Post by hiredfox April 6, 2009 (11 of 36)
|
|
All agree that arguing about digits does not present SACD followers in a good light.
What needs to be borne in mind is that taken on physical appearance alone, the little silver discs that play pictures or play music or transfers software to computers are physically identical, yet because each genre has been given an entirely different acronym and are packaged quite differently, DVD, CD, Cd-ROM are thought of entirely distinct and separate entities. Instinctively people know that they cannot be inter-mixed.
When people buy a CD they think audio; a DVD, think pictures etc. even 'though apart from packaging you cannot tell the difference.
Don't you think that this is quite remarkable? It points up entirely what should not have happened with the hIgh resolution sound format of DSD at launch. Instead manufacturers totally compounded the confusion by including an ordinary RBCD layer with DSD on one disc disc, so inviting most to see it as just a more expensive CD with narrow advantages for loonies, if they noticed the difference at all. The crucial surround aspect was not spotlighted and often is not mentioned on cases. The SACD logo is all there is in the majority of cases and at a glance that it just another confusing logo amongst many in the world of digital recording. Unfortunately the acronym SACD confirms the CD link rather than convince that it is a genre in it's own right.
Maybe we should switch to an acronym such as HQM, abandon the CD layer altogether and make sure the packaging and marketing clearly differentiate positively away from 'just CD'? I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD. I never believed it necessary to have mixed the formats when the hybrid -discs were launched. As long as the hardware could play both formats then the legacy issue was solved.
|
|
|
Post by mahlerei April 6, 2009 (12 of 36)
|
|
I must say I'm a little sceptical about the DSD v PCM debate. I'm a fan of high-res recordings but I very much doubt I could tell the difference. I'd be interested to see whether the DSD brigade could distinguish between the two in a controlled test. My guess is they probably wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
channel said:
I am very happy to inform you that Channel Classics release CCS SA 25308, Pieter Wispelwey, Shostakovich 2nd cello concerto will receive a BBC Music Magazine Award 2009, for "Technical Excellence in Recording".
The awards ceremony will take place on April 7 this tuesday in London.
In my interviews for this award, I have done my best to highlight the DSD aspect concerning the quality of the recording. Especially since most listeners are listening in PCM mode, at least they are getting the most out of their system with the master recording being of the highest quality before the downsampling is done.
Let us see if BBC actually emphasis the DSD aspect. Maybe this forum can also pick up on this in writing to BBC music magazine to support DSD and this award. We still must educate not only the general public, but the magazines as well.
Jared Sacks
Jared,
Your team richly deserves this. I have truly enjoyed your releases on SACD.
Congratulations and keep up the great work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
mahlerei said:
I must say I'm a little sceptical about the DSD v PCM debate. I'm a fan of high-res recordings but I very much doubt I could tell the difference. I'd be interested to see whether the DSD brigade could distinguish between the two in a controlled test. My guess is they probably wouldn't.
Controlled test? They just ran for cover.
|
|
|
Post by DSD April 6, 2009 (15 of 36)
|
|
hiredfox said:
All agree that arguing about digits does not present SACD followers in a good light.
What needs to be borne in mind is that taken on physical appearance alone, the little silver discs that play pictures or play music or transfers software to computers are physically identical, yet because each genre has been given an entirely different acronym and are packaged quite differently, DVD, CD, Cd-ROM are thought of entirely distinct and separate entities. Instinctively people know that they cannot be inter-mixed.
When people buy a CD they think audio; a DVD, think pictures etc. even 'though apart from packaging you cannot tell the difference.
Don't you think that this is quite remarkable? It points up entirely what should not have happened with the hIgh resolution sound format of DSD at launch. Instead manufacturers totally compounded the confusion by including an ordinary RBCD layer with DSD on one disc disc, so inviting most to see it as just a more expensive CD with narrow advantages for loonies, if they noticed the difference at all. The crucial surround aspect was not spotlighted and often is not mentioned on cases. The SACD logo is all there is in the majority of cases and at a glance that it just another confusing logo amongst many in the world of digital recording. Unfortunately the acronym SACD confirms the CD link rather than convince that it is a genre in it's own right.
Maybe we should switch to an acronym such as HQM, abandon the CD layer altogether and make sure the packaging and marketing clearly differentiate positively away from 'just CD'? I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD. I never believed it necessary to have mixed the formats when the hybrid -discs were launched. As long as the hardware could play both formats then the legacy issue was solved.
Excellent post and if we could have a do over. How does this sound for a suggestion? Remember we are back in 1999.
The Disc would be called HQM "High Quality Music" as you proposed.
The label on the DISCs would say something like:
* This is a HQM "High Quality Music" disc playable only on HQM compatible players. It will not play in CD or DVD players.
* There are two programs traditional 2 channel stereo and a full range fully discrete multichannel capable of up to six high quality channels of music.
For longer programs and/or video content there is the possibility of a second DSD layer.
The next step the entire music world should have done is offer HQM compatibility in all CD and DVD players from the most expensive Hi-end units to the least expensive boom boxes. Next the music world should have promoted HQM the way they are now promoting BluRay with kiosks and videos explaining all the advantages of HQM in all the department stores. Next CDs should be have been gradually phased out and replaced with HQM's.
But this is not what happened and SACD has become a niche market which is fine for someone like me who loves classical music. It was unfair to the common man and common woman as they were cheated out of SACD. To bad it was called HQM!
