SACD on paper is superior to redbook in that it has more future "potential", but presently the best "Redbook" cd players sound just as good or better than SACD players. In all reality its a proven fact that redbook cd's have still yet to come to their sonic limitations. And there is becoming more and more concensus among scientists that our ears would not be able to tell the difference between a redbook cd and an SACD or other format under identical conditions.
WHen people claim to "hear" differences in SACD or redbook cd's what they are hearing is actual differences in the actual studio recording process, not the quality or upsampling of the cd itself. But if the sound engineer puts as much time and effort in making a good recording on a CD as he would for an SACD, noone would be able to tell the difference. People with SACD players want to believe they have a superior product, but thats nowhere near the case at all. I worked for the Tweeter store that had the official unveiling of Sony's SACD player in Burlington Ma. back in 1999/2000. Sony's original statement SACD player on hand setup in our "high end" room with a pair of speakers with those "super tweeter's" on top, a pair of monoblocks and some straightwire IC's and cabling in which people were raving about the retail cost of the whole setup(around $90,000 is what they stated), but after listening to that setup for a few hours before the guests were to arrive, I can say how big a dissapointment it was. It was unanimous that everyone in the store liked the basic Adcom GFA5802/GFP750/GCD750 with the pair of Amati Homages so much better. It just goes to show that the source isnt necessarily an improvement, and in many cases since that day, I can say its not even as good. At this point I think that its a 100% complete waste of money, andits going to be quite a few more years before I probably end up changing my mind. |
Oh no, someone pulled the "science" card! Science would also be quick to tell us that we can't hear the difference between cables, would it not? It would tell us that all amps that measure the same sound the same, and all amps that measure poorly sound as such, which anyone with ears to hear will tell you isn't so! That one should use pure science as the tool to measure quality/aesthetics/art (music, for those at home) boggles the mind of anyone who understands the concepts involved here, it's completely ridiculous, really.
Further, as a scientist myself I find the arrogance of the audiophiles' confidence in what is known about the electrical, acoustic and even psycho-acoustic properties of music as being complete and fully understood a sad joke on those of us forced to constantly hear their words thrown around as if a gospel of spoken (but unheard) Truth. Those who have ears to listen should hear. Why folks have come to put so much faith in science completely boggles my mind (though not at the level of absurdity of the faith most hold in medical science, but that's another rant :)
Sorry to be so argumentive, but I completely dissagree with everything written in the above post at an extreme level. |
Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player.
All this talk of extra "ambiance" or depth of soundstage or whatever you want to call it is all a joke CURRENTLY. If the disc sounds better, you can thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself. This is what I disagree with at an "extreme level". Even marketing executives at Sony stated a while back that some SACD's are getting better performance through recording process only just to help sell the format(and this has been back up by MANY magazines and publishings). They even have gone on to say that its done to help push the new format to the general public but due to current technology other than future potential its really no better sounding than current high quality recorded CD's.
As for differences in cable subtlty, the jury is still out in many regards as to what they actually do sonically other than noise rejection. But differences in cable sound can be due in part to noise rejection potential and attenuated frequencies(Like MIT and Transparant designs).Other than that though is something for another argument.
When an SACD(or whatever format)player comes out that truely is a step up from redbook, Ill be there in line to pick one up. Until then, its all marketing gimmicks.
Little Milton: I bet you were one of those tin ear'd snobs back in Dec.99' at the unveiling of the SACD right? ;)
You should have helped us convince the Sony reps to let us demo that SACD setup against our "basic" Adcom components for all the people who were invited to the unveiling. They didnt like the idea when we brought it up to them, wonder why? ;)
|
Ritteri...The dreaded science card!
You may be right about SACD resolution not being all it's cracked up to be. I read an analysis on another site that claimed that above 8000 Hz, SACD is inferior, and any improved sonics must be the result of the most important musical content being below 8000 Hz. (I didn't completely follow the argument...does anyone else have thoughts about this?)
Resolution of a CD or SACD or DVD-A depends on how much dynamic range you want to have. If you compress the loud peaks, the LSB can have better resolution, for any kind of disc. A 16-bit CD could be better than a 24-bit DVD-A, but it would trade off dynamic range. For rock music that is loud all the time this is a reasonable thing to do.
