Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:20:11AM +0100, Kai Rode wrote: However the huge bonus of SACD is that you can have a convential CD-Audio layer on the disc which _will_ play in regular CD players. That is what will sell the format (if at all) to the public. Yes, you can have that layer. But this feature is not used at the moment because: - it makes the discs more expensive - as long as the same music is available as CD much cheaper, nobody is going to buy the SACD just because he might upgrade in a few years All of the Telarc SACD discs have the CD compatible layer (are hybrid discs). The Delos disc I have is hybrid and it appears that all of the DMP discs are also. In fact, from what I can tell, Sony is the only manufacturer not making hybrid SACDs. It's something that could be an enhanced feature of regular CDs (looking at it from the other perspective), so if they were cheap enough to make then all future releases could be SACD with the CD layer Think like somebody from the marketing department: it must never be the price of a regular CD because it's higher quality. So they *have* to also make it as a regular CD because many people won't buy it at the higher price. This is certainly a possibility, but at least SACD offers the potential of compatible discs with existing CD players. With DVD-Audio you don't even have that. Of the two though, SACD is the obvious one to back - the players are here now and reasonably priced, and the backwards compatibility will mean people will be more willing to invest in the music for it. DVD-A only has the strength of the DVD name - everyone will assume they can play them on their DVD-Video player and be very disappointed when they can't. Uhm, I only have two Audio-DVDs and both *are* DVD-Video compatible. The recordings are in 192/24/2ch or 96/24/5ch and the same recordings are on the disc as 96/24/2ch/LPCM or Dolby Digital for backwards compatibility. As a matter of fact, I only have a DVD-Video player and the DVD-As play just fine. Are you saying that the higher-resolution versions play on your DVD-Video player or the Dolby Digital version? If its the higher resolution versions (the 192/24/2ch or 96/24/5ch) then that really surprises me as I thought that wouldn't be compatible (I own no DVD-Audio discs myself). So it looks like they are not aiming for compatibility with CD but for compatibility with DVD-Video, which is just fine. For DVD-Audio discs to be compatible with DVD-Video players sounds like a good thing. However, if only to the extent that they include a Dolby Digital track then I'm not nearly so interested. For me personally, I find that the sound quality of Dolby Digital is not nearly as acceptable without accompanying video (I think I pay closer attention to sound when not distracted by video). I currently own a Sony SCD-1 SACD player and about 40 SACD's and, overall, have been very pleased with SACD. Some of the discs I own are truely superb sounding. Bob -- Bob Willcox Living your life is a task so difficult, [EMAIL PROTECTED] it has never been attempted before. Austin, TX -- anonymous - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
However the huge bonus of SACD is that you can have a convential CD-Audio layer on the disc which _will_ play in regular CD players. That is what will sell the format (if at all) to the public. Yes, you can have that layer. But this feature is not used at the moment because: - it makes the discs more expensive - as long as the same music is available as CD much cheaper, nobody is going to buy the SACD just because he might upgrade in a few years It's something that could be an enhanced feature of regular CDs (looking at it from the other perspective), so if they were cheap enough to make then all future releases could be SACD with the CD layer Think like somebody from the marketing department: it must never be the price of a regular CD because it's higher quality. So they *have* to also make it as a regular CD because many people won't buy it at the higher price. Of the two though, SACD is the obvious one to back - the players are here now and reasonably priced, and the backwards compatibility will mean people will be more willing to invest in the music for it. DVD-A only has the strength of the DVD name - everyone will assume they can play them on their DVD-Video player and be very disappointed when they can't. Uhm, I only have two Audio-DVDs and both *are* DVD-Video compatible. The recordings are in 192/24/2ch or 96/24/5ch and the same recordings are on the disc as 96/24/2ch/LPCM or Dolby Digital for backwards compatibility. As a matter of fact, I only have a DVD-Video player and the DVD-As play just fine. So it looks like they are not aiming for compatibility with CD but for compatibility with DVD-Video, which is just fine. Kai - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
I'm considering the purchase of a Sony 9000 ES Progressive Scan DVD Player. As a bonus, it also plays SACD. Titles available in SACD are few and far between and seem to mirror the same (Sony titles only) that were initally available on prerecorded MD: Bangles Greatest Hits, Cyndi Lauper-She's So Unusual, etc. They sell for about $30 each. Question: what is the difference in sound quality and why should anybody in the general public give a flying f**king rhinos ass? I have sincere doubts anybody will ever give a s**t about DVD-Audio, let alone SACD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
The future doesn't look bright for DVD-A or SACD. If nothing else, I think us people nowadays are far less likely to spend on audio as if it's a hobby, and pursue the (supposedly) more refined stuff. Of course, that's probably also due to things like MD being so easily available. A proof - Nakamichi nowadays survive on computer peripherals and car audio, the same company who sold decks that recorded up to 20kHz on a cassette back in 1973. :) SACD, AFAIK, is supposed to sound more analog-like, without losing fidelity. There are people who think digital audio in general sounds too "hardened", and heads off into vinyls/cassettes. Don't ask me to explain their rationale. ;) Leon From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rodney Peterson) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:00:48 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival? I'm considering the purchase of a Sony 9000 ES Progressive Scan DVD Player. As a bonus, it also plays SACD. Titles available in SACD are few and far between and seem to mirror the same (Sony titles only) that were initally available on prerecorded MD: Bangles Greatest Hits, Cyndi Lauper-She's So Unusual, etc. They sell for about $30 each. Question: what is the difference in sound quality and why should anybody in the general public give a flying f**king rhinos ass? I have sincere doubts anybody will ever give a s**t about DVD-Audio, let alone SACD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
