[markl]

Thanks again for the feedback. I, for one, am certainly enjoying the discussion!

I've used your feedback to seriously update my initial post with a series of "FAQ's" that will help future readers to better understand the discussion that follows. I will add more as discussion warrants. This thread will also be a permanent link in my signature (please see below).

Again, thanks for the spirited, opinionated feedback!

williamgoody said:
Quote:

Markl, When you title a thread "The Cd is Dead etc..." and then explain how this new format will take over for an established medium, and basicallt answer anyt anticipated questions you forsee, what do you expect? Your enthusiasm, as you express it, sometimes goes overboard (the expression of, that is) And when such strong statements are made, there are those of us who may have other points of view who offer that to try both to give you something to think about and to give a complete picture of what's being talked about.

Absolutely! I fully expected and intended this thread to be deliberately provocative! And yes, if you are willing to "play" I'm more than willing to argue. Thanks for participating!

Quote:

You make it sound like you've discovered these and that we at Head-fi wouldn't know about them if it weren't for you.

Not at all (although I was one of the first on this site to adopt SACD, and still remain one of the only vocal members with DVD-A). Head-Fi currently lacks an "FAQ" section. An essential part of an FAQ section would be questions about the new formats. My hope and my intent is that when a newbie comes by and asks-- "hey-- what about SACD?", we can direct them to this thread, so they can see all the pro and con and all the back-and-forth.

I'm all about sharing the info!

Mark

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl I'd like it if people would consider the new formats along with that next headphone upgrade, that next amp upgrade, that next cable upgrade. It has the *potential* to offer more bang for the buck than any of those other upgrades. Yet, for reasons I freely admit I just don't fully understand, there's much more of a natural built-in resistance to the very idea of replacing the CD with something better than there is to recommending an amp upgrade. You can see it in the replies to this thread. This seems to be a political issue with people, and I'd like to offer some information that maybe helps break down this resistance. With SACD and DVD-A, you are essentially listening to the master tape. It's an awesome experience. To me, anyway. It's the difference between having a poster print reproduction of a Picasso in your home and having the real thing on your wall, right before your eyes. Mark

I really dont feel up to spending thousands of dollars down the line replacing my cd collection. It's not gonna happen.

Second, if i did want to replace my collection, i probably won't be able to for the next 5-10 yrs as SACD/DVD-A releases are quite a small batch.

Third, i think most of us "get it," but you don't seem to get our extremely valid points. I'm the type of guy that would rather wait until the formats get popular and music releases that will interest me can be purchased.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I really dont feel up to spending thousands of dollars down the line replacing my cd collection. It's not gonna happen.

With all due respect, clearly you don't "get it" gloco. Allow me to quote myself yet again, and I've made this same point numerous times already:

Quote:

7. Surely this is a scam to make me re-purchase all my old CDs all over again! I've got a lot of money invested in my CDs! Nope. The beauty of the new formats is that they are both 100% backward-compatible with the CD. You can play your entire CD collection on any DVD-A player or SACDP. No one is going to force you to replace your CDs with SACDs/DVD-As. Although, once you hear what the new formats can offer, you will be sorely tempted to replace your favorite CDs with the SACD/DVD-A versions!

Mark

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl With all due respect, clearly you don't "get it" gloco. Allow me to quote myself yet again, and I've made this same point numerous times already: Mark

I'm not going to let this become a pissing match, so i'll clarify:

I don't feel like replacing all my cd's with sacd/dvd-a versions. Take it as you will. If you feel like owning dvd-a/sacd versions of each album, so be it. I don't.

 

[Pepzhez]

Markl, are you a paid shill for Sony or the RIAA? Your one-sided ravings certainly make it appear so.

What I find disturbing here is markl's COMPLETE and UTTER REFUSAL to deal with the real issues behind Sony's push for SACD. So let us set the record staright, eh?

1) CD royalty licences are due to expire soon. This means that Sony and Philips will no longer be able to collect a royalty on every CD manufactured. As far as their accountants are concerned, it's SACD to the rescue.

