|
|
Post by RichGuy on Jan 8, 2017 22:06:18 GMT -5
LOL. if posts like that were cleaned up.... like half the lounge would be deleted. You're missing out on all the Boomzilla threads that fit the same formula, only it's more than 2-3 people involved. /hey..... Half? I think it would be more like 2/3 - 3/4.  |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jan 9, 2017 11:45:22 GMT -5
But what if it was recorded with tube gear?  Then it already has the level of distortion intended by the musicians and sound mixer/engineer. It would be just plain rude to add even more. What's that saying, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  Another saying, horses for courses.  The first step to overcoming an addiction is admitting that you have one.  Cheers Gary Hi, my name is Bootman and I'm an audiophile/fool. <everyone> Hi Boot!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 9,928
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 9, 2017 16:01:47 GMT -5
The problem you're going to have is that the actual history of SACD is simple.... but the interpretation of that history is not. (And, no, sorry, but what you're suggesting is tantamount to having a nice quiet civilized discussion about the outcome of a highly contested soccer game down at the pub.) Sony came out with the SACD format several years ago, promoted it as "a new audiophile format that was obviously better than CDs", and it was a commercial failure. The DSD format (which is the data format used on SACDs) has recently been resurrected as a download file format. The bottom line is that Sony was unable to convince ENOUGH people that SACD was ENOUGH better to sell them. Because SACDs cost more, can't be played on most players, and have nasty copy protection, because nobody was able to convince the market they actually sounded better, they were doomed. (There also were, and still are, many technical arguments claiming to explain why SACDs are better that are... err... not quite true. This does not help the credibility of those who insist they really do sound better.) When you read the various accounts you'll see they're divided into "those who take it for granted that SACDs obviously sound better" and those who don't think so. (For the record, in terms of resolution and bandwidth, an SACD is about equivalent to a 24/88k PCM file - which is better than the 16/44k format used on CDs - and almost as good as a 24/96k high res download.) However, for better or worse, there are enough hard-core fans and hard-core skeptics left that you're not going to be able to separate the history from the battle. (It's sort of like asking people who won a religious war.) Those who insist that SACDs sound better insist on looking for other reasons why SACD failed to catch on.... While those who believe they don't necessarily sound better see it as a simple consequence of being a new format that had drawbacks and nothing of value to offer in return... The WikiPedia article I sited below has some good information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CDAnd THIS article, while somewhat biased, covers the timeline and the players pretty well: www.positive-feedback.com/Issue64/dsd.htmCan a mod clean up this thread? (Not demanding, just curious^^) I came into this thread intrigued to learn something about the SACD history (something I know little about). It starts out great and then quickly turns into a discussion that is supposed to happen in PMs because: nobody cares, nobody cares about the back and forth and nobody cares if you actually get along or not. At least open a specific garbulky vs chuckie thread if you need to do it in public. It always follows the same format of: 1. chuckie or garbulky makes a "pun" directed at the other trying to be super casual about it with lots of and :DD 2. thread gets derailed (at least partly) 3. quoting of each others walls of text forming even bigger walls of text 4. one of them starts getting defensive suggesting to "get along" or "be civil" 5. the other "apologizes" ("it's not personal") 6. after that it either loops back to one 1. immediately or 7. it calms down until one of them gets triggered again |
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Apr 9, 2017 14:22:46 GMT -5
I don't no if I would call it a failer , niche market maybe because I still today buy sa-cd and dvd-audio . Steve Wilson is producing 5.1 DVD-audio of many re-issued albums and artest and his own albums usually can be had in 5.1 dvd
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Apr 9, 2017 22:06:45 GMT -5
Consumers only care about portability today. Sound quality is not a top priority. Sigh... this has been true since the advent of the iPod. Possibly the Sony Walkman before that. ...and let's not for -"shkkk- ssshhhkk" - get the 8 track! |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 10, 2017 7:58:35 GMT -5
" Why Super Audio CD failed" is an autopsy report... errr an article published by Audiophilereview.com. Any thoughts you would like to share about this requiem for music on discs in general? DTS X and Dolby Atmos will ultimately end up in the same boat as DVD A and SACD for similar reasons. Of course there is a small group who love these formats but not enough to perpetuate. Too much bother for the average consumer. Bill |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,928
|
Post by KeithL on Apr 10, 2017 10:57:28 GMT -5
Bear in mind that, if your goal is SURROUND SOUND, then you don't need to worry about SACD, or DVD-A, or DVD-Audio any more...
