Jump to content

SACD - what went wrong?


Emjay

Recommended Posts

 

Then progressing even more, dedicated 2 channel guys, like me, are not really looking at multichannel formats but in the end it doesn't matter because audiophiles are not the ones defining the popular formats.

 

I think there is a perception problem with "the 2 channel guys" both of themselves and also as they are perceived by the rest of the audiophile community. 

 

The "2 channel guys" arose as a group following the quad debacle of the 70s.  Of course, many of them today weren't around for that. 

 

What they really are is QUALITY oriented not only in the specs but in the experience.  While the quality of surround mixes has improved greatly, for many of us they still remain contrived, phased, multiplexed, processed, steered...one or more. 

 

Engineers have failed to produce a "Mercury Living Presence" microphone plan to deliver the purity "2 channel guys" expect.  It is not hard to do naturally if one simply places the microphones such that they emulate the 360 degree soundfield we hear, but for whatever reason they seem to want to try to produce it the hard way. 

 

"2 channel guys" are perfectionists are not luddites.  I don't think you'd find a single one who would prefer having concert seat with a semi-circular backpiece of sound absorptive material to reproduce that "real stereo experience" whether it was a rock, jazz, symphony, or whatever concert. 

 

Dave

This is an interesting point.

 

The other evening I went to see a performance of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, performed by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.

 

One of the things which struck me, (aside from the rude couple beside me, who, after turning up 20 minutes late, basically talked ALL the way through the performance! :angry2:  :angry2:  :angry2: ), was the fact that the sound envelopes you in such a venue.

 

Turning my head back and forth made no difference to the localisation (or lack thereof) of the sound. I had cheap seats in the back row off to the side (almost over the orchestra), yet the sound simply came from everywhere and nowhere.

 

That's something that I almost never experience at home, though multi-channel SACD comes closest (certainly closer than 2-channel anything delivers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first off, SACD was introduced in 1999 ~ 15 years ago.

 

Second, many (most?) of the early SACD were just re-released analog and previous CD recordings. It took some time time until there were a number of Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recordings available that were actually recorded in DSD.

 

Third was the copy protection which always seems to be a bummer especially when equally good sound (or should I say acceptable) is available elsewhere without it.

 

And then of course the much higher cost for the players early on.

 

Soon FLAC came along which actually has a higher sample rate/bit depth (resolution) than standard DSD (FLAC 192Khz/24bit) verses 2.884Mhz/1bit. On digital PCM playback SACD outputs at 176Khz. And now even higher resolutions in both FLAC and DSD are available.

 

Personally, I don't think anyone can actually hear those differences per se'. Where the differences come into play are in the editing and mastering process. When you edit a digital recording and or apply some kind of digital signal processing (effects), the higher the sample rate/bit depth, the less distortion there is in the waveform. I've seen this very clearly on my own digital recordings. Whether or not it's audible kind of depends on how and what was done to the recording. It's all cumulative.

 

In the end the recording engineer is king. The care and expertise that went into the recording is what makes a recording sound great, not whether its digital or analog, or WAV, FLAC or DSD. MP3 and AAC are another matter as these are lossy formats. I can clearly hear the difference, especially in comparison to my own hi-res recordings.

 

As far as DSD/SACD goes, my view is that it's primary benefit is in archiving as one bit divides evenly into any whole number making it "upscalable" to any higher resolution/sample rate in the future with no interpolation required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might also add that in regards to surround sound, which SACD clearly is aimed at, the biggest problem I've encountered is that you are at the mercy of whoever came up with the processing algorithms in the back room. If the surround sound channels were more like,  just extra channels, with natural ambiance, in addition to the two main stereo channels it wouldn't be so bad. But so far, every multi-channel system seems to have some kind of processing, mostly intended for grossly over enhanced HT sound. Personally, I haven't found anything I like that sounds "real". Just for the record, what is real to me? It's what I hear when I record a local chorale/orchestra/band at the church, or hear an orchestra/chorale at a good concert hall, or what I hear from amplified music (rock or jazz or C&W) at a nightclub with all the chit chat and glasses clanking around from all directions and different distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as DSD/SACD goes, my view is that it's primary benefit is in archiving as one bit divides evenly into any whole number making it "upscalable" to any higher resolution/sample rate in the future with no interpolation required.

