[ctviggen]

I think 16/44.1 was adopted because that's what fit on a CD at the time.  Any more than that, and you'd have to have two disks for one CD/album, which wouldn't be a good thing.  Plus, the theory is that as long as you sample at twice the Nyquist frequency (40kHz), you can have perfect reconstruction of the signal.  You don't -- so theory goes -- need any more than 44.1kHz.

I think while DVD-A (of which I have one CD, just to test) and SACD might go away, home theaters will not.  If anything, I see home theaters becoming more prevalent.  How many houses now have "media rooms"?

[nathanm]

You sound like everyone who doesn't believe that SACD is a viable format is 'Joe Consumer', and only You, The Englightened One, know the Truth.

Uh, no...I am only describing my own experience with the people I know and the flaws I see in the marketing of any better-than-CD format be it SACD, DVD etc that's all.  I only described ONE roadblock in the format's success.  I agree there are other disadvantages as you described.  I myself am only reallyinterested if the new format comes out with new bands.  I'd like to see more recordings recorded NATIVELY in their end medium and released, not just remastered old stuff.  There's only like 3 titles in my collection where I actually re-purchased an album in a newer format.  If I already had the CD there's no way I'd buy a 2-channel SACD only.

[ghersh]

I think 16/44.1 was adopted because that's what fit on a CD at the time.  Any more than that, and you'd have to have two disks for one CD/album, which wouldn't be a good thing.  Plus, the theory is that as long as you sample at twice the Nyquist frequency (40kHz), you can have perfect reconstruction of the signal.  You don't -- so theory goes -- need any more than 44.1kHz.

I think while DVD-A (of which I have one CD, just to test) and SACD might go away, home theaters will not.  If anything, I see home theaters becoming more prevalent.  How many houses now have "media rooms"?

Yes, to fit Beethoven 9th symphony, that was Sony's stated goal (forgot which particular performance they had in mind). Another interesting tidbit I've heard is that initially Sony wanted to use something like 12 bit resolution, not exactly state of the art, if you wish. Took them some extra efforts to get the target length *and* 16 bits.

As to Nyquist, this often misunderstood 'Nyquist theorem' --- well, if you ever took the iintro course on Signal Processing, the proof of this theorem  is simple and straightforward. Yes, you can reconstruct a periodic signal if you sample at at least twice of its frequency. Yes, it's a theorem. So is gravitation. So is the Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic fields.  it's *just* a theorem.  Incidently Nyquist equation and Shannon equation for the channel information capacity are those used by AT&T  when they've planned for conversion from analog to digital telephony (late 50s - early 60s).


Finally, HT certainly doesn't go away, but those who are mostly interested in music (rather than watching TV) are becoming less interested in multichannel settings.  No doubt we'll see many audio HT offerings, but I doubt we'll see many *high-end* audio HT offerings.

[doug s.]

Yes, to fit Beethoven 9th symphony, that was Sony's stated goal (forgot which particular performance they had in mind). Another interesting tidbit I've heard is that initially Sony wanted to use something like 12 bit resolution, not exactly state of the art, if you wish. Took them some extra efforts to get the target length *and* 16 bits.

As to Nyquist, this often misunderstood 'Nyquist theorem' --- well, if you ever took the iintro course on Signal Processing, the proof of this theorem  is simple and s ...

sony/philips *could* have fit 24/192 onto a cd-sized disc back in 1983 - *if* they wanted to.  they dint want to, cuz the hardware costs would have been a *lot* more.  still peanuts, compared to the profits they made by going to the dics format instead of winyl.

doug s.

[WEEZ]

When you've been at this hobby for almost 35 years, like I have, you probably own vinyl. I do. Lots of it.

When Dolby B was introduced to the cassette tape format, I was into it because of the convenience compared to open reel- and it's superior sound over 8-track (which I never participated in    ).

It took me a while to get into CD because, as most will admit, the early sound quality sucked. No surface noise. No tape hiss. But glare, nasty, 'peaky' sound that hurt my ears.

I took the plunge in 1989. And CD is still my least favorite. But it's gotten better. Much better, actually.

I was really hoping that SACD would be the answer to my prayers. High resolution audio with no surface noise and no hiss. Still easy to use. Etc.

I am not impressed. ( Never heard DVD-A- but don't care about surround sound just like I didn't care about the early 4-channel surround sound either ). It's a cool gimmick- but it's not for me.

