Company creates a way to combine video and SACD music tracks... (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

A firm has discovered a way to add in video:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/081604sacs2cd/

This could be an interesting development with respect to DualDisc.

Maybe this provides a way to add video universally and possibly minimize the format war aspect.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I understand this is probably a mainstream-acceptance sorta thing, but I do not need nor want video capabilities from my audio formats. Put that extra disc space (or whatever) into making the music sound better.

Sorry for the kinda-sorta threadcrap, but this is not why I signed on to the hi-res express.

 

[Rachael B]

I'm not particularly intrested in video added to SA-CD but if it'll move the format forward, hey, I'm gung ho about it!

The only negative that I see is that this could add more money to the price of such equiped discs. I imagine that not all discs will be thusly equiped though...if it ever happens in earnest?

This sounds way more practical than Dualdisc on the surface...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

That's exactly how I feel about it. Video is only mildly interesting to me but if it leads to more titles and deeper variety then it could be a good thing.

They do need to figure out a way to hold the price to a reasonably acceptable point for the consumer.

 

[Danny Tse]

Geez, I just purchased the new Sony CE595 SACD/CD changer....the one with no video capability. :frowning:

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Danny,

Write up a review after you have played around with it.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

OK, now somebody really has resurrected the CD-V format! I mean, Laserdisc video or DVD video, taking the outer half or third of a standard CD and putting a video track on it instead of audio is not new, although this gimmick of then combining it with an SACD layer [and talk about format complications! this looks like a killer from a technical point of view] is new. Like I said in the DualDisc thread, if it didn't work before it's sure to work now! :rolleyes

 

[Rich Malloy]

I see this as more of a step backwards; "mainstreaming" ain't all it's cracked up to be. I'd be surprised if a single one of us who bought-in early on the hi-res thing really cares about video content. Conversely, I doubt that many of those who simply couldn't care less about hi-res audio will be tempted by some token video content. This is a slippery slope toward the mainstream concessions that keep DVD-A from being all that it should be.

 

[Robert A. Willis Jr.]

If it means more Hi-Rez, then I'm for it. SACD, DVD-A, PKYZ I don't care just give me product and lots of it. Well... just enough to meet my budget

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Me no want no video with my SACD.

Me simply just want a single disc SACD/CD Sony ES machine for $1000. No changer, no DVD-V, just SACD & CD. Me can't believe that Sony doesn't realize that there's a market for a player like this. Me so sad. :frowning:

 

[Rachael B]

Rich, if one of the 2 hi-rez formats goes mainstream, I believe that would mean a bigger ring of audiophile-type releases orbiting around a larger gaff. Why wouldn't it be so?

 

[Rachael B]

Christopher, I remember the CD-V's. I'd proably own a few of them except when they were out my LD player, LD-838D, only played 8 & 12 inch discs. They jerked them off the market pretty fast to. I decided to buy a few of them since I was considering a combi-player and they'd all been sent back. The manager at one place, whom I knew, said all his stock had been on consignment. He told me that he sold less than 10 of them in a year. He said it was the slowest selling item he'd ever seen.

Video, couldn't hurt this time though. Things are different. I doubt it's a deal-maker though, at least for the particular potential customers that they covet....

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I say, lack of video for SACD is a differentiating item to DVD-V.

DVD-V: mainstream product for people who need visual stimulation when listening to high res music.

SACD: upscale product for music lovers only. More purist.

Otherwise to me, they are exactly the same, and they both become commodity products.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I'm not sure that this is good strategy if DualDisc launches big and SACD has to compete against it in some market segments. Audiophiles like myself and others here may care less about video but having it may bring in some new consumers.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Because mainstreaming just might suck the "audiophile" right out of it. How? In a variety of ways: sucky surround mixes, overcompressed/limited mastering, no-noising and excessive eq'ing, not using highest possible sampling rate (for example, assigning disc space to video content rather than audio), requiring a monitor to navigate menus. As an example of dumbing down of the medium, just read this interview with the exalted Elliot Scheiner regarding how the car-environment and home theater setups have made him alter his surround mixes to compensate: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...light=scheiner

I got into SACD first because it seemed to be a serious medium. It is, or at least was. I'll concede that mainstreaming would certainly mean more titles, but I'm not convinced they'll be worth hearing. SACD and DVD-A have the potential to sound better than any other media, but there are so many ways to screw it up between master tape and disc.

