SACD fundamentally flawed?

Isn't that the point? Unbiased reporting should not be based on press releases. Press releases are always meant to tell a positive story. While they may contain truth, they are always spun positively - that is their purpose. Would you take everything that us goverment's press department (or any goverment) says at face value? I would hope not. Certainly most of our admitedly flawed media doesn't.

 

First of all, Gabe, accurate reporting must involve letting the public know what statements companies make in official releases. If Sony announces it's going to release 15 Bob Dylan titles on hybrid SACD, and a reporter can't get further information beyond the press release, that reporter had better report about the press release. If you as a supposedly savvy reader want to then disbelieve the press release or think it is "spun positively", that's your prerogative.

Secondly, using your logic, any statement from anyone at any company will be "spun". We therefore should trust no information unless it comes from a completely independent "third party". Of course, who's to say the third party isn't biased.

I worked as a professional journalist for 7 years and I know a good journalist when I see one. Brian M is a good journalist.

 

Actually GregM, despite your condescending tone, I do consider myself a savvy reader and I have to say I disagree completely. It is one thing to report on a company's announcement to release a series of discs, it's quite another to report on the financial success of something based on what a company says. A preferable source is one with least potential for bias, not the most potential.

By your logic using the press releases from a company such as Enron as a source for reporting on their success was OK. Especially because an independent third party could be biased.

Since you state you have been a professional journalist you know that any source is biased to a greater or lesser degree. You should know that a good reporter always checks his facts and in many cases an independent "third party" is desired because of the lesser potential for bias. You should also know as a professional journalist that any press release comes from a Public Relations department. By definition, a pr department spins things.

 

Hi,

Sure would be nice if Bruno would join the discussion. I'd love to know why Phillips did such a lame job on QC of the SACD 1000!

I've hadda lotta convo's w/ EE on the subject of audio and usually end up disagreeing w/ their recommended audio components. If i listened to them, i'd hafta get ridda my tube preamp, my tube amp, and my SACD player. No thanks!

Just Another View,
Jeffrey

 

Here is a good read on the subject.

http://www.sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Not that I care. As long as companies make high end universal players that match the best single format players I will buy both SACD and DVDA.

If this information has already been posted Im sorry. I dont have the time now to scroll this whole thread.

Vedric

 

Remember that the aim of most EE's is to achieve *fidelity* to the source as opposed to "pleasant sound".

_________
Thom

 

This is a very interesting subject, and the artical detailind SACD's shortfalls and PCM's attributes is also very interesting, but isn't the most important thing in this whole debate how the music sounds. I personally feel that DSD encoding technology and SACD playback offer a more realistic feel to recorded sound. Just grab any of the Audio Fidelity SACDs that are mastered by Steve Hoffman to judge for yourself just how natural recorded sound can be. Try for example THE SONNY CLARK TRIO on SACD as mastered by Steve Hoffman, and play the song Blues Blue. This little number, as reproduced on SACD, sounds exactly like going back in time and playing a very high quality black vinyl album through a high end tube set in the 1950's. The warmth in this recording is so real, and the top end is so open and airy, that you will find yourself transported back to era of hi fi that our fathers knew. This is just my feeling of the intangible qualities that SACD gives to recorded sound.

 

I agree Rocky. There is something more analog like from using a very fast sample rate (2.8mhz) of DSD. Hirez PCM sounds good too but I still have issues with cymbals except on 192k recorded tracks which are very rare.

Maybe what happens is that SACD/DVDA become included standards on the DVD players like DD/DTS...

 

A good thought, Lee. I think if/when the format reaches 'critical mass' stage, you're probably right on the money.

 

This is already happening. Look at how many universal players there are now compared to last year. Already more players than not have dvd-a capability.

 

I think people pointing out SACD's flaws like the article I posted are mostly looking at this as a format war and they have picked a side. Its clear DVDA has more potential resolution but this doesn't mean SACD is a bad playback format at all. In all honesty I want both formats to survive and thrive. I also think DSD is here to stay.

Rocky, My best SACD's now are from Rounder Records. The only Hoffman SACD's I have are the CCR titles. I would love to hear what Steve could do with more recently recorded material. Through listening, I think Steve's trademark has always been an ability to deliver a very natural tonality through the lower midband (perhaps upper bass) on up.

The quality of released material on SACD vs DVDA is clearly superior. This is obviously a huge boost for SACD. However as has been stated, the format alone wont make music. I have CD's for example that better some of my SACD's in overall sound quality. So far I haven't been able to identify the problems in the upper frequencies of SACD. My only references are with CD since I have no LP's or high quality DVDA's.

Vedric

 

The goal of any format whether analog or digital in the context of a delivery medium should be what is transparent to the original not what sounds nice. I know that some may not agree with this, but it should be the goal.

