SACD
Fri, May 7 2010, 1:23PM
#2
SACD
It does: every month in the Audio pages I comment on some recent hi-resolution recordings, whether they be SA-CD or Blu-ray audio, and in the June issue I'll be reviewing the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD, a 'universal' Blu-ray/DVD-Video/DVD-Audio/SA-CD player.
Whilst it is true that your pages do contain a summing-up section on hi-resolution recordings, the space and prominence devoted to excellence pale into insignificance compared to that given to downloads from (almost universally) lossy sources.
For a magazine that once had an engineering award, this is a great shame and it strikes me that collectors (rather than "consumers") would far rather have the greater amount of space devoted to new, excellent recordings than those that are almost always re-releases (and not just for the first time) in a format that encourages the cheapening of music by turning it into a commodity rather than the complete package that it can be in the hands of interested artists and companies.
Fri, May 7 2010, 5:19PM
#3
RE: Home RE: Home
With a music file, regardless of format, it needs decoding to an analogue signal you then input to an amplifier - just like a disc.
This isn't quite true. Any receiver worthy of the name these days will accept hi-res signals in digital format, so the only degradable part of the signal comes between the receiver and the speakers.
Well, strictly speaking, the digital signal is still getting decoded and the input to an amplifier, just that it's being done in the same "case". (Which is more limiting, as you can't simply change to a different/better DAC or amplifier independently.)
Also, would such receivers decode mp3, flac, ogg, etc? (Genuine question, as it's not a product category I know much about.)
Great username by the way :-)
Fri, May 7 2010, 10:27PM
#4
RE: Home RE: Home
Thanks re user name - it's the only vaguely maths "name" I could come up with; I'd prefer not to be in drag but well, a little fun never hurt anyone!
Not sure about all receivers but the Denon AVR-3310 (upper-middle offering) supports the following, which should cater for most tastes:
MP3, WMA (DRM), AAC (not DRM), WMA Losless Transcode, FLAC, WAV
Sat, May 8 2010, 12:45AM
#5
RE: SACD
Don't get me started.
I have a few SACD Hybrid recordings because that's all that was made for the performances I wanted. I resented being forced to spend more money for an additional "app" I wouldn't use. Now I boycott them, unless they're pre-used for under ten bucks.
SACD started out as a two-channel development for audiophiles. Somewhere along the way an MBA decided it would be better (make more money) to compete with the multi-channel movie crowd.
What a disaster. SACD's a duck on life-support.
Sat, May 8 2010, 10:49AM
#6
RE: Home
Physical media aren't going to go away any time soon - the death of vinyl has been prematurely reported numerous times since the CD appeared - but they're simply not going to compete with software media because of basic business economics.
When it comes to value for money SACDs are hard to beat, downloads simply can't compete with them.
By the way, are there any record labels around who still release classical on LP?
Sat, May 8 2010, 12:07PM
#7
RE: SACD
I know Testament released the Keilberth stereo Ring on LP, but I'm not sure if that was just a one off.
Sat, May 8 2010, 6:25PM
#8
RE: Home
When it comes to value for money SACDs are hard to beat, downloads simply can't compete with them.
Not yet perhaps. But broadband speeds are increasing fast enough that being able to download the equivalent of an SACD will be a realistic option before too long*.
Physical disks require manufacturing, distributing, physically storing and shipping - and that all costs money. Downloadable files don't. (Yes, they incur other costs, but they're far lower per 'unit'.) The lower costs of downloadable files may or may not result in a lower priced product, but it's the economic imperative that's driving the download business model.
Sure, Gigabit broadband, and even 100Mbps broadband, won't be ubiquitous, even in well-developed countries. But it only requires a 'critical mass' of customers to make a business model viable. The current mp3 download market took off when 1-20Mbps broadband reached a 'critical mass'. Higher quality downloads will have the chance to take off when higher speed broadband becomes more common (but it will ultimately depend on customer demand, although software-based formats need far less demand to be viable than a physical medium).
* An SACD is 4.7GB. With 100Mbps broadband at 50% utilization it would take less than 15 minutes to download that. And Gigabit broadband is already being tested by ISPs, which would essentially be 10x faster.
By way of historical context, I remember when, less than a decade ago, downloading an album in mp3 format took several hours via 56 Kbps dial-up.
Caveat - you never get the "headline" speed because of overheads, and there are always bottlenecks elsewhere in the system that limit things. But, overall, bandwidth is steadily increasing and will reach the point where downloading c.5GB is realistic for many people before too long. (Indeed, it's already perfectly realistic at current 10+Mbps speeds, using torrents, although that may well not be the sort of distribution model most music companies want to adopt.)
I believe the download-model is actually potentially very good news for higher quality formats, since it permits much smaller volumes to be financially worthwhile for labels/suppliers to provide. If you start with a "studio master" quality source, providing a range of download qualities with minimal "production cost" is pretty straightforward (see, eg, Linn Record's online store, where you can get things in a range of "quality", from 24bit 192kHz lossless, down to 320k 44.1kHz mp3).
Sat, May 8 2010, 7:43PM
#9
RE: Home
When it comes to value for money SACDs are hard to beat, downloads simply can't compete with them.
