 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In keeping with the rules of this forum, and since this is my first post here, let me introduce myself, my name is Demery and I am responsible for SACD recording and authoring activities within Philips Electronics. Some of you may have already met me as I am also responsible for undertaking all the major shows such as AES, CES, etc., so it is my Pass X-600/Nautilus 801N system that a few of you have listened to! I have been involved in SACD/DSD since 1996, and so am well equipped to report on issues related both to the professional recording and consumer sides of SACD.While it is highly encouraging to see such enthusiastic discussions taking place, I thought it would be a good idea to clarify a few of the topics that have appeared here in the last few days (I'm afraid I spend most of my time travelling, so have only just found your forum!).
1. Hybrid discs on DVD-V players
Some DVD-V players have problems playing the CD layers of hybrid discs because, when the DVD-V specification was created, no one knew anything about hybrid discs. As a result, DVD-V player manufacturers decided on different loading strategies for their players. Some seek the CD layer first, and play what they find, others seek the High Density layer first, and, when they find a layer that they do not understand (SACD), then have to decide whether they continue to search for a CD layer, or stop (and flag the disc in error). If you have a DVD-V player of the last type, you cannot play back hybrids.
2. Reason for filter switch on players
In our experience, some (well-respected) amplifier designs have a hard time coping with the self-noise of sigma-delta modulators. The high frequency noise causes intermodulation in the amp. and the resulting sound you hear from your speakers is highly distorted. The filter switch is included to prevent such aggravation to those who have these particular amplifiers (price and solid-state/tube are no indicator of whether the amp. can cope!). Note: this is nothing new, we had the same situation with Bitstream CD players!
As for the tale of a big-name US amp being fried, I'm afraid that that is true. However, I was not at that show, so am innocent of any blame! :-)
3. SACD Transports/DACs
This is an issue that *IS* receiving attention. We are aware that there are consumers who want this feature, and manufacturers who want to make equipment to satisfy that demand. The issue, however, is copy protection, and both Philips and Sony will not release a universal digital interface specification (an SACD SPDIF, for example) until all parties are satisfied that the interface is robust. In the meantime, equipment manufacturers can provide proprietary interfaces, e.g., Sharp, Accuphase and dCS. This situation is not ideal, but dCS, for one, is working to make their interface reconfigurable (should a standard suddenly appear!).
4. SACD disc construction
I read some sad posts about people who had treated their SACDs with some "wonder fluid" only to see their discs die. It's not for me to comment on the merits of these exotic potions, but a word of warning, SACDs are currently being made in at least 3 continents (Asia, Europe and US), and, like CD replication, processes and materials vary from factory to factory. The hybrid discs made by Sonopress have a special front coating that allows discs to be made in a continuous process in that particular factory. It goes without saying that safely using some agent on a disc made in Japan is no guarantee that it will behave the same on a US or European disc.
5. DSD vs. 24/96 vs. 24/192
Many of you want to know whether SACD is better than DVD-A. At this time, it's impossible to say, given that:
(a) there are no common titles;
(b) there are no players made by the same (independent) manufacturers!
At this time, the only thing anyone can say with any certainty is that all the SACD players have been very enthusiastically received by the World's press, both as SACD players, but, more importantly, CD players. When we first started promoting SACD, we were accused of enhancing the difference by down- grading the performance of CD replay. There was only one way to respond to such a suggestion: make the best CD players we could too!
But what is the situation in the studio, you ask? Well, I've been lucky enough to have sat through many recording sessions where DSD and 24/96 and/or 24/192 were running in parallel. All converters were made by the same company, and had the same analogue stages. Set-up was done by the recording engineers, and comparisons were done with different listeners, and with different music types (classical and rock).
All agreed that all three were different. DSD didn't always win, and, knowing both its characteristics and those of PCM, I wouldn't expect it to always win (are tubes always better than transistors? Uh-oh! Better not start a war with my first post! :-)). What is clear is that all three systems are improvements on the current state of the digital art. However, engineers who work predominantly with analogue consoles and tape, generally prefer DSD. There are also many digital engineers who like what it has to offer. 24/96 is good, but 24/192 is much better, and, in all cases, a choice between 24/192 and DSD as preferred format was made.
Note, though, that these kind of comparisons are also made more difficult by issues like converter behaviour near clipping. Some engineers use clipping in PCM as a form of compression, but DSD behaves differently. If anyone wants to do a test, I suggest you keep away from maximum signal levels to ensure everything is linear!
