Talk:Super Audio CD/Archive 3

Blu Ray music discs

Amazon has, I think in just the last two weeks or so, made a category for Blu Ray music discs. This looks to be the future of hi-rez audio. Samboy (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Blu-ray is a niche format even in video, according to Harris Interactive latest research, blu-ray home theatre players adoption (excluding Sony's game consoles) in the US went up from 4% (may 2008) to 7% in (may 2009), so it's only 3% increase per year. Blu-ray was introduced too late, currently many people are subscribing to HD TV and download movies as payable service. Blu-ray as an audio format is a complete misunderstanding - it is not compatible with CD players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.216 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people just do not understand percentages. If the market penetration increases from 3% to 7%, that is not a 4% increase. It is a 75% increase. Governments just love presenting economic information as percentages, precisely because the electorate do not understand what the government is trying to hide. 62.212.106.90 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Puresuperaudio blacklisted

Just letting people know the puresuperaudio link is blacklisted as per this diff and this automated report. Do people feel this ban should be lifted? I'm leaning towards supporting the continued Wikipedia ban of this link. Samboy (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just a blog by some normal person. No need to have it here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking at these logs, I think one possible reason 83 got so upset (see the early 2009 archives in archive #2) is because we removed the link to his blog. Samboy (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the link is blocked by spamlist, as it's located in blogspot.com domain (and wikipedia blocks such websites as many of them have illegal content such as flac downloads and rapidshare links), but since it's very useful site about new SACD releases and latest SACD hardware (and I haven't seen any illegal stuff on it) it should be included in external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.138.123 (talk • contribs)

Please check our WP:EL. What makes it any better than any other blog? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange question, it's up to different individuals to judge whether it's better or worse, if you have better blogs touching on the SACD subject please add the links to those websites to external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.216 (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypersonics

Should we add a link to the Hypersonic effect article, which links to some studies showing that, while people can not consciously hear high-frequency audio, they can subconsciously hear it? Samboy (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look through the literature shows no substantial link between SACD specifically and scientific studies of the hypersonic effect. All high-sampling-rate digital audio formats have been used to test the effect, not SACD alone. My opinion is that SACD and DSD would be less appropriate for such testing since the dynamic range decreases above 20kHz. Other formats don't have that problem. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Oohashi paper (pdf) notes that a modified DSD recorder was used to record the music used in the study: "The signals were digitally coded with Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki’s high-speed one-bit coding signal processor with an A/D sampling frequency of 3.072 MHz" (3.072 is the sampling rate you get when you multiply 48khz by 64 instead of SACD's method of multiplying 44.1 by 64). People have discussed the Oohasi paper at sa-cd.net (see here, for example). As an aside I'm surprised it's not discussed move over at HydrogenAudio (it's occasionally mentioned, such as in this thread). Of course, all of this doesn't mean a mention is necessarily deserved in this article, but I feel, since we're mentioning the Boston Audio study, it might make the article more balanced to mention Oohashi's studies. Samboy (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)::

To correct myself, it looks like Google has reindexed HydrogenAudio or some such, because I got a lot more results with a "Oohashi site:hydrogenaudio.org" search just a minute ago than I did the other week. Some of the more interesting discussions there: here here Pio2001's posting has interesting information this thread with the following interesting quote: "But, the prior question is, 'Do hypersonic effects exist?' And the only evidence seems to be this one article, which by its own account is at the limit of statistical significance, and some people think they did the statistics wrong" A thread which points to this study (yet another "16/44.1 is perfect sound" scientific study) this thread and yet another thread. One thing I haven't seen is anyone besides Oohashi hook people up to an EEG and comparing their response to audio with hypersonics to audio without hypersonics and see if there's something people can't consciously distinguish but subconsciously perceive. Samboy (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The "83" IP is back

The 83 IP has returned and is back at edit-warring in this article. See Talk:Super Audio CD/Archive 2 for our failed attempts to explain Wikipedia policy to this IP. The 83 IP did promise to not edit-war here again but is back to making edits without discussion again. Samboy (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Samboy, all edits are currently being discussed in history section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.120.47 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What's to discuss? Text accompanied by a reference which doesn't support it should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not discuss changes in the history section; you discuss things here in the talk page. Since you have made over three reverts in 24 hours, please do not revert this page any more or you may be blocked from editing.

To discuss your edits, there are two additions which are not correctly supported by references. Namely

• "Today the catalogue of currently available SACD titles exceeds the number of all other releases in HD formats (even if they are summed together with current blu-ray video titles).http://sa-cd.net/titles"

Nowhere on the sa-cd.net page does it state that there are more SACD releases than HD-DVD and Blu-Ray titles combined. All that there is on the page is a list of SACD releases, nothing more, nothing less.

you may also add DVD-A titles and HD FLAC downloads, there are almost 6000 SACD titles out there according to SA-CD.net, it's official information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.120.47 (talk • contribs)

I question whether sa-cd.net is official; where is the information about the number of DVD-A titles and HD FLAC downloads? Where is the page stating there are more SACDs? Samboy (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The minimum requirement for PCM to preserve all the intrinsic original quality of 1 bit 2.8MHz DSD signals is floating 32bit/352,8kHz http://www.merging.com/"

All merging.com points to is a link to a company who makes digital audio recording products. No where on the linked page does it discuss SACD or PCM. Where is the page that discusses PCM and DSD and claims that DSD needs 32/352.8 instead of 20/96? Samboy (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

please read the SACD/DSD/DXD page at merging.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.120.47 (talk • contribs)

Please link to that page. Samboy (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the 83 IP has already violated WP:3RR, here is the last time I reported 83's behavior. Samboy (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated reversion is vandalism, but so is the repeated addition of inadequately cited text. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.120.47 (talk • contribs)

I have reported the WP:3RR violation Samboy (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am seeing 83's recent article changes as vandalism. Per WP:VANDAL, [v]andalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. I am not seeing the deliberate use of unverifiable references by 83 as good faith, even though he has responded (with trivial non-comments) here on the talk page. He continued to re-add the unverifiable, unreliable material in the face of user warnings such as 3rr and Twinkle's Template:Uw-unsourced1, leading me to believe that truth and integrity were not among the things 83 was interested in. By putting trivial responses here on the talk page, 83 is gaming the system to make it appear as if he is not a vandal. His current actions and past record speak clearly, however. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a couple things here. First, repeated revision of vandalism does not qualify as edit warring, though one COULD make the case this is a content issue. Second, SA-CD isn't an official anything, but it IS a reliable source for information, which is what the IP is trying to get across, I think; however, it's useless as a ref for what the IP wants to use it, since it doesn't mention other HD formats, so it seems to be clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When the block was made, only the IP was blocked; Binksternet wasn't blocked. So it would seem admins doing blocks agree that this is a vandalism issue, not a content issue at this point (Another admin, when trying to engage 83, called it a content issue so I got a bit nervous when Bink did his fourth revert today). The issue isn't whether sa-cd.net is reliable (that's another discussion for another day); the issue is whether a link to a list of SACD titles is a suitable reference for the assertion that there are more SACD titles out there than DVD-A and Blu Ray titles combined. As an aside, is there a link out there showing SACD did win (such as it is) in its mid-2000s format war against DVD-A? Any link showing there are more SACD releases than Blu-Ray releases will quickly become out of date as SACD continues to stagnate and Blu-Ray continues to flourish. Samboy (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

32/352.8

Working with the 83 IP (it would be nice if he was more cooperative before being blocked for violating Wikipedia policies), I was able to get a reasonable reference from him. From this marketing brochure we get the line "32 bit floating point at 352.8 kHz [...] is the minimum requirement to preserve all the intrinsic original quality of 1 bit 2.8MHz DSD signals".

However, based on my experience looking at frequency graphs of SACD signals, I don't think we need 32/352.8 to capture 1/2822.4 (DSD). There is a peer-reviewed AES paper stating that 1/2822.4 sounds about as good as 8/176.4. Quite frankly, I place more trust in a peer-reviewed article than I do in a marketing brochure, as does WP:RS. (Yes, AES does peer-review their papers)

I've looked at frequency response graphs of SACD recordings and it is anything but flat up to 170 kHz (as 32/352.8 is); above 20k we get more and more noise until we really need to cap it with a filter around 50k (I looked at graphs like this a few weeks ago on the web but don't have a reference handy).

32/352.8 may make sense for editing DSD, where multiple stages of editing can add noise and distortions if an effort is not made to keep the resolution as high as possible until the final mastering. But it has far more resolution than DSD; indeed 32/352.8 has four times the bandwidth of DSD.

I have added 83's reference to this article, with a "maybe for editing" note when I cite the reference.

