In Reply to: Re: disagree strongly posted by TimboN on July 4, 2000 at 10:27:18:
I think that you are right that Ric and I are dealing with different points on the continuum. To me, the tweaking of the scd1 (type of unit) may improve it for an obviously increasing cost (marginal utility curves become steep for audiophile ears) but my point was about the quantum jump it represents in the first place vis-a-vis cd.I'm still a bit lost in the follow-up comment by one person arguing that Ric is "right" about the analog debate. I think that we were discussing the attributes of sacd. If the point to be raised is analog source versus digital source, then this is yet another thread to develop I suppose.
It is funny, but my reaction to the "poor quality" analog recordings of sacd is somewhat different than most people. What I think I get (esp. on some of the early jazz and symphonic recordings) sounds somewhat undesirable because it is picking up everything in detail (tape hiss, poor range on the mics, etc). It might actually reflect the quality of assessment -- for good or bad. Just listen to the Billy Holiday disc as an example.
What it still comes back to is the final comment made below by the person who asked how can someone respond and make a comment who hasn't even listened to the format.
To Ric -- if you really can work these wonders, then go for it and do the mods, and let the AA folks know about it. This would be useful as an action and not just speculation. I realize that you might not be so inclined, but then I would suggest that at this point your assertions are just that -- assertions.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- good point - chris e. 07/5/0009:24:57 07/5/00 (0)