One thing is certain: the 44.1 Hz sample rate of CD's is very marginal. The Nyquist criteria of communication theory says that to capture an analog signal without loss of information, the digital sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency of interest. Thus many people think that 44.1KHz is OK for audio. However, the Nyquist criteria applies to sine waves. Music is not sine waves. The increase of sampling rate to 96KHz (or 192KHz for stereo DVD-A) and (if you believe Sony) similar improvement for SACD, is technically appropriate, although not everyone's ears can appreciate the sonic benefits. I prefer to call CD's "low resolution" and SACD and DVD-A "OK resolution". |
I've been very impressed with SACD on my Denon 5900, and it's certainly been better than redbook in direct comparisons, however, with my Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista DAC arriving on Friday, that may just even the playing field, or push redbook ahead. I actually hope SACD still sounds better, but something tells me I may be in for redbook re-awakening :) |
Its impossible to do a direct comparison with redbood cd's for one simple reason. The recording mastering process is different. Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". This could all change down the road Im sure, but at this time the future doesnt look anything better than cloudy.
Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms. |
Ritteri- Look into Emm labs(aka Meitner) it offers exactly what you claimed doesn't exist. And yes SACD's(for the most part) sound MUCH better then any redbook cd I have ever heard from any high end cd player. Compare Sonny Rollins- Saxaphone Colossus or Way out West on any redbook version(including XRCD2) vs. analogue productions SACD- the sacd offers more detail, its no single bell or whistle but the whole piece sounds closer to that "you are there" sound. Another example Offenbach: Gaite Parisienne, Fiedler/boston pops- the SACD version is almost surreal! And the original in living stereo version was good, the XRCD took it to yet another level and the SACD elevates the listening experience even further. Don't get me started on Peter Gabriel, Beck, The Police, Allison Krauss, Roxy Music, anything from Mobile Fidelity. I could go on and on with specific examples if you would like but suffice to say I would not have invested in SACD had I not heard the difference. Its more then merely new mastering, if that were the case new remasters of redbook discs would impress me the way SACD's do- but they don't.
I had full intentions of staying out of this thread, but the misinformation and ASSUMPTION from a lot of people finally got to me. |
Tireguy: Too bad alot of people dont believe your words(and alot of these people are in the industry), and this is from hands on experience. SACD does not garentee better sound. And as stated, if the recording sounds better, most likely its due to the remastering process. So why dont redbook cd's get remastered? How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed? Demand. If there isnt demand for it, who is going to waste money to re record tracks for such negligible performance increases? If SACD was such a grand stepping stone(which it isnt)and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players. WHich brings me to the next sentence............
One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path.
And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd. |
Ritteri writes: Its a well known fact that the 99% of the SACD's on the market have been "remastered" to give the illusion of "better sound". What about brand new DSD recordings such as Telarc have produced. These are not remastered. Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player. What players have you heard? Regards, |
Any Wadia player,Linn,Burmeister,ML,CLasse,BAT,a few select Adcom units, a few select CAL units, among many others.
As for DSD recordings, how many discs are released? Read the Betamax comment.
Im going to be more in line that DVD-A will be the next mainstream upgrade over the CD, but who knows whats going to happen in the next few years........ |
Beta continued to be used by viedograhers, VHS was replaced by DVD. So, Betamax is a bad analogy. |
Yes, it probably was a bad analogy but I think it was close enough to get the point through =) |
No, Ritteri it is not close enough. the VHS/Betamax analog doesn't work for the most part since with video cassette player/recorders you were limited to physically supporting one format or the other. I am unaware of universal cassette players. Though admittedly I am pretty young and that type of player may have existed at one time. But still I am unware of such a beast.
But I do have one simple angument. With more and more universal players coming to market, how can there be a format war? I believe I first hear this argument from Ric Shultz. The day will come when you will walk into your electronics store and and clerk will show you several digital players. He will show you several that can play all of the digital formats except one (doesn't matter what it is, dvd-a, sacd, svcd, etc) and several that can play ALL of the formats. Both are the same price or close. Even if you are the basic unwashed audiophile consumer, which player are you going to pick? The one that plays everything!
In the scenario is wouldn't matter what disc you buy whether it be SACD, DVD-A, DVD-A, VCD, mp3s, redbook CDs, any 5 inch polycarbonate disc is going to play in that player. Except for portable or car audio players you would be covered. This could not happen in the VHS/Betamax world. the formats were physically incompatible as far as I understood it. And for a most part, I feel this largely invalidates the Betamax argument as far as SACD and DVD-A in concerned.
