Thread: Interesting theory about Sony's marketing of SACD and DSD

Posts: 12
Page: 1 2 next

Post by pelley June 26, 2007 (1 of 12)
I found this post from a couple years ago on another site:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t37514.html

If you scroll down to the reply by WaveFiler, a cynical but very interesting theory is advanced. To summarize, Sony created DSD as an archival format for their own internal use, and SACD was almost an afterthought that was never expected to succeed or take over other formats. The reason being: a DSD master is future proof enough to churn out various levels of quality in all different formats (AAC, Blu-Ray, etc.), thereby forcing the average consumer to pay over and over again for the same content-- without the studio needing to remaster the original analog tapes over and over again. This puts Sony's marketing of SACD (or lack thereof) in a new perspective. They don't want us having the best quality master-- instead they'd prefer to sell us downgraded but incrementally improving versions every few years.

Post by raffells June 26, 2007 (2 of 12)
pelley said:

I found this post from a couple years ago on another site:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t37514.html

If you scroll down to the reply by WaveFiler, a cynical but very interesting theory is advanced. To summarize, Sony created DSD as an archival format for their own internal use, and SACD was almost an afterthought that was never expected to succeed or take over other formats. The reason being: a DSD master is future proof enough to churn out various levels of quality in all different formats (AAC, Blu-Ray, etc.), thereby forcing the average consumer to pay over and over again for the same content-- without the studio needing to remaster the original analog tapes over and over again. This puts Sony's marketing of SACD (or lack thereof) in a new perspective. They don't want us having the best quality master-- instead they'd prefer to sell us downgraded but incrementally improving versions every few years.

Th history of DSD has been public knowledge for a few years.I would suggest you do some more investigation at mathematically how they decided on the numbers.That is also public Knowledge..
That cynical theory is flawed in as much as some of the original masters were digital 44.1 16 bit .some were 48hz etc.So how do Sony produce higher quality masters from these in future.? Also note that Sony blueray machines arent mandated to use DSD? No body is forcing any customers to buy anything twice either...
Theres more to quality than One piece of the chain...The main problem with tape historicaly is that it detiorates in various ways.It is also costly to store...Fact.Digital doesnt detiorate.It doesnt matter which system you use PCM or DSD.
To be honest the Living Stereo and Living Presence reissues are not as good as the vinyl originals.Tape hiss and compression is now at a higher level in quite a number of issues..

Post by pelley June 26, 2007 (3 of 12)
raffells said:

That cynical theory is flawed in as much as some of the original masters were digital 44.1 16 bit .some were 48hz etc.So how do Sony produce higher quality masters from these in future.? Also note that Sony blueray machines arent mandated to use DSD? No body is forcing any customers to buy anything twice either...

Yes, that's true about the 44.1 digital masters, although in some cases there were analog safeties that could now be DSD mastered. And you're right, nobody is forcing anyone to buy things twice. Although if one enjoys a piece of music enough, one will often upgrade to get closer to "perfection" as new remastered editions are released, etc.

Speaking of analog safeties, this reminds me of the Glenn Gould 1981 Goldberg Variations. I still can't figure out if the SACD release of this was made from the early digital master. A big deal was made a few years later about the "discovery" of the analog safeties when they released the "State of Wonder" version (although not on SACD). It doesn't make sense to take a 44.1 digital master and upsample it to DSD. This would do nothing for sound quality.

I'm not saying the theory is correct, but it does seem that Sony has more or less given up on SACD as a mainstream format. It won't stop me from buying them however.

Post by raffells June 26, 2007 (4 of 12)
pelley said:

It doesn't make sense to take a 44.1 digital master and upsample it to DSD. This would do nothing for sound quality.

I'm not saying the theory is correct, but it does seem that Sony has more or less given up on SACD as a mainstream format. It won't stop me from buying them however.

Their is a very small improvement at the top end frequency from 20k hz to 22150 when converting 16bit to DSD.This is because the CD player uses a brickwall filter above 20k.The DSD doesnt.This is the only improvement on DSOM which was a 16bit master and everyone thought was good?Personally I didnt think it that good but I was only listening in stereo.
Sony invested a lot of money in DSD..Do you think they are making any money from sacd?..
I think All the record companies will give up on most formats except downloads.Its cheaper for them...
They could use the excuse about going greener and saving the planet etc .
The higher quality ones will be "almost Non existent" which makes the original comments even stupider.

