Sa...cd?

F1nut

Analog cables are better anyway.

DesertPilot

Whoa....this turned out to be quite a heated discussion.

Regarding "sound" quality of cheap vs. expensive players. The issue is just a bit more complex than "player" quality. SACD or CD or DVD-A or blu-ray or hd-dvd or whatever...is just a collection of 1s and 0s (admitedly with different methods of storing this digital information on the disc). Assuming the "player (or transport)" has a laser lens capable of "pushing" those "bits" of data...then an OPPO or a DENON or any player out there is going to do the exact same job. We could quibble about vibration and stuff. But all a player needs to really do is get the bits of data off the platter.

NOW. translating that data in to sound is the job of the DAC (digital to analog converter). If you want your player to do this job then you have to make a "quality" decision in your purchase. Players all have DACs from various manufacturers and the marketing claims are all over the place in how well they function.

BUT. if you are going to push that data as digital data via HDMI to your receiver or preamp...then the receiver or preamp's DACs will handle the hard work of converting the data to analog. Thus, the player (or transport) is simply that...a transport. No DACs are required. All that's needed is a player than can push the digital bits to the preamp or receiver. Quality of the transport is really no longer relevant. The only question that is relevant is whether the transport can deliver the digital information to your preamp or receiver.

I suppose bashing SONY is a fine American tradition. But, from what I have read...it is the movie studios and artists who have demanded Copy Protection in all these new formats (SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) precisely because they did not want "Master" quality data to be pirated. In other words...making copies of MP3 files or standard DVDs and selling them (while illegal) is not particularly worrysome to Hollywood. BUT...SACD and Blu Ray are essentially "Master" quality...and in some cases...identical to the Master tapes from which they are created. This presented Hollywood with huge pirating problems.

I would love to "rip" SACDs to my computer. And maybe some day I will be able to. But, for right now, it is Hollywood that is preventing this.

Marcus

Face

DesertPilot wrote: »

Regarding "sound" quality of cheap vs. expensive players. The issue is just a bit more complex than "player" quality. SACD or CD or DVD-A or blu-ray or hd-dvd or whatever...is just a collection of 1s and 0s (admitedly with different methods of storing this digital information on the disc). Assuming the "player (or transport)" has a laser lens capable of "pushing" those "bits" of data...then an OPPO or a DENON or any player out there is going to do the exact same job. We could quibble about vibration and stuff. But all a player needs to really do is get the bits of data off the platter.

You couldn't be more wrong Marcus, sorry.

Yashu

Transport is just one part. You can have clock/jitter problems, faulty error correction, and then you have whatever DAC stage the player is using, quality of PSU, and so on.

You generally get what you pay for.

As for SACD. Everything I said was correct. Research it yourself, F1, every last constraint that I brought up is in place. We did not need some proprietary closed format that only a big label can control, in both production and distribution. We had DVD, a 4gb (and now 8gb) disc that could contain 24/96 PCM data and fit the same exact amount of music, with the same quality. If I pay 17 bucks for a disc, I damn well better be able to use the music in any way I please within my fair use rights. SACD illegally takes away fair use by invoking the DMCA, which by itself is enough of a disgraceful thing.

I don't think I will ever understand the people that do not see these tactics as wrong. It is just going to lead to an argument that goes around in circles. You will disagree with me, I will not understand why you think it is ok for a corporation to take away your rights, you will try and tell me that I am wrong, I will know that I am not, and then find more evidence to support that fact, you will then dispute it again, this time with some insults peppered in there, then I will get frustrated, perhaps write again shaking my head that kids these days don't care about their own rights, and questioning the complete apathy to a corporate controlled western world, then I will get insulted a few more times, then I will report each one and then leave leave the thread out of complete frustration.

Now that I have stated what will happen, there is no reason to sit here and watch it all play out. Listen to your "product", I will listen to my music, even if it has only been released in a 16/44.1khz format. Remember this... a true artist would never sign onto a closed format. I am an artist, I know the mindset, and it just doesn't happen. Chances are the music on SACD are what the label aleady owned the rights to, or they are new releases by those driven more by the $ sign than the desire for the world to hear their music. There are a small number of people that have accepted that many audiophiles own an SACD player and thus will begrudgingly release an SACD for them to enjoy. A true artist just wants people to enjoy their art on their own terms, not the terms of a corporate empire. I am not saying that there is no art on SACD, I am saying that given the choice, a true artist would never choose a closed format over an open one. There just isn't a choice sometimes... for those artists, I kindof feel sad for them. At least they are beginning to stand up to the corporate empire. The number one album of 2007 was released for free, and was not backed by any label. That gives me hope.