Or are you arguing that like betamax, DVD-A and SACD are going to be relagated to niche markets (like betamax was and still is)? This is true. But then again so is vinyl. And so is the hobby of high-end audio. So what? You said "one word: Betamax". OK. Please elaborate. |
"Sorry, but I have yet to hear ANY SACD player put out a better musical signal than a competently built "redbook" player"
So, you just admitted that you have VERY little experience to SACD. It's common for the unlearned to proclaim absolute knowledge based on limited actual experience. Absolutes only come from the unlearned in this hobby, or the arrogant and self-loving, neither of which types are a useful source of information in my experience.
"thank the sound engineer who recorded the disc, not the disc itself"
Does this make any sense to anyone? It doesn't to me. Poor argument, I won't even bother with it unless it can be expanded upon greatly. Though it's nowhere as inane as this comment:
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the differnt modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms"
What a load! You've clearly not had adequate exposure to the format, as anyone with a halfway decent SACD player can easily see from your writing, despite what you'll no doubt claim shortly. I suppose all remastered redbook albums are pure as the new fallen snow, however, right?
"So why dont redbook cd's get remastered?"
Uh, they do. Do your homework, most CD layers of the hybrid SACD get the exact same DSD mastering technology used on them, the DSD is down-converted to PCM, yet oddly enough 99.9% of listeners will prefer the SACD layer of their hybrids. Go figure.
"How many people do you think in the general population care about remastering obscure CD's such as the ones listed?"
How about tens of thousands, of people, millions of coppies sold overall. Again, do your homework, look at the sales stats for those "obscure" and "dated" recordings, don't just spew negativity about.
"If SACD was such a grand stepping stone...and had a profitable future then alot more mfg. would be jumping on the bandwagon to produce SACD players."
Uh, they are! Again, you've not done your homework or you would notice a trend of aftermarket players taking over for mass market players in the industry. Sony and Philips have backed off and the likes of Bel Canto, Linn, McCormack, Esoteric, EMM Labs, dCS and a dozen other companies have taken over the reigns on the hardware side, with more players coming.
Again, do your homework, don't be so blindly pessimistic and negative all the time, you might learn something.
"One word: BETAMAX. SACD is already heading down the same path."
You base this on what exactly? Pretty weak or I'm pretty dumb. Given the second as true, please explain this one to me as well.
"And one last thing tireguy, for every cd you listed that may sound better on SACD from your opinion, Im sure I could pull up just as many(and many more) that sound as good or better on a regular cd."
Please, by all means, give me a list of CD's you have that sound better then their SACD counterpart. I'm sure EVERYONE here would like to know about them.
Ritteri, from what you've written, just like Ben, it's clear that you heard a single, low-fi or unproperly setup SACD player, playing some of the worst offerings software wise on said machine next to a stupidly expensive Redbook setup, then decided to start a crusade to call ALL SACD players and software inferior redbook, point blank. Surely, if a $10K redbook player sounds better then your $500 SACD player unproperly setup and playing junk titles then it is very logical to conclude that ALL CD players sound better then SACD players, same with the titels of course....I hope that I'm not the only one that can read between the lines here.... |
Little Milton I don't think yout inclusion of myself back into this argument is merited and it reads like a whole lot of quotes I never made. |
Ritteri,
In the past, people at Audiogon who have argued their positions in the same way as you are here, have lost all credibility among the community. Your comments are very elementary in nature and for the most part hardly defendable. The simple statement about remastered redbook to redbook is evidence of your weak position here. Old recordings have been remastered for years. Not to SACD but to redbook for the simple reason of improving the master along with the technology. These remastered cd's have sold millions of copies to the masses, not just the audiophile. Please drop your position before you embarrass yourself any further and get tagged as a simple flamer.
Now for a comment on your system. You have an excellent cd player, not my personal taste, but a great player non-the-less. I would suggest finding a comparable SACD player for your comparisons. That may be very difficult to do in that your running your volume from your digital player and you would need a pre-amp to run SACD. Now you would be comparing apples and peas. Not even the same family! My guess is you have never made a direct comparison redbook to SACD on your system using all fruit.
I'm sure you'll have some comment to defend yourself, remember your reputation will stick for a long time. |
First off, I have had TOO MUCH experience with SACD players. I sold them for 3 years since they were formally intruduced to the USA at MY STORE back in 99'/00'
I have also owned about a half dozen players including the SCD-1 by Sony. They have all long since been sold off over the last year.
