Coming in September, according to Philips....SACD II (1 Viewer)

[Danny Tse]

Over at High Fidelity Review, there's an article about the introduction of SACD II, coming in September....

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=19363192

But at the same time, Audio Revolution is running an article regarding DVD-A's, in light of SACD II's pending introduction....

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0703/18.dvda.shtml

Different perspectives, perhaps.

 

[Rachael B]

The very thought of SACD II underwhelms me...

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

The situation surrounding straightforward audio playback on legacy machines is also uncertain, will an SACD II disc with heightened encryption be readable by any of the current SACD players? This is the most important aspect for existing users, but if Sony/Philips are sensible the answer will be “yes”. However, we do know that full SACD II capabilities will become mandatory within all newly produced players by the year 2007, which will mean the slow demise of the SACD format as we know it today.

[rant]Must.....control.....fist of doom.......[/rant]

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Rumors so far, that's all.

-JNS

 

[Mike Broadman]

All this assuming this is true, of course:

So they're not changing anything about the sound, just adding video content and security stuff.

Re: video content, it seems Sony and Philipps are still making the mistake, IMO, of trying to "cross-over" to non-audiophiles. I still believe non-audiophiles don't care about the sound difference and that SACD is an audiophile format. Audiophiles don't care about video content.

Re: security- whenever they do this sort of thing, there are problems of compatibility. That is no good.

 

[Danny Tse]

I hope this is not Sony's attempt at selling its past SACD titles one more time, except this time it will be on hybrid SACD with video contents.

 

[Marc Colella]

It's funny how SACD has jumped over the fence the last couple of years.

At one point multichannel wasn't important, they left that for DVD-A. Sony then decides that multichannel can't be ignored.

Video wasn't important either, but somehow they're finding enough reasons to include it now.

It's becoming more and more clear that the creation of 2 Hi-rez formats was a mistake.

 

[KeithH]

"Improved copy-protection measures"? Huh?

Backwards compatibility of SACD II discs with "SACD I" players has me concerned.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

This is very interesting news indeed.

I am sure that SACD II will be compatible or the audiophile community will revolt. There may be a slim chance that they would go to 5.6MB sampling as Meitner once suggested but I doubt it as that would require new hardware changes. I would be really surprised if compatibility was an issue. Think about it: it would essentially erase the value of current SACDs as well as the progress SACD has made so far.

I will agree with Marc in a sense, it sure would have been easier if one hirez format was backed by all the majors.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Think about it: it would essentially erase the value of current SACDs as well as the progress SACD has made so far.

Considering how small of the market share of SACD and how limited its consumer base is, they may be willing to take that hit.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Let me blunt: video content is for shit. Neither SACD nor DVD-A has sufficient space to make it worthwhile. If more content can be added to a hi-rez disc, then use it for longer audio, more audio tracks, or increased audio resolution.

And how long before they start eating into the audio capacity to add more video bullshit, animated menus, bouncing ball karaoke lyrics and whatnot?

I know the audiophile labels will eschew this, but I'm guessing the big labels will attempt to make the format as appealing as possible to the same mainstream schmoes who don't really give a shit about music, generally, and much less do they put a premium on high-quality, high resolution playback. I feel that DVD-A has never quite escaped this trap, even though they've made feints in the direction of the audio-crowd, at least to the point of now including discrete stereo mixes and making most new discs accessible without using a video monitor. But DVD-A earned itself a big question mark in my mind early on, and now it appears that SACD intends to similarly shoot itself in the foot.

Look, I don't really want to sink thousands of dollars into esoteric tonearms, space-age cartridges, modern art 'tables, and fussy tube amps...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Considering how small of the market share of SACD and how limited its consumer base is, they may be willing to take that hit.

I don't think so Mike as they would destroy a lot of goodwill. I'm almost convinced that SACDII will just be a features related event. They would also create a credibility problem for future product sales. Remember that a hundred plus record labels have now invested in the DSD process and dozens of major studios...

I spoke with some friends in New York in the audio community today and they expect SACDII to be fully backward compatible. Some of my friends think it's just a rumor as well as they have seen no official announcement.

Probably people are just speculating on the whole backward compatible issue.

More likely is they have figured a way to put more information on the disc by using current specs so they can stuff more videos on it.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Stereophile also reports that a new Super Audio industry group has been formed to help promote Super Audio.

http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1692

That should help.

 

[Mike Broadman]

If more content can be added to a hi-rez disc, then use it for longer audio, more audio tracks, or increased audio resolution.