Danny Tse

DesertPilot wrote: »

I suppose bashing SONY is a fine American tradition. But, from what I have read...it is the movie studios and artists who have demanded Copy Protection in all these new formats (SACD, Blu-Ray, etc) precisely because they did not want "Master" quality data to be pirated.

I think greed is probably more the reason why there aren't more current releases on SACD, as seen in this article on how Beyonce's SACD became "not available in the US". Of course, you can still buy it from a US retailer and as usual, the internet is your friend....



For a SACD player that good and be inexpensive, there're 2 choices....Sony's SCD-CE595 5 disc CD/SACD changer or Oppo's 980 universal player. By all accounts, the Oppo sounds very good. I've owned my 595 ever since it came out about 3 years ago and it's an excellent sounding player....slow loading time, but not bad. There are Yamaha, Denon, and Onkyo universal players available in the $200.00 - $350.00 price range, but I haven't try these out yet.

My SACDs are played through 2 channel systems, either headphone-based or speaker-based, and SACD sounded great in either case. I look at SACD as a "deluxe" sounding version of the CD and while it does require another piece of component to play them, the entry fee isn't not prohibitively expensive. From my experience, SACD is well worth it.

Edit: 5,100th SACD title just logged at sa-cd.net

ryanjoachim

Now, for all these dvd/sacd players out there with HDMI...does the player output the sound from the SACD through HDMI?

Or would I still have/want to use the analog outputs?

F1nut

Allow me highlight the real reason more music hasn't been released on SACD and it's got jackshit to do with this closed format idea. In fact, up to the point where these greedy music publisher types pushed the issue, SACD's (other than classical) were coming out left and right.

Publishing Issues in the U.S.
Sony Music officials indicated that the change in plans was due to "publishing issues" encountered in the U.S. market. This involves the question of whether a high resolution audio disc with three separate versions of the same material (in this case CD Stereo, SACD Stereo and SACD Surround Sound) requires the payment of one "mechanical usage fee" or several to the music publisher of the material on the album.

The question helps to demonstrate why some material has been slow to make it to the new high resolution audio formats such as SACD and DVD-A. With both of the new formats, one might have anywhere from one to five different versions of the music on an album for compatibility and marketing purposes.

One other fact to consider, since 99+% of SACD's are hybird, one can still make copies of the redbook layer, so the closed format idea really doesn't hold water. Now, if you to talk about a true closed format, that would be your PCM 24/96 DVD-A, which can not be played on any old CD player because it doesn't even have a redbook layer and therefore can not be copied, period. I also have to say that PCM 24/96 and SACD do not sound the same. SACD is much better to my ears, which is the ultimate test.

Frankly, I could care less about who's at fault, closed format, open format or whatever format and all the other BS. All I want is sound quality that's better than what's available from redbook and SACD has it in spades.

BTW, if it isn't clear enough by now Yashu, your arguement doesn't hold water.

Yashu

One other fact to consider, since 99+% of SACD's are hybird, one can still make copies of the redbook layer, so the closed format idea really doesn't hold water

Is there a single drive for the computer that can read/write an SACD layer that is free to buy in North America? No... hence, closed format. As long as less than 1% of the musicians of the world even have a chance at reaching Sony's two plants in the ENTIRE WORLD, that can create an SACD, it is a closed format. Until I can record with my band, write an SACD and hand it to my friends, self promote, sell at venues I play, ect... it is a closed format. I can write a 24/96 PCM digital file to a DVD, anyone with a computer can. That is an open format.

The reason why there are only 5,100 SACD titles is because Sony has only allowed 5,100 SACD titles to be made. Sony has only "authorized" a few thousand bands to put their music on an SACD layer and release it to the world. Some standard, eh?

