[Earwax]

If I ever find that a title I want is available as a hybrid SACD I'd buy it. Then, if I ever end up with enough hybrid SACDs, I'd buy a SACD or universal player. But I'm not going to choose an unknown title just because it's SACD over a title I know I want that's only on CD.

At this point hybrid SACDs seem to be a more viable option than DVDAs because of the backwards compatability. (correct me if I'm wrong about DVD-A)

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax At this point hybrid SACDs seem to be a more viable option than DVDAs because of the backwards compatability. (correct me if I'm wrong about DVD-A)

But now the DVD-A camp is going to strike back with (double-sided) hybrid disks. Actually a nonsense when it comes to the handling and probably more expensive to manufacture than two disks in one case -- which I would have preferred.

 

[bifcake]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl Well, that's in the ear of the beholder. But I don't understand this argument coming from people who frequent this board, who care about sound quality and invest heavily to hear minor differences in sound. The difference is audible on any component, no matter how modest. I just picked up a $150 universal player for my brother (Toshiba SD-4960), that I tested out in my system just for fun, and the difference between CD playback and hi-rez is clear even on this modest player. Is that compelling? It's certainly as or even more "compelling" than a fancy cable upgrade, or switching up to the next model in a headphone amp line-up. In terms of SACD, if you get a hybrid disc, you get the SACD layer for free, it sneaks its way into your CD collection and before you know it, you have a whole library built up of hi-rez titles. We have *one* known example of this happening. And that is a disc that offers a hi-rez multi-channel program, so there *is* value added in that particular SACD title as well. (But no, I'm *not* excusing the use of PCM masters on the Jones disc for two-channel.)

Hi Mark,

It's not that simple. SACD players tend to do Redbook poorly (relatively). So, for the money, I think one is better off with a dedicated redbook player. Furthermore, record companies purposefully muck up the CD layer to make the SACD layer sound better. Therefore, the CD layer loses much of its value.

Quote:

I don't know where you are shopping, but the price gap is virtually non-existent (it is non-existent on hybrid discs), if you look around. And yes, there are legitimate reasons for a price difference-- namely greatly increased costs of production. You have to pay an engineer and use facilties to create the hi-rez mastering, and pay for all the time and effort of an extra mixing engineer if you are creating a multi-channel mix, and you have to use the extremely limited facilities for the actual manufacturing of hi-rez discs, there are only a handful of them currently available. If it's a DVD-A, you have all the video screens to create, and the extra licensing costs on all the photos you use, plus the extra royalties the artists are demanding for the ability to sell a different version of their music. Also, since the market is smaller, there are fewer individual sales to spread these extra costs over. How many years did it take to get recordable DVDs after DVD-Video was introduced? There was a lag there, and I don't see any reason why these discs won't ultimately be copy-able. Also, if you buy hybrid SACDs or the new Dual Disc DVD-As, you have a CD layer on there that you can download to your PC and burn as many copies of it that you want!

I disagree that there are legitimate reasons for price increases. The extra "features" are one time deals that when scaled, wind up costing nothing. Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find a high res title for $12 or $13, much less at $6-$8 at BMG. So, it's erroneous to say that there is no price gap between high res and CDs. There may be a small price gap, but only at the high end of the price scale.


Quote:

There is no such thing as a surround-only hi-rez title. They ALL have 2-channel hi-rez versions on there, you get the multi-channel as an "extra".

That's fine. I just mentioned having no interest in surround music, so to me, it has no value as a feature.

Quote:

Huh???? You would expect to be *compensated* if the formats fail????? The VHS tape is going the way of the dodo, should you be able to turn in all your VHS tapes and be compensated for investing in a format that is all but kaput? What about your old cassette tapes? Should you be able to turn in your old cassette walkman for a new mp3 player? That's just not reasonable. If no one is willing to take the plunge and put their money where there mouths are, no new format of any kind is going to take off, is it? IMO, if you have no skin in the hi-rez game, you have no right to complain about lack of titles, lack of support and the shaky appearance of the future! There will continue to be a slow release schedule, continue to be few players released, continue to be little support if everyone adopts this wait-and-see attitude. I've said this over and over again, it's Field of Dreams in reverse: "if we come, they will build it." If you don't want to be stuck with CD-level sound forever, you need to get off the sidelines and vote in favor of the new formats with your pocketbook.