Surround sound music (up to 24/192k) fits very nicely on a Blu-Ray disc...
And you can download it directly as multi-channel PCM or FLAC files... (or even DSD files)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 10, 2017 14:18:37 GMT -5
" Why Super Audio CD failed" is an autopsy report... errr an article published by Audiophilereview.com. Any thoughts you would like to share about this requiem for music on discs in general? DTS X and Dolby Atmos will ultimately end up in the same boat as DVD A and SACD for similar reasons. Of course there is a small group who love these formats but not enough to perpetuate. Too much bother for the average consumer. Bill The consumer is pretty much irrelevant in regards to object based sound tracks. My movie sound engineer/mixer friends tell me that the advantage of the formats is the speed of mixing, whilst maintaining quality and the director's intent. Less time = lower cost and movie studios will go for the lower cost option every time. This is totally the reverse of 3D, for example, which costs more, a lot more. The other advantage is backwards compatibility, once object mixed it's a relatively simple process to swap to non object based audio formats. With Atmos and DTSX the rubber hits the road at the mixer not the consumer. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Apr 10, 2017 14:55:11 GMT -5
DTS X and Dolby Atmos will ultimately end up in the same boat as DVD A and SACD for similar reasons. Of course there is a small group who love these formats but not enough to perpetuate. Too much bother for the average consumer. Bill The consumer is pretty much irrelevant in regards to object based sound tracks. My movie sound engineer/mixer friends tell me that the advantage of the formats is the speed of mixing, whilst maintaining quality and the director's intent. Less time = lower cost and movie studios will go for the lower cost option every time. This is totally the reverse of 3D, for example, which costs more, a lot more. The other advantage is backwards compatibility, once object mixed it's a relatively simple process to swap to non object based audio formats. With Atmos and DTSX the rubber hits the road at the mixer not the consumer. Cheers Gary I agree with those points you have made from an engineering standpoint and you're right......however to make the distinction clear, I'm talking about the physical sale of the hardware (discs) offered to the consumers (just like DVD A and SACD sales) as time goes by for marketing of object based discs in both audio and video movies, I believe eventually they will fall by the wayside. That being said, I would love to see both succeed, but human nature and the "masses" is not gonna let that happen. Bill |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Apr 10, 2017 15:00:35 GMT -5
Bear in mind that, if your goal is SURROUND SOUND, then you don't need to worry about SACD, or DVD-A, or DVD-Audio any more...
Surround sound music (up to 24/192k) fits very nicely on a Blu-Ray disc...
And you can download it directly as multi-channel PCM or FLAC files... (or even DSD files)...
