BTW, has Naxos completely stopped releasing SACD's?
Quote from: Coopmv on March 29, 2009, 10:03:06 AM
BTW, has Naxos completely stopped releasing SACD's?
Naxos did extremely poor job with SACD. They should have released Hybrid SACDs only of the multichannel recordings and they should have done the SACD layers right. The one Naxos SACD disc I ever bought didn't work in my player (only CD layer worked) so I replaced it to the normal CD version (lower price). Why don't Naxos do things the right way, the way of BIS for example?
Quote from: 71 dB on March 30, 2009, 06:46:10 AM
Naxos did extremely poor job with SACD. They should have released Hybrid SACDs only of the multichannel recordings and they should have done the SACD layers right. The one Naxos SACD disc I ever bought didn't work in my player (only CD layer worked) so I replaced it to the normal CD version (lower price). Why don't Naxos do things the right way, the way of BIS for example?
I have two Naxos SACD/Hybrids, neither of which gave me trouble: the Chants d'Auvergne I mentioned before and another of Händel's Fire Work Music. Both of them play perfectly in my SACD player, in 5.1 sound.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51DSV5WX2JL._SS500_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/6103Q10557L._SS500_.jpg)
Quote from: Coopmv on March 29, 2009, 10:03:06 AM
BTW, has Naxos completely stopped releasing SACD's?
Unfortunately, Yes.
They still make those? ;D
Quote from: Coopmv on March 29, 2009, 10:03:06 AM
BTW, has Naxos completely stopped releasing SACD's?
Stereophile did an interview with Naxos CEO Klaus Heymann.
JVS: Although you've stopped selling SACD and DVD-Audio releases, you're still recording in surround sound. Do you see Naxos releasing titles in high-resolution surround formats in the future?
KH: We record all choral and orchestral releases in surround. This means we create 40 to 60 new surround recordings a year, which we save for the day when we have a really good medium for them. I think SACD was never meant to be a surround medium; it was designed as an upmarket stereo medium, with surround capability added as an afterthought. Technically, DVD-A is a much superior format because of the amount of data it can carry. You also have longer playing times.
Unfortunately, DVD-Audio never took off, and SACD is dying. Even though smaller companies still sell SACDs, they're hybrids. People buy hybrid SACDs because that's the only format available to them, and they mainly play the normal CD-quality stereo layer. We actually have the market data.
For two or three years, we released all our big-budget productions in all three formats: CD, DVD-A, and SACD. When we sold DVD-A and SACD at a higher price, people only bought the CD. If people today had to pay a premium for SACD, they wouldn't buy it. That's why we're currently trying to recoup our manufacturing costs by selling all our remaining SACD and DVD-A titles for the same low price as our regular CDs.
JVS: HD DVD and Blu-ray can support higher-resolution data.
KH: And that's what we're going for. We're waiting until HD DVD and/or Blu-ray have good market penetration, then we'll release all our surround recordings in that format. You can have AC-3, discrete surround, encoded surround, stereo, and video all on the same carrier, manufactured at a price no greater than the price of manufacturing either SACD or DVD-A.
http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/1207hey/index.html
I'm surprised anyone still sells SACDs. SACD is a dying format. High-resolution downloads are the future for people who want it - some labels are already selling 24/96 or better downloads.
Quote from: Todd on March 30, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
I'm surprised anyone still sells SACDs. SACD is a dying format. High-resolution downloads are the future for people who want it - some labels are already selling 24/96 or better downloads.
Linn sells high resolution 5.1 channel downloads, but I'd love to know what player those downloads will play on. Do you need to get a player that supports FLAC multichannel music? I know that Windows WMA format doesn't support multichannel play. So far, I know only of players that support FLAC stereo.
Quote from: Bunny on March 31, 2009, 06:52:44 AMDo you need to get a player that supports FLAC multichannel music?
I don't know, but I believe Linn's $20K unit handles everything properly.
Quote from: Todd on March 31, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
I don't know, but I believe Linn's $20K unit handles everything properly.
Just the ticket in these times. Unfortunately I don't work for AIG so I didn't get a bonus this year.
Quote from: Todd on March 31, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
I don't know, but I believe Linn's $20K unit handles everything properly.
The Linn Sondek for CD?
Quote from: Todd on March 30, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
I'm surprised anyone still sells SACDs. SACD is a dying format. High-resolution downloads are the future for people who want it - some labels are already selling 24/96 or better downloads.
Wrong on every count.
Quote from: jo jo starbuck on March 31, 2009, 09:05:19 PM
Wrong on every count.
I hope you are correct, and I haven't noticed any decline so far in SACD releases.
Quote from: jo jo starbuck on March 31, 2009, 09:05:19 PMWrong on every count.
Really? Please elaborate.
Quote from: Coopmv on March 31, 2009, 05:34:20 PMThe Linn Sondek for CD?
No, Linn has moved into the music server market.
SACD is not dying, it is having small-scale co-existence with other formats. We live the age of versatile audio formats. There is room for CD, SACD, mp3, FLAC, vinyl,...
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 07:03:35 AMSACD is not dying, it is having small-scale co-existence with other formats.
Classical music fans are ostriches it seems. Next, I suppose you will say that Blu-Ray is the format of the future for video, even when leaders of major Blu-Ray manufacturers are giving it perhaps 4-5 years before fading away.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 07:06:43 AM
Classical music fans are ostriches it seems. Next, I suppose you will say that Blu-Ray is the format of the future for video, even when leaders of major Blu-Ray manufacturers are giving it perhaps 4-5 years before fading away.
