Sa...cd?

[ryanjoachim]

Ok...I keep hearing people talking about these SACD's. I realize you have to have a special player to play them...

Here's my questions:

1: Are they worth it?
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with?
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs?
4: Are they worth it?

Thanks for any responses!

[Face]

1. Yes.
2. I'm not sure if there is such a good thing as a good and cheap player.
3. I purchase most of mine through Amazon.
4. I believe so.

(waiting for Jesse to respond)

[AndyGwis]

I have two "good" budget SACD players I am looking to sell. . . and two "very good" sacd players.

Let me know if you have interest in the following:
Denon DVD-2200 for $175 shipped
Sony SCD-C2000ES for $200 shipped
Denon DVD-5900 for $625 shipped
Marantz SA-8260 for $500 shipped

I think SACD's are pretty great, if you can find albums you like on them. I get mine here, Amazon, BB, etc.

[engtaz]

SACD's are great. Yes there worth it. Amazon for me also.

engtaz

[cmy330go]

.... if you can find albums you like on them.....

That right there is the key. There is a relatively small amount of music available on SACD, and not all of them are great mixes.

If you do decide to try SACD...The Sony outlet is offering a basic 5 disc changer for only $39. You might also consider an OPPO (http://www.oppodigital.com/) universal player. I've been extremely happy with mine.

[xandra]

: Are they worth it?

Likely - but first take a look at what's available - to make sure titles of interest to you exist. Fortunately, most SACD's now come in Hybrid formats (allowing you play the standard material) on other players.

I recently got a 5-disc Yamaha SACD player (DON'T Get that one - has possibly the worst interface ever).

Here's my impression of the format:
1. as mentioned above, quality of recordings vary significantly, IMHO the best standard format CD recordings sound as good as or even better than average - poor quality SACD's. But really well recorded SACD's will blow your socks off.

2. You'll need to forkup for some good quality multichannel cables to make it worth your while.
Be prepared to read the fine print (and endless asterisks) in both your receivers' and player's manuals (download the manuals in advance and search for SACD, DSD, and Super Audio CD) see more on this below. I chose the Yammie cuz it had SACD thru HDMI (thinking I could avoid constant switching), but to this day I've yet to find a way to get unadulterated data to the receiver via HDMI. Worse yet: to switch from HDMI to Multichannel on the player is a real pain- involving awkward submenus (Likely less onerous with other brands).

3. In choosing SACD players be careful to check for other formats of interest to you i was surprised at the number of SACD players missing formats I come to expect as standard (ex: JPEG, full mp3 support etc).

My old $99 5-disk Panasonic played EVERYTHING but SACD's: DVD-Audio, MP3s (at all bitrates) CD-Text, HDCD (a really nice dead format).
In comparison: my $400 Yammie: doesn't display MP3 data in list view, only handles MP3's up to 320kbps, doesn't display SACD text, and occasionally chokes on certain disks.

----
Summary: If the music you like is available in SACD, you probably won't regret it, but be prepared to finely research the player for your other needs OR BETTER STILL: go with that Sony deal mentioned above, and keep your old player/or get a new one for other purposes.

[janmike]

As the informed one told me, Make sure that the SACD player you purchase has good Redbook playback as well. Then again, if you only plan on purchasing SACD format, then Redbook playback does not have to be considered. For me, SACD was a gigantic move forward. Good luck.

[xandra]

janmike: How can you find out if a player has "good Redbook playback"? further, what specifically does this effect?

[tonyb]

Your ears.......and redbook means basically a standard CD.So you want a player than can play both SACD and regular CD well.For a cheap intro player,alot of people here seem to like the oppo.

[DesertPilot]

I am currently using a Denon 2910 as my SACD/DVD-A player. The Denon uses 6 analog cables to pass multichannel sound to my pre-amp. I agree that the recording engineer has a lot to do with the quality of the sound. But, when you find "gems" in your collection...and if you love multichannel sound...SACD or DVD-A is the only way to truly enjoy music.

I purchase most all of my titles on line. My most recent purchase was the Lord of the Rings - Return of the King soundtrack on DVD-A. It is very expensive...but in my opinion, well worth the price. It comes with both CD version of the soundtrack and DVD-A multichannel. There are lots of SACD reviews on line...hunt them down to avoid bad purchases.

I will be upgrading my pre-amp soon to one which will allow HDMI ver 1.3a input. I am considering replacing my Denon with an Oppo. Why? I prefer the pre-amp to do the Digital to Audio Conversion (DAC). So, my SACD/DVD-A player only needs to be a transport to get the digital information (via HDMI) to my pre-amp.

... a side note. If you go SACD and find the quality and multichannel capability wonderful...you will be frustrated that SACD as a format has not been widely accepted. But, my collection is large and will always be available to me no matter what happens to the format. Also, with BluRay as now the dominant video source with superb audio capability as well...we may see music titles shift to BluRay. I am thinking about Operas, Symphonies, Music Videos, etc.. This should give you music on a par with SACD...and also the video (if desired).

Marcus

[Yashu]

They would be worth it if it wasn't a dying format.

The only thing I can hope that is that Sony's recent victory with Blu-Ray will bolster their other proprietary format, SACD. In a perfect world we would have open formats for next gen, one could say CD took off because it was such an open format, and I think SACD hasn't because it is a very closed format, but SACD sounds good, though there is no way to play them except for an SACD player. You can't rip them onto a computer, you can't make a backup of them, you can't make a mix CD with them, you are limited to what Sony want's you to be able to do with them...

Personally... I think we all should not reward Sony for creating a closed format with so many restrictions, and if you want a hi-rez format, invest in vinyl.

[Fongolio]

The March 2008 issue of The Absolute Sound magazine has an editorial and a feature that deals with the topic of multichannel sound and will now have regular sacd reviews. They don't believe the format is dead or dying. Just that it hasn't taken like the big labels would have liked. Now, like vinyl, it has a niche market. Once you've heard multichannel on a good setup, like me, you may be hooked for life. As for a "good cheap" sacd player, as mentioned above, a very good starting place is an Oppo DV-980 or DV-981 universal dvd player. SACD and DVD-Audio capabilities and very good video playback via HDMI.

[Yashu]

Just that it hasn't taken like the big labels would have liked.

This is the exact problem. The big labels no longer control the music industry. The *only* way SACD will ever become more than a big label niche, (even vinyl has a ton of indie support) is if more than just the big labels have access to the format, and even just to be driven to go for it. Every indie multichannel release I have ever owned is in DVD format. The reason for this is because DVD is practically an open format. SACD is closed... Sony proprietary format that the large labels control... except the large labels are no longer the source for most new music once you get past the Top40 lists. Even that is not correct... the number one album of 2007 was a self released album, no label, no nothing.

Unless Sony opens the format up to everyone, SACD will always be a niche pop music format. Sure... you can get some of the old classics remastered, but I don't see any indie or self promoted artists recording to SACD... Even if Sony would allow them to use the format, the cost would negate the advantage of being free from these large, corrupt labels.

I have several releases that include a multichannel DVD, but beyond Top40 classics and some of the better known classical and Jazz (IE, established, not necessarily better) groups, you aren't going to see much creative advancement with SACD.

CD, and DVD, thanks to the work on opening DeCSS, are going to continue to dominate the landscape of creativity... They are open formats, low cost of production, no Sony intervention and cost.

Sony has a history of keeping a tight grip on their formats... it's one of the reasons why so many of us are not happy about blu-ray dominating the HD video format war. You are going to see the same thing with movies as you are with music... two camps. One camp sticking with open formats that are easy to produce and distribute, this is where the innovation in music will be. Then 2nd, big budget, big label/studio music, some good classics, but the future looks grim. With the current climate in the music industry, to say it bluntly, the time is coming where it doesn't matter the resolution or number of channels, until the big labels, the RIAA, ect, clean up their act, musicians equate making a deal with Sony with signing over your creative soul. Selling out, as they say.