I have put 2 channel 24/96 FLAC on DVD's and played them on the stereo via LPCM, but that's it so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Apr 10, 2017 20:21:10 GMT -5
The consumer is pretty much irrelevant in regards to object based sound tracks. My movie sound engineer/mixer friends tell me that the advantage of the formats is the speed of mixing, whilst maintaining quality and the director's intent. Less time = lower cost and movie studios will go for the lower cost option every time. This is totally the reverse of 3D, for example, which costs more, a lot more. The other advantage is backwards compatibility, once object mixed it's a relatively simple process to swap to non object based audio formats. With Atmos and DTSX the rubber hits the road at the mixer not the consumer. I agree with those points you have made from an engineering standpoint and you're right......however to make the distinction clear, I'm talking about the physical sale of the hardware (discs) offered to the consumers (just like DVD A and SACD sales) as time goes by for marketing of object based discs in both audio and video movies, I believe eventually they will fall by the wayside. That being said, I would love to see both succeed, but human nature and the "masses" is not gonna let that happen. Bill Sorry Bill, maybe I need to be more explicit, the consumer won't have a choice. It's not like "do I buy a CD for $10 or an SACD for $20?" The way the industry sees it is the disc will come with Atmos/DTSX as the primary format and the other formats will still be available. Because it costs less in the engineering/mixing to start off with an object based format then translate. So the consumer won't even know that they are buying an Atmos/DTSX compatible disc unless they have the hardware to support it. In the hardware sense it's not like 5.1 SACD compared to 2.0 stereo CD, where lots of extra hardware (amplifiers, speakers etc) is demanded to hear the results. Atmos/DTSX works just fine in a 5.1 environment, or 7.2, 9.1 etc. You just tell it what speaker layout you have and it "adjusts" accordingly. If you don't have an Atmos/DTSX compatible system then you can step down to whatever format you do have. Couple that with the current trend for almost every new mainstream model AVR/processor to come with Atmos/DTSX compatibility. That means next time we buy an AVR or a processor it will by default come with Atmos/DTSX. Which is very different to SACD, for example, which was limited to a tiny number of high end models from a very small number of manufacturers. Again unlike SACD, where we we limited to a tiny number of releases, add the number of major movie studios utilising Atmos/DTSX formats on their releases and I truly do believe that consumer preferences will have no impact on their success. In Atmos/DTSX we have something which is quite different to previous iterations of sound formats, it's not vastly more expensive (DTSX to content makers is license fee free) and that changes the ball game. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by sidvicious on Apr 15, 2017 17:56:57 GMT -5
SACD failed because it wasn’t promoted properly. The industry never provided a true reason why you should go out and buy a new player that would obviously cost more money, isn’t CD good enough. Businesses didn’t see enough profitability for the mass market to replace CD’s. It’s almost the same reason as why DAT, DCCC and even Mini disc failed and if the industry isn’t careful, MQA could suffer the same fate. When you consider some of the High Res websites like HD Tracks, some CD Rips done in even FLAC or Lossless WMA sound better because of some of the oversampling garbage that the industry or websites have pushed it’s no wonder. In a nut shell people want portability and convenience of even MP3. The youngster are speaking with their dollars and saying, I don’t need to buy new equipment, I don't want to buy new equipment for a higher price when okay is good enough.
Quite frankly if you haven’t been shown any better, how do you know there is any better. Now all of us Old Dogs know better than MP3 and even though the older generation who are more established have more buying power, the generation X ‘s are what almost any industry today looks at for continued growth. MQA is taking it’s time and trying to build a coalition within the industry, but in my opinion, I don’t see it as succeeding either, unless the younger and older recording Artist promote it. It has to be hip, but I don't see the commitment for this format as well. As some in our hobby are Audio Snobs, who discourage people from starting out on anything but the most expensive things, which is foolish. I have heard for example, Vinyl on 1,500 systems to $100,000 systems and I have heard good sound.
Keith is right Blu-ray Audio is already here and Hi-Res Audio has a basis with DSD streaming/from SACD and even Blu-Ray Audio isn’t being marketed properly. I have a couple of disc, but I haven’t seen a lot of knew releases and if my son didn’t know me, he is a Gen X, he wouldn’t even know what blu-ray audio is and he definitely doesn’t know what MQA is yet or how it will benefit him and he doesn't even own a CD player, he downloads music, where ever he gets it from. If manufacturers don’t see profitability (some will try it) they will get out while they are still able to wear their shirts. We have reached a point where mediocrity is good enough (MP3)and what ever FREE Downloads are available, heck 320K is good enough to a lot of people. (The vinyl thing for the young is the latest cool thing, which I hope will last, but sadly fads change, just like people.)
|
|
|
|
Post by craigl59 on Apr 28, 2017 15:40:18 GMT -5
This last winter I finished the installation of an Emotiva 5-channel speaker system with an XMC-1 and XPA-5 amplifier and, so, wanted to audition as many multi-channel sources as possible. Having read numerous posts by Keith, Yves, and other on this site I was aware of the technical issues surrounding SACDs, DSDs, and other formats.