I am not complaining at all. I am just stating my preference for staying on the sidelines. I understand your argument and it has certain legitimacy to it, I just refuse to finance someone else's gamble with my own money. Granted, as you said, if no one takes that gamble, no new format can take off. However, I don't feel I am getting enough of a value to compel me to embrace it. I embraced Redbook when it first came out. I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I still do. I embraced the DVD-V as soon as it came out. Those instances had clear value to me. Not the high res format.

Quote:

Another argument I just don't understand. EVERY SINGLE HI-REZ PLAYER WILL PLAY YOUR OLD CDs!!!! No little Sony SACD fairies are going to sneak into your house at night and steal all your CDs from you to "force" you to replace them with hi-rez versions. You don't have to hand over your Cd collection to Best Buy before they allow you out the door with your newly purchased hi-rez player!

You're right. However, I don't see a compelling reason to sell my fine redbook player for an high resolution player just so that I can play my CDs, which I'm already happy playing. In fact, I would probably get worse CD playback than I'm getting now.

Quote:

As for lack of titles, this one also mystifies me to an extent. Many of the greatest rock 'n roll titles ever released are currently available in hi-rez. Maybe its time to expand your horizons and check out some of the really great (*gasp*) "older" music? There's a reason they are considered "classics", because they truly are GREAT! There's so much good stuff there to explore, it seems to me.

There is other, more esoteric and even mainstream titles that aren't released. There is no arguing that the high res catalog is considerably smaller than Redbook. So, obviously, there is quite a bit of stuff that hasn't been released that people want.

Quote:

Sorry if this came across harsh, bifcake, no offense meant, I'm just responding to your listed objections in the spirit of the debate, that's all. Cheers.

None taken. Opinions are like you know what and everyone's got one. For better or worse, neither yours nor mine will make any difference in the grand scheme of things. It's a luxury to be able to sit here, and argue about such nonsensical things anyway. Life must be good if we can indulge ourselves this way.

 

[aerius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn While I don't subscribe to high-rez formats myself, I would like to point out that DVD as a whole has become a standard format. Not DVD-A, but DVD itself, in general, has won over the VHS cartridge and is now the king of the video hill.

Furthermore, DVD video was first introduced in 97 or 98, and within 2-3 years the selection of DVD titles at video stores was better than that of VHS tapes. The film industry introduced practically every single new release on DVD and redid most of their older films onto the new format. After 5-6 years only the pretty obscure titles or limited editions/director's cuts can't be found on DVD. Every single major film, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Gone With the Wind, Rebel Without a Cause, etc can be found on DVD.

I can't say the same thing about hi-res audio formats. Sure I can get DSOTM and a couple others, but what about Led Zeppelin I-IV, Black Sabbath's albums, Metallica's first 4 albums, and all U2 albums between War and Zooropa for instance?

In the long run, hi-res audio is doomed unless the music companies suck it up and remaster & release the majority of their catalogues in the new format. One new release a month ain't gonna do it, they'll need more like 100 new DVD-A or SACD titles every single month starting with titles that people will buy in huge numbers, like the ones I listed in the previous paragraph.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake It's not that simple. SACD players tend to do Redbook poorly (relatively). So, for the money, I think one is better off with a dedicated redbook player. Furthermore, record companies purposefully muck up the CD layer to make the SACD layer sound better. Therefore, the CD layer loses much of its value.

A player such as the $150.00 Sony 595 SACD/CD changer is quite good at playing regular CDs. Its very good SACD performance makes it a bargain. I've heard similar things for Panasonic's F87 changer, which also does HDCD, for $120.00.

Quote:

Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find a high res title for $12 or $13, much less at $6-$8 at BMG. So, it's erroneous to say that there is no price gap between high res and CDs. There may be a small price gap, but only at the high end of the price scale.

The Universal SACDs Best Buy carries routinely cost $14.99/each, which is not so bad considering they contain a regular CD layer, a hi-rez stereo layer, and a M/C hi-rez layer. RCA's Living Presence SACDs retail at about $11.00, and when on sale at places like Tower Records, they come down to $7.99/each. I have, on numerous occasions, picked up SACDs that were cheaper than their CD counterparts.
Quote:

You're right. However, I don't see a compelling reason to sell my fine redbook player for an high resolution player just so that I can play my CDs, which I'm already happy playing. In fact, I would probably get worse CD playback than I'm getting now.

I think good sounding hi-rez players have come down enough in price that they are now very affordable. There are people here who have headphone cables that easily cost more than my SACD player.

Quote:

There is other, more esoteric and even mainstream titles that aren't released. There is no arguing that the high res catalog is considerably smaller than Redbook. So, obviously, there is quite a bit of stuff that hasn't been released that people want.