SACD needs to die, we should let it die... we should not blindly accept a closed format that gives a corporation control over your media, and your artists. Hi Rez, or multichannel audio will never take off until there is an open format, easy to produce, easy to backup, to rip for mixtapes, ipods, computer audio, ect. It isn't because we don't want improved sound, it is because very few musicians think it is worth the cost of working with Sony. Without the music, the format is nothing.

Open formats are what sells, both consumers, and the artists now see the light. I wish the movie studios weren't so blinded, though, the movie/tv industry has a bit higher cost of entrance, which is probably why they didn't care... they just wanted the format war to be over so they could get to selling HD movies and TV, and Sony paid off quote a few companies to get them to drop the idea of a more open format.

DVD-A was a good idea, and so was HD-DVD. Sony used their weight to crush them because then the control over the format. 'Sony Approved' artists, approved movies, no ability to use the music you buy under fair use? do you really want that?

HDMI is yet more control, except this time it's over 'approving' the equipment you own... I doubt it's going to stop there.

[TroyD]

There are over 5K titles released in SACD. It's far from a dead format.

True enough, it will never be mainstream however, there is a LOT of great material available on SACD. Who cares if mainstream pop is released in SACD? In most cases, that amounts to polishing a turd.

You have to look at your listening tastes and so forth. If it tends to mainstream pop, I wouldn't bother. If you listen to classical/jazz etc, it's WELL worth it.

I personally don't give a faak about mainstream support, same thing with vinyl...there is a LOT of great stuff being released on vinyl. More than I can keep up with. So who gives a rats ass if you can't get the latest Britney Spears record in high rez? The stuff that I care to listen to is on SACD and/or vinyl. THAT is what drives my decisiosn, MY tastes.

BDT

[Yashu]

Read Troy... Read... where did you get the idea that I was applauding SACD's mainstream appeal?

Who cares if mainstream pop is released in SACD? In most cases, that amounts to polishing a turd.

This is exactly why I say SACD is a dead format. If only mainstream music can be approved by Sony and afford to release SACD, then it's worthless. Top40 shit is something I could care less about. I like music. I listen to jazz, classical, blues, post rock, jazz fusion, progressive rock, shoegaze/newgaze, blissbeat, IDM, dub, psy, space rock, avantegarde, experimental, minimal, krautrock, industrial, ethereal goth, and crossovers between many of those and more. If it's "charted", chances are, I don't own it... which means chances are none of it is in SACD.

That was my point. Sony controls production, distribution, even the artists that are allowed to use the format. It is a closed format designed to make you go out and re-buy some of your old vinyl classics in SACD, maybe some Rolling Stones, or the token jazz standards like Miles and Coltrane. Some people seem to buy into the format just to hear Norah Jones' voice .001% better. The rationale behind the continued support for this silly format always amazes me. As long as SACD is a closed and controlled format, with no access to fair use, then it will never take off. It is a dying format and we should let it die. It is keeping so many artists from taking the plunge into multichannel and high resolution digital. Nobody wants to sell their soul to Sony, except for, what...a couple thousand people in a planet of 6 billion?

SACD has 5,000 titles... you say that and then you defend it? If your musical scope is so limited that 5000 measly titles gets you to spend all this money on new players and discs, then I don't think I would be able to convince you anyway. There are millions of artists just itching for the chance to dip into high rez or multichannel, but even if Sony approved them for the format, they would never sign onto a closed format. Music is an art, not a commodity.

Let me put it a different way... other than the multichannel, there is nothing on SACD that is not on CD or vinyl. Two open formats there... that sound pretty damn good to this day. I would rather have .001% less dynamic range (or equal, depending on if we are talking redbook or vinyl), just to be able to listen to the music I buy in whatever way I want, wherever I want. Artists know this. SACD will die without a significant amount of "new blood".

There are probably more laserdisc movies out there than SACDs... to put it in a little perspective.

[TroyD]

I'm offering my opinion....not trying to refute yours.

Get over yourself already.

While I'll admit to not knowing about the legalities of SACD.....there are a lot of non-Sony titles out there.

BDT

[Yashu]

SACD has several copy prevention features at the physical level which, for the moment, appear to make SACD discs impossible to copy without resorting to the analog hole. These include physical pit modulation and 80 bit encryption of the audio data, with a key encoded on a special area of the disk that is only readable by a licensed SACD device. The HD layer of an SACD disc cannot be played back on computer CD/DVD drives, nor can SACDs be created except by the licensed disc replication facilities in Shizuoka and Salzburg.[7]

The quick defeat of so-called protection methods used on HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, when they accounted for only 4% of digital movie sales in 2007, shows that even a marginal market share can create demand for technologies that enable consumers to use their fair use rights.

Basically... Closed format means dead format. Interesting that everything I wrote was before I researched these cites, meaning, there are more people out there that think like I do than you may want to believe.

[TroyD]

Do I give a faak about copying or playing an SACD back on a computer nor was it the original question? NO, in both cases.

For me, and many audio enthusiasts there is more than enough media and equipment available to support my continuing interest. That's my opinion. As to the original question:


1: Are they worth it?
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with?
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs?
4: Are they worth it?


1. The sound quality can be fantastic
2. A cheap SACD player isn't really worth it. A very good CD player will sound better than a 150 dollar SACD player, IMO
3. Amazon is where I get mine as well as acousticsounds.com
4. That's subjective...see above. Depends on your listening tastes and what you perceive as 'value

Yashu, you are more than welcome to your opinion. In the case of mainstream appeal, I agree, it's not viable. However, audiophilia has nothing to do with mainstream appeal. New SACD's continue to be released containing material that I like so I will continue to support it. I don't care what you do. Ultimately it's for the individual to decide.

BDT

[Yashu]

However, audiophilia has nothing to do with mainstream appeal.

That's the problem. Nothing I listen to is on SACD :( Audiophiles tend to have obscure tastes. 5,000 titles really is nothing. I am not dogging you for appreciating the SACD titles that you like, I am only saying that it is not a music lover's format. Music is an art, not an commodity. As an audiophile, the music matters to me, just as much as the gear. If SACD was not a closed format, if Sony did not have to approve of artists on the format, and if it was easy for bands to release an SACD (meaning, open computer support is 100% necessary, as well as access to production and distribution), then maybe it would have faired a bit better.

The mainstream market doesn't even register on my radar, but all the recordings I have, it would be neat to have 24/96 versions of them, especially some of the jazz, post rock, shoegaze, ect... I wish there was an open format that was inviting to the artist. Remember, in the music business, we are not the customers, the artists are... they are not going to invest themselves into a format like this, not when there is so much freedom with redbook, and even vinyl. The big labels already own a ton of music, and it isn't hard for them to just re-release it on SACD, but without fresh blood, the format will be just for that, a better way to hear the classics. It's not bad to have that opportunity, but is it really worth supporting these corporations in taking away your fair use rights? You may not use those rights, but they deserve to exist, we deserve to have them.

So, instead of arguing, I am going to simply answer the OP's question.

1: Are they worth it? No.
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with? You get what you pay for, cheap SACD player may sound worse than a standard CD player of the same price.
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs? Online. There are not very many titles, and they are not generally carried in record stores around town.
4: Are they worth it? No. .001% better resolution is not worth supporting Sony and the other RIAA labels, but Sony in particular since you now know buying SACD is supporting the loss of our fair use rights. We need to protect these rights as much as we can, but we also need to protect the musician's ability to distribute their work on their terms.