2) Copy protection. Ah, yes. A few people on this thread have brought this up, yet markl has yet to respond to this specific topic, which is hardly a trivial one. Audible DVD-A watermarking is a horrible idea, plain and simple; SACD will positvely trample - nay, obliterate, your fair use rights once and for all. Sony has made it quite clear that they will refuse to allow SACD drives for computers. So forget about sticking an SACD disc in in your Mac or PC, forget about making a backup copy of said disc, forget about making your own mix discs, period. More than that, forget about having your choice of outboard DACs (Sony has also made it clear that they do not, will not and will never allow the end-user access to the hi-rez digital stream) and look forward to impending compatibility nightmares with digital amps, etc. If you think that all of this is a minor matter or an inconsequential concern, then by all means enjoy paying for crippled technology which surrenders your control to the Sony and Philips corporations.

As for your comments on the Stones SACD reissues, I believe that all purchasers of these discs who are able to read know that they possess a hybrid disc, as there is a prominent notice inside of the package.

I am not against high-rez, per se, but I am very much against crippled high-rez - and that is precisely what you are so enthusiastically advocating.

DSD is by no means an audible clone of the master tape. In fact, the top frequencies in DSD all too often fall to 8 bit (yes) resolution (something you won't find my Meridian player doing). Perhaps most might not notice or care, but I have heard this "artifact" and it's damn annoying and hardly what I'd call hi-rez.

Have you carefully compared a well-mastered redbook disc played back on a decent (I'm not talking a $400 Sony CDP) CD rig with its SACD counterpart on any of the current SACD players? If you do just this, I think you will be surprised by the results. Again, I refer you to pay close attention to the higher frequencies on the SACD.

I actually think the whole thing is a mess. What with a music industry geared toward reselling the same catalog endlessly (and in perpetual denial about the law of diminshing returns) and an electronics industry oriented toward bottom-dollar greed, I see little hope for success of any high-rez format. In fact, I have to question the very notion of "high rez" when, after two decades of digital being pushed down our throats, countless hits to the wallet, etc., the endless purchasing and repurchasing of new DACs, newly remastered (again!) recordings, SACD and DVD-A are still NOT the equal of the level of sound quality of a decent analog setup. Is this progress or what?

 

[williamgoody]

Quote:

2) Copy protection. Ah, yes. A few people on this thread have brought this up, yet markl has yet to respond to this specific topic, which is hardly a trivial one

It appears Markl doesn't respond to it unless it serves him. He's more interested in making himself look good and people's reactions to what he has to say, rather than carrying on a rational discussion.

Elrod, you're right, I have really nothing against the Fox News Network. But Fox the TV network is making a mockery of the World Series. I did a mini rant about it in the Member's Section
The newsbabes are cute, I must say. Laura Dhue is a winner

 

[serge]

Hello guys. I'm new to this forum. I almost got dizzy reading your arguments about the two formats.

Now here this: the dust hasn't settled yet and already there's another technological breakthrough that was introduced only recently: Blue Laser. Does anybody know about this?

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Now here this: the dust hasn't settled yet and already there's another technological breakthrough that was introduced only recently: Blue Laser. Does anybody know about this?

Recently? I remember seeing a TV show about it ages ago, at least 10 years ago or something like that. It was suppose to replace red laser CD players, of course that never happen.

Now there is two new blue laser types for DVDs, who knows which one will become the standard if any.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Pepzhez As for your comments on the Stones SACD reissues, I believe that all purchasers of these discs who are able to read know that they possess a hybrid disc, as there is a prominent notice inside of the package.

Since in the US the packages are securely sealed to prevent theft, this is not exactly a powerful marketing tool. The user only finds out after the purchase, unless he has been reading elsewhere...

 

[Pepzhez]

Hirsch, I agree that they may not realize that the Stones discs have an SACD when they purchase them, but once they open the package, they will know. Markl wrote something to the effect that many people who bought Stones reissues now have SACDs and are not aware of the fact.

Again, I am all for a high-rez format (why not?), but I am sick and tired of people spouting hype. Where are the objective a/b listening tests? All I have seen are laughable "a/b" tests in which people have switched between the SACD and redbook layer on the same machine - usually a Sony 777ES. Afterwards they trumpet loudly that "SACD blows away redbook!" This is hardly what I'd call an objective test. Having recently auditioned a 777ES at home for a week, I'd say that it provides decent SACD playback and, at best, merely passable redbook playback. But then is anyone surprised about where Sony chose to make this machine shine?