Excepting pricey releases from the boutique audiophile studios, would it surprise me if future releases never again sound as good as those original Sony single-layers? Not. At. All. That seems to be the current drift. And I fear the move to adding video will make the downside of the sound-quality slope extra, extra slippery.

 

[DaveDickey]

This is good to hear, but the underlying impediments to mainstream hi-rez adoption would still exist:

1) Joe Consumer just doesn't care too much about audio quality ("CD's sound great, and I can often make free copies!").

2) Music labels are inept when it comes to marketing hi-rez.

3) Most consumers will not wrench their brains to figure out how to navigate analog and digital connections and the ensuing spaghetti mess. (Can you say HDMI to the rescue? Well, maybe not)

Sorry I'm so blue, but the problems seem insurmountable. I've kind of grown accustomed to the anxiety surrounding DVDA and SACD releases anyway. I'd probably miss all the anticipation - and the inevitable disappointment when they cancel or indefinitely delay a release.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Aside from all this, I think I'm slowly personally coming to the conclusion that the benefit to DVD-A and SACD isn't the "high res" part anyway. It's good multichannel mixes.

And ... since neither has really shown that much penetration into the bulk consumer market, video or no video for SACD, I don't think it's going to matter that much anyway. And if it *doesn't* matter, why do it?

 

[Rich Malloy]

I've come to the very opposite conclusion. The best part of SACD (and most DVD-As) is the greatly improved resolution, timbre, soundstage depth, and attack of the well-mastered ones. That's not to say that some CDs don't sound better than their SACD or DVD-A counterparts... in certain cases, they absolutely do. But SACD and DVD-A have the potential to sound far better than CD, and the well-mastered ones do. On even a mid-level system, the improvement is obvious.

In the early days, you could count on that SACD being an improvement. These days, it's wait-and-see. For example, I read all the hubbub about the forthcoming Elton John SACDs, but I can't join in the enthusiasm. "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" is a disappointment, and I'm certain the upcoming "Madman Across the Water" SACD won't sound as good as my needledrop CD-R of the DCC-LP. I'd love to be proven wrong... but it's not gonna happen.

BTW, did anyone read that disturbing Eliot Scheiner article I linked to above? If you give a damn about surround mixes, that oughta put a damper on your day.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

CD also has higher dynamic range than lp. But that *potential* is not realized on most modern mainstream mixes due to limiting, compression, etc.

SACD and DVD-A IMO will never become mainstream because of their high resolution. Why? Because for most people, MP3 sound quality is good enough. But then what is the differentiator wrt to CD? Multi-channel. The high res is just a bonus.

I have had two very respected people in the industry relate to me the same psychoacoustical tidbit. An average multichannel mix will appear to most people to sound "better" than a high quality stereo recording, simply because of the 3-D, all-encompassing nature of the surround presentation. Ergo, high res doesn't matter much.

Remember, Lee is talking mainstream. Not the 1 or 2% of us that actually care about and appreciate that SACD and DVD-A are high resolution.

 

[Rachael B]

I stille think that the more hi-rez releases there are, the more good and bad ones there will be to choose from. If the SA-CD market was bigger and more lucrative, companies like Mobile Fidelity would proably work harder at chasing the dollars and thusly find a way to release more titles, hypothetically???

The big 4 control alot of titles, given the copyright laws they've bought , that ain't changin' anytime soon...I want, unfortuneatly, sum auf 'dem. I want to see a format with a higher "service ceiling" than CD that's not fragile vinyl. The 2 hi-rez formats both seem up to the task to me. Therefore, I want to see big four participation. I know they'll sclock alot of titles! That ain't no-thang new! Besides, most below average DVD-A's and SA-CD's stille sound better than most CD's to me.

I think the music industry will lose alot of face, if they don't soon make SA-CD and/or DVD-A/Dualdisc industry standards, atleast with me....