|
|
|
Could high-res be used to at least enhance low frequency/bass (not the fish but for a woofer) in pop, country, and rap music?
|
|
|
Post by Cornan September 1, 2008 (12 of 45)
|
|
I agree with the original post.
WHAT demise? See my latest "number crunching" post (/showthread/30638//y?page=first).
A lot of the problem in the press has to do with the undead evil twin of SACD (DVD-Audio).
I still subscribe to Sound & Vision magazine (just barely) where almost every reference to SACD goes something like this:
"After DVD-Audio and SACD's failure..."
I'm getting REALLY TIRED of this evil twin effect.
These authors and editors are obviously focused on something other than multi-channel sound, even if they say they advocate for it.
PLEASE send a letter to the editor EVERY TIME you see one of these evil twin references.
I'm all for "the next great multichannel format", but until it gets here I'll continue to support SACD with my time and money.
My other gripe of course is that the only multi-channel releases that get noticed seem to be re-re-releases of 1970s material. Much as I want to hear Pink Floyd's WYWH in multi-channel, I really think new releases should be highlighted.
(okay, Doctor, I'll relax now!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
trntbl said:
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.
Sorry but I disagree entirely here. If this were true there wouldn't even be a point in mixing this music in stereo -- mono would do just as well (and I'm sure we can find people who would argue so, though 40 years ago more so than today).
Perhaps it's because within 'pop' music I'm more inclined towards electronic music but for me a main ingredient of the music is the soundscape that's created in the studio, and multichannel opens up far greater possibilities than stereo. Obviously I'm not talking about naturalistic reproduction of acoustically performed music.
As for the other suggestions made above, I didn't intend to (re)start a debate on why SACD hasn't become adopted by the mass market, I primarily wanted to express my surprise at the statements made at IFA by an authoritative Sony representative.
Concerning visualisation: no media format should be encumbered with this. It's a player option, simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by zeus September 1, 2008 (14 of 45)
|
|
Cornan said:
I still subscribe to Sound & Vision magazine (just barely) where almost every reference to SACD goes something like this:
"After DVD-Audio and SACD's failure..."
I've often wondered whether the writers have an agenda: say it often enough and hope it comes true ... it will eventually (like everything else). Or they're just clueless and/or haven't done their research. Either way their readers are poorly served. Or they measure "success" by popular (read lowest common denominator) appeal. It's not as though they have a financial investment in the format (intellectual property, plant, production facilities etc) to worry about. Personally I just ignore them and go back to buying and listening to SA-CDs. Their loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
I've often wondered whether the writers have an agenda: say it often enough and hope it comes true ... it will eventually (like everything else). Or they're just clueless and/or haven't done their research. Either way their readers are poorly served. Or they measure "success" by popular (read lowest common denominator) appeal. It's not as though they have a financial investment in the format (intellectual property, plant, production facilities etc) to worry about. Personally I just ignore them and go back to buying and listening to SA-CDs. Their loss.
Actually we all lose when this misinformation is spread about. SACD really does need a bigger audience. Read what Bissie said about his bottom line. To make that bottom line mean profit rather than sacrifice for the love of music, we need these jerks to stop misrepresenting SACD and actually promote the medium. TOO MANY people who would really enjoy the format are woefully misinformed and so choose not to get involved.
|
|
|
Post by trntbl September 3, 2008 (16 of 45)
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Sorry but I disagree entirely here. If this were true there wouldn't even be a point in mixing this music in stereo -- mono would do just as well (and I'm sure we can find people who would argue so, though 40 years ago more so than today).
Perhaps it's because within 'pop' music I'm more inclined towards electronic music but for me a main ingredient of the music is the soundscape that's created in the studio, and multichannel opens up far greater possibilities than stereo. Obviously I'm not talking about naturalistic reproduction of acoustically performed music.
Well I´m one those who think that emotion of music can be reproduced perfectly with one single channel. And in some cases, adding artificial channels can rob that emotion. Panning instruments to left or right or center doesn´t really add any information to musical message. Or mixing them to rear surrounds in mch-material. Only real information of the acoustic space can really profit extra channels. Well of course dynamics improve when you have more drivers moving the air.
I just got couple of blues sacds from small "audiophile-oriented" label. Most of the instruments (tracks) are played by this same guy and they have added some computer "ambience" in the rear channels. The surround mix is completely artificial. Something you would get from Dolby prologic2 from your hometheater receiver. And the high point of this recording is that all bass information below 60 hz is moved to lfe-channel. Nice work.
kristian
|
|
|
Post by DSD September 4, 2008 (17 of 45)
|
|
Well I believe it was Video menus that killed DVD-Audio. Video was actually part of the original Scarlet Book specs for SACD, it may have been a wise decision to avoid video altogether in SACD?