For what it's worth, my tests - objective as could be, if not entirely scientific, have concluded the following. (Test disc is the new ABKCO Rolling Stones Between The Buttons UK version - SACD layer, redbook layer and mint condition Decca UK vinyl copy - not an original pressing, mind, but a mid-70s issue that is nevertheless immaculate sounding):

1) Clear winner is the vinyl played on a mid-line Linn turntable and Grado cartridge. Not that this will come as a big shock to anyone. Keep in mind that this is a very simple modern analog rig - nowhere near the top of the line. I am NOT a vinyl fetishist/fanatic, but I do know the best sound when I hear it and I'll freely admit to it.

2) Redbook layer played back on a Meridian and Van Alstine DAC. Very spacious and warm. Highs are quite pleasing with this DAC and soundstage is very deep. If I'd rate the vinyl copy at 100, then I'd rate this at around 90.

3) SACD layer on Sony 777ES. Question: why so fatiguing as compared to the listening experience of 1 and 2? Soundstage quite good, although not noticably better than redbook through the Van Alstine DAC. The top end is where the problems lay. It's just not naturalistic and the smoothness I find in both the vinyl and the redbook on 2) is glaringly absent, as it's been replaced by an inconsistent, flimsy, brittle harshness. I find this to be very annoying, unmusical and fatiguing. I'll give it a score of 75 out of 100.

4) Redbook on Sony 777ES. No great shakes here. Flat compared to the other redbook setup but nothing horrendous either. Just OK, I suppose, but at least no weirdness in the top end. 77 out of 100. (SACD playback on this machine does indeed have more oomph and presence, but that top end is annoying me to no end, so I'm actually going to rate the redbook playback ever-so slightly higher).

5) Just for the hell of it (and why not?) I made two MD copies of the disc (one digital of the redbook layer via coax and one analog from the SACD layer) on my Sony JA555ES MD deck (one of my favorite components and proof positive that I am not Sony-phobic), ATRAC-R, of course. Interestingly enough, the MD made from the redbook layer sounds better playing from the MD unit than the redbook layer of the disc itself sounds from the Sony 777ES. Less harsh and more naturalistic. I think this proves once and for all that redbook playback on Sony SACD units (if this particular unit is typical, that is) is nothing to write home about. The JA555ES is THE monster MD deck and its DAC is one hell of an impressive beast. Which leads to the question - why are Sony's ES MD DACs so much better than their CD DACs? You got me. (Does MD - decks and portables alike - require a different type of DAC than CD? Or is it simply a quality control issue, i.e. - MD being a niche market with more demanding listeners?)

As for the analog MD taken from the SACD layer, I have to say that this sounds rather good, but not all that different from the digital redbook MD. Seems that ATRAC-R "corrected" the top end problem. Verdict: I at least find this MD copy of the SACD more listenable than the SACD. Or rather, the SACD as it sounds on the Sony 777ES.

So what does it all mean? I'll grant that SACD is in its infancy, yes. It's only in the past four or five years that redbook has improved as much as it has. That is, after around 15 years in general use did redbook begin to sound (at times) impressive. How long until SACD matures? (If indeed it even survives as a format.)

Granted, this is also first, maybe second generation hardware. If SACD survives, I'm sure we'll see improvements in that area.

But as it stands at this moment, well ...

As of now, decent redbook equipment and DACs produce equal and (I think) better sound. Also note that I have not even factored HDCD and/or upsampling into this equation! Note also that I have (for the moment) NOT factored in SACD's clear disadvantages, viz. the "copy protection" issue I mentioned in my post above. Not to mention the further disadvantage of the expense of new equipment and the con job of the music industry inticing you to buy your collection all over again. And for what? Marginally better sound? Inferior sound? I guarantee you that, should SACD survive, in a few years from now you'll see remastered Stones SACD titles all over again - "new, improved and better than those lousy sounding 2002 issues!" And so on into infinity.

