Is SACD really any better for 2ch?

[markw]

From what I've read it was more a bait-and-switch. Sony launched as stereo to give themselves audiophool cred, much like you'd give you child grape flavored cough syrup so he's take it. They intended it to be MC all along, if the things I've read are to believed. Unfortunately, audiophools are pretty much the only ones who care about SACD or DVD-A, and there's probably not enough of us to make a format viable without getting the masses on board, too.

So, again Joe Sixpack and his WalMArt shopping habits determines the fate of these two formats.

Not that I'm going to lose any sleep over this. I've heard som incredible two channel redbook CD's that I doubt SACD could improve significantly upon. Try Mapleshade or Reference Recordings for examples of these.

 

[WmAx]

So, again Joe Sixpack and his WalMArt shopping habits determines the fate of these two formats.

In this case Joe Sixpack is a smart cookie whether he knows it or not.

Would you like to replace RBCD with a format that does not allow you to use the data as YOU see fit(portable audio, backup, music server, aftermarket DSP processing, accesory DACs, etc.)? Do you want to relenquish ALL rights(where did fair use go?) of use and choice to the music distributor?

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-Chris

 

[markw]

Well...

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-Chris

On a basic, two channel level I agree with you. Alas, if one demands more than two channels, one must pay their money and choose.

This is one of the times I'm glad I still prefer two channels for music. That may change in the future when they get off of the "ping pang pong" effects and more into the ambiance but, for now, I'll sit pretty as I am.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I love MC music, but I think WmAX is correct- both formats will doom themselves if they can't be copied or ripped for portable use. It's absurd in this day and age where entertainment is mostly digital that the labels expect you to buy multiple copies if you want SACD in the house with a copy for the car. Just assanine.

My local BB has recently scaled back their SACD section by about 50%. That can't be a good sign. Next to Wally World, BB is the largest seller of CDs & DVDs in the country now. As WM & BB go, so goes the market. If the few stores that have pushed them give up, how can they hope to grow?

I have no doubts that both formats will survive for many years as a niche market, unless they're absorbed by Blu-ray or HD-DVD. But my optimism that they'll one day gain wide consumer acceptance is starting to fade.

 

[markw]

Why do I keep flashing back to the mid 70's???

..and no, it ain't the drugs, either.

Quad... SQ, QS, CD4 or discrete. Actually, the first two were the biggest parallel to the current day in that both could be incorporated cheaply onto a twwo channel product. Yes, CD4 could also but that involved a new cartridge and some pretty low cap TT wiring.

ultimately, they thrashed it out for so long and the benefits were so, well, let's be chariatible and say, "questionable" that they both eventually died of their own weight and the software manufactuter's simply didn't find it worth their while to bother with it.

But, since we're all talking the same basic 5 1/4" disc, it may take a while for them to die down unless, of course, it remains a niche, and don't be surprised if that niche costs somewhat more.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I don't think the Quad debacle is a very good analogy. They both use multiple channels, but the similarity ends there. MC was a truly novelty back then. What else used surround in the 70's? It was the very late 70's before even the original Dolby Pro Logic system was first used (Star Wars was the first film in surround, and well into the next decade many films were still stereo or even mono). Now we have hundreds of millions of surround DVDs, all decent theaters have surround, every Xbox game on the market uses Dolby Digital, there are DTS Playstation games, computers use 5.1 audio for games, etc. I think there're are something like 40 or 50 million surround systems in the US today. Granted, many of them are probably HTiB rigs, but the average Joe Sixpack equates movies with surround.

Has surround caught on for music? It's hard to say to what degree, but I'd have to say it has. Sales of SACD & DVD-A have hardly been brisk, but how many people use PLII, Meridan Tri-Field, Harmon's Logic 7 or some other surround mode for music playback? An awful lot, I can tell you that. At least one hi end dealer I'm aquainted with has proclaimed plain old 2 ch stereo dead as far as he's concerned. And the Ampzilla guy's (I can't spell his name) won Best of CES with his Trinaural 3 Channel Stereo processor.

 

[lblampman]

Perhaps I'm just old and set in my ways, but multi-channel doesn't excite me at all for music. For movies, maybe, but there's not enough content out there I enjoy to drive me to make a home theater investment. YMMV.

In general I agree with your feelings about music; I don't want to hear it from several different directions...except that's what happens in the real world. That is, if you walk into a theater with live music playing you don't *only* hear the music from the stage; you also get the reflections from the rest of the theater. The idea then of surround sound for music is to support those subtle nuances that would be relavent to a particular live environment.

You shouldn't actually *know* when the surround speakers are working. When I got our latest surround system set up my wife complained that she couldn't hear the rear spearkers very well. I had her close her eyes and just listen to the whole sound and not try to hear any particular speaker (or speaker set). Then I turned off the surround speakers and she said the sound went 'flat'; now this (with the surrounds turned off) is exactly the same setup she has listened to for quite some and has been very happy with. My point is you shouldn't be able to tell when the surrounds are "on", only when they're "off". They should be adding ambiance, depth, and feel to the music and not giving you the sense than you're hearing the music from everywhere in the room.

Obviously this is just one guys opinion .

All the best,

Les

 

[MDS]

In this case Joe Sixpack is a smart cookie whether he knows it or not.

Would you like to replace RBCD with a format that does not allow you to use the data as YOU see fit(portable audio, backup, music server, aftermarket DSP processing, accesory DACs, etc.)? Do you want to relenquish ALL rights(where did fair use go?) of use and choice to the music distributor?

From my perspective, SACD and DVD-A are doomed for so long as they implement this bull feces.

-Chris

My thoughts exactly! I would only add that I have no problem with MC music and would like to have the option of MC music, but only if I can then do whatever I want with it. If any multi channel format does achieve market dominance, let it be DVD-A. DVD-A is PCM based (compressed with MLP) and thus we could retain the ability to get the raw pcm samples and use the same kinds of tools that have been used for decades to manipulate it - like I do for standard RBCD.