confused about SACD

frperdurabo said:
My music tastes run strongly to classical, and to jazz from the 50s-60s, so for me, there's lots of SACDs to choose from. The format seems to be limping along, supported mostly by reissue-type houses....mostly the ones who do high end vinyl re-releases.
Click to expand...

Just in case the news wasn't announced here, there will be quite a good number of non-classical SACDs coming....

The Band ("Rock of Ages" from Mobile Fidelity), Doobie Brothers ("The Captain & Me" & "Takin' It To The Street" from Mobile Fidelity), Elvis Presley (24 Karat Hits & Elvis Is Back), Sam Cooke ("Night Beat"), and 7 Nat "King" Cole titles.
 
macman007 said:
Can I be in your will..? I want your SACD collection....That's most impressive!
Click to expand...

Thanks....and not of my SACD are posted there. One of these days, I will have all of them scanned and posted. Missing titles from Aerosmith, Tony Bennett, Diana Krall, The Police, Los Lobos, The Animals, etc.

Btw, I will accept any and all donations :D
 
soundboy said:
Generally, the stereo only version was released first and a multi-channel version was released later. Ironically, I listen only in 2 channel stereo....for now. Another reason, and this may sound dumb, is that the earlier version (usually the stereo only version) has a cardboard slipcase that's unique to that particular version. For example, Toto IV, the stereo only SACD has the cardboard slipcase while the later multi-channel SACD didn't.
Click to expand...
My recollection was that in the very beginning there were many titles released in two-channel stereo only. Some titles would be available on multi-channel (mostly 5.1) or two-channel stereo. The multi-channel discs were slightly more expensive. Many of the early two-channel only titles were from older recordings where multi-channel masters were not available. i.e. the Bruno Walter classical discs. Many of the early Sony classical multi-channel titles were titles recycled from quadraphonic era recordings. The early discs were single-layer, meaning that they could only be played on a SACD player. These days it seems that all modern releases are hybrid, meaning they will play on both a standard CD player and a SACD player.
 
DVD-A is definitely hearing last rites but SACD does seem to have worked its way into an audiophile niche. One thing I like about DVD-A is that I can rip my discs onto my hard drive. SACD/DSD is completely incompatible with computers, which may be why the smaller labels like it. I do like the sound of both formats very much and find them both superior to Redbook, although my old Xindak SCD-2 with its tube buffer stage does make Redbook sound good too. Digital audio is a blocky representation of analog waveforms (real soundwaves ARE analog) and the greater the bit depth and higher the sample rate, the more closely it resembles a smooth wave. DSD and 24/96 PCM seem to be the point at which the sound feels naturally analog (virtually) to my ears, but hey that's just me. If you like the titles available, I think SACD is worthwhile to get into. I wouldn't invest a dime in DVD-A hardware, I would just rip whatever I buy onto my hard drive while I can still get discs. If the audiophile niche labels decide to go the HDTracks route, that could spell trouble for SACD down the road even as a niche format.
 
elgato8905 said:
So sorry but I'm still not getting it... Would my Sony SACD / DVD player that I received 6+ years ago as a present still be a true SACD player?
Click to expand...

Its my understanding that it really depends on if your player is PCM or not.

A dedicated SACD player is one of the greatest additions I made to my system. I highly recommend it to others.

To those who say its a dead format I suggest browsing the web. There are more titles coming out now then say 2 years ago and more every day. Its a great format that I hope is around for years to come.
 
shipdriver said:
... Digital audio is a blocky representation of analog waveforms (real soundwaves ARE analog) and the greater the bit depth and higher the sample rate, the more closely it resembles a smooth wave. ...
Click to expand...

This is an all-too-common misconception about digital audio. The "blockiness" in the waveform at the output of the DAC chip consists of frequencies far above the audible range. The analog reconstruction filter at the output of any competently-designed CD player or standalone DAC rejects that part of the signal, filtering it down into the noise floor.

The word length, or bit depth if you prefer, sets the digital signal's maximum signal-to-noise ratio, and the sampling rate sets the maximum frequency that the system can handle without aliasing distortion. The raw waveform out of the DAC may be smoother at word lengths beyond 16 bits and sampling rates higher than 44.1 kHz, but the signal after the final analog filter will be the same as long as the microphone feed was bandlimited to 22.05 kHz or less.
 
Dr Tinear said:
This is an all-too-common misconception about digital audio. The "blockiness" in the waveform at the output of the DAC chip consists of frequencies far above the audible range. The analog reconstruction filter at the output of any competently-designed CD player or standalone DAC rejects that part of the signal, filtering it down into the noise floor.

The word length, or bit depth if you prefer, sets the digital signal's maximum signal-to-noise ratio, and the sampling rate sets the maximum frequency that the system can handle without aliasing distortion. The raw waveform out of the DAC may be smoother at word lengths beyond 16 bits and sampling rates higher than 44.1 kHz, but the signal after the final analog filter will be the same as long as the microphone feed was bandlimited to 22.05 kHz or less.
Click to expand...

