SACDs

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

What announcement? Did I miss something?

Take a look at the Neil Young High resolution audio thread for full detail and lack of details. Everyone is waiting to see what Neil Young is really talking about, primarily media format the way I see it.

Your statement is kind of funny, shown as a new member but you've been on since 2008! Hopefully read the threads a lot more than you post them.

[BIslander]

This, also:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20062544-47.html

This past Thursday I attended an informal "summit" hosted by Craig Kallman, Atlantic Records' CEO and Chairman, to learn more about the label's plans to start releasing high-resolution music. Kallman is passionate about improving the sound of music, and I was impressed by his candor about the industry's appalling track record and declining sound quality standards.

I think the widespread overuse of dynamic range compression is far more musically destructive than the low sampling rates used in formats like MP3. I fear that if the new formats are just higher-resolution versions of the dynamically compressed MP3 and CD releases, there might not be enough of a sonic improvement to sway buyers seeking a better experience. Perhaps the new high-resolution releases should include mixes with less compression and processing. Kallman was open to the idea, so we'll see if wider quiet-to-loud dynamic range is incorporated in Warner's high-resolution formats. Consumers already enjoy DVD and Blu-ray movies with extremely wide dynamic range; it would be great to also have that same life-like dynamic impact with music.

I was also impressed by Kallman's determination not to repeat the mistakes of the DVD-A and SACD campaigns of a decade ago. A lot of the business details are still being worked out, so specifics about the new high-resolution releases were in short supply. Kallman did promise that Warner's commitment to high-resolution will be "active and aggressive," and the formal announcement will take place at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January 2012. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, hoping that all of the major and indie record labels get serious about releasing better-sounding music next year. We'll see.

[ManUtd]

Originally Posted by BIslander

This, also:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20062544-47.html

That's very promising news, I will certainly keep an eye for more info at CES.

[Clark Kent]

The Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" is coming out as a hybrid SACD, from Mobile Fidelity. SACD was the right idea, the music industry was just too arrogant and protectionist of their existing business model at the time it was introduced. The major labels just had no comprehension that CD sales were going to peak around 2000/2001.

[Gremal]

No, it wasn't the record label's fault. The consumers bear much responsibility. We vote with our money and we didn't spend enough on SACD. Downloads and piracy killed it to a large extent. Sony, Universal, EMI, etc. could have poured hundreds of millions into SACD (Sony did) and not had a decent return on their investment.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, it wasn't the record label's fault. The consumers bear much responsibility. We vote with our money and we didn't spend enough on SACD. Downloads and piracy killed it to a large extent. Sony, Universal, EMI, etc. could have poured hundreds of millions into SACD (Sony did) and not had a decent return on their investment.

All new release CDs could have easily been replaced by hybrid SACDs. If you do not give the consumer a choice, lots of SACDs could have been sold by stealth. But the unfavorable royalties settlement in the U.S. for multiple layers killed that possibility.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

All new release CDs could have easily been replaced by hybrid SACDs.

That would have cost more than twice as much money for production and manufacturing at a time the labels had the rug pulled out from under them by Napster, iTunes and piracy. It was certainly possible but if you want possible to turn into reality, you have to make a business case for it and pitch it to the studio heads. The dismal sales of SACDs did not support that.

If you do not give the consumer a choice, lots of SACDs could have been sold by stealth. But the unfavorable royalties settlement in the U.S. for multiple layers killed that possibility.

Consumers did have a choice and basically chose downloads. That's my point. Continuing to blame the labels for the actions of consumers is not right--particularly not Sony, which created a great format and poured tons of resources into making it work.

[singhcr]

Aside from the MP3 piracy craze, another large (and the most significant IMHO) was the DVD-A/SACD format war. If Warner would not have gone BD exclusive some years ago we'd still have everyone but the early adopters on the sidelines because people don't want to spend a bunch of money on a potentially dead format.

[Travis]

Has anyone mentioned most people don't have the proper equipment to enjoy SACDs. Not just a proper player, b speakers that would allow them to hear the difference between an SACD and CD.

Many people I know, sadly, still use portable CD players, micro systems, and the like. Just put in the corner of a room to play a CD while they go about their routines. Many people don't sit and do critical listening. I never sat down and heard an entire CD without doing anything else until I got my baby B&W's. Before they detail wasn't there to attract me.

