SACDs

[Gremal]

I appreciate your analysis, Doby, but I think you're ignoring the bigger picture of consumer behavior which increasingly is manifest as music on the go and downloading/sharing music that is not reflected in any of the figures you mentioned because it does not show up in any revenue totals.

The labels are really hurting. Warner was just hit with a shareholder class action lawsuit in an attempt to maintain control of the label. But it still could be sold at any time, making its announcement of hi-res releases tenuous.

I just think you're setting yourself up with disappointment if you expect Blu-ray Audio to be embraced by the labels and general consumers. But as a niche format, it may indeed succeed if properly implemented.

[dobyblue]

One thing Sony did that still leaves me shaking my head, their DualDisc releases. 16/48 "enhanced stereo"? What a load of crap. And very occasionally a 5.1 Dolby 448 Kbps track.

This from the company that gave us amazing 5.1 DSD discs like The Stranger? What the hell?

[PanaPlasma]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

But Blu-ray doesn't need to replace CD to be considered mass market adopted. Digital album sales are only 1/3rd of CD's and they're substantially considered mass market.

With more and more people getting into surround sound, discovering about fidelity through online forums, HDMI-age, 24/192 DAC's in players for under $99, it's very easy to see why the labels may give Blu-ray a shot for music releases as the potential for a sustainable market has all the right facets in place.

With all the surround mixes including quad mixes already done there is no shortage of catalogue titles to choose from in the initial push. Add in The Beatles on Blu-ray and finally releasing the 5.1 mix of Thriller and they could be off to a great start.

Vinyl albums only sell around 13,000 copies a year for the bigger artists (Pearl Jam, etc.) and the fact they can sell that many copies alone keeps them pressing wax.

The problem is, nobody has surround systems or stereo systems anymore.

10 years ago (dvd), it was cool to have a speaker in every corner. Now, they're all replaced by HTiB sets or sound through the tv. Same is happening for movies as for audio 10 years ago ...

The "younger" generation isn't into physical carriers ... They download their movies from torrent sites, and have no clue what dts, dolby,... etc. stands for. They just stream their movies from their pc or mediaplayer.

People laugh at you, if you tell them you still buy physical carriers. That guy must be very stupid, he doesn't even know how torrent-sites work etc.

They don't care about quality, as long as it is free!

Most audiophiles are 50+ (and no 20 y.o. geeks) and don't want to invest in a new format (blu-ray) and hate "downloads" (hi res files etc.). They want booklets etc. They're happy with sacd and vinyl.

It's sad ... As long as the major labels don't want to invest or promote high res. audio it will not happen. Most artists don't care either and just want to hear their music "loud" (except a handful: Young, Petty, Peter Gabriel,...)

[Travis]

SACDs? Been enjoying my SACDs, but don't know the tech behind it. Looking for a new player, so have a few questions now.

Trying to get my head around DSD. Is DSD the native format for SACDs?

When signal is sent from a player like mine, via analog, no conversion or compression is done, right?

If a player doesn't do DSD over HDMI, should you connect with 6 analogs?

I see Marantz UD5005 and UD7006 have "DSD from SACD via HDMI." Important?

Do Sony DBP-S770 and S780's send DSD via HDMI?

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Travis

Trying to get my head around DSD. Is DSD the native format for SACDs?

Yes

Originally Posted by Travis

When signal is sent from a player like mine, via analog, no conversion or compression is done, right?

Yes

Originally Posted by Travis

If a player doesn't do DSD over HDMI, should you connect with 6 analogs?

If you want more than stereo playback, yes.

Originally Posted by Travis

I see Marantz UD5005 and UD7006 have "DSD from SACD via HDMI." Important?

It is important if your receiver accepts DSD over HDMI. Then you do not need analog cables to hear the full DSD stream, if the player is connected to the receiver by HDMI. It passes the DSD stream over HDMI untouched to be decoded by the receiver, eliminating the slightly inferior method of converting the DSD to PCM.

