Emjay Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Hi guys I'm very interested in your thoughts on this, as there seems to be a fairly large collection of music lovers on here. As the subject says - what went wrong with SACD? I was unsure whether to post this in the 2-channel audio section, since I absolutely love the surround-sound mixes on some of my SACDs, but I thought more music lovers would be in here. I also think that the stereo mix on SACDs is superior to CD, just to try to further justify this post being here I was aware of SACD for a long time, but I don't know anyone who adopted the format - amongst my friends, our big focus was on FLAC vs MP3, with vigorous debate on the merits of loss-less vs .MP3 @ profile V0 I recently purchased a Cambridge Audio 751BD, primarily for it's blu ray support, as I was using a PS4 for such, but, while I can't complain about the PQ, a number of annoying bugs are present during blu ray play-back on it. Since the 751BD is a universal disc player, I have purchased a number of SACDs, primarily of albums with which I am quite familiar, and, to my ears. the SACD is vastly superior, even in 2.0 Why, then, did not SACD start a new wave of music (re)releases taking advantage of the format? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) See https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/143320-loudness-war-and-the-dynamic-range-dr-database-some-observations/?p=1724625 and https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/144487-streaming-pure-dsd-just-became-possible/ Basically, SACD is a locked-up way to distribute DSD (1-bit) recordings, i.e., you basically can't get the DSD tracks off the original disc--unless you own an original "fat" PS3 whose operating system wasn't ever upgraded from a certain PS3 OS version--and then the process to read and rip the SACD's DSD tracks is a bit contorted as compared to plopping a CD in a laptop CD drive and ripping to hard disk. The DSD format itself is a bit anachronistic in that up until recently there were no editing tools available that allowed the producers to order their mastering engineers to compress and otherwise significantly edit their mixed music tracks--which clearly is the reason why so many SACDs sound better than their CD counterparts. Now you can edit within the native DSD format but the cost for the software alone is out of sight. DSD was used as an archiving format for original recordings, not as an editing and distribution format. Why am I talking about these subjects in relation to your basic question, "why did SACD fail"? Because I believe the that reasons behind that failure is control by the producers of the editing of the music for "sales" (of lack or control thereof) and the inability of buyers to easily rip their music off the SACD. Earbud/mp3 player owners (a significant percentage of the music sales market) I'm sure don't have any use for SACDs for the reasons stated - no compression used on the music and no way to get the SACD tracks to their mp3 players. YMMV. Chris Edited October 9, 2014 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emjay Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 Thanks, Chris, I didn't realise this topic has already had quite some exploration! The (in)ability to rip SACDs is markedly nullified by hybrid discs, I would have thought - if you want to listen on your i-device, surely the CD layer would suffice? I was under the impression that much of the studios' back-catalogue was already archived via DSD, making SACD releases very easy, but maybe I've misunderstood its application Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Hybrid discs are the answer, but the fact remains that the producers couldn't (until recently) order their DSD music to be "processed for market", and the resulting higher prices that these same firms are asking for SACDs relative to CDs. If you go to something like Amazon marketplace and look at even the used prices of SACDs, you will see a premium price. One other issue remains: in order to actually hear your DSD or DST (multichannel) tracks, you need a SACD player with either HDMI to a DAC/prepro or excellent analog output sections in the player itself and reasonably good RCA (analog cables) connecting to your analog preamp or directly to your power amp input sections. Too many people are screwing this up and not understanding that conversion to LPCM over a digital bus typically destroys any listening advantage of the DSD/DST tracks, or they are using analog outputs/inputs and cables that really aren't up to the task. I still don't understand the issues with DSD/DST conversion to LPCM - since this also must be effectively done by the ADCs within typical digital recording networks/boxes. It could be a DRM issue (as are most issues with HDMI connections and their "failures" once in the buyer's hands). Edited October 9, 2014 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Chris is dead on. SACD was DOA due to the industry's locking it down so totally as to prevent it's use by music creators without a lot of money...which is the majority of the music industry since the collapse of the studio system. It has only been in the past few years that the death grip has been loosened a bit...possibly too little and too late to make much difference. It is a shame, as the DSD process is nearly ideal both in its extreme resolution and also being arguably the best transcoding medium ever. Due to the extreme sample rates any transcoding to PCM results in an even division. Therefore audible losses are limited only to those due to the standard itself. That is, 16.1/44 as opposed to DSD itself or 24/96, etc. The processes and software are no more difficult or costly to use than any other digital format. It's about GREED. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The cost of playback infrastructure. The cost of media. The type of music largely available on the format. It's all geared towards a very select audience ($$$). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 DSD IS where it's at... but a physical disc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 To me this is as easy as no one cares. What I mean is its a tiny % of us that really care about the last few drops of sq. Like Im the only one I know (not on forums) that even knows what sacd even is (other than what I have told them). Im big fan of it and have lots of them. But I just have more fun streaming music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) See the last paragraph in this "Hitchhikers Guide to SACD": http://superaudioproduction.com/guide.html I have to agree with Mr. Schumacher, above--the marketplace is going to downloads. The present draw for SACD--at least to me personally--is that I can still get the physical SACDs through Amazon Marketplace for less money than DSD/DST downloads, even paying $3.99(US) for shipping the physical media by U.S. mail, with its attendant wait time of about 1 week (I have to keep reading my A Road Less Traveled in order to quell my dissatisfaction with physical media transit times. ) I suppose that I'll be much more willing to shell out the bucks once the online DSD 64 or 128 music download catalogs become a bit more comprehensive in terms of available titles. I'm also hoping that even the (flawed) initiatives like Pono (and the credit all goes to Neil Young for this one...) will draw enough attention by buyers to start looking for and buying higher quality download music than typical mp3s or even stereo AACs typically found on YouTube, etc. (which are either horrible or slightly horrible in practice, IMHO). Hope springs eternal that the masses will reverse course and start investing in slightly better home and office sound reproduction systems - led by home theater enthusiasts, I'm sure. Which brings up another closely related question: when will the HT marketplace realize that they are acquiring really killer music reproduction systems--better than anything I typically experienced in the midst of the two-channel epoch (~1960s to ~1990s until higher quality multichannel music started coming out on digital discs)...and start buying high quality multichannel music discs and downloads in greater quantities? I also wonder why so many "old guys" (a demographic that I'd be lumped into if I behaved like a typical "audiophile") continue to dilute their investment into separate two-channel and HT systems because if they consolidated, they'd have really killer rigs like some of the younger folks do now. Younger ears are better--period. But they're typically less trained to appreciate "vintage audio" (like me--who fails to appreciate older audio recordings because they're old). https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/user/26262-chris-a/ Edited October 9, 2014 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Smith Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Which brings up another closely related question: when will the HT marketplace realize that they are acquiring really killer music reproduction systems--better than anything I typically experienced in the midst of the two-channel epoch (~1960s to ~1990s until higher quality multichannel music started coming out on digital discs)...and start buying high quality multichannel music discs and downloads in greater quantities? I also wonder why so many "old guys" (a demographic that I'd be lumped into if I behaved like a typical "audiophile") continue to dilute their investment into separate two-channel and HT systems because if they consolidated, they'd have really killer rigs like some of the younger folks do now. paragraph 1 is answered by paragraph 2. there are countless threads from paragraph 1's demographic seeking advice on how to make their singular setup perform both functions well, only to be squashed by the snobby paragraph 2 demographic. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I think a lot of old timers would admit that they are stuck in their ways. If it makes them happy thats all that matters I guess. Im sure if we go back far enough there were plenty old timers that probably refused to use electricity when it was first being used main stream. They probably loved the old lantern that's been in the family for 100 years that they work on every sunday . Edited October 9, 2014 by reference_head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Some of us have no choice but to have at least two systems. I don't remember the last time I watched something on the HT in the family room that I actually wanted to watch. Back to the SACD question... it would have helped if the SACD version actually sounded better than my original CD. For example, I wondered why I preferred my Dire Straits CD purchased in 1985. Then I found the Dynamic Range Database thanks to someone here. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dire+straits&album=brothers+in+arms Resolution doesn't mean much if you start squashing the dynamic range. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emjay Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 For example, I wondered why I preferred my Dire Straits CD purchased in 1985. Then I found the Dynamic Range Database thanks to someone here. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dire+straits&album=brothers+in+arms Resolution doesn't mean much if you start squashing the dynamic range. I'm not sure I understand - all the SACD on that page are in the green (which has to indicate a good score, right?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) SACD failed because: The industry and the advertisers did more than drop the ball -- they didn't pick up the ball The people in charge of recorded music production and distribution don't give a **** about audio quality AES claimed that there is no audible imrovement over CD ... I beg to differ ... is my system more revealing than whatever they were using to listen with? Many music lovers don't realize how good multichannel (5.0, 5.1) are. As Chris pointed out, the HT owners would be the natural users of multichannel music, but haven't yet shown up. Classical & jazz SACDs are still being released (mostly remasters), so the format may live on. Tellingly, those two genres are less likely to be subject to dynamic range compression. Not immune, just less tempting. Edited October 10, 2014 by Garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I don't remember the last time I watched something on the HT in the family room that I actually wanted to watch. Just introduce your family or housemates to quality movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heritage_Head Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Some of us have no choice but to have at least two systems. I don't remember the last time I watched something on the HT in the family room that I actually wanted to watch. Back to the SACD question... it would have helped if the SACD version actually sounded better than my original CD. For example, I wondered why I preferred my Dire Straits CD purchased in 1985. Then I found the Dynamic Range Database thanks to someone here. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dire+straits&album=brothers+in+arms Resolution doesn't mean much if you start squashing the dynamic range. Imo the dire straits sacd is worlds better than the cd. You would be the first I have read who has said other wise. Its that sacd that got me hooked and I went on a big splash of buying them. In every case the sacd has sounded better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Interesting! I listen via a Bel Canto DAC so everything is from a computer file... the CDs are FLAC and the SACD was converted to DSF via a PS3. I ran the dynamic range meter on 3 versions, the SACD, the hybrid layer of the SACD, and my original CD from 1985. The 1985 version has way better dynamics... not just by the numbers but by the sound. I should listen to all of these again straight from the CD and SACD. Perhaps something went wrong with the PS3 conversion but I really don't think so. I only listened to the SACD once on the OPPO when I first bought it. Here are my Dynamic Range meter numbers for the SACD (.dsf files): foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:09:33 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition) [sACD]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR10 -3.70 dB -15.58 dB 5:13 01-So Far AwayDR8 -4.20 dB -15.65 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR6 -5.26 dB -14.21 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR9 -4.67 dB -15.87 dB 6:33 04-Your Latest TrickDR11 -6.11 dB -19.48 dB 8:31 05-Why Worry?DR10 -5.42 dB -18.72 dB 6:57 06-Ride Across The RiverDR9 -4.49 dB -17.25 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too StrongDR10 -4.39 dB -15.91 dB 3:40 08-One WorldDR8 -5.44 dB -17.09 dB 6:57 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR9 Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 24Bitrate: 5645 kbpsCodec: DSD64================================================================================ Here are the numbers for the HYBRID CD layer: foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:10:14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition - SACD CD LAYER)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR8 -0.10 dB -9.50 dB 5:12 01-So Far AwayDR7 -0.10 dB -9.61 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR6 -0.10 dB -8.18 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR8 -0.10 dB -9.83 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest TrickDR11 -0.10 dB -13.44 dB 8:31 05-Why WorryDR10 -0.10 dB -12.71 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across The RiverDR7 -0.10 dB -11.22 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too StrongDR8 -0.10 dB -9.87 dB 3:40 08-One WorldDR8 -0.10 dB -11.05 dB 7:00 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR8 Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 755 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Here are the numbers from the 1985 CD version: foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:10:36 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR20 0.00 dB -21.95 dB 5:13 01-So Far AwayDR19 0.00 dB -21.38 