[soundboy]

I have yet to purchase any single-layer SACD* yet. All of my SACD purchases have been hybrids.

I just can't picture people buying a hybrid SACD if they don't already have a SACD player. Most of the time when I stand in front of the SACD/DVD-A section of my local Best Buy or Tower Records, I am there alone. Almost everyone stay clear of that section of the store.

As for prices, there are times when the hybrid SACD version is actually cheaper than the regular CD. I purchased my hybrid SACD of David Bowie's "Let's Dance" for $13.99 at Tower while the regular CD version was going for $18.99. And the premium for the hybrid version isn't really that high, usually a dollar or two higher for the hybrid. And George Harrison's "Live In Japan" 2 disc hybrid SACD set for $13.99 at Best Buy is down right a steal!! (and I got mine for only $9.99)

I did start with a DVD-A player, the Panasonic RA-60. However, when titles I wanted started coming out on SACD, I switched teams. Rumor has it that Sony is readying a big push for SACD in terms of new hybrid SACD releases from a major artist on its roster....Springsteen? Billy Joel? Michael Jackson?

Waiting for Toshiba to come out with its universal changer.

* I did purchase a number of Hong Kong pop single-layer SACDs on HK Warner Music (yes, Warner Music) and HK Sony, but these were packaged with a CD of the same music. You can see the Warner titles on sa-cd.net.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gloco At those % posted above...who cares? It appears these new formats are dead in the water and consumers wont be jumping onto dvd-a and/or sacd anytime soon. and yeah, the sacd selection stinks, imho.

...and that's why the new formats are dead in the water.

I'm still trying to buy my (first) hi-rez format disk. The selection doesn't just stink, it SUCKS. Big stinkin' elephant patties.

I'm supposed to be impressed that they remixed a 20 year old album, into "surround sound" with "improved audio quality", and buy it? All the while forgetting that all that "improvement" is fancy studio-remix junk, as the original master is still a 20 year old item?

And then, when they DO indeed have a new release in hi-rez, they tell almost nobody, make it available after the Redbook release, and almost all stores don't carry it in the first place?

SNOOOOOOOOORE. Wake me when they've got their damn act together.

 

[warubozu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chinchy I'd buy more SACD's, but the problem is that when I go to the stores, their selection of SACD's are quite paltry. They often only have one small section (as in one side of one display bookshelf). DVD-A is usually present in a wider selection..

Yup, I agree. Same here when I try to go and browse in the SACD section to see what's new, I'm met with a selection size that is a joke and they never bring in anything new for months on end.

 

[spaceman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tortie But what im saying is that most hybrid sales are bought by non SACD owners.

Not me. I have a SACD player, but buy mostly hybrid so my wife can listen to them on her player as well. Maybe I'm just in the minority here.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Who was it that has the signature that says DVD-A is dead? Kartik? I said a little while ago that DVD-A is going to make it big soon, and I think the more releases they release using HDAD will tip things even more in their favor. The 24/192 recording I have of Alan Parsons Project's I Robot sounds quite good on the little $64 wonder - the Toshiba SD-4900.

I won't have my universal player for several more days, but believe me, I will be doing some extensive testing of Redbook vs. DVD-A vs. SACD using whatever discs I can find in all three formats. There aren't many, but the number seems to be growing each month.

 

[jpelg]

There is no question to me that the hi-rez formats provide a significant increase in sound quality for little $$, compared to what it seems to take to eek out similiar performance from redbook. I have never heard a DVD-A recording, as I have only owned/heard the benefits of SACD and HDCD. But the benefits of the latter two are quite clear, even on an inexpensive player.

That being said, I fear that SACD will be nothing more than a niche market. Technical superiority arguments aside, despite Sony's promise of hybrid-only disks from now on, my fear is that this will only ever represent a very small percentage of the total market. It will continue to hang on simply because Sony is behind it, just like MD's (anyone remember the technically superior Beta, OS/2, Commodore Amiga, etc.?).

HT is where the main market is these days, and this is where DVD-A has the inroad. Still, no guarantee there either. Hmmm... I may have just reasoned myself out of the SACD market

.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Just to throw this out for discussion, could it be that the DVD-A sales are due to the choices in releases on DVD-A vs. SACD? In other words, even though SACD has more than 2000 titles released, did the folks who work with DVD-A choose their titles to release better and have made it a no-brainer to pick it over SACD?

 

[markl]

SACD titles outnumber DVD-A titles 3 to 1. Many more people have adopted SACD over DVD-A as can be evidenced by this site, audioasylum, stevehoffman.tv et al. I'm not rooting against DVD-A *at all* (I want both formats to succeed, and at least am indifferent whether one or the other "wins" so long as we have siomething better than the CD), but this "survey" is totally irrelevant and innacuurate.
Quote:

I'm supposed to be impressed that they remixed a 20 year old album, into "surround sound" with "improved audio quality", and buy it? All the while forgetting that all that "improvement" is fancy studio-remix junk, as the original master is still a 20 year old item?