As for listening to improperly setup equipment, I always take note of a product if it is setup improperly.
As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign.WHy dont you do your homework first? Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS. Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere. If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements.
As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released. After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred.WHo released most of em? Sony. Thats not going to get me hopping up and down, and alot of them dont garner better sound. For every company you can name that has made one, I can name another 10 companies that wont be making a SACD player. But this isnt really my argument here.
What disc's you say sound better on redbook? Here is a small starter list:
Dark side of the Moon: Pink Floyd(would you care to hear Roger Waters take on SACD?)
Ambassador Satch: Louis Armstrong( if you think SACD sounds better, time to upgrade your speakers and CDP)
Jazz at the Plaza: Miles Davis (imaging and seperation are far superior on Redbook)SACD sounds really compressed.
Couldnt Stand the weather: Stevie Ray Vaughn
Reflections: BB King
These are just a few.But my point is, there shouldnt be ANY that sound better. If SACD was truely at this point in time a step better than regular ol cd's there wouldnt be ANY ARGUMENT from anyone, but there is because presently SACD hasnt shown what is supposedly capable of. There are a few SACD's that did sound better, but like I stated, alot of that is the recording process. |
Jade: Let my comments stick. Let the record show that I have also had quite a few different high end CDP's and DAC/Transports to do direct comarison with SACD players.
Doing comparisons with SACD players were done through 2 preamps I owned at the time last summer including the Adcom GFP-750 and the Pass Labs X2. Neither of these preamps color the sound in any way. And if your stating that a good quality preamp can change the test results for the SACD players I had vs. a few cd players(some used digital volume control, some actually went through the same Preamp), then you are simply driving my point home further.
SACD has yet to really seperate itself as being "better sounding" than redbook. And this is the whole point. THen you add to the fact how lethargic the format is evolving, add the very limited library available and you have a doomed format. As for universal players some people speak about. I would be open to one, but I have yet to find many(maybe one or 2)that perform excellent on all formats. |
Well Little_milton, we as audiophiles should not underestimate the effect masting engineer (is that right word?) has on the final product. Most (I inclided) would argue his impact is more profound than the end media technology (in this case SACD vs. redbook).
My $0.02 |
Points taken Ritteri. But I still feel SACD is a nice niche format, even if it isn't going anywhere. Maybe I'll have to try a high end redbook player some time. Even still I think my low end SACd player does enough stuff correctly to warrant keeping it and building a library. I will likely get a better SACD player at another date. Thank you for responding. |
Ritteri, before I start, know that I'm not disrespecting you, the person outside of this discussion at all, it's just your highly flawed and what could be seen as deliberately misleading "arguments" that I'm having problems with in your posts, nothing more. I'm just letting you know how your comments appear to the half-way intelligent reader:
"As for companies getting on the SACD bandwagon, after 4 years since its introduction there are probably still less than 3-4 dozen players total. MOST are from Sony and Philips, and that is a poor sign....Do you know how many companies had CD players out 4 years after the introduction of CD???? HUNDREDS."
That's complete B.S.. Nice story, however. Seriously, what are you talking about here? Please feel free to back this one up. If you're going to BS people at least don't make it so easy for people to call you in yet another untruth....
"Its well known that SACD isnt going anywhere (BS). If anything should take off its going to be DVD-A which I feel is a better format to grow for future sound improvements (more BS). As for my "Betamax" analogy, its based on the fact that your not going to get many SACD's released (BS really flowing now). After 4 years how many SACD's are there? A few hundred (completely uninformed BS here).WHo released most of em? Sony. (yet again, way off base)."
I see what's going on here, finnally! Don't know how I missed it originally, it was evident from the get go. You're a DVD-A fanatic with sour grapes! You see near 2,000 SACD titles full of excellent musical material and have ~600 piss poor DVDA titles to choose from, to play on only a handful of audiphile caliper machines and get defensive. You see the horrendous upcoming release list for DVD-A next to the exciting list of promised and current SACDs, the lack of backwards compatibility, the need for a tv monitor in your system, the nonexistent audiophile or customer enthusiasm and get even more defensive when folks bring these fact to light or even mention that "other" format.
