[YouTube] This guy could have used our help here at QQ - hopefully he drops by

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Snood

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Staff member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
4,008
Location
Snoodville
[VIDEO]

Video is only 3 weeks old

I left him a message in the responses mentioning QQ forums and also went to his Facebook page and dropped him some information about us. Man we could have saved him a lot of hassle - seems he loves multichannel, but seems to think it is kind of a hassle. He also thinks that Pink FLoyd DSOTM and NIN Downward Spiral are one of the only few popular and affordable titles on SACD.

He showed some pics of prices on Aerosmith ,Bowie and Meatloaf SACDs and how expensive they are....

I dropped him a note on some popular artists on SACD that are still very affordable along with bluray, dvd-a etc
 
He would have had a much easier time if he hadn't kept buying old, cheap beat-up players on ebay. Quality costs money...he should have bought an Oppo!

Since I'm someone who listens to classical and jazz about 60%, I couldn't be happier that SACD never died and classical titles continue to be produced on SACD. I prefer SACD over any other format simply because it doesn't require a video display to navigate the disc. I despise video accompanying my music, except of course in the case of a concert video. With DVD-A and music blu-rays, I usually only have the display on long enough to get to the track list and then I turn it off again. Annoying! But I'll take whatever format they give me, just as long as it's multichannel and the mix is good. :)

I wonder how much longer we're going to be getting multichannel music at all. At least, in classic rock. Releases are coming at a snail's pace, and the industry continues to move toward streaming. Classical is the only genre I have much confidence in with regard to the future of multichannel music on physical media.

Regarding CD quality, there was never anything wrong with the format. It just was rarely used to its full potential. The mixing and mastering has always been the real issue with any optical disc format. Bit depth suffers from overly processing the data. Those 24-bit files typically only have 8-12 bits of dynamic range, which is less than CD's capability of 16 bits. Only the audiophile labels like Reference Recordings, AIX and MA are putting out real high resolution music. But, of course, the music they produce isn't very popular and they don't have the resources to create big catalogs of music.
 
Last edited:
And, ironically, AmazonUS [among others] are literally blowing out hi res titles [like the Doors, XTC, Yes [DVD~A], etc] for under $16 each......in the case of the Doors Greatest Hits BD~A 4.0 $12.99. On occasion, Deep Discount has been blowing out hi res boxsets [like their recent sale on Tull's Aqualung w/ BD~A] for under $30.

Hope he does become a QQ member and we can all enlighten him about the latest deals/sales.

And yes, McDave, I continue buying classical titles even though my collection is a bit top heavy with repetitive titles like Beethoven's/Mahler's/Sibelius' complete symphonies especially since Decca is re~releasing some of their boxsets with BD~As at bargain basement prices. And I do continue to purchase esoteric classical titles as well from BIS/Chandos, Pentatone, 2L, Tacet and my favorite relatively new classical label Sono Luminus!

Wish there were more Jazz/World titles in hi~res surround on physical disc!

He did a fantastic professional video and he could actually buy a Universal SONY X800 UHD 4K player, BRAND NEW, for way under the list price of $300 although I would concur an OPPO UHD 203 would be a better choice.

BTW, Brother Snood, besides being an astute moderator [who pressy (y)LIKEY on EVERYTHING:SB] you're also an excellent PR man for QQ and are truly worth your weight in RUM [RED RUM, RED RUM] https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...2E3754BECA4203E706692E3754BECA4203E&FORM=VIRE
 
Last edited:
He'll still wind up poor and frustrated, though, if he musical tastes aren't too narrow or confined to recent titles...which is why, when new MC formats emerge it's well to invest if only modestly, those titles that are cheap upon first year of release *may* go way up in value not long after, and playing catch up is, as we all know, an expensive game.

