CNN article critical of SACD and DVD-A (1 Viewer)

[John Kotches]

Ian,

With the exception of the first EMI released titles, I'm able to switch between presentations (Stereo / Surround) on all of my discs without a TV.

In addition, the latest 5 or so titles from WB are authored such that the AUDIO button toggles between presentations.

Further, correctly authored, a DVD-A disc will begin play after about 15 seconds.

The 1.1 spec of DVD-Audio further addresses usability and includes some of the features WB is already including in their titles.

Big issues with either High-Res format? Lack of standardized digital output so that it can be treated as JADS (Just Another Digital Source). Then again, SACD can't be treated as JADS anyway at this time.

Regards,

 

[Mattias_ka]

First, the new formats only have two real attractions to the consumer. They can support uncompressed multichannel playback, and they can support higher bit depths and sampling frequencies.


Well, I think that the only way SACD / DVD-A is going to big is that they are multichannel's disc's. Because regular people don't hear the difference in better bit and sampling rate. Hell, most people today don't hear difference between MP3 and CD. I also believe as you that it still will not be to taking over the CD market because many people don't have 5.1 set-ups in their house. But maybe if Sony stop making CD and only make hybrid SACD.


The higher bit depths and sampling frequency are also not very useful. CD was reasonably well designed. It is really "just about enough" to take advantage of actual real-world musical content, recording processes, effects, and playback devices.


No, I don't agree with you. CD is not "perfect sound forever", not even close. My turntable makes my vinyls sound much better than my CD's, so there is an improvement to do.

 

[KeithH]

People here need to be able to put their emotions and exceptional knowledge bases aside when reading this sort of article. Time and time again, I see folks on message boards assuming that their needs/desires/comfort levels are somehow in keeping with those of the general public. Yeah, right.
Only a very small percentage of the music-buying public is aware of SACD and DVD-Audio. They either don't know because they don't care or because the high-resolution formats have not been effectively marketed. Both factors are probably at play. Regardless of the reason, your average "Joe" on the street does not know about SACD and DVD-Audio and probably does not care. To quote Metallica, it's "sad, but true".
Recently, I started a thread in the Music Area about an AP article on SACD and DVD-Audio that appeared in my local paper. In it, I found the following quote by David Kawakami of the Sony SACD project very telling:

If you talk to the man on the street, I think most people would say the CD is fine.
But there has always been a portion of the marketplace that...has found the CD lacking in certain respects. The things that they say we sacrificed when we transferred from vinyl to CD are things like warmth and the ability to record air around the instruments.

Here is a representative from Sony basically telling the majority of readers what they may already know -- that CD is fine. If readers had never thought about it, Kawakami may have cemented the notion for many. It reads like Kawakami has made up his mind that SACD is destined to be a niche format and nothing more. Perhaps it is this line of reasoning from Sony that explains the observation that the budget SCD-CE775 has been discontinued and not replaced. :frowning:

 

[Ian Montgomerie]

No, I don't agree with you. CD is not "perfect sound forever", not even close. My turntable makes my vinyls sound much better than my CD's, so there is an improvement to do.

I find it a bit puzzling that what I actually said about CD is it is "just about enough" (i.e. imperfect but not leaving much room for improvement either), and you responded to "perfect sound forever" which I didn't play.

As for CD vs. vinyl, that has nothing to do with fidelity. Vinyl doesn't have higher fidelity than CD. It is another version of the solid state vs. tube amp disagreement (audiophiles claim to like fidelity above all, but a bit of distortion actually sounds better and tube amps add distortion, so they jump through hoops claiming that tube amps have magical better-sound properties that aren't distortion and don't interfere with fidelity).

 

[Lee Scoggins]

As for CD vs. vinyl, that has nothing to do with fidelity.

You need to spend a few hours at a good audio store and get de-programmed...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Here is a representative from Sony basically telling the majority of readers what they may already know -- that CD is fine. If readers had never thought about it, Kawakami may have cemented the notion for many. It reads like Kawakami has made up his mind that SACD is destined to be a niche format and nothing more.

Keith,

I think you need to be more careful here. You grossly extrapolated his quote. First, he never said that HE felt CD was fine. I know David and believe me he hates it. He just feels the masses may think its fine. Also, David does not feel that Super Audio is a niche format. See the recent new story from the AES where David is quoted as saying Super Audio is about to tip. To "tip" into more mainstream acceptance, that is.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, sorry I was not more clear. Kawakami's quote makes it clear that he was speaking from the vantage point of the average listener. What I was trying to say is that the average reader would probably read Kawakami's statement and come away thinking that CD is just fine, if the average reader didn't already feel that way already. I am surprised that Kawakami didn't take a more pure PR approach and solely talk up SACD. In my opinion, Kawakami comes off sounding iffy about the market potential of SACD. Frankly, I think he should be iffy, but I would not expect him to come off that way.
You said:

See the recent new story from the AES where David is quoted as saying Super Audio is about to tip. To "tip" into more mainstream acceptance, that is.