I have many albums that include a companion DVD with a high quality multichannel mix, and this is how it should be. I can make a DVD, you can make a DVD, none of us can make an SACD... oh... wait... Beyonce can make an SACD... but can't have it released in her own **** country. Yeah... that sounds like the standard we should be all supporting, yeah buddy.

Music is an artform, not a commodity. Treat it with respect, please. SACD will never take off, no matter how much Sony allows it to be released wherever, unless ANYONE can make one. Artists aren't a stupid bunch... we won't travel en masse to a new standard until it is an open standard. A few might be lured by dollar signs, but that's it, a few (and as I said, a couple groups that know audiophiles own SACD players and begrudgingly accept the chance when given). Unless you can link to where I can buy an SACD burner at a reasonable price, then my argument will always stand. All you are doing is giving Sony $17 more worth of reasons to keep their crappy system in place every time you buy an SACD, oh, and a couple cents of that *may* go to the "artist", but chances are slim.

Let me ask you this in another way... would you like 5,100 titles, or 100 million? That is the difference between a closed and an open format.

F1nut

Ok, I see that you seem to be confused at best. You're not even talking about DVD-A, but rather audio DVD. Further enlightenment is in order.

First, an audio DVD is not the same as DVD Audio (DVD-A). DVD Audio is a very high-quality audio format that only plays on certain special (and more expensive) DVD players. Second, if you're planning on making an Audio DVD for your car, make sure that your player allows you to browse through the DVD menu when your car is moving. Some in-car DVD players prevent screens mounted in the dash from being able to do this. And third, one thing we've all gotten used to in this digital audio age is the abilty to select playlists, and even make them on the fly. There's no changing the order of tracks or selecting only a few songs to play with audio DVDs. You just pop the disc in, hit play, and let the music go. Good planning of your audio DVD layout will help with this. You can put the music in any order you'd like when you author the disc.

You are not making a DVD-A, it's just an audio DVD, which really isn't any different than a redbook CD, except that you can control the recording and playback of redbook much better than audio DVD. An audio DVD is not a hi-rez format, commercial audio DVD's are basically non-existent that I'm aware of and in the case of DVD-A, it's dead. By comparision, SACD is quite well and alive.

FYI, DVD-A's are encrypted and watermarked for copyright protection, meaning you can't make copies of them either.

Here's a quote from someone that thought they were buying an DVD-A, when in fact they bought an audio DVD.

NOT DVD-A!
This listing is a mistake. This is not DVD-Audio. It's also terrible!

As for there being only two SACD pressing plants. I'm not sure how many there are actually, but I know there are some in Japan, Germany and Austria, so that's at least 3 and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

And finally, to answer your ridiculous question. Yeah, I'll take 5100 HI-REZ SACD's over 100 million also rans.

Danny Tse

F1nut wrote: »

As for there being only two SACD pressing plants. I'm not sure how many there are actually, but I know there are some in Japan, Germany and Austria, so that's at least 4 and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

There're 3 SACD Sony pressing plants that I know of: Japan, Austria, and Terre Haute, Indiana. From all indications, the Japan and Austria plants are still in operation.

Then there's a Sonopress pressing plant in Germany. Viva Magnetics also operated a SACD pressing plant in Hong Kong. Crest National operated a plant in Southern California as well....i.e. US pressing of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" SACD.

F1nut

I didn't realize the one in Austria was owned by Sony, I stand corrected.

Danny Tse

F1nut wrote: »

and the ones in Germany and Austria are not owned by Sony.

Actually, it's possible we're both correct. Just looked at 2 of my SACDs from Top Music of Hong Kong and both SACD have a "Sonopress" logo in the inner ring. However, I also have a Euro SACD version of Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue" that states the disc was "Made in Austia" with Sony's distinctive fonts printed around the inner ring



So, perhaps there're 2 SACD plants in Austria? Or the one plant has changed hands?

Yashu

I was not talking about DVD-A, that was just another useless proprietary format.

Until any artist can freely write to a format that is widely supported, your 5,100 titles is going to grow at the slow pace (5000 over 6 years? WTF!), or just wilt away while artists are hanging onto CD as long as they can.

We have the media, it is called a DVD, which is 4 and 8gb capacity, we have an audio format, called PCM digital, it is what is on your redbook CDs and also stored in the format of .wav for the computer.

