| Author |
Thread: SACD appears alive and well! |
    
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 822
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 09:30 pm: |
|
For those interested, here's what Sony says:
http://www.sa-cd.net/shownews/31 |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 841
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 02:32 am: |
|
And Universal Music:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=13089405 |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2294
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
My Rantz,
Thanks.
Let me pull out two quotes which fit my general view, which you know:
"Mr. Kei Ishizaka, President and CEO of UMKK explained the critical importance of packaged media to his company"
I think the key word is "packaged". That means not streamed, shared, copied, or downloaded.
"'The business case for SA-CD is now well proven and the business model is established,' commented Mr. Yushi Igarashi, General Manager of the Sony SA-CD Business Centre in Japan. 'Sony is totally committed to this revolutionary audio technology and we would like to promote its adoption throughout the audio industry.'”
Well, of course.
But, leaving aside everything else except sound quality, have you formed any opinions about SACD relative to DVD-A? I cannot do this for myself. If I had a "universal" player, as you have, I would be very interested in getting well-made and well-mastered discs of the same material in both formats, to compare. I ask people, but there seems to be no clear point of view on this. The simple conclusion is that they are much the same. Any views? |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 895
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 12:19 pm: |
|
John
Yes, and I believe I have expressed it (singular) more than once recently. I am still trying to come up with a clear winner between the two. Having around two dozen recordings with DVD-A's a little more than twice the number of SACD's and with excellent to average recordings of both, the simple conclusion, as you stated, is almost, but not quite the same. However the difference is difficult to pinpoint.
I think SACD has a slightly cleaner sound in the mid to top end whereas DVD-A's have a slightly richer lower end. This description is not necessarilly fact, but if I had to descibe them as either a digital or analogue sound, I would put DVD-A with the former and SACD to the latter.
I believe Steely Dan's Gaucho is available on both formats. As you no doubt know I have the extraordinary SACD version. If the opportunity arises, I would purchase the DVD-A recording to compare and post my opinions on the forum. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2297
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 06:39 pm: |
|
My Rantz,
Thanks. For me, an assessment from you would count for more than a ton of marketing hype, and for more than my speculations about marketing strategies.
This is a good and useful forum! |
Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 441
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 11:00 am: |
|
MR wrote:
I think SACD has a slightly cleaner sound in the mid to top end whereas DVD-A's have a slightly richer lower end.
I agree with this assessment. Another point I would add (sorry a slight repeat of info from Old Dogs thread) is that the SACD's seem to be less affected by a downmix to stereo, at least for the discs I have and have tested recently. In my tests, 3 of the 4 DVD-A's benefitted more from the MC mix than the stereo mix in which the instruments seemed a little too crowded. On the other hand, 3 of 4 SACD's, sounded just as great in stereo as MC (including DSOTM - wonder if AL will see this). |
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layne
Madrid
Spain
Post Number: 184
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 07:59 pm: |
|
The other day I skimmed through an article saying that representation of high frequencies is actually a very weak point for SACD...
http://www.iar-80.com/page17.html (reading may cause blood pressure rise severely)
... which I find peculiar, me too rate SACD as very fine hi-frequency representation indeed. Anyway, let's make music lovers, not format wars. I just wanted to comment something I've been thinking about lately.
Ghia, I think m-ch makes more difference for me, because of my cheap-o wall-mounted mains speakers. I can adjust for good stereo image, but there's a built-in overdose of lack of detail. M-ch fixes that for me.
Hasta pronto
AL |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 915
Registered: Aug-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Al
That article was brought up a while back and most here were with the view that the authors preferred ego over accuracy in the content.
Cheers |
Silver Member Username: Arnold_layne
Madrid
Spain
Post Number: 185
Registered: Jun-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 08:39 pm: |
|
I agree on that. Rather funny it is, that they published it as-is.
The 2.822.400/44.100=64 hype seems to have started back in my home country, a Swedish guy is referenced all over the web. There was appearently a Sony/Philips counterattack, I'll keep on searching for it. Just for the sake of curiosity.
|
|
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 2310
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Arnold,
CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-A.
I doubt if it started there, exactly, but that man certainly gave it a good push. |
|