[TroyD]

So, instead of arguing, I am going to simply answer the OP's question.

I guess there is a first time for everything.

BDT

[Keiko]

For me, and many audio enthusiasts there is more than enough media and equipment available to support my continuing interest. That's my opinion.

1. The sound quality can be fantastic

New SACD's continue to be released containing material that I like so I will continue to support it. I don't care what you do. Ultimately it's for the individual to decide.BDT

Amen to this! I've bought very, very few standard redbook cd's and never download off itunes anymore since I got into SACD last year. I'm buying as much as I can get my hands on that appeals to my tastes. And I'm expanding and listening to stuff I might probably never would have if not for SACD. It's that quality of sound w/music that appeals to me. Though some super audio's arn't as good as others I've tried, overall, IMO, this is a superior format to anything else available now. As long as there's material and equipment for it, I'm with Troy. I will continue to support it as well. :)

[Keiko]

So, instead of arguing, I am going to simply answer the OP's question.

1: Are they worth it? No.
2: What's a good *cheap* SACD player to get started with? You get what you pay for, cheap SACD player may sound worse than a standard CD player of the same price.
3: Where's a good place to BUY SACDs? Online. There are not very many titles, and they are not generally carried in record stores around town.
4: Are they worth it? No. .001% better resolution is not worth supporting Sony and the other RIAA labels, but Sony in particular since you now know buying SACD is supporting the loss of our fair use rights. We need to protect these rights as much as we can, but we also need to protect the musician's ability to distribute their work on their terms.

Where do you get this sh*t from Yashu? Or is this just YOUR opinion?
.001% better resolution? I think that's certainly open to conjecture.

[F1nut]

Wow! Yashu, I don't even know where to begin. Your opinions seem to be as peculiar as your taste in music.

Nothing I listen to is on SACD

So, you haven't actually listened to anything on SACD, yet proclaim that it's only .001% better!?! :rolleyes:


If SACD was not a closed format, if Sony did not have to approve of artists on the format, and if it was easy for bands to release an SACD (meaning, open computer support is 100% necessary, as well as access to production and distribution), then maybe it would have faired a bit better.


Closed format? Yeah whatever, it sounds better and that's what I care about. Sony doesn't control the format like you think they do. Here is but one example. Make note of the tools for use on computers.

Sonic Studio Takes Over Philips ProTech DSD & SACD Products
Sonic Studio has announced that they are taking over ownership of the ProTech line of recording studio DSD and SACD hardware and software tools from Philips. ProTech is a division of the Intellectual Property & Standards (IP&S) group at Philips operation in the Netherlands. Philips IP&S is the same group that is responsible for the licensing and standards of both the Compact Disc (CD) and the Super Audio CD (SACD) as well as other technologies developed or co-developed by Philips while Sonic Studio is the maker of a number of Digital Audio Workstation and Authoring products for recording studios and recording professionals including SACD.1, an SACD authoring system.

Philips Describes ProTech Products
High Fidelity Review readers will recall that the Philips ProTech group in the Netherlands developed and released a number of such tools for use on both the PC and Macintosh computer platforms over the past year. These included software tools that allowed transfer of Pro Tools files from the PC and Mac platforms to Direct Stream Digital (DSD) format.

Philips notes that the ProTech DSD and SACD products being transferred to Sonic Studio under this agreement "includes comprehensive Super Audio CD authoring tools along with encoding, transcoding, metering, disc image building and image validation utilities. In addition, the unique Super Audio Verifier module is the only product that provides desktop playback of replication–ready, losslessly encoded Direct Stream Transfer (DST) data. The Verifier package includes a single board PCI solution that offers real-time DST decoding followed by real–time DSD metering for audio level verification in accordance with the SACD Scarlet Book specification."

Sonic Studio to Develop Future DSD and SACD Products for Recording Professionals Use
For its part, Sonic Studio has indicated that they plan to integrate the ProTech DSD and SACD authoring products into their recording professionals product line and develop these products further.

Sonic says that "Sonic Studio will invest in the cross–platform DSD technology, that ProTECH pioneered, as a strategic addition to its own production portfolio. Underwriting future development of DSD and SACD technologies, Sonic Studio will productize underdeveloped assets and further commercialize existing products. The company will also actively license their intellectual property to audio manufacturers looking for comprehensive production solutions."

Jayson Tomlin, Vice President of Sales at Sonic Studio noted that ”Sonic Studio has always supported pioneering and sonically superior formats, and this acquisition will complete our unique range of DSD mastering and SACD authoring tools. With our global reach into all major markets, we are poised to aggressively promote the SACD format, especially in the pivotal North American region, while reducing the cost barrier to DSD production."

Jon Reichbach, the President of Sonic Studio said that "This purchase strengthens our already trail blazing efforts in the DSD production space. We were the first group outside of the Sony/Philips family to bring a DSD DAW to the marketplace and now we’ve added Europe’s finest SACD knowledge to our product mix. Since we have been given the task of implementing version 2 of the Cutting Master Format, we will be reaching out to all professional audio manufacturers to collectively build consensus and raise consumer awareness."

[Yashu]

o, you haven't actually listened to anything on SACD, yet proclaim that it's only .001% better!?!

I never said I haven't heard SACD. There is one extreme high end shop here that I go to on a regular basis, they have a rack of SACDs, and a few $10,000 and up players in various treated rooms. I like the full multichannel planar room myself.

Anyway, yes, it is as controlled as I said it was. I quoted directly from Wikipedia on the format. Sony tightly controls the format, more than any other format in history. Musicians just don't want to sell their soul over to Sony... or Sony doesn't want their music on their format, either way, there are only 5k titles on what was supposed to be the next gen format.

I am not saying that 24/96 music isn't worth it... but for FFS, record it to a DVD using simple PCM. We already had media AND transports... we didn't need SACD. All we needed was 24/96 PCM audio on a DVD, played just like a CD, open format like a CD, no DRM, no license fees for artists, no having to get the approval of Sony, ability for all musicians to produce and distribute in high resolution or multichannel.

Sony is always trying to create a format we don't need just to have tight control. They are greedy, unethical, and no, SACD is not worth supporting that, not when we already had the media (DVD) and the format (simple PCM digital) and the transports (no shortage of DVD transports for both computer and component use, as well as car use).

The only way I can fathom the very existence of SACD is by considering pure greed on the part of Sony. With 5,000 titles after the format has been out for so long, I think it is safe to say that the artists have spoken, give us an open format, or they will continue to use redbook CD, or just do like I described, release a multichannel DVD along with their release for those that want multichannel.

We did not need a cumbersome format, with so many restrictions on both the listener and the artist, we just didn't need it. We already had everything we needed for a next gen standard, but I guess the labels didn't want us to have another open format like the CD. Pure greed. It's disgusting really.

[TroyD]

...and we all know that if it says so in wikipedia than it must be true.

Wrapping this up, if the material that you listen to is available on SACD, I think the sound quality, done properly, speaks for itself, which I think was the intent of the original query. Personal agendas aside, I, myself, am a big fan of it. I could give a shit less about the politics of it.

BDT

[F1nut]

Yashu, your information is incorrect and you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. I presented you one factual example of many that you're wrong and you totally ignored it, which is exactly what I'm going to do with you. Pffft.

[ryanjoachim]

yay, my first thread to turn into an epic battle!

Thanks for all the responses guys. And by *cheap*...I was just being cheap lol. I realize that to get really good sound, you usually have to fork out money.

That being said, is an SACD player that outputs sound through Optical (if there are any) losing any sound quality compared to analog outs?

