Why is SACD not really succeeding?

[j_garcia]

I think neither of these formats is really catching on because the general public are satisfied with "good enough" - I can hear the song; that's good enough. A good example being the popularity of MP3...

 

[WmAx]

Pyramix converts DSD into 32 bit / 352.8 kHz PCM, what preserves the original quality of 1 bit 2.8MHz DSD signals.

The Pyramix is not the standard tool set for editing/mixing/engineering. I was referring to what is typically done, as I was careful to qualify.

You can see how the Esoteric X-01 gets a DSD noise floor lower than 44.1 kHz PCM, even above 10 kHz frequencies, because of ultrasonic filtering.

Indeed, this unit seems to be the first to have somewhat better HF noise performance than standard CD that I have noticed. I note that they state on the page that the unit uses very aggressive filtering.

http://stereophile.com/thefifthelement/205fifth/index3.html

Besides, I don't agree less noise means higher fidelity.

That is true. In fact, the SNR of CD is not even required for transparent playback of music according to existing perceptual research.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Direct Stream Digital (DSD) increases the resolution of music by more closely following the original waveform of the music. If you look at these pictures, you can notice 192 kHz PCM does not approach the analog signal but the 1-bit pulse train of DSD.

The square wave captures illustrate bandwidth response. CD bandwidth is more than sufficient for transparent playback for humans according to the existing credible research.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I think neither of these formats is really catching on because the general public are satisfied with "good enough" - I can hear the song; that's good enough. A good example being the popularity of MP3...

That is a bit of a confusing statement [to me]. Modern MP3 encoders of a high evolutionary state [LAME for example] can produce MP3 encoded files that are almost always transparent to almost all listeners[regardless of golden ear claimed status of said listeners] according to controlled testing results that have been published online at various sites such as hydrogenaudio.org. That is not to say that most MP3 files qualify as transparent; but using the proper encoding tools, they can potentially be transparent most of the time.

-Chris

 

[hopjohn]

SACD's only compelling feature is the multi-channel ability. In every other way, it is a step back from CD.

5) SACD and DVD-A do seem to have one advantage that is real besides multi-channel: They are not so often compromised on purpose as CD releases. You can find examples of SACDs and DVD-As that are superior mixes/masters as compared to the CD versions, as the CD versions are almost always mixed to sound the loudest, not to sound the best. Note: the CD layer on a SACD is usually the same master as the regular CD, where as the SACD layer is usually a different mastered version.

I'd say that this is a pretty compelling reason, owning a definitive copy.

In the classical realm SACD is alive and well. For those whose tastes don't include this sort of thing then I guess they'll will just have to hope that their favorite artists release dualdiscs that include a 5.1 mix or at least and enhanced res 2 channel mix. Thats seems to be where things are headed with the pop genres.

As for copying and ripping, would that not hurt sales even more if it were possible? It certainly did with CDs.

 

[ironlung]

That is a bit of a confusing statement [to me]. Modern MP3 encoders of a high evolutionary state [LAME for example] can produce MP3 encoded files that are almost always transparent to almost all listeners[regardless of golden ear claimed status of said listeners] according to controlled testing results that have been published online at various sites such as hydrogenaudio.org. That is not to say that most MP3 files qualify as transparent; but using the proper encoding tools, they can potentially be transparent most of the time.

-Chris

When I stick my CD in media player 10 and rip a 64bit-128bit MP3 does that count as transparent? Indistingushable from SACD/DVD-A in double blind test. When I do a un-scientific test at home and A-B a MP3 over the TIVO and a CD in my DVD player there is no comparasion. In my non golden ear, poor memory, different signal path, best attempt to not be subjective the CD is far superior.

I know you stated the perception studys say it's indistinguishable with certain rips(is iTunes in this category?) It would seem someone who is actuallly deaf since birth could guess that a file with 1-2 megs(MP3) of info about the sounds on the song can't sound equal to a file with 370 megs(DVD-A) of info about the same sound.


I'll have to hunt down this LAME ripper.

 

[WmAx]

As for copying and ripping, would that not hurt sales even more if it were possible? It certainly did with CDs.