I think we largely agree. The blockiness I was referring to was the quantum steps in the "digital waveform" while still in the digital domain. To me, bigger word lengths are at least as important as sample rate, but I can't discount harmonics from above-audible freqs (it's an area of hearing that I don't think we fully understand- snake oil aside)- some instruments put out decent energy above 20Khz (as well as cause clipping on Redbook) which may be why jazz lovers like hi-res formats. Who knows? In the other direction, the best DAC in the world can't make 8 kbps INMARSAT voice sound halfway good or realistic.
 
Last edited:
SACD is best classified as a dying format. There's two pressing plants left who press the discs, one in Germany, one in Japan. Most titles are out of print or difficult to obtain. There's a few audiophile labels who still issue discs in SACD. The Harry Fox Agency (the US mechanical royalty clearinghouse ruled that hybrid discs had to pay double or triple mechanical royalties on SACD Hybrid discs and DVD-A discs (DualDiscs too). There was practically no car players for them and no portable players offered.
 
I plan on getting my hands on every SACD that I can find. The ones that are recorded well (I have a coupe of Telarcs) are the best content that I can play on my system.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
SACD is best classified as a dying format.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The yearly figures are as follows;

New SACD releases (through November of respective year)

2006....701
2007....644
2008....567
2009....532

Not to shabby for 2009 considering the economy.
 
569 new SACD titles added to sa-cd.net as of 12/16/09 :D

However, I need to clarify that most of the recent additions to sa-cd.net have been released for a while. These "new" SACD titles were from Hong Kong labels and sa-cd.net stopped adding these to its website beginning in, I think, 2005 or 2006. Therefore, these "new" titles at sa-cd.net are titles that weren't necessarily released in 2009.

Did I mention that EMI actually announced a re-release of the Kraftwerk "Minimum Maximum" SACD? Coming January 8, 2010.
 
Last edited:
KentTeffeteller said:
SACD is best classified as a dying format. There's two pressing plants left who press the discs, one in Germany, one in Japan. Most titles are out of print or difficult to obtain. There's a few audiophile labels who still issue discs in SACD. The Harry Fox Agency (the US mechanical royalty clearinghouse ruled that hybrid discs had to pay double or triple mechanical royalties on SACD Hybrid discs and DVD-A discs (DualDiscs too). There was practically no car players for them and no portable players offered.
Click to expand...

Kent,

Regardless of what others may "want" to believe, the stark reality is indeed, that SACD is a dying format. People in the Music Industry all acknowledge as much, and I've certainly mentioned it more than a few time in the last couple of years.

Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish real hard...

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
SACD may be "dying" in the mainstream, but so did LPs - doesn't stop people from buying and cherishing them. (Noted that SACD never had near the following LPs had.) So not many are being made anymore - no reason to stop buying them.
 
TerryO said:
Kent,

Regardless of what others may "want" to believe, the stark reality is indeed, that SACD is a dying format. People in the Music Industry all acknowledge as much, and I've certainly mentioned it more than a few time in the last couple of years.

Maybe if we all close our eyes and wish real hard...

Best Regards,
TerryO
Click to expand...

Guess I need to throw away my player and SACD's then...
 
grumpy said:
Guess I need to throw away my player and SACD's then...
Click to expand...

Not at all, SACDs sound very good, but the fact remains that there are newer formats that are as good and often better than SACD. I've heard some superb recordings on SACD, but the same recording on K2HD was, if anything, a bit better with the additional advantage that it can be played on a standard redbook player.

The new HiRez recordings that I've heard, leave both SACD and K2HD in the dust and approaches the best vinyl for quality of sound. The HiRez format has, along with other HiBit digital formats, exceptional dynamic range that LPs unfortunately lack. Quite honestly, there is a lot going on in the development end of the music industry and even better things are in store.

Will I be getting rid of my LPs? No way, as I probably couldn't ever find some of the recordings I like on another format. I've also got enough CDs to insure that I'll have some sort of player for them as well.

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
grumpy said:
XRCD's are not that new.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're referring to K2HD, but they're not XRCDs by any stretch. I'm aware that there are some references to the original K2 and XRCD on the internet but those are "very" dated and tend to lead to a misunderstanding of what's transpired since then.

K2 is simply a designation that represents the two JVC R&D Laboratory scientists that developed K2, XRCD and, I believe, may have had a hand in XRCD24 as well. Simply put, both their "last" names begin with a "K" (in English, that is). K2HD was just released about 2 years ago by FIM's Winston Ma at the Hong Kong Stereo Show and actually represents the third iteration of the K2 mastering technique.

It is superior to XRCD, XRCD24 and SACD, IMHO. This is based upon listening to the XRCD24, SACD and K2HD formats with the same recording.

Best Regards,
TerryO
 
Last edited:
Please enlighten me about this format.

I look forward to hearing any new format and making my own judgment call. Thanks

Grumpy
 
K2HD is a mastering technique - not at all the same as DVD-A or SACD. If it's playable on a CD player the result is still 16bit 44K.

I haven't heard any K2HD recordings but if it's anything like the sound of the mono Beatles stuff recently remastered at 24/192 and similarly turned into 16/44 cd, I would imagine it sounds pretty good. But nevertheless a different sort of beast from SACD and certainly too from high resolution downloads.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom