The lie of the hi-rez formats

[bifcake]

Check out this article that appeared in Stereophile this month. It seems to me that this negates the entire argument for high resolution formats. How many companies do this? I would venture to say a lot. Seems like going high res is just a way of spending more money on the same CDs with a different label. Any thoughts?

 

[KenW]

Not really a surprise. I've had the CD for a couple of weeks and I also, could not hear much of a difference. Needless to say, it's a black eye on a format that's already staggering. Wonder what the odds are that they'll do what the author/reviewer mentioned....reissue the correctly done SACD? Hope folks will let them know how they feel about this. Disappointing to say the least.

 

[bifcake]

My guess is that they're not the only ones. I imagine that most commercial recording labels do the same thing. Aside from the audiophile labels such as Chesky, how many companies will take the time to do ANYTHING right unless they REALLY have to?

 

[markl]

Yeah, the Norah Jones scandal. For people who don't want to read the article, it has come out that the same standard 16/44.1 PCM master that was used to cut the original CD was used to derrive the stereo layer of the SACD. That means it was not remastered to DSD from the original analog tapes. That means absolute resolution of the stereo layer of the SACD is only 16/44.1. That means it's not really a "hi-rez" title per se. That makes people who spent good money on the Come Away With Me SACD potential unwitting dupes. It's *may be* an outrage, really, IMO, unless you listen to the multi-channel which was taken direct from the original multi-tracks.

I would like to hear from anyone if any kind of argument can be made that "upsampling" to DSD (or just using DSD processing) from a 16/44.1 master can actually "improve" the sound in any way, or if it actually *degrades* the sound by putting it through another layer of processing. Not technically proficient enough to hazard a guess.

 

[JaZZ]

I guess 40-50% of the SACDs suffer from low-res conversion. That's why I usually look for corresponding information, at least in the case of disks I can't audition before purchase. Swapping the layers in the CD shop reveals easily if it's high-rez throughout the recording chain or not. I think 90% of my SACDs are, after all.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I guess 40-50% of the SACDs suffer from low-res conversion

I highly highly doubt it's that many. SACD has been around for years now, and this is the first case (we know of) where this has happened. I have around 90 SACDs, and with virtually every one, there is a noticeable difference between the layers. I can only think of 3-4 where I felt the upgrade was questionable value. In most cases, the improvement is very worthwhile and obvious.

Also, it's worth noting that many modern recordings are digital, so they will be "limited" to 24/96 or 24/48 which may be below the actual resolution potential of SACD, I don't know, but it's definitely below the 24/192 maximum potential resolution of DVD-A.

SACD and DVD-A are most advantageous when mastering analog tapes of analog recordings, that's how maximum resolution is achieved with the new formats. If something is recorded at 16/44.1 or 24/48, it's not the fault of the new formats, it's the fault of the recording equipment and the studio used to make the album.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl I highly highly doubt it's that many.

I could be wrong about this -- maybe it's just 20-25%.

I can hear a difference between the layers with every SACD -- but in some cases in favor of the redbook layer. They're never equal though. One SACD I'm sure it's been converted to or from low-rez PCM is Shostakovich and Shchedrin's Piano Concertos on the Hyperion label (SACDA67425). And I've heard several other candidates in the CD shop.

On the other hand I've made very good experiences with SACDs mastered from analog tape or 24/96 PCM.

 

[Ferbose]

I vaguely recall that some of the earlier classical SACDs release from DG and Decca contain 48 kHz PCM signals converted to DSD. Yes, this sucks and I never bought a SACD from DG or Decca. However, there are plenty of well-implemented hi-rez discs out there. What suprises me the most, though, is that JVC XRCDs (redbook CDs made with many hi-tech propietary processes) can compete with SACD and DVD-audio. I hope music labels would put more effort into mastering when they release hi-rez formats. IMO, 96/24 or its DSD equivalent does offer more technical potentials than 16/44. I hope JVC would apply its XRCD mastering and manufacturing technologies to hi-rez formats. That is really something to look forward to.

 

[HiWire]

I always imagined the sound engineering elves going over every second of a recording with a fine-toothed comb... whoops, I did it again

 

[eyeteeth]

I came across a very ominous statement by accident today while lokking for stuff bit related.

"a highly placed source inside Philips told one of our European correspondents that the decision to discontinue SACD has already been made. As implausible as this may sound -- and it could well be incorrect -- this source has been very accurate in the past."

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatur...p/roundup.html

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth I came across a very ominous statement by accident today while lokking for stuff bit related. "a highly placed source inside Philips told one of our European correspondents that the decision to discontinue SACD has already been made. As implausible as this may sound -- and it could well be incorrect -- this source has been very accurate in the past." http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatur...p/roundup.html

I think we all have seen or heard these rumors before....from highly placed sources within both Philips and Sony. I guess I will believe it when Sony/Philips issue an official announcement. On the other hand, recent developments with SACD point to the opposite direction....

- Universal just issued over 10 SACD this past Tuesday, including the new album from Elton John. Joint marketing push for SACD by Universal/Sony.

- Opening of Super Audio Center for growing demands in SACD production. DSD workstation now up to 24 tracks.

- Universal announcement of 100-150 SACD titles for 2005 (most likely a worldwide number). Universal has released, by my estimation, over 350 titles worldwide.

- More mass consumer manufacturers jumping on the SACD bandwagon with more inexpensive players, like those ftom Toshiba, Samsung, Yamaha, and Onkyo.

- 773 SACD titles released since February 2004, according to this table at sa-cd.net.

 

[Wodgy]

Now that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD have defined standards for high-resolution audio only discs, discontinuing SACD and DVD-A is close to inevitable.

Can anyone seriously see Sony and Philips trying to simultaneously promote both SACD and Blu-ray high-rez audio? It wouldn't make sense. SACD is history. Likewise for the HD-DVD camp. Once HD-DVD rolls around, DVD-A is history.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy discontinuing SACD and DVD-A is close to inevitable.

A format war with no winner then.

 

[bifcake]

I can see the redbook as the dominating standard for audio for the next 7-10 years. There's too much market confusion and if phasing out SACD and DVD-A proves true, it will only serve to further alienate the consumers, thus solidifying CD as the standard.

 

[Glassman]

I see no reason for discontinuing SACD, this format doesn't aim at multimedia content and there's enough space for high quality audio on the disc, on top of that there are hybrid discs backward compatible.. what would you store on Blu-Ray? a few hours of multichannel and stereo DSD? what for? higher rate DSD, maybe, I can see maybe 256Fs/1bit or the studio format 64Fs/4bit, but will that provide more fidelity? I don't think so, really not.. the copy protection scheme has not been breaken so far.. really not much reasons to go further..