I don't know
what is the format of video in the (near) future if not Blu-ray. People are buying HDTV sets and prices of Blu-ray players are coming down. Blu-ray's future seems good to me. I don't even have Blu-ray myself yet because I don't have HDTV yet.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 07:20:37 AMBlu-ray's future seems good to me.
Then you know something execs at Samsung and Matsushita don't. Only Sony touts the longevity of Blu-Ray, the same Sony that has abandoned SACD, which it helped create. Blu-Ray sales are not up to projections, for a variety of reasons. Many people are satisfied with DVD; higher hardware and software prices; apathy. With ever faster download speeds, especially in the lagging US, and agreements securing rights of content owners, standard-res and high-res video downloads will start displacing physical media in the not too distant future.
Physical media will be around for years and years to come, but they already represent a shrinking portion of a shrinking market in music, and soon will in video.
Back to the topic: SACD is a pitifully small portion of the market, and aside from an exceedingly small population who actively seek out SACD, most people couldn't care less or don't even know about it. Small bands of classical fans can't keep a format alive forever. Klaus Heymann is above all a smart business man, so he abandoned it. And I believe BIS (or some other small label) is thinking about dropping it, due to extra costs. With more and more titles available via download, and more content owners like Linn and Reference Recordings offering high-res downloads, the writing is on the wall.
Whatever. We can't predict the future. I just think there will always be people who prefer physical format (at least I do) so there should be also market for them no matter how much other people download.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 07:45:17 AMso there should be also market for them no matter how much other people download.
Why is that? And how is that? If companies can't make enough money to stay in business offering a given product, then the product should no longer be made.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 07:50:16 AM
Why is that? And how is that? If companies can't make enough money to stay in business offering a given product, then the product should no longer be made.
Of course but who says they aren't making enough money?
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 09:02:48 AMOf course but who says they aren't making enough money?
Each company would have to determine that and alter their business models accordingly. That's what Naxos did, that's what BIS will do, and that's what other companies will do.
Do you have in mind some other entity that should determine how and when music companies should alter their business models and determine when they are making enough money?
I think it is clear that eventually physical media will become a legacy format, replaced by electronic distrubution. The question is when.
I think SACD will remain viable for a while longer, because it is the most widely distributed high fidelity surround sound format. But at the moment I'm not terribly enthusiastic about electronic distribution systems because 1) licensing and copy-control is clumsy and you can easily loose access to your stuff by loosing track of your passwords/license. 2) I'm not thrilled with the possibility of having all of my music on some disk drive that fails, causing me to loose a lot of stuff. 3) It's great if you want to listen to an mp3 on an ipod, but equipment for high-fidelity playback of high resolution formats is not so readily available and standardized.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
Each company would have to determine that and alter their business models accordingly. That's what Naxos did, that's what BIS will do, and that's what other companies will do.
Do you have in mind some other entity that should determine how and when music companies should alter their business models and determine when they are making enough money?
Yeah, they would and according to their actions I will or won't pay for their products/services. Simple as that.
Each company should find their own segment on the market. What works for Sony or Naxos don't nessessorily work for others. I believe physical formats SACD included will retain one segment that can be made profitable.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 11:08:34 AMI believe physical formats SACD included will retain one segment that can be made profitable.
Possibly, but it will much smaller than today if the market niche exists, with few titles; you're living in the golden age of SACD right now. (Or perhaps that was a few years ago.)
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
Do you have in mind some other entity that should determine how and when music companies should alter their business models and determine when they are making enough money?
Obama. ;D
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Possibly, but it will much smaller than today if the market niche exists, with few titles; you're living in the golden age of SACD right now. (Or perhaps that was a few years ago.)
The market will be balanced to meet the demand. It will be what it will be. If tomorrow is not the golden age of SACD it will be the golden age of something else.
My personal collection of SACD releases is growing all the time so for me personally the golden age of SACD is in the future.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 11:36:29 AMMy personal collection of SACD releases is growing all the time so for me personally the golden age of SACD is in the future.
This makes absolutely no sense. My collection of SACDs (of the hybrid variety) is also growing, though I couldn't care less about SACD, but the golden age of SACD has already past. Bountiful times are not centered around single individuals.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 11:47:31 AM
This makes absolutely no sense. My collection of SACDs (of the hybrid variety) is also growing, though I couldn't care less about SACD, but the golden age of SACD has already past. Bountiful times are not centered around single individuals.
Well, tell me what makes sense? I buy SACDs and enjoy their awesome multichannel sound. Makes sense to me. It's my money and my enjoyment. Who are you to judge it?
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 12:13:18 PMWho are you to judge it?
Boy, aren't you a bit snippy? I guess I just find the entire notion of a personal golden age a bit self-absorbed, but whatever floats your obviously too sensitive boat there big guy.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 12:20:40 PM
Boy, aren't you a bit snippy? I guess I just find the entire notion of a personal golden age a bit self-absorbed, but whatever floats your obviously too sensitive boat there big guy.
Don't all people have personal golden ages? I just don't think this "Hey, stop enjoying SACDs because it's a dying format"-thing just doesn't make sense to all of us.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 01:36:42 PMDon't all people have personal golden ages?
What a truly silly question. What does it even mean?
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 02:16:23 PM
What a truly silly question. What does it even mean?