6. SACD vs. HDCD
It's not for me to state which format is better -- you are all capable of making up your own minds at your local hi-fi store when it comes time to plonk down your own hard-earned cash. However, I would like to point a few things out for Janice from Reference Recordings:
(a) audiophile-only discs
RR feel that they cannot survive by making audiophile-only discs? Has something major happened while I've been on the road, but the last time I checked RR was a label that catered to the enthusiast!?!
(b) small market
Compared to CD and DVD-V, SACD is, indeed, a small market, but we are working hard to expand that as quickly as possible. Compared to the DVD-A market, SACD is HUGE! :-)
(c) no digital masters for SACD
I do not know where Janice gets her information from, but there are a number of titles in the SACD cataogue that have been generated from 44.1 KHz, 48 KHz, 50 KHz, 56 kHz and 96 KHz digital masters! Those wonderful folks at dCS even make a digital-to-digital converter that will allow you to swap from DSD to PCM (all formats) and back again!
(d) you need lots of money
As far as I know, RR has made no attempt at contact to discuss possible RR SACDs. Fortunately, the World is full of giant, cash-rich labels such as DMP, AudioQuest, Water Lily Acoustics, Opus 3, BIS, Groove Note, etc. that do not have to think about things like budgets!! ;-)
(e) Betamax
The World would be a very boring place if companies like Sony didn't try new things now and again. Not all of them will succeed, but, thankfully, some do, otherwise, this forum would have no basis for existence, right?
7. SACD is for the elite audiophile market only
This is something that has been said most everywhere since Day One. As you all know, both Philips and Sony dominate the specialist hi-fi market with all their cost-no-object designs! :-)
To put the matter straight, all that we have said is that we would launch SACD through the high-end market first, and work quickly (not quickly enough for some!) to push the technology into all areas of the audio market. Let's be clear about one thing: Philips and Sony are "mass market" companies. That is where we earn our slice of the audio pie.
8. access for small companies to SACD technology
With the exception of some key components, all related to copy-protection, it is possible to make an SACD player with components from suppliers other than Philips or Sony. Indeed, Philips themselves are sourcing DACs for their SACD1000 from Crystal Semiconductor! It is ludicrous to suggest that we are not prepared to share the technology -- we are actively doing that. The specialist market is not a thorn in our sides, it is a market that we largely do nothing about, leaving it to the specialist companies to fill that need. dCS are already preparing a transport and DAC system that will be aimed very much at the high-end. We are thrilled that they are doing it!
9. speed of releases
I know many of you would like to see all your favourite albums released tomorrow on SACD. I hate to disappoint you all, but it ain't going to happen. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, we are working as quickly as we can to increase numbers of production tools worldwide. Secondly, records from major labels by major artists require LOTS of negotiation to acquire release rights. We can only work as quickly as the lawyers let us!
Also, please bear in mind that CD did not happen overnight either. Though launched in `82, CDs from The Beatles did not appear from EMI until `87! Some times you just have to be patient.
Oh well, that's more than enough from me. I hope you will excuse me having taken up so much of your time.
All the best, and continue to enjoy the music (in whatever form it appears).
Kind regards, Andrew Demery
Philips Electronics
The Netherlands
Follow Ups:
Well, let me begin by thanking you all for the kind words in response to my first post here. I can't promise to always be around to participate, but I'll do my best as time permits. So, without further ado, some answers/responses to the points raised in your replies.1. Why sell PolyGram?
Good question. It didn't happen at the best time for SACD, but the people running Philips had to look at the value of the deal, and the implications that had for Philips as a whole, rather than for SACD in isolation.
2. Which big name US amp went to amp heaven?
Since I wasn't at that show, and since the people who did the installation were not engineers but PR people, I think it would be unfair to name the amp, since it might well have been used incorrectly (moreover, I have seen no other reports of problems with this company). I merely wanted to confirm that a name amp was killed just prior to the start of a big UK hi-fi show -- it's no urban legend!
3. M-ch DSD will win over M-ch 24/96 for high-rez because of 24/192?
Hard to say what is going to happen. There are far more 24/96 tools in place than DSD or 24/192, but technology continues to move quickly, and that position is changing daily. The one thing we can say is that the presence of 2-channel 24/192 in DVD-A might well lead to nagging doubts in some quarters about ONLY having 24/96 in M-ch. Since the consumer has no access to M-ch 24/192, s/he can only wonder how good things could be. That's one of the reasons we chose for a single specification on SACD discs.