You're so right about this. This is an issue that everyone can agree on.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aerius Furthermore, DVD video was first introduced in 97 or 98, and within 2-3 years the selection of DVD titles at video stores was better than that of VHS tapes. The film industry introduced practically every single new release on DVD and redid most of their older films onto the new format. After 5-6 years only the pretty obscure titles or limited editions/director's cuts can't be found on DVD. Every single major film, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Gone With the Wind, Rebel Without a Cause, etc can be found on DVD. I can't say the same thing about hi-res audio formats. Sure I can get DSOTM and a couple others, but what about Led Zeppelin I-IV, Black Sabbath's albums, Metallica's first 4 albums, and all U2 albums between War and Zooropa for instance? In the long run, hi-res audio is doomed unless the music companies suck it up and remaster & release the majority of their catalogues in the new format. One new release a month ain't gonna do it, they'll need more like 100 new DVD-A or SACD titles every single month starting with titles that people will buy in huge numbers, like the ones I listed in the previous paragraph.

I think there's a different dynamic working in the video business. The launch of DVD was much like the launch of CD....obvious advantages in convenience, quality, and portability. The quality factor was actually there all along with laserdisc, but their bulk and high prices, were their limiting factors.

Hi-rez is never going to be mainstream, IMHO. It will remain niche formats, much like XRCD, or arguably, HDCD.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake Furthermore, you'd be hard pressed to find a high res title for $12 or $13, much less at $6-$8 at BMG. So, it's erroneous to say that there is no price gap between high res and CDs. There may be a small price gap, but only at the high end of the price scale.

The few SACDs I noticed at BMG were all on sale at the same price as regular CDs. The list price for the SACDs there seems to be $1 higher than the list price for CDs.

Of course, none of the CDs I bought last night came in SACD, so the price really didn't matter.

 

[Canman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake Hi Mark, It's not that simple. SACD players tend to do Redbook poorly (relatively). So, for the money, I think one is better off with a dedicated redbook player. Furthermore, record companies purposefully muck up the CD layer to make the SACD layer sound better. Therefore, the CD layer loses much of its value.

This is how I feel. If I am going to spend my money on an expensive disc player, it better play redbook well or its not even worth the effort for the hi-rez. I have tried a few SACD players that are highly regarded such as the Sony SCD-1, and modified 555-ES. The quality of redbook playback on these is good but not up to my standards.

Additionally I will not invest in hardware and software that I think will fail within the next couple of years. I agree that Sony will ultimately kill their SACD format with the upcoming Blu-ray technology.

 

[Glassman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Hopefully. But the best you can expect is 24 bit/192 kHz. So in terms of sampling frequency you give up DSDs virtual advantage (2.8 MHz). Not to speak of its postulated superior low-level behavior.

this is not correct, PCM doesn't mean it have to be limited to 192kHz, pro tools work either with 4bit/2.8MHz or 24(32)bit/352.8kHz.. and I don't think DSD can be any better in low-level behaviour than 24bit PCM with it's theoretical 144dB dynamic range..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ As I posted, you don't have to expect a fundamentally corrupted resulution by converting DSD to PCM and/or vice versa. But what's the sense of DSD in this context when you could have had hi-rez PCM from the beginning, without (multiple) conversion?

the sense is in the possibility to retain 2.8MHz sampling rate from A/D through editing and mastering up to the D/A, but that of course depends on the whole process.. and the fact is that even with such high samplerate the signal has to be band limited to about 100kHz before going to delta sigma modulator, but still DSD shows noticably better impulse response than even 192kHz PCM.. probably because the 100kHz filter doesn't need to have >140dB stopband at that frequency, just gentely rolling off.. and there's another strong reason for using DSD over PCM - one cannot use it on computer and hence no illegal copying possible.. think of it as an additional copy protection layer

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

The few SACDs I noticed at BMG were all on sale at the same price as regular CDs. The list price for the SACDs there seems to be $1 higher than the list price for CDs.

Quote:

This is how I feel. If I am going to spend my money on an expensive disc player, it better play redbook well or its not even worth the effort for the hi-rez. I have tried a few SACD players that are highly regarded such as the Sony SCD-1, and modified 555-ES. The quality of redbook playback on these is good but not up to my standards.

Quote:

Additionally I will not invest in hardware and software that I think will fail within the next couple of years. I agree that Sony will ultimately kill their SACD format with the upcoming Blu-ray technology.