The fact that you two can bicker the entire day over nothing doesn't reflect well on either of you, IMO.
Quote from: nut-job on April 01, 2009, 02:30:13 PMThe fact that you two can bicker the entire day over nothing doesn't reflect well on either of you, IMO.
Bickering all day over nothing is one of the beauties of the internet, sheesh.
Quote from: nut-job on April 01, 2009, 02:30:13 PM
The fact that you two can bicker the entire day over nothing doesn't reflect well on either of you, IMO.
This is the Golden Age of Internet Bickering. :D
Well, if I take a liking to 78's (god forbid! :o ) and in prowling around I discover a cache of thousands of pristine 78's, this will not make it, under any circumstances, the Golden Age of 78's. Just sayin'... ::)
8)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Don't all people have personal golden ages?
I hope everyone does have at least one. 8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 01, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
Well, if I take a liking to 78's (god forbid! :o ) and in prowling around I discover a cache of thousands of pristine 78's, this will not make it, under any circumstances, the Golden Age of 78's. Just sayin'... ::)
If you want to make a point rather than just annoy people you can say something with factual content, such as 5% of new releases offered by MDT are SACD, but 2.5% of existing titles offered are SACD. On the other hand, 0% were 78 shellac discs. Now there is a basis for deciding how golden an age we live in.
Quote from: Todd on April 01, 2009, 07:50:16 AM
Why is that? And how is that? If companies can't make enough money to stay in business offering a given product, then the product should no longer be made.
But if small labels continue to release SACD's, they must be making money since they have much lower overhead and thereby much lower breakeven points than the mega labels.
Quote from: Coopmv on April 01, 2009, 05:17:31 PM
But if small labels continue to release SACD's, they must be making money since they have much lower overhead and thereby much lower breakeven points than the mega labels.
It is not a matter of break-even points, I suspect, since big labels should have lower overhead due to economies of scale. It is a matter of smaller firms being interested in serving smaller markets.
I suspect that SACD will be dropped by major labels like Universal and major equipment manufacturers like Sony. We'll be left with specialty manufacturers like Marantz and boutique labels, at least until high resolution downloads become more practical.
Quote from: nut-job on April 01, 2009, 08:01:38 PM
It is not a matter of break-even points, I suspect, since big labels should have lower overhead due to economies of scale. It is a matter of smaller firms being interested in serving smaller markets.
I suspect that SACD will be dropped by major labels like Universal and major equipment manufacturers like Sony. We'll be left with specialty manufacturers like Marantz and boutique labels, at least until high resolution downloads become more practical.
Sony dropped SACD years ago when they "invented" the dual dvd disc. another idea that went nowhere. Remember how those extra thick discs broke perfectly good cd and dvd players? Btw, Sony didn't push the SACD to other music companies as a new audiophile medium so much as a new, piracy proof cd. That's why the first SACDs Sony issued weren't hybrids; if you didn't have an SACD player, the disc wouldn't play. Then Sony went out and killed SACD the same way they killed Betamax: They tried to keep the technology proprietary like Betamax. That was a much better visual medium than VHS, but VHS was cheap and anyone could make a VHS player because the technology wasn't reserved for one or two (as in the case of SACD) companies in order to corner the equipment market. The rest is history.
Today SACD is only attractive as an audiophile medium. Sad to say, but most people don't care about sound quality: they listen to compressed music on ipods with the stock earbuds or on the speakers of ipod docking stations, or on their home theater systems which aren't much better. Very, very few people invest in high end audio equipment which is why SACD never caught on: Not enough people had equipment good enough to display the differences between the redbook layer and the SACD layer. Most people don't have more than 2 speakers in their home system either, and those that invest in a "high end" multi-channel system are usually looking for small speakers that can be recessed into a ceiling or hung on a wall and a powerful subwoofer that can be hidden in a cabinet for sound effects like exploding bombs and crashing cars when they watch movies. They want good looking equipment, but not audiophile equipment.
To further compound the problem, there are plenty of audiophiles who argue that the stereo layer on an SACD is virtually indistinguishable to the human ear from the redbook stereo layer. That gives people another reason to pass SACD by. It's really a sad fact, but SACD was marketed badly from the beginning, and has always been on life support.
Bunny,
May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound? I know, at least, that I do. The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction. When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great. Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point, is really the only game in town.
Quote from: jo jo starbuck on April 01, 2009, 11:12:18 PM
Bunny,
May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound? I know, at least, that I do. The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction. When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great. Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point, is really the only game in town.
Well. Blu-ray supports uncompressed multi-channel, so it is a natural substitute for SACD, which doesn't suffer SACD's problem of obscurity.
Quote from: jo jo starbuck on April 01, 2009, 11:12:18 PM
Bunny,
May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound? I know, at least, that I do. The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction. When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great. Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point, is really the only game in town.
You assume correctly. I have numerous SACDs, not all of which are "great." I am such a nut that I even have early multitrack recordings on cds that were made with dolby technology: play them on a dvd player with dolby and you get the multichannel layers. I believe that was something that Teldec or Telarc (one of the Tel- companies anyway) was pioneering. If I had been old enough and had discretionary funds I would have invested in 8 track, quadraphonic, and every other enhanced audio technology ever developed. I already have a blu-ray player and I was the first one on my block to get a widescreen HDTV (2001). My husband became an enthusiast after the Winter Olympics of 2002. For some reason only obsure sporting events were carried live in HD, but my husband is a great fan of curling. That's when he was hooked. It also helped that that year our cable company also carried the Superbowl in HD format, although the rest of that channel's broadcasts were not transmitted in HD yet.