4. Why not make SACD samplers available cheaply, and support small labels?
We do actually make some samplers available with players, and other discs have been handed out at various hi-fi shows, but maybe there is more that can be done. The best I can do is ask the people with budgets (gods! :-)) to see what they think.
I'm puzzled by the question about supporting small labels, as both Philips and Sony have supported, and continue to support, small labels in producing SACD productions. While it might seem like an epsilon on our budget, all those epsilons add up, and our budget is finite. We'll continue our support as best we can, though.
5. The "large" licensing fees?
Philips and Sony are certainly not trying to discourage manufacturers through large licensing fees. Our licensing position is clear: all CD license holders are SACD license holders, and there is no change in licensing conditions.
6. Why are other companies waiting to come to market with products?
My guess would be natural caution. Many small companies are adopting a wait-and-see position.
7. When will there be SACD-R?
The legal position has already been discussed, so I'll concentrate on the other issues. Quite simply, a major part of SACD is its copy protection, and parts of the copy protection are physical elements in the disc. Put those physical elements in an SACD-R blank, and much of the protection is gone. No protection = no software!
8. When will prices be lowered?
That is a function of volume, and expected sales. Both are outside my control!
9. What happened to Philips' Living Baroque?
I don't know, but I imagine it's gathering dust in UMG's archive. Maybe you should ask them to consider a re-release in SACD?
10. What can DSD offer in the pop/rock studio?
I know much of what passes as "popular music" these days is considered "lo-fi" (all compressed to death, etc.), but there are still facilities and artists who demand the best, and those who are working with DSD are very happy with it, since it matches the bus on their SSL and Neve consoles. We also have some of the top mastering engineers in the World using DSD, so there's still hope for us! Just don't expect 120 dB dynamic ranges anytime soon!! :-)
11. When will we have Dept. store DVD players with SACD capability?
By this, I take it the question is about a player that is sufficiently cheap to be in some kind of large discount store? If so, I would say sooner than any of us would have expected even a few weeks ago. At CES, Sony announced a $400 5-disc M-ch SACD player. My guess would be that it will not be too long (2002?) before a sub-$300 combi player appears (I know of no plans for such a player, I'm just extrapolating from where we are, and what has been announced for 2001).
12. Will there be some kind of SPARS type coding?
I know many of you wonder about the pedigree of all your SACD discs: all DSD, DSD mastered analogue, etc., etc. We did consider including some type of SPARS-type coding (AAD, ADD, DDD) on discs to indicate the stages used in production. However, it quickly became unmanageable. For most classical and jazz projects it would be quite easy to indicate the steps, but pop/rock is another world. Many studios are set up with digital effects on analogue consoles, and some tracks are mixed direct while others are mixed via the effect. Is the result an analogue mix? A digital mix? A hybrid? We were faced with far too many of these scenarios to be able to devise something simple and meaningful. In the end, it was felt best to leave it up to the label to explain in the booklet what they had done.
13. Is my job fun?
Naaaaahhhhhhh! :-)
If you are remotely interested in music (and that's why you're all here, I hope!), the job I have is a dream come true.
14. Is it possible to make a cheap Universal Player?
There are two ways to make universal players: separate PCM/DSD stages or convert one format to the other. Two stages cost more than one, so, can a single stage (conversion) type player be made cheaply? Possibly, but the base price would be determined by multiple license fees!
What about the politics? It plays a role.
15. Why no Philips Classics titles?
As has been pointed out, Philips Classics moved to Universal with the transfer of Polygram. However, we continue to work with the former Philips Classics Recording Centre, and some things (classical) are in the pipeline that have been done by them (in M-ch too!!). Keep checking the new release info!
16. Will the total number of titles exceed 300 by the end of 2001?
A colleague of mine is currently working on an updated software catalogue, but I would not be surprised if the total number of titles already exceeds 300. We have just completed authoring another batch of hybrids, and more are arriving daily. Sorry, I can't give details, as labels have their own release plans, but expect more discs soon.
