"So why do we really need these new formats?"

Partially so the mu$ic/record companie$ will have more/better copy control. Partially so many of us will buy SACD/DVD-A versions of what we have on CD that we bought to replace what we have on vinyl or tape that we bough to replace 78s that we bought to replace cylinders.

Partially because it DOES sound better.

I replaced a high-ish end CD player that I bought in the mid 80s with a high-ish end CD/SACD player. Regular CDs sound MUCH better, and well made SACDs, especially multichannel, sound even better.

I have a decent turntable system. My prior CD player, while much more convenient to use, left me feeling that the music was flat, two dimensional, somewhat uninvolving. The new player, playing CDs, is a big improvement. Playing SACDs on the new player, I feel no loss of musical enjoyment as compared to using my turntable, as I did when using the old CD player.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited July 30, 2003).]

Paul,

Which player did you buy?

A Sony SCD-XA777es player.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Completely true. Unless producers are really 'dumbing-down' tracks from DVD-A to CD then new recordings using a higher resolution end format, at worse, will be the same quality of CD, all else being equal. That said, there is obvious potential for the high rez format to 'sound better'.

I can tell the difference between Peter Gabriel's UP (SACD stereo) and Trey Anastasio (DVDA stereo) over their CD counterparts. There is the possibility of the mix being different, but I seriously doubt it in the Trey Anastasio case as it has been said the poor 5.1 mix was 'generated' by a computer from the stereo master. I suppose there could be two stereo masters. If companies are really doing this, it is quite sad.

Perhaps I notice the high-end a little more as I have Rocket speakers which really are dull on the high-end. Again, mix withstanding, Steely Dan's Everything Must Go has more, cleaner-sounding treble energy played on the 192Hz stereo tracks than on the DD version. (I don't have a CD copy to compare).


Prices have been 10 - 20% higher than equivalent CDs that I have purchased. I'm sure there are instances where this gap is higher, but I'm stating MY experiences. For this 20% mark-up, I have received (in some or many cases): better sonics, multiple mixes, lyrics, hybrid playback capability, and misc. extras (videos, interviews, etc.) To me, the 20% premium is well worth it. I understand that this premium may not be worthwhile to others.


So maybe, I'm just 'hearing' things. Maybe everyone else here is (or isn't) too! I get frustrated when people complain about a new format and I will defend it when I see a benefit of this format to myself. I did the same thing when CD came out 17 years ago and DVD followed some 10 years later. There were numerous people who told me I was a fool for being an early adopter of this format. To date, I have proven them otherwise.

Please don't help crush the DVD-A/SACD format. If you don't want to buy it, don't! Everyone needs to hear each format and decide for themselves.

I certainly don't wish to crush new formats. I only take exception to the hype factor that attributes all the improvement in sound quality to the fact that the new recording is 24 bits and a higher sample rate. Certainly in the recordings I have mastered, they have a lot more work done on them beyond just running them through a higher resolution converter. Frankly, reducing these new masters down to a 16 bit copy on CD (carefully!) has yielded results that's pretty much indestinguishable from the higher bit master. The difference in sound quality between a 16 bit file and a 24 bit one with the only difference being their bit depths is almost impossible to hear with program material.

Let the flames begin.......

As I read this thread again, I couldn't help but wonder if any of the above opinions have changed in 1/2 a year, and, if so, how.

From the beginning of the release of Hi-Rez, MC discs, I've marveled at the lobbing of grenades from one side of the format nuetral zone to the other. From the wordlength/sampling rate discussions to the nonsense that EQ is all that's required to 'make people think there is improvement'.

It's simple...6 full range channels have multitudes more headroom than 2. Less information in each channel leads to cleaner reproduction from the source to the speaker.

SACD's advantage is an obvious one. A 1-bit system is easily converted to any format, existing or future. DVD-A's 24/96,192 system is a math nightmare to convert. That's why SACD has hybrid discs that play on any CD player and DVD-A doesn't.

If it was as simple as an EQ tweak to make any recording 'sound better', then surely those tweaks would have been implemented with the CD format years ago. The truth is, there are virtually no production tweaks that haven't been tried and certainly no yet-to-be-invented hardware that hasn't been built, bought and used to 'improve' the sound of a CD.

Hi-Rez, MC formats allow more information through with headroom to spare. They reduce intermod distortion. If the bass is 'cooked', it's because the format allows for it, not to 'trick' you into thinking it sounds better.

The CD process 'tosses' information from the originally peak-limited, compressed master to get the information under the format's headroom wire. Hi-Rez, MC formats have rendered the peak-limiter a dinosaur.

Though I know it's a cost-effective move to rehash 30 year old tapes that have been rotting on some shelf, it annoys the hell out of me. I like the fact that SACD has more titles that were written and produced for the format...they sound better, and offer more of what the format is capable of.

Be all as it may, I have recently purchased the Denon 5900 player. Long live BOTH formats and those to come.

CD (or as we who vehemently fought 16 bit digital drummers, samplers, midi keyboards and the rest of the "age of the cruel" referred to it for years, Corrupted Decimation) has had it's run as the cheap version of stereo.

Next time, I'll say what I REALLY think

Working in a mass market retailer, I'll tell you straight away, that given the current trends DVD-Audio will win the format war. It's not a matter of software, the number of titles, or the marketing. The problem is purchasing a mass-market grade SACD player. In my store a customer is unable to purchase a player that will play SACDs for less than $159.00, while the same customer is able to get a comparativly similar player that will play DVD-A for only $89.00. Knowing that and knowing how many hundreds of DVD players we sell daily, it is obvious to me that SACD will have a tough time. Furthermore, even though Pioneer has released its universal player, other manufacturers seem unwilling to pay the sony royalty for SACD. I have done some research and it seems that Sony owes Pioneer for some technologies that were licensed in the past, and therefore Pioneer is able to get a SACD license at a discounted rate (hence the <$200 universal). Yes, DVD-A discs cost more, and there are not as many available as SACD, but the player end is where the business is conducted for the majority of custoemrs, and therefore SACD is in a bad spot.

In re-mastering an older recording, there certainly are new tweaks and tricks that have become available which, especially when you are completely remixing an album, will make an old master sound like it was recorded yesterday.

I know I will never convince you (and just ignore the fact that remastering has been part of my job for years) but I would just direct you to recent re-releases of old black and white films from the 1940s or earlier which by computer techniques have been cleaned up to look like they were photographed yesterday. The advances in the past couple years has been similar in digital audio workstations and their ability to clean up older audio recordings.

I don't think this conversation is even germane anymore. As long as they all look like little silver discs they'll all play in a universal player satisfactorily. What's more important is: which format will beat Dubya in November? LOL!

Jay