You should know that businesses use "focus groups" to research these questions. While one person is merely an opinion, a group of people sharing the same opinions are a "trend." Thus trends, which are what they look at, are the deciding factor. Unfortunately, trends are also the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: nut-job on April 02, 2009, 05:56:42 AM
Well. Blu-ray supports uncompressed multi-channel, so it is a natural substitute for SACD, which doesn't suffer SACD's problem of obscurity.
Blu-ray may or may not become a standard for music. While Blu-ray does support multichannel sound, Sony hasn't yet produced any blu-ray music discs. (I dream of BDs that can contain multitrack Mahler cycles on one disc!) I doubt they will even begin to produce music BDs until there is more market penetration of the players, at which time I'll bet that the first music BDs will probably be albums of music videos. Don't hold your breath waiting for a BD Ring Cycle, though it would be glorious! Most opera videos are still only available in conventional dvd format because the
sound quality is the same, and most classical lovers are not that interested in an enhanced video format. Who needs to see how bad the make up on Placido really is? If DVD didn't penetrate the classical market, why would anyone assume that BD will penetrate?
While we are going to talk about wasted and passed over technology like SACD, why not talk about the cd itself? I have always been disappointed by the failure of music CDs to exploit their capacity for "info." I have a few cds that when loaded into a computer give me the name of the disc, artists, and the track titles and their times. Every cd has the capacity to include this information encoded on it. Most only include the CD id number. Only imagine, all our cds could have had enhanced information: scores, lyrics and translations, album notes, etc. Instead all of this was dropped because it was more expensive to produce a cd with the info and too few people bothered to load a cd into a computer except to "rip" the music files, which was something the record companies were fighting.
The music industry is what it is. None of us can predict which format will catch the interest of the general public, and be adopted as standard by the companies. What I feel in my gut is that as long as record companies can sell huge amounts of compressed music files to a happy public they will not be selling uncompressed files that take up more bandwidth and server space. That's why I'm not selling my cd collection anytime soon.
The music business is what it is. It's a waste of effort trying to predict which direction it will move into. It will go where it will go and we will all adjust.
Quote from: Bunny on April 02, 2009, 06:44:38 AM
The music industry is what it is. None of us can predict which format will catch the interest of the general public, and be adopted as standard by the companies. What I feel in my gut is that as long as record companies can sell huge amounts of compressed music files to a happy public they will not be selling uncompressed files that take up more bandwidth and server space. That's why I'm not selling my cd collection anytime soon.
The music business is what it is. It's a waste of effort trying to predict which direction it will move into. It will go where it will go and we will all adjust.
Your diatribe makes no sense to me at all. Who suggested anyone would sell their CD collection? If Blu-ray has a capability for high resolution surround sound (which DVD lacks) I suspect classical labels, which are a niche market, will take advantage of it and use it to distribute surround sound audio. The motivation would come when Blu-ray players become more common than SACD players, which will be very soon, I suspect. Although I doubt Blu-ray will have as big a market impact as DVD, it should bridge us over to the point when high resolution downloads are more practical.
Quote from: nut-job on April 02, 2009, 07:59:07 AM
Your diatribe makes no sense to me at all. Who suggested anyone would sell their CD collection? If Blu-ray has a capability for high resolution surround sound (which DVD lacks) I suspect classical labels, which are a niche market, will take advantage of it and use it to distribute surround sound audio. The motivation would come when Blu-ray players become more common than SACD players, which will be very soon, I suspect. Although I doubt Blu-ray will have as big a market impact as DVD, it should bridge us over to the point when high resolution downloads are more practical.
"Diatribe" ?! Diatribe hasn't been defined as a prolonged discourse in a century (or two). It is currently defined as "a bitter and abusive speech or writing" or
"ironic or satirical criticism." I certainly was not speaking ironically, nor was I speaking bitterly. I do admit that my posts can be prolonged, but this isn't Twitter so the number of words per post isn't limited.
Where did you ever get the idea that DVD doesn't have the capacity for high resolution surround sound? Of course it does! Go to some of the sites that offer "studio master" quality downloads and you will see that they specifically recommend that you back up the downloads by burning them to dvd because a cd doesn't have sufficient capacity for the files. The major difference between cd and dvd is disc capacity. Any digital file that can be burned (or pressed) onto a cd can be burned (or pressed) onto a dvd.
My remark about selling my cd collection was a reflection on the many people I know and know of who have ripped their cds to hard drive, backed them up in lossless format on DVDs and then gone on to sell their cds to help defray the cost of this "upgrade" to their music collection. I have one friend who is constantly telling me to put my cds onto either a Sonos music system or an Olive Hifi Music Server. Eventually I may do something like that because I love new technology, but not yet.
Btw, I'm not sure that Blu-Ray players will become more popular than dvd players very soon. In order for that to happen the economy will have to recover quite a bit. Upgrading technology is always something that gets put off when families worry about job security.
Quote from: Bunny on April 02, 2009, 08:32:24 PM
Where did you ever get the idea that DVD doesn't have the capacity for high resolution surround sound? Of course it does! Go to some of the sites that offer "studio master" quality downloads and you will see that they specifically recommend that you back up the downloads by burning them to dvd because a cd doesn't have sufficient capacity for the files. The major difference between cd and dvd is disc capacity. Any digital file that can be burned (or pressed) onto a cd can be burned (or pressed) onto a dvd.