I missed this story. Do you have a link. Anyway, I hope Mr. Kawakami is correct.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Redbook CD is terrible sounding and it is not good enough for even the masses.

Considering that the "masses" find that MP3 is good enough, I do not agree with this statement. The average person listens to music on stock audio systems in their car, portable CD/MP3 players and cheap boomboxes. High resolution SACD or DVD-A will make little difference in these situations. The vast majority of people do not have audio systems that can take advantage of the benefits of SACD or DVD-A.

A statistically invalid survey: seven of the thirteen people in my group at work (including me) own DVD players. Of those 7, four are using their televisions for DVD audio (no sound system), one has a $200 closeout Aiwa sound system, one has a Sony DE/ Acoustic Research HC-6 HT setup, and you can see my setup from the link in my signature. So out of those 7 people, only two of us even have systems that can support hi-rez music. The Sony/HC-6 owner just purchased his first DVD-Audio disc this week (I've loaned him a couple of mine so he could check out the new format).

 

[KeithH]

Scott and Lee,
I too disagree with that statement. Without trying to deride Lee, I don't see how anyone can say that the CD is not good enough for the masses. As you said, given the popularity of MP3, I would venture to say that the CD is better than the masses require. I mean, many people these days are happy with MP3 portable players. CD does not sound good enough to these folks?
Scott,
I think you and I know the same people. None of my friends or colleagues care about sound quality. To them, CDs are just fine. Many of them have heard SACD and DVD-Audio on my main system and have come away very impressed. However, none of them care enough at the end of the day to make the investment in the new formats.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Redbook CD is terrible sounding and it is not good enough for even the masses.

You serious?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

You serious?

Absolutely. I have never felt that high frequencies sounded good in redbook with all the brickwall filter problems. Newer players are doing a much better job, but this is definitely now outdated technology.
Now for the average recording, CD is terrible sounding but there are exceptions:
1. Audiophile labels.
2. JVC's XRCD and XRCD2 series.
3. A good upsampling machine playing a good recording.
4. Certain engineers on the recording and mastering side.
and some others I cannot think of...

 

[KeithH]

Lee, O.K. Given that better digital audio technology is available now, I would love to see it find its way to the masses. However, there is still the issue that most people don't care like we do.

As for convenience, SACD and DVD-Audio don't really address it. Hopefully this will change. There are a handful of portable DVD-Audio players out there, but they are pricey and are, of course, much bigger than portable MP3 players. Panasonic made or makes a DVD-Audio head unit for the car, but it is pricey. Portable and car SACD players don't exist. Finally, neither DVD-Audio or SACD allow for recording in the digital domain at full resolution (DVD-Audio downsamples). So, we are a long way from seeing DVD-Audio or SACD compete with MP3 or CD in terms of convenience factors, which are very important to most consumers.

 

[John-Miles]

The point is MOST not all but most people listen to music for two different reasons. 1) background and convenience, and 2) for enjoyment.

when im driving, or walking somewhere or working out or any number of activities i will often have music playing. Hell most of my MP3's are recorded at 96kbps do i hear the difference between that and a cd or an MP3 at 256kbps? hell yeah i do, but do i care? no i dont. because i dont listen to MP3's when i want to enjoy music. Driving as a passenger is the only exception (i have to pay attention to the road if im behind the wheel)

So the only time i really care about hi rez audio is when i sit down to just listen to my music. so portability and such are not really issues, but I must say im concerned about the fact that if i want to listen to a new disc on my MP3 player or in my car id ahve to buy it twice????/ thats not right. maybe the studios should provide a code or something so that people who buy these hi rez formats can download the mps'3 from their site or soemthing, you know kind of like product registration.

 

[Mattias_ka]

As for CD vs. vinyl, that has nothing to do with fidelity. Vinyl doesn't have higher fidelity than CD.

Well, I don't want this to be a LP vs CD discussion, but as Lee Scoggins said, LP do sound better than CD IMHO. There is always a preference but if I say that most SACD / DVD-A reviews say that THEY sound more like a good vinyl, than you maybe understand that vinyl is not bad.
Yours in digital, with a analog heart.
-Mattias-