About Us

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:

The end products sound OK, just as good as CD in most cases, but
technically it sucks.

As an audiophile and music lover why is it important to me if SACD is
technically inefficient? If the end product sounds as good as anything else
available and at the same time is far more versatile than CD shouldn't I
just let the technocrats worry about whether or not it technically sucks?
Isn't it far more important that the software offerings, especially the
multi-channel software offerings are the best hi-rez offerings available.

And while the Sony/Phillips marketing team may have more acumen and
resources than the DVD-A forces is that *really* the sole reason why SACD
has an edge in the hi-rez market? I may be mistaken but isn't the group that
promotes DVD-A the same group that fumbled away the *huge* early lead to
DVD+R in the DVD-R vs. DVD+R battle?

But more to the point, isn't the quality and the quantity of the software an
important consideration? I'm attending CES specifically to narrow my choices
for a universal player so I can listen to DVD-A as well as SACD and CD. But
the reality is as I have looked to purchase DVD-As in anticipation of
getting a player, compared to SACD there has been a genuine dearth of
quality DVD-As, especially classical and jazz surround selections. And it is
not just me saying that, it is the purveyors of DVD-A that are chagrined and
who acknowledge the lack of quality software. That to me is far more
influential than Sony's undeniably superior marketing skills.

As far as Sony goes, I am far
from the only person who has commented on the difficulty of finding a
hybrid disc where the SACD and CD mix down is identical. Do *you* not
wonder why this is so, and why the SACD layer invariably sounds better
on Sony discs?

Does this matter anymore, if it ever did? As far as I'm concerned and many
agree, whether or not SACD survives has *nothing* to do with the sound.
Particularly since even those who oppose SACD or who are indifferent say
that it sounds no different than CD or DVD-A anyway. Besides, early on when
I was interested in identical mix downs Telarc and others made it a point to
say that their two-channel mix downs were identical. So they are available.
And those that support SACD rarely listen to the CD layer, especially for
serious listening. But almost 4 years later, unless I'm missing something,
why are identical mix downs important, if they ever were? To be able to make
A/B comparisons or what? Plus surround makes identical mix downs a non issue
for almost all listeners in my opinion. And as far as Sony producing
superior sounding SACD layers, Sony hybrid disc are new to the US, in fact,
I never seen one yet.

Robert C. Lang

Actually, SACD is not at all compatible with either CD or DVD. It must
either have its own hardware chain, or be converted to PCM if it is to
be usable in a 'universal' player.

Why does this matter?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crazy market saturation!	CatalystX	Car Audio	48	February 12th 04 09:18 AM
Playing SACD on DVD Audio Players	fizzypop	High End Audio	4	January 1st 04 08:28 PM
Dithering Digital Audio	Karl Uppiano	High End Audio	12	December 30th 03 04:12 AM
science vs. pseudo-science	ludovic mirabel	High End Audio	91	October 3rd 03 09:56 PM
No surround channels playing Dark Side of Moon SACD	Harry Lavo	High End Audio	19	July 16th 03 03:10 PM

Menu

About Us