[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy If you search through past AES conference proceedings (peer-reviewed scientific papers), you'll find several papers showing that individuals can reliably distinguish between high sampling rate DSD (SACD) and low-resolution PCM (CD).

AES conf proceedings are not peer reviewed. No conf proceedings are, in the strictest sense of the term, peer reviewed. Basically, a conference proceeding is some PhD saying "hey, I have some cool results!" and the organizers giving him a soapbox. There is a far lower bar for a conference paper compared to a journal paper.

That said, Wodgy, I am still interested in any links you can provide, as long as they're less than a year old, because no positive ABX result has been made earlier than that.

EDIT: Full disclosure: I am not an AES member, but I have dealt with scientific conferences before.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

Hi All!
The fellow GhostWhoWalls blinked so many times that he/she satisfied me completely!

This discussion: SACD vs. CD is getting very interesting!

DIGRESSION:

As some of you know, on the other thread (which I've started) "DOWNMIXING ... on SACD" I was anxious to know what is the quality of the DOWNMIXING from 5.1 to 2.1.
We have the following options on a HYBRID SACD, e.g. "The Dark Side of the Moon"

(a) Redbook (regular) CD
(b) 2-channel SACD
(c) One can DOWNMIX from 5.1 to 2.1

Yes, my Pioneer DV-57A-S DOWNMIXES to 2.1 and NOT to 2.0 as we discussed on the other thread, which puzzles me!

And guess what, the DOWNMIXED version sounds best to me.
It's "louder and fuller and juicier". Since we have some NEW guys here, may be they could make a comment about that.

Perhaps, tomorrow I'll post "scary"

news about the SACD.
I want to make it very short!

See you on the Scary Side of the Moon.

Adam

 

[jimmyjames8]

Are you sure about that? Sony has 2 SACD titles scheduled for release during the month of September. This is just in the US.

Was talking to one of my local stereo/HT salon dealers this week. He usually goes to the CEDIA show (held this week) but didn't go this year. He said he read the same thing I either dreamed or read, about Sony dropping production of SACD discs this year. He claims to have read it on a Japan or EURO web site covering this years CEDIA. He is trying to find the quote and so am I. If so, not good news for the SACD camp but I still think it will remain, at the very least, a boutique audiophile format.

 

[soundboy]

Supposedly, Sony is to make a major announcement on September 22nd regarding reorganization. However, I seriously doubt anything will be announced for SACD since it's a tiny part of the company. Afterall, Sony is still backing MiniDisc.

Even if Sony decides to stop releasing SACD titles altogether, other labels will continue to churn out titles. This year has seen little action in terms of SACD releases from the major music companies, yet hundreds of titles are added. It may not be the music you and I like to hear on SACD, but the format continues.

 

[Garbz]

Adam I believe the goal of downmixing is to make the 5.1ch sound like 2ch. If it sounds fuller or different then that's bad. The 2ch part can be made to sound like that if the person mastering it wants it to.

 

[HiWire]

How much more does it cost to record, master, and manufacture SACDs? Hybrid SACDs should be just fine to release to the general public, as long as they play in all CD players. Let's get some more mainstream SACDs

Oh yeah, and

I'm waiting for the labels to release more non-classical stuff in SACD before I shop for a player.

 

[soundboy]

I have read that it takes about US$30,000 to $50,000 to remaster a recording for release on SACD. As for recording using DSD, I don't know. The head of Telarc mentioned SACDs doesn't make any money for the company, nor does it lose money. Given the relatively small amount of copies sold for each classical/jazz SACD from the label, I think it's not a huge amount of $$$. At retail, the price difference between the CD and the SACD versions of the same album is about US$2.00. The problem is getting concumers to pay that extra $2.00 per disc. Remember, we are in an age of MP3 and downloading.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Time

for

a

bump!

 

[rsaavedra]

 

[Garbz]

remastering is always expensive, but if the first master is made for sacd and then adapted (I say adapted not downsampled for a reason) for a cd, then the cost should not be very great. If the equipment cost is your worry, have a look at how much sony, warner, etc make each year. It's not like the big companies can't afford it.

 

[archosman]

Ok... which one of you ding dongs posted in the Ring 2 thread

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377109/board/nest/25836155

 

[Jasper994]

...consider the average person working at a music store and stop wondering...

 

[averydonovan]

I don't pay attention to SACD or DVD-Audio since neither offer music I want to listen to and I have no interest in multichannel music. For now it's either CD or vinyl for what I want. And the ridiculous copy protection schemes on both DVD-A and SACD that would not allow me a quick and convenient way to rip the music to a portable format for my MP3 player is yet another big "don't buy me!" sign to me. Give me a high-resolution, unprotected, 2-channel audio format and put out music I want to buy on it and I'll take heed. Otherwise the format might as well not exist to me.

The average consumer doesn't care about sound or picture quality. They do notice convenience and ease of use. Neither SACD nor DVD-A offer any improvements in convenience or ease of use, and actually present a step backwards there. It will be very difficult to replace CD for most people since they are ubiquitous and familiar.