[Oliver :)]

Aye well, you guys are having fun, eh?

Here's my 2 cents. I do not regret buying a universal player. I think I could have been smarter by putting the same money in a SACD-only unit, since it turned out DVD-A is not taking off. Anyway, it also makes a more than decent video source.

Generally I love high-rez, to my ears it ususally is a worthy improvement.

But DVD-A sucks. I am not the type who wants to replace his library with all high-rez, I want new listening experiences. So I have quite a bit of stuff by say Queen, but mostly their samplers & live acts. Their regular albums are available on DVD-A only, but not on SACD-Hybrid, so if I actually wanted to listen to them on the go (chances are high, it's *Queen*) I would have to equip my Mac with some nice & expensive recording equipment, hook it up to the Denon & record in real-time, encode to ALAC, manually set ID3s & sync my iPod. How convenient. Okay, with MD I would do that for each & every album, +manually put in titles, but that was, well, in the 20th century.

The only serious problem I have with SACD is the lack of titles, and sometimes the price. Limited titles made me explore new fields in music, which is a good thing. It turned out I love Creedence Clearwater Revival, but their (excellent) SACDs are €29,99 each. €!

I found you can't go much wrong by picking whatever Chesky or Telarc have on offer, but at some point I get bored with just another hour of high-res Jazz. There somehow is this gap in the SACD catalogue that includes rock from the 80s & 90s (which is all there on sucky DVD-A). And Hip-Hop? I think there is... one DVD-A by Missy E., but that's about it. Regarding recent music SACD currently is graced only by ultra-mainstream (Celine Dion, anyone?) and ultra-exotic content (I am leaving out classical, since I don't listen to much classical music at the moment), but not much in-between, and that is *not enough*.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Thanks for the useful link! That's more than I thought. But not all of these are pure DSD recordings, some DSD recordings have been mixed analog, and I guess at least half of them are processed in PCM anywhere in the production chain. However, maybe I was a bit too critical. But 10 or 20% isn't intoxicating anyway. Add to this the 50% of the players converting DSD to PCM for playback... The sense of SACD as a format is questionale under these circumstances.

JaZZ,

There's no gurantee that a direct-to-DSD recording will sound good. Any recording will sound good if the source and mastering are done good.

 

[Jose Garcia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy JaZZ, There's no gurantee that a direct-to-DSD recording will sound good. Any recording will sound good if the source and mastering are done good.

...and them you have the artist performance

Some times you get incredible recordings of a mediocre performance or an incredible performance into a bad recording...go figure!!!

Jose.

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose Garcia ...and them you have the artist performance Some times you get incredible recordings of a mediocre performance or an incredible performance into a bad recording...go figure!!! Jose.

Oops....forgot about that.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by soundboy JaZZ, There's no gurantee that a direct-to-DSD recording will sound good. Any recording will sound good if the source and mastering are done good.

I agree. But that's not my point. I ask (myself) what the format is for with so few pure DSD recordings (without PCM involvement). We could just as well stick with hi-rez PCM.

 

[Len]

I have not found a compelling reason to buy SACD or DVD-A. While I agree there are audible improvements over redbook, it doesn't compensate for their shortcomings, which are (a lot of which have already been stated):
1) Lack of titles. I've searched extensively, and less then 2% of my current CD library is available in either formats.
2) No uni player I've heard does redbook as well as a good redbook CDP half its price. This includes high end machines. FWIW, I own two uni players (but have very little media to play on them).
3) There are better technology on the horizon that hold more promise. SACD and DVD-A look to me like intermediary evolutions whereas CD and DVD were revolutionary in relation to cassette and VHS respectively.
4) I like the sound of redbook (and vinyl). I have no problem waiting to see what's next on the horizon.
5) Whether it's fair or not, I believe both the current hi-rez formats will gradually die out. I am not interested in investing in a format virtually no one will support a decade from now, if not sooner.

 

[Jose Garcia]

Len : "I have not found a compelling reason to buy SACD or DVD-A. While I agree there are audible improvements over redbook, it doesn't compensate for their shortcomings, which are (a lot of which have already been stated):"

I waited until 2 moth ago to buy my first SACD/CD machine. The main reason was that I sold my previous system ( ModWright NAD C-540/Channel Island MSB Link/Monarchy Dip 24-96/Monolithic Sound HC-2 power supply) and needed a new units. I also preferred my Sony SCD-2000ES because it only had SACD/CD ( no video). It was cheap too $295.00.

Len: "1) Lack of titles. I've searched extensively, and less then 2% of my current CD library is available in either formats."

True, unless you are a Clasical Music Fan, which I'm not. I have found a few Jazz disc which I like though.

Len: "2) No uni player I've heard does redbook as well as a good redbook CDP half its price. This includes high end machines. FWIW, I own two uni players (but have very little media to play on them)."

Well, my Sony sounds better in some respects to my previous system , even more compared to the NAD ( and I know this is going to start some flames...

).

Len: "3) There are better technology on the horizon that hold more promise. SACD and DVD-A look to me like intermediary evolutions whereas CD and DVD were revolutionary in relation to cassette and VHS respectively"

I agree with the evolution/revolution thing but we can't be sure if there is anything better in the future. After all, CD playback has improved more this last 3-5 years with the introduction of the hi-rez formats than the previous 15-20 years. Unless the new formats ( blue laser, dual-disc, etc) could be adopted without problems or economics concerns by the recording industry, we may be stocked as now with SACD/DVD-A wheres they agree to disagree.

