The SACD vs. DVD-audio discussion

[RainbowStorm]

Audiophile Nelson Pass:

"Although human hearing is generally very poor above 20,000 Hertz, ultrasonic frequency roll-offs produce phase and amplitude effects in the audible region; for example, a single pole (6dB/octave) roll-off at 30 kHz produces about 9 phase lag and 0.5 dB loss at 10 kHz. The effects may be subtle, but their audibility is undesirable in a piece of equipment whose performance is judged by its neutrality." (original). Thus, being aware of our hearing sensitivity to phase distortions, we can presume considerable decrease in the level of such distortions in the systems with a wider signal spectrum (including the quality LP playback).

Where do you think the digital audio technology is heading...? Please comment and if you have real life experiences about the difference between working with SACD and DVD-audio, feel free to post your opinion.

If you need more information on the topic, please visit:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...d-a/index.html

[doorknocker]

Does SACD still exist? I got an entry level Sony CD/SACD player and naturally I bought some SACD or CD/SACD hybrid discs.

The verdict? Some SACDs sound fantastic, Dylan's 'Love + Theft', the T.Rex 'Electric Warrior' remaster, some of the Decca Stones Stuff (especially 'Singles collection'),
'Dark Side of the Moon' is also great, it really sounds analog (again)

I think some of the characteristics that we all love about vinyl are 'reintroduced' with SACD, namely 'air', 'dimension' and the way a record can sound powerful without being upfront i.e smashed to death....

What I noticed though is that SACD and hybrid SACD/CDs seem to have disappeared again fron the stores. Some of the Dylan classics have just been reissued ONCE AGAIN in CD-only form. (the SACD hybrids were issued about 2 years ago). No word on this from Sony naturally.

Anyway, I can't comment on DVD-Audio because I haven't heard it but I might guess that DVD has a higher chance of suceeding because it leads itself to multi-media content and is an established format these days.

Fact is that the loser is the consumer (once again). First you're being treated like a criminal with copy protection ('Playback problems may be encoutered on some equipment'..yeah, RIGHT!). And then SACD is introduced as the holy grail ('you won't believe your ears') only to be dropped again within a few years.....

Does anybody wonder why 'the industry' is going down?

[johnjm22]

SACD's and DVD-A's will never make it.

They'll just never be a market for them.

99% of music consumers aren't going to notice the difference between a SACD/DVD-A and 192 Kbs Mp3.

It sucks, but it's reality.

Just my 2 cents.

[klaukholm]

Don't forget that the remaining 1% is still a large group of buyers. I think that the constant move to cheap portable low quality sound will strengthen the posision of high quality equipment and releases. I think Philadelphias choice to sign up with Ondine instead of a major label is one example. They now have more freedom to do it right and there is less pressure to be commersial.
Remember that great artists ultimately want to sound good. Maybe what we need is a few bankrupsies amongst the major labels to put the focus back on the music.

I have to say I believe in the DVD-a from a practical standpoint as I find it cheaper to make throughout the chain.

It will come down to what people have on their homes, and the DVD-a seems to be doing well.

kjetil

[nek]

My money is on the DualDisc format (CD on one side; DVD-A on the other) because it has the CD side for importing it into iTunes and playing on you regular CD players, but it also has a DVD-A side for listening in 5.1 surround sound.

[6strings]

DVD-A (along with SACD) is all but dead. Thank Napster and the iPod for that.

Primary reason: DVD-A was delayed due to concerns about copyprotection and in that time, the iPod brought the portability of MP3 files to the mainstream audience.

Concerning High Fidelity: DVD-A (& SACD) were designed to present high fidelity, with the option of surround sound and possibly the bonus of some video content (liner notes). As the success of the cassette tape proved (prior to the CD), people will gladly sacrafice fidelity for portability. And it turns out they're not interested in buying all new "stereo" gear for an unproven format.

The future:

--- Higher bit rate "iTunes" (ie: downloadable), some with surround. The labels will likely try to kill off the CD in the long run due to lack of copy protection, but won't be able to convince people to invest in music-only HD DVDs (even though HD DVD can support high res audio). CDs will stay for the foreseeable future due to the amount of market penetration, but look for artists to release more significant video content in addition to audio, to help drive their DVD/HD DVD sales (while also selling music online).

