|
|
|
Are there any disadvantages to a hybrid SACD? Such as space or time taken away from the DSD track? Or less quality in the DSD track? Or is it just another layer and it takes nothing away from the original?
|
|
|
|
|
|
DJ Curlee Fry said:
Are there any disadvantages to a hybrid SACD? Such as space or time taken away from the DSD track? Or less quality in the DSD track? Or is it just another layer and it takes nothing away from the original?
Just more cost and complexity as far as I know. Too bad industry didn't start with Hybrid. Once we were hooked and DVD-Audio out of the way, they could take away the cd layer.
|
|
|
Post by DSD November 23, 2009 (3 of 23)
|
|
Mark Levinson's statement that "Single-layer SACDs are sonically superior to Hybrids" is in the booklets of all his Red Rose Music Single-layer SACDs.
Also there was a discussion back in 2000 at the Audio Asylum and many posters felt that single-layer SACDs sounded better than hybrids. At the time there was no recordings available both as single-layer and hybrid thus there was no real consensus made about the merits of either option. However Sony has reissued some of their single-layer SACDs as hybrid SACDs so it would be interesting if anyone has both types of the same recording to do a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie November 23, 2009 (4 of 23)
|
|
DJ Curlee Fry said:
Are there any disadvantages to a hybrid SACD? Such as space or time taken away from the DSD track? Or less quality in the DSD track? Or is it just another layer and it takes nothing away from the original?
Since the maximum playing time on a cd is roughly 81~82 minutes, it might necessitate using two discs if the program runs over that time allotment since a single layer SACD (with stereo track) could conceivably run a lot longer (see FAQ for further amplication).
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 November 23, 2009 (5 of 23)
|
|
DJ Curlee Fry said:
Are there any disadvantages to a hybrid SACD? Such as space or time taken away from the DSD track? Or less quality in the DSD track? Or is it just another layer and it takes nothing away from the original?
I have several of the early DG releases which were released as none hybrids by Universal. As others have said and I often thought companies should have released hybrid discs from the start. Sales would have been better if they had been competively priced with RBCD. From a buying point of view why pay top dollar for a none hybrid which can't play on a CD player when the CD is a lot cheaper and will be around longer (not my view but that of a normal joe) Technology moves on and now hybrids are the standard. But by now SACD is percived by many as a niche, too expensive etc, Those companies which made the mistake of issuing dual inventory and then dropping SACD should look to their sales as RBCD is in decline and come back to the SACD fold dropping the RBCD after all although we are a small niche we are pretty much a guaranteed sale.
|
|
|
Post by Claude November 24, 2009 (6 of 23)
|
|
One additional disadvantage of hybrids is that many older Sony SACD players develop playback problems over time, which only (or at least mainly) concern the SACD layer of hybrid discs.
Of course the market reality is such that hybrids are the only viable solution, allowing for single inventory releases.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie November 24, 2009 (7 of 23)
|
|
wolf359 said:
I have several of the early DG releases which were released as none hybrids by Universal. As others have said and I often thought companies should have released hybrid discs from the start. Sales would have been better if they had been competively priced with RBCD. From a buying point of view why pay top dollar for a none hybrid which can't play on a CD player when the CD is a lot cheaper and will be around longer (not my view but that of a normal joe) Technology moves on and now hybrids are the standard. But by now SACD is percived by many as a niche, too expensive etc, Those companies which made the mistake of issuing dual inventory and then dropping SACD should look to their sales as RBCD is in decline and come back to the SACD fold dropping the RBCD after all although we are a small niche we are pretty much a guaranteed sale.
