Petition to save SACD

nathanm · « **Reply #60 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 08:17 pm »

My comments about "joe consumer's" listening habits weren't meant to be scornful (maybe a wee bit) but rather that is The Way It Is. A big hurdle is that if there are indeed any benefits between SACD and Redbook CD hearing them is likely to require the Serious Active Listener Method. Joe Consumer is NOT interested in serious listening; again not judging, just saying. By that I mean sitting in a chair in the center of their rooms with the speakers positioned away from the walls and all that, paying close attention and such. Hell, I do that and I still might have a problem telling an SACD from Redbook. But DVD has the upper hand in that ANYONE can understand ooh, there's sound behind me far easier than a fiddly technical difference between different 2-channel mediums.

SACD releases are definitely spotty. I really had to stretch my listening tastes to the limits to find at least something to try in the format. And of course, they aren't direct AD to a DSD converter, they're all mastered off analog. As I understand it, the DSD converters available now are both extremely expensive and have a limited number of channels. Obviously big roadblocks for recording studios to adopt. I can totally understand the reasons to say to hell with it, but I think the technology is just too immature and that it might be a shame to see it thrown out before it had a chance.

-Richard- gets the horns

for the idea of $6.00 releases. With low prices like that I for one will be much more willing to take risks buying music I may or may not like. But 30-40 bucks for a freaking SACD is crazy, and you have to sit there sweating over "Oh geez, I BETTER like this!" But the record companies never tried it, they just whined about Napster. If there was huge demand for free\illegal\compromised music then maybe there might be a similarly large market for CHEAP\legal\uncompromised music? I would rather have a pile of discounted CDs than a hard drive full of MP3 crap.

Dokter_doug · « **Reply #61 on:** 2 Apr 2005, 10:21 pm »

Will try to avoid the irritability this post...

Question: Where the hell are you guys buying your SACD's? I just got back from my favorite weekend browse store (Adagio in Vancouver) with 3 multichannel SACD's:

BIS Beethoven Symphonies Nos. 4 and 5 Minnesota Orchestra (Osmo Vansaka)

Chandos Bach "The Conductors Transcriptions" BBC Symphony Orchestra (Leonard Slatkin)

Sibelius Symphonies Nos. 3 and 7 LSO (live) (Colin Davis)

All of these were Grammophone Editors' Choice too BTW. I paid between (Canadian) $17-20 for each of them, and I often see SACD's (and DVD Audios for that matter) for $15-16 as well. Why are you all paying so much for your high res stuff?

Also...WRT the Stones. IMO they sucked on vinyl and they suck on SACD.

Additionally there's no point in purchasing an SACD of music that was originally recorded in PCM format. Either buy something remastered from tape or recorded with high frequency mic's straight to SACD...but make sure the encoder is not the standard Sony DSD encoder (which is broken) but the Ed Meitner version. Then you'll hear exquisite resolution if you don't play it back on some POS SACD player through a lousy system.

And for a real rush, try Rachel Podger's dual SACD of Vivaldi concertos mixed straight to SACD, with the surrounds containing the extended frequency version of what actually appeared at the back of the cathedral they recorded in.

Finally...as long as folks buy surround sound theatre systems there'll be surround music formats to take advantage of (IMO) the surround setup...and they'll be high resolution.

Doug

sm4r2d2 · « **Reply #62 on:** 3 Apr 2005, 05:42 am »

Hi, You can check out www.amusicdirect.com for a large variety of SACD and DVD-A, Gold CD's, etc. The main reason I like SACD,s is for the remastered oldies. Maybe they aren't up to others requirements, but I have purchased a few that so a-lot better. Politics aside, I believe a lot of stuff is being released by smaller companies that other wise isn"t available, and my older stuff sounds much better than original releases. Just an unscientific opion. ---Richard D C---

Tbadder1 · « **Reply #63 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 02:31 pm »

I love the petulant little diatribes against SACD on this thread. It makes me wonder....naw, not really. Anything decent in this world is usually squashed anyways. I tried DVD-A. I personally liked it but thought SACD was better, more analogue. The criticism that SACD is colored tweaks my funnybone just a bit, because if you say this and then defend tube amps, well, that's just pure contradiction and really unworthy. XRCD? Sure it sounds great, but it's the most expensive format out there, it's also limited. I'll be sad to see SACD go. I enjoyed my SACD discs, 90% are hybrids so I haven't lost much. But what I really appreciate is knowing what a complete and utter idiot I am/was for wanting better than hi-rez 16/44, which still sounds squirrelly to me. I think I'll just go kill some Iraqi children--that'll make me feel better.

