HDCD VS SACD

"It is a playback only decode system, which means that it's benefits are applied during the playback of standard Redbook CD's and is only compatible with that format."

This is wrong. It has to be recorded HDCD to be played HDCD so it is NOT "a playback only". In HDCD coding the least significant bit is switching dynamic range of the rest. It is known as "in band signaling". Playback on standard player is a little suspicious (if nothing else is done) since the least significant bit becomes garbage (noise). I believe that the sole purpose of introducing schemes like that is to make it very difficult to copy (HDCD) or impossible to copy (SACD).

Kr4 - I was under the impression that Sony abandoned SACD. I could not find current Sony Blu-Ray wit SACD. I checked BDP-S360. BDP-N460, BDP-S5000ES and they don't have it. What Sony model has SACD?

Blindjim - Yes I remember initial slew of CDs. Bright unpleasant sound was, according to rumors, cause by frequency correction included for LP pressing. The fact is that a lot of music got digitized with A/D jitter that cannot be removed.

I agree with you that quality "largely depend on the source" and that is one more reason for SACD being dead. I have many great sounding redbook CDs and a lot of bad ones. Bad mix sounds perhaps even worse on SACD than on CD (better resolution).

According to RIAA I'm not allowed to make copy of my own CD as a backup. They are rich getting cut from CD-Rs sold in proportion to record sales in spite of the fact that SACD cannot be copied (but also counted). I remember innocent times of my youth when copying to tape was legal since tape makers paid royalties per foot of tape to common fund for artists.

I'm afraid that in future we might be reduced to MP3 downloads.

Blindjim - HDCD is not encoded in 20 bit words. The word length is 16-bit. The claim is that it is "equivalent" to 20 bit performance.

Part of better sound quality of HDCD is the fact that only (or mostly) very well recorded CDs (or remastered) are issued as HDCD.

Blindjim - I've never heard SACD but according to reviews I read it is way better than anything else being equivalent to 20bit/96kHz. The problem is that the format is dead.
(DSD as I understand is 4 bit wide SACD).

- only 5000 available titles
- expensive SACDc and players.
- impossible to copy (cannot have backup)
- cannot be stored or used in a server
(it can, but loses SACD sound advantage).
- companies are moving away from CDs altogether
(LINN stopped recording/manufacturing CDs)

I mentioned on the other thread that Century Fox was preparing DVD sales (also multilayer format) in China at about 10 juan eaquivalent to $1.25 They admitted only very small profit at this price (now we know what region code is for - to protect their profits).

Can somebody explain to me why SACD costs $30 while production + royalties is in order of a dollar. IMHO format was introduced to battle CD copying (cannot be copied - has pit modulation) and not for the sound reason (we don't represent any buying power). Later after great reviews they got greedy, selling SACDs at $30 and shot themselves in a foot.

New standard is very difficult to establish. DVD-Audio wasn't successful as well as CODE - 24bit/96kHz format (DVD)started by some artists such as John Mellencamp. It is easier to start new standard when cost of media is low - at least initially and not 2x higher.

Stereophile also said that SACD is dead in editorial column few months ago. They said that most of new Blu-Ray players don't even support SACD. I know that some support it but not sure what percentage.

HDCD was introduced for the same reason (copying protection) and is also dead.

Well, it looks like price went down a lot. The most common price I found for SACD was $18.98 but when I tried to find Keith Jarrett (made a lot of recordings) in SACD the only thing on Amazon was $34: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=sacd+keith+jarrett&x=0&y=0

Next I tried Ahmad Jamal - (one of the greatest) and found no SACD. I tried Bob Marley - two titles available thru Amazon - one is $15 the other is $106 so it is practically one.

Total Blues SACD recordings: 108
Total Country recordings: 79

For redbook CDs - Blues = 50,000 Country = 67,000

Finding recording I like, other than popular music is very difficult and when it is finally issued sound quality might be not worthy of SACD (plus no option of backup). It is not worth hassle.

Spaninc - I agree that sound quality is the first priority but there are three things that always held me back from buying SACD player:

- Very limited selection and possibility of format becoming obsolete.

- SACD cannot be used from server or computer.

- It is not possible to make backup copy (pit width modulation).

In addition, great recordings will benefit from SACD but most of them are not even good enough for CD quality. The same goes for Blu-Ray. Most of DVDs I watch don't even make 480p quality. How do I know? - because from time to time there is an exceptional one. I mentioned DVD as analogy because it is easier to see the difference in quality (less subjective) than audio.

Rwwear - If CD will become obsolete I will still have my server and related hardware for downloads.
When SACD becomes obsolete my SACD player is only good for CD. CD, as you said, will be obsolete - therefore good for nothing.

I don't mind spending a little more now for SACD but selection is so limited and lack of server, that I got used to, is so inconvenient.

"Everything becomes obsolete including your server" - sad but true.