That is a seperate issue. However, I am not aware of any real evidence to show that such damaged actual sales or profits. But it is a fair use right to rip and use the audio data for whatever purpose you see fit[so long as you do not violate copyright restrictions specified by U.S. code].

The severe reduction in practical use of the SACD or DVD-A certainly can not help sales, especially in a market where it is now common for consumers to need to rip and use such data for complitions, computer libraries and portable audio purposes.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

When I stick my CD in media player 10 and rip a 64bit-128bit MP3 does that count as transparent? Indistingushable from SACD/DVD-A in double blind test. When I do a un-scientific test at home and A-B a MP3 over the TIVO and a CD in my DVD player there is no comparasion. In my non golden ear, poor memory, different signal path, best attempt to not be subjective the CD is far superior.

I know you stated the perception studys say it's indistinguishable with certain rips(is iTunes in this category?) It would seem someone who is actuallly deaf since birth could guess that a file with 1-2 megs(MP3) of info about the sounds on the song can't sound equal to a file with 370 megs(DVD-A) of info about the same sound.


I'll have to hunt down this LAME ripper.

Yes, your example is about as unfair[and unscientific] a comparison as one could get.

DVD-A has no known specific inherent superiority over CD as a format due to it's signal storage abilities, referring to perceptual research on audible/quantifiable parameters, except for the multi-channel feature of course. Such claims of DVD-A[and SACD] are not made by those with what could be considered credible evidence, but instead, speculation(s) and anecdotal evidence. I point this out because you refer to a DVD-A file size, specifically. You may as well refer to the CD uncompressed data. FYI, 128kbps has been shown to be transparent to many people on most music samples when using the latest version of LAME with the recommended encoding modes. But to insure transparency over a wider range of listeners and music, a higher bit rate would be recommended. 128kbps is usually chosen for maximum storage space reasons.

Please refer to www.hydrogenaudio.org, a scientific community dealing with audio compression, for detailed information on audio compression codecs.

-Chris

 

[markw]

Yep, the simple truth

I think neither of these formats is really catching on because the general public are satisfied with "good enough" - I can hear the song; that's good enough. A good example being the popularity of MP3...

All Joe Sixpack (who has the money to decide what flies and what dies in the marketplace)cares about is convenience and price. The difference in sound between redbook CD's and these hi-rez formats don't bother him at all.

The only thing that sold CD's to him in the first place was convenience. The sound was secondary. Heck, if he cared about sound, reel to reel tape decks would have been a common household item from the 50's onward.

..same with the new video formats. Who cares if SpongeBob is in hi-def?

At best, these will wind up niche markets, like vinyl. At worst, they will wind up as vague memories like DBX encoded records, Elcassettes and Betamax.

 

[j_garcia]

That is not to say that most MP3 files qualify as transparent; but using the proper encoding tools, they can potentially be transparent most of the time.

I'm not saying that MP3 isn't capable of good fidelity (at 192k I think it is pretty good already), but I'd say the vast majority of people out there with iPods don't even know what a bitrate is, nor do they care. Not all, but most.

 

[ironlung]

Yes, your example is about as unfair[and unscientific] a comparison as one could get.

Agreed

DVD-A has no known specific inherent superiority over CD as a format due to it's signal storage abilities, referring to perceptual research on audible/quantifiable parameters, except for the multi-channel feature of course. Such claims of DVD-A[and SACD] are not made by those with what could be considered credible evidence, but instead, speculation(s) and anecdotal evidence. I point this out because you refer to a DVD-A file size, specifically. You may as well refer to the CD uncompressed data. FYI, 128kbps has been shown to be transparent to many people when using the latest version of LAME with the recommended encoding modes. But to insure transparency over a wider range of listeners, a higher bit rate would be recommended.

Please refer to www.hydrogenaudio.org, a scientific community dealing with audio compression, for detailed information on audio compression codecs.

-Chris

I will read more on codecs but my deaf person example seems reasonable. While I understand sound quality is not directly related to file size there has to be a point that it matters. Can there be a 5 minute length MP3 less than 1 meg of data thats transparent as a full size CD/SACD/DVD-A? At a certain point it has to matter.

