Current state of SACD

[Rivendell61]

Hey....Mancini is terrific. But that Ultimate SACD 'kh' mentioned has no Henry on it--and deserves to be remaindered.

The Japan Mancini import/re-masters on CD are many--and good--and a bit expensive.

FWIW--there is no increase in 'resolution' with SACD. At least as in 'more detail'. There may be a slight improvement in the noise floor--which could translate into improved low level (quiet) detail. But on properly dithered CDs signals at -120dBFS can be heard--which is close to the max that a (very good) home system could audibly reproduce.

Mark

[jdm56]

Ah, one of my favorite topics! Not that I'm an expert or anything. It's just that I was very gung-ho on hi-rez from the git-go (no more hyphens. I promise.) [] And in my misguided enthusiasm, sold a perfectly good two-channel rig so I could "upgrade" to high resolution / multi-channel. WhaddadopeIwuz.

So here I am with my (admittedly perfectly fine on their own terms) Pioneer Elite 55TXi and DV47Ai and I can't recall the last SACD I bought! Oh wait, yes I do: some of the Elton John remasters. But I listen to the 2-channel version. I don't care for guitars playing behind me. The point is I seldom find SACD or DVD-A titles that interest me. Maybe I would be interested IF I knew the mix was sensible (not that guitar behind me thing).

So what is the "state of SACD"? I think it will survive indefinitely, but pretty much as an audiophile niche product, comparable to gold CD's and XRCD's, etc. The only place I see DVD-A having any life at all is as one audio option on Dual-Discs.

It really is a sad thing to see how the general public could care less about quality audio, but go all ga-ga over crappy sounding compressed audio files played back on even crappier little ear buds. Maybe those folks will all get run over by the buses they can't hear coming because of the crappy little ear-buds blasting the crappy mp3's into their ears. This will thin out the non-audiophile population while the audiophiles may then be free to reproduce with reckless abandon due to their loved ones being put "in the mood" by the soothing sounds of their high performance systems! [8]

[kev313]

I think XRCDs are dead with remaining stock being sold off by retailers. Too bad, I have a bunch that I like.

[jacksonbart]

Poor Parrot. I have never seen someone so bereft of personal experience yet so well -versed in manufacturer ad pablum. You were a walking Sony spec compaign, drinking in the hype like a drunk looking for a vodka fix.

I had a damn nice SACD machine sitting in my system for awhile and was actually impressed with the sonics. It was the Sony 777es and I thought it did even better with redbook than had been reported. See it below. Pay no attention to that pesky record clamp on the right (it was hand-made anyway). Just keep your eyes locked onto the stock Sony weight, front and center.

You see, unlike you, Parrot, I actually LISTEN to the music and system and make my own observations, and sometimes they fly a different path. Interestingly enough, quite a few have found some fault with SACD ultimately, and I have to agree. I would say that the jazz tracks I compared back to back actually left me a bit cold. While there was an apparent increase in resolution, I felt the musicality suffered and though engaging in that "audiophile way" which rewards listening to the GEAR first, it left me with the impression that the medium had some positives and some negatives to work out. To say the SACD was overrated, at least musically speaking, seemed more my take. Some positives, yes. The savior of digital? I'm still waiting. It sure has come a long way.

I find it ironic that you shat on all things "audiophile" yet fall for such an "audiophile" reproduction. This is not to say that redbook digital is better ultimately or that SACD is totally amiss. I heard good things in SACD and it was a step up in some ways. Was it as musically satisfying? Not on the titles I heard.

Parrot, the main point is that it's a dying medium with VINYL probably outlasting it. On the other hand, I think digital will take what its learned from the the advancement.

The fact that you have yet to hear a vinyl rig do anything close to what its capable of, is not anyone's fault but your own. I have to say that the majority havent and it's understandable why: the medium has MANY a fault, not the least of which is a terribly fussy bit of setup, not to mention a subject that is easily damaged. Still, so far, it's the most musical of the sources. And your comment about compression, one I see in here often, is just one more example of your lack of understanding of things besides the specs, which you apparently misinterpret with equal aplomb.

I await one of your usual comebacks with points taken out of context, laden with misquotes and misinformation. It should be given as a warning below each of your samples.

kh

A top loader? Wow!