Samboy (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That merging.com reference is just marketing hyperbole. They cherry-picked one measurement and tested it with who knows what guidelines. There's no room for merging.com's assertion in this article. Binksternet (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the marketing hyperbole reference and just added another pointer to the Meyer (DSD can't be distinguished from CD audio) paper. While I was at it, I also added a reference to that NHK 2004 paper. Samboy (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Archives of both reports of "83"'s 3RR violations

Since 83 is a known repeat 3RR violator, here is the first report (result: Semi for three weeks) and the second report (result: 24 hour block) of the 83 IP violating Wikipedia policy. I have a bad feeling he's going to return and engage in the same behavior again; keep this page on your watchlist. Samboy (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Making use of categories

There seem to be two very useful wikipedia categories, namely: Category:Albums_released_in_Super_Audio and Category:Albums_released_on_DVD-Audio, which can be added to the bottom of individual albums. I haven't seen one for Blu-Ray music (or indeed surround albums), but still, I figure the people reading this might be in the know as to which albums are currently missiing from the categories... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.60 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like both of the categories above contain around 150 albums, which is not enough to fill the Billboard 200. If the format war is still going on, and if the number of available titles is a factor in deciding who wins, how about we see if SACD can beat DVDA to this number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.238 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Utterly pointless. The format war isn't going on anymore (after all, who's fighting?) and the number of albums in the category cannot be considered representative of the actual number. There are over 6,000 SACDs released (see for instance [1]) and around 1,000 DVD-Audio titles (see [2]). The Seventh Taylor (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Disc length

Why length is not mentioned in infobox? Is it 80 minutes for both single- and dual-layer SACD? Ledpoison1 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, a CD can hold 82:30, not 80:00 (an unfortunate common misconception). The CD layer of an SACD can hold the same. SACD can hold about 4 hours of music if there's only a single layer (see here for one) -- I'm not sure if the quality of the music on it limits this or not, though stereo vs multichannel DOES, I'm almost positive...some sources for all this would be nice, granted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing SACD titles in this article

Please see the archives for why this is not the article to use for listing SACD artists. In summary, it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to list a bunch of SACD artists here. Samboy (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

...and it opens the door for another loooong list of artists, the exact kind of list that we sent to List of SACD artists. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's disruptive editing at this point to try and restore this material without discussing it here. This article, alas, attracts a fair number of disruptive editors. Samboy (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced claims that look like WP:OR

An IP recently added the following to the article:

An important problem with SACD is that it is not possible to have a digital equalizer without going back to PCM.

An interesting claim, but one not backed up by WP:RS nor mentioned in WP:RS that discuss SACD.

The jitter of the clock can also produce a high level noise into the audible range.

As above, not backed up by WP:RS.

I have removed these two claims; please find reliable sources backing them up. Samboy (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing WP:POV edits

I just reverted an edit which attempted to add POV to the article. Notably:

People were not able distinguish DSD from CD-quality audio in one particular blind listening test;

This wording implies that there have been other properly done blind listening tests where people have been able to hear the difference between DSD and CD-quality audio. There have been, to the extent of my knowledge, no such tests.

most people can not distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content

This implies that some people can indeed hear ultrasonics; however all the NHK study shows is that, for some people, there was not enough information to determine whether they heard ultrasonics or not. There hasn't been a test showing people being able to hear ultrasonics (except for those tests which imply that maybe ultrasonics affect subliminal perceptions of music which I talk about in the talk page archives; as far as I know, only one researcher has gotten those results and no one else has been able to repeat their results).

The edit tried to add some POV and imply some stuff which scientific tests has not found, so I reverted the changes. Samboy (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions

A fairly-longer term but reasonably inactive editor made a number of changes to the article. He added three significant unreferenced assertions:

• "BIS [...] put all of Bach's organ music on five SACD-only disks."

• "The San Francisco Symphony has released its Mahler series on multi-channel hybrid SACDs on its SFS Media label."

• "Sony produced at least one DVD player that could play multi-channel SACDs."

I found references for the first two assertions, and erase the third one since he didn't mention make, model, or anything else about this DVD player. My opinion about these three assertions:

• The first one is useful, since it shows that SACDs can and have been used to make discs with audio that lasts more than 75 minutes.

• The second one is borderline. While true, it’s skirting the WP:UNDUE line because we have already listed two other orchestras who have made SACDs, and the San Francisco Orchestra has only released this one series on SACD; the most recent disc was recorded in 2007. This orchestra’s newer recordings are CD-only (not to mention downloadable mp3s).

• As already mentioned, I have already removed the third assertion.

What do other people think? Is is reasonable to remove the second assertion? Samboy (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no special reason why the San Francisco Symphony recordings should be listed here. They don't push the boundaries of the medium which means they don't show its flexibility or its boundaries. They are simply some of the many titles available. Not needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, as per consensus, I'm removing the San Francisco Symphony recordings mention. Let's not make this a list of SACD artists like it was until people came here to clean things up. Samboy (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

My last revert

Some new user to Wikipedia (edit count: three) decided to alter the section discussing DVD audio vs. SACD audio by removing referenced peer-review scientific studies because such studies are, in their words “irrelevant”. Why are such studies irrelevant. It’s very relevant that, when pointing out that there hasn’t been a single scientifically done study showing people can consciously hear the difference between DVD-Audio and SACD audio, to also note that no scientific study shows that people can consciously hear the difference between CD quality audio the any “hi-rez” audio format.

I have reverted their diff. I’ll probably have to repeat this a zillion times: Science shows that CD-quality audio is indistinguishable from a wire. Every single scientific experiment done shows that people can not hear the difference. Every scientific experiment done shows that CD is indeed, as it was marketed in the 80s as being, perfect sound forever.

There is a fringe who believe that CDs dont sound good enough, that CDs sound harsh and digital, etc., but such viewpoints are fringe viewpoints and are not backed up by scientific fact. We treat these opinions as per WP:FRINGE. Samboy (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do those fringe include a few of the most respected record producers? I mean, seriously. I've given up really caring, but come on, ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of unrelated issues with music producers: One issue is that it makes sense, when recording and editing music (or any other audio), to do so at a resolution greater than 16/44.1 because otherwise multiple editing steps might result in distortion that can be heard in the final product. There doesn't need to be any headroom on a CD; when recording a singer or instrument, however, there should be about 20 db of headroom (digital sounds really bad should it ever be overloaded), which alone means we really want to record at a rate of 20/44.1 or 24/44.1.

The other issue is that a lot of record producers are used to the distortions the analog recording and mastering process introduces. The classic rock sound is very dependent on having the higher human-audible frequencies cut off or reduced; otherwise the sound is very brittle and harsh. Analog, when overloaded, gives a compressed sound many producers find pleasant. The issue these producers have is that they need the distortions and inaccuracies the analog recording process introduces to get the sound they want.

One final issue is that the 16/44.1 we had in the 1980s did, indeed, introduce unpleasant distortions, and a lot of producers, having a bad experience with it in that era, continue to believe CD quality audio is less than perfect. Modern converters and interpolation filters have eliminated the problems but many people still blame 16/44.1 and not imperfect 1980s converters for these problems.

You mentioned vague “music producers” who feel 16/44.1 introduces distortions humans can hear. Let me drop a very significant name in the music business who is convinced humans can not hear ultrasonics: David Griesinger, the creator of the legendary Lexicon reverb sound. Samboy (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A German study

Since I have been asserting that there hasn't been a study showing that CD audio doesn't sound like a wire, I should point to a couple of interesting studies:

• A German study; they used a 16/44.1 converter with some problems so it didn't sound like a wire; however 24/48 sounded just as good as 96/48 for the test subjects.

• The studies mentioned in the "hypersonics" section above. This isn't showing conscious hearing; but there may be a subconscious effect. Without other researchers backing this stuff up, I'm a bit skeptical, but I do think it is something worth following up on.

Like I said before; this isn't just the Meyer/Moran paper. There is also the NHK study, the German study, and countless other studies. 16/44.1 sounding just as good as a wire (given a good converter and with the audio at a reasonable level) is established scientific fact.

Samboy (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

20Hz O'Realy???

Since when are cd's and sacd's limited to 20Hz and above??? Well, i just corrected it. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.229.8 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to add original research

I have removed the following attempt to add original research in these edits to the article:

It must be noted however that the current Red Book CD standard of 16bit/44.1KHz is much inferior to the 24bit/176.4KHz PCM format in the said 2004 test.

This was added to the bottom of the “Audible differences compared to PCM/CD” section. Some points:

• This sentence states there is an audio difference for humans between 16/44.1 and 24/176.4. There is no scientific evidence (with the possible exception of Oohashi’s research asserting subconscious effects which is described in the hypersonic effect article) to support this claim. To claim otherwise is original research.

• The section mentions three tests: One showing that humans can not hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 1/2822.4 DSD, one showing that humans can not hear the difference when a 20khz low pass filter is added to audio data, and finally one showing that humans can not hear the difference between 24/176.4 and 1/2822.4 DSD. The sentence ignored two of the three tests done.

The IP who added this sentence did bad science; just because humans can’t hear the difference between 1/2822.4 DSD and 24/176.4 doesn’t automatically mean they can hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 1/2822.4. Indeed, we have another study showing no difference between 16/44.1 and 1/2822.4 and one showing we can’t hear anything above 20khz. And, not mentioned on this article, but there’s that German study showing people can’t tell 24/48 from anything with higher resolution. Samboy (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Audible differences compared to PCM/CD section

the 24-bit/176.4KHz PCM format is very different from the Red Book CD format of 16-bit/44.1KHz. The latter is just one of the many PCM formats. However, from reading the "Audible differences compared to PCM/CD" section, I have a strong impression that the two are being grouped together, which I thought is technically incorrect.