That's too bad for you if you are not interested at all in material that came out before last year. You are severely limiting yourself and eliminating the majority of the great music that has been made. With over 2000 titles to choose from, if you can't find at *least* a dozen new discoveries for you that can go on to become your new favorites, I don't know what to tell you. Right now, they are focusing a lot on many of the classic artists and their classic albums. They may not be *new* but they sure are good. Maybe this is an opportunity to expand your repetoire? Also, as you know, some of the "20 year old recordings" are some of the best recordings ever made of rock music. Pure analog tubed goodness, no lossy digital, no computers used in the processing of the sound. No not all older recordings are great, but then again, neither is it true that all new ones are peaches either. Many newer recordings are digital recordings, the max resolution you'll ever get out of them is 24/96 tops. The idea of SACD with it's insane sampling rate is to provide maximum resolution from analog masters, coming as close as digital can get to replicating the original tape. If something was recorded or mixed or processed in 16/44.1, there is no advantage to puting that on SACD or DVD-A in the first place.

And if you're only looking at your local record store for their selection of hi-rez titles, of course you are going to be frustarted with the selection. If you want choice, you have to shop online at any of the major CD sellers and especially the specialty shops that cater to audiophiles.

Here's a link to a database that contains the majority of SACD titles for you to peruse: http://www.sa-cd.net/

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl That's too bad for you if you are not interested at all in material that came out before last year. You are severely limiting yourself and eliminating the majority of the great music that has been made.

It's not that; most of my music and music interests are rather...old. It's just that they expect me to get excited about a new, "hi-rez" format, one that offers great possibilities in "surround sound", mixdown quality, etc., and all they are giving me is old catalog remixed to try to show off the new "ideas" of those possibilities.

The same, exact recordings that have been available, for many years, on Redbook and if I did indeed want them I had access to them. Some I do.

So I'm supposed to get so excited that they are on a new format that I should go out and by parts of my personal catalog, all over again?

Maybe I'm being negative (yes, but I so enjoy it!) but I've got better things to do with my money, things that I find more interesting, than to buy something I already have, to try to discover "differences", and then after a few listenings...probably not listen to it again. Why? I've been listening to it for many, many years and the new format is not going to make me want to pick it up more often, just because.

I want the new recordings to hopefully gain the full benefit of the higher resolution. Hopefully get "real", accurate musical instrument placement across the soundfield, by recording genuinely multi-mixed, rather than a "in the mix" play-around of bouncing instruments in space to look cute. The high-rez format should hopefully spread soundstage and increase instrument seperation, with no negative effects, while "in the mix" always must have some side effects, somewhere, because it is only done spectrally, not by "instrument".

I guess it's just me and my mindset. But I mentally can't get excited about taking a 20 or 30 year old master, analog or digitally recorded, one that after 20 years the magnetic master must be in "less than perfect" condition...then in order to get "high-rez" pump it through digital "restorations" - that is, digitial estimations of the originial waveforms - remix and "reposition" instruments based upon spectral analysis across the soundstage, upsample and re-equalize...

and then sell it to me as "high-rez", best that can be done, audiophile quality.

I ain't buyin' the line.

I'm just hoping to make it all worth it. A good quality recording made with the high-rez format in mind, or, at least, a master that justifies the effort and is good enough from the beginning to support the "high-rez" claim.

I love analog. But if I want an "analog" sound by using a high-quality analog master I'll play back an analog system. All the old analog masters have begun to suffer degregation, which is why "remasters" are now the rage, and "restored" versions are out in droves. So they do the same "black magic" digital wizz-bang, stuff the results on a new format, with a higher sample rate...and I'm excited?

Not.

Sorry, this rant isn't directed towards you, or ANYBODY here at Head-Fi. It's directed to the record companies. It's just that if you are going to promise me "higher quality" don't pretend that starting with the same masters as you ALWAYS have, upsampling, remixing and then dropping it on to a new format means that we are truly getting what we expected, and are paying for. And with music we (quite often) already own, to boot.

I just want "new" music to hopefully see all the benefits I was promised when I bought that fancy, expensive multi-format machine.

That's all I'm asking.

 

[markl]

Quote:

It's just that they expect me to get excited about a new, "hi-rez" format, one that offers great possibilities in "surround sound", mixdown quality, etc., and all they are giving me is old catalog remixed to try to show off the new "ideas" of those possibilities.

How many "new" releases were conceived, written, performed and executed in surround sound? Zero. Any surround sound mix of any music is going to be a completely new vision of the material. IMO, as surround catches on and becomes the norm, we'll get more and more albums conceived natively as a surround experience. But if you were an artist right now, would you limit your potential audience by releasing *only* a surround version of your material for the very small segment that own hi-rez surround sound systems? No, it's a transition that's going to take some time. Mono lingered for years and years long after the introduction of stereo. Quote:

The same, exact recordings that have been available, for many years, on Redbook and if I did indeed want them I had access to them. Some I do. So I'm supposed to get so excited that they are on a new format that I should go out and by parts of my personal catalog, all over again?