I'm not really sure if my Onkyo 605 has the analog inputs anyways (I can't find my manual, and it's a bitch to turn it around and look)

[Face]

http://www.gspr.com/onkyo/images/txsr605_rear_300.jpg

[bbeacham]

yay, my first thread to turn into an epic battle!

That being said, is an SACD player that outputs sound through Optical (if there are any) losing any sound quality compared to analog outs?


Interestingly, I am currently looking for an SACD player with I-link output. I am using a Dony 7100ES as a pre-amp and Sony will not accept SACD via optical and coax digital for copy protection reasons. So, at this time I am using analog for SACD and optical for DVD/CD.

The player I am looking at is the Sony 9100ES DVD player. Everywhere I read great reviews regarding its I-link SACD output. Plus, it would make a great spare DVD player. The only problem is that is still lists for $1299, which is about $700 more than I want to pay. Now that Blu-Ray is the standard for hi-def DVDs I hope Sony ends-of-life the 9100ES and reduces the price.

[ryanjoachim]

Thanks face! Now...educate me...

I don't know which ones are the analog inputs I would plug an sacd player into? (or is there analog inputs there for that use?)

Sorry for being such an idiot

[venomclan]

I like music. I listen to jazz, classical, blues, post rock, jazz fusion, progressive rock, shoegaze/newgaze, blissbeat, IDM, dub, psy, space rock, avantegarde, experimental, minimal, krautrock, industrial, ethereal goth


Damn, I have been under a rock. I have never heard of a lot of those types of music. Some funny names though.
I would love to hear:
Space Rock
Minimal Rock - only one instrument?
shoegaze/newgaze - I've got nothing :D
Venom

[Face]

Thanks face! Now...educate me...

I don't know which ones are the analog inputs I would plug an sacd player into? (or is there analog inputs there for that use?)

Sorry for being such an idiot

Bottom center, DVD.

[ryanjoachim]

Bottom center, DVD.

thanks!

[F1nut]

Analog cables are better anyway.

[DesertPilot]

Whoa....this turned out to be quite a heated discussion.

Regarding "sound" quality of cheap vs. expensive players. The issue is just a bit more complex than "player" quality. SACD or CD or DVD-A or blu-ray or hd-dvd or whatever...is just a collection of 1s and 0s (admitedly with different methods of storing this digital information on the disc). Assuming the "player (or transport)" has a laser lens capable of "pushing" those "bits" of data...then an OPPO or a DENON or any player out there is going to do the exact same job. We could quibble about vibration and stuff. But all a player needs to really do is get the bits of data off the platter.

NOW. translating that data in to sound is the job of the DAC (digital to analog converter). If you want your player to do this job then you have to make a "quality" decision in your purchase. Players all have DACs from various manufacturers and the marketing claims are all over the place in how well they function.

BUT. if you are going to push that data as digital data via HDMI to your receiver or preamp...then the receiver or preamp's DACs will handle the hard work of converting the data to analog. Thus, the player (or transport) is simply that...a transport. No DACs are required. All that's needed is a player than can push the digital bits to the preamp or receiver. Quality of the transport is really no longer relevant. The only question that is relevant is whether the transport can deliver the digital information to your preamp or receiver.

I suppose bashing SONY is a fine American tradition. But, from what I have read...it is the movie studios and artists who have demanded Copy Protection in all these new formats (SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) precisely because they did not want "Master" quality data to be pirated. In other words...making copies of MP3 files or standard DVDs and selling them (while illegal) is not particularly worrysome to Hollywood. BUT...SACD and Blu Ray are essentially "Master" quality...and in some cases...identical to the Master tapes from which they are created. This presented Hollywood with huge pirating problems.

I would love to "rip" SACDs to my computer. And maybe some day I will be able to. But, for right now, it is Hollywood that is preventing this.

Marcus

[Face]

Regarding "sound" quality of cheap vs. expensive players. The issue is just a bit more complex than "player" quality. SACD or CD or DVD-A or blu-ray or hd-dvd or whatever...is just a collection of 1s and 0s (admitedly with different methods of storing this digital information on the disc). Assuming the "player (or transport)" has a laser lens capable of "pushing" those "bits" of data...then an OPPO or a DENON or any player out there is going to do the exact same job. We could quibble about vibration and stuff. But all a player needs to really do is get the bits of data off the platter.
You couldn't be more wrong Marcus, sorry.

[Yashu]

Transport is just one part. You can have clock/jitter problems, faulty error correction, and then you have whatever DAC stage the player is using, quality of PSU, and so on.

You generally get what you pay for.

As for SACD. Everything I said was correct. Research it yourself, F1, every last constraint that I brought up is in place. We did not need some proprietary closed format that only a big label can control, in both production and distribution. We had DVD, a 4gb (and now 8gb) disc that could contain 24/96 PCM data and fit the same exact amount of music, with the same quality. If I pay 17 bucks for a disc, I damn well better be able to use the music in any way I please within my fair use rights. SACD illegally takes away fair use by invoking the DMCA, which by itself is enough of a disgraceful thing.

I don't think I will ever understand the people that do not see these tactics as wrong. It is just going to lead to an argument that goes around in circles. You will disagree with me, I will not understand why you think it is ok for a corporation to take away your rights, you will try and tell me that I am wrong, I will know that I am not, and then find more evidence to support that fact, you will then dispute it again, this time with some insults peppered in there, then I will get frustrated, perhaps write again shaking my head that kids these days don't care about their own rights, and questioning the complete apathy to a corporate controlled western world, then I will get insulted a few more times, then I will report each one and then leave leave the thread out of complete frustration.

Now that I have stated what will happen, there is no reason to sit here and watch it all play out. Listen to your "product", I will listen to my music, even if it has only been released in a 16/44.1khz format. Remember this... a true artist would never sign onto a closed format. I am an artist, I know the mindset, and it just doesn't happen. Chances are the music on SACD are what the label aleady owned the rights to, or they are new releases by those driven more by the $ sign than the desire for the world to hear their music. There are a small number of people that have accepted that many audiophiles own an SACD player and thus will begrudgingly release an SACD for them to enjoy. A true artist just wants people to enjoy their art on their own terms, not the terms of a corporate empire. I am not saying that there is no art on SACD, I am saying that given the choice, a true artist would never choose a closed format over an open one. There just isn't a choice sometimes... for those artists, I kindof feel sad for them. At least they are beginning to stand up to the corporate empire. The number one album of 2007 was released for free, and was not backed by any label. That gives me hope.

[Danny Tse]

I suppose bashing SONY is a fine American tradition. But, from what I have read...it is the movie studios and artists who have demanded Copy Protection in all these new formats (SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) precisely because they did not want "Master" quality data to be pirated.

I think greed is probably more the reason why there aren't more current releases on SACD, as seen in this article (http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=12618871) on how Beyonce's SACD became "not available in the US". Of course, you can still buy it from a US retailer and as usual, the internet is your friend....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1121/586072652_e1d63829d5.jpg

For a SACD player that good and be inexpensive, there're 2 choices....Sony's SCD-CE595 5 disc CD/SACD changer or Oppo's 980 universal player. By all accounts, the Oppo sounds very good. I've owned my 595 ever since it came out about 3 years ago and it's an excellent sounding player....slow loading time, but not bad. There are Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo universal players available in the $200.00 - $350.00 price range, but I haven't try these out yet.

My SACDs are played through 2 channel systems, either headphone-based or speaker-based, and SACD sounded great in either case. I look at SACD as a "deluxe" sounding version of the CD and while it does require another piece of component to play them, the entry fee isn't not prohibitively expensive. From my experience, SACD is well worth it.