I assumed you were referring to DVD-video. DVD-audio of course supports high resolution audio. But DVD-audio is even deader than SACD.
Quote from: nut-job on April 02, 2009, 09:35:02 PM
I assumed you were referring to DVD-video. DVD-audio of course supports high resolution audio. But DVD-audio is even deader than SACD.
No, I referred to the optical medium. Both dvd-a and dvd-v are basically the same medium. The only difference is the file format used to encode the information.
Quote from: Bunny on April 03, 2009, 06:09:41 AM
No, I referred to the optical medium. Both dvd-a and dvd-v are basically the same medium. The only difference is the file format used to encode the information.
Yes, I am aware of that. But having three DVD players, none of which can play a DVD audio disc at all, DVD tends to be synonymous with DVD video in my mind. As far as I know, no uncompressed surround sound formats are supported by DVD video (only 2 channel PCM up to 96 kHz, and surround sound in Dolby Digital or DTS).
Telarc experimented with cds that played in surround sound using Dolby technology. The Lopez-Cobos Mahler cds will play in surround sound on any dvd player that can decode the Dolby layer; his Mahler 3rd is excellent! You need more than 2 speakers to hear it in surround sound. I believe some other companies also experimented with Dolby technology as well.
DVD-A is a particular type of encoding. If your DVD manufacturer doesn't have the license for the code, the DVD-A will not play in your DVD player. Most of the people I know back up their music collections to dvd in FLAC or ALAC after they have put it on hard drive, however, they use the dvd as a data medium and would have to reconvert the dvds to cds in order to play them on conventional cd players. Many universal dvd/cd players now support FLAC; players that support flac will play the dvds.
(http://cover6.cduniverse.com/CDUCoverArt/Music/Large/superd_1129881.jpg)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 01, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
Don't all people have personal golden ages? I just don't think this "Hey, stop enjoying SACDs because it's a dying format"-thing just doesn't make sense to all of us.
Yes.
I'm still in love with the girl I already loved at high school (without any results) and people still grumble about it.
Wouldn't really know where she lives right now, but still, she is my eternal
golden age. 0:)
About the future: when I look & listen around, it's mp3, mp4 or something like that. 256 kb/s is good enough for most people, or so it seems. Even classical music listeners who I know are happy enough with it. In my personal environment almost no one is talking about or interested in SACD or Blu-Ray.
But hey, what proof is that?
There might be still any chance for whatever golden age!
:D
Quote from: Marc on April 08, 2009, 12:45:32 PM
About the future: when I look & listen around, it's mp3, mp4 or something like that. 256 kb/s is good enough for most people, or so it seems. Even classical music listeners who I know are happy enough with it. In my personal environment almost no one is talking about or interested in SACD or Blu-Ray.
Yes, 256 kb/s is very good but it's the support for multichannel sound that is SACD's strength.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 09, 2009, 07:03:30 AM
Yes, 256 kb/s is very good but it's the support for multichannel sound that is SACD's strength.
Of course.
But the majority of people won't be interested in that. They buy a cheap DVD-video-surround set (
great man, you can hear the bullets fly everywhere!) with actually rather bad sound. And they want compressed music-files to spare space, money and to store their music in an easy way.
I myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'. ;)
(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)
The music hifi industry already had the quadrophonic disaster in the seventies. Maybe history will repeat itself.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AM
Of course.
But the majority of people won't be interested in that.
Markets are diversed as are people. Some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. Some people listen to SACDs, some people listen to 128 kb/s mp3s. It's not a one product/service for all world. We can choose.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AMThey buy a cheap DVD-video-surround set (great man, you can hear the bullets fly everywhere!) with actually rather bad sound.
I don't give a rats ass what stupid people do with their money. It's their business.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AMAnd they want compressed music-files to spare space, money and to store their music in an easy way.
Yes.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AMI myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'. ;)
I'm glad you are happy. I am not anti-stereo. I just understand the potential benefits of multichannel.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AM(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)
Don't worry, I enjoyed stereo-only sound for a decade before "expanding" my system. I didn't need that much money to build a high performance multichannel system because I am an acoustics engineer and I live in Finland, the country of quality loudspeakers and knowledge.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AMThe music hifi industry already had the quadrophonic disaster in the seventies. Maybe history will repeat itself.
Disaster? The technology just wasn't ready for multichannel sound.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 09:57:59 AM
I myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'. ;)
(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)
This is precisely my opinion too.
And I even listen to mono recordings on my stereo hi-fi set - and enjoy them. :)
I didn't make myself clear, I think.
I say disaster, not because of a technical or sound quality disaster, but because of an economical disaster. Hifi companies tried and still try to persuade the average music-lover to buy high rated quadrophonic or multi-channel stuff, music magazines that I sometimes read publish very enthousiastic reviews, and most of the average music-lovers just don't care. They're more quantity minded.
That's why mp3 has become such a great success, and loads of people don't even know what SACD is all about. SACD and real quality multi-channel sets will not be a success, I think. The SACD will not be the successor of the CD.
But my thoughts about this matter have got nothing to do with my opinion about the quality of these systems.
Post scriptum: You wrote some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. I would say: few people drive Ferrari, many people drive Toyota. And therefore I think the comparision isn't well chosen. Ferrari was never meant to be the successor of whatever 'average' car-type. But SACD was meant to be the successor of the CD, at least that's what all the advertisements were saying some years ago. And I think it's not working, and will not be working in the future, either.