That a given format is not prospering is no reason to take the event as a blow to the ego, it's not personal, just business, as the saying goes. To make up complete BS stories like those above to deliberately delude people into following in your cause and presumabley bolster the ego isn't a pretty thing, not good for ones self or others. Seen this story before, too many times, actually. It's all about music, regardless of the gear or software, let's not forget that. Where all in this for the music, hopefully, and not for back-pats or otherwise complete circle-jerks of like-minded folks with the gear/format/software that we found to have more MUSIC to our liking....
I'm done, there's nothing worth arguing over here. I'm sorry to have been involved, as I'm sure most everyone else saw this coming and I was too nieve to see it....this time, at least. |
You know what market is exploding? MP3. Does this mean that
compressed music sounds better? No. A lot of people eat at McDonalds, does that mean McDonalds has great food? No. So,
let's not get confused here. The POPULARITY of a format has
nothing to do with the QUALITY.
Second, after the invention of the automobile, it took decades for
the infrustratucre, gas stations and paved roads, to develop to
support it. Trying to make calculated guesses about the future of
any technology while you're in the early stages is impossible.
Third, VHS was replaced by DVD, which is higher resolution.
SACD and DVD-A are higher resolution than redbook CD. So,
if you take a longer time-frame, the Betamax analogy doesn't
work. In the long run, it was HIGHER RESOLUTION that won out.
Fourth, as Arroc has argued so well, the market is going towards
UNIVERSAL PLAYERS, which was impossible with Betamax and
VHS. Personally, I don't use a UNIVERSAL PLAYER. I own an
EMM LABS DAC6 and a Denon DVD/DVD-A 1200. So, this will
be just like usual, the mass market will use one player to play
digital and the Audiophile will separate his/her digital play-back into two or three boxes for better sound.
|
The idea that SACD is simply a gimmick like putting "concert hall echo" into the music is seriously wrong. SACD is higher RESOLUTION, it is like the difference between taking a picture with a one mega-pixel digital camera and taking one with a 5 megapixel digital camera. There is more INFORMATION on a SACD, the digital gaps inherent in redbook CD have been filled in with music and ambience due to an exponentially higher sample rate. Unless we are going to argue that we prefer a lower sample rate and less information, we must agree that SACD is a superior FORMAT. The wonder of life is that people have different preferences. Some people may even *prefer* the lower sample rate of redbook CD, but now we're talking about a consumer choice, we're not talking about the inherent quality of the medium.
SACD is a Superior medium because it is higher resolution and
has an exponentially higher sample rate than redbook CD. |
Here's another interesting irony: When *some* people listen to
an SACD player, they conclude there must be something wrong with its CD playback and this sends them scurrying for a better
CD player -- and -- somehow -- this is supposed to be a poor
reflection on.......you figure it out.....SACD. |
Personally, it doesn't surprise me that after hearing SACD, one would become dissatisfied with anything other than a high end
CD player for redbook playback. |
little milton...FWIW, there is considerable audiophile interest in DVD-A if you look outside the USA. The DVD-A protocol permits great flexibility in how the data space on the disc is allocated. So, for example, we have the MMG label using what they call a 2+2+2 multichannel speaker configuration instead of 5.1. If super stereo is your objective you can have 192 KHz sampling instead of 96 KHz. There is much more oportunity to tweek DVD-A than SACD, and tweeking is an audiophile thing to do.
IMHO...Disc mastering and playback equipment is by far the most important factor for all formats,DVD-A, SACD, and CD. Some DVD-A and some SACD are worse than the best CDs. However, the best DVD-A and the best SACD can't be matched by a CD. As to SACD vs DVD-A...it's too close to call. And who cares? Enjoy both. |
Aroc and the rest reading this thread: I appreciate the fact that someone understands my point of view.
And just to set the record straight, remember people, I also stated and fully acknowledged that SACD has more future potential than redbook. Its just that the potential isnt there...............yet.
Just like when CD came onto the market 20 years ago. It was great for what it was. But take a high end CD player from today, and pit it against a reference cd player from 20 years ago. There is going to be a big difference.
Right now, between todays high end CD players and SACD players that "big difference" doesnt yet exist, its sublt at best, and only on a few scattered discs. Im sure this will(if the format survives, but I would bet on DVD-A being the real future)change eventually, but that day is not here yet. |
Little Milton: Your telling me that there wasnt a few hundred CD players out for sale in the mid 80's?There was no format war worth speaking of back then to slooooow progress down compared to today. Oh please prove me wrong here.Show me where Im putting up BS. Please be aware that I sold audio/video for many years.