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD.
...well you believe wrong.
|
|
|
Post by DSD April 6, 2009 (17 of 36)
|
|
TerraEpon said:
...well you believe wrong.
Could you elaborate? As I found Hiredfox's statement to ring true: "I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD."
Personally I can't imagine anyone owning an SACD player ever wanting to hear the CD layer.
And I can't believe people who don't know of, like or never heard of SACD spending an extra penny for the SACD/CD hybrid just for the pretty logo. The only instance I think CD listeners ever buy the SACD/CD hybrids is when they are single inventory and there is no choice. Which by the way is how it should be, all CDs should have SACD layers, that way when people finally get an SACD player they will have high resolution music to play on it.
So in closing I believe Hiredfox believes correctly.
|
|
|
Post by tssfulk April 6, 2009 (18 of 36)
|
|
DSD said:
Could you elaborate? As I found Hiredfox's statement to ring true: "I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD."
Personally I can't imagine anyone owning an SACD player ever wanting to hear the CD layer.
And I can't believe people who don't know of, like or never heard of SACD spending an extra penny for the SACD/CD hybrid just for the pretty logo. The only instance I think CD listeners ever buy the SACD/CD hybrids is when they are single inventory and there is no choice. Which by the way is how it should be, all CDs should have SACD layers, that way when people finally get an SACD player they will have high resolution music to play on it.
So in closing I believe Hiredfox believes correctly.
I don't have a SACD rig, so I listen only to the CD layer unti l can afford one. I'm sure I'm not alone. When I get the money for a SACD rig, I will still rip the CD layer for my iPod, so I can listen to the music when biking to work. I'm sure I'm not alone.
|
|
|
Post by channel April 7, 2009 (19 of 36)
|
|
DSD said:
Could you elaborate? As I found Hiredfox's statement to ring true: "I cannot believe that anybody buying a SACD these days will want to use the CD layer, nor can I imagine a CD buyer buying a SACD."
Personally I can't imagine anyone owning an SACD player ever wanting to hear the CD layer.
And I can't believe people who don't know of, like or never heard of SACD spending an extra penny for the SACD/CD hybrid just for the pretty logo. The only instance I think CD listeners ever buy the SACD/CD hybrids is when they are single inventory and there is no choice. Which by the way is how it should be, all CDs should have SACD layers, that way when people finally get an SACD player they will have high resolution music to play on it.
So in closing I believe Hiredfox believes correctly.
Indeed, I stopped double inventory in 2003 so there would be no more confusion and extra expense. Paying for three glass masters, the extra space in the warehouse. Confusion of production numbers etc.
Also the problem of people wanting to send back cd's who did not know the difference and did not want to pay for something that they could not hear because of not having the equipment. This is what happened with Hyperion who as you know have stopped with SACD because of having made double inventory.
We cannot turn back the clock on how it should have been introduced to the world but we should and must find a way to move forward.
There are almost 6000 SACD's out there which is proof enough of the validity of the format. Mind you I am not married to this format till death do us part. But there is nothing better out there that covers all the bases. Indeed, High quality music is the basis for our listening pleasure. For the Technology is not being in the way of listening to wonderful music and interpretations. The multichannel is the icing on the cake. (by the way, it was the multichannel aspect that the majors used when they released SACD back in 2002. I think their thinking was correct in not promoting some ludicrous numbers of oversampler and bit rate jargon that the kids were not interested with. Unfortunately it did not work out for the 'multichannel' aspect because they were just happy with mp3 downloading. Rest is history.)
The thing is : it tooks years before consumers decided to accept that maybe a single mono speaker in the TV was not enough. Now that every TV has stereo, the multichannel stage is approaching - though granted usually for the 'wife friendly' versions of very small speakers and large subwoofer. Now being pushed is the multichannel without wires running to the speakers - all having very limited frequency range. Very wife friendly!
Agree -No debate as to SACD versus PCM. High Quality sound for quality music. Simple
Maybe the download capabilities will increase to such a rate and speed that this will be a viable alternative. Fine for those living in cities with glass fiber, but it will take a good deal longer before the rest of the world will benefit. The physical cd has not lost its allure completely either. There are still a good deal of people who want to see the cd’s on their shelf. Hold it in their hands, buy them at concerts.
The SACD labels need to find a joint marketing standpoint and work with it.
We need to keep it simple in text yet clear in its message that SACD is the best format around, is backward compatable, and is certainly not dead!
We do not need new boxes made from the hardware manufacturers to only confuse the consumer even more.
I do have firm confirmation from Gramophone that they will be adding an extra section in their magazine for reviewing SACD releases. Problem is where will to put it in the magazine. Since it deals with all kinds of music, it will not work to just have it in the ‘orchestra’ or instrumental ‘ section. I mentioned that they do give two pages to downloading in the front section…..! I hope they do not put it in the back next to the technical section.
Sorry for this long blog. Maybe I am just too close to the fire.
I make recordings.... am not a marketing guru.
Jared
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox April 7, 2009 (20 of 36)
|
|
We still have a slight problem with the surround aspect of SACD as most people will think of surround in the context of earth-shaking, sub-aural effects and the 200 db(A) screeches and banshee wails emanating from speaker arrays stuck to the walls of cinemas/picture-houses.
HQM includes surround obviously but it is not it's principal USP.
|
|
