Blu-CD or SACD? (not the new Blu-spec CD, discussing profile 3.0 BD vs. SACD)

[frenchglen]

What do you guys think of the future of the SACD format?

The Blu-ray "Profile 3" doesn't seem to be a new format with different codecs or anything, but just a Blu-ray Disc with no obligation for BD-J. It will just emphasise the audio. Assuming this:


Blu-CD Advantages
- Already compatible with PS3 and every other BD player. No need for new players.
- Ability to use PCM which simplifies the mastering process for the record companies
- Ability for more than 5.1 channels (SACD is only up to 5.1)
- Variety of codecs to choose from, and plenty of space for them all.


SACD Advantages
- Thousands of great releases already on the market
- Um that's all I can think of


I think they should call it something like Blu-CD. It needs to have CD in it, so people instantly know what it's meant to be. People will associate the "Blu" with high definition so they conclude it must be a high resolution CD that you listen to. DVD-Audio was like "What? so it's a DVD (instantly thinking video), um, with audio on it? But movies already have audio? What??" It was a stupid name. SACD is great because it is marketed as a type of "ultra CD" to consumers. Maybe it's more successful because it's simpler. It's a type of "CD", not some stupid complicated format only understood by audiophiles and techies (though I love DVD-Audio, don't get me wrong).

"Profile 3" just needs to be marketed as a simple ultra-quality surround CD playable in the lounge room on your PS3/blu-ray player, with optional extras such as video clips, etc.


So what do you think?


-- fg --

[DrinkMore]

What is SACD?

[calcajun]

I believe it will be uncompressed or a different hires format. I do not believe sacd format will move to Blu. Sacd can easily be outperformed some other way with the space avail on BD.
Thats just what i think though.

[calcajun]

SACD

Super Audio Cd


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

[Aaron]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

What do you guys think of the future of the SACD format?

The Blu-ray "Profile 3" doesn't seem to be a new format with different codecs or anything, but just a Blu-ray Disc with no obligation for BD-J. It will just emphasise the audio. Assuming this:


Blu-CD Advantages
- Already compatible with PS3 and every other BD player. No need for new players.
- Ability to use PCM which simplifies the mastering process for the record companies
- Ability for more than 5.1 channels (SACD is only up to 5.1)
- Variety of codecs to choose from, and plenty of space for them all.


SACD Advantages
- Thousands of great releases already on the market
- Um that's all I can think of


I think they should call it something like Blu-CD. It needs to have CD in it, so people instantly know what it's meant to be. People will associate the "Blu" with high definition so they conclude it must be a high resolution CD that you listen to. DVD-Audio was like "What? so it's a DVD (instantly thinking video), um, with audio on it? But movies already have audio? What??" It was a stupid name. SACD is great because it is marketed as a type of "ultra CD" to consumers. Maybe it's more successful because it's simpler. It's a type of "CD", not some stupid complicated format only understood by audiophiles and techies (though I love DVD-Audio, don't get me wrong).

"Profile 3" just needs to be marketed as a simple ultra-quality surround CD playable in the lounge room on your PS3/blu-ray player, with optional extras such as video clips, etc.


So what do you think?


-- fg --

The PS3 plays SACD's.

[Merrick]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

I think they should call it something like Blu-CD. It needs to have CD in it, so people instantly know what it's meant to be. People will associate the "Blu" with high definition so they conclude it must be a high resolution CD that you listen to. DVD-Audio was like "What? so it's a DVD (instantly thinking video), um, with audio on it? But movies already have audio? What??" It was a stupid name. SACD is great because it is marketed as a type of "ultra CD" to consumers. Maybe it's more successful because it's simpler. It's a type of "CD", not some stupid complicated format only understood by audiophiles and techies (though I love DVD-Audio, don't get me wrong).

Of course, that argument begs the, "Blu-ray, what is that? HD-DVD - that name means something to me that I don't have to be some kind of videophile or techie to understand," comment.

I don't think it has to have CD in the name - but there's no reason for it not to. For me, I REALLY hope they'll take advantage of the density and the typical sze of most releases to make 80 mm the standard size and REALLY give everyone a break on storage space issues for change. I like my DVDs and Blu-rays the way they are packaged, don't get me wrong. But I'd be a LOT happier if they'd packaged them like CDs since they ARE the same size as CDs. I still need storage space as large as I needed for video cassettes and I only gain the advantage of fitting about 3 DVD boxes where 1 VHS cassette use to stand.

And, by the way, SACD is NOT more successful than DVD-Audio. They are both fairly equal losers. The format war with no real winner early on resigned both formats to audiophile oddities. As a matter of fact, I know more purists who have gone back to vinyl to improve on the lackluster performance of CDs than have adopted either of the HD audio standards. As a rule the poor performance of vinyl in the 70's and 80's was poor equipment and that fact that most people don't really understand the physics of audio on vinyl and what it takes to get right.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

- Ability for more than 5.1 channels (SACD is only up to 5.1)

SACD is 6, not 5.1

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Merrick

And, by the way, SACD is NOT more successful than DVD-Audio.

Classical music lovers could argue with that..

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by Aaron

The PS3 plays SACD's.

Yeah, but not every blu-ray player will play SACDs. But once blu-ray is standard, a Blu-CD format will be easy to implement...

And let's face it, not that many people know what SACD is anyway. And personally, I think that having only two SACD authoring firms in the world (one in Japan and one in Austria) and not being able to make/copy your own SACDs has marred its popularity somewhat.

Whereas I can already make my own Blu-CDs or DVD-Audios from studio masters I have lying around.

It just needs to be really well-marketed as a different format (even though it's not) and have the support of the whole industry once HD-DVD falls (and Sony prepared to make it the successor of SACD)

Of course there's the whole DSD vs. PCM thing, but DSD just seems like another example of Sony going out and doing their own thing (and one that hasn't caught much industry support).


-fg-

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Classical music lovers could argue with that..

Yes like me although I don't have many SACDs, I know plenty of classical people who do.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by Merrick

Of course, that argument begs the, "Blu-ray, what is that? HD-DVD - that name means something to me that I don't have to be some kind of videophile or techie to understand," comment.

I don't think it has to have CD in the name - but there's no reason for it not to.

You might as well stretch it further and say, "what's DVD???" The point I was making, is that DVD-Audio contains a familiar term to the mainstream consumer, DVD. That word, conjures up video, not audio. That's the problem. Blu-ray is a new term, but once people know what it is, they know what it is. BD-Audio would be just as stupid as DVD-Audio, it would not be strong enough a name to let people know what it is, but if you bring the word CD into it, it changes it completely.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

And let's face it, not that many people know what SACD is anyway. And personally, I think that having only two SACD authoring firms in the world (one in Japan and one in Austria) and not being able to make/copy your own SACDs has marred its popularity somewhat.

The also have a authoring facility in Hollywood, CA. I know this because I have been there. I don't know, SACD is an audio version of blu-ray. And let's face it, if the audio masters were our property, would we like to see our work all over the internet distributed for free? Not in a free market society we wouldn't. People really do not like to be truthful about this, and we are somewhat hyprocritical when we blame record companies for being this draconian. But I cannot help thinking that if I spent a quarter to half a million on production, advertisement, and distribution of my stuff, I wouldn't be equally as draconia in getting back my expenses.

Whereas I can already make my own Blu-CDs or DVD-Audios from studio masters I have lying around.

Some of us are fortunate. I have quite a few master myself, but not everyone is this fortunate.

Of course there's the whole DSD vs. PCM thing, but DSD just seems like another example of Sony going out and doing their own thing (and one that hasn't caught much industry support).


-fg-

In doing their own thing they have created a bitstream that has a very high digital resolution, but very analog sound. Something that DVD-audio can only do at 24/192khz two channel. As far as industry support, well so many independent record companies like Telarc, AIX, Nimbus and several others have turned out so many SACD, I do not think it really needed the majors to jump on board. If those who are really interested in high resolution music had just support the format, it would be doing fine.

[Galley]

It's the same as the folks who bought HD DVDs thinking they would get Hi-Def on their standard DVD players. Poor choice for a name.

[jorg]

profile 3 is a blu-ray player that plays only audio

[crackinhedz]

25gb and 50gb for audio only?? Thats an insane waste of space...I do see where you were trying to go with the "Blu CD" idea, but unless they plan on compiling an entire decade of music onto one bluray disc, I just dont see it happening...

[THE STUD]

i made a thread about sacd about 4 months ago or something, called
SACD is dead.
That's the only thing to say about SACd. it's barely even accessible beyond the internet. the 2 best buys in my valley of 500,000 people doesn't carry a single SACD anymore. i went to B&N and they said "what's sacd?" sacd is dead and i want a new format of HD audio stand alone. DVD-Audio is great, but it lacks the space to put a comprehensive collection in the highest quality possible, as well as more than 5.1.

I just don't know if there's a big enough market for it. People don't care about what they hear near as much as they care about what they can see, except for a few of us(me included). everybody can see the difference btw dvd and blu ray, but not between cd and sacd. thats why i think sacd failed.... and a lack of any good titles.

i own the LOTR expanded scores which features a dvd-audio of the scores, it's awesome to listen to, but due to lack of room it's only 48/24, not 96/24 or whatever. and it's only 5.1
thats my ideas on this

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by jorg

profile 3 is a blu-ray player that plays only audio

No, I think Profile 3 is the disc standard, that only has obligations to audio, and advanced video features.

I don't think they'd bring out blu-ray audio-only players. Even Sony wouldn't do that. Maybe Toshiba one day.

[dobyblue]

SACD is far more popular than DVD-Audio and also has OVER twice the titles available.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

25gb and 50gb for audio only?? Thats an insane waste of space...I do see where you were trying to go with the "Blu CD" idea, but unless they plan on compiling an entire decade of music onto one bluray disc, I just dont see it happening...

I Don't think so.

Imagine 24-bit 192KHz remasters from original Quad tapes. 80 minutes of 6-channel PCM at that resolution takes up 16GB. More than DVD-Audio.

Then you might go 7-channel or even 8 [though that's overkill I think].

And that's only for 80 mins. What about the LOTR extended soundtracks? They're 180 mins and wouldn't it be nice to fit double albums onto one disc.

Then add extra Dolby/DTS/PCM stereo tracks for compatibility with lower-end systems, video extras (esp. yummy HD video extras), galleries, etc. and you definitely need 25-50GB.

You can never have enough space.

[crackinhedz]

192 kHz is overkill...maybe, 96/24 and even thats pushing it.