confused about SACD

[macman007]

The Police: Syncronicity has my vote as one awesome SACD transfer.

This picture shows just a few I listened to tonight. Jeff Wayne's" War of the Worlds" is a multi channel SACD as well as 2 channel SACD and Redbook, all on one. It is a 2 Cd set only because there were a lot of tracks on the original album..4 sides. Eric Clapton's "Slow hand and 461 Ocean Boulevard" added extra tracks with great sonics. All better than the Redbook and approaching Vinyl IMO. Brothers in Arms is better in DVD-A than SACD IMO (I own both) The DVD-A version is Redbook, Cd and Mulit Channel all in one.

BTW I don't think the original version DDD Redbook of B I A is anything to sneeze at either, IMO. Meaning it's one hell of a good Redbook.

SACD won the war Vs. DVD-A. My player does all formats DVD, Dvd-a, SACD SACD 5.1, Redbook and DVD Video. I can compare all formats on one player (and it's region less btw) without hopping machine to machine. It allows me to get rare DVD-A releases as well as rare SACD releases.

SACD has over 6000 titles and growing. Cd didn't really take off 'till after the mid to late 80's. I worked thru my College years in a record shop (Soundwaves) and watched the sales. Lets give it a bit more time before we put the stake in SACD's heart.

After all, they said Vinyl was dead 20 years ago and there are more new Turntables for sale today than in 1980. No to mention an 88% increase in new Vinyl sales since 2006.

Hell, I still watch Laser Discs. Properly upscaled with a good playback and projection system they still look good, and there are titles out there on Laser Disc that NEVER made it to DVD...maybe Blu-Ray will solve all our problems.....time will tell.

Nothing But Love, Respect and Good Listening!

007



Thanks,

007

[wifihifi]

They are 2 different formats. But Oppo-BDP83 supports SACD, the price is right and has amazing reviews.

[Fisherdude]

Official RIAA sales figures for 2007:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6386390/RI...-2007-Year-End

SACD was released around 1999-2000, sales tracking started in 2003, and it has declined steadily ever since its release. 2006 vs. 2005; down 45%, 2007 vs. 2006; down 34% to 200k units. Total. I don't have the 2008 figures, (the RIAA is lumping all physical digital media under "CD"), but I did find that classical music sales for 2008 were down 26%, the largest drop of any genre.

Vinyl, which was steadily dropping until the recent "boom", bottomed out at 900k units in 2006. So, SACD at its highest peak, never matched LP sales at their bottom. For 2008, vinyl sold 1.88 MILLION units, up 89% over 2007, and 1Q09 sales were 670k!

SACD was never a commercial success. There were never enough album releases, never enough releases of "popular" music, never any affordable players, and the majority of potential buyers simply waited for a winner to emerge in the battle of what format would replace Redbook CD. There never was a winner.

(Flamesuit ON)

Yes, I know what Wikipedia is, and yes, I know who writes the articles. Posted for your amusement and entertainment only:

From Wikipedia:

"Audible differences compared to PCM/CD

In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is sometimes thought to be better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings. [31] However, in controlled blind, level-matched listening tests over stereo reproduction subjects were not able to differentiate SACD recordings from their CD-quality converted version. Instead, the authors suggest that differences in particular mixes for the two formats may be causing perceived differences.[32]:

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted."

(Flamesuit OFF)

I was very interested in SACD for quite a while several years ago. I kept looking for music I was interested in buying, never found much. I kept waiting for prices of players to drop, just like the prices of EVERY new electronic whizbang eventually drops, never happened.

Until it was too late.

SACD isn't on life support any more. The autopsy is done.

Edit: Super cool graph!!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...sicforweb2.gif

[soundboy]

The problem with RIAA's figures, as you pointed out, was that all digital physical mediums are lumped together as CD. How can you have have an accurate accounting which format is selling if all you see on the ledger is "CD"?

Add to that companies like ABKCO issued their SACDs (i.e. Rolling Stones, Sam Cooke, Herman's Hermits, and the Animals) with the same UPC as the subsequent CD versions. For example, if I go to Best Buy and buy Rolling Stones' "Beggars Banquet" with the UPC of 123456, how can ABKCO/Best Buy/RIAA tell if I am buying the SACD version or the CD version?

I actually think that the people at RIAA have no idea what is a SACD (or DVD-A for that matter).

[tcdriver]

Originally Posted by soundboy

Not really, since SACD was developed as a 2 channel stereo format. Some of the top-of-the-line SACD out there are 2 channel stereo only.

Soundboy, Following the link in your signature I can see that you have a pretty nice collection of SACD. I noticed that you have a few duplicates with one version being two-channel only and the other version multi-channel. Do you play your SACD’s mostly in two-channel, exclusively in two-channel or ?

