"Stereo SACD's dead in the water"

I don't know a lot of this. But I believe Julian is right: above 20KHz with SACD you get mainly noise.

What SACD does seem to bring is more RESOLUTION (think of a PC screen) within the listeneable bandwidth.

In that sense, it is better than CD.

Anyway, classics at least seem to be adopting SACD more an nore often.

I once listened to a SACD. It was rather good, as far as HiFi goes. It was no substitute for the real thing, of course.

Also, modern CDs tend to be rather well recorded anyway.
 
rds,
i'm not sure what you mean by resolution. the only thing i can think of is dynamic range which i think is slightly better than with cd but nowhere near as good as dvd-a (titter).
iirc, most run of the mill cd players are effectively still only resolving about 14 bits of the data stream. when you consider that the 2 missing bits represent a 4 fold increase then it's easy to see why cd players can sound samey and then take a massive jump in quality as they start resolving the bits that other beers er cd players cannot reach.
i've not yet had a convincing demo of sacd or dvd-a other than some multichannel dvd-a stuff that kind of worked. neither has yet convinced me that one or the other (or both) is worth investing is as yet.
cheers


julian
 
It is difficult to say what I mean by resolution. That is why I used the analogy with computer screens.

When one listens to live acoustic music one realizes that the sound is not very loud. Even with very big organs and middle sized orchestras the sound is subtle and ââ'¬â€œ I don't quite know how to put it ââ'¬â€œ thin, edgy, perfectly clean.

With most solid state amplifiers the sound is dirtier: confused attacks, rather congested sounds when there are many different sound waves and plain less transparent than the real thing.

With some valves you get cleaner transients but then almost always you get a very coloured sound.

Most CDPs add to the opacity of the general sound. Compared to the real thing you get the impression that what was originally a very thin, flowing and golden hair has been turned irregular, not that flowing and plain yellow.

Of course with upsampling you get nearer to the real picture.

I am not certain I am right, but it seems to me that SACD reproduces sound in a cleaner way ââ'¬â€œ you won't get your golden hair, but at least it looks like a good reproduction of one. Abandoning my metaphor, hence the sense of space and of subtlety. Music may sound as less loud or less hard, but that is actually closer to the truth (inasmuch as acoustic music is concerned).

I know I'm not being very clear, but I hope I can get some of my meaning across too you. The best way to try to understand it is to actually listen to a complex wave ââ'¬â€œ NOT an acoustic guitar sound, which is rather simple. I mean a violin, a harpsichord or a succession of chords on the modern grand piano. Then listen to it played back in CD format. You definitely lose something ââ'¬â€œ space, air, complexity, in a word, resolution. Try it with a DAT recorder: it will be much better; I actually listened to this operation with CD format and DAT format.

From what I read and what I could listen, I think SACD is nearer to DAT than to CD.
 
Originally posted by wadia-miester
it's inability to recreate the rythmic and dynamic timing shifts, in a believable fashion, leaves me feeling some what cheated, great for Jazz cats
Click to expand...
From a technical POV, most hardbop (the jazz plinque I listen to most) and post bop is recorded with little or no compression and only very mild EQ if any. The music is also played very fast and frequently in seriously off kilter tempi (frequently more than one tempo).
Rock OTOH is almost always seriously compressed, has very serious EQ problems and relies strictly on volume rather than dynamic tension for impact.
Anyone who would like to hear some examples of extraordinarily dynamic timing shifts on a *very* well recorded Jazz record should seek out Max Roach Live in Tokyo 1976.
 
Originally posted by voodoo
Now, I may be miles :music: off here, but from all the technical jargon I've read about DSD/SACD it appears to me that the high level information is more like junk shunted to the upper frequencies and this gives the often mentioned very clear mid-range.
Click to expand...

I am going by my own ears (naturally) but I feel with CD the musical articulation is like dots on a graph making a curve. the upsampling players seem to try and add to the number of dots, but surely this can only be seen as artificial "enhancement". The DSD approach contains and presents more of the recorded information and along with it more presence and timbre. I am not even focusing on the <20Hz and >20Khz stuff, just more of the in between. I really feel you can hear the extra info in the presence and believability. Upsampling 16 bit CD is just papering over the cracks (to me anyway).
 
Just popping in for my two pence worth. Strikes me you're all barking up the wrong tree.

Given that in a couple of years (maybe less) the only kind of player 99% of the population will have available to buy is likely to be a Universal player which will play CD, SACD and DVD-A. The format which wins out will inevitably be the format that the music industry prefers and issues on (assuming MP3 doesn't wipe said industry out first). The argument we're having here about the relative benefits of one format over another are pretty much academic.

