|
|
|
See http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68697, "question four" near the end of the article.
> Question four:
> Nobody talks about SACD and DVD Audio any more.
> Where's our high quality audio content on BD?
>
> Answer:
> Walstra says he was involved with SACD very much,
> and while people loved the sound it was a lack of picture that caused the demise.
> As BD has high def video and audio, so is ideal for music titles.
> He says that a LOT more music titles are coming out soon.
> "Having said that, SACD isn't quite forgotten -
> our high end amplifiers still accomodate the interface".
What a silly suggestion, especially from someone as knowledgeable as David Walstra from Sony. First of all, what demise is he talking about? Second, what is he on about? Does he mean the mass market rejected SACD and adopted DVD-Video as music distribution media? That me be so but surely he must recognize that those are very different markets. DVD-Video also has not replaced CD-DA or MP3 -- it fulfulls an entirely different need.
|
|
|
Post by soundboy August 29, 2008 (2 of 45)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
See http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68697, "question four" near the end of the article.
> Question four:
> Nobody talks about SACD and DVD Audio any more.
> Where's our high quality audio content on BD?
>
> Answer:
> Walstra says he was involved with SACD very much,
> and while people loved the sound it was a lack of picture that caused the demise.
> As BD has high def video and audio, so is ideal for music titles.
> He says that a LOT more music titles are coming out soon.
> "Having said that, SACD isn't quite forgotten -
> our high end amplifiers still accomodate the interface".
What a silly suggestion, especially from someone as knowledgeable as David Walstra from Sony. First of all, what demise is he talking about? Second, what is he on about? Does he mean the mass market rejected SACD and adopted DVD-Video as music distribution media? That me be so but surely he must recognize that those are very different markets. DVD-Video also has not replaced CD-DA or MP3 -- it fulfulls an entirely different need.
I don't actively go out and look for video content on SACD, but the below SACD title has a video interview with Ray Charles on its "Enhanced CD" layer....
Ray Charles: Genius Loves Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
The single biggest factor, if there is one, that caused lack of mass-market adoption of SACD is the onset around hte same time of downloads.
And the reason it never caught on amongst audiophiles in a big a way as it could and maybe should have done is that, is that the disks were not hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by Claude August 29, 2008 (4 of 45)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
And the reason it never caught on amongst audiophiles in a big a way as it could and maybe should have done is that, is that the disks were not hybrid.
But that has changed rather quickly.
In my view, it's the lack of pop/rock titles that is the main reason why audiophiles took the decision not to invest into SACD.
Somebody who already owns an expensive CD system, would he invest into a new expensive SACD player if there are only 50 or 80 SACD titles that he is interested in, and the purchase has no sonic benefit concerning his existing CD collection of 1000+ titles?
The same is true for jazz fans. Only audiophile classical listeners can choose among a wide selection of SACDs, making the purchase of a SACD player almost a no-brainer.
If SACD had become the new dominating standard for audio discs, there would be no problem with single layer discs, at least not for audiophiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could SACD or the next high-res audio format take something from the mp3-computer and game console playbook: Music Visualization? Think Winamp and Windows Media Player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_visualization
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000511.html
I believe the second link remarks on how some existing game consoles already make use of music visualization. For high resolution to catch on with the mass market, maybe high-res players will also need music visualization to animate the high-def wide-screen flat panel in the integrated media center of our very near future?
Some movies today are broadcast "enhanced" with the DVD commentary as text at the bottom of the screen. Maybe SACD or whatever future high-res could display text and pictures as the music plays, e.g. "in this section of the third Movement of Mahler Symphony 6, the composer utilizes cow bells to..." as the specific section of the symphony plays. I would use a pop music reference if I was more into that genre. If you find this content intrusive to listening, then you could always turn of your display.
|
|
|
Post by Claude August 31, 2008 (6 of 45)
|
|
The current vinyl boom clearly shows that was is missing from SACD is not video or music visualisation, but clicks and pops.
SACDs should include an additional layer with added vinyl noise.
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 31, 2008 (7 of 45)
|
|
Claude said:
The current vinyl boom clearly shows that was is missing from SACD is not video or music visualisation, but clicks and pops.
SACDs should include an additional layer with added vinyl noise.
Now, now I collect both SACDs and LPs and I hate surface noise, pops, ticks and all other noises associated with vinyl. It's the sound of Vinyl I love and SACD is the closest digital has ever gotten to the warmth and comfort of the best analog. BYW I like Analog Reel to Reel and Cassette better than LPs because they do not have surface noise, pops or ticks.
I don't believe the interest in LPs has anything to do with the noise but the sound and in spite of the noise.
If everything was available on SACD I would buy SACDs only! And I want NO VINYL NOISE added to my SACDs!
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 1, 2008 (8 of 45)
|
|
I believe the SACD demise is not associated with missing video, as expressed here many times.
Simple fact is that mass-market, studio-made pop/rock music doesn´t gain anything when done in multichannel. There is simply no "space" in that kind of music that demands to be reproduced with extra speakers. Whereas acoustic music performed in real acoustic space is not mass-market music. That´s why SACD is mainly classical/jazz-format.
Pop/rock-genre might benefit from high-res 2-channel format, but lets face it: most of it is sonically such compressed crap that what´s the point? 64 kbs mp3 is just fine for that. In addition, most of it is forgotten next day so it is actually a benefit of not having any physical format. Just press delete and download next flavour of the month.
Sorry for a bit cynical view.
kristian
|
|
|
Post by Peter September 1, 2008 (9 of 45)
|
|
Cynical, or realistic? I think there's more than an element of truth in your post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd go so far as to say that much of non-acoustic music is recorded so poorly in the first place that any hi-resolution release is a waste of time and effort - most companies know this and this is why they don't/haven't done so. There are some creditable exceptions but sadly they are few and far between.
I also wonder why some non-acoustic music fans spend such a great deal of money to listen to such poor quality sources (either the format - like this http://www.krellonline.com/krell_component.php?id=108&page=KID and the presumably comparable speakers etc - or the release itself); perhaps it just goes to show that a fool and their money...
|
|