Quote from: premont on April 09, 2009, 12:20:53 PM
This is precisely my opinion too.
And I even listen to mono recordings on my stereo hi-fi set - and enjoy them. :)
Hmmm, yes. For instance: I have a stunning mono recording of Beethoven's 5th with Von Karajan and the Philharmonia Orchestra, to name but one.
Right now I'm considering to buy the organ Bach 10 CD organ set of Helmut Walcha. Good idea, you think?
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 12:41:34 PM
Right now I'm considering to buy the organ Bach 10 CD organ set of Helmut Walcha. Good idea, you think?
Oh, yes, the
monointegral. I own it myself, and I would not like to be without it.
Quote from: premont on April 09, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
Oh, yes, the monointegral. I own it myself, and I would not like to be without it.
This is the set I have ...
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 12:34:29 PM
I didn't make myself clear, I think.
I say disaster, not because of a technical or sound quality disaster, but because of an economical disaster. Hifi companies tried and still try to persuade the average music-lover to buy high rated quadrophonic or multi-channel stuff, music magazines that I sometimes read publish very enthousiastic reviews, and most of the average music-lovers just don't care.
At the time quadrophonic systems were introduced we didn't have hometheatres with surround sound. Surround sound came to movies in late 70's. The world really wasn't ready for surround sound nor had it much to offer anyway due to technological reasons.
What music magazines write about new things is what they write, mostly rubbish as you have seen.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 12:34:29 PMThey're more quantity minded. That's why mp3 has become such a great success, and loads of people don't even know what SACD is all about.
Yes. People have their fields of interests. Part of individual freedom which is a very important thing.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 12:34:29 PMSACD and real quality multi-channel sets will not be a success, I think. The SACD will not be the successor of the CD.
Forget already the stupid things you have obviously read from music magazines. I always "knew" that SACD will be a niche product co-exitisting alongside many other sound formats. So far I have been right. I understood that SACD will never replace/kill CD, in fact it's supporting CD format thanks to hybrid discs. I didn't believe stupid magazines, I figured it out myself. That's why I have a healthy attitude in this matter.
Quote from: Marc on April 09, 2009, 12:34:29 PMPost scriptum: You wrote some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. I would say: few people drive Ferrari, many people drive Toyota. And therefore I think the comparision isn't well chosen. Ferrari was never meant to be the successor of whatever 'average' car-type. But SACD was meant to be the successor of the CD, at least that's what all the advertisements were saying some years ago. And I think it's not working, and will not be working in the future, either.
It's stupid to think SACD is useless because it is not the successor of CD. I feel pitty for you since you take advertisements that seriously. Don't you know what they are for?
Quote from: 71 dB on April 09, 2009, 10:36:40 PM
[....]
I understood that SACD will never replace/kill CD, in fact it's supporting CD format thanks to hybrid discs. I didn't believe stupid magazines, I figured it out myself. That's why I have a healthy attitude in this matter.
Good for you!
Quote from: 71 dB on April 09, 2009, 10:36:40 PM
It's stupid to think SACD is useless because it is not the successor of CD. I feel pitty for you since you take advertisements that seriously. [....]
Thank you. That's very kind.
BTW: I don't think SACD is useless, and I never meant to say that. Even if
you were the only person in the world who liked it, I would still say: it's useful.
About taking advertisements seriously: the idea of advertisements is to take them seriously. That's why companies put a lot of money in it.
With all I have said about this topic, I never said anything about taking them seriously myself. Like I said: I don't have SACD. So, one could conclude, I never 'bought' the screaming advertisements. And, as I was saying: most of the people didn't. The companies who advertised seriously hoped they would, though. That was a mistake. Now they have to cool down and be modest about the sales of SACD and other inventions. These are all consequences of economical and financial matters. Not because the (SACD-) idea is bad, in quality terms of speaking.
About the general seriousness of the advertisement business: in the past, present and future we have seen and will see that companies can get in huge trouble or even get bankrupt because their advertisement and marketing strategies do not work. People get fired, misery in families, useful research is stopped, etcetera. So, in a way, it's a very serious matter.
Believe me, Sony wasn't happy with the fact that, after their MiniDisc finally had beaten the Philips DCC, they almost immediately got beaten themselves by the CD-Recordable. And, of course, Philips wasn't happy with the (economical) failure of the DCC, only about 10 years after their Video 2000 was beaten by VHS. A lot of people got fired because of that, and a lot of research money was wasted.
But these things have got nothing to do with my personal attitude in advertisement matters. I myself happy with stereo (sometimes even with mono), and do not really care about multi-channel. And I do not use mp3 myself, even though it has been hugely advertised. So, it might be an idea to leave your well-meant pity for someone else. For instance: for all the hifi companies who were seriously hoping or reckoning, after beating the DVD-audio, that SACD would really succeed the stereo CD. And, because of that, put a lot of effort and money in research, marketing and advertising.
[about the Bach/Walcha box set]
Quote from: premont on April 09, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
Oh, yes, the monointegral. I own it myself, and I would not like to be without it.
Quote from: Coopmv on April 09, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
This is the set I have ... [including pic]
Sent both of you a PM, because it's not really a SACD matter. ;)
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AM
Good for you!
Thanks! ;)
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMThank you. That's very kind.
I apologize for being nasty. I just have been reading this kind of SACD critic for years and it kind of gets tiresome after a while...
