Post by tailspn June 26, 2012 (321 of 366)
|
|
wehecht said:
Hi Tom,
Hi Bill,
Thank you for your compliments. I do agree wholeheartedly with you about thread hijacking. Guilty as charged! I guess the appropriate action is to copy a post that I think is important to respond, and start a new thread with it, along with my response. Stephen can then close it if he doesn't think it's appropriate for his site.
My short answer to your BSO question is yes to both parts. I do think it makes a difference. I won't comment on the rest of your post, for its anecdotal. But I do agree with you that much of the debate on SA-CD.net is particularly confrontational, and ill informed. That is an issue for Stephen to manage, not you and I. So I will refrain from responding to a hijacked thread, and start a new thread on the hijacked subject, if I have something to contribute.
To your BSO point though, I believe a recording is a package deal. I know many here are focused entirely on music values, but in my view, that's only half of what one is purchasing. I know it may bother some to hear, but I think the technical considerations and recording techniques of a recording (after all, it is a RECORDING) are every bit the equal of the music. Each stands in the service of the other, and could not exist without the other.
Myself excluded, producers and engineers, make decisions that require every bit the talent, training, and experience of any player, or conductor captured on the resulting recording. To ignore them, for completely subjective discourse over what a non musician thinks about how a musician or conductor should have played a piece, is to ignore much of the value presented in that recording.
To the rest of your post, I agree with you about some posters disruptive behavior, but hardly think they actually influence anyone's buying decisions. They like to see themselves, and their thoughts, in print. But I do think, as buyers are becoming increasingly aware of the ingredients of high resolution recordings, the tagging of the relevant technical information on a site like this is imperative and appropriate.
Thanks for your post Bill,
Tom
|
|
|
Post by Arnaldo June 26, 2012 (322 of 366)
|
|
wehecht said:
... Because of the discouragingly low level of the discourse many of us, including, one presumes, zeus himself, are just sick of it, to the point that we'd rather forfeit the information than continue to tolerate the constant bickering and the attacks on third parties, like Messrs. von Bahr and Couzens who are among the few continuing to support the format.
... So I agree with Seth and further deplore the fact that by inserting themselves into the discussion, which inevitably produces counterpoint, they, AND THEIR ANTAGONISTS, repeatedly hijack threads to the detriment of the rest of us, especially those newcomers to sacd who look to SA-CD.net site for guidance.
seth said:
... You did a better job making my point than I did!
You both make an idiotic point better than anyone else. How's that for an outright example of the antagonism that you so deplore? But actually, your concept that information is undesirable because it generates discussion and dissent is extremely popular in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, to name just a few. Maybe you should start your own homogeneous SACD website under the auspices of one of those welcoming regimes. In the meantime, if you don't wish to partake in the debate, simply don't...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
You both make an idiotic point better than anyone else. How's that for an outright example of the antagonism that you so deplore? But actually, your concept that information is undesirable because it generates discussion and dissent is extremely popular in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, to name just a few. Maybe you should start your own homogeneous SACD website under the auspices of one of those welcoming regimes. In the meantime, if you don't wish to partake in the debate, simply don't...
The statement that less is more somehow wiggles its way into this discussion.
The fact that physical SACDs continue to be released at greater expense than their RBCD counterparts by reputable record companies should be the cause for rejoice.........not picayune antagonism regarding it's recorded origin.
And always remember, the better your sound system, the better the recording will sound regardless of PCM vs. DSD.
The important thing should always be the performance, as well.
Anf further badgering Robert and Ralph will only further antagonize OUR cause here at SA.CD.net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
So you file technical specs together with speculation and prejudice. That says quite a lot. Mostly about you.
I'm not sure where zeus is heading with this thread ... but if his suggestion is to:
a) first stop cataloging new SACD releases so that only a fraction of titles are included here, and
b) second, stop cataloging DSD metatags altogether,
... then I think I would be happy to consider taking the trouble to create a database that fulfils both tasks, perhaps with the help of some other similarly minded people here who are interested to advance the format. It wouldn't have a library service, but it would be exhaustive, and provide recording resolutions where known.
