Some Common Ground in Hi-Rez Discussions (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

Friends,

I seems we have had some very good discussions on the viability of both high resolution formats in recent weeks. I think it is now pointless to argue about whether either format will succeed. I think more value will be added in discussing musical content and reporting events, positive or negative, that impact either format.

We seem to agree on the following:

1) Hybrids are critical for SACD success.

2) DVDA appeal is geared toward existing DVD players and the emergence of surround sound (existing 5.1 setups, etc.). Early title selection is particularly strong in pop/rock titles.

3) SACD appeal is geared toward the high end community, jazz and classical music fans, and those with an existing CD player.

4) Neither format support group is winning any marketing awards, and there are numerous reports that each format is largely unknown by vast amounts of retail salestaff.

5) Title selection is getting better in both formats.

6) Hardware prices are getting lower in both formats.

7) There are some very enthusiastic fans of each format.

8) Most agree that high resolution formats offer superior, if not vastly superior, sound quality to existing redbook.

I would like to know if you agree with these statements and if you think it would be healthier to focus on the music now. I don't want to restrict any one's freedom to discuss anything of course, just suggesting that in many areas we have reached a conclusion to disagree.

I am trying to think what would be more valuable for the forum and it seems getting the basic information out about each format, good and bad, has been done in some detail, but lots remain to be done in, say, offering music reviews.

Does this make sense?

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[John Beavers]

8) Most agree that high resolution formats offer superior, if not vastly superior, sound quality to existing redbook.

Here here!

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I don't agree with #2 and 3. Universal players make those points moot. The Stones are SACD after all...
I also think that universal players make discussions of the sort: "Is DVD-A or SACD better? Which would you choose?" pointless. I choose: both.
But all the others look good.
More software, at better prices is what I want!

 

[KeithH]

Lee, excellent post. Thanks for doing this. You said:

I think it is now pointless to argue about whether either format will succeed. I think more value will be added in discussing musical content and reporting events, positive or negative, that impact either format.

Absolutely! Otherwise, this board is no better than the Hi-Rez Highway on Audio Asylum. Let's focus on music and hardware and not worry so much about marketing and which format is "winning the war".
Thanks again.

 

[Tim Hoover]

Neither format support group is winning any marketing awards, and there are numerous reports that each format is largely unknown by vast amounts of retail salestaff.

This is, IMHO, the biggest obstacle to hi-rez music. It has been my experience that if retailers happen to have any info at all, it is usually incorrect. Case in point: at a local CD store - which is VERY good, with a knowledgeable staff - I asked if they were planning on stocking either hi-rez format. The co-owner replied that he would love to, but prices were so high that he didn't think they would sell! He didn't think that customers would pay $900 for a player and $25 for a disc. I informed him that there are several quality players hovering around the $200 mark, and software that in most cases is cheaper than CD. He honestly had no idea! If this is the kind of information that is trickling down to retailers, no wonder consumers haven't really bought into either format...

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Gots another marketing blunder for y'all.

Just out that Rhino is going to remaster (again; Atlantic did it a few years ago) the 1st 4 Yes albums. Extra tracks and goodies.

But when will we see that kind of stuff on DVD-A or SACD?

Same-o: The 5 Police lps are coming on SACD. But what about the box set with all the extra tracks? I want the extras more than I want the improvement in quality from CD to SACD/DVD-A.

Remember when CD 1st came out? And a lot of CDs had extra tracks on them to "pull" consumers over? Seems like DVD-A and SACD are doing exactly the opposite.

One last one. Peter Gabriel's Up is either out now or soon to be on SACD. If I had known that when I bought the CD (within the 1st 2 weeks of it coming out), I would have waited. But now that I have the CD, I absolutely refuse to put out another $15 or whatever to buy it again.

CD has been "good enough" for me for the last 16, 17 years. I made the mistake when CD 1st came out of replacing up to 1/2 of my lp collection because I bought into the "digital sound forever" propaganda. Ain't going to do that again even if SACD/DVD-A is better. And for non-critical listening, not enough of a difference there for me to go replacing CDs of stuff I already have.