[ManUtd]

Travis there is another option besides analog outs if DSD over HDMI isn't supported, you can set the player to transmit in the arguably inferior PCM format to your receiver.

One more thing, when you do DSD over HDMI, you have to set your receiver to pure direct mode or whatever it's called by Marantz. Otherwise the receiver will convert DSD to PCM before converting to analog which may or may not be what you want.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Travis

When signal is sent from a player like mine, via analog, no conversion or compression is done, right?

Well, in that situation, the DSD has already been converted to analog in the player. At that point, it's just like any other analog signal, the same as those that were converted from PCM.

If a player doesn't do DSD over HDMI, should you connect with 6 analogs?

If the player converts it to PCM prior to transmission, then analog cables aren't required.

I see Marantz UD5005 and UD7006 have "DSD from SACD via HDMI." Important?

Some people think so. Others don't.

It's actually kind of hard to determine whether players and processors do direct DSD to analog without an intervening conversion to PCM, especially when you start including processing steps such as bass management. Manuals rarely explain how any of that works.

[doctorsteve]

Can anyone confirm if the 250GB ps3 slim does sacd playback? The specs here at br.c say yes, but I didn't think ANY slims did sacd playback

Help! Trying to replace my 20gb fatty...

Doc

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Well, in that situation, the DSD has already been converted to analog in the player. At that point, it's just like any other analog signal, the same as those that were converted from PCM.

If the player converts it to PCM prior to transmission, then analog cables aren't required.

Some people think so. Others don't.

It's actually kind of hard to determine whether players and processors do direct DSD to analog without an intervening conversion to PCM, especially when you start including processing steps such as bass management. Manuals rarely explain how any of that works.

Originally Posted by ManUtd

Travis there is another option besides analog outs if DSD over HDMI isn't supported, you can set the player to transmit in the arguably inferior PCM format to your receiver.

One more thing, when you do DSD over HDMI, you have to set your receiver to pure direct mode or whatever it's called by Marantz. Otherwise the receiver will convert DSD to PCM before converting to analog which may or may not be what you want.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Yes

Yes

If you want more than stereo playback, yes.

It is important if your receiver accepts DSD over HDMI. Then you do not need analog cables to hear the full DSD stream, if the player is connected to the receiver by HDMI. It passes the DSD stream over HDMI untouched to be decoded by the receiver, eliminating the slightly inferior method of converting the DSD to PCM.

Thanks for the info guys.

[blackpixels]

Nice to see there is still some conversation about hi-res audio. I'm glad I didn't hold my breath for Bluray Audio. Alas, we are the last Mohicans (even though a fairly large group) - Yes, I'm 50, but you wouldn't know if you saw me thanks to unadultered clean sound...

Come on, of course I have some downloaded music, but after one song, I'm bleeding.

Keep It Alive!

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by PanaPlasma

The problem is, nobody has surround systems or stereo systems anymore.

10 years ago (dvd), it was cool to have a speaker in every corner. Now, they're all replaced by HTiB sets or sound through the tv. Same is happening for movies as for audio 10 years ago ...

The "younger" generation isn't into physical carriers ... They download their movies from torrent sites, and have no clue what dts, dolby,... etc. stands for. They just stream their movies from their pc or mediaplayer.

People laugh at you, if you tell them you still buy physical carriers. That guy must be very stupid, he doesn't even know how torrent-sites work etc.

They don't care about quality, as long as it is free!

Most audiophiles are 50+ (and no 20 y.o. geeks) and don't want to invest in a new format (blu-ray) and hate "downloads" (hi res files etc.). They want booklets etc. They're happy with sacd and vinyl.

It's sad ... As long as the major labels don't want to invest or promote high res. audio it will not happen. Most artists don't care either and just want to hear their music "loud" (except a handful: Young, Petty, Peter Gabriel,...)

That opinion is not supported by the data I've read; the CEA reported in 2007 that 40% of US households had surround sound systems hooked up to their HDTV's, up from 33% in January 2005 and 21% in 2000.

The suggestion that most audiophiles are happy with SACD is laughable when you look at the release schedule. Most audiophiles are screaming for content and not getting it.

Most people also don't laugh at you if you buy physical media, given that physical media still reigns king as the Nielsen Soundscan data posted not 5 posts before yours shows. When you compare the snatch count from the more well known torrent sites it's not even a whimper compared to the physical media sales and if CD's are declining at 20% annually the suggestion they'll be gone by 2014 (not yours) is quite amusing. My understanding of mathematics doesn't support that notion.

Highest snatch count at Waffles or What - 20,000. Movies are even less.

[PanaPlasma]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That opinion is not supported by the data I've read; the CEA reported in 2007 that 40% of US households had surround sound systems hooked up to their HDTV's, up from 33% in January 2005 and 21% in 2000.

The suggestion that most audiophiles are happy with SACD is laughable when you look at the release schedule. Most audiophiles are screaming for content and not getting it.

Most people also don't laugh at you if you buy physical media, given that physical media still reigns king as the Nielsen Soundscan data posted not 5 posts before yours shows. When you compare the snatch count from the more well known torrent sites it's not even a whimper compared to the physical media sales and if CD's are declining at 20% annually the suggestion they'll be gone by 2014 (not yours) is quite amusing. My understanding of mathematics doesn't support that notion.

Highest snatch count at Waffles or What - 20,000. Movies are even less.

How much % of the population is audiophile? 95% of them are babyboomers, and they don't want just another format.

There were more surround systems in 2007 as in 2011! People want to get rid of all those speakers and buy a 2.1 or soundbar right now (design, you know)! Soundquality is no longer an issue for people. They're happy with brickwalled mp3's and don't hear any difference on their ipod docks, soundbars or pc speakers.

It's sad ...

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That opinion is not supported by the data I've read; the CEA reported in 2007 that 40% of US households had surround sound systems hooked up to their HDTV's, up from 33% in January 2005 and 21% in 2000.

But that has no bearing on how people listen to music. The music industry is primarily driven by teenagers. I don't think Beiber and Gaga fans are plopping down in front of a TV in their parent's living room to listen to music. It's increasingly driven by iPods.

The suggestion that most audiophiles are happy with SACD is laughable when you look at the release schedule. Most audiophiles are screaming for content and not getting it.

Well take it from this audiophile: Blue Note is my favorite record label and up until last year only one pathetic batch of titles was issued by EMI. Last year, Analogue Productions started issuing 50 BN titles on SACD remastered by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman and I've never been as thrilled. AP is also releasing on SACD many great jazz titles from Verve and Impulse. Even if the entire Beatles catalog, Pink Floyd catalog and other vaunted rock titles were released on Blu-ray Audio, it would not entice me as much as AP's SACDs. My point is that audiophiles tend to gravitate toward jazz and classical and niche formats cater to that.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by PanaPlasma

How much % of the population is audiophile? 95% of them are babyboomers, and they don't want just another format.

There were more surround systems in 2007 as in 2011! People want to get rid of all those speakers and buy a 2.1 or soundbar right now (design, you know)! Soundquality is no longer an issue for people. They're happy with brickwalled mp3's and don't hear any difference on their ipod docks, soundbars or pc speakers.

It's sad ...

You guys and your changing goalposts. You talk about surround system in 2000 compared to 2011, the curve goes UP each time and now you say it's been since 2007 that there is a decline? That's highly unlikely. I don't know ANYONE with a soundbar, I know lots of people with just TV speakers and lots of people with surround systems.

Even though they suck, BOSE still sells loads of Acoustimass systems.

If you have ANY sort of data to support your claims on people throwing out surround systems in favour of TV speakers I would gladly entertain it.

In the TOP 100 Electronics on Amazon there are 3 soundbars and 8 surround sound systems.

Originally Posted by Gremal

But that has no bearing on how people listen to music.

