SACD - game over?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cshqqt02os1@news3.newsguy.com...
>I asked sony why the did not release their movie's soundtrack in SACD
> (but released in CD only). Sony did not answer the question but said
> they would "will escalate this case to our marketing department"
> whatever it means.
>
> I also asked the lack of Sony SACD players and to which I was told that
> that their DAV series are all SACD enabled but strangely their web
> sites specs didn't mentioned that.
>
> However, Sony avoided answering the most important question, i.e. give
> us the assurance that SACD is going to survive at today's CD's price
> and why Blu-Ray is not supporting SACD at the moment.
>
I recently purchased a Sony 5 disc DVD changer, DVP-NC875V (at times I like
loading up 5 DVDs at a time). Sony threw in SACD capability, who needs or
wants it, not ?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In my feeling after initially purchasing a lot of the Sony SACD's I found
that it seems that SONY took the multi-generational masters and made SACD's
from them. They did not go back to the original masters and start carefully
with SACD from scratch. Sony also did a lot of cheesy surround effects that
were poor. I quit buying any SONY SACD's. Now there are other companies,
Mobile Fidelity, Chesky, and others that are doing SACD correct and it
sounds good.

Also, if you are using you $200 Sony DVD/SACD players the quality of the
electronics in the box kill all the sonic advantages of SACD. Cheap low
cost parts and noisy power supplies. With a quality player a difference can
be heard.

So; If you have an audiophile system the difference is there if the
recording was done correctly. If you are using the average consumer
equipment then SACD differences may not be heard. You will still hear how a
good company like Mobile Fidelity, etc start with better original master
tapes and take more care in mastering as even their stereo CD's are better
than anything Sony puts out.

Kurtis

"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:csmvfq0271g@news4.newsguy.com...
> <tchelvam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cshqqt02os1@news3.newsguy.com...
>>I asked sony why the did not release their movie's soundtrack in SACD
>> (but released in CD only). Sony did not answer the question but said
>> they would "will escalate this case to our marketing department"
>> whatever it means.
>>
>> I also asked the lack of Sony SACD players and to which I was told that
>> that their DAV series are all SACD enabled but strangely their web
>> sites specs didn't mentioned that.
>>
>> However, Sony avoided answering the most important question, i.e. give
>> us the assurance that SACD is going to survive at today's CD's price
>> and why Blu-Ray is not supporting SACD at the moment.
>>
>> You people draw your own conclusion. The reply I got is not convincing
>> enough for me.
>
> Most likely SACD is not going to become the hot new product since there
> appears to be no sonic improvements because of the format. There have
> been
> remastered discs that some find an improvement, but AFAIK the format
> itself
> is indistinguishable from plain ol' CD.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kurtis Bahr <kbahr@comcast.net> wrote:
> In my feeling after initially purchasing a lot of the Sony SACD's I found
> that it seems that SONY took the multi-generational masters and made SACD's
> from them. They did not go back to the original masters and start carefully
> with SACD from scratch.

And you know this for a fact in which instances?

> Sony also did a lot of cheesy surround effects that
> were poor. I quit buying any SONY SACD's. Now there are other companies,
> Mobile Fidelity, Chesky, and others that are doing SACD correct and it
> sounds good.

> Also, if you are using you $200 Sony DVD/SACD players the quality of the
> electronics in the box kill all the sonic advantages of SACD.

Any demonstrated examples of this?

> Cheap low
> cost parts and noisy power supplies. With a quality player a difference can
> be heard.

Which players would demonstrate this in a blind, level matched, time-synched
comparison?

> So; If you have an audiophile system the difference is there if the
> recording was done correctly. If you are using the average consumer
> equipment then SACD differences may not be heard. You will still hear how a
> good company like Mobile Fidelity, etc start with better original master
> tapes and take more care in mastering as even their stereo CD's are better
> than anything Sony puts out.

As it happens Mofi did not always use the original masters, and they were
not averse to applying a dollop of eq to their releases , such that some of them
probably sound different from the sources.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
> tchelvam@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I asked sony why the did not release their movie's soundtrack in SACD
> > (but released in CD only). Sony did not answer the question but said
> > they would "will escalate this case to our marketing department"
> > whatever it means.

> One of the opinions columns in Hi-Fi World, February 2005 issue is
> about SACD. The writer says that he has been told that Sony (the
> record label) would like to forget about SACD, but they can't
> because Sony (the hardware manufacturer) is still pushing it. But
> it seems that Sony stopped subsiding other labels to make SACD
> releases.

