mr_june
03-27-2012, 12:50 PM
I got a PS3 the day it hit the streets back in 2006. That particular PS3 did SACD but I never took advantage of it. The machine has since died and shortly afterwards is when I got interested in SACD/Multi channel music thanks to a good friend at work. Since then, I picked up a dedicated SACD player and a few disc. After tasting how good the sound is vs. a CD version not to mention the lesser MP3version, I have to shake my head at what I had been missing. It's funny that as much as I like music, I had never heard or read about how much the average Joe is missing out on compared to what he is stuck with buying.
Shortly before this, I was watching The God Father Pt. 3 on Blu Ray and when the credits were rolling, I heard Harry Connick singing a song [[How Good We Are). I liked it enough to get the sound track on CD. It was when I was listening to that song on CD that I realised the difference between uncompressed [[blu ray movie) and compressed [[CD) music.
Sad to see that SACD and other formats didn't catch on. And now I'm stuck with trying to imagine how good some of my other favorite CDs would sound in high rez. My co-worker let me listen to some of his other high rez disc [[Blu Ray audio, DTS) and it got me to thinking the average person has settled for less when it comes to listening to music. Most of the music on high rez represents classical music. Then we have some jazz, rock stars, and others. When it comes to R&B there are very few artist represented. I have had a subsription to Sound & Vision [[formerly Stereo Review) for years and can't hardly remember ever seeing high rez reviews for r&b/soul artist and groups which made me wonder did R&B labels not think to go back and mine their catalog for releases in high rez form or was it just a lack of finances?
I'd like to hear Ralph and others who worked close to the source talk about the difference between what they hear when the music is recorded and what we get on the user side. Was competitive formats the reason this didn't catch on or was the public indifferent? Or was it both?
Shortly before this, I was watching The God Father Pt. 3 on Blu Ray and when the credits were rolling, I heard Harry Connick singing a song [[How Good We Are). I liked it enough to get the sound track on CD. It was when I was listening to that song on CD that I realised the difference between uncompressed [[blu ray movie) and compressed [[CD) music.
Sad to see that SACD and other formats didn't catch on. And now I'm stuck with trying to imagine how good some of my other favorite CDs would sound in high rez. My co-worker let me listen to some of his other high rez disc [[Blu Ray audio, DTS) and it got me to thinking the average person has settled for less when it comes to listening to music. Most of the music on high rez represents classical music. Then we have some jazz, rock stars, and others. When it comes to R&B there are very few artist represented. I have had a subsription to Sound & Vision [[formerly Stereo Review) for years and can't hardly remember ever seeing high rez reviews for r&b/soul artist and groups which made me wonder did R&B labels not think to go back and mine their catalog for releases in high rez form or was it just a lack of finances?
I'd like to hear Ralph and others who worked close to the source talk about the difference between what they hear when the music is recorded and what we get on the user side. Was competitive formats the reason this didn't catch on or was the public indifferent? Or was it both?