[Seadog]

"On the other hand, I think digital will take what its learned from the the advancement"

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

Sad but true. I think the lesson learned is that low resolution means higher profits.

[Seadog]

We now return you to your regularly scheuduled program.I think the state of sacd and dvda is hangin' by a thread.The reason is masses just don't care about quality audio and the big record execs only care about the masses.This will for sure be a step backward in the hi-rez music developement.Its shown that crummy sound can outsell quality sound by leaps and bounds,nothin' to celebrate.I been listening to Jeff Beck "Blow by Blow"on sacd and watchin it snow.I've listened to music since the 60s on many nice set ups,Blow by Blow never sounded better.

Listened last night to Steely Dan - Gaucho on SACD 5.1 for the first time - that too sound inspiring. The remix was mostly great with a few things that sounded gimicky.

Oh yes. The Gaucho SACD is really excellent. But I prefer it in 2-channel. Very comparable to vinyl IMO.

[edwinr]

You see, unlike you, Parrot, I actually LISTEN to the music and system and make my own observations, and sometimes they fly a different path. Interestingly enough, quite a few have found some fault with SACD ultimately, and I have to agree. I would say that the jazz tracks I compared back to back actually left me a bit cold.

Fair enough comment. You admit, however, your simplistic appraisal of the SACD format was restricted to certain limited titles. It is unfortunate that some record companies have choosen to portray the superior sound quality of the SACD format by utilising masters recorded in the 1950's. This is a mistake. I have heard modern recordings utlising the SACD format, and the result are recordings of outstanding quality - far superior to anything else I've heard, including DVD/A.

It is an unfortunare state of affairs that not necessarily the best man wins, or the best format triumphs. Look at Betamax. A far superior format to VHS. I believe Betamax is still used in professional circles. Commercialism triumphed over a far superior format.

In my opinion, to promote and support a technically superior format such as SACD or multichannel music, should not attract criticism or ridicule. But then again, history is potted with individuals making such observations - erroneous that those observations may have been.

[maxg]

Parlous!

SACD is a tale not unlike Betamax - another example of Sony getting the marketing all wrong. Basically for SACD to have succeeded they should have brought out dual layer disks first - and only afterwards brought out single layer disks that would only play on SACD dedicated players. As it is they did the reverse - and that severly limited the market. Thereafter:

1. The have confused SACD with the recording technology DSD within the market. By attempting to install copy protection they eliminated the possibility of using digital outputs and using disks on computers. Both big problems for market acceptance. Many of the cheaper surround sound receivers do not (or did not)even have 6 analogue inputs for surround - just optical and/or coax.

2. The DSD recording technology was not made cheaply available to recording studios - a huge mistake - and as others have said many of the first SACD's were made from old tapes from the 1950's with obvious quality problems.

3. They misunderstood the market. Most people have systems where the media is not the weakest link. Putting SACD on an all-in-one Aiwa system is not going to yield a night and day improvement.

4. Many of the all-in-one players are simply appalling quality. I have the Pioneer 575 and it is dreadful sonically. SACD is marginally better than CD on that unit - but not as good as CD on the Marrantz CD6000 player that I already had - which in itself is no great CD player.

5. We talk on here about how bad MP3 is, or, for that matter BOSE systems are. In relation to most people's systems we are wrong. I will give you an example. Over the summer I was on holiday with some friends one of whom is a lawyer - and not a poor one. I was listening to 256 Kb MP3 on my all singing all dancing telephone(!) I let him listen to it and he was stunned at the quality - he thought it was GREAT!!

He was so impressed he called his wife over to listen to it - who was similarly impressed - with the quality.

6. CD has moved on. It is not the total crapola we were presented with in the early 80's. It is still not great (IMHO) but it is a long way better than it was. Again - in the majority of systems out there - there simply aint no point in going SACD at this time.

7. Multi-channel music. Sony was late to this market anyway. Trouble is that if you look at sales of music in multi-channel format DVD-video music outsells DVDa and SACD combined by a long way. The quality is not comparable on a good system (generally - there are exceptionally good DVD-Video productions and exceptionally bad SACD surround sound productions). People who want surround sound seem to demand video to go with it. This is not surprising - anyone who has invested in surround sound has similarly invested in a video sub-system and wants to use it for more than looking at the titles of what is playing.