Not yet perhaps. But broadband speeds are increasing fast enough that being able to download the equivalent of an SACD will be a realistic option before too long*.
I believe the download-model is actually potentially very good news for higher quality formats, since it permits much smaller volumes to be financially worthwhile for labels/suppliers to provide. If you start with a "studio master" quality source, providing a range of download qualities with minimal "production cost" is pretty straightforward (see, eg, Linn Record's online store, where you can get things in a range of "quality", from 24bit 192kHz lossless, down to 320k 44.1kHz mp3).
You give Linn Records as an example, could you say how much it would cost me to get "an SACD equivalent" (HD mutichannel + HD stereo + CDQ audio) in FLAC format?
Sat, May 8 2010, 11:18PM
#10
RE: SACD
You give Linn Records as an example, could you say how much it would cost me to get "an SACD equivalent" (HD mutichannel + HD stereo + CDQ audio) in FLAC format?
I don't know, as they don't sell exactly such a product - they currently only do the equivalent of stereo-only SACD.
But, as an indication, Linn Records currently does the following range of typical qualities/prices:
Studio Master FLAC 24bit 192kHz £20.00
Studio Master FLAC 24bit 44.1kHz £18.00
CD or SACD ie, a physical disc £13.00
CD Quality FLAC 16bit 44.1kHz £10.00
~CD Quality MP3 320k 44.1kHz £8.00
So, a CD quality (lossless) download is c.77% of the price of a physical CD.
But then, they appear to sell SACDs for the same price as CDs, and high quality downloads - of which Linn Records says "The quality is identical to that of an SACD (stereo only)"* - cost 50% more than physical SACDs.
* see http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx
However, Linn's pricing structure is probably a poor benchmark, as it's a decidedly niche label and retailer.
Better would be more mainstream, higher volume labels and retailers - in such cases downloads can be considerably cheaper than the physical equivalent. Or at least no more expensive.
And even if an SACD-equivalent download were to cost more than a physical disc, it's still likely that labels/retailers will pursue the "download model", both because of higher margins and because of customer demand - many people consider downloads more convenient.
True, others like to buy from an actual shop, or else want to own a physical product, or want the associated packaging, booklets, etc, or want to use the expensive disc player they bought - all of which are perfectly good reasons. But my guess is they'll be the minority, albeit one that some labels/retailers will be very happy to cater to.
All this speculation is good fun (or I wouldn't be doing it on a Saturday night), but as someone once said "it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" (variously attributed to Niels Bohr, Yogi Berra, Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, Confucius, and numerous others).
So, whilst I do think downloading will become the dominant model, and will encompass the highest qualities to some extent or other, only time will actually tell.
Sun, May 9 2010, 10:42AM
#11
RE: Home
SpiderJon, thanks for the informative reply.
I think I'll continue buying Hybrid SACDs then as they offer much better Value for money.
Fri, May 21 2010, 10:33AM
#12
RE: SACD RE: SACD
I don't understand why DG should discontinue issuing SACDs because they have always presented themselves as a prestigious music label...
I used to be a devotee of that label, in the 80s, when they were at the forefront of technology and issued interesting recordings (or do I mean repetoire?) - but I haven't bought a new DG disk for about a decade. Is it my imagination but that the Polygram three now only concentrate on star projects, mild crossover and chasing the latest barely out of nappies and highly photogenic stars? I used to scour the pages of Gramophone looking for the DG ads to see what exciting new releases were coming up; now it's the independents I seek out, and not just because they also issue SACDs!
I prefer the physical media; and at present they are generally no more expensive than downloads. I think in the course of time, downloading will become the norm, even at high resolution. But remember folks: back up your files! *
* You should always read the t&cs before downloading. How many people know, for instance, that iTunes specifically state that you can download a purchased item only once? Lose the file and you lose the licence!
Wed, May 26 2010, 8:33PM
#13
RE: SACD RE: SACD
There is an oft-quoted maxim that you should keep 3 separate stores of your digital data, otherwise it doesn't really exist! So have a back-up of your back-up at the very least.
Wed, May 26 2010, 9:31PM
#14
RE: SACD RE: SACD
I haven't bought a new DG disk for about a decade. Is it my imagination but that the Polygram three now only concentrate on star projects, mild crossover and chasing the latest barely out of nappies and highly photogenic stars? I used to scour the pages of Gramophone looking for the DG ads to see what exciting new releases were coming up; now it's the independents I seek out, and not just because they also issue SACDs!
I haven't been quite as bad about buying DG product: Abbado Mahler 7 (2002); Emerson SQ Bach (2003); Hagen SQ Mozart (2004); Chung Ravel (2006); Aimard Bach (2008); Mutter Bach, Gubaidulina (2008).
I don't have a SACD penchant.
