BooH SACD - Page 2

wolfy35 · 23 May 2010, 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monstro

unfortunately not always the best one wins

Unfortunately very true. More often than not its down to whatever manufacturer can gain the most support rather than what is the better product

**Monstro** · 23 May 2010, 01:12

commonly known betamax was better than vhs which backs what you said

wolfy35 · 23 May 2010, 01:16

What about Videodisc? My dad made the big mistake of buying one and staying loyal right up to the day I played him my first ever DVD

duke knooby · 23 May 2010, 02:15

until this thread i had never heard of mp6, but i agree, in the technology battle the lesser quality product usually wins... hence we got as mentioned vhs, mp3 and sky + to name a few

videodisc im not familiar with either... google suggests it was read with a needle like a vinyl record...

but laserdisc rocked...im the home of old technology lol

evil nickname · 23 May 2010, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfy35

Try a google search for Phillips Research Division and searching for a joint press release between them and the Fraunhofer Society (Software and Systems Technology Centre ) where they describe mp6, its applications and development.

I see how you're not responding to any other point, but I'll play along

Guess what I found. Nothing. Surprisingly, a search of Fraunhofer's site has exactly the same result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfy35

Just because something is at the moment is a little obscure and hard to find on a popularist search engine does not mean it does not exist.

Just because you keep claiming some magical, 'newer and far superior than CD format / SACD mp3 etc.' audio encoding standard exists doesn't mean that it does exist. Unless you show me a credible source (you know, post a link to it, not 'search this and that site for such and so') I'll keep assuming it does not.

Especially when the technology sounds perfectly impossible. Lossless audio and video that is far superior to SACD that fits a digital file the same size of a run of the mill mp3? Forget it. Can't be done.

daveake · 23 May 2010, 11:18

Indeed. "Decent" quality mp3 compresses a CD by a factor of about 10, and SACD has 10 times the information of a CD, so that's a 100:1 lossless compression needed to achieve SACD quality with mp3 file sizes. Can't happen.

I can believe it's possible to have a lossless system that produces file sizes near those of a high quality mp3, but only with similar sampling rates and dynamic range.

Dave

duke knooby · 23 May 2010, 13:04

did you purchase the surround or stero sacd??? 40 quid is cheaper than any i could find

daveake · 23 May 2010, 13:18

There was a clue in "5.1 SACD of BooH"

Dave

duke knooby · 23 May 2010, 13:53

oops

(just testing)

Kai-H. · 25 May 2010, 13:54

I transfered the SACD of BOOH to DTS, so I'm able to listen with DVD-player on 5.1-System. IMO its a nice gimmick, but not more ...

.

BTW: As we discussed last year, the vocals of ELLEN FOLEY on Paradise did not survive complete, so in the surround-production parts of it sang new by PATTI.

Bye from Kai

23 May 2010, 01:12	#27
Monstro Promoted to Wario's spellchecker Join Date: 17.09.2005 Location: London Posts: 12,947	commonly known betamax was better than vhs which backs what you said

23 May 2010, 01:16	#28
wolfy35 Dangerous on a full moon Join Date: 14.03.2007 Location: Standing on the outside, Looking in on you Posts: 751	What about Videodisc? My dad made the big mistake of buying one and staying loyal right up to the day I played him my first ever DVD

23 May 2010, 02:15	#29
duke knooby Mega Loafer Join Date: 24.06.2005 Location: belfast Posts: 17,908	until this thread i had never heard of mp6, but i agree, in the technology battle the lesser quality product usually wins... hence we got as mentioned vhs, mp3 and sky + to name a few videodisc im not familiar with either... google suggests it was read with a needle like a vinyl record... but laserdisc rocked...im the home of old technology lol

23 May 2010, 11:18	#31
daveake 200% is the new 110% Join Date: 13.03.2005 Location: Newbury Posts: 2,983	Indeed. "Decent" quality mp3 compresses a CD by a factor of about 10, and SACD has 10 times the information of a CD, so that's a 100:1 lossless compression needed to achieve SACD quality with mp3 file sizes. Can't happen. I can believe it's possible to have a lossless system that produces file sizes near those of a high quality mp3, but only with similar sampling rates and dynamic range. Dave

23 May 2010, 13:04	#32
duke knooby Mega Loafer Join Date: 24.06.2005 Location: belfast Posts: 17,908	did you purchase the surround or stero sacd??? 40 quid is cheaper than any i could find

23 May 2010, 13:18	#33
daveake 200% is the new 110% Join Date: 13.03.2005 Location: Newbury Posts: 2,983	There was a clue in "5.1 SACD of BooH" Dave

23 May 2010, 13:53	#34
duke knooby Mega Loafer Join Date: 24.06.2005 Location: belfast Posts: 17,908	oops (just testing)

25 May 2010, 13:54	#35
Kai-H. Loafer Join Date: 24.04.2003 Location: Stade - Germany Posts: 88	I transfered the SACD of BOOH to DTS, so I'm able to listen with DVD-player on 5.1-System. IMO its a nice gimmick, but not more ... . BTW: As we discussed last year, the vocals of ELLEN FOLEY on Paradise did not survive complete, so in the surround-production parts of it sang new by PATTI. Bye from Kai