In my very limited experience in listening to both hi-rez pcm and dsd transfers (compared to an analog master), both are pretty darn transparent.

Making things sound nice is the job of the mastering engineer. Isn't that why we're all on this forum anyway?

 

"clear DVDA has more potential resolution"

No way. It is not clear at all to most of us. I could present a persuasive case that the extra sampling rate is better on detail and transients.

The problem is that one format uses changes in waveform height and the other looks at absolute height. There is no real good way to have an objective comparison except to compare live mic feeds at events versus converted DSD, hirez PCM signals. Different engineers exposed to these things give different opinions...Michael Bishop at Telarc says DSD sounds more realistic but Mark Waldrep at AIX would likely disagree as would a few at Chesky. I have heard a live feed and to me DSD sound much better in the midrange and on transients but that's one mans opinion.

"Look at how many universal players there are now compared to last year."

LSI chips are coming out for cheap that do both formats...look for more universals in the future.

What may ultimately drive all this is major label support and whether Warner sticks to DVDA. According to the Financial Times, there are rumors that Warner may pull out. That would certainly be possible under the new Bronfman/private equity team (new owners)...I would hope if they don't pull out that they at least ramp up the titles. Warner DVDAs are a trickle in terms of release schedule.

 

LeeS did you check out that link I posted above? I would be interested in your thoughts on that article.

BTW if Warner pulls out DVDA is done..

Vedric

 

I think we may finally be approaching an answer to the WVK posed to start this thread, is SACD fundamentally flawed? Yes... and so is PCM, vinyl, tape, optical and every other medium we know of. On this thread, SACD seems to have taken most of the heat but the two formats we're discussing simply take different approaches to encoding the information and, consequently, handicap themselves in different ways. Sigma-Delta has to jump through a bunch of the noise-shaping and partial-dithering hoops, survive who-knows-how-many conversions to and from PCM and live with a sampling rate that is right on the edge of not being high enough; yet it somehow ends up sounding pretty good (so far). PCM avoids this but has to store and move huge quantities of data to compete; but when it stores and moves enough of it, it also sounds pretty good. Some make the mistake of picking a side and claiming that the compromises made by their side are trivial while the other side's are catastrophic; I don't think things are necessarily that simple.

 

Very well said.

 

Reading this thread has been my first experience on the Hoffman board and I am duly impressed. Bruno's comments have been very illuminating and especially valuable to me in my work mastering high-resolution recordings. The general tone of this forum seems collegial and respectful as well, even though beliefs and opinions vary greatly.

 

Welcome aboard! That's been my experience of the tone as well, which along with the tremendously knowledgeable people here keeps me coming back for more.

 

Welcome aboard Tweaker, I am fairly new here myself. You will find that we are all here because of the same thing, our love of music and the need to share information and personal experiences. I hope you don't turn out like me, addicted to this forum and the fun that is always awaiting every visit.

 

Vedric,

Ohman has made some negative remarks toward SACD in the past, some of which have been very controversial and these remarks have been reprinted. Again, one man's opinion.

There are two areas where several engineers have disputed Ohman's claims:

1. The idea that SACD has less resolution than hirez PCM. In fact, the ultra fast sampling allows SACD far more resolution across the band. As far as capacity, DSD also wins as one cannot fit 5.1 channels of full resolution (24/192k) DVDA onton a disc while you get full 2.8mhz resolution DSD on each channel on a SACD.

2. The idea that SACD is less resolving at the upper frequencies. While DSD does employ noise shaping above 10khz, it is not audible to any engineer that I am aware of. Moreover, HF cymbal noise is more realistic versus a live mic feed against PCM.

Ohman also makes other claims here and elsewhere disparaging early DSD workstations which had used an intermediate 352k PCM stage. No one has been able to audibly distinguish this very fast sampling and the newer generation workstations now don't require this intermediate wide DSD stage.

DVDA when done right such as the AIX recordings can sound wonderful but my experience is that DSD is a bit more natural.

Hope that helps.

The earlier post is right...both formats have flaws but good examples of each are a big improvement (yes, even on a modest system) over redbook 16/44 compact disc. Ironically I might add the champion is still the all-analog-all the time LP-the original hirez format!

 

Nice post!

Gerry, that's a great post. Well done!

Tweaker, welcome to the forum!! Enjoy!


FFF
------------
Mike Patrick

GO EAGLES!!

 

.........

_________
Thom

 

I just stumbled across this interview with Ed Meitner over at Positive Feedback. Pretty interesting.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/meitnerinterview.htm

 

Grumpy,

Ed Meitner is one of the most respected audio hardware engineers in the business and his insights are interesting indeed.

Thanks for posting this.