On a related note, markl, the DVD analogy is just wrongheaded. As a longtime filmmaker, I can assure you that DVD leaves a lot to be desired. MPEG-2 is full of motion and compression artifacts that make most things damn near unwatchable. Anyone who has eyes can tell you that Beta SP or even consumer tape formats like Mini DV or Hi-8 and the late, lamented LD format are clearly superior to MPEG-2 compression.

So much confusion, too many taken in by corporate hype. Let's at the very least attempt to look at (and listen to) all of this objectively rather than foaming at the mouth over new boffin devices and the "latest and the greatest". Markl reminds me of those people I read around 1983 who were shouting "Vinyl is dead! Goodbye analog! CD sound blows it away!" Two decades on and we know it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now.

 

[andrzejpw]

Pepzhez:

So, you're saying that on a sony sacd player (your 777), Redbook > SACD? I can't disagree, having never heard an SACD player, but that really shocks me. I'll really have to take a listen some time. . .

Anyway, I agree with the concern about protection. Like it or not, SACD will spell the end of creating custom mixes, making cds for the car, road, etc. Personally, that scares me a bit. Customers won't really like it. . . its a step backwards. How will sony deal with that?

 

[Calanctus]

Pepzhez opinion on redbook performance of the 777 is...his opinion. (To which he is undoubtedly entitled, etc.). I find redbook performance on the 777 to be excellent. BTW, Stereophile (read the review) TAS, Hi Fi News, and many users (not all) on Audio Asylum agree.

 

[markl]

Pepzhez said:
Quote:

What I find disturbing here is markl's COMPLETE and UTTER REFUSAL to deal with the real issues behind Sony's push for SACD. So let us set the record staright, eh? 1) CD royalty licences are due to expire soon. This means that Sony and Philips will no longer be able to collect a royalty on every CD manufactured. As far as their accountants are concerned, it's SACD to the rescue.

As I stated earlier, I really don't care *why* the new formats have come into existence, I completely agree with your analysis of the reasons that SACD exists and has been marketed.

However, you should know that SACD was in fact originally developed by Sony to preserve the fragile master tapes of its back catalogs. Rather than continuing to play back the master tapes, they wanted a means to archive their catalog. From these superior digital SACD masterings, they would do all future CD re-masterings. It was only later they decided to commercialize it and market it.

Anyway, I, for one, have never bothered to download a single free copyrighted song. I've actually paid for the music I own, and have purchased all the CDs in my collection. I don't have any copies of CDs either. I may be a dinosaur in this regard, I can recognize that, and that may be a sticking point for people.

But, from my perspective, only someone who is young enough to have grown accustomed to getting music for free, could object to artists' rights to protect their work from being given away free. Again, speaking as someone who has always paid for what he owns, I have no problem with SACD replacing CD-- I'd have paid for and purchased the CD versions anyway, so the idea of having to pay for SACDs doesn't set me off as it might some others.

Quote:

As for your comments on the Stones SACD reissues, I believe that all purchasers of these discs who are able to read know that they possess a hybrid disc, as there is a prominent notice inside of the package.

The two that I've bought have absolutely no indication that they are SACDs aside from a tiny logo on the SACD/CD itself. There was no insert, no stickers, nada. You would not have known it was SACD until you opened after you purchased it and looked closely at the disc.

Quote:

Have you carefully compared a well-mastered redbook disc played back on a decent (I'm not talking a $400 Sony CDP) CD rig with its SACD counterpart on any of the current SACD players? If you do just this, I think you will be surprised by the results. Again, I refer you to pay close attention to the higher frequencies on the SACD.

I have indeed compared the SACD versions of albums against their Redbook counterparts, and to my ears, it's no contest.

Quote:

In fact, I have to question the very notion of "high rez" when, after two decades of digital being pushed down our throats, countless hits to the wallet, etc., the endless purchasing and repurchasing of new DACs, newly remastered (again!) recordings, SACD and DVD-A are still NOT the equal of the level of sound quality of a decent analog setup. Is this progress or what?