 

Bingo!

 

Since you cannot create what is not there, I fail to see the benefit of this.  As I said before, what I find is most useful about DSD is, for the same reason, it's ability to downsample without artifacts.   I've yet to hear anything in DSD to PCM downsampling attributable to the process.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might also add that in regards to surround sound, which SACD clearly is aimed at, the biggest problem I've encountered is that you are at the mercy of whoever came up with the processing algorithms in the back room. If the surround sound channels were more like,  just extra channels, with natural ambiance, in addition to the two main stereo channels it wouldn't be so bad. But so far, every multi-channel system seems to have some kind of processing, mostly intended for grossly over enhanced HT sound. Personally, I haven't found anything I like that sounds "real". Just for the record, what is real to me? It's what I hear when I record a local chorale/orchestra/band at the church, or hear an orchestra/chorale at a good concert hall, or what I hear from amplified music (rock or jazz or C&W) at a nightclub with all the chit chat and glasses clanking around from all directions and different distances.

 

Ah, I see a difference in several of our listening expectations. :) Although I sit looking forward when I am enjoying SACD/DVD-As I don't always imagine a band playing in front of me but instead what was going on in the artist mind...A perfect example of this is the Talking Heads disks in DVD-A where the majority of the instruments/vocals  are coming from the front but the surround channels get filled with interesting sounds/vocals that add to the experience--Sort of like a Pink Floyd concert.

 

I also like REM DVD-As in this regard where it's usually a subliminal vocal coming from the sides or rear. I also have a "9.2" setup in a small room (library with books being natural room treatment) and on the disks mentioned above as well as concerts instead of reflected sound coming from 2 speakers the surrounds and rears also play more of the 'natural' sound I would hear coming from music sources that are still trying to make the allusion that you are experiencing something coming from the front soundstage with natural  reverberations that a live venue represents. The reason I don't listen to much 2 channel material anymore is because I don't get the same effect as I do with multichannel music. I also don't separate out what is DVD-A, SACD, or even DTS surround that doesn't have video accompanying it--That said, I initially watched a lot of concerts on DVD before I discovered the other above media...Now with Blu ray, I have started watching those again but hardly ever CDs.

 

Fwiw, I saw it postulated that those people who experienced hallucinogens in their experimental years probably appreciate Multichannel music more than those that didn't--Dunno. Just a theory. :ph34r:  

 

{EDIT: I also don't listen to much Jazz (Steely Dan/Donald Fagan is the closest and I love those) or any Classical (tried to when I first got into SACD but couldn't dig it) and see that there are a lot of those titles in this format--Those listeners may appreciate these formats for a different reason than I stated above.} 

Edited by tkdamerica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third was the copy protection which always seems to be a bummer especially when equally good sound (or should I say acceptable) is available elsewhere without it.

 

And then of course the much higher cost for the players early on.

Copy protection is often mentioned as a negative against SACD

 

I wonder, though, whether, given that 15 years ago, the capability of MP3 encoders was low, the 'copiers' are in the same demographic as the potential SACD market?

 

The early cost of players is something I'd completely over-looked. I'm not sure that I would have spent $800-$1,000 10-ish years ago on an SACD player

 

I might also add that in regards to surround sound, which SACD clearly is aimed at, the biggest problem I've encountered is that you are at the mercy of whoever came up with the processing algorithms in the back room. If the surround sound channels were more like,  just extra channels, with natural ambiance, in addition to the two main stereo channels it wouldn't be so bad. But so far, every multi-channel system seems to have some kind of processing, mostly intended for grossly over enhanced HT sound. Personally, I haven't found anything I like that sounds "real". Just for the record, what is real to me? It's what I hear when I record a local chorale/orchestra/band at the church, or hear an orchestra/chorale at a good concert hall, or what I hear from amplified music (rock or jazz or C&W) at a nightclub with all the chit chat and glasses clanking around from all directions and different distances.