It's like reading War and Peace cover to cover or reading the cliff notes or reading a first year HS students summary. The point of the story gets across but they are hardly all equal.


...off to hydrogen audio I go...

 

[ironlung]

All Joe Sixpack (who has the money to decide what flies and what dies in the marketplace)cares about is convenience and price. The difference in sound between redbook CD's and these hi-rez formats don't bother him at all.

The only thing that sold CD's to him in the first place was convenience. The sound was secondary. Heck, if he cared about sound, reel to reel tape decks would have been a common household item from the 50's onward.

..same with the new video formats. Who cares if SpongeBob is in hi-def?

At best, these will wind up niche markets, like vinyl. At worst, they will wind up as vague memories like DBX encoded records, Elcassettes and Betamax.

That sounds familiar...

 

[krabapple]

Agreed



I will read more on codecs but my deaf person example seems reasonable. While I understand sound quality is not directly related to file size there has to be a point that it matters. Can there be a 5 minute length MP3 less than 1 meg of data thats transparent as a full size CD/SACD/DVD-A? At a certain point it has to matter.

Of course. But the key point is that at certain bitrates, it appear to *stop mattering* to most people -- which is to say, most people *would not* be able to tell the MP3 apart from the CD in a blind comparison at or beyond that point. That 'certain point', using the best encoders around today, can be as low as 128 kbps for some people, 192 for most, and higher for a few. That said, with exceptional ears and training to discern subtle artifacts, some small proportion of people can even successfully tell a 320 kpbs MP3 (maximum bitrate) from a typical source. There are also some 'difficult to encode' tracks that people tend to be able to distinguish as MP3s, even at high bitrates. These have historically been used to further improve the LAME codec. There's plenty of detail on all this at hydrogenaudio.org, if you're willing to spend a week reading it.


You can test yourself, too, with CD vs MP3s, using tools available from links posted there.

 

[gene]

Does anybody have insights into why SACD is not really taking off?

Well Sony isn't really supporting it any more so that certainly doesn't help its success story.

Also recording studios have and likely always will master in PCM and DSD is really not compatible.

Check out our articles on this topic:
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/currentrecordingtrendsP1.php

 

[Johnd]

Well Sony isn't really supporting it any more so that certainly doesn't help its success story.

If Sony truly pursues their ucmf process, the cost of sacd's should near the cost of cd's in the proximate future. The number of sacd titles ought to grow exponentially as well.

http://www.sa-cd.net/shownews/41

 

[dvda-sacd]

Well Sony isn't really supporting it any more so that certainly doesn't help its success story.

I think that's a wrong information.

Blu-Ray Disc and Super Audio CD Support
Another interesting question that the Blu-Ray launch raises is whether Sony thinks that Super Audio CD (SA-CD) and Direct Stream Digital (DSD) have a future. At the show, Sony officials noted that the audio output on their new STR DG-1000 receiver is actually marked not "CD" but rather "SA-CD/CD" as one clue to their thinking along with their recent enhancement to the SACD mastering format. I also heard once again that the Super Audio CD playback feature as well as Blu-Ray Disc playback both continue to be part of the feature package for the upcoming Sony Playstation 3 product due out this November. And I was told that SACD playback was coming to a future edition of the Blu-Ray hardware platform. So this will be an interesting area to watch.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=19009834

In my opinion, Sony wants Blu-ray Disc to kill off DVD-Audio with 5.1-channel PCM up to 192kHz sampling rate and 24-bit resolution. Then Super Audio CD will remain as a pure audio format with an exclusive audio encoding (Direct Stream Digital).

 

[gene]

In my opinion, Sony wants Blu-ray Disc to kill off DVD-Audio with 5.1-channel PCM up to 192kHz sampling rate and 24-bit resolution. Then Super Audio CD will remain as a pure audio format with an exclusive audio encoding (Direct Stream Digital).

Haha we shall see. We are living in a PCM world whether Sony likes it or not. All of the receivers/processors handle bass management in PCM, most of the recording studios master their mixes in PCM.