ED :)
 
He'll still wind up poor and frustrated, though, if he musical tastes aren't too narrow or confined to recent titles...which is why, when new MC formats emerge it's well to invest if only modestly, those titles that are cheap upon first year of release *may* go way up in value not long after, and playing catch up is, as we all know, an expensive game.

Quite true Ed, but in the case of the 'resurgence' of pricey box sets containing a 5.1 remix, if one is patient the price can come WAY down. But there are a lot of 5.1 remixes in his price range still available if one takes the time to search the internet or ask advice from savvy QQer's.

If he does join as per Snood's invitation, I think he'll be quite pleased.......and ENLIGHTENED:QQlove
 
Good investigating/recruiting Snood! Poor guy had some bad luck but at least he still seems quite chipper.

I do think it's pretty tough to do a fair comparison on SACD v PCM if you're only doing a PCM conversion. He may well not notice a difference but for proper 'lab condition' results he should try and hear it in it's native form - at least once anyway...
 
And, ironically, AmazonUS [among others] are literally blowing out hi res titles [like the Doors, XTC, Yes [DVD~A], etc] for under $16 each......in the case of the Doors Greatest Hits BD~A 4.0 $12.99. On occasion, Deep Discount has been blowing out hi res boxsets [like their recent sale on Tull's Aqualung w/ BD~A] for under $30.

Thanks for the tip! Deep Discount now wants >$100 for Aqualung (and the other usual suspects as well), but I found a brand new sealed box set on eBay and snagged it for $35 shipped! Woohoo!
 
Last edited:
Regarding CD quality, there was never anything wrong with the format. It just was rarely used to its full potential. The mixing and mastering has always been the real issue with any optical disc format. Bit depth suffers from overly processing the data. Those 24-bit files typically only have 8-12 bits of dynamic range, which is less than CD's capability of 16 bits. Only the audiophile labels like Reference Recordings, AIX and MA are putting out real high resolution music. But, of course, the music they produce isn't very popular and they don't have the resources to create big catalogs of music.

I'll go you one better and assert that (at least since the advent of the CD-R) it has been deliberately dumbed down from it's full potential.
 
I'll go you one better and assert that (at least since the advent of the CD-R) it has been deliberately dumbed down from it's full potential.
Do you think it is directly related to the introduction of the CD-R? You could be very right.
 
Do you think it is directly related to the introduction of the CD-R? You could be very right.
Sure. Before, they were putting out good product because that's what you do in usual circumstances, sell the best product you can. Once bit for bit copies became possible, they started putting out "remasters" that weren't great like the early ones, but deliberately flawed. This way, they would at least have the chance to come back one more time and sell you another disc that was really properly mastered before the music fell from commercial viability. Of course at that time they didn't plan on streaming and file sharing.
 
...I prefer SACD over any other format simply because it doesn't require a video display to navigate the disc. I despise video accompanying my music, except of course in the case of a concert video. With DVD-A and music blu-rays, I usually only have the display on long enough to get to the track list and then I turn it off again. Annoying! But I'll take whatever format they give me, just as long as it's multichannel and the mix is good. :)...

I am right there with you MCDave. I prefer SACD because once you set the player to play the multi-channel layer by default, all you have to do is put the disc in and away you go. My systems always caused an interrupt in the playback when I shut the television off after navigating the menu of a DVD-A or BD-A. But also being right there with you, I'll take a multi-channel release in any modern format!
 
Sure. Before, they were putting out good product because that's what you do in usual circumstances, sell the best product you can. Once bit for bit copies became possible, they started putting out "remasters" that weren't great like the early ones, but deliberately flawed. This way, they would at least have the chance to come back one more time and sell you another disc that was really properly mastered before the music fell from commercial viability. Of course at that time they didn't plan on streaming and file sharing.

I think our opinions of the sound quality of early CD releases differ considerably. To my ear, early digital sound was somewhat poor compared to the LP versions that were still available. It took a few years for the record companies to learn to properly master for CD. Not to say that they do a much better job of it now either.
 