And please update me on how many SACD models are currently available. You say its BS about only a few dozen players available?, well prove me wrong here. You wont be able to.
And telling me that its BS that SACD isnt going anywhere is also a bit premature. Have you checked to see how poor sales are on SACD's??? If it dont sell it wont stay afloat. Just remember there is a wider audience than just the USA. Globally the other format is doing better. And Global sales normally is a good indication of what becomes mainstream.
As for DVD-A, I personally could care less about DVD-A or SACD currently. Please start reading my threads a bit more carefully. As I will state again, the potential is there, but its going to be a few years before anything groundbreaking comes out from any of the next generation formats. But if I had to choose, Ill take DVD-A as my future choice based on real world potential.
If you want to pull out the BS card on me, thats fine, but put up some links or something to back it up. You cant do that on any of my comments. |
Of course SACD and DVD-A only offer subtle improvements. What piece of gear have any one of us upgraded to that had more than a subtle improvement? Sure, it may seem dramatic to us, but that is because we are all geeks. 99% of the people in the world wouldnt be able to distinguish a 20k system from a 100k system. What is nice about SACD is it gives a significant improvement (to my ears) for virtually no extra cost. The only commercially available format that betters SACD is vinyl, and you have to spend much more on a quality turntable than on an SACD player to get a marked improvement.
The DSOTM the moon SACD is worth it for mutlichannel alone, and the SACD sounds decidedly better than the redbook version.
A good example of remastering versus format is the recently released MoFi version of Los Lobos Good Morning Aztlan. I popped this in and was very pleased with the newer remaster, and glad I had spent the money on it. After listening to around 7 songs, I wanted to see how the redbook remaster compared to the SACD remaster. It was then I realized that I had been litening to the redbook layer. The SACD version was another order of magnitude better than the redbook remaster. This is one example that shows that the format does have something to do with the quality of sound. Of course the mastering plays a huge part, but here is an example of a remaster by MoFi on redbook and SACD of the same piece, and the SACD sounds better. |
For the near term most SACD releases will not have been recorded in the DSD format, but will instead have been converted from analog or PCM sources. Very, very few recording studios have DSD recorders and even fewer (possibly less than 10 in the U.S.) have DSD processors (EQ, compressors, etc.) or editors. It is this lack of DSD processors that makes pure DSD recorders impractical for standard pop/rock recordings.
Most studios have only recently, if at all, upgraded to 88/96kHz PCM and they see little to no demand for DSD capabilites. With mastering studios the situation is different. DSD has firmly established itself with the top echelon of mastering houses. Artists typically send analog or PCM final mixes to be mastered and it's during this stage that the final consumer available format is determined.
Multi-format playback machines will make someones preference for PCM or SACD fairly irrelevant. I suspect that the situation will evovle in a way that mirrors the current movie distribution model. Larger budget films are distributed to theaters in multiple SDDS, dts and DD formats. |
Ritteri, I'll do no such things that you ask. There is a popular saying that aetheists like to throw around in the heat of a philosophical battle, namely that "the burden of proof lies in the believer." Same applies here, it's actually a well established logical principle found in any introductory textbook. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove in the first place! Face it, you have no evidence to back up your posts. Anyways, thank you for playing, and have a nice day.... |
My wife doesn't know squat about audio and doesn't want to but even she thinks SACD sounds better than redbook! |
Properly implemented Redbook 2 Channel I more musical and more interesting then SACD 2 Channel. It is not the fundamental advantage but the implemental. The properly done 16-bit is fairly rare (most of the people in here never heard it and never will) but it exists. The properly done SACD is not available yet and I do not know if it ever will be.
Rgs,
Romy the Cat |
Little_milton: Thats a pretty obvious copout for an answer.
So you want proof? Here are the majority of SACD players available: http://www.avguide.com/players_recorders/sacd_players.jsp
Why dont you try and list 2-3 dozen more SACD players for us?How about just 1 more dozen? It shouldnt be hard to name off 12 more SACD players the way your talking so go right ahead. That would basically be half of my claim of only 3-4 dozen SACD players in existance or under current production. Its not gonna happen, youll probably put up another " i dont have to prove anything" post.Thats normally what people do when they dont have anything intelligent to post.Your user name fits you to date. I bet your foot tastes good though.