One data point in support: mastering guru Steve Hoffman worked on some
SACDs for Audio Fidelity in the last year or two, and that was
subsitided by Sony. Then apparently Sony
withdrew their funding, and now Hoffman is touting....HDCD instead
of SACD.


> One thing that shows the little activity in SACD is that the top of
> SACD sales (at least at amazon) changes quite slowly. For instance,
> for most of the past 6 months (at least) Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the
> Moon - 30th Anniversary Edition [SACD] has been number 1 (sometimes 2):

> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obido [...] -/1071476/

> Of course DVD-Audio is not doing (much ?, any ?) better. It seems
> that the new dualdiscs (DVD-Audio+CD) have been more or less a
> failure (patent problems in Europe, compatibility problems and the
> CD side(?) is not standard redbook).

I expect both SACD and DVD-A to go tits-up in the next year or two,
with maybe some boutique labels carrying on, a la vinyl.

> * me and a friend bought, respectively, a Pioneer DVD-575A-K and
> a Yamaha DVD-S 550 at the same time. Price difference: 20 euros.

> And with an artist like Bjork launching her latest record in CD,
> DVD-Audio and SACD at similar prices, it seemed that the formats
> could finally take off.

But interestingly, AFAICT 'Medulla' hasn;t been released in the USA in
hirez/surround formats. I had to get my DVD-A version from Europe.

(and my god, if any track ever made surround worth having, it's
"Where Is the Line?" )



--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

tchelvam@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Also, if you are using you $200 Sony DVD/SACD players the quality of
> the
> > electronics in the box kill all the sonic advantages of SACD.


> Any demonstrated examples of this?
> ____________________________-

> Maybe he is right. The cheaper players converts DSD to PCM.

Yes, and is there any demonstration that such a conversion is
necessarily audible?

> I thought
> it was discussed in this forum before. Whether the cheaper player
> sounds cheap or different is one's opinion.

Indeed, if one does not go to the trouble of verifying the difference
properly, it is as likely to be utterly imaginary, as not.



--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

tchelvam@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Also, if you are using you $200 Sony DVD/SACD players the quality of
> the
>> electronics in the box kill all the sonic advantages of SACD.
>
>
> Any demonstrated examples of this?
> ____________________________-
>
> Maybe he is right. The cheaper players converts DSD to PCM. I thought
> it was discussed in this forum before. Whether the cheaper player
> sounds cheap or different is one's opinion.

I thought the Sony players still use DSD al the way for SACD playback,
regardless of price. Only the other brands may convert DSD to PCM.
Here's a Sony player at $150 list:

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/IN [...] DVDPlayers

Its SACD frequency specs look the same as the ES players, like this one:

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/IN [...] wcase_sacd

Of course, I do not believe that you have to get an expensive player to
hear the difference between SACD and CD, since it appears that the
mastering is what gives those differences.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Codifus wrote:
....... >
> Given that multi-channel audio-video on DVD is here to stay, DVD-A
may
> still have a chance and make a comeback since it's based on the same
> technology. Whatever the case may be, it's probably going to take
some
> time. Regular audio CD is still more than satisfactory for something
> like 95% of the population. Myslef included. CD just won't die, not
that
> it needs to. Formats like JVC's XRCD shows just how good a regular
audio
> CD can sound.
>
> CD

As I was reading 2003 philips press release, I recall reading somewhere
on the web SACD is probably going to be part of home theater. And then
the development of single chip to incorporate DVD and SACD. Sony's
trend is incorporate SACD in all of their HT system but not in their
hifi sys. And their ultimate SACD player Qualia is only 2 channel. I
did post more than a year ago about Qualia and wondered why their
ultimate player was only in stereo.

Maybe Sony and SACD is upto something. Anyone with inside info?
Apparently Sony is still supporting SACD ( though now they call it
Super Audio CD).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

You are just pulling my leg, right? i am sure you are aware of it.

Anyway...simply SACD, the short form for Super Audio compact Disc (just
the acronym). Now they want to emphasize the word CD. In another word
they are probably pushing SACD in stealth. By calling it CD, I mean
Super Audio CD. For layman, that means better sounding CD they don't
know anything about format.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

tchelvam@hotmail.com wrote:
> You are just pulling my leg, right? i am sure you are aware of it.
>
> Anyway...simply SACD, the short form for Super Audio compact Disc (just
> the acronym). Now they want to emphasize the word CD. In another word
> they are probably pushing SACD in stealth. By calling it CD, I mean
> Super Audio CD. For layman, that means better sounding CD they don't
> know anything about format.
Emphasize just the word CD for SACD? Holy cow would that be
magnificently confusing.

CD