So what is SA-CD, anyway?

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Blu boy

so would it be possible to get dvd audio play back on a ps3 through firmware upgrade?

Nope. It needs more circuitry to do so.

Just as a 40GB PS3 would need more circuitry to playback SACDs.


fuad

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Blu boy

so would it be possible to get dvd audio play back on a ps3 through firmware upgrade?

Sony has never supported DVD-Audio. Sony and Philips developed SACD as an alternative to DVD-Audio. I don't believe Sony cares much about DVD-Audio in 2008.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Todd

I have to agree with you completely, I play my sacd's and dvd audio disc through a
Denon dvd 5900 the player that retailed for more than most people would spend on a used honda. At $3,000 us dollars how many people would want to make that kind of commitment, but of course good players can be had for less, regarding surround sound in car applications I love the sound quality although I don't have a center channel so I get 4.1 in my car everyone who ever here's my systems both car and home always comment on just how clear and moving the experience is like hearing something beautiful for the first time. Just like regular cds not all recordings are a home run. if you like sound quality more than how many mp3's your ipod will hold then this might work for you, I have mp3's also and like them too. In the it's all about enjoyment of music. Hope this helps along with all the other great posts.
If your not sure if title sounds good some of us here might have the answer.

Mine doesn't play DVD, I use a Marantz SA-15 Reference SACD player.... As far as the car goes, my unit has an optional Dolby DTS decoder I can get for it, and for the life of me, I couldn't imagine why I would want that.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Mine doesn't play DVD, I use a Marantz SA-15 Reference SACD player.... As far as the car goes, my unit has an optional Dolby DTS decoder I can get for it, and for the life of me, I couldn't imagine why I would want that.

What do you use for multi-channel SACD's, or do you not bother with them?

(The only reason you'd want the optional decoder is for multi-channel discs not available in any format other than dts-cd, like Sting's "Ten Summoner's Tales" which for the life of me in unpexplicably not available on SACD or DVD-Audio like pretty much all the other Sting/Police offerings are)

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

What do you use for multi-channel SACD's, or do you not bother with them?

(The only reason you'd want the optional decoder is for multi-channel discs not available in any format other than dts-cd, like Sting's "Ten Summoner's Tales" which for the life of me in unpexplicably not available on SACD or DVD-Audio like pretty much all the other Sting/Police offerings are)

I have it for a 2-channel audio set-up. I have a changer made by sony that I got really cheap, that plays mulit-channel SACDs.

As far as the decoder for DTS, I should have clarified. I have a head-unit in my vehicle that plays DVDs, and VCDs etc. so the DTS decoder would be for DVDs, but I'm not naive enough to believe I'm in a theater while I'm driving to work!!!

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by beavis667

If only SACD had Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms 20th aniversary SACD when the format was released. People would have been trading their spleen for it. Boy, this disk is magic. It's as if David Knopfler is standing on my face playing the classic guitar riff in Money for Nothing. You've never heard the nuances of that riff until you've heard this SACD.

I couldn't agree more

Even though I listen to the DVDA of that album

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Or Mark Knopfler even!

David Knopfler, Mark's brother, played rhythm guitar with Dire Straits and left the band to persue a solo career during the recording of "Making Movies", which was released a few years before the band started working on "Brothers In Arms"

One other thing of note is that this recording was a full digital recording for CD (DDD), which means the SACD format is not being fully realised on this recording. It is very likely that the digital recording was either 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/44.1 or 24/48. It's still great and a massive improvement over the SACD, but in my opinion that also has a lot to do with the incredible surround mix. They really hit the nail on the head with the surround mix - not one thing sounds gimmicky. However if this recording had been done on reel to reel analog, we would have an even better fidelity release on SACD.

One need only check out any of Elton John's releases to see how incredible a DSD encode of analog tape can be.

True. According to this article it was mixed on an analog console though. By using the best DASH there was and mixing in the analog realm the album gained a lot in fidelity (on SACD and DVDA). It's not the same as coming from analog reels for sure, but it's still an improvement.

The second part explains why I went with the DVDA

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I have it for a 2-channel audio set-up. I have a changer made by sony that I got really cheap, that plays mulit-channel SACDs.

As far as the decoder for DTS, I should have clarified. I have a head-unit in my vehicle that plays DVDs, and VCDs etc. so the DTS decoder would be for DVDs, but I'm not naive enough to believe I'm in a theater while I'm driving to work!!!