You can neither defend or refute that statement. My comment was a direct rebuttal of the previous post's assertion that surround sound systems have gone down since 2000, which according to the CEA's data from 2000, 2005 and 2007 is NOT the case. The one statement you CAN make about it, is that the POTENTIAL is there for people to enjoy music in surround, and fidelity because less of an issue the more channels you add. Mono is the best to notice the detrimental effects of lossy compression, then stereo, last of all is multi-channel.

Well take it from this audiophile: Blue Note is my favorite record label and up until last year only one pathetic batch of titles was issued by EMI. Last year, Analogue Productions started issuing 50 BN titles on SACD remastered by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman and I've never been as thrilled. AP is also releasing on SACD many great jazz titles from Verve and Impulse. Even if the entire Beatles catalog, Pink Floyd catalog and other vaunted rock titles were released on Blu-ray Audio, it would not entice me as much as AP's SACDs. My point is that audiophiles tend to gravitate toward jazz and classical and niche formats cater to that.

You are an aberration, while the Hoffman titles are fantastic and well received, if you look at the host's own website you can see a constant stream of people clamouring for more high resolution titles and surround recordings, the market is there for the taking but it is being left currently to wallow.

Is it great that you are satisfied with these releases and I am VERY happy for you, many more are not.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

In the TOP 100 Electronics on Amazon there are 3 soundbars and 8 surround sound systems.

Yeah, did you happen to notice that iPods were #7, 8, 20, 31, 36, 39, 51 and 61 on that list and the best selling satellite speaker system is below that at 65. iPods are dominating and have been for five years.

Supposition. But quite frankly I couldn't care less what bearing it has on how people listen to music because you can neither provide data to defend or refute that statement.

It is not a controversial statement that MP3 has become the consumer music of choice. And for digital music, here's an interesting graph.

The one statement you CAN make about it, is that the POTENTIAL is there for people to enjoy music in surround, and fidelity because less of an issue the more channels you add. Mono is the best to notice the detrimental effects of lossy compression, then stereo, last of all is multi-channel.

But that is far afield of what the average consumer cares about. The potential has been there since quad in the 70s and it never caught on.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Yeah, did you happen to notice that iPods were #7, 8, 20, 31, 36, 39, 51 and 61 on that list and the best selling satellite speaker system is below that at 65. iPods are dominating and have been for five years.

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, so I'll abstain from further comment.

[Gremal]

Nope, no changing goalposts. I know you were fielding shots from other players but my position has consistently been that downloadable music is not going to allow room for high res/multichannel to be anything but a niche. Sad but true.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Nope, no changing goalposts. I know you were fielding shots from other players but my position has consistently been that downloadable music is not going to allow room for high res/multichannel to be anything but a niche. Sad but true.

So we all agree that SACD is the cat's ass but we disagree on whether it'll ever gain mainstream adoption.

I say hug it out beyotches...

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

So we all agree that SACD is the cat's ass but we disagree on whether it'll ever gain mainstream adoption.

I say hug it out beyotches...

I don't speak western Canadian so I don't know what you are saying for the most part, but the one part that is clear seems to be the wrong conclusion. All sides agree that SACD will never be mainstream, that ship has sailed. What is hoped is that the new Blu-ray audio or the mysterious new format for hi-res audio will have great success and we will all benefit from it by being able to listen to our personal choice of music with high fidelity.

Gremal will probably gremalize me for this, but the whole MP3 situation may be a phase, people may slowly decide that higher quality recordings are the new thing. MP3 was developed largely to compress music to fit more of it on a small amount of memory, but that was back when memory was much more expensive. With new memory cards going over 32 and 64 GB the need for such high compression techniques is not really necessary. The ear bud will no doubt survive but that doesn't necessarily mean poor quality in itself.

[Gremal]

Haha, I won't gremalize you. I don't agree that general consumers will start caring about audio quality and buying high res formats but I hope you're right. Certainly David Robinson at Positive-Feedback.com is very bullish on the future of high res audio in terms of downloadable content. I think it's gonna be a niche market, though.