Read this article about how sony admits CD sucks-

tomperson · Post by **tomperson** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:35 pm

http://www.irdial.com/scum.htm

What do you think?

minimal · Post by **minimal** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:00 pm

bah, sacd never really took off, like minidisc... sony whining again.

At the end we all know that vinyl sound better than CD, isn'it?

And then again, earing is subjective, there will always be the one who says mp3 is good, etc etc.

longjohns · Post by **longjohns** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:19 pm

that guys a drama queen. people every day get enjoyment listening to reconstructed recordings of old jazz probably made on some wax cylinder

music recorded to DAT is LOST FOREVER because it sounds so horrible!!!

whatever

ishimaru · Post by **ishimaru** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:21 pm

OWNED.

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:22 pm

If Sony really wanted SACD to take off, they would have made the licensing extremely inexpensive (or free) for the technology, made the players and media as cheap as CDs, and would have already saturated the market with it... Not be whiny little faggots with all this holier-than-thou attitude about why CDs suck.

variostatic · Post by **variostatic** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:47 pm

music recorded to DAT is LOST FOREVER because it sounds so horrible!!!

thats why nobody like records from the late 80`s till the early 90`s......
(sarcasm).
in the end you listen to a song, and a song is a song is a song, no matter in which quality recorded, isnt it?

telekom · Post by **telekom** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:15 pm

I think both irdial AND sony are talking utter bullshit. Irdial is not even interested in whether CD or SACD are worth bothering about - his answer is filesharing. Filesharing what? Ripped CD's? Which are then converted to mp3? Should we really believe this guy when he bleats on about inferior sound quality on CD, when he's gonna save the music for all the kiddies of the future by filesharing and converting to a serviceable but hardly HIFI format? I don't think he gives a monkeys about sound quality.

And sony are baldly introducing us to the emperor's new clothes. Big deal. That's what large multi-nationals do. They don't develop new technology because they feel sorry for us poor souls having to "make do" with the sound of CD. They do it to make money for their shareholders.

Sound quality is irrelevant in this argument. Filesharing is not a viable way to either improve the sound quality of the music we listen to or support the artists we love. SACD will be hi-end audiophile snake oil for the elite. I reckon 90% of us don't possess amps or speakers (or ears) to even notice the difference between SACD and CD.

Pointless. Lawrence Lessig is far more relevant to all these debates.
My 2p

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:59 pm

Sony sucks, they have had some great ideas and made some good products, but they are so paranoid and copyright freaked they shoot themselves in the foot.

eyeknow · Post by **eyeknow** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:00 am

btw, isn't it odd that after 12-13 years minidisc seems to be making a push at being popular....in the musicians realm anyways.

ILTK · Post by **ILTK** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:45 am

Ahaha what a load of crap from that sony text.

This is just a thinly vailed attempt to get everyone to buy a medium loaded to the brim with intrusive DRM, which of course will be broken 1 week after it's released.

Robert Henke · Post by **Robert Henke** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:14 am

What an absurd article.
Sony and Philips did a great job developping a digital media which can be played nearly infinite times, offers almost twice the playing time then a vinyl record, dramatically improved signal to noise ratio, has no restriction in the amplitude of high frequencies and this all in on a smal disc which can be played back even in a car
or a CD walkman. 44.1 k was the maximum you could do at this time without extremly expensive equiment. Now we can do better, and there comes DVD and SACD. Who ever complains about that is plain ignorant. It`s the choice of the customer if (s)he thinks mp3 is fine or if the better quality is worth the effort.

Robert

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:54 am

That article was a very prolific discourse however, totally irrelevant. The reality is that the music-buying masses are perfectly content buying very lo-fi media (.mp3's, .mov's) for their very high-tech (and expensive) gadgets- e.g. iPods.

Unlike Sony, Apple were very shrewd by realizing that consumers would not notice the content that they were buying was crap, as long as you also sold them a dazzling device to play it on. As of today, Apple owns 70% of that market!

But that shrewedness was a result of the painful lessons learned in the 80's when Microsoft whooped they ass in the PC wars.

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:11 am

haha

i can't tell if he want's us to go back to cassette tapes, or is just into file sharing