Did you not detect an element of humour in that title? I would have hoped so, but evidently not. But that "difficult" assertion is based on many of your other posts. Otherwise, why would I use the word "always"? Don't worry about it, though, I am always up for a challenge. Otherwise, what is the point of bothering to discuss things?
Then you need to use SMILEY's, LOL, HA HA, etc in your posts. We cannot hear you, we cannot see you, yet we have to understand your humor/humour.
Bad assertion - I do NOT hate SACD at all. I think it's an excellent digital format.
Subject contains: SUPER HATE MEGA POST - Ok what is one to think? Maybe I did not have my "Brit" humor translation guide handy.
Bad quote - I specifically said it was due to the mark - go back and re-read..
What I QUOTED was from your FIRST post - #1 in this thread. So how did "I" bad quote it? The information from post #1 is in ITALICS and it is posted word for word:
Anyway, there are hardly any visible marks on my Beck Sea Change SACD, yet my player won't read it anymore. At all. Zero. Zilsch. All other SACDs - fine!
Hardly any marks is what you FIRST said. Then I replied and you then you posted a correction later on:
...but there is a small mark right at the inside of the disc. I agree that this is where the TOC is and the disc not playing at all would probably be the culprit. This is the MISINFORMATION you made in your first post regarding the SACD issue.
It is easy to get PO'ed at a format that reports itself to be re-playable and exactly as your purchased it time after time. But remember the mark or nick you had did not just appear out of thin air - something caused it. And unfortunately we all have been in this situation of having issues with our source.
SACD never came out with a better way to write data. Or read it. DVD did that for it. SACD is just a digital format and as such could live in any digital storage medium with the capacity - but for the watermarking and other measures that makes it hard to copy.
It was originally designed as a data storage archiving medium and then was used for music.
1) Surely you realised when DVDs came out that they were far more susceptible to failure? I had loads of rental disks that caused no end of problems, sometimes with very minimal markings. I have owned many different players over the years and the conclusion is always the same - DVDs will take less of a beating tham a CD before they give up - much less.
Surely (don't call me Johnson - YANK humor there - HA HA, LOL, get it?) you can find a better example than RENTAL DVD's for data support concerning failure rates?
RENTAL = BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF IT as people do not own them.
I have many DVD's which I have own for YEARS, as with SACD, and Redbook and I have not seen any correlation between formats and failure rates. I have not read about it, seen it discussed or research, or heard about it other than your new theory. It would be interesting if YOU could find data to support this stance.
It is a known fact (go out and read it) that early days of DVD manufacturing, late 90's, the processes were new and lessons needed to be learned. They were very small and today these processes have been improved upon and the issues are even smaller.
So sorry, DTB, where precisely is the bad information coming from?
Remember you started all of this RANT due to a disc failure, so I guess it is coming from you :devil:
I forget you are so right and I am so wrong, I really do not know why I am questioning such a wealth of information, superior knowledge and humor. People here should continue to follow your words as the absolute truth and final say. I look forward to more of your vast knowledge - NO HUMOR STATEMENT.
Like I stated before you should really contact the people responsible for this technology and enlighten them on your knowledge and theory so this flawed format can be fixed for all of us.
You win have another drink on me - but don't spill it on that SACD as you could ruin it.