Speaking of BluRay I am NOT thrilled it won as it is still PCM! I was hoping for Super DVD which was invented by Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki the same person who invented DSD and SACD. Super DVD uses DSD for both audio and video and it was killed off by both BluRay and HD-DVD. http://www.stradivarisociety.com/News-JapanDVD.htm
BluRay is a sellout as according to Dr. Yamasaki DSD video is also vastly superior to PCM video and it is more pleasing to the eyes on long term viewing. We could have had DSD Video and Audio, can you imagine the DSD Theaters that would have sprung up as the switch was make to DSD Video in movies? BluRay offers PCM video with PCM audio up to 192kHz. I will admit I am impressed with 192kHz PCM but pure DSD SACDs are way better. We may never know pure DSD Audio and Video as we were sold out!
Also Super DVD uses a version of DSD that has even higher resolution than current SACD along with High resolution DSD Video.
I am NOT adopting Blu-Ray I will wait for Super DVD even if it takes 20 years? All Blu-Ray will give is the same old high resolution PCM I have in DVD-Audio but with the option of 7.1 channels (only 5.1 channels more than I have or need) 2.0 is enough for me. I don't want more channels I want DSD.
BluRay will give better sound with movies than current DVDs, but much more could be done on the audio side, we have the technology, why not use it?
I support DSD Video plus DSD Audio via Super DVD, anything less is totally unacceptable!
Any news about Dr. Yoshio Yamasaki’s Super DVD system that uses DSD? I'm searched the web and all I can find is one paper and rest have disappeared. Spiked? Maybe by Sony?
|
|
|
Post by Kutyatest September 5, 2008 (18 of 45)
|
|
zeus said:
I've often wondered whether the writers have an agenda: say it often enough and hope it comes true ... it will eventually (like everything else). Or they're just clueless and/or haven't done their research. Either way their readers are poorly served. Or they measure "success" by popular (read lowest common denominator) appeal. It's not as though they have a financial investment in the format (intellectual property, plant, production facilities etc) to worry about. Personally I just ignore them and go back to buying and listening to SA-CDs. Their loss.
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts. It does concern me though, that people reading articles like that actually might believe what they read.
So just like The Seventh Taylor said, what demise is this person going on about? SACD is not dead, and neither is DVD-A. Both formats are being produced, sold, and bought!
It has never bothered me that my SACDs don't have any video on them, and it has never influenced my purchase of a DVD-A. I do actually have a CD that has a video clip included on it, viewable on a computer, but the music is the reason I bought it. It sound terribly snobbish, but I do feel that a large number of people are not particularly bothered about audio quality. Mass market pop music bought by teenagers is consumed at an ernormous rate, and as as trntbl pointed out, after a month (probably if you're lucky) it's out of "fashion". As I said a few sentences ago, it sounds terribly snobbish, but I think it's realistic.
What I do ask myself every so often though is, how many other people like me are there about? I discovered DVD-A in probably late 2005, and SACD about six months later. This was purely by accident! I don't tend to read Hi-Fi magazines, but why didn't the dealer where I bought my first kit in 2002 mention these formats to me. It took me until late 2006 to buy my Arcam DV137, and it - plus hi-res music has revolutionised my musical listening experience.
PS I do happen to think that hi-res MCH suits not just classical/orchestral music though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kutyatest said:
PS I do happen to think that hi-res MCH suits not just classical/orchestral music though.
It certainly suits all acoustically produced (as opposed to electronically produced) music. A banjo, guitar, fiddle and flute recorded in the Troy Music Hall playing what ever folk music you care to mention will benefit from mch SACD every bit as much as Brahms piano trios or Shostakovitch symphonies.
If you have more to add - tell us because as a "classical music" person, I am unaware of what mch sacd offers non-acoustic music and I would like to be in a position to make the argument for it when the occasion arises.
Thanks,
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by jakeroux September 5, 2008 (20 of 45)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
I am unaware of what mch sacd offers non-acoustic music and I would like to be in a position to make the argument for it when the occasion arises.
Thanks,
Bruce
While I can’t really describe all the subtleties and nuances of what benefits SACD, particularly (primarily?) mch, brings to pop, I do know it when I hear it. One need only listen to the mch SACD versions of Dark Side of the Moon, any of the early Elton John titles, Avalon, or even the oft maligned Come Away with Me SACD and compare them to their stereo RBCD counterparts to hear the difference.
I would suspect that the manner in which pop benefits from mch differs somewhat from how classical benefits from SACD mch, in that yes, often times you are experiencing mch merely for the sake of mch, rather than the creation of ambiance, space or the recreation of the concert hall acoustics. Some may consider it gimmicky and unnatural, but I find the well balanced effect of backing vocals or secondary instruments or even sound effects coming from the rear channels to add to the overall experience and enjoyment. And, when properly done and balanced, the “holographic” effect where the music seems to be directly above you or right in your head is pretty amazing. More accurate? More realistic? More like they have perfectly recreated the soundstage in your living room? Maybe not, but certainly audibly pleasing to many of us. Perhaps another way to put it is that the "soundstage" is transformed into a "sound womb" wherein the listener is completely enveloped and immersed in the sound.
|
|
