Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Some patients get better with placebo drugs. Really better -- physically. Because the mind and body are not separate. You can worry yourself sick. And that reaction goes in both directions -- you can (sometimes) be made happy enough to cure yourself. That is the placebo effect.
It matters not to me that I would fail a blind test comparing SACDs to redbook CDs. Whenever I listen A/B style to the same recording on redbook vs SACD at home in my system, I prefer the SACD, like many posters here.
So if this is a consequence of mastering and not the format of the bitstream ... who cares? -- a point made by many other posters. The experiment asking us to make a redbook layer from the SACD is just pointless -- we're not going to listen to that, so why bother.
If someone I trust auditions a redbook version and an SACD version of a recording and tells me they sound the same -- maybe because they were mastered identically and the format differences are in fact inaudible as some here claim (and I take no position on) -- then sure, I'll save a few bucks and not buy the SACD. But absent that information (and I am always absent it) I will use Bayesian inference and buy the SACD -- I have strong a-priori belief that the SACD will sound better so I make a justified economic decision.
|
I don't think SACD is entirely placebo. The difference
might be below the threshold of human audibility, but there are real, measurable and scientifically proven differences between Red Book and SACD.
I distinguish SACD from the typical snakeoil junk because the snakeoil folks insist that there's no way to measure the difference and that all tests are invalid. However, they do want you to give them $300 for $10 of materials. Anyone who buys that gets what they deserve.
I think it is a good idea to use the best possible medium for the best possible recordings. When civil engineers build a bridge, they don't build it so it is just barely enough to get by. They overbuild it. I think the same philosophy should be applied to recordings. Even if the differences might fall to the inaudible level, we should be using the best possible medium. For recordings, that is SACD.
I know vinyl has a strong following (including myself) but I think that new digital releases should be SACD. Why? SACD has less expensive equipment than vinyl and it requires a whole lot less fuss to run. It is a high end format accessible to someone who doesn't want to mess with a protractor, cleaning records or flipping a disc every 20 minutes.
Even with all the talk about SACD dying, I think the music industry could use it to get back on track. I'd go with a business model that has cheap MP3 quality downloads - where you can get tracks you want for $1 or less. That would satisfy the vast majority of the consumer market. Everyone has iPods, etc. and, these days, is used to downloading music. I'd price it cheap and make everything available.
If you want a physical disc, it should be SACD. That would prevent copying (SACD encryption still hasn't been broken) and SACD writers aren't available. Music geeks could then get the hi-rez versions (preferably with a download coupon) they want. Further, if quality audio were promoted, it might boost sales across the board.
Wishful thinking, for sure, but I'd love to see the industry try some new things.