I think our opinions of the sound quality of early CD releases differ considerably. To my ear, early digital sound was somewhat poor compared to the LP versions that were still available. It took a few years for the record companies to learn to properly master for CD. Not to say that they do a much better job of it now either.

Well, yes. I think I may have confused people here... they started putting out "remasters" that weren't great like the early ones, but deliberately flawed. I should have been more clear.

The statement above isn't referring to early CDs, but early remasters (the second generation, as it were). The difference is that technology got better. ADCs improved immensely. Engineers learned to do transfers at high res and dither them. Those advances led to better sounding discs. Yet, at some point the loudness wars started and suddenly CDs started sounding far worse, in spite of the fact that the tech was better than ever. Heck, Metallica fans were ripping "Death Magnetic" (IIRC) from a video game because it sounded far better than the commercial release.

Did engineers suddenly forget how to make a digital file sound good? I submit that the only reasonable explanation is that the moves were deliberate. Planned obsolescence.
 
Well, yes. I think I may have confused people here... they started putting out "remasters" that weren't great like the early ones, but deliberately flawed. I should have been more clear.

The statement above isn't referring to early CDs, but early remasters (the second generation, as it were). The difference is that technology got better. ADCs improved immensely. Engineers learned to do transfers at high res and dither them. Those advances led to better sounding discs. Yet, at some point the loudness wars started and suddenly CDs started sounding far worse, in spite of the fact that the tech was better than ever. Heck, Metallica fans were ripping "Death Magnetic" (IIRC) from a video game because it sounded far better than the commercial release.

Did engineers suddenly forget how to make a digital file sound good? I submit that the only reasonable explanation is that the moves were deliberate. Planned obsolescence.

As I understand it, it's the producer or some record company bigwig that tells the engineer to make it loud. I'm pretty sure mastering engineers don't get to make all the choices.
 
Last edited:
That video was a follow up to this video



He is aware of us, there's a screenshot of the forum at 2:20.

I briefly had the same model of Panasonic quad receiver that he picked up for the above video. It sucks, awful sounding receiver. Looks cool, though.

Too bad he didn't know about the Audio Fidelity SACD of Muscle of Love to add to the comparison. He's not followed up on any of the comments I've left him updating him on some of these things, so he seems to be done with surround/quad and onto the next thing, early PDAs.


Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for techmoan to do a video devoted to quad, or a quad format.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Techmoan
 
So WHY do they tell them to do that?

Short answer is, because loud and compressed music sounds better on playback systems consisting of cheap earbuds and tiny amps built into smartphones.

Longer answer...millennials are now the largest demographic in the U.S., and by far the biggest purchasers of music. Furthermore, file downloads and streaming together make up about 90% (my estimation) of all music purchases today. And how are the majority of millennials listening to music? On smartphones or portable players, with crappy earbuds and wimpy onboard amps. These things have very little capability as far as dynamic range, which means if you listen to something with a wide dynamic range on them, you're constantly fiddling with the volume control, as soft sounds disappear beneath the noise floor and loud sounds distort badly. Add to this the problem that music is usually consumed on the go, in noisy environments, with earbuds that do little to block it. Under these circumstances, music that is severely compressed and made louder just works better. Same goes for music in a car, though to a lesser extent because car stereos have better dynamic capability. Ever try to listen to a classical symphony while driving around town? You have to keep adjusting the volume control as it fluctuates from too soft to too loud.

For the rest of us who listen to music on proper playback systems, this sucks. You could wonder why they don't make CDs with normal dynamic range like they used to for people with home-based playback systems, while compressing and "loudening" the files and streamed music for iPhones. The answer is probably because it costs more money to make multiple masters, and streaming appears to be the future of music delivery.

Audiophiles like us are a dying breed, and a niche market. Very little music is being mixed and mastered for us anymore. Companies follow the profits, and apparently the major profits are in loud, compressed cloud-based music.
 
Back
Top