the old RCA Living Stereo are no longer in print on plain-old CD's, only as hybrid SACD's.
So, if you want those albums, you'll be buying SACD and if you don't have an SACD player you'll be
playing the CD layer.
Steve Abrams -- what exactly would a "sane" or "healthy" person have in the place of our massive
music collections? For some reason, I envision "Mr. Healthy" as appearing "well-balanced" and having
just a passing interest in collecting anything -- except that pile of cut off heads in his freezer!
I'll take the crowded downstairs full of music, thanks (and I say all that tongue in cheek of
course)! I know someone who collects old farm tractors. Now THAT's insane. He's just built a giant
barn to house the best of them. His restoration shop looks like it's run by Andre the Giant since
the wrenches and other tools to work on these things are mega-sized.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Palmer" <vdalhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
Thanks Steve,
At least I know a little about SACD now. Obviously it won't be for me. I certainly don't want
to get involved again in a new system. I still have not watched all my DVDs or listened to all my
CDs. And my MP3s of Old Time Radio shows are stacking up on me. Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Abrams" <steve.abrams@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
SACD is higher quality than CD. It has a much greater frequency range and also a greater dynamic
range. In terms of information content it is about the same as 24 bit recording sampled 96,000
times per second. An ordinary CD is a 16 bit recording sampled 44,000 times per second. SACD is
a bit stream sampled 2.8 million times per second on each channel. There is room for 5.1
channels of surround sound plus two channels for stereo. The sampling method is called DSD
"digital stream direct". SACD has one great advantage over PCM recordings, including the 24 bit
"DVD Audio", in that it avoids several stages of filtering which between them are responsible for
the residual tinny sounds of CDs.
Most SACD are "hybrids". This means that in addition to the SACD stereo and, if present,
surround layers, there is also a standard CD layer which can be played on any normal CD player.
Many relatively cheap DVD players will reproduce SACD, though some of them just downsample.
However, to get good sound from SACD you want a dedicated player which only does SACD and CD.
Many upmarket SACD players only do stereo because surround sound is not a serious proposition (in
my opinion). If you have a surround sound system the centre channel is unlikely to be equivalent
to the front left and right channels. You would do better to spend all the money on stereo,
unless you want to watch movies.
A reasonable price to pay for a good quality machine is $1000, but there are cheaper machines
which sound pretty good. I use a stereo only Marantz 7001 KI, which cost 600 GBP. The standard
Marantz 7001 at 430 GBP also sounds good.
Hi Fi shops do not like demonstrating or selling SACD players because their superior performances
cuts into the sale of much more expensive high end CD and LP players.
There are several thousand titles available including many of the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury
Living Presence recordings from the 50s and early 60, lots of good early jazz recordings, most of
the recordings of Dylan and the Stones &c. Of course there are also many purely digital modern
recordings if you like that sort of thing. There are very few SACDs from 78s, but the Alan Lomax
popular soundbook album on Rounder is stupendous.
Of course, I am not any kind of expert. I'm not in the business and I'm not really a record
collector. As a psychologist, I consider record collecting a form of insanity. However, it is
OK to have, say, 1000 CDs, a few hundred LPs that you've never been able to get rid of or have
repurchased and maybe several hundred tapes that you never listen to stashed away somewhere, and
maybe some downloaded music from places like Opera Share. But certainly nothing more than that,
and a lot less would be better. Above all, a record collection should be regularly pruned like a
collection of books. It should fit into an allotted space in part one one room.
If you are a transfer engineer or a discographer, it is OK to have many thousands of records. I
mean no one has ever accused Steven Barr or David Lennick of being mad.
Steve Abrams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Palmer" <vdalhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
I've been holding off on this question because I didn't want to appear like an idiot. But my
curiosity is just too great. What is SACD? You have mentioned it many times but I have never
seen any such item and have no idea what it is supposed to do. You mention two layers, for one
thing, which is confusing. Is there a special SACD player, or what is used? Just a brief
explanation would be enough. Can I see this in my local BEST BUY? Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
Guys, there's no Master Conspiracy going on here -- the RIAA is behind this and it has now
spread to DVD's too. It's a statement of fact of law, whether anyone actually follows the
letter of the law is another matter. This is post-Napster over-reaction but no Grand
Conspiracy.
However, speaking of the RCA SACD's, more comical than anything on any booklet or label is the
major manufacturing error that seems to have occurred on many copies of the Munch/Boston
Tchaikovsky 6th. The CD layer is just fine, and a very good remaster of a very old tape to
boot. But the SACD layer is some sort of Europop, not anything remotely related to classical
music. I have returned 3 copies now and gotten back new-in-shrinkwraps with the same problem. I
give up now and a refund is en route.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Levinson" <aaron.levinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FBI Warning
Steve Abrams wrote:
I have just acquired the RCA SACD, published last year, of Reiner conducting the Sinfonia
Domestica and Bourgeois Gentilhomme Suite of Richard Strauss. The back cover includes a
colour reproduction of the seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the words "FBI
Anti-Piracy Warning: Unauthorised copying is prohibited under federal law." The seal and the
warning also disfigure the disc itself.
So far as I know, there is no means readily available to copy any SACD recording. However, I
would like to remind people that the CD layer of a hybrid can be copied directly.
Steve Abrams
Steve-
That warning is printed on all UMG product and has been for quite some time at this juncture.
It is comically large.
AA