Personally, I love the sound quality of my 2CH SACD's and wish I had a bigger selection but I just don't see it going any further than a niche market and certainly NOT a replacement for DVD-A or CD for that matter.

Another interesting question that the Blu-Ray launch raises is whether Sony thinks that Super Audio CD (SA-CD) and Direct Stream Digital (DSD) have a future. At the show, Sony officials noted that the audio output on their new STR DG-1000 receiver is actually marked not "CD" but rather "SA-CD/CD" as one clue to their thinking along with their recent enhancement to the SACD mastering format. I also heard once again that the Super Audio CD playback feature as well as Blu-Ray Disc playback both continue to be part of the feature package for the upcoming Sony Playstation 3 product due out this November. And I was told that SACD playback was coming to a future edition of the Blu-Ray hardware platform. So this will be an interesting area to watch.

Well that assumes Blu Ray will be a success. That remains to be seen. Simply labeling a recievers input "SACD" doesn't ensure anything and convincing recording studios to change over from PCM to SACD is going to be a most difficult task for them, to put it mildly.

Here is an editorial we wrote back in 04 which indicated Sony was pulling back on SACD support. Perhaps they are rethinking it now as a way to gain more momentum for Blu Ray.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/EHXsurround2004conference2.php

 

[Dan Banquer]

Sacd

I am going to echo some of the responses in this thread. The way I'm looking at things these days is that the general consumer audio public is not interested at this point in time in fidelity. They are interested in music on demand, and convienence is the priority.
I am also convinced that we are in the process of raising an entire genertion that is fully accustomed and accepting of hyper compression and clipping as the norm. I don't see much of a future for fidelity, and I really don't think most manufacturers do either as the lack of real progress in loudspeakers over the past ten years is rather evident.
I am also hoping that I am dead wrong, and this is just a passing phase.
d.b.

 

[shokhead]

I think that's a wrong information.

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=19009834

In my opinion, Sony wants Blu-ray Disc to kill off DVD-Audio with 5.1-channel PCM up to 192kHz sampling rate and 24-bit resolution. Then Super Audio CD will remain as a pure audio format with an exclusive audio encoding (Direct Stream Digital).

SACD has crap for selection unless you like classical or jazz. Thats one big problem. Another is SACD and DVD-a are for people like us,the few,not for joe blow going into BB or CC to pick up a few discs.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Given the ability of BRD to carry a DSD signal, SACD is technically already obsolete. They could theoretically put a full resolution SACD onto a BRD alongside a 1080p video at any time (well, as soon as they get the multilayer probs ironed out). In point of fact both of the current HD disc formats can do everything SACD or DVD-A can do, plus more.

Of course, there's no real consumer interest in such a product. There's almost zero mass appeal to DVD-A or SACD, either. No, they're not going away. The enthusiast market is sufficient for both to exist indefinately. There's a lot of classical and jazz available for both formats with more added daily. Over 1,500 DVD-A and around 4,000 SACD.

Both formats "failed" in part because their launches were botched and they were poorly marketed. But mostly they've stalled commercially because they don't provide the consumer with what s/he wants. Hi rez and multichannel are the buzzwords for us, but the bulk of consumers want something they can rip to their computers and iPods. And they like to burn compilation discs. Neither is really possible with SACD or DVD-A.

Mostly though, neither format is an upgrade, at least in the mind of consumers. They're less convenient than CD- you can't rip 'em and I've never seen a portable player. They don't offer an easy one-cable output to access the MC track, so the majority of listeners either don't get surround from them or hear the DD/DTS track and say "hey, that doesn't sound any better."

The final nail in the coffin as that SACD/DVD-A didn't provide a paradigm shift like CD did. Most people pre-85 never really heard a good 'table, since most people aren't really into gear. The average "enthusiast" probably had a $75 Asian 'table with the cart already attached. To those people, the CD was a revelation. No scratches, no pops, just music flowing from dead silence. You didn't have to do much to clean them, they never wore out and you could skip to any song and program your favorites. To most consumers, SACD & DVD-A are a step backwards.