With today's redbook players and dacs, one can almost enjoy digital music. On some recordings- I am r-e-a-l-l-y impressed. Never heard SACD that sounded like analog to me, though. Or redbook either.

Why do you think that turntables are selling like hotcakes? Nakamichi cassette decks command good resale prices. Why? Music is being done on vinyl again. Why? Even in my small hometown, where there are NO dealers for 2-channel hi-fi equipment- there is a thriving business in vinyl re-sale shops. Why?

Why is there such a renewed interest in tubed equipment for high-end audio? Certainly not because of convenience, that's for sure. And it's not because somebody has invented an output transformer that reaches to 50k to reproduce the bandwidth of SACD. Must be some other reason.

I would submit that those who consider music a passion, will buy analog music and tubed equipment or try to find digital sources and ss equipment that reproduces music that sounds NATURAL and real. Those who don't will buy any new gimmick that comes along.

So, I haven't got into SACD or DVD-A.  For me- it doesn't matter if it lives or dies. As long as there's a market- it'll live. If not, it'll die. Whatever. But as long as there is two channel analog music and equipment available I will support it. And when someone invents a new format that sounds like analog, I'll support that too. In the meantime, I'll try to make my digital music sound as analog as I can afford to; and treasure my analog music as long as it lasts.

 

WEEZ

[BeeBop]

Let's see.... Beta, minidisc, SACD ... I've said it before, I will say it again: "anyboy who trusts Sony for anything is just pissing money down the drain".

[rosconey]

who cares about sacd other than the fools who bought a player-suckers

[Rob Babcock]

Why do you think that turntables are selling like hotcakes?

In what fantasy world are 'tables "selling like hotcakes?"  They account for a miniscule fraction of total gear sales, and LP sales comprise around 1% of total software sales.  Yes, still behind cassette.

Tables get a lot of ink, er, 'pixels,' on the fanboy sites, but don't delude yourself that they're anything but a fetish item nowadays.

[Bingenito]

Let's see.... Beta, minidisc, SACD ... I've said it before, I will say it again: "anyboy who trusts Sony for anything is just pissing money down the drain".

who cares about sacd other than the fools who bought a player-suckers

My point exactly. How about a petition to have Sony kiss my A$$ because I will never buy another Sony product or concept unless everyone jumps on board.

The writing was on the wall from day one. I did not see it and purchased an SACD player. Then you have to hunt down some good music on SACD which even on the web is not easy depending on what you like titles are limited.

Vinyl is similar in this area but the difference from a mass market perspective is that vinyl is a has been and SACD is a never was. Ask 20 people in a Best Buy what SACD is and you would be lucky if one person even noticed the small rack they walked past on the way into the store.

Even if SACD sounded better then redbook, which it does not why would anyone invest money in this technology? The recording industry is in business to make money just like any other business. Do you think that they do not look at detailed reports of SACD sales, growth in the market, etc?

From an investment perspective I would not recommend purchasing a high end player that focuses on SACD.

[PhilNYC]

Even if SACD sounded better then redbook, which it does not why would anyone invest money in this technology? The recording industry is in business to make money just like any other business. Do you think that they do not look at detailed reports of SACD sales, growth in the market, etc?
 
...

Remember that beyond sound quality, SACD was being marketed as a multi-channel audio format.  With the growth of 5.1 HT sound systems, it was certainly one of the things Sony thought people might want.

[panomaniac]

Beta, minidisc, SACD ...  "anyboy who trusts Sony for anything is just pissing money down the drain".

Ha! Funny, BeeBop. Who here remembers the "Elcassette"? Yet another failed Sony hi-Fi format.

Still, Beta had its revenge in the broadcast video world, where it became "BetaCam" a very nice format. There are millions of Betcam pro cameras and decks in use every day all over the world.  I've spent may hours slaving over a hot Beta deck  And don't forget ""Umatic" 3/4" video tape, announced as dead many years ago, but still hanging on.

I will agree with some of the above posts, the mixing, mastering and original recording may be the limiting factor, not the delivery format.
Good formats don't always survive, but new ones are born.  Why can't DVD or the new Blu-Ray hold whatever format we like?

[Bingenito]

Remember that beyond sound quality, SACD was being marketed as a multi-channel audio format. With the growth of 5.1 HT sound systems, it was certainly one of the things Sony thought people might want.