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMBTW: I don't think SACD is useless, and I never meant to say that. Even if you were the only person in the world who liked it, I would still say: it's useful.
Oh. I misundertood you. I'm sorry.
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMAbout taking advertisements seriously: the idea of advertisements is to take them seriously. That's why companies put a lot of money in it.
With all I have said about this topic, I never said anything about taking them seriously myself. Like I said: I don't have SACD. So, one could conclude, I never 'bought' the screaming advertisements. And, as I was saying: most of the people didn't. The companies who advertised seriously hoped they would, though. That was a mistake. Now they have to cool down and be modest about the sales of SACD and other inventions. These are all consequences of economical and financial matters. Not because the (SACD-) idea is bad, in quality terms of speaking.
Aren't you contradicting yourself here? First you say people are supposed to take advertisements seriously. Then you say you didn't in case of SACD. I meant you took seriously the writing on music mazagizes stating SACD will replace CD. Music magazines write these kind of articles to make people interested and to buy the magazine. That is their motivation, not to increase the knowledge or understanding among the readers. "SACD will render your CD collection obsolete!" on magazine cover must have sold many copies. Now we have the same thing with DVD/Blu-ray. ::)
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMAbout the general seriousness of the advertisement business: in the past, present and future we have seen and will see that companies can get in huge trouble or even get bankrupt because their advertisement and marketing strategies do not work. People get fired, misery in families, useful research is stopped, etcetera. So, in a way, it's a very serious matter.
This is of course true but it doesn't remove the fact that most marketing is about mental images rather than facts.
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMBelieve me, Sony wasn't happy with the fact that, after their MiniDisc finally had beaten the Philips DCC, they almost immediately got beaten themselves by the CD-Recordable. And, of course, Philips wasn't happy with the (economical) failure of the DCC, only about 10 years after their Video 2000 was beaten by VHS. A lot of people got fired because of that, and a lot of research money was wasted.
That's what a free enterprise economy is about. Would you like to have communism instead? Anyway, this thread is about SACD, not people getting fired.
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 01:04:30 AMBut these things have got nothing to do with my personal attitude in advertisement matters. I myself happy with stereo (sometimes even with mono), and do not really care about multi-channel. And I do not use mp3 myself, even though it has been hugely advertised. So, it might be an idea to leave your well-meant pity for someone else. For instance: for all the hifi companies who were seriously hoping or reckoning, after beating the DVD-audio, that SACD would really succeed the stereo CD. And, because of that, put a lot of effort and money in research, marketing and advertising.
The good thing with the free enterprise economy is that we can choose. You have chosen stereo/mono. Good. I have chosen a 5-channel system so I can enjoy the surround sound of my DVDs, multichannel SACDs and stereo CDs (naturally in stereo mode). Why we are even arguing over this is beyond me.
71 dB,
Thanks for reacting!
I'm off to the family right now, so my answer has to be short.
In fact (sic! ;)) and in general, I think we do not really disagree. Indeed, I was talking about 'economical seriousness and facts' (this is hugely important for the hifi industry), and not about the real hifi/sound seriousness and facts.
Don't worry, btw: I'm not a communist. But I'm also not in each and every way a strict believer in free enterprise economics. In fact (sic again!), I think I am not a believer in anything at all. :)
If possible, I make my own decisions (or at least I make myself think I do), and, of course, in a communist society this is (as practice has shown) impossible.
Have a nice Easter with loads of brilliantly sounding multi-channel music! ;)
Quote from: Marc on April 11, 2009, 03:14:01 AM
71 dB,
Thanks for reacting!
I'm off to the family right now, so my answer has to be short.
In fact (sic! ;)) and in general, I think we do not really disagree. Indeed, I was talking about 'economical seriousness and facts' (this is hugely important for the hifi industry), and not about the real hifi/sound seriousness and facts.
Don't worry, btw: I'm not a communist. But I'm also not in each and every way a strict believer in free enterprise economics. In fact (sic again!), I think I am not a believer in anything at all. :)
If possible, I make my own decisions (or at least I make myself think I do), and, of course, in a communist society this is (as practice has shown) impossible.
Have a nice Easter with loads of brilliantly sounding multi-channel music! ;)
I didn't think you are a communist. ;D It's just that the world is what it is and that defines how to live in it. I do my part for the better tomorrow (voting and supporting the green party and speaking for important social chances) but one man can't do much, at least with the resources I have.
Thank you Marc and enjoy Easter with your family!
(I did listen to Beethoven's 2nd Symphony by Minnesota Orchestra/Osmo Vänskä on BIS today. The music doesn't appeal to me that much but the multichannel sound/performanse is awesome!)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 11, 2009, 06:21:53 AM
(I did listen to Beethoven's 2nd Symphony by Minnesota Orchestra/Osmo Vänskä on BIS today. The music doesn't appeal to me that much but the multichannel sound/performanse is awesome!)
Ha! Not a bad orchestra. Heard them once live in Sibelius' Violin concerto and Mahler 5, in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw, and I really liked it!
About SACD again, but now in a more personal way: I live in a small flat appartment, and my living room is just large enough to 'accept' my (small but very satisfactory) stereo set. And I also don't want to disturb my neighbours! 0:)
Which means that, especially later in the evening, I use headphones. Not too loud though, to spare my ears. I want to hear the birds sing for as long as I can. 0:) 0:)
Quote from: Marc on April 12, 2009, 11:44:38 AM
Ha! Not a bad orchestra. Heard them once live in Sibelius' Violin concerto and Mahler 5, in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw, and I really liked it!