[frperdurabo]

If there's lots of music you like on SACD, splurge on a SACD disk and try it in your Sony player. See how it sounds.

I was an early adapter of SACD - Sony ES777SCD (just below the top of the line SCD-1). I like that player very much. It does lots right, and very little wrong. I would describe its presentation as "understated" - similar to the Wadia players, at least with CD sources.

Some SACDs sound VERY very good - the Stones reissues come to mind, as does DSOM. The Dylan stuff, too. Better than high end vinyl playback? Not sure I want to go there. They're different. But SACD is sure nice.

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.

SACD is obsolete. (Of course, that's not always a drawback, with audio stuff) High bit rate PCM off a hard drive is the wave of the future, I think.

[winters860]

OK - so here's some straight dope on SACD.

The discs are recorded in DSD (Direct Stream Digital), rather than PCM (Pulse Control Modulation) like in CDs, DVDs, DVD-A, and computer audio. DSD is touted to be all-around better than PCM - greater dynamic range, greater frequency response, less noise, etc. Multi-channel SACD recordings use DST, which is similar to DSD. Lots of releases (the SACD DSOTM, for example) included DSD, DST, and PCM Redbook on the same disc.

On most dedicated SACD players, the DSD is processed by the player's DAC.

On cheaper players and most (if not all) DVD players that support SACD, the DSD signal is converted to PCM before digital analog conversion. I'm not sure, what, if any advantage is given to SACD in that situation over any other PCM audio format. It stands to reason that most people who have experienced SACD have done so on PCM-converting players. Real SACD players tend to be a lot more expensive.

SACD never really took off, hindered by public indifference, few released titles, the schizophrenic implementation of SACD in hardware, and confusion between SACD, DVD-A, and HDCD.

Of course, SACD-capable players and titles continue to trickle out, but Sony's removal of SACD compatibility from the third generation of PS3 hardware in '07 is widely interpreted as being the end of the company's active enthusiasm for the format.

[tcdriver]

Originally Posted by winters860

On cheaper players and most (if not all) DVD players that support SACD, the DSD signal is converted to PCM before digital analog conversion.

Are you saying that the lower cost Sony brand SACD players converted DSD to PCM?

[cwall99]

Originally Posted by wifihifi

They are 2 different formats. But Oppo-BDP83 supports SACD, the price is right and has amazing reviews.

So does Oppo's DV-980H which only goes for $170 (though I think they've just stopped selling it and are now focusing entirely on two different versions of the BDP83 and an HDMI switch).

My DV-980H plays everything but Blu-Ray and sounds freaking' awesome. I think I have about three times as many DVD-As as SACDs (they seem to be cheaper). You can find them on Barnes and Noble's web site as well as on MusicDirect.

Occasionally they pop up in stores.

To me, both formats sound significantly better than most redbook CDs. Occasionally, you'll find a redbook CD that was made in an environment that's relatively immune to the pressures of the market's fads and fascination with compression, but, by and large, I think either one of these formats sounds significantly better than redbook.

Between the two formats, I have a slight preference for DVD-A. I just got Steely Dan's Gaucho on DVD-A, and it's freaking amazing. I can listen to it over and over and over.

Of course, Fagen's Morph the Cat is a pretty awesome DVD-A as well.

My two favorite SACDs are DSOTM (multichannel) and the MoFi recording of Los Lobos' Good Morning Azatlan (stereo, hybrid).

[soundboy]

Originally Posted by tcdriver

Soundboy, Following the link in your signature I can see that you have a pretty nice collection of SACD. I noticed that you have a few duplicates with one version being two-channel only and the other version multi-channel. Do you play your SACD’s mostly in two-channel, exclusively in two-channel or ?

Hmmm....I'm at work and can't access my own signature link. I think you're talking about the Sony SACD titles. 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.

[soundboy]

Originally Posted by winters860

On cheaper players and most (if not all) DVD players that support SACD, the DSD signal is converted to PCM before digital analog conversion.

It depends on which model you are talking about.

Many inexpensive models from Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, etc. do no DSD >>> PCM conversion if left in 2 channel stereo mode.

If you use bass management, all SACD player will convert DSD to PCM. One way to get around this is to use Outlaw Audio's discontinued ICBM analog bass management processor.

[macman007]

Originally Posted by soundboy

It depends on which model you are talking about.

Many inexpensive models from Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, etc. do no DSD >>> PCM conversion if left in 2 channel stereo mode.

If you use bass management, all SACD player will convert DSD to PCM. One way to get around this is to use Outlaw Audio's discontinued ICBM analog bass management processor.

Can I be in your will..? I want your SACD collection....That's most impressive!

007

[soundboy]

Originally Posted by frperdurabo

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.

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.

[soundboy]

Originally Posted by macman007

Can I be in your will..? I want your SACD collection....That's most impressive!

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

[tcdriver]

Originally Posted by soundboy

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.

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.