Since some SACD layers are made from the same 16-bit/44.1KHz master tapes that is used for the CD layer/release (Norah Jones' Come With Me is one of them [3]), it is sometimes impossible to know how true DSD-recorded sound would compare to those made under the CD format. I think that this fact should also be added, for it's possible that some of the comparison tests cited may have used incorrect discs for the tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iubrecording (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD test with CD resolution

Hi! I am new to editing Wikipedia, so please pardon my inexperience.

On the audio differences between SACD and PCM/CD on the SACD page, I thought that 24-bit/176.4KHz recording format is very different from the Red Book CD format of 16-bit/44.1KHz. So the two should be clearly differentiated.

The differences in bit-rate and sampling rate are number-related (24 vs 16, and 44.1 vs 176.4), and therefore evident in themselves (I did not think that it was necessary to quote a source that says 24 is larger than 16, or 176.4 is larger than 44.1) I also thought it's general knowledge that higher bit-rate and sampling rate will result better sonic quality (hence the lack of quote there ). I have now change the word "Inferior" to "different", which hopefully would undo my assumption that higher bit-rate and sampling rate generally results better sonic quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iubrecording (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The human ear has limitations that don't match these numerical increases—higher bit rate, faster sampling rate. You must quote listening tests to determine which format is better for the listener. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific papers universally show that if one plays someone a 16/44.1 recording, then play then the same recording with more audio bandwidth, people will be unable to tell which is which. This has been confirmed by multiple different scientific tests. They only peer-reviewed scientific papers that disagree with this conclusion are papers which suggest there may be a subconscious difference (see hypersonic effect). Samboy (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding listening tests between SACD and CDs (we are editing the SACD page, not anything else), I believe that it's relevant that the Stereophile reference be provided, for the cited listening tests of SACD vs. CD may very well be invalidated if they use discs that have both layers derived from the same 16bit/44.1KHz source. This is purely based on potential errors in methodology, not whether human ears can or can not (I personally can easily, but that's beside the point) hear the difference (in other word, if the tests are methodologically wrong, they are invalid disregard whether their results happen to reflect the truth/facts).Iubrecording (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iubrecording (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. If the method was faulty, the results will be suspect. However, the question about the methods is posed by you, not by a verifiable, reliable source. If you can find such a source and quote it, you're on. Read WP:V and WP:RS for pertinent guidelines about what is okay for Wikipedia articles, and WP:CITE for methods of citing your source. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Then I will quote Sterephile which raised the issue of whether audible difference could be detect on SACD hybrids that use the same 16-bit/44.1KHz source.Iubrecording (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The way you wrote it is a synthesis of two different groups of facts. You have the listening test in one reference, and the Norah Jones CD on another. You take these two and combine them to reach a third conclusion, that the Jones SACD listening test was faulty. Read WP:SYNTH for why we don't do that here. Instead, you need to quote a critic who says that one or more of the SACDs tested by listeners were ones that had CD-level resolution. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The scientific tests done are very consistent: If I play you a high-bandwidth recording and the same recording resampled at 16/44.1, you will be unable to tell which one is which (unless you happen to be my cat). That is objective scientific fact, supported by study after study and never contradicted. There are a lot of people who desperately want to believe this is not so, but such ideas are treated as fringe theories. We have had a number of people of this fringe come here and try time and time again to put a version of this fringe theory in the article; please see the archives for some of the discussions we have had. Samboy (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite understand you Binksternet. Stereophile concluded that the listening test based on the Norah Jones hybrid was moot because of the original source issue. And that's exactly what I put there: 1)The Norah Jones hybrid used the same source for both layers 2)Stereophile (The magazine) declared the comparison test moot. There is no conclusion that was reached by me.

Well, I personally can tell the difference in double-blinded tests, so I would suggest that you (samboy) do not use the word You in your statement. "The selected test subjects" is more appropriate.

Also SA-CD.net does keep a comprehensive list of SACD releases (better than the sites listed on the page)Iubrecording (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC). Why take it down?

I apologize for using the word "you" there, and I understand that it may be very difficult to accept that maybe something you think you're hearing is something you're really not hearing. Sometimes, we change our perceptions of reality to match our expectations. This doesn't mean that we're crazy; that is just human nature. A SACD player and a good sound system is still a good investment; a SACD is better mastered than most CDs because there isn't the loudness war game being played. And, there's the ability to have surround sound. Samboy (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. In no way did I suggest that any of you are "crazy". It's just that detecting audible difference requires tremendous skills and high-quality equipments. The tests cited do not seem to make effort to provide information regarding those issues ("experienced listeners" is a very vague term). I personally can tell the difference on double-blind tests on my headphone system (Sennheiser Orpheus) but not on my good speaker system. The difference is not in extensions, but quality within the audible spectrum (the same difference between high-quality MP3 and PCM).Iubrecording (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I’m sure the people at hydrogenaudio would love to have a chat with you. WP:NOTAFORUM and all that. Samboy (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please enlighten me why my recent edits regarding: 1) Kalman Rubinson's statement that "Overall, SACDs arrive faster than I can listen to them" "Want proof? Go to www.sa-cd.net." [4]; 2) Stereophile's listening test on Norah Jones' hybrid were taken out.

1) It as not taken out. It was removed from the lead, where it violates WP:UNDUE. 2) The comment on Norah Jones' hybrid was not a scientific double blind listening test and does not belong in this section. See Bink's comments above; I fully support him here. Samboy (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

May I ask who decided what Mr. Rubinson stated was biased or wrong, that in fact SACD releases are not faster than he could listen to them, and that SA-CD.net was not a proof of the said phenomenon? Iubrecording (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Listen, We’ve had time and time again some random person who has rarely or never edited the Wikipedia before come in to this article and go on a one-man crusade to give this article a pro-SACD slant to it which violates Wikipedia’s core policy on having a neutral point of view.

We are the Wikipedia; we are not sa-cd.net; our job is to present the facts about the mostly-failed Super Audio CD format. When I say mostly failed, I mean this: Can I buy Susan Boyle’s new CD, which is sitting here next to me, on SACD? Exactly. The original intention was to have something widespread enough so we would have been able to buy her CD as a SACD, not just a RBCD. That didn't happen.

However, a small, loudmouthed, and — I hate to say it, downright obnoxious — minority comes in here time and time again trying to make it look like SACD is this big thing. The only thing SACD has going for it is that there are a few thousand releases for it, mostly classical. Time and time again, SACD advocates and single purpose accounts try and question the scientific studies showing people can’t hear the difference between 16/44.1 and DSD, and trying to put a zillion little things about this release on SACD or that release on SACD, which comes off as trying to make SACD look more popular than it really is.

It gets tiring after a while. I understand I really need to assume good faith here, but it’s pretty hard to do when yet another pro-SACD POV-pusher comes in to this article trying to make SACD look like a runaway success, and trying to refute the scientific evidence showing we can’t hear the difference between 16/44.1 and DSD, without having any scientific studies backing up their claims.

Sorry, but look at the talk page archives (see the box on the top). It’s going to be a real hard sell trying to get this kind of content in to the article. Samboy (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, bringing the Norah Jones 44/16 SACD into the double blind test to say that the test is faulty if they used that disc is synthesis, a part of original research. The Stereophile article says nothing about its being used in a double blind test. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Samboy: You avoided answering my question directly, for it's obvious that you yourself are not rightfully eligible to make a judgment on the issue (yet chose to act on it). Instead, you went on to talk about all "those people". It's quite irrelevant whether I am one of "those people" you mentioned. It's also irrelevant whether it's a "hard sell" or not, unless your intention is to intimidate me. I know that I can clearly hear the difference, and that's why I am here. Whether SACD will live or die is not of my concern, for I know that another format superior to the Red Book format will dominate the future market. The fact is that Stereophile is a respected magazine and that Mr. Rubinson is a respected reviewer. His claim that SACDs are still being released at a pace that will satisfy a person's listening habit is very accurate of the current release situation, which is evident by browsing SA-CD.net. If you find my reasoning to be reasonable, please undo your action; If not, please indicate where it lapsed.

Scientifically speaking (logically as well), as long as one person can detect the audible difference between Red Book CDs and SACDs, it is therefore proven that the difference is there in absolute terms, disregard whether all others have the same ability to do so. But Wiki seems to be a place where majority rules (a practice rarely works in sciences). so I rest my case.

I really feel sorry that you can not tell the audible difference between 16/44.1 and DSD (and possibly DVD-A and Bluray audio). I also think that it's unnecessary to use various adjectives to describe a person (loundmouthed, etc) when you are directly reasoning with that person.Iubrecording (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, before accusing me of not answering your question, can I get an acknowledgment from you that you understand Bink’s point that the Stereophile thing about a given SACD just being upsampled 16/44.1 has nothing to do with the scientific studies showing that no one is on record as being able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and a higher resolution format?

Second of all, the problem with your quote is not that it’s poorly sourced or that we don’t consider Stereophile a reasonably reliable source (being trumped by things like peer-reviewed journal papers, of course, but we use it as a source to support the assertion that SACD mostly failed). The problem is that it is redundant; we already say there’s a large number of SACD releases and that new releases are being made.

See the discussion above were we decided it would be best to not have a mention of the SF symphony’s SACD releases here for a similar line of thinking.

Finally, it’s not about whether I can hear the difference between 16/44.1 and anything higher resolution. Don’t try to make it personal, because it’s not. It’s about whether peer-reviewed scientific papers show people being able to hear the difference. And, guess what, no such paper has been published. Claiming you can hear the difference doesn’t cut it here at the Wikipedia; if you want it to past muster, you will need to make an objective double-blind study where you can demonstrate that you can hear the difference. Get it peer-reviewed and published in a scientific paper. A given person claiming they can hear the difference doesn’t matter here, but I’m sure the people at Hydrogen Audio would love to talk to you about it.

There’s a lot of people who like to disagree with scientific papers, such as people who believe in Young Earth creationism, Conspiracy theories, and what not, but we treat such viewpoints as WP:FRINGE here. Samboy (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Samboy here. Wikipedia is not the place to publish personal experiences about audiophile material or anything else for that matter. Pcap ping 02:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your support. On an unrelated issue, since I have the (apparently non-majority) position that every single last FOSS software project deserves an article on the Wikipedia (if I had brain control, I would make Jimbo post to the Wikipedia that every single last FOSS project belongs on the Wiki, and then make the Wikipedia cabal permanently ban any editor who PRODs a FOSS, votes delete for, nominates for AFD, or closes as “Delete” any FOSS article), I will just mirror the content of FOSS projects that don’t survive AFD. I just need to make sure to list all of the editors who contributed to a given article (which, sadly, I don’t have for that simple IM client, but I’m pretty sure you can use your sources to resurrect the article in deletion review). Have a wonderful day! And, yes, I’m not having the best day, mainly because it’s a royal pain to do the paperwork to marry my fiancée, and it should be done by tomorrow morning. Samboy (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Bink had asked, I would have answered directly. Yes, the Sterephile did not indicate that the Norah Jones test to be a double-blind test. If only double-blind tests are allowed, that test would not qualify. Though I still think that the reason behind that test's failure sheds light on comparison tests between CDs and SACDs in general and therefore is relevant to the topic.

Now back to your answer to my question. You stated that "1) It as not taken out. It was removed from the lead, where it violates WP:UNDUE." This does not seem to be a problem of redundancy. Rather, it indicates that someone considered Mr. Robinson's claim to be biased or even wrong.

If redundancy is indeed the problem, then it became somewhat reasonable, though I would still argue that SA-CD.net is a much better source for SACD releases than the cited Qualitron Imports and www.marbecks.co.nz, neither of which is dedicated to monitor SACD releases.

Also please be mindful that I have never put my claim that I could hear the difference between CD and SACD on the front page of Wiki:SACD. As I stated clearly, that is only the reason I am here.

In any event, I understand that you have better reason not to be here.Iubrecording (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: Are you, by stating “I would still argue that SA-CD.net is a much better source”, complaining that there’s no sa-cd.net link on the page? Samboy (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No, nor did I imply it, as I have never complained about not having an SA-CD.net link anywhere in the page (which is itself untrue). My concern is that, at the top of page where it says "but new SACD recordings[5][6].....continue to be made.", SA-CD.net is much better source to support the claim than Qualitron Imports and www.marbecks.co.nz, since the former is a dedicated and up-to-date website that monitors all SACD releases, unlike the latter two. I, as a matter of fact, consider the two cited sources unsuitable for the purpose, since they only represent a fraction of the representation and is not always up-to-date (I wonder why they were chosen over SA-CD.net, a far more authentic source for the purpose of that sentence, in the first place).

I also have concern over, please allow me to re-state myself, the reason behind the deletion of Mr. Robinson's claim. You first cited WP:UNDUE (which would imply that his claim is untrue, which I strongly disagree), but later claimed redundancy (If it is indeed redundancy, then again I would argue that SA-CD.net is a much better source than your (?) selected sources.) Iubrecording (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna play good cop here... I rely on my hearing in my profession and I get great enjoyment from full fidelity sound. I chose my profession because of my excellent connection with my ears. I am usually the one person in a group who gets annoyed by high frequency whines, and through training I can detect ridiculously low levels of regenerative feedback in a live sound system. I am a big supporter of high bit rate audio recording, primarily for the purpose of preventing loss of fidelity during mixdown to consumer formats. When I listen to a high bit rate format, I love it. However, the format SACD makes me shake my head with wonder at how somebody would ever put a format together with increasingly high levels of random noise above 22k. Why not simple PCM? Ah, yes, the copyrights. :(

On Wikipedia, articles about art and especially about music and hearing have a tendency to degenerate into tales of personal experience or "I heard a guy who said"... What we do instead is require hard, verifiable citations from reliable sources. This particular article was under the control of editors who were saying SACD was beating DVD-Audio, and crowing about it, when to my skills of observation neither format was winning the battle for high-def audio. The way I see it, no format will win—there are simply not enough listeners who care, not enough of a market demanding more than 16/44. High def audio is destined to remain a sideline.

I set up an ABX test one time at Ex'pression College for Digital Arts and in the crowd, one guy consistently nailed all the listening tests. This guy, one experienced sound engineer in his 20s, alone among a large group of young and old audio engineers, could definitely hear the differences, every time. Yes, I agree that if one person can hear it, it has validity. To put that conclusion in the article, though, you will need to find a cite saying so. All the usual scientific paper conclusions throw all the results into a big hopper and we get the mean or average results, perhaps even trimming off the best and worst outliers, so you are going to have to search for a study that discusses individual anomalies. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bink: Thanks. I absolutely understand the need for a well established double-blind tests published on a peer-reviewed paper. I may be able to do such a test in the near future and publish the finding (I am a professional classical musician and recording engineer, but I am also an economist with a strong statistical background. This test would well suit my next publication). But for now, as I have said, I have rested my case.

I am glad that you agree that if one person can detect the difference, the difference is validated: I am also glad that you do know people who have such an ability just as I do. I myself do not have a preference of SACD over high-bit-rate/sampling rate PCM (DVD-A and BlueRay-Audio are all fine with me, though I do not, in the case of DVD-A, want to attach a monitor to my audio setup). I simply am not satisfied with the Red Book standard (not to mention the popular compressed formats such MP3), for I can easily detect its deficiencies even on mediocre equipments. And I am absolutely happy that I have such an ability.

High-Def audio is not for everyone. Only those who have a keen interest in high quality audio and have the adequate equipments will be potential supporters of the format: Porsche is certainly not a mainstream brand, but it does have a market of its own. SACD, and high-def audio formats in general, is currently in the same situation: it is not widely-spread, hence no Susan Boyle SACD, but still well-sold within its own category (looking at the Living Stereo series, Pink Floyd's Dark Side, Sting's various SACDs, and various Jazz DSD transfers).

Regarding Mr. Robinson's article [5], I re-read it again and thought that it describe the situation perfectly (and therefore deserves a place in the lead): 1) SACD is not replacing CDs, but still holds firmly a portion of the market ("small classical niche continues to endure"). (Though I would add Jazz as well) 2) SACD releases are steady, evident on SA-CD.net, which I believe is the most authentic and up-to-date site to monitor SACD releases, and therefore deserves a place in the lead. Mr Robinson may be enthusiastic about SACD and high-def formats in general, but what he wrote in the article was very realistic and reasonable (electronically recorded music initially set in stereo may not be suitable for a surround treatment) I don't see directly, or get the impression, that Mr. Robinson thinks that "SACD was beating DVD-Audio" in sales (presumably). I also think that this article would supplement the lead in a productive way (the classical/Jazz representation, not mainstream yet still steady, monitoring releases through SA-CD.net rather than Qualitron or Marbecks), rather than repeat what has been said.

My argument with Samboy, however, is based on his deletion behavior of Mr. Robinson's claim and his various reasons provided for his deletion (first WP:UNDUE, as in his reply to my inquiry here on the discussion, and later redundancy), all of which made me suspect that the deletion was based on his personal unhappiness with the claim (a bias) rather than a well-thought-out rationale. If that is true, it is unacceptable and unethical. His way of writing here on the discussion board, such as referring me as "those people", using various adjectives ("loudmouthed"), and not directly answering a question with a direct answer, is also quite questionable and potentially objectionable. (I apologize for my inexperienced additions to the page at the beginning, though please be mindful that I never tried to delete any of the existing materials). Iubrecording (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not address Samboy's style—that's between you two. If you feel that he has violated WP:NPA, or needs to have some experienced editors take a look at his behavior, then you can go to Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users and add your concerns.

Regarding your addition of Rubinson to the lead section, I thought it was overly promotional. Here is your sentence:

Kalman Rubinson has stated in a Stereophile column in September 2009 that "Overall, SACDs arrive faster than I can listen to them" and cited SA-CD.net, which maintains a list of SACD releases, as the proof.

If I were to rewrite that bit I would say:

Regarding the increasing number of SACD titles, Stereophile contributing editor Kalman Rubinson wrote in September 2009, "[o]verall, SACDs arrive faster than I can listen to them."[9]

We here just got over a group of editors pushing sa-cd.net as the source of references backing up a lot of jenky opinion which didn't appear on the website. Since then, the sa-cd.net connection has been trimmed to the minimum. It is presented as plain as day in the External links section at the bottom, as a source in the article for the statement about more than 6,000 titles, and then two other pages that aren't the main page are used from sa-cd.net to back up other facts. I feel, and we can certainly see Samboy feels, that the sa-cd.net site is already sufficiently represented. About Rubinson's observation, it isn't very precise. We don't know how many titles he means by his folksy but imprecise statement.