Len : "4) I like the sound of redbook (and vinyl). I have no problem waiting to see what's next on the horizon."

He, he !!! I believe we all are in the same wagon...

Len : "5) Whether it's fair or not, I believe both the current hi-rez formats will gradually die out. I am not interested in investing in a format virtually no one will support a decade from now, if not sooner"

Beta Players , DAT , Laser Disc .....

We are to the mercy of the recording and manufacturing industry

Who can tell if in the near future the true audio industry would be the Internet Music Catalogs? You don't need pressing plants , distributions personel, etc...Just record the performance and sell the downloading...I don't want to think in this possibility

Jose.

 

[hydef]

I have over 1,000 Region 1, 2, & 4 DVD discs with about 85 Concerts from Jerry Lee Lewis to the latest soundtrack. I view my concerts on a 39 inch HDTV Wide Screen 'Built in' and listen to them all thru Fostex T40 PQ
Stereo headphones thru a Head Related Transfer device to create a Virtual Dolby Surround.I am very interested in hires a term used to create DVD cover art, DVD discs, I use 1920 X 1200 pixels=2 million 304 thousand screen to view the highest of resolution on the planet. The best Head Related Transfer unit with audiophile/videophile precision!

BTW I have 3 Sony CX style 300+1 changers to keep my discs clean and a metal edge laser lens cleaner to keep my view at maximum, I have the correct timbre, correct ballance thru tweaking a white and pink noise generators to keep 'maximum' a word in sound and in view.

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

I honestly would like to see high-rez formats gain more popularity because that would let the recording studios know that the consumer actually cares about sound quality. As of yet most bands barely take advantage of the 44.1kHz signal of a standard CD because of low quality sound recording and poor dynamic range.

 

[kunwar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by highflyin9 I honestly would like to see high-rez formats gain more popularity because that would let the recording studios know that the consumer actually cares about sound quality. As of yet most bands barely take advantage of the 44.1kHz signal of a standard CD because of low quality sound recording and poor dynamic range.

That is so true
One only has to check out so many of the crappy recordings made by the newer artists

 

[Oliver :)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose Garcia Len : "5) Whether it's fair or not, I believe both the current hi-rez formats will gradually die out. I am not interested in investing in a format virtually no one will support a decade from now, if not sooner" Beta Players , DAT , Laser Disc .....

Guys, come on, get real. Beta was superior to VHS, it was a content thing, so point taken. DAT is not really consumer technology. DAC would be a better example. LaserDisc was around for twenty (20!) years, and it took a while for DVD-technology to surpass it, it couldn't touch LD for a good while. LaserDisc was alsways a high-end niche thing, but it had lots of content. I have no problem with with SACD going that way (20 years!) if the content situation improves.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by highflyin9 I honestly would like to see high-rez formats gain more popularity because that would let the recording studios know that the consumer actually cares about sound quality.

The sad fact is the mass consumer does not critically care about sound quality, especially if it costs more money (e.g. buying a new player, new media, etc.) and if it's not any more convenient (e.g. small package, immediate delivery such as downloadable formats, etc.)

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len The sad fact is the mass consumer does not critically care about sound quality, especially if it costs more money (e.g. buying a new player, new media, etc.) and if it's not any more convenient (e.g. small package, immediate delivery such as downloadable formats, etc.)

Even convenience can't save some formats from their untimely demises. Perfect example would be Sony MiniDisc. Good format, IMO. Small, easy to carry, protected by a shock-proof cartridge. As a portable recording format, it was easily superior to cassette tapes (note I said portable recording format, a good casette recording from an LP using Dolby S can blow the pants off of MD) and much less of a pain in the arse than DAT.

But Sony dropped the ball. =P Bad advertisement and later competition from the birth of flash-based MP3 players spelled the eventual doom of MiniDisc, relegating it to a niche format that only a bunch of nerds or amateur musicians even know what it is. (I'm a mod at the MiniDisc Community Forums. =P)

It's too bad. I often wonder what a company not tied to record labels like Sony could've done with MD.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliver Guys, come on, get real. Beta was superior to VHS, it was a content thing, so point taken. DAT is not really consumer technology. DAC would be a better example. LaserDisc was around for twenty (20!) years, and it took a while for DVD-technology to surpass it, it couldn't touch LD for a good while. LaserDisc was alsways a high-end niche thing, but it had lots of content. I have no problem with with SACD going that way (20 years!) if the content situation improves.

Beta isn't a good example, but LaserDisc and DAT are valid. LaserDisc has been around for a long time, but it never picked up steam the way DVD did, and it took forever to get rolling. LD has always been relegated to a niche market, unlike DVD which hit critical mass market appeal in record time. In 3 years time, DVD had more available titles then LD over the past 20 years. LD simply demonstrated no substantial advantage to the average consumer. The same is true for SACD and DVD-A.

DAT was aimed at consumers for approximately a five year period. Consumer interest simply never materialized. Now it's rarely talked about outside of specialized industries.

 

[Len]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeriyn Even convenience can't save some formats from their untimely demises.

Definitely. There are a lot of variables that will determine the viability of a new technology. Unfortunately, neither of the current high-res offerings offer a convincing argument for the mass market to adopt the new technology.