[wnmnkh]

So after reading some information about DSD and PCM and practices in recording industry, I think that DSD and SACD may be huge problem someday.
 
 
As far as I understand, there aren't many native DSD tools to work on. So what they do is they record and edit everything as PCM format, and you convert the result into DSD...... I mean, with such practice, I just do not see even theoretical benefits of DSD, let alone practical ones.
 
Worse, I found some cases that the recorded raw file has been made to DSD, but since there aren't many tools to work with DSD, many engineers convert these DSD files into PCM files, do editing/mastering and then convert them into DSD again!
 
I recognize DSD to PCM (and vice versa) conversion is not lossless process, I just can't help myself but thinking about the quality of SACD releases in general.
 
.....
 
With more and more people buying high quality music as downloadable FLAC format (Linn Record said that at the first launch of their record store, 24bit FLAC files dominated sales as 60% of total copies including mp3, normal flac, SACD and Vinyl altogether. Figure is now more than 90%), and the fact that there is really no way to play DSD files (even if Sony ever open up SACD format to personal computers) other than buying super expensive DSD-only DACs, I have no doubt this will create confusion when high quality music download rises.

 

[irvin59]

 
Quote:

So after reading some information about DSD and PCM and practices in recording industry, I think that DSD and SACD may be huge problem someday.
 
 
As far as I understand, there aren't many native DSD tools to work on. So what they do is they record and edit everything as PCM format, and you convert the result into DSD...... I mean, with such practice, I just do not see even theoretical benefits of DSD, let alone practical ones.
 
Worse, I found some cases that the recorded raw file has been made to DSD, but since there aren't many tools to work with DSD, many engineers convert these DSD files into PCM files, do editing/mastering and then convert them into DSD again!
 
I recognize DSD to PCM (and vice versa) conversion is not lossless process, I just can't help myself but thinking about the quality of SACD releases in general.
 
.....
 
With more and more people buying high quality music as downloadable FLAC format (Linn Record said that at the first launch of their record store, 24bit FLAC files dominated sales as 60% of total copies including mp3, normal flac, SACD and Vinyl altogether. Figure is now more than 90%), and the fact that there is really no way to play DSD files (even if Sony ever open up SACD format to personal computers) other than buying super expensive DSD-only DACs, I have no doubt this will create confusion when high quality music download rises.

A well recorded SACD just sounds markedly better than a regular CD, particularly in my experience with Linn Records 5.1 recordings on a decent system. I think SACD will remain as a physical disk and the downloads will be in a different format as Linn does now.
 
 

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

 
A well recorded SACD just sounds markedly better than a regular CD, particularly in my experience with Linn Records 5.1 recordings on a decent system. I think SACD will remain as a physical disk and the downloads will be in a different format as Linn does now. 
 

Well, even if we assume that SACD will sound better than regular CD, I mean, high sampled FLAC files do too. I am wondering the place for SACD in Hi-Fi scene since even people at Linn Record themselves seem use the master sources of their SACD as PCM format (you can see they provide recent ones with 192 or 96 instead of 88 or 176.)
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

I think SACD will be around for awhile.

SACD has been on the market around 12 years and there's a big, established base of music and players out there. Not as much as CD or LP, but there should be demand for hardware and software for years. Also, prices on OOP discs continue to rise. Demand is there.

SACD is usually a guarantee of good quality recording and mastering, too. For classical the price is maybe $1 or $2 more than a CD. I'll pay that.

If I can rant a little, Big Music is making a mistake by not releasing more. By definition, SACD listeners pay for thei music. They should throw a few bones to us who are willing to buy music. We're paying customers, unlike the majority of people who listen to popular music. Forget the downloaders; make good discs for those of us who buy.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

SACD is usually a guarantee of good quality recording and mastering, too. 

 
This.  If SACD can actually get people to do their jobs properly I say it's worth it. 
 
 

 

[OneSec]

I would acknowledge the superior sound quality and channels comparing normal CD. However think they should really release the technology to PC platform. This has limited SACD to a very large community.
 
I'm buying hybrid SACDs but not fully utilizing them. This is sad
 
Also the main idea of having them ripped into PC is to protect the original CD
 
Subscribed.

 

[dBel84]

The biggest factor for me is that you get an incremental step up in sonics which is easily audible. akin to going from a midlevel headphone to a flagship, it is not subtle. Much fuss is made about cables etc but simple reality is: good source, reasonable amplification and headphones = happy bunnies. 
 
The one down side is that not all music easily available in this format..dB

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

I think SACD will be around for awhile.
SACD has been on the market around 12 years and there's a big, established base of music and players out there. Not as much as CD or LP, but there should be demand for hardware and software for years. Also, prices on OOP discs continue to rise. Demand is there.
SACD is usually a guarantee of good quality recording and mastering, too. For classical the price is maybe $1 or $2 more than a CD. I'll pay that.
If I can rant a little, Big Music is making a mistake by not releasing more. By definition, SACD listeners pay for thei music. They should throw a few bones to us who are willing to buy music. We're paying customers, unlike the majority of people who listen to popular music. Forget the downloaders; make good discs for those of us who buy.

 
Uncle Erik, there is no guarantee that SACDs would have sound good in reality.
 
Many people are finding out that files originally used for SACD mastering are, in fact, nothing more than up-sampled redbook masters.
 