One interesting note, is that if you go into your average electronics store, the only two-channel sound systems you'll probably find are the boom-boxes and iPods. Living room systems are almost exclusively geared for theater surround sound. That DVD-A still can't catch on despite the turnaround of this modern audio equipment says a lot!

My look into the future.

PS. I don't really see Dual Disc as a format of it's own. Just a stop-gap to aid CD sales (a little). The physical size (thickness) of the disc may also be a liability in the short term due to it's tendecy to stick inside slot-loading CD players.

[SnakeCained]

As I mentioned elsewhere:

The Sony Playstation 3 will (So they say) feature SACD playback.

This means there will be a lot of playback machines out there.

The whole dual disc thing is correct,
if you as a consumer buy one cd sized disc that plays multi formats your happy.

This is called "adding value" and makes happy customers.

Record companies love "reissues" and frankly so do I. I've waited 20 years to hear some of these great records sound like there rolling offf tape in the studio just after finishing the mix. Yes SACD has this quality about it. We called it analog sounding.

DVD-A started well but seems to be loosing mommentum.

[6strings]

SACD may survive a little longer as an audiophile "niche" product (ala Laser Discs?), but in the end, the general public isn't buying them en masse and there are no signs of this changing. The window of opportunity for high res audio discs has shut. The only hope would be the next gen HD DVD disc.

As far as the Playstation crowd? C'mon. Those kids get their music for free on peer-to-peer networks. SACD's intended market was adult audiophiles...

[Tibbon]

A few things that I think people are not considering the possibility of:

1) Just as DVD+R and DVD-R formats were "fighting" with each other for compatability, almost all DVD burners are DVD+-R. They can work with either. Perhaps DVD and SACD will merge for most products and we will see DVD/SACD players together mainly. Same perhaps with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Some players that can read both. At that point the consumer doesn't really care which one, but would be more happy to buy either Disc because there is some feeling of stability. They aren't worrying that they are buying the "wrong player" because they have both.

2) The 1% (or so) of the market that purchases music is still HUGE in buying power- or at least enough so that it's worth it for companies to still appeal to them. 1% of people might spend 10% of the money that the market generates. Look at us here on GS. People who really care about MAKING quality recordings are probably less than 1% of the people that consider themselves "Musicians" or music makers, but there is suffcient demand for makers to make high quality gear. Of people with ANY recording setups, Manley is probably targeting around 1% of them. I don't think they want to try and make a "Less Massive Passive" and sell it at Banjo Center for $199.

Look at all of the magazines related to Audiophile stuff. Now how many magazines are dedicated to MP3s, and cheap audio? Few.

3) iPods will soon be surround IMHO. Apple should get wise to this soon, or it could be a point that a competitor could hop in and take them. There is currently pretty damn good technology available that reproduces surround from basically any pair of headphones/earbuds. It works, it sound good (at least good enough surround localization for these people that are happy with MP3s and hypercompressed music). As soon as they get that DSP down to a single chip, or software that the iPod could intergrate we will see a massive revitalization of surround.

Finally, surround sound will be something that the masses expect.

4) Low quality MP3 is not the end of the road for audio quality. The low quality MP3s that most people have today are mainly out of necessity for small file sizes than want for low quality. Storage space will get bigger, codecs will get better, and file transfers will get faster. There will be no reason to hold onto 128k MP3s when you have a 10TB iPod (yes i'm sure we will see something like that at some point, just wait. My first hard drive was 8MB total and now I have nearly 500GB pre-raid size on my drives). That wasn't that long ago. My first computer had 64K of memory and now I'm running with 2GB ram. Things will get bigger than we expect.

[lawrence_o]

Originally Posted by johnjm22

SACD's and DVD-A's will never make it.

They'll just never be a market for them.

99% of music consumers aren't going to notice the difference between a SACD/DVD-A and 192 Kbs Mp3.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree ; SACD is certeinly not gonna make it. DVD-A I still doubt a little. I have already bought some DVDs with music AND the clips but certainly less than normal CDs.

