I hate to admit it, but SACD and probably DVD-A are not going to make it. That's a shame, really. I have a DVD-A player with an Outlaw outboard base management box and it works great in multi-channel mode. I would not bother with 2-channel DVD-A. There are,of course, drawbacks--lack of popular discs, pricing, and some pretty mundane music. The biggest problem I see is the record companies who are more concerned with copy protection than marketing a good product. I've heard SACD at audio shows, but I have never seen a disc in a retail store(Tallahassee). At least my DVD-A player is a good DVD player in and of itself. What to do? I will continue to listen to my 1000+ vinyl collection and to my CDs on my 2-channel tube based system (I just bought a pair og Quicksilver tube amps off this site and love them). By the way, the best CDs I've heard are JVC XRCDs. They are without a doubt the best produced and re-mastered CDs you can buy.
Got off track a little bit but there is a lot of good stuff to listen to
Jim
|
yep...Noel are you listening? Abandon the SACD thing, it is dead before it is born. All the reasons already listed and more besides.
No, it may be “better” under the right circumstances but it isn’t better enough and accessible enough to make it work. The business model doesn’t seem to scale to the average consumer very well and the high end audiophile can’t support a specialized product like this without tons and tons more software. Despite the gear orientation many of us in this hobby, most, are musicphiles too.
If I go looking for a redbook CD today I have 10s or thousands of choices in every genre imaginable. SACD? DVDA? What a couple hundred after 3 years? Some of us have collections of CDs and LPs in the thousands, what are we supposed to do, replace all this? Give me improvements that make my current software better not the other way around. No, they are dead they just hasn’t fallen over yet.
PS Sony isn’t so dumb, remember the Walkman? Sony was also one of the founding members for DVD video weren’t they? DVD players are the hottest selling electronics in history. My local Blockbuster is supposed to be one of the pilot stores to convert to almost 100% DVD, now that’s software.
Bye bye to SACD and DVDA…they were so young, but you know what they say, “Only the good die young”.
cd |
Nice post Scott. The FMD technology you describe sounds very "Star Trekish". Craig |
Joe; I too am in almost total agreement with your thread post. The one place I disagree is that SACD or DVD-A or DVD-V has something like 7 times the storage capacity of a redbook CD, and in the LONG, LONG term this gives it a significant advantage over CD (but maybe not for music?).
BTW,I've now seen SACDs for $17.-- same as "new release" CDs. But my local small town music dealer has never even heard of SACDs-- and they've been out 3 years or so? Amazing.
Right now though, you're right on-- industry is fumbling with converting from a basically low storage disc to a high storage disc-- at least for music. And I for one am not about to give up my ever growing CD collection. As you noted, CDs can sound excellent too, and at age 59, that's where I'm staying. Maybe someday the next generation can look back to the golden age of CDs. Good Luck to us all. Craig |
I have no fundamental disagreement with the premise -- I haven't spent a dime on either SACD or DVD-A because the format war hasn't been resolved. (A similar logic applies for me to the whole 6.1, 7.1, 10.2, etc., approach to home theater. I have a very good 5.1 system that works just dandy in my home, and until the storage medium for video sees a quantum jump, I can't see any sense in just buying more speakers and more amps.) Of the two formats, DVD-A has the greater likelihood of mass market acceptance, simply because it is more compatible with DVD-V playback.
The other cogent point that has not gotten discussed is that both SACD and DVD-A may soon be obsolete due to the next leapfrog in optical storage medium technology: fluorescent multilayer disks (FMD). FMD has many layers (up to about 100, as I recall) and uses a dichroic dye that has a very short fluorescing time, which acts like an on-off switch when illuminated by a laser beam. The chief advantage of MFD's is that they can store a vastly larger amount of data than either SACD or DVD-A, and thus offer much greater potential for high definition video recording (to say nothing of audio). The theoretical data storage limit for FMD, as I understand it, is roughly equivalent to 470 CD's (at the theoretical maximum of 100 layers and 300 gigabytes). The technology for FMD already exists, and may appear in consumer products in several years. So, we may soon see the launch of a much-superior storage medium that will make SACD and DVD-A largely irrelevant. (For more info about FMD's, there was a very good article on this technology in Widescreen Review magazine, issue 55.)