[zicmubleu]

I may be wrong about this but it seems that albums produced on SACD are better quality recordings, not suffering from the compression and loudness war, etc. My hearing isn't good enough to necessarily know the difference between a SACD and a standard CD recording done with the same quality mastering but at least the SACD promises a better sound that I can hear because it seems to have better mastering.

I also think a big problem with SACD and DVD-A was the lack of advertising, for the format, I never knew it existed before I read about it here on this forum. Obviously I am not the music buff that most are reading the threads in this section, but like nearly everyone else in this world I find music is one of life's great pleasures. Whatever the new format is, I hope it is mastered well and can be easily enjoyed, in multiple environments, not just a high end system.

I am more of a B&M buyer than through online, but as a result, picking up SACDs is quite a task or more like a treasure hunt. Even DVD-A is easier to find mixed in a batch of CDs since the case is designed differently. None of the B&M stores I use have a clue about SACD and they think DVD has to be a video & music item so I am left with looking at the fine print for DVD-Audio on the label, or even worse the well hidden SACD logo. With this new format I will make a much better effort to find them and ask for them at the B&Ms as I do for Blu-ray audio, although so far, none have shown up.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Travis

Has anyone mentioned most people don't have the proper equipment to enjoy SACDs. Not just a proper player, b speakers that would allow them to hear the difference between an SACD and CD.

Many people I know, sadly, still use portable CD players, micro systems, and the like. Just put in the corner of a room to play a CD while they go about their routines. Many people don't sit and do critical listening. I never sat down and heard an entire CD without doing anything else until I got my baby B&W's. Before they detail wasn't there to attract me.

That's true, a lot of people don't have really top notch equipment. I have a great set of Klipsch Hersey's that really reveal the difference between a poor recording and a good one. I also notice that my Marantz 2225 receiver is also quite revealing.

However, when I first started collecting LPs and entered the world of high fidelity audio, I was using my old 80s Technics receiver and a cheap pair of Koss UR-20 headphones. Even with that inexpensive setup, I could still hear a world of difference between an LP and a CD, let alone between an LP and an MP3.

But if you are not listening critically to the music and have it on as background noise as you described, you aren't going to hear much of a difference. One side benefit to having an LP collection is that I have to actually go downstairs, pull out an LP, and play it. By doing that I play music and listen to it without doing anything else, whereas if I was listening to music on my PC I'd probably be surfing the internet,etc.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

I may be wrong about this but it seems that albums produced on SACD are better quality recordings, not suffering from the compression and loudness war, etc. My hearing isn't good enough to necessarily know the difference between a SACD and a standard CD recording done with the same quality mastering but at least the SACD promises a better sound that I can hear because it seems to have better mastering.

No, that is like saying that the only difference between DVD and Blu-ray is the transfer.

I also think a big problem with SACD and DVD-A was the lack of advertising, for the format, I never knew it existed before I read about it here on this forum.

No, Sony and others heavily marketed and advertized SACD at great expense. Some examples include ads in Rolling Stone and New Yorker, as well as the usual audio rags, radio giveaways for Rolling Stones tickets that announced the release of the ABKCO SACDs and even explained SACD to a lay audience, Sony-sponsored kiosks in retail such as Best Buy that touted the multichannel capabilities of SACD and were stocked with titles. Many newspaper articles were also published. If you had any interest in digital audio and sound quality, you had to be living under a rock for the last 12 years to have avoided hearing of SACD.

I am more of a B&M buyer than through online, but as a result, picking up SACDs is quite a task or more like a treasure hunt. Even DVD-A is easier to find mixed in a batch of CDs since the case is designed differently. None of the B&M stores I use have a clue about SACD and they think DVD has to be a video & music item so I am left with looking at the fine print for DVD-Audio on the label, or even worse the well hidden SACD logo. With this new format I will make a much better effort to find them and ask for them at the B&Ms as I do for Blu-ray audio, although so far, none have shown up.

B&Ms are now irrelevant. Tower Records is gone. The others are in big trouble, including Borders. It doesn't make sense to rely on a clerk at Barnes and Noble or a similar retailer to clue you in about high resolution formats. These are niche products of zero interest to the average consumer.

I had no problem finding the SACDs I wanted during the time they were in print. Since then I have decided to pick a couple up that are out of print. Obviously this is very difficult depending on the rarity of the title of interest. Driving around to various B&Ms to try to track these down is nuts. Decide what title you want, how much you're willing to spend and get it on ebay if you can't find it on Amazon or other etailers.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, Sony and others heavily marketed and advertized SACD at great expense. Some examples include ads in Rolling Stone [...]