There are tons of horror stories and frustrations in Computeraudiophile forum regarding these releases...... more depressing fact is that HDtracks' David Chesky once said that they do their best weeding out bad masters, and he literally has piles of rejects from many famous releases. I own numerous SACDs and I have little faith in their sound quality any different from redbook releases.
 
It is mess because there is ZERO standard. 24bit/44.1k is very popular choice for many early SACDs (which raises doubt that they are in fact up-sampled or worst case over-sampled) some odd ones have 24/48, while other recent ones are either 24/96 or 24/192. But we have ZERO information on whether they are really true DSD recordings, or PCM recordings converted into DSD (which is majority).
 
They can be sound very good and can be flawless recordings. But the thing is people can have both good quality and convenience if they just buy redbook releases instead since there is little or no difference between SACD/DVD-A/FLAC-HD and redbook releases.

 

[wnmnkh]

It's DVD-A, but very usual for many SACD recordings as well.
 
 
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Metallica-Black-Album-HDTracks-Download
 
 
 
See redbook release is actually sounding better than two high-res formats. With such things happening all the time, folks are losing faith......

 

[ph0rk]

I think this will ultimately be a pure economics question - is there enough of a market (or can one be easily created or co-opted) to make a profit by creating deluxe SACD recordings rather than repacking redbook audio in a fancy format? Is it worth it to try to create some sort of standard or mark of quality (especially given that SACD now has become watered down as a mark).
 
 
I can't say, but if the recent past is anything to go by Big Music will pick whichever solution results in the least profit and highest cash investment.

 

[D. Lundberg]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is mess because there is ZERO standard. 24bit/44.1k is very popular choice for many early SACDs (which raises doubt that they are in fact up-sampled or worst case over-sampled) some odd ones have 24/48, while other recent ones are either 24/96 or 24/192. But we have ZERO information on whether they are really true DSD recordings, or PCM recordings converted into DSD (which is majority).

But the real problem is that people obsess over formats in the first place. It doesn't really tell you anything about the sound quality of a release.
What really matters is what they have done to the signal in terms of processing (compression, limiting, EQ, etc.).
 
Obviously it's bad form to just convert the material and sell it at a higher price, but you could go one step further and argue that the whole "High Res" trend is a marketing ploy taking advantage of gullible audiophiles.
Given identical mastering (and proper equipment) SACD, DVD-A and CD will sound identical, as supported by the famous BAS experiment: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
 
And DSD is an obsolete format that should have gone the way of the ancient 1-bit converters it is based on.
Properly implemented it doesn't sound worse (or better) than regular PCM, but it is expensive, technically inferior (at least using modern equipment) and difficult to work with.

 

[wnmnkh]

Quote:

 
But the real problem is that people obsess over formats in the first place. It doesn't really tell you anything about the sound quality of a release.
What really matters is what they have done to the signal in terms of processing (compression, limiting, EQ, etc.).
 
Obviously it's bad form to just convert the material and sell it at a higher price, but you could go one step further and argue that the whole "High Res" trend is a marketing ploy taking advantage of gullible audiophiles.
Given identical mastering (and proper equipment) SACD, DVD-A and CD will sound identical, as supported by the famous BAS experiment: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
 
And DSD is an obsolete format that should have gone the way of the ancient 1-bit converters it is based on.
Properly implemented it doesn't sound worse (or better) than regular PCM, but it is expensive, technically inferior (at least using modern equipment) and difficult to work with.

 
As person who cannot even distinguish typical mp3 files and typical CD-quality files, I really do not mind anything about "High Res", and still most of my recent purchases are obviously redbooks.
 
 
But I do mind and find disturbed that the whole music industry business these days.... are really nothing more than fraud.
 
 
I don't mind what format I am listening to..... 16bit/44.1 or 24bit/192, but I do mind if the information written on the music they are selling.

 

[Anaxilus]

Metallica is a poor choice for mastering standards and UE said 'usually'.  Many HD music sites are now offering brickwalled hi-rez downloads but I don't consider that indicative of the SACD format.  Take the latest Nirvana release, LFF showed the brickwalled waveform.  Those are sites now being run by jerk offs apparently. 

 

[Exarch]

SACD is yet another stab in a long line of stabs made by Sony to create a proprietary, locked down, and monetized format.
 
Reading about the actual method of encoding into DSD makes my head hurt.  1-bit encoding of and dumping everything into a NRZ square wave??? For an audio application??? Delta-Sigma for reconstruction??? Arcane trickery to shift the HUGE amount of distortion from 1-bit quantizing up into the inaudible range?
 
Someone at Sony needs a stiff back-hand.
 
------------------------
 
I think SACD may have filled a niche at some point, however with the forward march of the digital formats, physical media is getting obviated. 

 

[firev1]

Quote:

I would acknowledge the superior sound quality and channels comparing normal CD. However think they should really release the technology to PC platform. This has limited SACD to a very large community.
 
I'm buying hybrid SACDs but not fully utilizing them. This is sad
 
Also the main idea of having them ripped into PC is to protect the original CD
 
Subscribed.

You have a friend here, I have some hybrid disc but I have always griped about the fact that I have nothing to play the SACD part with T_T And with so many years in the format, I'm surprised there has been no market spoilers for people like us, the budget-fiers.