The buying public will generally only be upset if they buy a disc which won't play in their machine. The fact that the most popular new format today is MP3 kind of shows you how much the public cares about sound quality issues. - I know, I know we all come here because we do care, but the point is I'm not at all sure that the likes of Warners and Sony music give two hoots about what nerds like you and I think.
 
I'm not really sure i expect Sony to "care" what i think. Sony's priority in agreeing the DSD format was to allow them to digitally archive their backcatalog before the tapes turned to powder.

As such Sony's core objective was to find an encoding process which would provide as much of the musical information as would ever be required so that if the master tapes were lost they would never suddenly find their digital archives were not really good enough. 24-bit or even 32-bit PCM encoding just doesnt solve the problem.

see a mention: Tom Jung explaining his issues with PCM

I am sure that MP3 and hard disk served audio will replace the CD player in the bedrooms of most young folk and this will continue as they reach their twenties. But this doesnt make them sheep, it just means, to them lots of cheap music is more important than having fewer, expensive CDs and very expensive equipment.

So CD will go the way of LP?

Thats interesting because the youth are by far the most responsible for the fact more vinyl is sold now than 15 years ago. You go into the home of many late teeners/early twenties and they will have a pair of turntables and 1000+ vinyl recordings.

My point being that there are gen pub who don't care about audio at all. Then there are gen public who don't give a toss about audio quality, but they do love music - they want lost of choice and convenience for playback. Then there are lots of people who will continue to buy music in a nice case, with a sleeve and they like 5" shiny disks because they are big enough to be seen and to look at and listen to. Yep they may well run a multi-format machine.

Whichever way you slice it i think:
1. DSD represents a good process of encoding (better than PCM)
2. I think high capacity DVD disks (which SACD is encoded onto) have a decent longevity
3. I think for pure essence of the music SACD does the best job
4. Do I think it will supersede CD? No.

CD didnt kill vinyl and DVD-A, MP3 and SACD wont kill CD....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by greg

1. DSD represents a good process of encoding (better than PCM)
Click to expand...
Moot point IMO. There is plenty of very good PCM vinyl from the early seventies on. If I played it to you in a double blind test, I doubt you could tell it was PCM encoded.
Radio has been PCM encoded for over 30 years I believe, and yet has many fans.
As far as Sony's intentions.. hmm I think it's a wee bit more complex than simply wanting a better archive format.
All this is just IMHO :D
 
greg,
sorry to contradict you but dsd isn't the perfect storage medium you make it out to be. in fact sonys introduction of dsd wide is a tacit confirmation of this fact. i believe dsd wide is a 2.something mhz 8 bit sample rate which certainly sounds pcm'y to me. in fact some wags have dubbed it pcm narrow ;).
also there were some articles published a while ago in hi-fi news alluding to some pretty serious paper wrangling going on between pro and anti dsd groups where the anti - dsd / pro pcm groups were making a lot more sense than the pro-dsd ones.
finally rob watts one of the most respected practical digital engineers in the uk said of dsd that it had the equivalent to 20 bit resolution for low frequencies but lost out as the frequencies grew being barely able to match cd's 16 bits at higher frequencies. so that's not even as good as hdcd then.... marvelous what marketing can do isn;t it?
of course the biggest plus point in sacd's favor is the fact that it's copy protection is better than any cd or dvd based format can dream of by dint of the fact that it's not a general purpose media with pc readers and writers available over the counter in pc world. if anything THIS is what will make sacd the winner of the formnat wars - mores the shame as it sounds shite to my ears.
cheers


julian
 
I dont know I reckon PCM encoded music has a digital signature. Its an image of the real thing. I think based on the fact I work in software I'm very anti-digital when it comes to music and photography. SACD is the thing that caught my attention and pursuaded me to bother.

Yep i didnt say Sony had no alterior motives, but they had to archive their back catalogue and DSD was a product of this effort. The other motive was to build a giant high-resolution, audio space bat, to take the Sony CEO to the centre of the milky way, but I dont think thats documented in the public domain (yet).
 
Hi Greg,

Nothing I'd disagree with there. Will CD go the way of LP? As you say interesting question.

I think the answer is no. In ten years no one will be issuing CD. They may still be issuing vinyl. Vinyl has survived as a minority because it offers something different (and arguably better) than CD ... and also because until recently DJing with CDs was next to impossible. Those of us who aren't DJs can't thank the DJ sector enough if only because its kept the pressing plants open to press the stuff I actually want to buy on vinyl. However I suspect Music companies will want to move all production to one of the new formats as soon as they can for copy potection purposes.