8. Pricing. SACD's - certainly initially sold for a significant premium over normal CD. This was bad news in terms of the quality is not so imporant brigade and further limited penetration. The best thing to do would have been to keep the pricing level with CD and in conjunction with producing only dual layer disks and promoting the recording technology to the recording companies all CD's would have become SACD's by default.

9. Availability - well Duh! From the above it is obvious that only a small number of titles would become available in a reasonable time scale - and that is exactly what happened. If you are a classical lover - like me - you have semi decent coverage but for anything else, it seems, you are basically fairly stuffed.

So there you go - a slew of problems with none of them to do with the potential quality one can get from an SACD. I dont want to go into the quality of the final output available because I am really not confident I have heard it at its best. All I can say is that from an "on-paper" approach it does seem to me that it builds more on the strengths CD enjoyed anyway rather than addressing their weaknesses.

As someone who jumped into SACD with both feet when it first came out and only afterwards went beck to vinyl I find all of the above very disappointing. Even more so when one considers that the next generation of blue laser products will have all the same issues (with 2, non-compatible competing formats as ever). No doubt the holographic storage that will follow on from there will be the same.

Bottom line 1 - Sony never learns it lessons.

Bottom line 2 - What people actually want is a music format they can buy - once - and then use it wherever and whenever they want - be that in their homes, on their computers, in the car or straped to their hips. The magic of MP3 is that it allows you to do this. SACD is as limited as vinyl was in this respect. Where are the portable SACD players, the digital copiers for the DSD format, the Car SACD players.....

[edwinr]

CD quality has certainly improved out of sight during the last few years. It would not be an unlikely scenario that CD will continue to be the primary software for recorded music for many years. I forsee that SACD will remain in contention. Maybe the majors will simply introduce SACD to the general public as a no charge extra facility on the disc. Maybe they should have done this in the first place, then introduced the hardware for those that wished to access the superior sound quality available on that particular disc.

In any event, a crazy situation.

[Daddy Dee]

Max,

Good summary. Rings true to me.

[MarkBK]

Max,

Very well put. I too had hoped they would learn their lessons and clearly they have not - too bad. I had hoped that new disk formats would use the technology wisely - avoiding gimicks in the mix and creating ambience (Would love to hear the Classical guitar of Julien Bream in the Church he often used for recordings as though we were in the church itself - the natural reverb of the room as he played - etc) The first few SACD's I purchased seemed to be remixed as gimick.
I am exploring classical recordings now in hopes of finding some worthwhile.
Mark

[Mick Bell]

Telarc says its first digital recordings utilized the Soundstream recording system which is based on a sampling rate of 50kHz, compared to a standard compact disc, which has a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. To produce the original CD, the Soundstream 50kHz signal had to be converted to 44.1kHz. They say that this process inherently caused a loss of quality not only by lowering the frequency response, but also by the complex process needed to make the conversion. In short, SACD allows Telarc to re-release its entire Soundstream catalog in a format which can accomodate the range of the original recording because Direct Stream Digital technology has a freq. range of over 100Hz. All of their re-releases are in two channel.

I've purchased some of their re-releases and compared with the originals I think they DO sound better. What's the future of SACD. I think it's the natural progression of digital audio. In the future, I think it'll simply take the place of standard CDs -- probably won't even be labeled SACD. Will the newer technology die out because some teenie boppers prefer MP3 audio. Not a chance. Those teenie boppers don't buy high end audiophile equipment either and those guys aren't going out of business. There are plenty of us around who will keep the technology going!

[edwinr]

They don't buy the highend stuff yet. But they will when they begin earning money. Perhaps MP3 etc. will be the saviour of high end audio. Do you remember how we all started? My first stereo wasn't even a stereo. It was a portable (A/C) record player with a volume and tone control only. The speaker was in the lid.

[maxg]

You had it lucky Ed - my first "stereo" was a mono transistor radio.

(This is now a cue for everyone to cut in with how bad they had it - wait for Fini to chime in with 2 empty cans of tomatos and a piece of string with one can lying near an old radio a neighbour had that was broken).

[fini]

Max,

You must have read my autobiography!

[Fish]

I agree md,the make or break is in the original recording.I would only

add that I picked up Jackson Brown "Runnin on Empty"dvda and it sounds

way superior to the original lp/cd.The noise floor and detail is

stunning for an older and partial live recording.It adds a new level of

enjoyment to an old favorite.