Oh thats right, lets go on the list of available SACD's, I claimed how many? 3-400 maybe?? OK here some more links:http://www.buy.com/retail/music/searchresults.asp?search_store=6&querytype=music&qu=sacd&loc=109&dclksa=1
Here is another:http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buyer/outpdir.jsp?OVRAW=sacd%20&OVKEY=sacd&OVMTC=standard&doSearch=y&search=sacd
The above links are the 2 places that have the most titles.
Sony stated they would have over 2000 titles in 2001. Were almost in 2004. I dont think there are even close to 500 out. And alot of those 500 arent even worth purchasing.
So I need to face what? I got no what?Proof? :eyes rolling: "THe burden of proof lies in the believer" Ill have to remember that line. I bet you use that one alot when you have that size 12 stuck between your gums.
"thanks for playing"............. |
Ritteri- Check out http://www.sacdinfo.com there are well over 1500 SACD's available at this time and that's just what is in the database, Stephen(the founder of SACDinfo) is always behind and can't keep up with all of the SACD's coming out. You really should stop making assumptions that you know everything audio because in addition to this thread there is at least one more that you are way off base on- i.e. engaging in arguements you clearly do not have all of the facts. As a side note- seeing as SACD isn't taking off I felt I should share that I got a free SACD sampler disc in with my Rolling Stone magazine this month! So it simply must not be catching on since they've had full page ads for at least 6 months and now a free sampler disc ¤eyeroll¤ oh yea it doesn't sound any better either. Ok now take everything I typed out of context and tell me that I am wrong, that would really be beneficial to everyone here- or at least you could take your foot out of YOUR mouth! |
Tireguy: OK lets take that list of SACD's and filter out the ones NOT in English. OK, this knocks off quite a few hundred right off the bat.
Then lets filter out the "SACD's" that you cant even buy! Alot of these titles have yet to be released even! And in many cases will never be released.
That brings us down to about how many? 4-500 as I stated?
Sony stated over 2500 titles would be out 3 years ago?
Quote from Tireguy: "Ok now take everything I typed out of context and tell me that I am wrong, that would really be beneficial to everyone here"
Yep, you are wrong.
Hows that free "sampler" disc treating you? Guess how many of those will never see a SACD player? Probably your copy and a few other people here on Agon. I bet thats not too far off from the truth either.
How does your size 12 taste Tireguy? =)
|
Ritteri writes: I dont think there are even close to 500 out. I have 600 SACDs. If I was more of a classical music buff I'd probably have a lot more. Regards, |
Ritteri....Check out www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html |
Ritteri- Again your making assumpthions that you don't have all of the fact's I know people in the USA who have over 1000 SACD's personally- so again you are WRONG just deal with it and move on! Here is just one store and they have currently 959 available SACD titles http://www.amusicdirect.com/products/swsearch.asp?dmSearchBy=category&srch=30. My size 13 Prada's will remain on the floor and not going any where near my mouth- why don't you try and gather facts before pontificating nonsense to us all. |
Again, look at all those titles. Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. And were still not even at 1000. I claimed "hundreds" of true released SACD's. That claim still holds folks.
If anyone has more than 100 or even 1000 SACD's I feel sorry that they wasted all that money because most of them havent even been "remastered" to 96khz and are no better(and from alot of articles actually WORSE)than redbook cd's.
Plus I noticed that noone will even challenge the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. I made alot of points, you folks are only trying to zero in on one small point.
And lets be real, looking at that "wonderful" list of SACD's isnt getting my juices pumping very much to go run out and buy another SACD player.......
Someone should read Onhwy61's comment up above too. It adds alot of weight to my arguments. |
Guys, let's just leave poor Ritteri alone....There's nothing we can do to help this one. |
LittleMilton: Expected response from you. Other than the really weak argument for the Pro SACD people about there being more LIGITIMATE SACD's than a few hundred(which NONE of those lists show), noone has even tried to argue the other improtant facts like the fact that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market still and that alot of the true high end mfgs of high end audio wont even touch SACD with a 10 foot pole. And with many good reasons.