Is it because the labels don't want people to have their fair use rights? Is it because the manufacturers already have so much invested in SACD equipment? Is it because people don't care? It doesn't make sense to me.

Stop buying SACDs. Just stop... let the format die, for the sake of the future of digital audio, let this **** sink into the sand. I am going to tell you this, and mark my words, artists will cling to the CD until their last breath until there is an open high resolution format that everyone has access to. That means that anyone can create one, burn one, listen to one, rip one, just like a CD. The CD opened up something the music industry had never seen before... ultra cheap media that even the most starving of starving garage bands can afford to make. The computer has only caused them to salivate even more, as lossless distribution becomes viable. It doesn't matter how much the labels twist and turn, fight, ****, sue, whatever... all they have is what has been, not what will be. My point is... I don't see how buying anything related to SACD does nothing but hurt the very art that you are supposed to love so much as an audiophile. All it does, is give Sony, and the other parties that are watching, reason to think that SACD is viable, but allowing a megacorp to control, not only promotion, but access, AND distribution? How is that a good thing? All that means is that you are force fed... musical tastes raised by focus groups and drive to sell a product instead of support an artform.

Mark my words... I am serious. SACD will die, it will wither, and 99% of the artists out there will cling to the CD until there is an open format that is better. The CD will be the standard until there is a format that ANYONE that even thinks about picking up an instrument can create. None of this VIP access only ****... I am talking about getting together with my band, or just that solo project I have been meaning to try, and creating a high resolution format that has the same level of support and freedom that the CD has.

Currently there is no such format. DVD is the closest thing we have, but even that had to be reverse engineered. It is pathetic what musicians have to go through to get music to you people, what you make them go through. It is not necessary, it is not right, and it is not deserved. You want a high resolution format that is widely supported, we want a high resolution format that is widely supported that WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE OURSELVES, you know... without having to kiss the **** of a Sony executive to get "authorization" to use one of just a couple of facilities in the entire world. Sony has effectively kept every single independent label from even being able to create an SACD, much less market and sell one. That is the sad part... the indies are the only area of innovation left, the music business would be dead if it were left up to the majors.

I know there are a lot of wonderful classics out there that were produced under these big labels, but that was a different time... I feel like, they are almost using this to hold that era of music hostage... to forever live out it's days on one proprietary format after another from now on?

Maybe that is why I said, in the very beginning of this thread, that vinyl is for high resolution audio, not SACD. In 2008, the digital revolution, and it is easier for a band to produce a vinyl record than an SACD, if you did not get the picture through my last posts, then maybe that might help show you what a turkey SACD has become. Let it die... please. Let it die so we can move on towards a real format, an open format, and FINALLY we can evolve from the CD onto something that us artists have been waiting for a long time to have; an open format that ANYONE can create, and that does not steal away your fan's fair use rights.

Ok... I am done. If you guys haven't got it yet, then nothing I can say beyond the facts that I have presented. If anyone can link me to a drive (it's been 6 years, there should be plenty, right, if the format is as good as you say?) for my computer that can burn SACDs, so that I can give them to my friends, promote them as demos, and sell them at shows, I will kindly apologize to everyone here. I want to know... I am an artist, and since there is such interest in SACD, wouldn't it be nice if I could start burning, and also pressing (on a smaller scale of course... there *are* smaller independently owned SACD production facilities, right?... oh wait... there aren't.) SACDs... if it is such a great format that is going to be the next digital standard, I need to go buy my SACD burner and start getting things ready for my next EP.

tonyb

Man I need a nap after all that. All things considered,the only problem I have with it is someone telling me what not to buy.If I like SACD,then damn it,I will buy it.If I like my audio on a roll of toilet paper then....ok,I won't buy that,but you get the point.

TroyD

Christ, so much unadulterated **** that I don't even know where to start.

Yashu, if you don't like the format, don't f*cking buy it, it's obvious you don't know **** about it...and quit passing off your opinions as the word of God handed down to Moses. You facts are flimsy and the conclusions that you draw are narrow-minded at best.

Crackpot.

BDT

DesertPilot

Agreed. Boring argument.