[Audible Nectar]

"When I think about all the crappy sounding CDs and LPs I have, I doubt any of them are mostly crappy due to the "limits of the medium." IMO, they are crappy because the engineering is lousy. Out of focus instruments, muddy or non-existant bass, strident distorted strings, wobbly vocals, bizarre fading and wandering stereo images, weird tonal balance and all the rest are artifacts of the recording engineering process."

<Insert warm, mellow bell tone here>

I also find similar valid arguments in relation to audio on DVD video format. See "The Eagles: HFO" for proof. In both cases, CD as well as audio quality of DVD - it's not the medium - it's the engineers. When these people finally maximize the capability of the existing mediums, I will be more likely to believe the megacorps when they tell me that I need to buy a new format like SACD.

The fact that some CDs sound like crap does not mean that the format isn't good. They sound like crap because the music companies allowed them to be released that way. If SACD became the norm, and were to sell like CDs do now, those same music companies would still be releasing SACDs that sound like crap.

So while there may be some advantages in performance, I find that it is rare that the average listener would benefit enough to warrant a switch to that new format....especially now, when that format is not selling. For listeners of certain genres where mastering care is more common (like classical), I can understand the desire to get the most possible out of the medium. But for listeners of other genres, much of what is released wouldn't make that much difference anyway, because recording quality isn't first on the list with many releases.

And then, of course, there are the copy protection motivations (no digital connections, therefore requiring new preamps), no backward compatibility, very consumer UNFRIENDLY. IOW, doomed to fail - regardless of the positive benefits.

[MarkBK]

mdeneed wrote: "...From time to time I put something on and get that "wow" factor, and I realize it is because the recording engineer really got it right"

Now there is a whole other topic! I think the recordings that really stand out for me are the ones in which the engineering,artist, recording quality sound, and musical content come together and the results are artistic sucess on all levels! Many of these become my "demo" recordings when audtioning new components - Vinyl - Sargent Peppers - Ultra High Quality - MFSL; CD: Brothers In Arms - Dire Straits, Peter Gabriel - SO, and many, but never enough, more.

So many great recordings in jazz that capture an outstanding performance are unforturnately poorly recorded. Yet, the spirit of the music is so moving, it is overlooked - imagine if it had been recorded well.......

Engineering does play a very significant part in the process - and I actually DO look for them on releases - if I see that they were involved - I know there is ia strong change the recording quality will be high - Rudy Van Gelder is one example of that for me.

Mark

[Mallette]

Good a place as any to re-materialize, I guess. Good to see MH back...wondered about that.

I noted recently that the lead of LP issues/re-issues over combined SACD/DVD-A sales has increased. Most of the reasons given above are on target, but let me throw in one more that keeps DVD-A a bit above SACD. Little guys like me cannot make SACD. Cost of entry is far too high. I am still hoping (in spite of MANY things conspiring to prevent it) to issue a DVD-A "sonic spectacular" next year featuring the Camarata winds, voices, augmented brass/percussion, organ, and the best acoustic space I can find.

I can do this, because even using my own meager resources I can master, duplicate, and distribute the DVD-A medium. Unless something has changed, it would require kilobucks to just acquire the mastering capability for SACD.

Basically, the field of exploration of new music and pushing the limits of spacial and sonic fidelity has passed to little guys like me. Media for which the price of entry to produce is too high isn't going to happen.

As previously mentioned, the "big boys" are not interested in us anymore, so media open only to them, like SACD, has more than one strike against it regardless of its technical qualities.

Dave

P.S. - Seems the fidelity of my avatar has suffered in my absense. Anyone know what I need to do?

[edwinr]

I only play 2 channel SACD at the moment. Apart from the sound quality, which I like, SACD is a plug and play option for me. I don't need to access an on screen menu to set replay up, unlike DAD/A. I have some DVD/A discs. They only play via the lower res DD format on my Sony 'universal' player. Up until early this year I owned a Toshiba SD900E DVD/A player. When that was working (more often than not it wasn't) it replayed DVD/A's with superb resolution. But to set it up, I had to access the onscreen menu via my projector. This I found to be annoying and not conducive to marketing this format to the general public as a plug and play format.