Someone had to pay the Research and Development costs, advertising of the "new format" and the cost to remix for multi-channel and the premium paid to Sony for pressings (and the new super jewel cases) and the hi~rez allure all conspired to make the sacd a "premium" product at a premium price plus they were only pressed in small quantities which is always more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by sordidman November 24, 2009 (8 of 23)
|
|
wolf359 said:
I have several of the early DG releases which were released as none hybrids by Universal. As others have said and I often thought companies should have released hybrid discs from the start. Sales would have been better if they had been competively priced with RBCD. From a buying point of view why pay top dollar for a none hybrid which can't play on a CD player when the CD is a lot cheaper and will be around longer (not my view but that of a normal joe) Technology moves on and now hybrids are the standard. But by now SACD is percived by many as a niche, too expensive etc, Those companies which made the mistake of issuing dual inventory and then dropping SACD should look to their sales as RBCD is in decline and come back to the SACD fold dropping the RBCD after all although we are a small niche we are pretty much a guaranteed sale.
Sony is Sony, and they've proven themselves greedy employing bad business practices time and time again.
Sony's main marketing win would've been to give away all licensing for free, and offer recording hardware for a huge discount. Then, they should've marketed SACD at the price that redbook CD promised to go down to.
CDs that were originally priced at $14.99 were always intended to go down under $10. Even in the 80s it cost less than $3 to manufacture a CD. If SACD was released as a copy protection methodology, - the industry may have, and would have adopted it.
Why not? Because the RIAA was too stupid to foresee downloading. Consumers took it upon themselves to lower the cost of music, - down to free. No way would the industry pay more to produce a product and make less profit to improve the optical disc to a higher level of quality that no one wanted.
Very few wanted the higher quality that SACD provides. To everyone but a very few, tiny group of classical music listening audiophiles, people wanted "perfect sound forever." This didn't mean higher quality, - it met no pops and clicks on vinyl, it meant convenience, it meant not having to take care of a very large 12" disc. And people wanted to listen to music while mopping the floor, or on the train.
Pressing plants used the same master tapes EQ'd for vinyl and added the same levels of compression for an optical disc as they did for vinyl. Few people who compared over time the quality of those first CDs with vinyl, thought that CDs sounded better, - more detailed, brighter, louder.
The market did affect SACDs, but mostly in the minds of Sony. They let fear drive them away from making more money, not learning the lessons of the BetaMax.
But that wasn't the reason, no consumer wanting to buy something smaller, cheaper, and "better" (Sic) than vinyl was going to pay 1 penny more for a better recording of an already too expensive redbook CD.
No one can ever print the letters SACD on any product that is designed to be purchased by the mass-market, (Brittany Spears, Shakira, etc), it will only server to scare, and make their potential customer run away in fear. SACD can only survive, if at all, in a tiny, niche, market without the acceptance of a mass market. And now, when the mass market is turning away from redbook CDs, - it's even worse. Sure, SACDs are still being produced, but not really. How many good ones are coming out?
|
|
|
Post by steviev November 24, 2009 (9 of 23)
|
|
DJ Curlee Fry said:
Are there any disadvantages to a hybrid SACD? Such as space or time taken away from the DSD track? Or less quality in the DSD track? Or is it just another layer and it takes nothing away from the original?
The hybrid system takes away neither space nor time from the DSD programme. Check out this website's FAQ; it will answer most of your questions.
Cool handle, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 November 24, 2009 (10 of 23)
|
|
sordidman said:
Sony is Sony, and they've proven themselves greedy employing bad business practices time and time again.
sordidman
completely agree with many of your comments about Sony. especially the comment about their corporate greed. In addition they are so anxious to protect the bottom line that they are are afraid to take risks,and who can forget the control freakery of rootkits put on Cds. here in the UK the major problem is that many average people will not spend any more than the absolute minimum required. I know of people who will buy an new cheap TV every couple of years spending a fortune in the process yet would not buy an expensive branded set which would work out cheaper in the long run. the same applies to CD as you so rightly say why pay top money for a current chart topping act when you know in the next few weeks its going to be in the bargain bin. under those circumstances pop SACD is a definite none starter. I do wish fervently though wish that those historic rock and pop acts which have stood the test of time and appeal to the nostalgia group (the people who actually buy discs) were released as SACD. Along with all those mulitchannel masters from the 70's however doubt I will live to see that day
|
|