Tbadder1 · « **Reply #64 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 02:53 pm »

I love the petulant little diatribes against SACD on this thread. It makes me wonder....naw, not really. Anything decent in this world is usually squashed anyways. I tried DVD-A. I personally liked it but thought SACD was better, more analogue. The criticism that SACD is colored tweaks my funnybone just a bit, because if you say this and then defend tube amps, well, that's just pure contradiction and really unworthy. XRCD? Sure it sounds great, but it's the most expensive format out there, it's also limited. I'll be sad to see SACD go. I enjoyed my SACD discs, 90% are hybrids so I haven't lost much. But what I really appreciate is knowing what a complete and utter idiot I am/was for wanting better than hi-rez 16/44, which still sounds squirrelly to me. I think I'll just go kill some Iraqi children--that'll make me feel better.

coleco · « **Reply #65 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 07:42 pm »

Quote from: doug s.

the only difference is that, prior to the inception of the cd in 1983, those driving the industry were interested in making the best sound possible, to extract dollars out of the *average* audio consumer. now, the industry is *only* interested in generating more revenue from developing something cheaper to manufacture.

I disagree. I'd say the industry has *only ever* be concerned with money *but* there's always been that element of quality that drives the industry to some degree.

People love new toys to play with, they'll buy a new format if it's available.

Obviously there's the person that doesn't give a rats ass. Regardless of that fact, there's some level of quality that's going to be acceptable that has to be maintained.

Next is level that they care, and are willing to pay more provided it's no effort. Perhaps they even buy audio video magazine or something. They may even consider themselves an 'audiophile'; Obviously not to the 'lunatic fringe', but the point is that they're willing to pay more, and they're going to snap up a new, 'better' format like hotcakes.

Also, thing is that a huge number of kids these days care about sound quality in a big way and spend thousands of dollars on audio gear for their cars. Sure the paradigm is different but I've hear some cars that sound pretty sweet.

MP3s apply mostly to the mass produced pop shite, ie, Britney Spears or whatever. Which is one market, it seems huge cause Britney sells 10+ million albums. However once you start getting into the lunatic fringes with audio though, you also get into the lunatic fringes of recordings.. the economics of which is totally different. I happen to have my system tweaked out cause I like to hear what the artist intended. Much electronica, much of which is on the borders of the main stream, say Amon Tobin or whatever, is obviously geared toward high end audio gear. An album might only sell 20,000 copies, but there's no behemoth industry to support so those guys are never going to go away.

I could care less if 'the industry' moves to mp3 cause I don't listen to that mainstream crap anyway.

On the other hand I recognize that the recording industry is trying to lock down formats to squash independant artists, not to fight piracy as they claim.. so much great stuff can be done in digital with a home studio these days.. promote yourself on the internet, you're off to the races. The recording industry is finding themselves less and less necessary these days.

I would be happy with lossy enocoding if it was MP4/AAC.. that's what I encode in and it sounds great. It's totally sufficent for critical listening. In fact lossy encoding has great potential to *increase* quality.. you could increase the bit rate, compress it and drop it on a standard cd. Instant increase in quality. No need to change over your factories.

SWG255 · « **Reply #66 on:** 4 Apr 2005, 10:46 pm »

I've noticed those most unhappy with the SACD titles available, or lack thereof, are those primarily into rock and related genres of music. I am into this music, but also classical and jazz. For classical and jazz releases SACD has been better at sustaining a trickle of new titles than for rock. The few rock SACDs i have sound best if they were produced from analog tape, like the Elton John and Eric Clapton releases. i suspect that many rock recordings are mastered at 16 bit 44.1KHz., even today when 24-bit 96KHz. is becoming the norm. Nathan makes a valid point about the lack of sophisticated DSD editing and multi-track recording equipment but I think most audiophiles eschew the production values associated with this kind of gear anyway, so the only impedament this lack of equipment is for SACD production is for popular recordings--a catch 22 of sorts.

As for the argument that much rock music sounds great on vinyl, I agree completely, but it isn't because vinyl is more *accurate*, it is more euphonic. This has been used as an argument against the merits of SACD, but I think the argument simply shows that many serious listeners prefer the sound of vinyl, not that vinyl is inherently better than SACD.

If the world's economies continue to permit luxuries like high-end audio, we will eventually have a playback medium that is superior to all our current formats. It took years and years to consistantly master and produce quality LPs, CDs can sound much better than they did in the late 1980s, and so hi-resolution digital recordings will also improve. The hard part for audiophiles, joe Consumer and the industry today is that there are far more choices now for music delivery than ever before. Not all of those choices are good for audiophiles, but there's room for several formats if we begin to re-think how music should be created, produced, packaged and sold.

soundboy · « **Reply #67 on:** 5 May 2006, 10:24 pm »

Time to revive the petition....

Now at 745 signatures. Picked up almost 100 new signatures since this past Monday.

http://www.petitiononline.com/SACD/

john1970 · « **Reply #68 on:** 5 May 2006, 10:33 pm »

To all,

While I absolutely agree that DSD and SACD and technically superior to CD the problem was in its distribution. The vast majority of consumers could not tell the difference between the SACD and CD formats and hence SACD is a dying format. Moreover, from what I could tell very few albums were being recorded using the DSD technology. Many SACD releases were PCM remasters.