Edit: 5,100th SACD title just logged at sa-cd.net

[ryanjoachim]

Now, for all these dvd/sacd players out there with HDMI...does the player output the sound from the SACD through HDMI?

Or would I still have/want to use the analog outputs?

[F1nut]

Allow me highlight the real reason more music hasn't been released on SACD and it's got jackshit to do with this closed format idea. In fact, up to the point where these greedy music publisher types pushed the issue, SACD's (other than classical) were coming out left and right.

Publishing Issues in the U.S.
Sony Music officials indicated that the change in plans was due to "publishing issues" encountered in the U.S. market. This involves the question of whether a high resolution audio disc with three separate versions of the same material (in this case CD Stereo, SACD Stereo and SACD Surround Sound) requires the payment of one "mechanical usage fee" or several to the music publisher of the material on the album.

The question helps to demonstrate why some material has been slow to make it to the new high resolution audio formats such as SACD and DVD-A. With both of the new formats, one might have anywhere from one to five different versions of the music on an album for compatibility and marketing purposes.


One other fact to consider, since 99+% of SACD's are hybird, one can still make copies of the redbook layer, so the closed format idea really doesn't hold water. Now, if you to talk about a true closed format, that would be your PCM 24/96 DVD-A, which can not be played on any old CD player because it doesn't even have a redbook layer and therefore can not be copied, period. I also have to say that PCM 24/96 and SACD do not sound the same. SACD is much better to my ears, which is the ultimate test.

Frankly, I could care less about who's at fault, closed format, open format or whatever format and all the other BS. All I want is sound quality that's better than what's available from redbook and SACD has it in spades.

BTW, if it isn't clear enough by now Yashu, your arguement doesn't hold water.

[Yashu]

One other fact to consider, since 99+% of SACD's are hybird, one can still make copies of the redbook layer, so the closed format idea really doesn't hold water

Is there a single drive for the computer that can read/write an SACD layer that is free to buy in North America? No... hence, closed format. As long as less than 1% of the musicians of the world even have a chance at reaching Sony's two plants in the ENTIRE WORLD, that can create an SACD, it is a closed format. Until I can record with my band, write an SACD and hand it to my friends, self promote, sell at venues I play, ect... it is a closed format. I can write a 24/96 PCM digital file to a DVD, anyone with a computer can. That is an open format.

The reason why there are only 5,100 SACD titles is because Sony has only allowed 5,100 SACD titles to be made. Sony has only "authorized" a few thousand bands to put their music on an SACD layer and release it to the world. Some standard, eh?

I have many albums that include a companion DVD with a high quality multichannel mix, and this is how it should be. I can make a DVD, you can make a DVD, none of us can make an SACD... oh... wait... Beyonce can make an SACD... but can't have it released in her own fucking country. Yeah... that sounds like the standard we should be all supporting, yeah buddy.

Music is an artform, not a commodity. Treat it with respect, please. SACD will never take off, no matter how much Sony allows it to be released wherever, unless ANYONE can make one. Artists aren't a stupid bunch... we won't travel en masse to a new standard until it is an open standard. A few might be lured by dollar signs, but that's it, a few (and as I said, a couple groups that know audiophiles own SACD players and begrudgingly accept the chance when given). Unless you can link to where I can buy an SACD burner at a reasonable price, then my argument will always stand. All you are doing is giving Sony $17 more worth of reasons to keep their crappy system in place every time you buy an SACD, oh, and a couple cents of that *may* go to the "artist", but chances are slim.

Let me ask you this in another way... would you like 5,100 titles, or 100 million? That is the difference between a closed and an open format.

[F1nut]

Ok, I see that you seem to be confused at best. You're not even talking about DVD-A, but rather audio DVD. Further enlightenment is in order.

First, an audio DVD is not the same as DVD Audio (DVD-A). DVD Audio is a very high-quality audio format that only plays on certain special (and more expensive) DVD players. Second, if you're planning on making an Audio DVD for your car, make sure that your player allows you to browse through the DVD menu when your car is moving. Some in-car DVD players prevent screens mounted in the dash from being able to do this. And third, one thing we've all gotten used to in this digital audio age is the abilty to select playlists, and even make them on the fly. There's no changing the order of tracks or selecting only a few songs to play with audio DVDs. You just pop the disc in, hit play, and let the music go. Good planning of your audio DVD layout will help with this. You can put the music in any order you'd like when you author the disc.

You are not making a DVD-A, it's just an audio DVD, which really isn't any different than a redbook CD, except that you can control the recording and playback of redbook much better than audio DVD. An audio DVD is not a hi-rez format, commercial audio DVD's are basically non-existent that I'm aware of and in the case of DVD-A, it's dead. By comparision, SACD is quite well and alive.

FYI, DVD-A's are encrypted and watermarked for copyright protection, meaning you can't make copies of them either.

Here's a quote from someone that thought they were buying an DVD-A, when in fact they bought an audio DVD. NOT DVD-A!
This listing is a mistake. This is not DVD-Audio. It's also terrible!

As for there being only two SACD pressing plants. I'm not sure how many there are actually, but I know there are some in Japan, Germany and Austria, so that's at least 3 and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

And finally, to answer your ridiculous question. Yeah, I'll take 5100 HI-REZ SACD's over 100 million also rans.

[Danny Tse]

As for there being only two SACD pressing plants. I'm not sure how many there are actually, but I know there are some in Japan, Germany and Austria, so that's at least 4 and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

There're 3 SACD Sony pressing plants that I know of: Japan, Austria, and Terre Haute, Indiana. From all indications, the Japan and Austria plants are still in operation.

Then there's a Sonopress pressing plant in Germany. Viva Magnetics also operated a SACD pressing plant in Hong Kong. Crest National operated a plant in Southern California as well....i.e. US pressing of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD.

[F1nut]

I didn't realize the one in Austria was owned by Sony, I stand corrected.

[Danny Tse]

and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

Actually, it's possible we're both correct. Just looked at 2 of my SACDs from Top Music of Hong Kong and both SACD have a "Sonopress" logo in the inner ring. However, I also have a Euro SACD version of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" that states the disc was "Made in Austia" with Sony's distinctive fonts printed around the inner ring

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1015/586141008_886fd1e12b.jpg

So, perhaps there're 2 SACD plants in Austria? Or the one plant has changed hands?

[Yashu]

I was not talking about DVD-A, that was just another useless proprietary format.

Until any artist can freely write to a format that is widely supported, your 5,100 titles is going to grow at the slow pace (5000 over 6 years? WTF!), or just wilt away while artists are hanging onto CD as long as they can.

We have the media, it is called a DVD, which is 4 and 8gb capacity, we have an audio format, called PCM digital, it is what is on your redbook CDs and also stored in the format of .wav for the computer.

Is it because the labels don't want people to have their fair use rights? Is it because the manufacturers already have so much invested in SACD equipment? Is it because people don't care? It doesn't make sense to me.

Stop buying SACDs. Just stop... let the format die, for the sake of the future of digital audio, let this turd sink into the sand. I am going to tell you this, and mark my words, artists will cling to the CD until their last breath until there is an open high resolution format that everyone has access to. That means that anyone can create one, burn one, listen to one, rip one, just like a CD. The CD opened up something the music industry had never seen before... ultra cheap media that even the most starving of starving garage bands can afford to make. The computer has only caused them to salivate even more, as lossless distribution becomes viable. It doesn't matter how much the labels twist and turn, fight, bitch, sue, whatever... all they have is what has been, not what will be. My point is... I don't see how buying anything related to SACD does nothing but hurt the very art that you are supposed to love so much as an audiophile. All it does, is give Sony, and the other parties that are watching, reason to think that SACD is viable, but allowing a megacorp to control, not only promotion, but access, AND distribution? How is that a good thing? All that means is that you are force fed... musical tastes raised by focus groups and drive to sell a product instead of support an artform.