I love my SACDs. I'm glad I own them and have a player that can play them. And I am truly grateful that a number of companies have produced them. See my list of titles at:

http://www.sa-cd.net/library/4113

I am looking forward to Opera & Symphonic/classical works being produced on Blu-Ray (with an option to listen to audio only). There is considerable buzz about Lord of the Rings (Extended Edition) coming out in Blu Ray (no announcment - just speculation)...this will be quite a test of Audio Quality as well as Video Quality, as a DVD-A version of the soundtrack has already been released.

I'm sure in 10 years there will be yet another format with even better quality. Such is the progression of technology. Gosh, I remember when my TEAC reel-to-reel tape deck (circa 1980) was the cat's MEOW! Oh yeah, and I remember when I bought a mini-disk player in 1997 only to see it become obsolete within minutes of purchase as "ripping" CDs suddenly became all the rage. Hahaha. I really got burned on that purchase.

Regarding my previous post...I still maintain that if you move SACD data in digital format via HDMI and have your receiver/pre do the DAC...then there is simply no difference between an OPPO or a DENON as a transport.

Marcus

TroyD

I have no idea about the HDMI issue but that makes sense, if you are using the DAC in the receiver or pre/pro...yes, the quality of the transport is less important. I can unequivocally say there is a HUGE difference in a budget SACD player and a higher end one.

BDT

reeltrouble1

Ya. think BDT;)

Yazoo gets his mouth on his kazoo and just has a going and going problem that finally dribbles out the Wazoo, I believe it was avodart that I suggested. woo woo woo Yazoo, dude really man.

SACD is the best audio format we have. Sony has most of it locked away in their vault and yes the bruha is over payment for the different layers.

RT1

reeltrouble1

DesertPilot wrote: »

Agreed. Boring argument.

I love my SACDs.

reel-to-reel

Regarding my previous post...I still maintain that if you move SACD data in digital format via HDMI and have your receiver/pre do the DAC...then there is simply no difference between an OPPO or a DENON as a transport.

Marcus

with the exception of the last tidbit this Polk Padewan has tremendous potential.:)

Reely........:eek:

Keeping it Reel.

RT1

ryanjoachim

ryanjoachim wrote: »

Now, for all these dvd/sacd players out there with HDMI...does the player output the sound from the SACD through HDMI?

Or would I still have/want to use the analog outputs?

With all the LONG-winded posts here, I'm not sure if someone answered me or if I just missed it?

reeltrouble1

Thats cuz the answer is:

It depends...........on what version HDMI you have and oh yea it gets better, it depends on which parts of that versions HDMI potential the manufacturer actually used in that version of the component, its ala-carte, just because a version of HDMI might pass be able to pass a signal does not mean the the machine can read it.

confused?? Last I checked their was HDMI 1, 1.2 and 1.3, have fun, or just use analog cables. Seems I remember reading 1.3 could pass SACD with the above caveats.

RT1

tonyb

Just use the analog cables and you won't have to worry about HDMI handshake issues.
Plain enough?

ryanjoachim

Well, I have all 1.3a compatible cables and receiver, so handshaking isn't really an issue. I just wanted to make sure if I ended up getting a dvd/savd player with HDMI and no analog if I wouldn't be missing out.

F1nut

The way I see it, with analog cables you have another way of fine tuning your system and yes, cables are part of a system.



As for Yashu.......dude, you've got issues.

Ron Temple

The Oppo can pass DVDA and SACD via HDMI 1.2 and higher if the AVR pre/pro is at least 1.2A (I believe) compliant.

heiney9

F1nut wrote: »

As for Yashu.......dude, you've got issues.

How does one type in a straight jacket? Vinyl is hi Rez? WTF? That is almost quote worthy if it was coming from anyone but a very disturbed artist who obviously can't get his work heard by a major label and decides to rant on our forum about it.

fumoffu

Ron Temple wrote: »

The Oppo can pass DVDA and SACD via HDMI 1.2 and higher if the AVR pre/pro is at least 1.2A (I believe) compliant.

The receiver also needs to be able to decode DSD. Now to further complicate things some players convert the SACD to PCM, others transmit it as DSD.

ryanjoachim

sexy.

I'm thinking about getting this from craigslist...

http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/ele/592089492.html

beardog03

fpr that price you can check it out and form our own opinion..!!!

ryanjoachim

NEVAR!

I'm meeting him after work