Couple comments. How long did it take CD to sound half-way decent? 15 years. We have really only just begun to hear what SACD/DVD-A can do, it's only going to get better and better.
Have you been forced at gunpoint by record labels to upgrade your old CDs to the re-mastered versions? Is there a Sony "SWAT-team" out there forces you to accept "hits to your wallet"?
How many new releases can you buy on vinyl? Can you load up 5 albums in an "album changer"? Can you carry an LP and a record player with you on the bus and listen through headphones? Can you fast-forward an LP or skip tracks to your favorite? There's more to a format than fidelity, and I say that not believing that albums are inherently "better" than the new formats per se. Also, digital media doesn't degrade every time you play it.

Quote:

For what it's worth, my tests - objective as could be, if not entirely scientific, have concluded the following. (Test disc is the new ABKCO Rolling Stones Between The Buttons UK version - SACD layer, redbook layer and mint condition Decca UK vinyl copy - not an original pressing, mind, but a mid-70s issue that is nevertheless immaculate sounding):

If you were raised on vinyl, no digital media is going to sound "the same". Digital has its own fingerprint just like analog. Vinyl will not make a come-back, no matter how fanatical its proponents. It's all spilt milk. In a choice between CD and SACD/DVD-A (which is really what the choice is), even you seem to admit that the new formats are in fact better.

williamgoody said:
Quote:

It appears Markl doesn't respond to it unless it serves him. He's more interested in making himself look good and people's reactions to what he has to say, rather than carrying on a rational discussion.

No one here has time to respond to every single statement. Am I selective? Out of necessity, yes. For example, Pepzhez has even more comments that I'd like to reply to, but I gotta go.

Mark

 

[Pepzhez]

First of all, markl, I don't believe we disagree on everything (we are both Scott Walker fans, I see), but I do wish that you'd steer clear of red herrings and suchlike. Please stick to the facts at hand and refrain from RIAA-like diversions from the real issue.

Quote:

Anyway, I, for one, have never bothered to download a single free copyrighted song. I've actually paid for the music I own, and have purchased all the CDs in my collection. I don't have any copies of CDs either. I may be a dinosaur in this regard, I can recognize that, and that may be a sticking point for people.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. Your comments here are just illogical, period. The downloading of pirated music has zilch to do with the issue.

Quote:

But, from my perspective, only someone who is young enough to have grown accustomed to getting music for free, could object to artists' rights to protect their work from being given away free. Again, speaking as someone who has always paid for what he owns, I have no problem with SACD replacing CD-- I'd have paid for and purchased the CD versions anyway, so the idea of having to pay for SACDs doesn't set me off as it might some others.

So you're first in line for a good-citizen-law-abiding medal, then. Again, what does this have to do with anything? I suspect I am a bit older than you, and have lived through the music industry's decades-old "arguments" on "home taping killing music", the MPAA's Betamax case ("home video recorders will destroy Hollywood studios"), etc., etc. I didn't buy it then and I sure as hell don't buy it now. Unfortunately, you have assimilated the RIAA/Sony discourse hook, line and sinker: you are perfectly happy to forfeit your fair use rights in order to "protect" artists. For the true meaning of that phrase, substitute the word "Sony" every time you read the word "artist".

I am all for SACD provided 1) it does not cost more than the already inflated prices we are paying for redbook discs, 2) it truly is a better medium and 3) it does not restrict usage. Unfortunately, as of today, SACDs tend to cost more ("prices will come down" - yes, I heard this in 1983 too - and I'm still waiting) than redbook discs, usage is restricted in a Draconian manner, and the question concerning the real improvement over redbook is still up in the air.

Quote:

I have indeed compared the SACD versions of albums against their Redbook counterparts, and to my ears, it's no contest.

Guess that takes care of that, no need to argue this point then. How did you compare? What did you compare? What was your method? This standalone statement is utterly devoid of substance.

Quote:

How long did it take CD to sound half-way decent? 15 years. We have really only just begun to hear what SACD/DVD-A can do, it's only going to get better and better.

Did I not say this? If you are going to quote me, at least credit your source!

Quote:

Can you load up 5 albums in an "album changer"? Can you carry an LP and a record player with you on the bus and listen through headphones? Can you fast-forward an LP or skip tracks to your favorite? There's more to a format than fidelity, and I say that not believing that albums are inherently "better" than the new formats per se.

