[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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