Mark my words... I am serious. SACD will die, it will wither, and 99% of the artists out there will cling to the CD until there is an open format that is better. The CD will be the standard until there is a format that ANYONE that even thinks about picking up an instrument can create. None of this VIP access only shit... I am talking about getting together with my band, or just that solo project I have been meaning to try, and creating a high resolution format that has the same level of support and freedom that the CD has.

Currently there is no such format. DVD is the closest thing we have, but even that had to be reverse engineered. It is pathetic what musicians have to go through to get music to you people, what you make them go through. It is not necessary, it is not right, and it is not deserved. You want a high resolution format that is widely supported, we want a high resolution format that is widely supported that WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE OURSELVES, you know... without having to kiss the ass of a Sony executive to get "authorization" to use one of just a couple of facilities in the entire world. Sony has effectively kept every single independent label from even being able to create an SACD, much less market and sell one. That is the sad part... the indies are the only area of innovation left, the music business would be dead if it were left up to the majors.

I know there are a lot of wonderful classics out there that were produced under these big labels, but that was a different time... I feel like, they are almost using this to hold that era of music hostage... to forever live out it's days on one proprietary format after another from now on?

Maybe that is why I said, in the very beginning of this thread, that vinyl is for high resolution audio, not SACD. In 2008, the digital revolution, and it is easier for a band to produce a vinyl record than an SACD, if you did not get the picture through my last posts, then maybe that might help show you what a turkey SACD has become. Let it die... please. Let it die so we can move on towards a real format, an open format, and FINALLY we can evolve from the CD onto something that us artists have been waiting for a long time to have; an open format that ANYONE can create, and that does not steal away your fan's fair use rights.

Ok... I am done. If you guys haven't got it yet, then nothing I can say beyond the facts that I have presented. If anyone can link me to a drive (it's been 6 years, there should be plenty, right, if the format is as good as you say?) for my computer that can burn SACDs, so that I can give them to my friends, promote them as demos, and sell them at shows, I will kindly apologize to everyone here. I want to know... I am an artist, and since there is such interest in SACD, wouldn't it be nice if I could start burning, and also pressing (on a smaller scale of course... there *are* smaller independently owned SACD production facilities, right?... oh wait... there aren't.) SACDs... if it is such a great format that is going to be the next digital standard, I need to go buy my SACD burner and start getting things ready for my next EP.

[Keiko]

I was not talking about DVD-A, that was just another useless proprietary format.

Until any artist can freely write to a format that is widely supported, your 5,100 titles is going to grow at the slow pace (5000 over 6 years? WTF!), or just wilt away while artists are hanging onto CD as long as they can.

We have the media, it is called a DVD, which is 4 and 8gb capacity, we have an audio format, called PCM digital, it is what is on your redbook CDs and also stored in the format of .wav for the computer.

Is it because the labels don't want people to have their fair use rights? Is it because the manufacturers already have so much invested in SACD equipment? Is it because people don't care? It doesn't make sense to me.

Stop buying SACDs. Just stop... let the format die, for the sake of the future of digital audio, let this turd sink into the sand. I am going to tell you this, and mark my words, artists will cling to the CD until their last breath until there is an open high resolution format that everyone has access to. That means that anyone can create one, burn one, listen to one, rip one, just like a CD. The CD opened up something the music industry had never seen before... ultra cheap media that even the most starving of starving garage bands can afford to make. The computer has only caused them to salivate even more, as lossless distribution becomes viable. It doesn't matter how much the labels twist and turn, fight, bitch, sue, whatever... all they have is what has been, not what will be. My point is... I don't see how buying anything related to SACD does nothing but hurt the very art that you are supposed to love so much as an audiophile. All it does, is give Sony, and the other parties that are watching, reason to think that SACD is viable, but allowing a megacorp to control, not only promotion, but access, AND distribution? How is that a good thing? All that means is that you are force fed... musical tastes raised by focus groups and drive to sell a product instead of support an artform.

Mark my words... I am serious. SACD will die, it will wither, and 99% of the artists out there will cling to the CD until there is an open format that is better. The CD will be the standard until there is a format that ANYONE that even thinks about picking up an instrument can create. None of this VIP access only shit... I am talking about getting together with my band, or just that solo project I have been meaning to try, and creating a high resolution format that has the same level of support and freedom that the CD has.

Currently there is no such format. DVD is the closest thing we have, but even that had to be reverse engineered. It is pathetic what musicians have to go through to get music to you people, what you make them go through. It is not necessary, it is not right, and it is not deserved. You want a high resolution format that is widely supported, we want a high resolution format that is widely supported that WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE OURSELVES, you know... without having to kiss the ass of a Sony executive to get "authorization" to use one of just a couple of facilities in the entire world. Sony has effectively kept every single independent label from even being able to create an SACD, much less market and sell one. That is the sad part... the indies are the only area of innovation left, the music business would be dead if it were left up to the majors.

I know there are a lot of wonderful classics out there that were produced under these big labels, but that was a different time... I feel like, they are almost using this to hold that era of music hostage... to forever live out it's days on one proprietary format after another from now on?

Maybe that is why I said, in the very beginning of this thread, that vinyl is for high resolution audio, not SACD. In 2008, the digital revolution, and it is easier for a band to produce a vinyl record than an SACD, if you did not get the picture through my last posts, then maybe that might help show you what a turkey SACD has become. Let it die... please. Let it die so we can move on towards a real format, an open format, and FINALLY we can evolve from the CD onto something that us artists have been waiting for a long time to have; an open format that ANYONE can create, and that does not steal away your fan's fair use rights.

Ok... I am done. If you guys haven't got it yet, then nothing I can say beyond the facts that I have presented. If anyone can link me to a drive (it's been 6 years, there should be plenty, right, if the format is as good as you say?) for my computer that can burn SACDs, so that I can give them to my friends, promote them as demos, and sell them at shows, I will kindly apologize to everyone here. I want to know... I am an artist, and since there is such interest in SACD, wouldn't it be nice if I could start burning, and also pressing (on a smaller scale of course... there *are* smaller independently owned SACD production facilities, right?... oh wait... there aren't.) SACDs... if it is such a great format that is going to be the next digital standard, I need to go buy my SACD burner and start getting things ready for my next EP.

yadda yadda yadda! blah blah blah!!! Are you sure your finished?

[tonyb]

Man I need a nap after all that. All things considered,the only problem I have with it is someone telling me what not to buy.If I like SACD,then damn it,I will buy it.If I like my audio on a roll of toilet paper then....ok,I won't buy that,but you get the point.

[TroyD]

Christ, so much unadulterated bullshit that I don't even know where to start.

Yashu, if you don't like the format, don't f*cking buy it, it's obvious you don't know shit about it...and quit passing off your opinions as the word of God handed down to Moses. You facts are flimsy and the conclusions that you draw are narrow-minded at best.

Crackpot.

BDT

[Keiko]

Christ, so much unadulterated bullshit that I don't even know where to start.

Try starting with the ignore feature Troy. Yashu's posts were a little humorous at first but now they just bore the hell out of me. I'm done muddling through his BS.

[DesertPilot]

Agreed. Boring argument.

I love my SACDs. I'm glad I own them and have a player that can play them. And I am truly grateful that a number of companies have produced them. See my list of titles at:

http://www.sa-cd.net/library/4113

I am looking forward to Opera & Symphonic/classical works being produced on Blu-Ray (with an option to listen to audio only). There is considerable buzz about Lord of the Rings (Extended Edition) coming out in Blu Ray (no announcment - just speculation)...this will be quite a test of Audio Quality as well as Video Quality, as a DVD-A version of the soundtrack has already been released.