For sure I got that, but it will play dts cd's as well.
All DVD players do if they have dts decoder capabilities. (even my PS2 does)
If you have multi-channel, it'd be worth it for longer drives.
I used to be on the road a lot, so when I heard about the SACD players coming out for cars I was quite excited.
Now all I do is program though, so I'm only on the road once or twice a year.
Not much point in me making any changes for a 12 minute commute to work.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by HDJK

I couldn't agree more

Even though I listen to the DVDA of that album



True. According to this article it was mixed on an analog console though. By using the best DASH there was and mixing in the analog realm the album gained a lot in fidelity (on SACD and DVDA). It's not the same as coming from analog reels for sure, but it's still an improvement.

The second part explains why I went with the DVDA

I don't believe it gained "a lot" in fidelity as the original DDD release was always pretty impressive for a CD, but rather than they were trying to extract every nuance of the original 16/44.1 recording before heading into the multi-channel high rez realm, making the album easier to remaster. The remastering, which when done by the right person that doesn't think just boosting dB's and highs is what remastering means, which accounts for the apprent increase in fidelity and I think that at 24/96 even a 16/44.1 source sounds more natural to ears accustomed to high rez music.

Is the DVD-A 24/96? I might have to add it to my collection to do a comparison. I do believe that each format for dual releases has some that are better on one format or the other. The Nine Inch Nails "Downward Spiral" is noticeably better on SACD than the 24/48 DVD-A portion of the DualDisc release, but the Frampton Comes Alive 2-disc set is better on DVD-Audio than it is on SACD, as the SACD was released before it was remastered for some strange reason.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I don't believe it gained "a lot" in fidelity as the original DDD release was always pretty impressive for a CD, but rather than they were trying to extract every nuance of the original 16/44.1 recording before heading into the multi-channel high rez realm, making the album easier to remaster. The remastering, which when done by the right person that doesn't think just boosting dB's and highs is what remastering means, which accounts for the apprent increase in fidelity and I think that at 24/96 even a 16/44.1 source sounds more natural to ears accustomed to high rez music.

Yeah, 'a lot' was an exageration due to me really liking this disc

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Is the DVD-A 24/96? I might have to add it to my collection to do a comparison. I do believe that each format for dual releases has some that are better on one format or the other. The Nine Inch Nails "Downward Spiral" is noticeably better on SACD than the 24/48 DVD-A portion of the DualDisc release, but the Frampton Comes Alive 2-disc set is better on DVD-Audio than it is on SACD, as the SACD was released before it was remastered for some strange reason.

Yes, it's 24/96. I don't have the SACD to make the comparison myself. I couldn't find it for a decent price that would justify such a double dip. So I just trusted Chuck and company on this one.

Another example of a dual release is Deep Purple's Machine Head. In that case the SACD actually used the origanal quad mix which sounds better than the DVDA remix (imho). Here I have both.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

..
Is the DVD-A 24/96? I might have to add it to my collection to do a comparison...

I do believe that the difference is very minor though. I bought the SACD of MH after I had bought the DVDA. I only learned about the quad mix being available on SACD after, so that was a reason to buy again for me. But I really think you are fine with 'just' the SACD of BiA.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

...
the Frampton Comes Alive 2-disc set is better on DVD-Audio than it is on SACD, as the SACD was released before it was remastered for some strange reason.

That's interesting; I have Frampton on DVD-A but haven't heard the SACD version.

Does the same hold for Tommy (released on both formats)? Again I have the DVD-A only and it sounds very good.

[askanison]

I bought a Sony DVD Player that came with a sampler. It included James Taylor "Line 'Em Up" and Roger Waters "Perfect Sense, Pts. 1-2". I can say, that listening to the right music on SACD brings so much more to the music than listening to it in stereo.

It sucks that this format as on it's way out. I would perfer to listen to more music in this way, particularly live perfrormances.

[Bobby Henderson]

The SACD and DVD Audio disc formats are now largely irrelevant now that Blu-ray is gaining more and more popularity. The Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD and LPCM formats all have the capability of running at the high resolution bandwidths boasted by SACD and DVD-A.

SACD and DVD Audio never reached their full potential because the popular music industry never bothered supported either format with a healthy number of new titles. That's it in a nutshell. The failure has nothing to do with MP3 or any of that other stuff. It all comes down to content. Blu-ray won its format battle mainly on the strength of movie titles using the format.

SACD and DVD-A were also hurt by consumer electronics technology that wasn't mature enough to do either format full justice. The first players could only output the audio in analog format. HDMI didn't come along until later.