Post by The Seventh Taylor June 26, 2007 (5 of 12)
pelley said:

it does seem that Sony has more or less given up on SACD as a mainstream format.

If that were true they most likely wouldn't have pushed to have the format supported by PlayStation 3. It's not a free feature. Even if the cost is modest, it's not something you just add for the sake of the tickmark when in a product of which you expect to sell about 100 million hardware units over its lifetime. In such cases, every penny counts.

raffles said:

> I think All the record companies will give up on most formats except downloads.
> Its cheaper for them...

If they have any sense of economics, they will not care which is cheaper but which format provides the best margins.

Post by zeus June 26, 2007 (6 of 12)
pelley said:

This puts Sony's marketing of SACD (or lack thereof) in a new perspective.

Sony (plus Philips and Universal) put a LOT of money into the establishment and marketing of SA-CD. If there was any chance that the format would have succeeded in a big way, they would have gone the extra mile.

Post by raffells June 28, 2007 (7 of 12)
The Seventh Taylor said:

If that were true they most likely wouldn't have pushed to have the format supported by PlayStation 3. It's not a free feature. Even if the cost is modest, it's not something you just add for the sake of the tickmark when in a product of which you expect to sell about 100 million hardware units over its lifetime. In such cases, every penny counts.

raffles said:

> I think All the record companies will give up on most formats except downloads.
> Its cheaper for them...

If they have any sense of economics, they will not care which is cheaper but which format provides the best margins.

No it was ME that said those things...
If its cheaper for them it automatically provides a better markup.Just look at today HMV Report on profits being halved.poor sods.
The finacial experts all state the reason they have done badly is that they were late into the download market dominated by Apple.
Predictions that in less that ten years their will be almost no Physical music items for sale, have been made even by those not directly involved..ie BBC music department.

Post by The Seventh Taylor June 28, 2007 (8 of 12)
raffells said:

No it was ME that said those things...

That's what i said! I apologize for misspelling your name though.

Still, I think if a record company sells an SACD for 20 dollars they can earn a better margin than when they sell 10 songs for download via iTunes at 10 dollars, especially if they sell the disc online. The retailer and, in case of brick & mortar distribution the wholesaler may charge a hefty margin but bear in mind that Apple demands a big part of the pie as well.

Post by raffells June 28, 2007 (9 of 12)
The Seventh Taylor said:

That's what i said! I apologize for misspelling your name though.

Still, I think if a record company sells an SACD for 20 dollars they can earn a better margin than when they sell 10 songs for download via iTunes at 10 dollars, especially if they sell the disc online. The retailer and, in case of brick & mortar distribution the wholesaler may charge a hefty margin but bear in mind that Apple demands a big part of the pie as well.

Being an ex accountant I disagree.One sale of 20 dollar disc equals approx 6 dollars maximum profit. 10 download at 10 dollars is 100.almost all profit ..The problem they see at the moment is that the download speed is restricted to the weakest link.Which is the copper wire in the telephone connection.So the problem is they cannot make the big profit quick enough..It will be interesting to see how Linns experiment works..The only ones I would download would be from Lyrita..Ever last one..I can only dream...
One day it will all be hardwired optical fibre which is many times faster.(Its being installed at almost every new property being built in the UK..It will also run the signals for metering gas,electric burgular alarms cameras and your TV and .computer..)
If you think they wont do it then remember what they did with vinyl...

Post by Jay-dub June 28, 2007 (10 of 12)
raffells said:

Their is a very small improvement at the top end frequency from 20k hz to 22150 when converting 16bit to DSD.This is because the CD player uses a brickwall filter above 20k.The DSD doesnt.

Well I beg to differ, there is no difference at all. First of all you meant 44100/2=22050 Hz, not 22150.

To the point, you need a brickwall filter when converting PCM to DSD just as you do in the CD player, and it does exactly the same thing in both cases: interpolate to a high sample rate before performing the sigma-delta modulation.

Modern DAC's pass frequencies as close to 22.05kHz as feasible. For example, the Crystal CS4397 used in my Marantz has its passband to -3dB at 21.7kHz, and the Burr-Brown/TI PCM1732 used in my Rotel RCD1072 has its at 21.5kHz. It's doubtful, to say the least, that the conversion used in the DSOM SACD would get any more high-frequency content than that -- especially since the PCM was the result of an ADC with its own brickwall filter.

Page: 1 2 next

Closed