What was tried, however, was a simple listening experiment in which I acquired as many SACD, DVD Audio, Blu-ray and other sources as possible and gave them a critical listening.
Here is what I found:
1. The SACDs that take older 4-channel original feeds (remember this period?) and present them literally are surprisingly pleasant and illustrate the back speakers in your system effectively. These include the Best of Doors and SecretTreaties/Blue Oyster Cult. If more of these were available, would purchase them in any modern format.
2. The best "remixed" SACDs such as the grammy winning Dire Straits Brothers in Arms and Pink Floyd's Dark Side are stunningly good. All sound especially realistic -- both voices and instruments.
3. The SACDs obtained all seemed to be very highly compressed with significantly more volume than CDs. Wonder if Sony was using this technique to increase the medium's appeal?
4. When shifting back to the CD versions, noticed that while there seemed to be less presence, there also seemed to be more timbral accuracy in the CD version. Wonder if this results from a lack of the innate distortion discussed in this forum associated with the SACD format. A good example of this is the Miles Davis Nefertiti remix from MoFi.
5. The comments above concerning copy protection are spot on. It is a hassle dealing with SACDs in general and they are difficult/impossible to import into an editor such as JRiver.
6. The limited number of DVD Audio sources were good but not exceptional. The ones previewed largely adopted the "ambient" approach towards multi-channels that has limited appeal to me. One exception is the Blue Man Group surround DVD that offers some channel experimentation.
So, as a result, have not taken the next step and started purchasing DSD feeds from online sources. Would do this if I felt comfortable importing them directly into JRiver and felt that the additional channels had content as opposed to ambience. Otherwise, have continued to purchase CDs, import them into JRiver, upsample them to 24/192, and listen to the very quiet result with delight.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Dec 23, 2017 20:07:01 GMT -5
If a format still exists ( on sale and can buy) has it realy failed ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Dec 23, 2017 20:16:44 GMT -5
If a format still exists ( on sale and can buy) has it realy failed ? You can't call the two formats successful by any measure. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 23, 2017 20:31:16 GMT -5
If a format still exists ( on sale and can buy) has it realy failed ? You can't call the two formats successful by any measure. True, but I enjoy the ones I have, especially some of the 5.1 mixes. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 23, 2017 20:43:14 GMT -5
If a format still exists ( on sale and can buy) has it realy failed ? Good question... Following common sense, I would say not. On the other hand, given the kind of haste and impatience with which formats (e.g. 3d blu rays, 1080p tvs, our own XMC-1, vinyl records, not to mention music on tape, and other media and components too numerous to list here) are frequently and summarily declared either "obsolete," "failed," or even "dead" when you can still find them on shelves, it no longer surprises me that the "autopsies" and burial ceremonies of SACDs and Super Audio DVDs etc etc. seem to have already been done and archived somewhere in the dungeons of some forgotten "museums" of audiophile memory Cases in point:     |
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Dec 23, 2017 20:56:35 GMT -5
there are STILL sa-cd & dvd-audio being made . I didn't call them successful I called them not failed !! there are people like me buying them every day . Steve Wilson produces more every day - that's not failed in my book
|
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 23, 2017 21:14:10 GMT -5
there are STILL sa-cd & dvd-audio being made . I didn't call them successful I called them not failed !! there are people like me buying them every day . Steve Wilson produces more every day - that's not failed in my book I'm agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Dec 23, 2017 22:05:52 GMT -5
there are STILL sa-cd & dvd-audio being made . I didn't call them successful I called them not failed !! there are people like me buying them every day . Steve Wilson produces more every day - that's not failed in my book I'm agreeing with you. sorry I just wanted to make another point , I get carried away on a tangent some times & I'm not very good with social Qu's ether |
|