About SACD again, but now in a more personal way: I live in a small flat appartment, and my living room is just large enough to 'accept' my (small but very satisfactory) stereo set. And I also don't want to disturb my neighbours! 0:)
Which means that, especially later in the evening, I use headphones. Not too loud though, to spare my ears. I want to hear the birds sing for as long as I can. 0:) 0:)
The fact that music is now transmitted essentially in computer files (whether explicitly or as CD/DVD/SACD/etc) makes possible a level of flexibility that is regrettably not taken advantage of. For instance, it is not ideal to listen to a recording mixed for speakers on headphones. A real (using a dummy head microphone setup) or reconstructed "binaural" recording is ideal, in which each of the two channels contains exactly what each ear would receive if it were in the room where the recording is made. Such recordings are strikingly "surround" on headphones but don't sound right on speakers. Too bad each recording isn't supplied in a surround mix, a stereo mix, and a binaural mix.
Quote from: nut-job on April 12, 2009, 12:30:40 PM
The fact that music is now transmitted essentially in computer files (whether explicitly or as CD/DVD/SACD/etc) makes possible a level of flexibility that is regrettably not taken advantage of. For instance, it is not ideal to listen to a recording mixed for speakers on headphones. A real (using a dummy head microphone setup) or reconstructed "binaural" recording is ideal, in which each of the two channels contains exactly what each ear would receive if it were in the room where the recording is made. Such recordings are strikingly "surround" on headphones but don't sound right on speakers. Too bad each recording isn't supplied in a surround mix, a stereo mix, and a binaural mix.
Apart from all the advantages or disadvantages of the level of recording quality, or the (dis)advantage of speakers or headphones, I just have to turn to headphones from time to time, especially when I think the neighbours' children are asleep .... of course without causing hearing damage or headaches for myself. ;)
No interest in SACD. Also not in spatial goodies like 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, 32132165465.1.
I love listening to the outdated, crappy and Grammophone like format named "Stereo Compact Disc". I reckon the CD->SACD improvement (if both are mastered well) is just a fraction of the improvement Dolby C->S. No new Hardware please!
Another side of the coin is audio files: Gimme the best available, no matter if I won't be able to distinguish to a 44.1.
I'm way more interested in Audio flexibility enhancements (files, conversion and distribution in LAN) and such.
BTW the audio source is the least of my problems--- I have a parquet floor and biiig windows....
My guess is: Distribution of physical music media is at it's end, there'll never be an increase of sales again.
Quote from: Wurstwasser on April 14, 2009, 04:38:00 AM
No interest in SACD.
Yet you decided to post in this thread. ;)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 14, 2009, 08:34:09 AMYet you decided to post in this thread. ;)
Yes, I remember when I bought a record in my record shop 20 years ago and thinking "maybe one day we'll have small cubes as physical media, which will not have to spin or move". - - 10 years ago we had Compact Disc changers in cars. Today, we're in heaven, we have audio files and can put them whereever we want. From the convenience point of view SACD would be a step back.
Quote from: Wurstwasser on April 14, 2009, 08:11:50 PM
From the convenience point of view SACD would be a step back.
And, above all, classical music is convenient. 0:)
Quote from: Wurstwasser on April 14, 2009, 04:38:00 AM
BTW the audio source is the least of my problems--- I have a parquet floor and biiig windows....
Google "rug" and "drapes."
Quote from: DavidRoss on April 16, 2009, 04:36:41 AMGoogle "rug" and "drapes."
Not allowed; my wife is the interior master :D. Next life, maybe.
I'll bump this thread because I discovered something interesting resently.
Listening to multichannel SACDs with headphones
Mostly I listen to my SACDs with 5 speakers, but what about headphones? Hybrid multichannel SACD discs usually contain 2.0 downmixes, both high resolution SACD and low resolution CD -layers. One would think 2.0 SACD layer is good for phones.
I play my SACD-discs with my Cambridge Audio azur 650BD Blu-ray player. For downmixes of multichannel sound it has 2 options: Stereo and Lt/Rt. Stereo downmix is mono-compatible and doesn't even try to conserve rear/front information. Lt/Rt (Left total/Right total) is a more complicated way of downmixing multichannel sound into 2 channels. It encodes information about what happens in the rear channels so that a Dolby Pro Logic decoder can extract multichannel sound from just 2 channels. This is old news and it's what surround sound used to be back in the 90's before DVD. The point here is that Lt/Rt does different downmix than normal stereo downmix. For those who don't fear some math, the matrix equations for Stereo (Lo/Ro) and Lt/Rt downmixes are:
Lo = L + 0,7 * C + att * Ls
Ro = R + 0,7 * C + att * Rs
Lt = L + 0,7 * C - 0,7 * (jLs + jRs)
Rt = R + 0,7 * C + 0,7 * (jLs + jRs)
L = left channel
R = right channel
C = center channel
Ls = left surround channel
Rs = right surround channel
j = imaginary unit and means phase shift of 90 degrees here.
Enough with all that math, what is my point? My point is that for acoustically recorded music like classical music it seems that Lt/Rt downmix of multichannel sound gives very nice results when listening with headphones. The sound has similar airy feel than multichannel sound from speakers. Crossfeeding is strongly recommended as always. The end result is pretty stunning.
With electronic music with who knows what unnatural phase effects Lt/Rt downmixing doesn't work!