Maybe if Sony / Philips were clever enough to for example make agreements with car-radio manufacturers in that they provide SACD compatible Car CD-players, that might change because after all, we do spend lots of time in our cars and it is certainly the place where I play most of my CDs...

I'm not investing in SACD until it is really hot..


Regards
Lawrence

[Darius van H]

Interesting times - i wonder where we'll be at in 10 years? - what be will the average quality of music listened to? - 44k 16 bit? (i hope so but doubt it - bandwidth will fill up exponentially with the introduction of TV/video on demand) - 192kbit MP3?

I have a fair amount of dealing with people (producers, artists) around the age of 20 or so...i swear these kids hear things differently.....there's almost no level of distortion or "bad sound" that they don't consider acceptable (or even desirable!)

[popmann]

I have a Pioneer Elite combo player. I waited until i could get one player to handle both.

It's a pretty easy assessment to my ear that SACD sounds better. DVD-A does beat CDs, but if this makes any sense, just sounds like a higher resolution of the same flawed sound.

I wish that the CD would go away and leave two choices for consumers--donwloadable Mp3 and SACD/DVD-A. Divided like it was with LP and cassette. People who cared about fidelity bought LPs...those who wanted convenience bought cassette.

That would be a better model now, IMO.

It would give them a chance to address some of the lousy ass mastering that's happened over the last 10 years, too. there are so many great records that are so loud and squished...I'd gladly rebuy "audiophile mastered" SACDs of them.

But, I think in the end...recorded fidelity is done. The world has chosen convenience. It only makes sense that the beer companies running the record industry cater to those majority buyers. I think iTunes/Mp4/AAC sounds close enough to CD to make CD an invalid format. Let's just hope there's enough of us willing to support another platform.

[MusicSh*tty]

2001: the last year anyone cool had/wanted music on CD


2003: the last year a significant number wanted music on CD


2005: a CD? Seriously? You're a loser!


2007: what's a CD?

[6strings]

Originally Posted by popmann

I think iTunes/Mp4/AAC sounds close enough to CD to make CD an invalid format. Let's just hope there's enough of us willing to support another platform.

And it's worth to note that the AAC codec Apple currently employs TODAY for iTunes files supports (up to 48!) multichannel audio, and sample rates of up to 96khz. It's a matter of public awareness and desire for high res audio more than anything. I hope we'll at least see some higher bit rates in the iTunes store in the near future.

Personally, I tend to go to iTunes more than the record store these days. I've got a high-end stereo system but usually listen to music in the car with the windows down (or the heater cranked, depending on the weather).

[Reptil]

SACD is better. A number of consumers wants better quality. (audiophiles)
so where is the problem? IMO it is simple: "the industry" is confused and is digging its own grave. Fighting over which format, using copy protection that is counter productive. Put out ONE standard, high quality, independend on the medium (holographic discs for the future), and market that. Right now even "the professionals" like on this board are confused, as for what format to use. So make it ONE format across the board. I'm sure SACD would make a perfect substitute for vinyl, for the DJ market, for instance, and even when that market is small, it could work. (my primary line of work) We need a reasonable quality SACD recorder, too.

The general public will buy SACD, instead of CD, if it is clear that this is "the future". Of course nobody is going to buy an expensive player, when there is no music published on that format in the future. The whole Ipod thing is not relevant. Ipods are for on the road, in the park, etc. And if a new standard is agreed on, you will see SACD Ipods for sure too. MP3 is just a fase. Invented when internet was slower. Also, for the industry: who cares about MP3 when THE thing to have is SACD? In this respect Apple and others are slowing down progress, by putting out propriety non interchangeble formats. I agree with Darius that some younger musicians have a different standard, as what is acceptable. But how are they going to know "better" if they've never heard it? If the sound of your competitor is massively better than your own, you'll try to compete.. and you'll have to raise your standard.