 

[KeithH]

Kevin, I'm still waiting for Warner to issue a remastered CD of Yes 90125. I won't even worry about DVD-Audio until a remastered CD is issued. :frowning:
I'll take any Police on SACD. No complaints here.
You said:

Remember when CD 1st came out? And a lot of CDs had extra tracks on them to "pull" consumers over? Seems like DVD-A and SACD are doing exactly the opposite.

True. The stereo SACD of Billie Holiday Lady in Satin has the extra tracks found on the remastered CD. However, the multi-channel SACD, which replaced the stereo version, lacks the extra tracks. :rolleyes

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Thanks for the replies guys!
I saw some encouraging signs at Best Buy yesterday. All of the Verve releases are at $15.99.
At Tower as well yesterday, I saw a good number of SACDs at $14.99 and that was current titles.
As with anything, as production capacity expands, costs will go down, and ultimately retail prices.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Hybrids are critical for SACD success.

Oops! I meant to say hybrids are critical for SACD mainstream success. My belief is that some audiophiles want this but it is not critical and others do not care since the sonics are worthwhile.

I personally want it so we can get more titles and I can carry some of my SACD content to the car...

 

[Justin Lane]

I personally want it so we can get more titles and I can carry some of my SACD content to the car...

If Sony would ever do a car SACD deck then we could enjoy music in Hi-res in the car. Ideally I would like a universal SACD/DVD-A deck, but even just a SACD/DVD deck would make me happy, allowing me to listen to both SACD and the multi-channel DD/DTS track found on a DVD-A.

I agree that we should really focus on the music. For some titles DVD-A is a better option and for others it is SACD. I have never seen it as an all or nothing situation where we can only have one hi-res format.

 

[Brian Perry]

8) Most agree that high resolution formats offer superior, if not vastly superior, sound quality to existing redbook.

Agreed--however, the actual implementation of that superiority is questionable. My skepticism comes from both the CD side (have we not seen numerous examples of redbook's potential quality--which can be quite good--sabotaged by studios wanting to minimize dynamic range and make everything louder?), and also the hi-rez side (are there any guarantees that the better sound obtained via SACD or DVD-A is purely from the better specs of the formats, or is it possible that the original recordings have been "sweetened" or equalized/processed to give them a clearer edge over redbook?).

In other words, give us a recording using CD's maximum possible fidelity and one using SACD's (or DVD-A's) maximum fidelity and let us compare. Will there be a significant difference? Perhaps, but at least we'll know it's not a marketing ploy. I mean, how can we trust hi-rez formats when the stuff we get on CD is intentionally compromised?

It's the same argument AC-3/Dolby Digital advocates had with DTS. The bitrates sure seem to favor DTS (though there are many other factors affecting sound quality) but many felt that DTS was boosting certain frequencies to "prove" that their system was better. I have no idea if this was ever true, but it illustrates the games that can be played.

I would love to see one established hi-rez format; I just want it to be one that wins fair and square.

 

[Philip Hamm]

In other words, give us a recording using CD's maximum possible fidelity and one using SACD's (or DVD-A's) maximum fidelity and let us compare. Will there be a significant difference? Perhaps, but at least we'll know it's not a marketing ploy. I mean, how can we trust hi-rez formats when the stuff we get on CD is intentionally compromised?

There are plenty of hybrid SACDs that will give you exactly what you are asking for in this paragraph. Made by Audiophile labels for the most part, these are good examples of CD vs. SACD audio. Not quite as easy with DVD-A since you need a trusted source of the CD audio.

 

[John Geelan]

I love both formats and hate to see the bickering that goes on at Audio Asylum.

As long as both formats produce music that I like, I will buy both formats.

Yes it would be better if there was just one Hi-Rez format but thats not going to happen for awhile it seems.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Yes it would be better if there was just one Hi-Rez format but thats not going to happen for awhile it seems.

Yes, but there may be more universal players to come out-Linn is due out soon. And the titles can be worthwhile on each new format.
I think Rich Malloy may be right when he says it is very possible that both formats survive for a while.
As long as the music is good on either, I am a buyer.