All good and valid points.I think it is not the price but part the backwards compatibility issue where if you want to get the utmost in CD playback you need to purchase a second copy of the same music,one for each machine (see my post above on my mini rant about paying twice for the same music).Cost is not much of an issue for a "one of" purchase as long as the product is what is expected but the compatibilty issues is what has killed many good ideas in the past.
That and the 'waiting for the smoke to clear' so there is a standard hi res format.This again has seen the demise of many good ideas.While the manufacturer/format wars raged the consumer waited for a winner to emerge butwhile this was going on , research went forward and a new technolgy would emerge making the former decision moot bu taking the lead oer both.
The CD is not maybe the best format but it got its foothold by having no opposition once phillips and sony hooked up.That is way too much for any single company to overcome so everyone got in line and followed.
But this "perfect" medium was far from perfect and it took years for the technology mature to the point where it could actually contend sonically with the medium it replaced-the "lowly" vinyl disc.

Only when there is a standard will you see the technology improved from many directions by all companies instead of only by a select few with the resources to dip into a technology that may never fly.
It will be the smaller specialty companies that will bring the best the medium has to offer out and not ever the big guys who only look at the bottom line and mass production.

Again it will not happen until there is a single format standing and that is not something i think is meant to be.
Hi-res is a geeky technology anyway and the average consumer is more than satisfied with the CD as it is now for music and the DVD for movie playback so why would they be pushing for a thing they do not need or want ?

Nope.The CD is the winner with compressed lossy audio for the times when absolute resolution is not required.And for the true audio geek there is always the REAL hi-res format : The Vinyl Playback System

 

[markl]

Quote:

Only when there is a standard will you see the technology improved from many directions by all companies instead of only by a select few with the resources to dip into a technology that may never fly.

OTOH, the lack of a single audio standard didn't stop the DVD. You have Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Digital EX, DTS-ES, etc. etc. These standards keep changing and evolving, and equipment keeps moving to keep up, and content makers are free to choose the encoding that makes most sense to them for their individual product.

IMO, what matters most is having a single player that can play all them back, not the kind of encoding used on the disc you buy. If you have a universal player, why would it matter to youif there are multiple digital encoding schemes out there so long as they are all superior to Redbook?

 

[Canman]

Well said Rick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl IMO, what matters most is having a single player that can play all them back, not the kind of encoding used on the disc you buy. If you have a universal player, why would it matter to youif there are multiple digital encoding schemes out there so long as they are all superior to Redbook?

Mark, Hi-Rez may well be superior to redbook but until there is a universal player out there that I feel can contend with my redbook cd playing redbook cds then I won't be in the market for one.

 

[markl]

There are lots of hi-end universal players out now, more all the time (I see you have a Meridian G08). Not sure which ones you've auditioned, but they do exist. Not going to be argumentative, I'm sure you're very happy with the Meridian, but you do also get great DVD-Video playback with a hi-end universal that may help compensate if you feel it comes up short in the CD department. Probably cheaper than buying an expensive DVD player *and* a separate expensive CD player, but maybe that's not an issue for you, or you aren't a movie buff?

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

You have Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Digital EX, DTS-ES

all based on the original Hafler Dynaquad ambience extraction technique combined with the Audio Delay of the seventies which until it went digital was a matrix that affected the stereo signal not one bit so full compatability was there.You did not need to add a new entire system but just the single device as a system "add on" to obtain the benefits.

I have not yet seen a stand alone hi res format DAC which means i can not only not choose my preferred dac but also the output topology is in the hands of the player manufacturer.No choices is not what most audio hobbyists will accept.We like our toys !

and touting the meridian is not the way to universal acceptance.I don't know anyone that is not a geek on this who will put that amount of cash out to replace their CD/DVD/MP3 player which to them is perfectly fine.

so that leaves ?

Not the audiophile who NEEDS the outbaord DAC and the single ended tube output and NOT the average consumer who is happy the way things are so ??????????//

 

[Alex Altorfer]

The São Paulo metropolitan area has north of 12 million inhabitants. 18 million if you add four organically connected neighboring cities. In the midst of this massive population there are only 2 (that's two!) dealerships carrying a handful of hi-rez audio titles. One such dealership, the largest bookstore in Latin America, sells no more than forty SACD titles and maybe five or so DVD-A titles. The other store is a smaller place which specializes in hi-rez formats. They sell maybe two hundred or so titles for each format. Oh yes, they DO cost twice as much as a comparable redbook release. Of course there are millions of redbook cd titles avaliable everywhere. So, really, I'm just not gonna shell out my hard earned money on a hi-rez player just yet. I'm not against hi-rez formats, but my redbook player sounds so sweet I'm not even thinking about it.

Cheers!