Not just ads... I have a SACD Hybrid that was given away free with Rolling Stone (has tracks by Pink Floyd, Elton John, Dylan, Miles, Billy Joel, The Who, etc). Was years before I had something capable of playing the SACD layer.

[dobyblue]

I shopped at the biggest HMV in Ontario all the time and remember when SACD came out but never saw any detailed explanation about what it did. It wasn't until 2004 when NIN's Downward Spiral DualDisc came out that I started reading about "Advanced Resolution Surround" and DVD-Audio players to find out what the additional content on the disc I couldn't play was and that led me to read about SACD also. I bought my first DVD-Audio player in late 2004 (Pioneer Elite DV-45a) at a specialty AV dealer and shortly thereafter picked up my first SACD as well (Peter Gabriel - Us) for CDN$21 from Best Buy Canada. Been hooked on high rez ever since, especially multi-channel.

Glad I got in when I did, when many titles were $20 or less.

[Travis]

I got into SACDs because the DVD player I bought played them. Wasn't looking for another music format.

I needed a player then (10 years ago or so) that played region 1 and 3 DVDs and was also decent with CDs and could go with my then new B&W 600 series speakers and Marantz SR5200, it was an important day for me, remember it like it was yesterday. Got the Pioneer DV655A, loved it and still do. If I hadn't picked the DVD player, I would have missed out on SACDs. 1st SACD was probably Getz/Gilberto. Remember buying Laura Fygi at Ronnie Scott's later on, but had to take it back because it wouldn't play properly.

More players should have SACD playback. If people have the players, they may buy the SACDs.

Speaking of BD players with SACD capabilities, what player is the best option atm. First, I am in Taiwan, so no Oppo's. Sony? Marantz? (new UD7005 coming out that has me interested, but may be too pricey), Denon? Cambridge Audio? NAD? Cannot think of other BD/SACD players.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Travis

I got into SACDs because the DVD player I bought played them. Wasn't looking for another music format.

I needed a player then (10 years ago or so) that played region 1 and 3 DVDs and was also decent with CDs and could go with my then new B&W 600 series speakers and Marantz SR5200, it was an important day for me, remember it like it was yesterday. Got the Pioneer DV655A, loved it and still do. If I hadn't picked the DVD player, I would have missed out on SACDs. 1st SACD was probably Getz/Gilberto. Remember buying Laura Fygi at Ronnie Scott's later on, but had to take it back because it wouldn't play properly.

More players should have SACD playback. If people have the players, they may buy the SACDs.

Speaking of BD players with SACD capabilities, what player is the best option atm. First, I am in Taiwan, so no Oppo's. Sony? Marantz? (new UD7005 coming out that has me interested, but may be too pricey), Denon? Cambridge Audio? NAD? Cannot think of other BD/SACD players.

I believe Sony BDP-x70's and BDP-x80's play SACDs (my BDP-570 does). Check the specific model you're interested in of course.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by blu2

I believe Sony BDP-x70's and BDP-x80's play SACDs (my BDP-570 does). Check the specific model you're interested in of course.

Just interested in the best BD picture and sound, as well as solid SACD audio. I guess with any all in one, you will give up something. Like Marantz UD5005 may be better with SACDs than Sony 570, but Sony may be better with PQ than Marantz.

Not concerned about CD playback, I love my CD player. Picture and sound quality of BDs is the most important factor. Guess what I am asking is what the best BD player that also handles SACDs is.

[ManUtd]

Originally Posted by Travis

Just interested in the best BD picture and sound, as well as solid SACD audio. I guess with any all in one, you will give up something. Like Marantz UD5005 may be better with SACDs than Sony 570, but Sony may be better with PQ than Marantz.

Not concerned about CD playback, I love my CD player. Picture and sound quality of BDs is the most important factor. Guess what I am asking is what the best BD player that also handles SACDs is.

Get an Oppo the next time you're in San Diego. Problem solved.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by ManUtd

Get an Oppo the next time you're in San Diego. Problem solved.

Just worried about service. Sending it back to get fixed would be too expensive.

[Better in Blu]

Originally Posted by Travis

Just worried about service. Sending it back to get fixed would be too expensive.

Oppo service will work with you to resolve the problem without sending the player back. If need be they will pay shipping costs. They are a extraordinary company.