The only quarrel I have is with Joe's suggestion to buy a $3-6K CD player. To my mind, it makes much better sense to buy a good CD transport and an excellent separate DAC unit that can be upgraded as necessary. Frankly, given the state of the format wars right now, I couldn't advise anyone to buy a top-end standalone CD deck.
I also agree that vinyl is a format that appeals mainly to those who already own a lot of vinyl, or who just love the inherent appeal of the analog process. I have a substantial investment in my LP collection and analog front end, but if I had not begun building an LP collection some 40 years ago, I seriously doubt I would bother now. |
The music industry can still save SACD/DVD-A, by simply phasing out production of redbook-only disks, and selling hi-res disks (readable on CD players, of course) for at most a nominal amount more than the current price of CDs. Then, over time, consumers will build up collections of hi-res disks, and the audio companies can market hi-res players as a way to "get the most out of the disks you've already got." I don't see any other way to make this plane fly, Orville. (Also, this will only work if there's a single hi-res format. Otherwise, the slogan becomes, "Get the most out of half the disks you've got." Not exactly catchy.)
I also agree with Joe on hi-res digital vs. optical. For good clean sound, my vote goes to digital. But for obsessive fun, vinyl's got it all. Plus, there really is software out there, albeit used.
To some extent, though, this debate is a little short-sighted. Eventually, disks themselves will be obsolete, and you'll just download everything you want (for a fee) at whatever resolution you want into your terabit iPod. Once the bandwidth is there, hi-res becomes very feasible. |
nice post
SACD RIP, who wants the same limited titles available when cd's first roamed the earth
once again Sony fails to learn from BETA-MAX
maybe they can start selling typewriters to college students?
DVD-A - a limited future, the video market will get people buying the inexpensive combo players which are better than their cheap cd systems. must expand the titles available and bring the prices down soon
LP - withstands time but in a small scale
cd - long life with upsampling and remastering improving things further (treat yourself to a new dac)
tom |
As we already know, the the regular CD format is only about 20 years old(roughly). Then came the so-called SACD. How long will SACD last? From what going on in the digital field(it is basically computer technology), it might be already outdated since some other "far better format" is brewing right now.
It took me a long time to collect some of my favourite CDs. I don't want to do that again and buying the same title in SACD format(I don't think I can find it in SACD format).
When I compare any digital format to my analog turntable system, they both sound horrible. The best thing is that the LP format is roughly 80 to 90 years old and it won't obsolete.............. |
I tested around 30 SACD's on a loaner player and found most of them were not significantly better than their Redbook counterparts were (where comparison available) or would be, IMO. BUT, the few that were recorded with DSD were breathtaking, by far the best recorded sound quality I ever heard, practically supernatural.
So I'd add to your list of problems with SACD acceptance, the fact that most SACD's don't have sound quality justifying the additional fuss and expense.
BTW, a reviewer in the NY Times several months ago may have badly damanged SACD progress. He had similar results in his testing as I did except he apparently did not experience any of those few DSD recordings. He declared in his article that there was no significant sonic difference between SACD and CD.
Sigh. |
hopefully, even if already dead, will force the mass marketed stuff to push the envelope a little more. Great post...i guess that my question is answered...save up for a turntable instead of a high end dvd/sacd player. |
While i basically agree, the advanced circuitry that is required to make DVD-A and SACD possible should also increase redbook resolution and sound quality at the same time. This is due to the wider bandwidth circuitry, which should result in less phase shift and smearing of high frequencies.
As to price and marketing of discs and artists, that is an absolute joke. Once again, Sony comes up with a superior design format and shoots themselves in the foot. This is proof that you can have both brains and skill and still not know how to use them. Sean
> |