At WP:LEAD, the guideline for lead paragraphs states that they should adequately summarize the contents of the article. What we have here doesn't meet those guidelines. There is an opportunity for someone to expand the lead section to suit. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. As long as someone provides a well-thoughtout reason, I will have no complaint and focus only on any disagreement I may have with the reason. Samboy's shifting of positions (WP:UNDUE vs redundancy) and asking irrelevant questions (whether there is no SA-CD.net link on the page, which I never indicated or implied, and whether I could provide an answer to a question that you, Bink, never asked) are not honest and productive ways of conducting discussions.

I had no intention to promote SA-CD.net, but thought that it is a more suitable site than Qualitron and Marbecks in the lead section. As matter of fact, at the current stage, I don't think that there is better place in this world to monitor SACD releases than SA-CD.net (I would be happy if you could provide me one, most suitably through Wiki), which leads me to question whether trimming SA-CD.net to "the minimum" is a fair judgment, even given the fact that there may have been people who acted inappropriately in the past, and the fact you do have several links to the site elsewhere, though relatively discretely (in my opinion, for I had to search for them), on the page.

Personally, whenever I am looking for an SACD title, I find that SA-CD.net provides the most complete result. This is my personal experience, but I have no doubt that it is also universally true. The lead section therefore, in my opinion, should include SA-CD.net in a prominent position. After all, the reason SACD is still alive is due to the releases (not how superior DSD is over high-def PCM, which I don't believe is true), and the best site to monitor SACD releases can therefore provide vital information about the well-being of SACD, which is essential to the topic of SACD on Wiki, and thus should be placed prominently in the lead section. I again want to emphasize that I have no special "love" for SA-CD.net (I would be perfectly happy with another website that can do the same job), but do think that it's much better than the cited Qualitron and Marbecks, as a measurement of releases, hence the well-being, of SACD.

I will read WP:LEAD carefully.

Regarding your rewrite. Thank you. I would add "and cited SA-CD.net as his source for SACD release information", for, by "SACDs arrive", I believe that he clearly referred to SACD releases, rather than them arriving at his door. Since Mr. Robinson himself would in no way know what SACDs have been released and at what pace, the source for his claim would be important. He might get that information through Amazon.com or his friends, but, as the article indicated, he mostly likely used SA-CD.net. Iubrecording (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not add that. The SACDs must arrive at his door for him to listen to them. He only points to sa-cd.net so that readers could see for themselves the steady increase in titles from "the independent classical labels". Rubinson needs no source for the proof of his own statement. This wish of yours to have SA-CD.net prominent in the lead section is not going to get much traction with me. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the reason why SA-CD.net should not be placed in the lead section to replace Qualitron and Marbecks? Indicating that some people behaved badly prior has only to do with those people, not with SA-CD.net's ability to monitor SACD releases, which the lead section talks about. The only reason why SA-CD.net should not be in the lead section ought to be that it is an inferior sources for SACD releases when comparing to Qualitron and Marbecks. But I don't think that is true at all. If I am right, no matter what other people did prior, it is wrong, if one wants to be fair and provide the MOST informative information, not to put SA-CD.net in lead section in place of Qualitron and Marbecks. If you believe that SA-CD.net does an inferior job at tracking new SACD releases comparing to Qualitron and Marbecks, please indicate how. I am not looking for trouble, but I think that the current affair is unfair.

Regarding you assessment that Mr Robinson's quote "isn't very precise. We don't know how many titles he means by his folksy but imprecise statement." It is not, due to the nature of Stereophile (a magazine rather than a peer-reviewed journal). But I just re-read the other Stereophile reference (by Wes Phillips), it is far less precise than Mr. Robinson's (the latter at lease provided a website as a proof). Mr. Phillips' writing is a very personal statement involving mainly a personal experience, whereas Mr. Robinson's statement at lease is true: that SACDs are not replacing CDs but SACD releases can outpace a normal person's listening capacity. It would be fine if you find Stereophile to be an unsuitable source, but choosing Mr. Phillips' quote over Mr. Robinson's strikes me as another example of unfairness.

Finally, I find it very puzzling that you interpret Mr. Robinson's quote "Overall, SACDs arrive faster than I can listen to them" as SACD literally arriving at his door. Of course, he wouldn't be able to get any SACDs without some arriving at his door (figuratively). But what he meant there, to me, strongly indicates overall SACD releases, for otherwise the other half of the sentences that follows, "my recommendations in "Recordings in the Round" are only the tip of the iceberg. Want proof? Go to www.sa-cd.net." would have been abrupt and totally unnecessary (how can someone seek proof at SA-CD.net to know how many SACDs arrive at his door?) Of course, your mileage differs from mine.Iubrecording (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want any SACD website shown overtly in the lead paragraphs. Qualitron and Marbecks aren't overt (they are references) and neither should SA-CD.net be. You ask me about SA-CD.net replacing the Qualitron and Marbecks cites, but the better option is for those two to be augmented by a third cite using SA-CD.net.

Yes, I think Rubinson switched gears quickly in his writing, from the personal to the public. It's a folksy statement, but we have no idea how many discs he is able to listen to, or how many discs are too many for him. Putting him in would add color; something you might want near where the article says "over 6000 SACD releases". Not for the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable. A reference in the lead section to SA-CD.net is "prominent" enough for my taste. I absolutely support your idea that no overt website should be placed in the lead section, something I never thought of (as I had done it) and something I never got the impression from you.

Now, I do have to say that I have problems with Qualitron and Marbecks. The former is a music import company (a good one, IMO) that only imports a fraction of the releases and whose business is based on selling media, and the latter is a direct commercial shop (why not Amazon then? Putting a shopping website in the lead section invites many open questions. SA-CD.net is not commerce-free, but, if one looks at its main page and title links, one can see that it's a website that focuses on SACD releases, reviews, and news, all of which are much less commercial in nature than Qualitron and Marbecks). Neither is dedicated to SACDs, neither covers all SACD releases, and neither is absolutely up-to-date. Putting them there is potentially misleading to the readers. Also, with regard to SACD releases, which the lead section talks about, SA-CD.net can provide all the information Qualitron and Marbecks can provide and then some (Thus having Qualitron and Marbecks together with SA-CD.net is truly redundant). Those are the reasons I think that SA-CD.net should replace, rather than supplement, Qualitron and Marbecks in the lead section as a reference.

Yes, your "folksy" interpretation of Mr. Robinson's writing seems reasonable to me (you mentioned it before, but I couldn't get pass the "arrive" issue, which I still think refers to the general SACD releases (presented in a personal way), rather than literally describing an actual physical experience with a later shift to a general phenomenon). Where you said the quote belongs is perhaps where it should belong, mostly due to its colorful writing style. But how about Mr. Phillips' reference? I think that his writing is even more personal, and his suggestions to the industry is from a very personal perspective (I agree with him, though). Furthermore, his analysis of the current state of SACDs is only a lead to, not the main content of, his main concept, whose emphasis is on the music industry in general. Putting a reference in the lead section is therefore stretchy and misleading (and perhaps ill-intentioned. But it's just my feeling, which could very well be totally wrong). Such a reference, in my opinion, should not be placed in the lead section.

I just realized that references # 2, 3 and 4 are out of date. Their conclusions were based on data that were 2-4 years old, which obviously did not take consideration of the newly released SACDs and the release trend in the last 2-4 years. For a format that is relatively new, even a 2-year period is too long a period. Putting them in the lead section is potentially misleading, disregard whether SACD is indeed dying or not (If one thinks that it is still dying, one should find newer articles.) My argument against Mr. Phillips' newsletter still stands, but the fact that his conclusion was based on out of date data presents a better argument against the newsletter.

Can you find newer references which support the assertion that the tide is turning and SACDs are catching on? SACDs came out in 1999; 2006 and 2007 is the approximate time frame when that small SACD section in the record store entirely went away. There has been no news to report about SACD’s acceptance in the mainstream market since then, because that small SACD section in the local record store never came back. The references are only out of date if you can find newer articles, say, talking about how a turnaround happened and more people started buying SACDs instead of, say, MP3s. Samboy (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely No Offense. And no intention of having any kind of editing war. If you think that conclusions based on old data should be permitted, please present your argument. Iubrecording (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are ready to be WP:BOLD and make your stated changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's my learning curve. The out-of-date-ness was obvious, so I acted on it. Qualitron/Marbecks vs SA-CD.net is more subtle, so I am waiting for responses, though I still strongly think that my reasoning is sound. The current SACD state of affair, IMO, is that SACDs are 1)not replacing CDs (not as originally envisioned) 2)holding firmly a niche of the market (mostly classical, some jazz, and a bit of Rock/Pop) 3) having steady releases, though the future outlook is uncertain. In the meantime, I am reading about how the lead section should be like, and hopefully I could contribute to it so that it is more up-to-date and representative. I also just started drafting the methodology for an SACD vs CD listening test (such as having the same power supply for the DACs, the same output section after the DACs, and the exact mixing method for both layers, etc) and am looking for ways to get support from my profs. It's good to combine one's passion with one's profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iubrecording (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just made some changes to the lead section to reflect the current situation. (Edited out "not accepted" for the definition of acceptance is highly subjective. The article was talking about market success, which, IMO, is best represented by market share)Iubrecording (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad cop here again. If you look, another editor promptly reverted your changes. One, I point out above why the references are not out of date. Also, putting the “yet” there with your sentence “SACD was originally envisioned to replace the Compact Disc, but has yet to capture a major share of the market” (emphasis mine) implies that SACD will someday replace the Compact Disc (or, these days, mp3s) without any references whatsoever supporting this assertion.