If you are satisfied with the Redbook versions of your recordings, no one's holding a gun to your head to replace them. All your old Redbook CDs will play on any DVD-A player and SACD player, they will not be made obsolete. There are many people who will shell out the extra for a "digitally remastered" Redbook Cd of a disc they already own just to get better sound quality. At least with the new formats, you actually get something that from a technical standpoint really *can* offer you more than a mere Redbook remaster, to me it's a better deal.
Quote:

Maybe I'm being negative (yes, but I so enjoy it!) but I've got better things to do with my money, things that I find more interesting, than to buy something I already have, to try to discover "differences", and then after a few listenings...

Fair enough. Quote:

I guess it's just me and my mindset. But I mentally can't get excited about taking a 20 or 30 year old master, analog or digitally recorded, one that after 20 years the magnetic master must be in "less than perfect" condition...then in order to get "high-rez" pump it through digital "restorations" - that is, digitial estimations of the originial waveforms - remix and "reposition" instruments based upon spectral analysis across the soundstage, upsample and re-equalize...

With stereo remasterings, they aren't re-mixing anything, merely remastering the original analog tape in a hi-rez digital format. You are hearing the exact mix the artist approved years ago, the exact same mix that you have been listening to for years, the only difference is that now you have it available to you in a format not as limited as 16/44.1 Redbook CD. Quote:

I'm just hoping to make it all worth it. A good quality recording made with the high-rez format in mind, or, at least, a master that justifies the effort and is good enough from the beginning to support the "high-rez" claim.

Well, all I can tell you is that hearing is believing. Listening to DVD-A and then SACD maybe 3 years ago now was one of the few big "AH-HAH!" moments I've had in audio, I can count them on one hand really. It was a real "come to Jesus" moment for me, I saw the light and became an apostle.

Do you *really* want to be stuck with 16/44.1 digital *forever*? I sure don't.

 

[Snake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Do you *really* want to be stuck with 16/44.1 digital *forever*? I sure don't.

No, and you're right.

It's just that I get a really crappy selection when I go to the stores (I would rather buy music in stores than "online"), and it's the same ol' s#!t that I've been looking at for years, just with a new wrapper.

I'm so totally not excited.

You know, I want to buy music I really, really want in high-rez, not music that I can buy, just because it's "high-rez".

 

[averydonovan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snake ...and that's why the new formats are dead in the water. I'm still trying to buy my (first) hi-rez format disk. The selection doesn't just stink, it SUCKS. Big stinkin' elephant patties. I'm supposed to be impressed that they remixed a 20 year old album, into "surround sound" with "improved audio quality", and buy it? All the while forgetting that all that "improvement" is fancy studio-remix junk, as the original master is still a 20 year old item? And then, when they DO indeed have a new release in hi-rez, they tell almost nobody, make it available after the Redbook release, and almost all stores don't carry it in the first place? SNOOOOOOOOORE. Wake me when they've got their damn act together.

I'm in this boat. Music in surround sound is pointless to me, I don't have a surround sound system. And neither SACD nor DVD-A can be ripped into a computer format, which makes it mostly useless to me. And for the third strike against it, the selection blows! It seems to be only audiophile stuff like classical and jazz. The only thing remotely interesting that I've seen on SACD is Pink Floyd's DSOTM, and I already own a perfectly good copy of the 20th anniversary remaster of it.

I'm waiting for a 2-channel, 24/192 resolution format that can be ripped onto a computer. Since that ain't gonna happen any day soon, I'm sticking with tried and true redbook. With upsampling redbook sounds fine to me and most importantly, the music I listen to is released in that format.

 

[Zanth]

Of course we could always use the tried and true piped line:
"there is always vinyl!"


I'm staying clear of high-rez formats until they figure out which one is going to stick. I'm so close to pulling the trigger on a TT its not funny, and to think I can get unlimited bandwidth and have millions of albums to choose from! Ripping to computer is a pain, though joelongwood has masterfully done so to MD, which is where my heart is for portable music.

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Suffice to say, not many people believe that the results of the survey reflect anything other than the DVD-A council's wet dreams.

Indeed. Those results are a joke. No possible way they could be accurate. Excepting one individual, I have never even met another living person with a DVD-Audio/redbookonly player, and that includes a LOT of serious audiophiles.
Counting any DVD video players that also play DVD-Audio is ridiculous.

JC

 

[Mr.PD]

I have exactly two single layer SACD's. Meatloaf Bat Out of Hell and the soundtrack to Oh Brother Where Art Though.

My wife complains that she can't take the soundtrack CD and play it in the pickup. I'm not planning on any more single layer SACD purchases. I need to make my money go farther than a disc I can only play in one player.

Now, what about this DualDisc format developed by Sony/Epic? They released a limited edition of AC/DC Back in Black in this format for sale only in Seattle and Boston. One side is a normal CD the other side is a DVD with a 23 minute video plus the whole album in 48kHz audio.

I need to find this album.