Bottom line: It is possible, but requires ONE standard, so it is clear to everybody that this is the direction. Like CD and Vinyl and cassettes. But "the industry" is run by people who react instead of lead the way. (a common phenomenon) So right now it sucks. PS3 is a ray of hope.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by SnakeCained

As I mentioned elsewhere:

The Sony Playstation 3 will (So they say) feature SACD playback.

Now I really have a good reason to trade in my PS2 for a PS3!!

I hope this opens an awareness with consumers. There's a lot of people with playstations, not just "mp3 ripping punks".

Great move by Sony if you ask me.


For the record, I think SACD's sound a lot better than DVD-A's, whether they are "primal" PCM or not. They just sound a lot better and are the closest digital format to vinyl that I've heard yet. I personally really really really like the sound of them. DVD-A just dosen't sound good to me.

[johnjm22]

Originally Posted by Reptil

The whole Ipod thing is not relevant. Ipods are for on the road, in the park, etc. And if a new standard is agreed on, you will see SACD Ipods for sure too. MP3 is just a fase. Invented when internet was slower. Also, for the industry: who cares about MP3 when THE thing to have is SACD?

Absolutley dead wrong. Mp3's are not just a phase. Mp3's have become the standard for the young generation. Mp3's have ingrained themselves the music buying market.

And remember that IPODs aren't even the main playback source for MP3's. The Home computer has now become the home stereo, and virtually all CD players these days play Mp3's.

SACD Ipods? Please. It'll never happen. People are perfectly happy with with their 192 Kbs (often times lower ) Mp3s.

[PHILANDDON]

Isn't the trick not to care about what today's format is? Make music for the ages. If you can, track to tape and master to tape or at least to DSD (SACD) or 192/24 (DVD-A). If you gotta track digitally, track at SACD or DVD-A rates and master the same. For today's market all of this can be converted to a 16/44.1 CD and/or to MP3. (Incidentally, I really want a Tascam DV-RA 1000. It's now comes with software that can convert a DSD (SACD) file to a WAV file!!). This way a hundred years from now when MP3's are dead, a nicely performed, nicely recorded piece of music will still sound good.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by lawrence_o

I'm not investing in SACD until it is really hot..


Regards
Lawrence

It isn't all that big of an investment. You can get a player for under 200 bucks. And there is a lot of material on SACD.


In fact here is somebody selling the same player I am using for $80.00!
http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-DVP-NS755V-...QQcmdZViewItem

Here is another player for 55 dollars!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Pioneer-DV-563A-...QQcmdZViewItem

[johnjm22]

Does anyone else find it interesting that consumers are willing to spend tons of money on HD TVs (for only a marginal difference in quality).

But these same consumers refuse to spend money on Hi-Res music playback systems and formats. In fact the average consumer's standards for audio quality have gotten lower.

[popmann]

BTW...regarding player quality: I tested a $179 Sony DVD/SACD...it sounded every bit as good on SACD as the Pioneer elite I bought instead, which was far more $$...but, the sony wouldn't play DVD-A, and the standard CD playback wasn't as sweet as the Pioneer.

And face it...I have 1500 CDs. I have 5 of each DVD-A and SACD. CD playback quality and multiformat support was the driving factor for me.

So, maybe it's a technology that means the cheap converters will sound as good as nice(r) ones...

It still won't take off. Too bad.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by johnjm22

Does anyone else find it interesting that consumers are willing to spend tons of money on HD TVs (for only a marginal difference in quality).

But these same consumers refuse to spend money on Hi-Res music playback systems and formats. In fact the average consumer's standards for audio quality have gotten lower.

Excellent point. It really just proves how much people are influenced by marketing.

[popmann]

Actually, things shot in HD look more than marginally better, IMO.

not that I have any interest, but use this as perspective for those whose world doesn't revolve around music---an HD TV, as nice as it looks, won't make me enjoy MovieX or SitcomY any more than a halfway decent normal set.

that's going to be their arguement for next gen music platform. Does it make them enjoy the music more?

[Tibbon]

Might be a stupid question, but could much of the problem with consumer DVD-A's be the clocking?

Is PCM more dependant on having an excellent clock than SACD? If so, (I really don't know) would that perhaps be the reasoning alone that most SACDs sound better.