There is the article WP:FRINGE which is worth reading. The notion that SACDs are a mainstream format or will become a mainstream format is not a mainstream point-of-view. It's a fringe point of view. Most people have no idea what SACD is (which is why we have this Wikipedia article to enlighten them) or vaguely remember seeing a small section of SACDs at the local record store which soon disappeared. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to make this article an article which accurately shows SACD’s adoption; this is why the wording states it did not have mainstream acceptance while pointing out there still a niche market.

SACDs came out in 1999; 11 years later they have a fraction of releases and sales as redbook CDs; the current #1 CD out there, Susan Boyle’s album, is not available as a SACD. Compare this to Compact Discs: They first came out in 1982; by 1987 they were outselling vinyl LPs, and by the early 1990s they were outselling cassette albums. By 1990, any major release was available on CD.

And, oh, SA-CD.net can’t fit as a reference in the lead because Zeus doesn’t put release dates on the SACD releases in a way that can easily be accessed to confirm that SACDs continue to be made.

I’m pretty busy right now and will probably not have time to reply here. Samboy (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Samboy: A reference that is meant to show the current state of affair is out of date if it uses old data (2-4 years old for a 11-year old format). This does not mean that what was said in the reference is no longrt true. It simply means that that reference can not be considered empirically sound and therefore should be removed. As I already said, find newer articles and put them there.

Your "yet" argument is right. The word should be edited out. I did not intend to imply anything. It was just the way I write and that's why editing from others is necessary (though rolling back entirely seems very excessive and unreasonable, especially considering using Marbeck's "No Releases in the last 90 days" link again.It's fine if one, not you Samboy in this instance, is unhappy with me?, my presumed intention, or my editing style, but one has to be fair regardless) Without the word, though, I think what I wrote was fairly accurate (further editing again is always needed). The current stituation of SACD is not what you or I think it is. It is what the most current articles/data say it is. If you read what I wrote earlier, your reference to Bolye is moot, since SACD currently only serves a portion of the market (exactly what I put in the lead section and what data supports) that focuses mostly on classcial music (Bolye is not a classical musician). Your reference to the evolution of CD is also moot, for in nowhere did I indicate that SACD's progress is in any way comparable to that of CD. I believe I clearly wrote in the lead section that the future outlook is still uncertain right after "the steady stream of releases", which means that it may not even hold a niche of the market in the future.

EyeSerene: Again, I have no intention to have any kind of editing war. I acted on the out-of-date-ness due to its obviousness. Please present your argument why referenes based on 2-4-year-old data should be considered scholarly souund to represent the current affair, and therefore should be used. Please also explain why Marbecks' (out of date) and Qualitron's (not comprehensive at all) links should be used. I also waited (during which time, you never responded here) before deleting Qualitron and Marbecks

Yes, SA-CD.net does not put release dates, but that can be checked easily by going to the individual label websites that are linked with the releases (Releases come from all kinds of different labels, which SA-CD.net represents, but not Qualitron or Marbecks). It's the comprehensive picture and magnitude (or the lack of) of releases that matters (in the lead section at least), and SA-CD.net presents that better than anyone else. There is no perfect website for SACD release monitoring, but SA-CD.net certainly represents, IMO, a more comprehensive picture than Qualitron/Marbecks do. (the latter is totally out of date. -- EyeSerene: You mentioned credibility of the front article in your message to me and yet still chose, through undoing my edit entirely, to use Marbecks's link, which says "there haven’t been any classical SACD titles released in the last 90 days"! In this regard, I believe that SA-CD.net, or my lately proposed Amazon.com's SACD section, is much more Credible. Please correct me if I am wrong.)

A new addition: To remedy SA-CD.net's lack of release date, I propose to list Amazon.com's SACD section sorted by release date (http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1263585938/ref=sr_st?keywords=sacd&rs=5174&page=1&bbn=5174&rh=n%3A5174%2Cn%3A!301668%2Ck%3Asacd&sort=-releasedate) to replace Qualitron and Marbecks for the former's obvious comprehensiveness and up-to-date-ness. It is a shopping website, which I don't like (but so is Marbecks), but it does present a comprehensive picture of current SACD releases. (Marbecks is really out of date. It's unacceptable)

Here is what I think should be in the second half of the lead section (not the final language, but just the points)

1)SACD was envisioned to replace CD (the history part)

2)Currently, it is not replacing CD and only captures a minor share of the market (again, what is mainstream and what is acceptance depend on subjective definitions: to me, the classical genre is part of the mainstream and the success of the SACD Living Stereo series (just one example) represents classcial listeners' acceptance of SACDs. But I don't mention it, for it's only my opinion. Market share is much more neutral). It has support from a few audiophile labels (as indicated in the article), holds a niche of the market, mostly in the classical genre (SA-CD.net, Amazon.com), and has a steady (steady does not mean voluminous, only continuous) stream of releases (Amazon.com, please see the current releases and future/pre-order releases, which show a steady/continuous trend)

3)The future outlook of SACD is uncertain.

4)SACD players (I don't think that this is relevant though)

I believe that the points are neutral and represent the current situation of SACD: SACD is not dying, judging from the current release trend and the planned future releases, all of which show an upward trend (it is only dying if the rate of releases is declining), nor prospering, judging from the niche representation. Again, old references based old data, which does not take the current release trend into consideration, should not be permitted (a technicality issue). Newer references are welcome.

I am not trying to make something sound like something else. I don't have a theory. I only trust my own ears (the reason that prompted me to be here and no more) and the most recent data (and references based on the most recent data). I am hoping to present all the data to present a more complete picture. Your (Samboy's, and possibly EyeSerene's) opinion differs from mine, but none of our opinions is relevant here. If the most current data shows that there is a decline in the rate of releases, SACD is dying. Otherwise, it is not. IMO, the data strongly supports the latter with a steady and upward trend, just by looking at Amazon and SA-CD. The current lead section is inadequate.

Iubrecording (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to the above (or parts of it at least!), and your comment on my talk page, I hope you don't mind if I first refer back to WP:LEAD. I realise this has been mentioned above, but it's perhaps worth reiterating that the lead of a Wikipedia article is intended to be a summary of the rest of the article. One way to think of it is as an "article-in-miniature"... in other words, if the rest of the text were to be removed leaving only the lead, a reader should still come away with a broad grasp of the subject. As a personal preference I find it easiest to write the lead last, because once the article body is in place, the lead pretty much writes itself.

The reason I mention this is because, in a well-written article, there should be no need for references in the lead at all. If the lead follows Wikipedia guidelines, it contains nothing that isn't found in more detail - and properly referenced - in the article body. There are some exceptions, but refs in the lead are often a sign that the the article is not policy-compliant. This is not solely a criticism of your version but also the version that precedes it. As yet there is no section in the article body that deals with the success or otherwise of the format, and until there is, it doesn't really belong in the lead in any incarnation.

Additionally, as I mentioned on your talk-page the article has been subject to some fairly persistent biased editing and advocacy in the not-so-distant past. That's how it came to my attention; not as an audiophile, but via a request for administrator assistance. The article popped up on my watchlist so I took a look, and reading the text you'd added, I concluded that it was possibly an attempt to 'spin' the article by toning down text that stated that the format ultimately failed to take off ("...SACD has not been accepted by the mainstream market" changed to "SACD [...] has yet to capture a major share of the market, notwithstanding support from audiophile labels"), and by overstating the level of support for the format (adding "At current stage, there has been a steady stream of SACD releases", which is unsupported by the reference you provided). Checking your contributions, I saw that this is almost the only article you've edited; from experience that is often an indicator that there may be an agenda behind the edits. I sincerely apologise if I've done you an injustice, but I hope you can at least understand how and why I reached the conclusion I did... and why this article and edits made to it continue to be under scrutiny.

Finally, I have no preference for one version of the article over another as long as both are equally policy compliant; I reverted your edits for the reasons explained above, not because I support a pro- or anti-SACD position. I agree that if you can find better sources than are currently included, they should certainly be used in developing the article. However, per your comments about trends above, you may need to be careful about doing your own analysis and drawing conclusions that aren't explicitly stated by the sources (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability (see WP:V). Where sources differ, it doesn't necessarily mean they should be discarded. Rather, they can form part of the "story" that we tell the reader. For example (and this is why a specific section would be a good idea because we'd have more space), we could say "In June 2009, X reported that no new SACDs had been released for three months,^ref1 but Y records n releases up to January 2010.^ref2" My point is that we have no business cherry-picking what information the reader is presented with; our only editorial freedom as Wikipedia editors is in creating a well-written distillation of all available reliable sources, so the reader can make up their own mind. EyeSerene^talk 00:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put! Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I was apparently approaching Wiki from a different, and in this case, wrong, perspective (the kind of perspective I normally adopt for my own writings). While I do read a lot on Wiki, I don't edit much at all, hence my lack of understanding of the guidelines. I understand your perspective and respect it, though I have to say that the Wiki way of not cherry-picking (especially among sources providing empirical data) does not suit my style -- Your X reported/Y reported example was exemplary enough and conclusive enough for me. The current SACD article, IMO, is not, in terms of information provided and neutrality, in a very healthy state. However, my inexperience is a great hindrance for me, despite my effort. I may have to hope, vainly perhaps, other more experienced editors to make the article more updated (the situation regarding SACD releases/sales has changed, slightly perhaps, in the last couple of years according to the most recent data) and neutral (I will refrain from defining this term myself).