Blu-ray has a much better chance of becoming a powerhouse delivery platform of very high quality music because playback infrastructure is already in place.

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

mp3 won because audio is not as important to most people as video. They can't hear the difference, so they don't care. It is easier to see the difference though.

That's not true. Just look how many people in this forum gripe if a Blu-ray movie doesn't have lossless or uncompressed master grade audio.

Honestly, lossy MP3 and AAC fills a completely different purpose of music playback. It doesn't fit the context of listening to music on a good quality stereo system and especially doesn't apply at all to playback on high end gear in a carefully controlled listening environment.

Severely compressed yet highly portable music files are great for convenience. The quality loss is often unnoticed because the listener is usually hearing the playback over little ear buds or other poor quality speakers.

Lossy portable music files and high bandwidth music on Blu-ray (or SACD, etc.) can coexist. However, the music creators have to support the high end formats by creating the original music tracks with appropriately high levels of quality and then export down-sampled versions for MP3/AAC use and Red Book CD.

Right now that situation is horribly backwards. Many popular music acts are recording and mixing music more with formats like MP3 in mind. They engineer the audio tracks very loud and clip the wave forms all to hell. This very stupid practice deletes a lot of sonic information from the track. This is also the main reason why many people can't tell the difference between a music CD track and the same song in MP3. Both sound loud and harsh. The "culture" behind that crap really must change before the music industry can move into its own "high def" next generation of audio.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

...
Right now that situation is horribly backwards. Many popular music acts are recording and mixing music more with formats like MP3 in mind. They engineer the audio tracks very loud and clip the wave forms all to hell. This very stupid practice deletes a lot of sonic information from the track. This is also the main reason why many people can't tell the difference between a music CD track and the same song in MP3. Both sound loud and harsh. The "culture" behind that crap really must change before the music industry can move into its own "high def" next generation of audio.

QFT! Very well put.

[AlexKx]

Of course the whole idea of a new format for the music industry only a decade after c.d.s started to be adopted by the public was absured. You don't introduce new formats as often as there has been. The public while preferring d.v.d.s are still irked over there being a new format after they just bought their own VHS libraries. It ain't going to be something that can be done often. Almost as it is still too early perhaps for a new format...BUT again Blu-Ray players are suppose to be able to play d.v.d.s and c.d.s so that shouldn't be so much an issue for the music industry to adopt Blu-Ray as the new format because of this...right? That's what I think anyway.

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by irfoton

SACD and DVD-A died

That's incorrect. SACD's and DVD-A are still being produced and sold today. They aren't dead.

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

SACD and DVD Audio never reached their full potential because the popular music industry never bothered supported either format with a healthy number of new titles. That's it in a nutshell. The failure has nothing to do with MP3 or any of that other stuff. It all comes down to content. Blu-ray won its format battle mainly on the strength of movie titles using the format.

There are over 5000 SACD titles available. The high end music industry continues to manufacture both SACD players as well as SACD music. Read A Guide to SACD.

[Squozen]

I think SA-CD died because:

a) people started listening to iPods and compressed music
b) record labels have been systematically destroying all master recordings by dynamically crushing the life out of them, meaning that the only albums that actually SOUND good are obscure artists or 60s/70s re-releases, not charting artists.

Christ, it makes me sad when I listen to an old Beatles, Beach Boys or Simon and Garfunkel recording and compare it to what is produced for mass consumption today, with equipment that utterly destroys the 60s gear on a technical level. The 60s recordings are infinitely superior, and it's nothing to do with the 'valve sound' or any of that nonsense. They were just recorded by real engineers with a commitment to quality, and those are few and far between these days.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Squozen

...They were just recorded by real engineers with a commitment to quality, and those are few and far between these days.

I can definitely not agree with this statement (and not just because I still do some audio engineering myself, but know a number of capable people out there).

The problem doesn't lie with the engineers but with the clients demanding 'louder' records. They are afraid that their song is lower in perceived volume when it's being played on the radio. Which is basically unnecessary , bacause the radio stations compress their programme anyway.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Squozen

I think SA-CD died because:

a) people started listening to iPods and compressed music
b) record labels have been systematically destroying all master recordings by dynamically crushing the life out of them, meaning that the only albums that actually SOUND good are obscure artists or 60s/70s re-releases, not charting artists.

.

SACD is dead?? News to me...... they still release new albums all the time....... and I still buy them.