I'm sure in 10 years there will be yet another format with even better quality. Such is the progression of technology. Gosh, I remember when my TEAC reel-to-reel tape deck (circa 1980) was the cat's MEOW! Oh yeah, and I remember when I bought a mini-disk player in 1997 only to see it become obsolete within minutes of purchase as "ripping" CDs suddenly became all the rage. Hahaha. I really got burned on that purchase.

Regarding my previous post...I still maintain that if you move SACD data in digital format via HDMI and have your receiver/pre do the DAC...then there is simply no difference between an OPPO or a DENON as a transport.

Marcus

[TroyD]

I have no idea about the HDMI issue but that makes sense, if you are using the DAC in the receiver or pre/pro...yes, the quality of the transport is less important. I can unequivocally say there is a HUGE difference in a budget SACD player and a higher end one.

BDT

[reeltrouble1]

Ya. think BDT;)

Yazoo gets his mouth on his kazoo and just has a going and going problem that finally dribbles out the Wazoo, I believe it was avodart that I suggested. woo woo woo Yazoo, dude really man.

SACD is the best audio format we have. Sony has most of it locked away in their vault and yes the bruha is over payment for the different layers.

RT1

[reeltrouble1]

Agreed. Boring argument.

I love my SACDs.

reel-to-reel

Regarding my previous post...I still maintain that if you move SACD data in digital format via HDMI and have your receiver/pre do the DAC...then there is simply no difference between an OPPO or a DENON as a transport.

Marcus

with the exception of the last tidbit this Polk Padewan has tremendous potential.:)

Reely........:eek:

Keeping it Reel. :D

RT1

[ryanjoachim]

Now, for all these dvd/sacd players out there with HDMI...does the player output the sound from the SACD through HDMI?

Or would I still have/want to use the analog outputs?

With all the LONG-winded posts here, I'm not sure if someone answered me or if I just missed it?

[reeltrouble1]

Thats cuz the answer is:

It depends...........on what version HDMI you have and oh yea it gets better, it depends on which parts of that versions HDMI potential the manufacturer actually used in that version of the component, its ala-carte, just because a version of HDMI might pass be able to pass a signal does not mean the the machine can read it.

confused?? Last I checked their was HDMI 1, 1.2 and 1.3, have fun, or just use analog cables. Seems I remember reading 1.3 could pass SACD with the above caveats.

RT1

[tonyb]

Just use the analog cables and you won't have to worry about HDMI handshake issues.
Plain enough?

[ryanjoachim]

Well, I have all 1.3a compatible cables and receiver, so handshaking isn't really an issue. I just wanted to make sure if I ended up getting a dvd/savd player with HDMI and no analog if I wouldn't be missing out.

[F1nut]

The way I see it, with analog cables you have another way of fine tuning your system and yes, cables are part of a system.



As for Yashu.......dude, you've got issues.

[Ron Temple]

The Oppo can pass DVDA and SACD via HDMI 1.2 and higher if the AVR pre/pro is at least 1.2A (I believe) compliant.

[heiney9]

As for Yashu.......dude, you've got issues.

How does one type in a straight jacket? Vinyl is hi Rez? WTF? That is almost quote worthy if it was coming from anyone but a very disturbed artist who obviously can't get his work heard by a major label and decides to rant on our forum about it.

[fumoffu]

The Oppo can pass DVDA and SACD via HDMI 1.2 and higher if the AVR pre/pro is at least 1.2A (I believe) compliant.

The receiver also needs to be able to decode DSD. Now to further complicate things some players convert the SACD to PCM, others transmit it as DSD.

[ryanjoachim]

sexy.

I'm thinking about getting this from craigslist...

http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/ele/592089492.html

[beardog03]

fpr that price you can check it out and form our own opinion..!!!

[ryanjoachim]

NEVAR!

I'm meeting him after work

[VXR8]

I have the Oppo DV-980H and yes it does pass both SACD and DVD-A through HDMI (into a Marantz SR-8001). This currently is the only Oppo player that will do this - the other good thing though on this player is that you also have the option of 7.1 output via analogue cables, if you aren't HDMI 1.2a compliant.

[TroyD]

How does one type in a straight jacket? Vinyl is hi Rez? WTF? That is almost quote worthy if it was coming from anyone but a very disturbed artist who obviously can't get his work heard by a major label and decides to rant on our forum about it.

Actually, vinyl is the ultimate in high resolution. Infinite sampling.

BDT

[treitz3]

Infinite sampling, yes. Top end high resolution compared to SACD? No. Vinyl comes out with a little bit left out.

[heiney9]

Actually, vinyl is the ultimate in high resolution. Infinite sampling.

BDT

Yep, didn't think of it that way. Digital is just a "sampling" of the analog wave form.

[GV#27]

translating that data in to sound is the job of the DAC (digital to analog converter). If you want your player to do this job then you have to make a "quality" decision in your purchase. Players all have DACs from various manufacturers and the marketing claims are all over the place in how well they function.Agreed the DAC section and to an even greater extent the analog output stage following the DAC's have a bigger influence on sound than the transport.If you have a player with a top notch DAC and analog stages and you hook it up via HDMI to a reciever with inferior DAC and analog stages sound quality will be degraded.

Regarding standard DVD sound.The spec for DVD-V (not DVD Audio) is 24bit/96k PCM which is much higher rez than redbooks 16k/44.1k.In fact I believe before SACD and DVD-A came to market Chesky and a few others released audio only material on DVD that IIRC they called DAD for Digital Audio Disc.These discs claimed full 24/96k PCM resolution and were playable on any DVD player.

[Yashu]

Vinyl is hi Rez? WTF?

You have got to be joking. Completely analog playback with information up to, and over, ~0-45khz... per channel. Another format would be tape. Considering that music was mastered on tape for decades and a good reel to reel can easily out-perform a CD, and even a vinyl record. Reel to reel was not practical as far as a format that would take to wide (CD-like) saturation... it is costly to reproduce good tape on large scales, but the vinyl record... now there is a high resolution format right there. It is about as open as you can get, analog, basically easy artist access (you can even make dub plates for really cheap, but they won't play too many times, then again, they don't need to), but SACDs 5,100 titles seems kindof, well, lets just say, if it can't even out sell vinyl in 2008, then you can consider it to be a dying format. I am not saying that what you already own will become useless, but it would not be right to recommend investing into SACDs and players.

I am surprised that everyone is so accepting of HDMI... Not only are you guys advocating closed formats controlled entirely by megacorps, but you are advocating a digital wiring system that requires connecting devices be approved by the Recording/Movie industry associations? I want to pull a Hillary and say shame on you... but that would be validating that fembot, so I will just leave you to draw your own conclusions. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't think I will ever get why people are so willing to give up their rights as consumers in the USA. It is fascinating, really. You are actually paying very wealthy people to treat you like a criminal and take away your fair use rights, giving corporate entities, something that isn't even human, more rights than flesh and blood.

Regarding standard DVD sound.The spec for DVD-V (not DVD Audio) is 24bit/96k PCM which is much higher rez than redbooks 16k/44.1k.In fact I believe before SACD and DVD-A came to market Chesky and a few others released audio only material on DVD that IIRC they called DAD for Digital Audio Disc.These discs claimed full 24/96k PCM resolution and were playable on any DVD player.

This is what I was saying earlier. I have many albums that include high resolution, sometimes multichannel, companion DVDs. Knowing that what I said was true, just like I said, we had a format already, so SACD, DVD-A, we didn't need it. It was pure greed.

