Limited availability of source material??? Considering that there are roughly 3 to 4 times then number of SACD titles than there are DVD-A titles, when do you think SACD "will be superceded by DVD- Audio"? Phil, this is the second forum (the other being SMR) where I've seen you make this claim about SACD; do you have some actual figures or market trend numbers to back up what you're saying?

Best,
Sanjay

I don't think Sony will lose again like they did with VHS vs. BetaMax.

Nyet to both formats!

Hugely inflated prices for discs.

And no means (for the average consumer / wallet) to digitally plug and play a device into his or her system. Six analogue cables! Give me a break!

I've got a DTS 5.1 DVD (the regular kind) music demo disc that sounds plenty good to my ears. I'd buy lots of releases in THAT format if they were available and priced like CDs - and I could use any one of the five DVD players that I already own to play them with - through their digital outputs.

I've spent some time listening to DVD-A and SACD in several well-equipped listening rooms, and I do not believe that the admitedly better specs (over plain-Jane CD and DVD) of the these formats translates into significantly better audible sound. At this stage I certainly don't think it's worth my while to buy yet another device, a mitten full of copper to hook it up, and overpriced "software" to play on it.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

Well I have a SACD CD Player not a DVD player. I really like it. As far as releases, there are more and more each month. If Sony just release's all of their past catalog I will be a happy camper and will not worry about the money spent. I Listened to my MoFi DSOTM the other night and then the multichannel release on my new 950 (SACD for $14.99 and has 3 mixes on it) and was blown away. In September all of Dylans recordings will be released in Hybrid SACD. Steely Dan Gaucho will be out in August. There is a large number of jazz, classical, and accoustic recordings that are right up my alley. I am enjoying listening to music in both 2 channel and multichannel more now than at anytime since the decline of records.

I have a universal player. It is easy for me to tell the difference between CD and high-rez. While I understand that many may not, or don't care to, acknowledge the notably superior formats, I hope that both (or at least one) format survives. At the start I was more in the DVDA camp, but I have crossed over to the SACD one. The BIG advantage (potentially) is the hybrid format of SACD which plays in CD players and the simple track access. DVDA, however, is talking of adding hybrid playback and does have the extra of video menus/lyrics, etc.

I pray that at least one will survive despite the 'I don't care or see any advantage' mentalities out there. If we had that mindset on video, we'd all still have VHS.

[This message has been edited by Slee_Stack (edited July 27, 2003).]

To give credit where credit is due, in all instances where you are listening to a re-release of an older recording on either SACD or DVD-A, you are hearing either a complete re-mix of the album or a re-transfer of it, and in both cases the engineers are taking advantage of a lot of signal processing and mixing capabilities that did not exist even 10 years ago. In some instances you are hearing a multi-channel presentation of what was originally a two channel stereo album, and this will make all the difference in the world.

It would be fantastic if there was a box that mastering engineers could use with the label "high resolution 24 bit 192Khz" that they could run the signal through to make the imporvements you are hearing, but in reality you are hearing a lot of work and skill being done behind the scenes. SACD and DVD-A are merely the storage mediums, regardless of what the marketing types would like consumers to believe.

Soundhound, there was an article recently in Stereophile mentioning that the stereo PCM tracks on some hybrid SACDs are purposely degraded in order to make the stereo DSD tracks sound better in comparison. I too wish there were a way of comparing (optimally mastered) CD quality versus DSD.

Jeff M, personally I think the digital interface issue is a bit of a red herring. Suppose you woke up today and found that your disc player could play both the hi-res formats and could connect via one digital cable to your pre-pro; would you suddenly run out and buy a bunch of SACDs and DVD-As? If a digital interface existed right now, does anyone here think that this limited catalogue of overpriced software with somewhat dubious benefits would suddenly take off like DVD did? Just my opinion but I don't think that the use of 6 analog cables is really what's holding SACD and DVD-A back.

Best,
Sanjay

That would be pretty blantant, but I suppose anything's possible. Even a subtle level or equalization difference will make a recording sound "better" or "worse" depending on what it's compared to. The vast number of consumers wouldn't know the differences they are hearing, just that one sounds "different". In my experience, a good recording will sound good no matter how many bits it is using or what the sampling rate, and a bad recording will likewise sound bad regardless. I don't think you heard that CD that I circulated awhile back where I took a cut from the Columbia Legacy CD of "Kind of Blue" and made reductions to 12 bits and 8 bits, then spliced these sections together with unaltered 16 bit so that they switched seamlessly. I didn't exactly get a flood of correct answers from people who could tell correctly when each switch was made.

Soundhound,

Love your insight into this topic. I could not agree more.

Sanjay,

To me the digital interface is not a red herring. It is in fact one of the key reasons that I refuse to support these formats. I do not accept that in this digital age, new formats should force a consumer to "dummy-down" to analogue, especially when the "software" is in digital form. So to partially answer your question, yes I would give these formats a more serious glance if there was a universal digital connection available.

To further answer the question let me first note three characteristics of the formats that you have raised, namely: 1. the catalogues are limited; 2. software is overpriced; and 3. they are of dubious benefit.

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the first bullet except to say that I have read some reviews of some titles / recordings that certainly seem appealing. At this stage it's not what's stopping me from adopting these formats. I was an early adopter of DVD - when DIVX was still creating loads of marketplace confusion and sales had not yet taken off. (I was also into HD, satellite, laserdisc, and S-VHS on the relative front end of the curves as well.) So the limited availability of titles (if true), while a consideration, is not such a big deal to me.

However bullets 2 (price) and 3 (benefit) certainly are considerations - as mentionned in my original post. A digital connection, with disk prices the same as CDs (in Canada - where we pay far less, in equivalent $US, than south of the 49th) would probably make a convert out of me, despite the "dubious benefit" - based on my past history with new technologies.

Regards.

Jeff Mackwood

ps. this reply gives me a chance to correct an error in my original posting. In it I claimed to have a DTS 5.1 music recording in DVD format. Sorry - that was incorrect. It's in CD format. Which proves my original point in even stronger terms. I can play that recording through my 15 year old CD and laserdisc players (or through any of my DVD players), through their digital outputs, and enjoy fabulous sound (as decoded by my Model 950) right now. So we can already have multi-channel, high quality, great sounding music, on CD, that will play on all existing DVD players, and probably most CD players (in multi-channel set-ups), without having to go to SACD or DVD-Audio. So why do we really need these new formats?

I think it really boils down to the multi-channel capability of the new formats. This has varying degrees of importance to different people. I've heard some great classical SACD recordings in multi-channel, but personally I get just as much enjoyment from a good stereo recording that has good soundstaging. However, I would much rather have two very high quality channels than 5.1 lower quality ones.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited July 27, 2003).]