Why would you put more or longer tracks on an album? Dark Side is ~40 minutes, with 10 tracks. No reason to make "more" of it.
As for higher resolution, I don't think you can fit higher than 24/96 on six channels, otherwise they would have done it. However, you can fit 24/6 on 6 channels and include video content. Therefore, you're not losing any resolution.

The point is, adding video content doesn't have to degrade audio.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

This smacks of the HDTV 'downrezzing' that the studios can force on people with older HDTVs without HDCP inputs.

If at some point SACD I encryption is cracked, you can bet that future SACDs will only come in SACD II format...making your current multi-thousand-dollar SACD player a glorified boat anchor (as far as new titles go).

This is bad news for current SACD owners.

 

[Justin Lane]

Uh oh, looks like SACD is scrambling to match DVD-A. I thought SACD was doing decently in its niche, but apparently that is not necessarily so. Hybrids are nice, but as has been said before, CD is an old technology and DVD and MP3 are viewed as the formats of the future, and a Hybrid disc still provides music that can be copied digitally. This quote from the HFR article sums up Sony/Philips reasoning behind adding increased protection is interesting:

Considering how small of the market share of SACD and how limited its consumer base is, they may be willing to take that hit.

Good point Mike. As we never see sales results on non-Hybrid single layer SACD disc, we dont know the exact numbers, but they are probably very very miniscule. Hybrids while selling better, do not provide the copy protection the labels desire. Looks like SACD decided to go back to thr drawing board after less than stellar adoption (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

J

 

[Rich Malloy]

"Scrambling to match DVD-A"? You know, they just might be that stupid!

Like I keep saying, there are over 30,000 members of this forum, all of whom presumably own DVD players, and yet it's always the same 10-15 of us discussing DVD-A/SACD. Providing some minimal video content hasn't made these folks any more enamored of DVD-A, and it won't have an impact for SACD either. But the more they market to this crowd, the more our interests and preferences are crowded out.

Mike, it's certainly true that most albums recorded in the LP age (or CD age) don't need more time allotted for audio tracks, but I have a fair amount of double-disc SACD releases that might well fit on a single disc if more space was available. But, more importantly, enough added memory for video content could otherwise allow for sufficient space for three or more high-resolution tracks (just imagine those early Dylan albums with hi-rez multichannel, stereo and mono mixes), or even 3 or more hi-rez tracks plus three or more CD tracks. We could have Deep Purple's "Machine Head" with the original stereo, the quad, and the full compliment of new 5.1 remixes (instead of just a couple of tracks).

Video takes up so much memory, and I think nearly anyone interested in music would prefer bonus remixes, bonus tracks, or historical quad and/or mono mixes to some negligible amount of video content which is invariably married to lower-rez audio. With this, I believe they're marketing to a group that couldn't care less for what they're selling. These folks don't want a nominal, 15 minutes or so of video... they'd rather forsake the hi-rez mixes altogether in favor of Dolby Digital/DTS and "feature-length" video programming.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

As we never see sales results on non-Hybrid single layer SACD disc, we dont know the exact numbers, but they are probably very very miniscule.

This is also pure speculation. Given the widespread audiophile reporting on DSOTM, I would wager heavily that many pure SACD fans picked it up.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Video takes up so much memory, and I think nearly anyone interested in music would prefer bonus remixes, bonus tracks, or historical quad and/or mono mixes to some negligible amount of video content which is invariably married to lower-rez audio. With this, I believe they're marketing to a group that couldn't care less for what they're selling. These folks don't want a nominal, 15 minutes or so of video... they'd rather forsake the hi-rez mixes altogether in favor of Dolby Digital/DTS and "feature-length" video programming.

Ok, I'll agree with that. I know at least I really don't care two shits about video.

The thing I don't get about copy protection is, shouldn't this be a serious concern only for a format that is popular? SACD isn't. So why should they care if it is so well protected? This would make sense if they wanted to replace redbook, but they clearly don't.

Thank goodness I'm still treating all this as a rumour. Otherwise I'd be all

 

[Rich Malloy]

And the only reason I'm not all apoplectic over the copy protection stuff are the assertions of listeners like John Kotches (and others whose opinion I respect) concerning it's inaudibility on DVD-A. Though obviously it would be best not to muck with it at all, I trust the ears and honesty of these folks who say that it doesn't degrade the sound at all.

I understand that pirating is an issue of great importance to the studios, and I'm not adverse to a viable and inaudible copy protection scheme, so long as it really is inaudible as it's reported to be on DVD-A.