You know when NAXOS stops supporting a format that it is a good time to bail.

John

Dokter_doug · « **Reply #69 on:** 5 May 2006, 10:55 pm »

Quote from: john1970

To all,

...

You know when NAXOS stops supporting a format that it is a good time to bail.

John

Naxos barely STARTED supporting the DSD/SACD format, and has released very few (relatively) SACD's. They've also released a couple of DVD-Audio's. In this case, Naxos' involvement (or non-involvement) with SACD is utterly irrelevent.

soundboy · « **Reply #70 on:** 5 May 2006, 11:20 pm »

Quote from: john1970

Moreover, from what I could tell very few albums were being recorded using the DSD technology. Many SACD releases were PCM remasters.

As of this post, 699 direct-to-DSD recordings on SACD

Vtech2000 · « **Reply #71 on:** 6 May 2006, 04:01 am »

I have heard enough examples of 2-channel SACD playback to convince me that it is a format that has good potential. I signed the petition.

soundboy · « **Reply #72 on:** 6 May 2006, 09:13 am »

I contacted one of audioasylum's "regulars", Teresa, and she agreed to have the petition linked to her hirezstereo.com website. It's also listed in the website's SACD section.

Currently at 837 signatures.

rbrb · « **Reply #73 on:** 8 May 2006, 04:32 pm »

The fact that DSD/SA-CD playback is not included on Sony's new Blu-Ray players is proof that SA-CD is dead in Sony's view. Forget about it and move on. A petition won't change anything.

Jon L · « **Reply #74 on:** 8 May 2006, 06:10 pm »

You can't save something that's already dead.

I would have said save DVD-A instead, but that's already dead also.

HD-DVD and Blueray will likely have little to no use for 2-channel music listening.

Sigh.. The most we can hope for is for 16/44.1 redbook recording/mastering equipment/skills to become so advanced and fool-proof that even the most uncaring studio pros can't help but produce good-sounding redbook CD's...

soundboy · « **Reply #75 on:** 8 May 2006, 06:33 pm »

Quote from: rbrb

The fact that DSD/SA-CD playback is not included on Sony's new Blu-Ray players is proof that SA-CD is dead in Sony's view. Forget about it and move on. A petition won't change anything.

On the other hand, SACD has been "penciled in" as part of Sony's PlayStation 3.

OTL · « **Reply #76 on:** 9 May 2006, 12:19 am »

Quote

On the other hand, SACD has been "penciled in" as part of Sony's PlayStation 3.

This hobby is all about tradeoffs. To beat my own personal drum, I've been listening to a CAL Alpha/Delta for more than a decade and have yet to hear anything that justifies the considerable increase to my hardware/software cost that would enable listening to SACD, DVD-A, etc. I got lucky and purchased the right technology, from the right vendor, at the right time. My CAL gear still sounds wonderful. Trust me, I'm not missing much.

Making a decision on the unknown (aka: "penciled in", the "next new thing") is certainly risky. With the present and future cost of storage continuing to plummet, a bit-for-bit representaion of anything will shortly cost next to nothing.

A couiple of things you can take to the bank:

- The redbook CD format will be with us for many, many years to come.
- The ability to up/down convert for sample rate/word length will be with us for as long as the public offerings of "digital" continue to remain in flux.
- SACD, DVD audio, and all the "interim" release technologies are dead.
- There will be another "new, better" digital method following Blue-Ray within 2-3 years.
- Overall industry investment in DVD is considerable and any inovation moving forward with support todays DVD standards. At least for a "reasonable" time.

Other than that, you're one of the "early adopters" and are investing in the constant, ever increasing churn of technology.

IMHO, buy a turntable, visit your local Goodwill and backfill your collection while you wait for the "next new thing" that's going to be around for 20 or so years. Vinyl has been around for more tha 70 years and still sounds great!

Again, just my humble opinion.

Listen, share and enjoy!

OTL.

Feanor · « **Reply #77 on:** 28 May 2006, 01:31 am »

Quote from: Bingenito

Sorry but Redbook on a good CD player or DAC transport combo is better then SACD IMO.

XRCD proves that SACD is not needed. Play an XRCD on a quality redbook player and you will hear what I am talking about.

SACD -Been there, done that and sold it on Audiogon.......

"It's the Multichannel, Stupid" to quote Andrew Quint in TAS, Issue 162.

eric the red · « **Reply #78 on:** 28 May 2006, 01:38 am »

Actually OTL SACD playback can be had for next to nothing and SACDs too. I bought a Philips 963SA player off someone here for $115.00 and yourmusic.com has quite a few SACDs for their regular $5.99(including shipping) price.