Very different - we really are chucking away a huge part of the musical experience disposing with the artwork - it's all part of the experience, especially when your in your formative years, the download generation 'lucked out' on convenience but lost on sound quality, artwork and a whole lot of the fun. Just my two penneth!
SACD - worth the investment ?
- Thread starter hughmc2
- Start date
Very different - we really are chucking away a huge part of the musical experience disposing with the artwork - it's all part of the experience, especially when your in your formative years, the download generation 'lucked out' on convenience but lost on sound quality, artwork and a whole lot of the fun. Just my two penneth!
And a great shame that hi-rez downloads didn't take off ... still in the fringe of the fringe, and sidelined by iTunes. Though, to put things in perspective, there are now over 7000 SACDs released and increasing ... so at least 5 times more hi-rez content on SACD than available via download ... but both are increasing which is great. By revenue, its even worse for hi-rez downloads, capturing only about 10% of the hi-rez market.
I suppose hi-rez ... whether via SACD or download - is really a niche product, catering for audiences that care for quality. And the modern commercial world isn't particularly interested in quality ... it is interested in quantity. Most people just want their files on their iPhone ...
A lot of hi-res downloads are just rips of old SACD & DVD-A material where the discs are still available and the downloads costs more
A lot of the HD Tracks hi-res downloads for example are pretty bad DVD-A rips - like 5.1 to 2 channel conversions where they just delete the surround & centre channels.
Another instance was when they just gave you the two rear channels.
In other cases they ripped the red book layer. A lot of people have complained and got the choice of new downloads.
I'd rather stick to DVD-A and SACD
A lot of the HD Tracks hi-res downloads for example are pretty bad DVD-A rips - like 5.1 to 2 channel conversions where they just delete the surround & centre channels.
Another instance was when they just gave you the two rear channels.
In other cases they ripped the red book layer. A lot of people have complained and got the choice of new downloads.
I'd rather stick to DVD-A and SACD
sergeauckland
pfm Member
What is so disappointing about SACDs is not whether HiRes is worthwhile or not, but that unless one wants a straight analogue output for immediate listening, SACDs are so inflexible. One can't put them on an iPod, or a Hard-Drive for a Squeezebox, or through a DAC, or as in my case, for use with digital loudspeakers.
Of course this is exactly what Sony wanted!
S.
Of course this is exactly what Sony wanted!
S.
Sure you can ... simply rip the CD layer and do all of those things. Effortlessly. If your reply is "well, you can't rip the hi-res layer", then there is an inconsistency with your opening line about the importance of hi-rez.
SACD is vastly more flexible than CD ... it offers everything CD offers, + hi-rez + multichannel.
Add to that - unless mistreated its not going to potentially fail like a hard drive or be accidentally deleted.
sonddek
Trade: SUPATRAC
This thread has encouraged me to think about getting an SACD player and some SACDs. Like you say, all of CD's strengths, plus higher sound quality, regardless of whether I can hear it. I never bought CDs because I already had a good record player when they came out, and CD has never sounded right to me. I'm looking forward to investigating SACD to see if it solves that problem. Thanks all.
What player are you considering?
I believe that SACD support has been removed now.
You can also use an old PS3 to rip a SACD to an ISO image.
From there you can even convert DSD to Flac or what ever
sonddek
Trade: SUPATRAC
That's going to take some investigation. Knowing me it'll be either used Linn Unidisk because I'm too lazy to audition all the options and I trust Linn not to make a complete dog's breakfast of it, or an old Sony Playstation 3 because it's cheap and will allow me to rip to 24/96.
Paul R
pfm Member
There is no reason why the CD layer should be related to the SACD layer.
CD is much more flexible, SACD is more capable.
DVDA offers the capability of SACD, the flexibility of CD and has the bonus of much better technical quality than SACD. What it doesn't have is a CD layer.
And what's all this 'rez' stuff? It's like we're in an Iranian cafe.
Anyway are you going to back up your novel claims for DSD?
Paul
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Last time I checked there were no more DVDA titles. Is there a website I could track them down on maybe?
alanbeeb
pfm Member
I think there's a reasonable expectation that it will at least be the same music, performed by the same performers in the same location, at the same time as the SACD layer.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Alan,
The CD layer has Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the SACD layer has some crap pop world music.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002TKFSG/?tag=pinkfishmedia-20
Joe
One notable exception: Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 on the RCA Living Stereo hybrid SACD.I think there's a reasonable expectation that it will at least be the same music, performed by the same performers in the same location, at the same time as the SACD layer.
The CD layer has Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, the SACD layer has some crap pop world music.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002TKFSG/?tag=pinkfishmedia-20
Joe
Paul R
pfm Member
A reasonable expectation indeed.
But (assuming the same original source....) how the CD layer and SACD layer are derived is entirely up to the producer. I wouldn't be all that surprised if the CD layer were, on some discs, deliberately sub-optimal in order to help the SACD layer 'sound' better in a comparison.
Paul