Question: what is the difference in sound quality and why should anybody in the general public give a flying f**king rhinos ass? I have sincere doubts anybody will ever give a s**t about DVD-Audio, let alone SACD. They shouldn't, unless they are a high-end audiophile type. DVD-Audio can capture the dynamic range of a jet engine. I'd say that's a bit extreme. Most people don't need that kind of fidelity. Pardon me is I have no idea what i'm talking about. Feel free to correct me. JT - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
I'm considering the purchase of a Sony 9000 ES Progressive Scan DVD Player. As a bonus, it also plays SACD. Titles available in SACD are few and far between and seem to mirror the same (Sony titles only) that were initally available on prerecorded MD: Bangles Greatest Hits, Cyndi Lauper-She's So Unusual, etc. They sell for about $30 each. Question: what is the difference in sound quality and why should anybody in the general public give a flying f**king rhinos ass? I have sincere doubts anybody will ever give a s**t about DVD-Audio, let alone SACD. I just bought the unit you are referring as my main dvd / cd / sacd player on my system. If combined with a very good surround amp it can produce fascinating results. I love the unit and works completely ok in all types of re-production (dvd all regions/cdr/cdrw). I definitely recommend this unit if you are not only looking for a DVD. Harry Koutsogiorgas [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === What's this sacd thing? Never heard of it. At 10:00 AM 12/5/00 -0800, you wrote: I'm considering the purchase of a Sony 9000 ES Progressive Scan DVD Player. As a bonus, it also plays SACD. Titles available in SACD are few and far between and seem to mirror the same (Sony titles only) that were initally available on prerecorded MD: Bangles Greatest Hits, Cyndi Lauper-She's So Unusual, etc. They sell for about $30 each. Question: what is the difference in sound quality and why should anybody in the general public give a flying f**king rhinos ass? I have sincere doubts anybody will ever give a s**t about DVD-Audio, let alone SACD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
Leon wrote: The future doesn't look bright for DVD-A or SACD. If nothing else, I think us people nowadays are far less likely to spend on audio as if it's a hobby, and pursue the (supposedly) more refined stuff. Of course, that's probably also due to things like MD being so easily available. Isn't it a little early to write off those two formats (especially DVD-A, which has only just become available)? Few people would have been buying CDs when they were first available in 1981. And, on the face of it, DVD-A has a lot going for it -- reportedly better sound quality than CD, and a whole new format for the record companies to sell to people whose record collections are in CD format (many of them will already have "upgraded" once from vinyl). I doubt that MD will have much effect either way, because the pre-recorded MD market is so small. Gerry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
SACD=Super Audio CD, a new supposedly superior (and of course incompatble with current CD players) audio format from Sony. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
I though Super Audio CDs had multiple layers, one of which was totally compatible with current players? Which I suppose means SACDs effectively have the music recorded on them twice, one layer dedicated for backwards compatibility and the other encoded at 32bit 2MHz or something crazy. Dave - Original Message - From: "Rodney Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:38 PM Subject: Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival? SACD=Super Audio CD, a new supposedly superior (and of course incompatble with current CD players) audio format from Sony. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: SACD? Any chance for survival?
SACD=Super Audio CD, a new supposedly superior (and of course incompatble with current CD players) audio format from Sony. However the huge bonus of SACD is that you can have a convential CD-Audio layer on the disc which _will_ play in regular CD players. That is what will sell the format (if at all) to the public. They can buy a new release in SACD format, play it with all the extra resolution on their main home system while still being able to play it in their car/kitchen/study/wherever. It's something that could be an enhanced feature of regular CDs (looking at it from the other perspective), so if they were cheap enough to make then all future releases could be SACD with the CD layer - no need for record shops to stock two things. However I think any takeup of either format will be really slow. CD and DVD both offer long-term durability over their analogue counterparts, extra convenience and that "quality for the masses" factor, people getting really good results from relatively cheap equipment. Same with MD over tape really. For DVD-A and SACD the only real trick is better quality (something that many people could achieve by simply buying a better CD player) - the other advantages we've already got from CD. It then ends in a vicious circle, not enough people with players, so no economic gain in releasing for it, the format dies. Of the two though, SACD is the obvious one to back - the players are here now and reasonably priced, and the backwards compatibility will mean people will be more willing to invest in the music for it. DVD-A only has the strength of the DVD name - everyone will assume they can play them on their DVD-Video player and be very disappointed when they can't. -- Simon (who has no plans to buy either...) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