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR13 -5.95 dB -21.49 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR14 -7.78 dB -24.88 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest TrickDR13 -12.70 dB -28.90 dB 8:31 05-Why WorryDR17 -2.43 dB -23.32 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across The RiverDR14 -2.18 dB -21.79 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too StrongDR18 0.00 dB -20.38 dB 3:41 08-One WorldDR15 -4.00 dB -23.49 dB 6:56 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR16 Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 598 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emjay Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) SACD failed because: <snip> Many music lovers don't realize how good multichannel (5.0, 5.1) are. As Chris pointed out, the HT owners would be the natural users of multichannel music, but haven't yet shown up. Yeah, this is a big part of my question. I have had a 5.1 setup for over 20 years - though the early ones weren't much to get excited about - for movies and PC gaming. I'm a big music fan, always have been, and only recently have I begun to enjoy surround music, and that almost by accident; since I was looking for a new Bluray player that would also work well with CDs, I found a number of respected players from Oppo and Cambridge Audio also supported SACD. So, what went wrong? I am almost the exact demographic the format is targeted at, yet I'm 10 years+ late to the party Edited October 10, 2014 by Emjay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emjay Posted October 10, 2014 Author Share Posted October 10, 2014 Interesting. Based on the below, I would suggest that the best mastering exists on the SACD DSF files Secondly, the 2.0 from the SACD, though there has obviously been some sort of manipulation such that the peak on all tracks is exactly the same at -0.1 The worst mastering exists on your 1985 CD, with several tracks peaking at 0 Interesting! I listen via a Bel Canto DAC so everything is from a computer file... the CDs are FLAC and the SACD was converted to DSF via a PS3. I ran the dynamic range meter on 3 versions, the SACD, the hybrid layer of the SACD, and my original CD from 1985. The 1985 version has way better dynamics... not just by the numbers but by the sound. I should listen to all of these again straight from the CD and SACD. Perhaps something went wrong with the PS3 conversion but I really don't think so. I only listened to the SACD once on the OPPO when I first bought it. Here are my Dynamic Range meter numbers for the SACD (.dsf files): foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:09:33 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition) [sACD]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR10 -3.70 dB -15.58 dB 5:13 01-So Far AwayDR8 -4.20 dB -15.65 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR6 -5.26 dB -14.21 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR9 -4.67 dB -15.87 dB 6:33 04-Your Latest TrickDR11 -6.11 dB -19.48 dB 8:31 05-Why Worry?DR10 -5.42 dB -18.72 dB 6:57 06-Ride Across The RiverDR9 -4.49 dB -17.25 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too StrongDR10 -4.39 dB -15.91 dB 3:40 08-One WorldDR8 -5.44 dB -17.09 dB 6:57 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR9 Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 24Bitrate: 5645 kbpsCodec: DSD64================================================================================ Here are the numbers for the HYBRID CD layer: foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:10:14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (20th Anniversary Edition - SACD CD LAYER)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR8 -0.10 dB -9.50 dB 5:12 01-So Far AwayDR7 -0.10 dB -9.61 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR6 -0.10 dB -8.18 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR8 -0.10 dB -9.83 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest TrickDR11 -0.10 dB -13.44 dB 8:31 05-Why WorryDR10 -0.10 dB -12.71 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across The RiverDR7 -0.10 dB -11.22 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too StrongDR8 -0.10 dB -9.87 dB 3:40 08-One WorldDR8 -0.10 dB -11.05 dB 7:00 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR8 Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 755 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Here are the numbers from the 1985 CD version: foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2014-10-09 21:10:36 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR20 0.00 dB -21.95 dB 5:13 01-So Far AwayDR19 0.00 dB -21.38 dB 8:26 02-Money For NothingDR13 -5.95 dB -21.49 dB 4:12 03-Walk Of LifeDR14 -7.78 dB -24.88 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest TrickDR13 -12.70 dB -28.90 dB 8:31 05-Why WorryDR17 -2.43 dB -23.32 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across The RiverDR14 -2.18 dB -21.79 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too StrongDR18 0.00 dB -20.38 dB 3:41 08-One WorldDR15 -4.00 dB -23.49 dB 6:56 09-Brothers In Arms-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR16 Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 598 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 hmmm... the 1985 CD is much more quiet and natural sounding to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.