My last clarification: notwithstanding support from audiophile labels was simply my way of re-phrasing "but the format continues to have the support of audiophile labels" from the cited article [6]; steady stream of SACD releases would be better supported by the Amazon link (which I didn't use, for its commercial background).Iubrecording (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

History section needed

Thank you for your considered and thoughtful response. It's true that writing for Wikipedia is very different to writing for other formats, especially academic papers and the like where the whole point is to present and defend a position. However, it's a skill we've all had to learn and every editor was new once, so please don't let inexperience deter you from contributing. If you feel the article as it stands is inaccurate, this should be addressed. If you fancy taking on the challenge, perhaps you might like to try writing up a section on the history of the adoption of the SACD format? Ideally we'd need reliable sources that discuss the subject explicitly, because as you've already noted, inferences drawn from what's available on shopping websites are less than ideal (and may violate WP:NOR). Also (as mentioned above) we'd need to bear in mind policies like WP:UNDUE, which urge us to present information in proportion to it's preponderance in those sources. I think the article could do a better job of explaining the history of the format (a couple of quick-and-dirty websearches provided this, this, this, and this, which seem to be from fairly reliable sources and between them show how things have developed over time; I'm sure many better sources could be found). I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the links, the Washington Post article, which states “numerous other formats -- MiniDisc, DVD-Audio and Super Audio Compact Disc -- have gone the way of HD DVD discs”, has a few inaccuracies:

• SACD hasn’t died. There’s still a niche of listeners of classical music who listen to SACDs, and a small number of independent labels who make SACDs to satisfy these listeners.

• “VHS trounced Betamax, but look at how fast it faded with the onset of the DVD”. Also inaccurate. DVDs came out in 1996; I didn’t see my first DVD player until 1998, and I date VHS’s death to early 2006 when Wal*Mart stopped carrying VHS movies. Eight years is not a “fast death”.

This particular article can only be used as support for the fact that the general public sees SACD as a failure.

Personally, I think the Wikipedia article does need an entire section on SACD’s history: It’s initial introduction in 1999, the attempts re-release of back catalogs of various pop/rock artists in the 2000s, the small section of SACD releases at the local record store that never expanded and soon disappeared, and SACD’s continued survival because some classical independent labels still make SACDs.

Also, I feel the future of hi-rez audio is the audio of blu ray discs, which supports 24/192 PCM. Samboy (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome a history section. I am curious to find out which SACD promoters thought that the format would replace CD, and why they came to this conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Samboy, your first point is illustrative of the "Verifiability not Truth" maxim. Whether SACD has in reality died or not, back in early 2008 the article author apparently believed that it had. Per WP:V, we can use that reference in it's proper place in the sequence of events without implying that we either agree or disagree (ie something like "Writing in Feb 2008 for The Washington Post, Personal Technology Columnist Rob Pegoraro believed that SACD had gone the way of failed formats such as MiniDisc and DVD-Audio. However, ..."). Really what I was trying to do was show how we can use a set of references to tell the full story without discarding earlier apparently 'out-of-date' sources or taking a side. Taken together in chronological order, I think my links roughly chart the same sequence as you've laid out, though I'm sure you can find better ones. Binksternet's point is an interesting one too, assuming sources can be uncovered. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree: It is a useful reference; it is from early 2008 and shows a perception that SACD is dead. References from 2006 and 2007 showing perceptions of SACD as being dead (or at least, not a runaway success) are not outdated unless we can find newer articles from reliable sources talking about how the older perception of SACD as being “dead” was inaccurate. I don’t see these articles being dated at all; you found an article from 2009 which states “mainstream adoption of the SACD format never materialized, as Sony once predicted it would”, which is in line with what the 2006, 2007, and 2008 articles we have found have to say. I wish we had a date for that Genesis News article; I would say it’s from 2007 because this thread on Gabriel’s SACDs is from 2007. Samboy (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I thought the Genesis article was later than that, but looking again you're most likely right. Never mind - it's possibly the least useful of the links, though it serves to show that some (at least) major artists believed the format had a future outside the niche market it currently seems to serve. I'm glad you think the 2009 article looks useful; it certainly supports lack of mainstream adoption as you say, but also the niche market assertion and perhaps goes some way to addressing Iubrecording's concerns ("Judging by the number of new titles that continue to be released by audiophile record labels, SACD is the physical medium of choice for high-resolution-digital recordings.") Again though, to prevent accusations of POV we'd need to attribute that as author opinion :) EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we can find reliable third-party coverage for this rock SACD album, for example (it’s an independent release of 1950s/early 1960s rock and roll), this can show coverage beyond classical, SACD’s main bread and butter. Samboy (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD adoption history

OK, we have dug up a number of reliable sources discussing SACD’s adoption. I will chronologically order what we have so far:

• 2004 article “the CD tidal wave was so aggressive that it swept away everything in its path including the terms album and record. I keep waiting for a high-resolution audio to trigger a similar tsunami. But tiny islands of SACDs and DVD-Audio titles in my local Tower Records have not grown into mighty continents.”
• 2006 article “The pure failure of SACD and DVD-Audio as high resolution formats was analogous burning down a small town.”
• 2007 article “Such a format—Super Audio CD (SACD)—has been out there since September 1999. And now, it's dying”
• 2008 article “Over just the past decade, numerous other formats -- MiniDisc, DVD-Audio and Super Audio Compact Disc -- have gone the way of HD DVD discs”
• 2009 article #1 “SACD was praised by audiophiles, but fizzled in the market. Sony Records no longer releases new SACD titles”
• 2009 article #2 “mainstream adoption of the SACD format never materialized, as Sony once predicted it would, it seems to have found a home in the audiophile marketplace”
• 2009 article #3 “We all recognize that the Super Audio Compact Disc, despite being an almost ideal format for high-resolution audio, has not replaced the "Red Book" CD [...] A steady stream of new SACDs continues from the independent classical labels, including many releases by major orchestras and ensembles”

Here, we see as far back as 2004 SACD not taking off like CDs did in the 1980s, with a number of commentaries saying SACD is dead or failing from 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. We see a couple of commentaries from 2009 pointing out SACD is alive and well in a niche audiophile market.

I think these references give us enough information to make a “SACD adoption” section. Samboy (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I’ve created this section. In reply to the note that the lists of new SACD releases we had before no longer list new SACDs, I have updated the list to use a link from Amazon. In reply to the concern that we shouldn’t have references in the lead, I’ve move the references down to this new section. I’ve tried to make this section as supportive of SACDs as I can, but when a writer for the prestigious Washington Post flat out says that SACD has gone the way of HD-DVD, I have to point out there is a perception that SACD was a complete failure. Samboy (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good :) There's no need to be deliberately supportive of SACDs (just as there's no need to be deliberately critical); we just point out what others have said and leave it at that. However, I think your text is neutral, factual, and to the point, so nice work. We've now got a basis for expansion if other sources turn up to flesh out the section. EyeSerene^talk 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Blind testing

The problem with questioning the reliability of blind testing is that purely subjective evaluations can be influenced by the placebo effect. For example, a wine critic may decide that a bottle of wine is good because it has an expensive label, or an audio critic can decide that cables are good because they cost thousands of dollars. The James Randi Educational Foundation offers a million dollar prize for extravagant high end audio claims that will check out under double blind conditions, eg here with some $7250 audio cables (the prize remains intact). The differences between ordinary compact discs and the audiophile versions are at best subtle and at worst hard to discern, which has been confirmed in blind listening tests. I left in the cite criticizing blind listening tests [7] so people could read it and make up their own minds. However, dismissing blind tests altogether is unwise, and professional audio engineers would be reluctant to do this in case it led to a situation where they were fooled, despite claiming to "know" the difference. If you can tell the difference, you should have no problem with demonstrating it while blindfolded. If you cannot, maybe it is just good old fashioned audiophile snobbery.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

This edit was reverted because it has a range of issues. It uses weasel wording, eg "Many audiophiles readily notice" (who?) and cites the website American Conservatory of Music, which may be a self published source with a conflict of interest. Peer reviewed studies have failed to show a dramatic difference between audiophile discs and ordinary compact discs, and the article should rely on the use of reliable sources as citations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The source for the AES quote is here. It is brief and within fair use guidelines. This is an important part of the article, and the AES study helps to understand this side of the argument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content to the article Super Audio CD, please take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources. I'm removing the material that belongs to a subscription site and it's not properly cited. Thx you.Jrod2 (talk)

Ianmcm, what is all this 'bout man??

"Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests".