Sat, Jun 26 2010, 11:01PM
#15
RE: SACD
I have not bought a new DG, or any UMG label CD since they stopped releasing SACDs. I love the clarity and warmth of SACD and the multichannel sound that
it offers which is, for me anyway, a far more engrossing and enjoyable
listening experience as I can hear much more of the music and the
ambience and so it becomes totally captivating. I therefore support independent labels now, such as the amazing Alia Vox label
and Bis labels which releases so many splendid recordings in hybrid SACD. I wish
Harmonia Mundi would release more SACDs than they do as they have
released some great recordings which I am pleased to have in my
collection. It has however been sad
to see Hyperion drop SACDs.
I am not sure what to say about Sony as a company, except perhaps that they appear to have lost their way. Why buy a record company and not use it to the full to promote one of the most amazing developments in music reproduction to come along in a long time? They have put SACD multichannel playback capability in their latest range of BluRay players, albeit with a low profile and yet their reocrd arm fails to provide anything for people to buy and play and thus help promote the format. It would be really interesting to hear from Sony what their policy is, however they seem to be a company which does not really want a close relationship with their customers, so I am not sure what the future holds for them.
I am also at a loss however to understand the logic of the entertainment industry as a whole and how they think. Where there is a surround soundtrack a DVD will be released with it, often in either Dolby Digital or DTS, or even both. To not do so would probably be unthinkable. Yet I know only 2 other people who watch their DVDs with surround systems to take full advantage of the sound quality offered. When it comes to music and the cd though, the major record labels appear to think that the stereo cd is good enough. They continue to remaster and repackage old recordings and yet in truth are they giving us anything really new while releasing on cds? In my view a remastered disc released in SACD, and multichannel where possible, would actually be new and I would be happy to buy such releases from them. You cannot help but feel that the majors have been hijacked by short term thinking accountants and the heart of the business is not a real passion for music and reproducing it in it best possible form. That said there is also the bizarre practice, in my view at least of remastered collection releases appearing with a CD and a DVD of the same performance in surround sound. how wasteful is that, 2 discs where one would do if the SACD format were adopted. All too few discs appear with surround discs alternatives so perhaps the answer is to buy performances on DVD and not turn the TV on when you just want to sit and listen, but enjoy the quality of the surround sound.
All I would say, is thank goodness the record industry embraced stereo sound or we would perhaps still be listening in mono! It seems strange to me therefore that multichannel has not been embraced when SACD offers a brilliant and backward compatible solution with hybrid discs. There is not a single person who has not been impressed when I have played them a multichannel SACD. Of course the industry will say the public does not want surround sound for just music listening and they want downloads. Well perhaps people don't want that when it is not marketed very well. I know people who have DVD and PS3 players but aren't aware of the SACD playing capability they have. A great job done there by highly paid marketeers! And of course releasing titles that people want to buy does help. Releasing obscure music that is often very niche is not going to broaden the appeal of SACD.
It would have been great to see Sony and Universal produce all of its releases as Hybrid SACDs and see what the effect would have been. I bought a quadraphonic system in the 70s on the strength of the single inventory SQ Quad discs released by EMI. What a pity the major labels don't segment their markets more. I have no problem with people wanting to download and manage their music that way, but not all of us want that. There have to be enough people out there who still want a tangible high quality product which SACD provides. If this were not the case how would the small independents survive unless they were producing something that people want. And yes, I guess they have to listen to the accountants as well and make money, to do otherwise would be foolish. So the point is, if smaller independent labels can release SACDs and remain in business why cannot the majors who could operate on a much larger scale with Hybrid SACDs. That said, it was sad to see Hyperion stop releasing SACDs. They produced some brilliant SACD recordings, I would love to see them reconsider this decision and follow a single inventory hybrid release.
An EMI audiophile label of some of its great quad recordings from the 70's released in multichannel on SACD would also be well worth buying in my view. I am probably in a minority who think this way, but it seems such a pity when the technology is there to enhance our listening experience to let it all slip away and to either step back or remain frozen in time. It would be brilliant to hear these recordings as the producers intended and there were some great discs released in quad at that time.
Finally, returning to DG, I do hope, as they state in their FAQs on their website, that they have not dropped SACD, and whilst they say that "although we have reduced the number of SACD releases, we are still actively looking for further opportunities." Their idea of reduced number seems to be nil over the past few years and therefore I can't help but feel that by not releasing any SACDs they have either dropped the format, or they are not very active, or perhaps very good, at looking for opportunites and so could do much better. Whichever way it would be nice for them to be honest and come off the fence and hopefully release more SACDs, as they have released some CD titles which would have made excellent SACDs. I have not therefore bought DG CDs as I have chosen instead to spend my limited budget on SACDs that I want and which some independent labels provide, and whom I should like to thank for using SACD to give me the greatest listening pleasure by letting me really hear, and enjoy to the full, some wonderful music, which at the end is what it is all about I feel. So give us choice, as I say, I have no problem with those who want to go the download route, but it would be nice to have the option of the tangible SACD multichannel disc. Afterall, many thought vinyl had vanished forever, but some companies are still offering that as a choice to customers!
With a music file, regardless of format, it needs decoding to an analogue signal you then input to an amplifier - just like a disc.
This isn't quite true. Any receiver worthy of the name these days will accept hi-res signals in digital format, so the only degradable part of the signal comes between the receiver and the speakers.
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music" - S. Rachmaninov