If you have a universal player and no overwhelming interest in arcane things such as what format the "CD" you actually feed into it is, then SACD and DVD-A are no different from CD. For most people they're all just silver discs.

Of course there's then the multichannel thing, but frankly I suspect that's more about Sony/Warner/therest once again trying to get us to buy the same records ... again. Whether people actually want it remains to be seen. They couldn't pull exactly the same trick as they did 20 years ago - because two channel SACD and DVD-A have no perceived benefit for most people over CD, so they need a new USP to persuade you to buy Pet Sounds/DSOTM/whatever the third time around. Surround sound is the USP.

Personally I think that particular gravy train will probably fail in the sense that people won't buy the same stuff again, but the new formats will succeed in replacing CD. Hopefully it'll be SACD, but suspect the ultimate winner will be the format that works best for record companies in terms of copy protection/licensing costs rather than the one which is technically better. Who knows maybe record company politics will mean both formats survive - given that Sony are such a big player its likely, but only if universal players become the norm.
 
I think you summed it up nicely. I'm always fearful of another VHS vs Betamax. Maybe DVD-A vs SACD will turn out the same way (hope not)
 
Multiformat players, will I feel be the norm soon, however at the moment none of them come close to doing a half about job yet, save maybe the Player 1/new VRDS Teac 50 thingy (the pioneer stable platter version, wasn't much cop, after all the hype) and maybe the new 900 series Wads, we'll have to wait and see, still if only they could the the life out of sacd, it may do red book possibly, til then I fear not. Wm
 
1. Does the method of D/A convertion can be improve at the first place ? (new DSD)

2. Does the good/ high quality record device can be improve the sound quality of the CD ? (mic, tube pre-amp and etc)

3. Does the good quality material of the CD can be improve the sound quality ? (less data lose)

SH
 
tony,
have you heard the multi format bel canto yet? waddia think?

sony and philips held the patents to cd so every album released earnt them money, when their patents expired so did this massive revenue stream. sacd is an attempt to do the same, the capitalistic urge was the prime motivator behind sacd (and dvd) the sheep dip about wanting to preserve their recordings is just maketing spin. as for the giant bat theory well i for one believe that, i recon the ultrasonic noise on each and every sacd is in fact the mating call of the lesser spotted deep space bat. soon sonys ceo will have enough of them to enable him and his army of ninja geishas to travel to the center of the galaxy (where they will be consumed by the black hole that lives there).

the marvelously funny thing is that it looks like pcm will win in the end... most multi format players convert sacd to 88khz or so pcm so that the dacs can handle them before spitting them down to the amps - which then may also re digitise them as 24/96 or 192 pcm before then processing them and then converting them from pcm back to analogue. so in all probablity if you are using a multi format machine or a run of the mill a/v amp - you are listening to pcm no matter what.... thats not to introduce joels observations either.

all this goes to prove that currently high res formats are a joke. i wouldn;t go out of my way to cater for a hi-res player until one format is ascendant and accepted by all the major music companies and there is a new paradigm for replay equipment to cope with all the gubbins that goes with the multichannel stuff, like bass management, digital transmission, watermarking, 11ty billion different dvd quality levels and the fact that sacd sounds balls. i'll stick with me cd reply until then thank you very much.

cheers


julian
 
Ju, yes I know a man that has one, it's very good at being a multi format player, Me I'm happy with mine :)
Still haven't found anything yet to compete with my style of presentation.
The new Teac, maybe a different story, but then the CES starts in a couple of days, maybe 'W' may come up with some thing. T.
 
If I had all the power I would....

1) insist on one new universal format, and that the players could also play redbook CD.

2) insist that all music recordings were 2 channel, unless the artist designed and created a multi channel recording.

3) insist that all releases were STILL released on CD and STILL released on vinyl. Let the customer choose, and let volumes of production reflect demand. Let the prices be equitable between all formats, regardless of production cost.

4) Deny boy bands and girl bands recording contracts until at least 2 members can be shown to be playing instruments on the recording.

5) insist that all recordings were made to the highest possible standards. No down-grading the sound for a compressed radio-mini system sound.

6) insist all bands allow at least 2 tracks from their albums to be shareware. Let people download 2 tracks to see if they want the album.

7) cap the price of albums at 9.99. cap the price of box sets at 19.99.



What do you think?
I'd vote for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :MILD:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top