SACD

[Fish]

Don't forget to mention,the earth is really flat.There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Parrot]

There is no "glut of high frequency sound" on SACD. That's just anti-SACD propaganda.

As far as price, most titles are available for $12-$17. Considering these are better than the gold audiophile CDs of years gone by, which retailed at $29.99, they are a bargain.

[Strabo]

What is all the hemming and hawing over Hi-Rez having a digital connection?

I do not understand the "there has to be a digital out" theory. Short of the expense of buying 3-4 sets of patch cords I don't see what the problem is. Turntables don't have digital outputs and they still can beat Hi-Res.

From an expense point of view I can see it. I don't want to spend $600 on extra patch cords to be able to run a DVD-A and a separate SACD player. Maybe that is what all the whoopla is.

Could someone explain?

[kjohnsonhp]

I'm not sure what the future holds for HiRez. At the moment it seems to be a niche one step beyond all the Audiophile formats we've seen in the bast (half speed masters, gold CDs, etc.).

Quality video DVD players seem to include it so many will start to get HiRez playback of at least one format whether they want it or not.

Mutli-format players are becoming popular and maybe they will be come the norm at lower price points in the future.

HD-DVD will be the next big player so maybe we can get both formats and HiRez in one player.

Marketing of SACD and DVD-A is horrible. Having two formats has hurt.

Multi-channel works sometimes but often sounds like a gimic. DSOTM seems to be a good multi-channel. Multi-channel fans seem to like four speakers in four corners where HT seems to like sides and center rear. Does multi-channel sound as well in a Dolby HT speaker setup? Too dominant (placement) of rear speakers can make the multi-channel sound worse.

I think new releases in HiRez and multi-channel would help. The sound was created to be played back in multi-channel vs remixed for multi-channel.

If I'm going to buy the new album by "...." then I would start buying the HizRez format. I'm less likely to buy another copy of my current albums. This is what got me started on CDs. I didn't rebuy too many (although many did), but istead just started buying CDs.

I'm not sure what to think about the super tweeter. Many feel it has a huge benefit for SACD despite the 20K hearing limit. It doesn't seem to be a benefit for regular CD. You will be able to buy add-on super tweeters vs replacing the entire speaker.

[rowooo]

If I knew for a fact a new SACD player wouldn't be sitting, collecting dust on top of my 1992 laser disc player, I might give it a shot. Kidding aside, I'll stick to a good C.D. player and vinyl.

[fini]

For that realistic "you-are-there" multi-channel concert experience, engineers should put cel phone and pager noises in the surround channels.

fini

[NOSValves]

To me SACD is a no brainer because the better players have great Red book playback which in my experience isn't true with DVD players. Plus a good number of SACD title are Hybred and can be played in any Redbeek CD player. Just seems like a much better option to me. Plus most SACD's sound great in 2 channel which is all I use for music. In my Livingroom I have DVD and DTS and I find it great but just another passing fancy I always end up back at 2 channel for music.

Craig

[kjohnsonhp]

"To me SACD is a no brainer because the better players have great Red book playback which in my experience isn't true with DVD players. Plus a good number of SACD title are Hybred and can be played in any Redbeek CD player. Just seems like a much better option to me. Plus most SACD's sound great in 2 channel which is all I use for music. In my Livingroom I have DVD and DTS and I find it great but just another passing fancy I always end up back at 2 channel for music."

---------------------------------------

This is what is attracting me to SACD...I perceive I'll enjoy 2-channel SACD better then regulard CD. If the red book playback on an DVD/SACD player is good then it's a winner. I've been a little concerned that using one player for CD and DVD would compromise the CD playback unless I bought one of those expensive external DAC/processing boxes.

So would the Phillips DVD/SACD player be a quality CD player? IF so then that might be a good player for me. I was also thinking about the new Denon 2900 but at $995 list it's a little steep. I need a new video player and if I can get quality 2-channel CD and even SACD then it would be of value.

[jdm56]

The "hemming and hawing" over a digital connection between hi-rez players and receivers o pre-amps, has less to do with the expense or hassle of patch cords for 5.1/6.1/7.1 channels of analog than it does with simply being able to use the dsp already built into any decent receiver or pre-amp on hi-rez, multi-channel signals. This would eliminate, simply and neatly, all the problems with bass management, channel balance, and time delay, that we have now when trying to integrate analog hi-rez into a system that can't manipulate it. Currently, with many SACD/DVD-A players, there is either no way to deal with these issues, or at best it is limited and inconsistent, one format to another.

To the best of my knowledge, there is only one receiver and player currently available that gets it right: The VSX-49TXi receiver, and the DV-47Ai universal player, from Pioneer Elite. Unfortunately, the 49TXi lists for well over 4k!

[Strabo]

----------------

On 4/19/2003 11:59:40 AM James D McCall wrote:

"hemming and hawing"

----------------

Thanks for the input. I guess I hadn't seen it that way before.

Based on this I should consider myself lucky.

Except for the timing adjustment, I can do all of that stuff with my pre. Most of these I can do on the fly. The timing is configured in the player set-up.

Granted, to do the bass management I have to convert the analog to digital in my pre, then back to analog. Something I'm not doing because I don't see the need with my mains going down to 32hz (translate, good enough for me). Set up the rears as small in the player and that should manage well enough. In a full surround system the speakers should be all full range, so no need for bass management in that case.

No one else's systems can do these things? I think there might be more at work here, like a misconception that if it's digital it has to be better.