IMO, there is no need to include content that appear redundant or tests that are more likely to be flawed from the very beginning. I also dont see the quote on that page so this is poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) and it is a blatant violation of WP:V. Wikipedia is not or shouldn't be the definitive word on whether CDA is or not degrading the quality compared to SACD. Jrod2 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not ideal that a person would have to pay to get at this quote, but this is a common feature of some academic research papers and online newspaper archives. In many ways, this is little different from citing a library book to which a person may or may not have immediate access. The AES is a respected body, and hopefully the quote does not give undue weight to their position. The section mentions that there was criticism of the 2007 AES study, and this is also sourced. I can't see any huge problems here, but would welcome further comments from other users.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yo, just point to me to a guideline that says that we can quote other people's work or opinions without a proper physical link to the source of the quote and I'll back off. But don't give your personal reasoning. To me this quote cant be used for the reasons i stated. if you want to say that "there is no evidence that CDA is a format that degrades SACD or HD files", Im sure you'll find a ton of qualifying citations. Even if this AES, it dont mean that guidelines are ignored. Jrod2 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I could remove the quote if it is going to be a huge issue for you, but am reminded of a conversation that I had at Talk:Brittany_Murphy/Archive_1#Faith last December. I asked whether an online newspaper article that required a subscription was OK for a citation, and was told that it was OK. Since I am not an expert here, I would request further guidance. Incidentally, I did not add this quote to the article and am not linked to the AES in any way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time that someone else will bring this up and remove it (see "quotations"). Thx. Jrod2 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a clear cut violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and taken to its logical conclusion, all citations from print sources would be banned if they could not be verified immediately by clicking on a link. It does not make a huge difference to the article if the quote is removed, but it would be interesting to see what other users thought about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not it....:::I believe that the AES paper is a tertiary source not secondary, this makes it even more controversial to include as a quote. The point is that this quote has to be readable and found inside the source's text, which is not in this case. This has nothing to whether we can use subscription online newspapers or not. Jrod2 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

References

"However, the youngest participant in this test was 22 years old"?

The article states that "However, the youngest participant in this test was 22 years old." So? Urvabara (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is cited from the research paper at [8]. It points out that the youngest participant in the test was born in 1982, so would have been 22 at the time of the test in 2004. Presumably, the above text is trying to point out that younger people have better high frequency hearing. However, because this is not a point made specifically by the source, there is an element of WP:OR (Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources). The article is probably better off without this sentence, so it has been removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, good removal. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SACD ripping imminent?

References:

http://www.ps3sacd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=341

and

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19882773#post19882773 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.141.89 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

The article is tagged for spacing issues but does not appear to be particularly bad. Could there be a consensus on whether there is a problem here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a pressing need for copy editing and article formatting. The tag appears to have been placed without a good basis and should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic Range of 120dB

Just a quick calculation... 120/10 = 12.

12 Orders of magnitude, meaning that a SACD might reconstruct e.g values from 1μV to 1MV ... that's cool and all, but either I don't have a clue or this does not seem very logical. --129.13.72.198 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

120/20 = 6, so perhaps 1μV to 1V. But this is still more range than is achievable in practice. Aquegg (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words in opening paragraph

After popping here for a quick read-up to check some SACD stats I was fascinated to find a dodgy-sounding sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph: Researchers have disputed the claim that SACD offers sound quality significantly different from a standard CD. Hmm. Obviously this is plain nonsense unless one is a Luddite, but there was a cite! Excitedly I flipped to the source to read up on the research that I had so obviously missed, and ready to have my world-view substantially altered - only to find that the research had nothing to say about quality at all! Quelle surprise.

In all seriousness this is the sort of lazy, biased nonsense I expect to find on a vinyl-and-valve enthusiast site, where the supposed merits of analogue vs digital are being discussed heatedly. It's also the worst kind of straw man argument; one where the language is actually saying something other than the claimed message, but the language is subtle and techie enough that many less educated readers will simply absorb the apparent conclusion as fact.

I'm not going to make any changes, as this line already has the oddly-worded weight of a sentence that's been argued over many times until some sort of compromise was reached (may be wrong here but that's how it reads), and so I would probably be reverted. Blitterbug 01:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

This is a puzzle, as the 2007 AES study concluded that the CD format (44.1kHz 16 bit) did not sound noticeably different in a blind test.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The report is a primary source, so a certain amount of weaselness is not inappropriate. It could be reworded though, the researchers didn't "dispute" as such, they just reported their findings. Aquegg (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2007 study was designed to test the null hypothesis that SACD does not sound noticeably different from CD. If you buy a SACD and CD of the same recording, they may not sound exactly the same because the audio mastering may be different. What the 2007 study did was to take SACD recordings and convert them to CD format (44.1/16) and play them side by side in a blind test. The result did not show any significant difference. Standard audio engineering theory says that adding frequencies above 20kHz will not improve the end result, see also [9].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and change the article. From your ref, this is good: "No peer-reviewed paper that has stood the test of time disagrees substantially with these results", and the author is a recognized expert (his new codec has been chosen by the IETF as the next internet audio standard). It makes you wonder though, how did SACD ever get off the ground—didn't they do any tests during development? Seemingly not, or they would have published their results to rebuff the 2007 study. Aquegg (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Current availability of SACD discs

The article needs to look at the current availability of SACD discs. Since 2010, the flow of new releases from the major record companies has largely dried up. The 2003 remastering of The Dark Side of the Moon is regarded as a classic SACD and is still available, but many top artists, such as The Beatles, Abba and Led Zeppelin have never been released on SACD and are never likely to be. As this article points out "Although SACDs are still being produced in limited quantities for a niche rock/pop market, the glory days of the format (approximately the years 2000 – 2005) are gone. Virtually all the discs released by record labels around that time are now out of print." This forum thread correctly points out that most of the new SACD releases since 2010 have been on smaller labels and are predominantly classical or jazz.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of SACDs are released globally each month -- a statement that's hard to believe, until you look at the sa-cd.net site regularly. They track what's issued rather religiously, and for any given disc, give the price and a link for how it may be purchased globally. So, if you click on the home page every week or so, you see frequent change. If you click there today, you'll see most discs are indeed classical, but I also see *new* Elvis Presley and Yes SACD discs. Boutique labels often get access to the old "major label" material, and reissue it in quite wonderful audio form. Not necessarily the "glory days" for any given pop recording on SACD (but, hang in there -- it may appear unexpectedly from Japan or elsewhere), but glorious days for fans of the classical and jazz genres. Thanks for listening -- ResearcherQ (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Me confused

Why are we all arguing about the merits of SACD vs CD? This is not an encyclopedic issue, but an artistic one. Enough to state that there is an ongoing controversy and its superiority is not universally accepted, and leave it at that.

This article has no real history. When did SONY/Philips combine to form the format, when did they first offer discs, etc etc.

The technical discussion is hopelessly vague. A few techno-tidbits are repeated over and over with no real clear explanations. Readers are referred to the DSD page, which basically has the same techo-tidbits repeated again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SACD uses Direct Stream Digital, but in reality many of the SACDs on the market were recorded or remastered in 96kHz/24 bit PCM as this is the most common format in professional recording studios. The 2007 AES study is important, because it raises the issue of whether an average listener would benefit from SACD. The biggest selling point of SACD is/was 5.1 surround sound which is not offered by CD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

2007 AES study

Re this edit: The AES study said that "virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs - sometimes much better." What this is referring to is shop bought copies of the same material on SACD and CD. The authors of the AES study attribute this to greater care in the audio mastering, and in particular less dynamic range compression and equalization in the audiophile versions. This does not really translate into "SACD sounds better", but does imply that more care went into the mastering process for the audiophile market. The SACD of Michael Jackson's Thriller, released in 1999, ran into criticism that it did not sound significantly different or better than previous CD releases.[10] Jackson reportedly did not allow the album to be remastered to 5.1 surround and re-released for the SACD version, unlike the 2003 anniversary version of The Dark Side of the Moon and other albums.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A Small Data Point Relevant To Counts Of How Many SACDs Titles Exist

I went on a buying frenzy a couple years ago to build up a classical-music SACD collection, and used sa-cd.net to tell me about all new titles.

Turns out, there were three SACD publishers I encountered that didn't list their releases on sa-cd.net. One of them I contacted wasn't even aware that sa-cd.net existed (and has presumably since started listing on it). The other two didn't seem interested.

How did I find out about these publishers? Google searches that happened to display their SACDs, or the occasional find on Amazon. There may be others still unknown to me that don't list on sa-cd.net.

Conclusion: It is likely sa-cd.net undercounts the true total. Not by a lot, but at least by some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction Between Text And Table

Text says "With appropriate low-pass filtering, a frequency response of 20 kHz can be achieved along with a dynamic range of nearly 120 dB".

Table in section below that text says 105 dB.

Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hearing Range Wrong

The hearing range is stated as 20Hz to 20Khz - yet it is possible to hear both lower (5Hz) and higher (28khz) for some people who are healthy in lab conditions. OTHER wikipedia articles indicate this "commonly given standard" range is that measured at 20 degrees Celsius too. This should be corrected - I did put a link to human hearing in the See also but it has been removed - I do not want to waste time in a pointless edit war with someone that is convinced that CDs are perfect and vinyl is outmoded. BUT as the article stands it is inaccurate. It contains a bias in favor of human technology rather than just an accurate representation of it. IT Is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between what is possible and what is likely. Human hearing range is commonly stated as 20 Hz to 20 kHz but there are variations from person to person. This source says "Human infants can actually hear frequencies slightly higher than 20 kHz, but lose some high-frequency sensitivity as they mature; the upper limit in average adults is often closer to 15–17 kHz." In practice, a person would be lucky to hear 28 kHz, so the article should not give the impression that this is the standard figure found in most reference works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)