Why, you really are young! Yes, you can indeed load five albums on a turntable changer. I wouldn't recommend doing so, though. I still have a very cool Telefunken mono console made in 1967 that has a very sharp looking record changer, but that's neither here nor there. I said that I am not a vinyl fetishist, and I'm all for the advantages of digital, albeit unbiased enough to accept the advantages and disadvantages of digital vs. analog and vice versa. I don't believe that one format is inherently better than the other here, but I do trust my ears - on a case by case basis.

Let me add that in the last few hours, I went ahead and made an MD from my Between the Buttons vinyl (see above post for equipment used). Of all the digital versions I now have of Between the Buttons, this is by far the best sounding one. Go figure.

Quote:

Also, digital media doesn't degrade every time you play it.... If you were raised on vinyl, no digital media is going to sound "the same". Digital has its own fingerprint just like analog. Vinyl will not make a come-back, no matter how fanatical its proponents. It's all spilt milk. In a choice between CD and SACD/DVD-A (which is really what the choice is), even you seem to admit that the new formats are in fact better.

Thanks for the primer on what this "digital" stuff is all about. Gee, give me some credit here. Did I admit that the new formats were better? What I said was that they have potential, yes, but my current tests prove that SACD as played on a Sony 777ES in fact sounds less musical to me than the redbook layer as played through my CD rig (again, see above post for details). If you simply switch between redbook and SACD playback on the Sony unit itself, then, yes, I freely admit that the SACD layer sounds better - and that only proves that redbook performance isn't all that hot on this particular Sony unit, at least compared to my redbook setup. Who knows? Let Meridian or someone else come out with a dedicated SACD machine that sounds better than the Sony machine and I may very well change my mind. But you must admit that if a highly touted SACD player sounds worse than my redbook reference system, is it really any surprise to you that I am not impressed? Do such results inspire me to rush headlong into SACD at this moment? I think not.

As for redbook performance on the 777ES, well, it's OK. Probably much better than what most people are used to, but I think it's not quite up to snuff with my current setup. Yes, it is only my opinion, but I trust my own ears for my own listening. As to why I rated the 777ES's redbook performance slightly higher than its SACD performance, I already stated the reason: the annoying, unnatural highs of the SACD layer (is this inherent to SACD? Is it a fault of the Sony unit itself? I don't really know) bugged the hell out of me, plain and simple.

As for copy protection and technology crippling, Sony will deal with the inevitable customer backlash in the same way they always have. They will ignore it completely and continue to make excuses (blaming the public) rather than admit to their own failings. And this is why the public at large doesn't give a damn about high-rez formats. They are already fed up with being gouged and treated as criminals by a dying and vengeful music industry. What incentive do THEY (the public) have to adopt a more restrictive and more expensive (it will be) offering from an industry that treats them this way? Whether SACD, DVD-A, etc. stay around or not, one thing they will NOT be is the savior of this industry. Given the restrictiveness of the format, the new costs that will incur to the customer (hardware and software), the same crummy offerings from the music industry, what real reason does anyone have to adopt either of the high-rez formats right now? Come out with a superior product (truly superior to redbook, I mean), sell it a decent price and don't restrict my usage of it and then I'll be all for it. Otherwise, what is the point?

 

[D-Audi]

Dang I just posted a huge long reply but it got erased because I accidently hit the *back* button. AHHH!!

Personally I don't think SACD will integrate into the market like you think it will. This is only my opinion but I gather the market is going in an entirely different direction - portable/small/practical/ease of use. If a company can't offer anything that is going to 'improve' on audio/video in this category I don't think it will emerge as big as you think it will. Yes I'm sure SACD sounds better than your typical CD but your average consumer isn't going to care. #1 Reason why MP3's exploded. Mp3's are inferior to CD's obviously, yet they exploded faster than CD players did 20 years ago???. Why? Reason above. I don't think SACD will be a big enough improvement to redbooks to change people and the market - yes it might be to YOU - but how many people do you know that are strict audiophiles? I'm just speaking for the other 90% of the 'audio population'. I do agree with you that *OBVIOUSLY* SACD will replace CD's, but I think it's going to be a very very slow gradual process - which by then, something else will come out - hopefully something mp3-like but sonically superior to CD's - now THAT would definitely take the market by storm. *crossing fingers*