Yes sir... We are a marketing sample which is fine but were is the marketing? Sony is a multi-billon dollar corp. Yet there marketing and web pages must have been on a budget of around $100,000.

I am not bashing here but if you truely believe you created something the world has just got to have put it out there, make it known, make the masses buy it. Hi Def TV for example is selling very well. It was marketed and Joe public can see the difference in picture quality at the local big box store.

I have never seen SACD marketed in this way. People buy what they see (or hear). Human nature.. If you cannot touch it, see it, hear it does it really exist?

The simple fact that this petition and thread exist is proof of what I am saying. Unfortunate but true.

[doug s.]

Let's see.... Beta, minidisc, SACD ... I've said it before, I will say it again: "anyboy who trusts Sony for anything is just pissing money down the drain".

uh beebop...  ya forgot one - redbook cd.    
proof that sony *can* make a crappy product become dominant - *if* it's in their financial interest to do so.    

if a product doesn't look like it's worth the inwestment - the need to get *all* the software machinery re-tooled, in order to force the consumer to accept it by flooding the market w/the product - then it ain't gonna happen.  when cd replaced winyl, the initial cost of retooling the entire industry was worth it, cuz the cost to reproduce a cd is a small fraction of the cost to produce a 12" winyl album.  *and* it's *way* more conwenient.  no such cost benefits/conwenience issues to go to sacd/dvd-a, etc.  so, yust cuz it may sound better in theory, it ain't gonna happen.  mp3 on the other hand; well there's money savings/conwenience *there*...  

doug s.

[csero]

Remember that beyond sound quality, SACD was being marketed as a multi-channel audio format.  With the growth of 5.1 HT sound systems, it was certainly one of the things Sony thought people might want.

Actually SACD started as a 2 channel format, and seeing the rise of multichannle Sony sneaked in 4 more channels through the backdoor.

Sony also knew that there is no reliable miking setup for multichannel recording. The idea was that the recording engineer should just make the best two channel stereo recording he can and then fabricate surround (ambience) channels using the impulse responses of real halls with the Sampling Digital Reverberator, the DRE-S777.

[budyog]

WEEZ Wrote:

I am not impressed. ( Never heard DVD-A- but don't care about surround sound just like I didn't care about the early 4-channel surround sound either ). It's a cool gimmick- but it's not for me.

DVD-A is not only for surround sound. I hate surround sound. DVD-A has a 2 channel stereo mode that when the player play's it properly is sounds absolutely wonderfull to my ears. I have about 15 DVD-Audio's and 2 new duel disc. One of the dueldisc will not play in the stereo mode on my machine. The CD side plays fine.

A DVD has more storage space than a cd therefor seems to have a sound of not being compressed. If you haven't given one a try, I recommend checking a DVD-A out.
The reason the dueldisc they say has so much potential is because the amount of DVD players that have been sold for home and now auto.

[csero]

Yes, to fit Beethoven 9th symphony, that was Sony's stated goal (forgot which particular performance they had in mind). Another interesting tidbit I've heard is that initially Sony wanted to use something like 12 bit resolution, not exactly state of the art, if you wish. Took them some extra efforts to get the target length *and* 16 bits.
 

As far as I remember Philips wanted 14 bit 176 khz, but the final decision was 16/44.1. If you check the first generadion Philips DAC chips, they are 14 bit, but support 4 times oversampling.

[nathanm]

Dueldisc!

[Wind Chaser]

Who here remembers the "Elcassette"? Yet another failed Sony hi-Fi format.

I bought one in the early 80's with a whack of tapes.  What a joke!  And waste of money in my case...

Sony is very good at innovating new technology, but when it relies on proprietary software to function it's a stillbirth.

[Bingenito]

Back to the purpose of this thread.....

Is anyone signing the petition?

[Carlman]

I'm not... Every artist but one that I've ever heard could care less about how their recording sounds in the end product.  All they care about is the Art of creation and their performance quality live.  I think people in the audience making live recordings are doing a better job than the engineers in studios.

So, why would I want an uber-resolving medium for a poorly engineered recording?  Is the studio going to use absolute top-notch gear like I do?  No, they'll use cables from a box in the closet, and whatever else is lying around... and then push all the levels to the top so it's nice and loud...  

The problem with redbook is the engineers, recording studios, and lack of interest from the artists.  SACD, DVD-A or any other format is something to consider after they resolve those other issues first and THEN start learning how to properly use the higher resolution formats to capture those other efforts.  

-C