You say this as though the multi-channel surround-sound is achieved by hitting the "Dolby Music PLII" button and burning the result to a disc.

 

That's not been my experience. The surround-sound is achieved in the studio through careful placement of various instruments, vocals, sounds in various channels, blending and mixing to achieve a cohesive whole.

 

Just for the record, the last thing I'd want on my surround-sound SACDs is chit-chat and the ***** of glasses in the rear channels :)

 

 

I might also add that in regards to surround sound, which SACD clearly is aimed at, the biggest problem I've encountered is that you are at the mercy of whoever came up with the processing algorithms in the back room. If the surround sound channels were more like,  just extra channels, with natural ambiance, in addition to the two main stereo channels it wouldn't be so bad. But so far, every multi-channel system seems to have some kind of processing, mostly intended for grossly over enhanced HT sound. Personally, I haven't found anything I like that sounds "real". Just for the record, what is real to me? It's what I hear when I record a local chorale/orchestra/band at the church, or hear an orchestra/chorale at a good concert hall, or what I hear from amplified music (rock or jazz or C&W) at a nightclub with all the chit chat and glasses clanking around from all directions and different distances.

 

Ah, I see a difference in several of our listening expectations. :) Although I sit looking forward when I am enjoying SACD/DVD-As I don't always imagine a band playing in front of me but instead what was going on in the artist mind...A perfect example of this is the Talking Heads disks in DVD-A where the majority of the instruments/vocals  are coming from the front but the surround channels get filled with interesting sounds/vocals that add to the experience--Sort of like a Pink Floyd concert.

 

I also like REM DVD-As in this regard where it's usually a subliminal vocal coming from the sides or rear. I also have a "9.2" setup in a small room (library with books being natural room treatment) and on the disks mentioned above as well as concerts instead of reflected sound coming from 2 speakers the surrounds and rears also play more of the 'natural' sound I would hear coming from music sources that are still trying to make the allusion that you are experiencing something coming from the front soundstage with natural  reverberations that a live venue represents. The reason I don't listen to much 2 channel material anymore is because I don't get the same effect as I do with multichannel music. I also don't separate out what is DVD-A, SACD, or even DTS surround that doesn't have video accompanying it--That said, I initially watched a lot of concerts on DVD before I discovered the other above media...Now with Blu ray, I have started watching those again but hardly ever CDs.

 

Fwiw, I saw it postulated that those people who experienced hallucinogens in their experimental years probably appreciate Multichannel music more than those that didn't--Dunno. Just a theory. :ph34r:  

 

{EDIT: I also don't listen to much Jazz (Steely Dan/Donald Fagan is the closest and I love those) or any Classical (tried to when I first got into SACD but couldn't dig it) and see that there are a lot of those titles in this format--Those listeners may appreciate these formats for a different reason than I stated above.} 

 

One of the things that I enjoy in my listening experience, at times, is to listen to (focus on) different parts of the piece.

 

Sometimes I let the whole wash over me, but sometimes I'll focus on the bass line, or the percussion, or some other part.

 

This is one of the reasons I like 'layered' music, like orchestral, or Pink Floyd, and not so much pop music, with it's synth drum beats and 1 or 2 other (perhaps synth) instruments.

 

SACD multi-channel mixes make this listening mode a much more enjoyable experience, as well.

 

I do, though, listen to the 2-channel SACDs at times, as well, depends what listening I feel like doing

 

I won't comment on the 'history of hallucinogens' theory  B)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...