Little Milton: you may have a very few limited backers on this particular thread, but the real fact is that its widely known that SACD isnt what its supposed to be currently.From the actual recording, to the actual players, to the very limited software available(and this can be subcategorized down to specific types of music available), and even from the support of mfgs. Being a previous owner of an SACD player, its still not a worthwhile investment on a format that has still yet to prove itself. |
Ritteri writes: Still some that arent even in English, alot are not even music CD's(or 2 channel)native to this country and alot of these arent even true SACD's with the higher upsampling. Many SACDs are not native to the United States of America, although that's hardly surprising given that when SACDs were first released only three plants existed - one in Japan, one in the USA, and one in Europe. Sonopress in Germany was the first plant to produce hybrids, so many SACDs came from there. That matters not one iota. It's a global village. By "true SACD" I'm guessing you are referring to recordings that were made with DSD right through the chain. There have been some, but it is only in recent times that expanded mixers that operate in DSD have become available. We are sure to see many more completely DSD SACDs in the future. I personally don't think this matters much. I have excellent sounding SACDs made from analogue recordings and various resolution PCM recordings. Regards, |
Ritteri -- you wrote;
"Ever check out one of those old Sony recievers with all the different modes of ambiance? Like "Hall", "Stadium","Live" etc etc?? Basically thats whats done to the SACD in simple terms."
Many of your claims -- like this one -- have proven erroneous.
You appear to have one left -- your claim that there are only a few dozen SACD players on the market. But, instead of conceding that you've been incorrect on many counts, it seems you have taken to insisting your only claim left standing was really your "important" one. Let's assume, for the moment, that it is your "important" point.
We will return to it in a moment.
You are also trying to rehabilitate one of your other points -- the one regarding the relative number of SACD's available. But, there's a problem; You claimed DVD-A has more potential than SACD. There are fewer DVD-A titles. It doesn't seem logical to claim that SACD has LESS potential based on the number of titles, then to go on and predict GREATER success for the format with FEWER titles. Wouldn't you agree? Then again, maybe this isn't one of your *important* points. [Sorry -- a little jest.]
I don't really see where you've made any credible points in the debate, EXCEPT your claim regarding the number of SACD players available. But, to those who are currently enjoying one of those SACD players and the titles available, your "important" point would seem to be moot.
Bottom line: *YOU* have made a choice to avoid SACD for whatever reasons. Maybe you have good reasons, but the explanation you've provided here is shot through with errors, shaky speculation and internal contradictions. You should get the facts so you can debate the topic with some credibility and should you choose to reject SACD, you can do so for the right reasons. |
Arguing on the internet....:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922 |
Little Milton that link is in very poor taste and will offend a lot of people.
I think you should apologise before you get slaughtered for an incorrect and tasteless so-called joke. |
Little_Milton has already proven that his is nothing more than a child, I dont even bother copying his links...........
Rsbeck: I am actually well aware that there are probably even fewer DVD-A audio titles, but how many people own a DVD player today?I actaully dont know anyone who doesnt have at least one. DVD-A makes alot more sense and already technically has better public backing due to this fact. If anything has the ptoential to quickly replace the cd format its DVD-A. |
Dvd players don't play Dvd-audio unless they are also a Dvd-audio player. They will play compressed DD if thats what you mean.
Dave |
Yes that is correct, but more and more DVD players are coming standard with the ability to play DVD-A audio. Something they all should be doing already, but obviously dont which is too bad. Give it a few more years.........I dont think we will see a true format change though until around 2010 at the pace were on......... |
Why is music that is not titled in English removed from the list??? The vast majority of all music ever played was not written in English! Does that mean it is not good enough to play?
Ritteri, how many hours a day do you listen that 500 SACDs would not be enough? Probably 2% of my music is on SACD, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the format.
Many of the arguments against SACD are simply sophmoric and not worthy of rebuttal.
One thing that is worthy of attention is that 44.1 has been known to be undersampled for nearly twenty years now. CDPs have been tweeked and twisted all this time so that now some of them are actually capable of reasonable sound quality. The obvious immediate benefit of SACD is that the sampling rate is up near where it should have been twenty years ago.
If SACD made no other improvement over redbook CD this would be enough to justify it's existance. What will SACD sound like twenty years from now with dozens of good companies trying to improve the quality of them???
SACD should not be compared to current CDPs, it should be compared to the first CDPs.
If music companies had not forced consumers to buy CDs they never would have lasted this long! Now people are not having SACD jammed down their throats. People who have it, bought it because they wanted to buy it!
...and Beta??? Are you kidding, Beta was far and away the better format. Twenty years later VHS still sucks! Beta died due to bad marketing, not poor quality!
If people are content with the poor quality of redbook CD as their musical medium of choice, stand aside and let SACD die, if people want something better than that they need to support new mediums. If people choose not to decide they still have made a choice! |