[Parrot]

kjohnsonhp: "Multi-channel fans seem to like four speakers in four corners where HT seems to like sides and center rear. Does multi-channel sound as well in a Dolby HT speaker setup? Too dominant (placement) of rear speakers can make the multi-channel sound worse."

The recommended configuration for multi-channel (not including optional sub) is 5 speakers equal distance from the listener. Ideally the center should be a little behind the plane that the front speakers are in, so that the front 3 speakers form a small arc. The two "rear" speakers are really misnamed. They are much more situated to the side than they are in back. If you looked out the side of your eye, you should just barely be able to see the "rear" speaker with your peripheral vision. Having the "rear" speakers behind you is not the way to go--it's not the way any multi channel is mixed in the studio. The "rear" speakers should just be slightly to the rear, say 10 or 20 degrees from a line that would come out from your arms if they were outstretched to your sides.

[artto]

RE: "People thought CD's were the snit when they came out."

Anarchist, not so. I was literally, the first USA consumer, guaranteed first by Sony, to take delivery of a CD player & the first dozen or so discs that were released. I also had a CD player in my system, on loan from Sony for a short time, months before CD was released.

I can tell you as a matter of fact, the initial CD's out there SUCKED. They were absolutely terrible. I thought to myself, "What the hell is this S***! I had waited how many years(?) for the "digital promise" to become a commercial reality only to find out that when the real thing came along, that I had been listening to better for years!" I wrote many letters to Sony, CBS & the producers of some of the recordings. You wouldn't believe how pissed off some of the producers got! LMAO. A few actually wrote back (standing up for their work, obviously).

Beware of some of the same things happening to SACD (or DVD-A). A Journey "Greatest Hits" SACD I bought, is a mess for the most part. The higher resolution will also show the inferior quality of the original recording or mix. "Don't Stop Believin'" was obviously recorded and/or mixed at another studio from most of the rest of the tracks. It sounds OK. The rest are pretty crappy. I have a half-speed mastered vinyl reissue of the same album. The vinyl sounds better (less irritating) on the crappy tracks. About the same on the Don't Stop B, except obviously, for the attendent noise on vinyl.

I don't have that many SACD titles yet. However, the ones I think are really outstanding so far are:

Superbass2 with Ray Brown, John Clayton & Christian McBride

Diana Krall, When I Look Into Your Eyes

Yo-Yo Ma, Solo

[Parrot]

Man, artto, you had connections back in 1983!

artto is correct: Just because something is on SACD does not guarantee it will sound great. The original recording may be bad. It'd be like blaming a Klipschorn for a bad-sounding record, when you ought to be blaming the artist/producer/engineer.

That said, there are a lot of superb sounding SACDs out there. I could name you twenty-five excellent classical SACDs without a sweat, but there are a lot fewer pop and rock titles. But definitely check out the Rolling Stones' Let It Bleed and Beggars Banquet. Make sure to get the ones in digipacks that came out in 2002, and not the old CDs, which are pretty bad. The hybrid SACD/CD Rolling Stones titles (stereo only) will set you back all of about $12 at Circuit City.

[formica]

I agree that both formats have potential; it's just a question of time before some respectable recordings begin to come out in reasonable numbers. I was recently discussing this on another site... The way i see it, as music fans we try to buy the equipment to best reproduce the music we love, and hopefully reflect the recording engineers intention. Unfortunately, their intention doesnt always sound good... I find it hard to believe the inconsistencies still found in modern recordings, especially now when the technology has become so inexpensive and readily available.

Is it possible that the record companies aren't overly promoting the formats simply because it is much more revealing to sloppy work?

Similarly, Heritage speakers are often criticized for being to revealing... but speakers shouldn't be there to hide the recording glitches either.

Rob

[Mallette]

This has been a mature and knowledgeable thread concerning digital releases. I agree with pretty much all that has been said, and am attempting to do something about it. It's not easy.

I hope to release a DVD-A this year. I've a group, the Camarata Chamber Winds, that is headed by an ex-Dallas Symphony Conductor (James Rives-Jones). At max, it's about 15 players with flute, oboe, clarinet, French horn, trombones, trumpets, tuba. Excellent stuff for sonic fireworks. I've an "angel" who's agreed to donate enough money to cover the maestro and muscicians for a recording session, and will donate my own time in return for hoped-for profits sufficient to cover my costs (yeah, right...hope springs eternal!). My research has run into all kinds of hurdles, some solved, others solvable but tricky. Probably the worst is Meridian Lossless Processing. In order to release at 24/176.4, MLP is necessary to keep the bit rate withing that of the DVD specification. Seems a British company got a lock on this software through Dolby certification. The software is no more sophisticated than zip, shorten, or other "lossless" codes, but because of the copyright, it's pricey...2500.00. So if you've wondered why there is no cottage industry selling DVD-A, that is part of it. The other is surround encoding, which is also at least 500.00 for software. This first attempt will likely be stereo, but I am still not sure that surround encoding is not neccessary even just for stereo in order to meet spec for regular DVD players.

Anyway, I hope to figure this out and make something happen. If I can, then I intend to attempt some 4 channel antiphonal music and environmental (thunderstorm and such) recordings in that format. It's been my impression that 24/96 and up compares very favorably to LP and analog. I've not studied SACD technically, but it appears to share some of the limitations of CD and also has compatibility problems with consumer equipment. While my main interest is in audiophile level recordings, I want them to be as widely playable as possible.

It is a challenge, to say the least, especially on a "bootstrap" basis both financially and technically.

Dave