When we are comparing SACD vs DVD-A are we playing the DVD-A out of a well clocked system with good conversion (maybe a DAC-1), and comparing it to the SACD? Or are we using the stock convertors/clocks on each?

Does a 200 USD SACD player sound better than a DVD-A player running through a DAC-1 (or maybe just even better than a PCM signal running out of PT to a DAC-1?)

And this will sound really dumb, but does DSD deal well with square waves and super sharp transients? Just with the idea of the bit saying "Go up" and "Go down" depending on it being 0 or 1 seems to say that it can't go instantly from 0 to full (slew?) and that it can't hold the same signal volume between two samples.

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by popmann

Actually, things shot in HD look more than marginally better, IMO.

not that I have any interest, but use this as perspective for those whose world doesn't revolve around music---an HD TV, as nice as it looks, won't make me enjoy MovieX or SitcomY any more than a halfway decent normal set.

that's going to be their arguement for next gen music platform. Does it make them enjoy the music more?

I'm no theatre buff, but I'd say that the screen does make a difference in the enjoyment of the film. I split films into two categories- Ones I see at home, and ones I have to see on a real screen. LoTR, Sin City, Star Wars, Harry Potter, King Kong, etc... those I would have to see in the theatre because the image is breathtaking. But a romantic comedy... well it doesn't matter if I watch it on an iPod.

Generally films that my girlfriend wants to see- the cinematography isn't all that important and I really dislike seeing them in the theatre because it doesn't matter for those films. I don't mind seeing them, just not in the theatre.

You could make the same analogy for music. Avril Lavinge is MP3 music. Pink Floyd is SACD/Vinyl music. Dark Side of the Moon gets more complex on a better system. Avril just sounds more annoying.

[Reptil]

Originally Posted by johnjm22

Absolutley dead wrong. Mp3's are not just a phase. Mp3's have become the standard for the young generation. Mp3's have ingrained themselves the music buying market.

And remember that IPODs aren't even the main playback source for MP3's. The Home computer has now become the home stereo, and virtually all CD players these days play Mp3's.

SACD Ipods? Please. It'll never happen. People are perfectly happy with with their 192 Kbs (often times lower ) Mp3s.

mmm probably you're right, it is just wishfull thinking. SACD Ipods. but I still think MP3 as a format is a phase. And yes people are happy, but only until they're told otherwise. And there is a lot of customers that DO want quality. Furthermore storage size and connection speed is now big enough for better quality bigger files. And that will increase. So if "the entertainment/consumer hardware industry" wants to continue selling hardware, they will go for bigger (storage size) and better. At one point sales of Ipods will stall, if not continuously updated. Right now it is updates on visual media, photos but could also be better quality audio. Why not? A musicstore could sell bigger files, for download now. Also think of reissues (remastered) of music, like what happened with the introduction of the CD. That could be a goldmine.

Of course I got that from my chrystal ball.. it could go either way - the possibillity is there though. those home entertainment centres do have a SACD input..

[klaukholm]

I think it says a lot that a low cost company such as naxos is releasing most of their material as both SACD and DVD-A. They would not do it if it did't make them money (they dont record DSD, and are not the most picky about converters in general...).
As for us in the symphonic business, we are still a long way from really bringing the orchestra sound in to peoples homes and will always find a market for technology that gets us closer to this goal.
A strad only sounds strad live and Lynn Harrel sounds more magical live than through my Prism and Adam's.

Ultimately this may be why we (symphony orcestras everywhere) play concerts every week and still sell tickets.
This music is still best live which is more than can be said for many of the multimillionaires out there who rarely perform live if ever.

kjetil

[6strings]

Okay, I was at the local Best Buy yesterday and it appeared they were dismantling the DVD-Audio and SACD shelves.

Clearly this signifies that DVD-A and SACD are in the final stages of a slow, quiet death.

[enter old Monty Python cronie from "Life of Brian..... "I'm not quite dead yet!"]

[Jamstudio]

They could implement DSD in harddiskrecorders. that would be great
24 tracks @ dsd resulotion

Then at leats the slutty producer/engineer can enjoy it

[6strings]

???