[F1nut]

However, vinyl and tape can't compare to SACD/CD's dynamic range and linear frequency response, not to mention the total lack of ticks, pops and for the most part, tape hiss. So, who's joking?

Vinyl? Open format, easy artist access? News flash genius, your computer can't make LP's. No, you have to have a pressing plant do that, just like SACD. Now, you can make a copy of an LP to tape or even a CD, but you can't make another LP. Perhaps not as open and easy as you make it out to be, eh!?!

Another news flash, without the record companies paying the artists, producing and manufacturing the SACD's, CD's, LP's, etc., distributing them and all the other stuff they do so that the general public can enjoy music in their home there would be a severe shortage of music in folks homes. For all that, they have a right to make money.

I love your example of the number one "selling" artist or whatever it was you said. Do you think they could have done what they did if they hadn't "made it" first by having their music plastered all over the world by a major record label for years? Hell no! You're a dreamer at best, but definitely a bleeding heart liberal.

I highly recommend investing into SACDs and players, if for no other reason than to piss you off.

Audio DVD is NOT a hi-rez format, period. Hell, there's CD players that upsample to 24/192 and above, it's still not hi-rez.

[treitz3]

I highly recommend investing into SACDs and players, if for no other reason than to piss you off.
F**k that. I recommend them for sound. End result.

[Keiko]

I highly recommend investing into SACDs and players, if for no other reason than to piss you off.

LoL +1 :D

The oddassity Yashu, telling people how to spend their $. I just bought me a new player and 3 more SACD titles.

ea tm e :p

[TroyD]

Doesn't every one have a vinyl stamper connected to thier PC?

I'm still trying to figger out Yashu's business model. Ok, and artist or group records thier music onto a digitial format. How is it distributed? Through peer to peer filesharing. Ok. I have on question, since we have now vanquished all of those pesky record companies...how the f*ck does the band get paid? Since the files are downloaded and shared at will, for free. How do these bands get any sort of exposure, since we don't have record companies promoting them? There are any number of good bands laboring in obscurity because they can't get the exposure.

In fact, many artists LIKE the idea that you can't pirate thier music because they don't get paid when you do that.

Crackpot.

BDT

[GV#27]

Knowing that what I said was true, just like I said, we had a format already, so SACD, DVD-A, we didn't need it. It was pure greed.I disagree,both formats were developed to push the state of the art in digital recording and playback even further, which they both did but did'nt find wide acceptance.



Audio DVD is NOT a hi-rez format, period. While not to the level of SACD and DVD-A at its highest sample rate (192k)I think that DVD-V's 24/96 spec qualifies it as hi rez. Hell, there's CD players that upsample to 24/192 and above, it's still not hi-rez.But the data on the disc is limited to 16/44.1k.Therefore the upsampling process is just trying to fill in the missing pieces.

[reeltrouble1]

well, on the upside Yashu apparently has access to very good smoking materials.

Crackpot?? seems the crack has widened to a canyon.

I have well over 100 SACD in my collection and add more all the time, they sound awesome and can outperform vinyl recordings. Why the hell would any audio hobbiest discourage someone from buying awesome music???

[Keiko]

Why the hell would any audio hobbiest discourage someone from buying awesome music???

Who know's rt??? :confused: I got him on ignore so he can babble away with all his illogical BS. I don't have to see it.

[george daniel]

. Why the hell would any audio hobbiest discourage someone from buying awesome music???[/QUOTE] from RT1


Excellent point sir,,,I hope some of you are getting this,, you know who you are.
:cool:

[vonnie123]

SACD is a beautiful thing. Just picked up David Bowie Let's Dance. I certainly enjoyed it. Although I only have about 25 SACD recordings, they are a joy to listen to. I also have about the same number of DVD-A recordings. I find the SACD to be smoother, although that is an unscientific opinion solely on my listening taste.

[Yashu]

I can get a dub plate made for peanuts, so it almost like having a record lathe on my PC. Vinyl actually isn't very hard to make either, there are many places that will press for low prices, so it's not just acetate that you can get made.

Anyway, like I said, SACD=closed format. End of story. Enjoy your "charted" pop crap if you must, but it's really a moral issue here... I want musicians to keep making music for many years to come, and since the major labels aren't the driving force in the industry anymore, it would be nice if ANYONE could get on the high resolution digital train... oh wait, they can't, just Sony approved titles. That really sounds like a great system to me, having a mega corporation tell me what is worth hearing. :rolleyes: I am surprised it doesn't make you listen to an un-skippable FBI copyright warning before beginning each album.

[TroyD]

Another sense-free post brought to you by Yashu.

BDT

[MGPK]

You know Yashu, you keep on telling everyone to not endorse Sony by boycotting their products and to not by SACD's, let me ask you this question: Do you buy CD's of your many favorite genres? Because if you do, you have openly proclaimed yourself to be a hypocrite. BTW, SACD rocks.

[TroyD]

well the thing that REALLY sticks out is that it isn't mainstream material being released on SACD. Most of what I buy is classical and that ain't exactly mainstream.

Eh, he's just another chucklehead.

BDT

[F1nut]

For sh!ts and giggles I had to look up shoegaze. Here's what I found.

Shoegazing is a genre of alternative rock that emerged from the United Kingdom in the late 1980s. It lasted until the mid 1990s, peaking circa 1990 to 1991.

The British music press (notably NME and Melody Maker) called this genre "shoegazing" because the musicians in these bands often maintained a motionless performing style, standing on stage and staring at the floor while playing their instruments; hence, the idea that they were gazing at their shoes. The shoegazing sound featured extensive use of guitar effects, and indistinguishable vocal melodies that blended into the creative noise of the guitars. Few shoegazers were dynamic performers or interesting interviewees, which prevented them from breaking through into markets in the United States.

Perhaps a case of boring is as boring does.

[TroyD]

Gee, I wonder why THAT particular craze never caught on?

Sounds about as cool as beating off with a cheese grater.

BDT

[F1nut]

It was all Sony's fault, don't ya know.

[TroyD]

Well, they did corner the cheese grater market.

BDT

[F1nut]

Yeah, but the Italian's have the cheese.

[Keiko]

Gee, I wonder why THAT particular craze never caught on?

Sounds about as cool as beating off with a cheese grater.

BDT

:eek: DAMN! :eek:

[TroyD]

Yeah, but the Italian's have the cheese.

So, in a nutshell, we are f*ked all the way around.

But I can get a machine and make my own grater.

BDT

[F1nut]

Not to worry BDT, the shoegaze boys have plenty of toe cheese.

[tonyb]

Gee, I wonder why THAT particular craze never caught on?

Sounds about as cool as beating off with a cheese grater.

BDT

Hey...don't knock it till ya try it baby!!:p:)

[F1nut]

And yet another reason why DSD is superior to any form of PCM. The high data rate process used in DSD avoids the quantization errors inherent in the PCM process used for the traditional CD and DVD.

[bbeacham]

I just purchased and listened to the SACD version of "Dark Side of The Moon" last night and was amazed. If there was ever a recording that was made for multi-channel sound this is it.

[reeltrouble1]

And yet another reason why DSD is superior to any form of PCM. The high data rate process used in DSD avoids the quantization errors inherent in the PCM process used for the traditional CD and DVD.

In this case the saying "its a million(s)" times better is actually correct.

whats more pungent toe cheese or crotch crap?

RT1

[F1nut]

In this case the saying "its a million(s)" times better is actually correct.

whats more pungent toe cheese or crotch crap?

RT1

Why, yes it is.


I think we need to conduct a poll on that one.