Yes, I am not against specs. I am against people berating recordings they have not actually heard based only on the specs, e.g. "If it ain't a DSD mastered recording using an XYZ converter, it can't be any good, so I ain't buying it and I am telling the world". This is a ridiculous and extreme example, to be sure. But, the gist of it with modifications may ring true here often enough. That is how specs, speculation and prejudice can come together in the same sentence, as we have been discussing.
I think your reading of Zeus's intentions is quite off the mark. I do not see anywhere that he has suggested this. But, by all means, if you feel motivated, create your own database
|
|
|
Post by Hitters June 26, 2012 (325 of 366)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
You both make an idiotic point
Why Arnaldo, the use of this kind of language? You cannot say people are idiots just because their opinion differ from yours. Let's try to keep the forum polite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
You both make an idiotic point better than anyone else. How's that for an outright example of the antagonism that you so deplore? But actually, your concept that information is undesirable because it generates discussion and dissent is extremely popular in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, to name just a few. Maybe you should start your own homogeneous SACD website under the auspices of one of those welcoming regimes. In the meantime, if you don't wish to partake in the debate, simply don't...
Very well said. I would suggest modifying the above in only one respect:
"Maybe you should start your own homogeneous SACD website" ...
---->>>> ... to start your own "CD" website, ...
because a site that discusses only performance, and forgets that which distinguishes a CD from a SACD ... is not an SACD site at all.
|
|
|
Post by DSD June 26, 2012 (327 of 366)
|
|
canonical said:
...a site that discusses only performance, and forgets that which distinguishes a CD from a SACD ... is not an SACD site at all.
Beautifully stated, I agree totally. I come to SA-CD.net to not only find out what is new on SACD but which SACDs offer the superior sonics the format is capable of, which is the reason I bought an SACD player. I want it all, excellent performances in SOTA sound of music I enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hitters said:
Why Arnaldo, the use of this kind of language? You cannot say people are idiots just because their opinion differ from yours. Let's try to keep the forum polite.
Pretending this is facebook,
I just clicked on "Like" for the above comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
Yes, I am not against specs. I am against people berating recordings they have not actually heard based only on the specs, e.g. "If it ain't a DSD mastered recording using an XYZ converter, it can't be any good, so I ain't buying it and I am telling the world". This is a ridiculous and extreme example, to be sure. But, the gist of it with modifications may ring true here often enough. That is how specs, speculation and prejudice can come together in the same sentence, as we have been discussing.
Hi Carl,
My only point of difference with you here is your statement:
"This is a ridiculous and extreme example,"
Unfortunately in terms of describing some peoples posts, it is neither ridiculous nor extreme. It is right on the money.
I both wish this nonsense would stop, and that people would "clean it up". It should not be SO terribly hard to be civil and respectful of others, while differing with their opinions. Maybe even slightly deferential when one's own opinion differs from anothers. Using ridicule and insulting language is really inappropriate here, but it has become commonplace.
I know a few who used to post here regularly, people for whom I have great respect, who no longer come to the site, one I believe formally "resigned from the site". He did so because the tone of conversation in several instances had become so low. Also because he could not stomach the continuing "harassment" of certain labels who fail to use DSD A to D and who fail to use the latest and greatest of these converters, people who damn a recording without ever hearing it.
I certainly agree with the premise that before you discuss a recording you should hear it. Then you can reasonably talk about what you think might have improved it.
|
|
|
Post by bissie June 27, 2012 (330 of 366)
|
|
tailspn said:
Yes, poor Robert has been bleeding all the way to the bank from all that unjust exposure.
"There is no bad PR". This is true, up to a point.
But if the only connection where BIS is mentioned is a negative one (it isn't), then for sure there IS bad PR.
I think we have got over the sampling frequency discussion, especially so, as we're recording in high resolution since some time. We don't record in DSD, but then we don't say that we do, either.
But newly there has been the next BIS debate, about our "too wide" dynamics, and that has fostered quite a lot of correspondence from people that simply don't understand that original is original and that BIS seemingly is one of the few labels that refuse to soften blows or raise pianissississimi. That has caused us some harm, so, in conclusion, I would have to say that
"not all PR is good PR". Neither is it bankable.
Robert
|
|