17. What is the competitive advantage of SACD over CD?
This question was raised by comparing the perceived advantage of CD over vinyl for the man-in-the-street, and the observation was made that SACD will be a harder sell. I think this is a valid criticism; however, there are a few things to be pointed out. Firstly, we spent two weeks last September and October in Abbey Road Studio 2 (yeah, this job sucks at times! :-)) demonstrating SACD to label execs (not noted for having "golden ears"). After our presentation, we played stereo and M-ch recordings on a system comprising Sony SCD-1, Marantz SA-1, and (prototype) Philips SACD1000 players hooked up to Meitner Switchman pre-amp, 5x Pass X-600 monoblocks, 5x B&W Nautilus 801N speakers, B&W ASW4000 sub., enough cable (Straight Wire and vdH) to buy a nice car, and I had treated the room with plenty of RPG acoustic panels and diffusors. It was obvious that most of these people had never even seen, never mind heard, such a system. Of course, the expected reaction was: "But Joe Public doesn't have this at home, how does it sound on something more modest?" So, we took everyone to one of the apartments at the studio where we had set up a Sony XB 940, Sony receiver, and small (book-shelf) speakers in the living room (with no acostical treatment). They could hear the difference! I accept that this is not an all in one stacking system, but it does point to differences being audible on relatively cheap systems.
Okay, you say, but that ain't enough!! Agreed, and that is why M-ch, DVD-V and multi-disc players are important to the general public. The fastest growing sector of the market is Home Theater. We feel we can get to the man-in-the-street this way. If he hears sounds from his 5 loudspeakers during films, s/he'll expect to hear sounds from all 5 speakers during music. However, we have to wait until the price and feature-set are right before starting the big blitz on Joe Public.
Uh, apologies again for the length, and apologies for not quoting you all, but I thought this way would save some time. SeVeReD: you stated you wanted to know something about disc production? Anything in particular? I'll try my best to answer.All for now (phew!).
Enjoy the music, Demery
Look forward to your continual participation.
nt
nt
Great (well presented and balanced) information! Since you work for Phillips I have one question. Why did Phillips get out of the music (recording) producing and distribution business just as it was launching the new SACD format? I recall that when CDs were launched in 1982 that all the labels from the Phillips umbrella (London, DG, Phillips, etc) help address the dearth of CD titles. I thought sure that there would be a flood of SACD titles coming from these labels. Then I learned that Phillips not only had sold off these interest, but had sold themn to a conglomeration that was committed to the DVD-A camp. Seem like Phillips, shot itself in the foot, at least with resprct to launching SACD more quickly with titles. Sony alone has proven not up to the task.Robert C. Lang
nt
how does one know if your amp is safe? Thanksglue
andrew,it appears that most if not all dvd-a titles are 96/24-6 channel and not 192/24. if this trend continues and it appears that it will doesn't that lock up the hi-end hi-rez market for sacd? your comments in #5 seem to infer that.
anyway, thanks again for your post. as a marantz sa-1 owner since last june it is nice to see you supporting this great product and format.
mikel
Andrew:
Thanks for your honesty and a needed breath of sanity. We 'philes have felt like we're getting the mushroom treatment (being kept in the dark and given an occasional ration of manure)on the subject of the new hi-rez formats. I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts.Maybe what Janice from RR (sure it wasn't Janet?) was saying was that there were no digital masters in the DSD format. After all, who cares about 44.1/16 masters?
I personally believe that SACD has less than 50-50 odds of succeeding because (1) the titles are too slow coming out (the reason is irrelevant) and too costly; (2) if you don't live in a big metro area, you can't get SACDs except via the web (does this mean only democrats have direct access?); (3) there is rapidly waning interest in two channel in the mass market; (4) surround rarely generates many of the high-end sonic characteristics such as precise imaging and space around instruments that set SACD apart; (5) the general public doesn't care all that much about sound quality -- magazines like Consumer's Report state unequivocally that features and output power are the only discriminators among audio electronics; (6) SACD appeals most to analog lovers, which represent less than one percent of the population; (7) the high-end community seems mesmerized by 44.1/16 upsampling these days -- an idea as old as the CD itself, yet suddenly in vogue; (8) even the high-end press is luke-warm so far.
As annoying as all these reasons are, number eight is the most maddening! Putting a better front end on systems will be justification for upgrading the rest of the system -- no more garbage-in/garbage-out. SACD could and should breathe new life into the high end. High end systems optimized for SACD should be so superior sounding that even John Q. Public might finally "get it."
What should Sony and Phillips do? First, I think there should be a suite of low-cost sampler disks -- not just one or two -- and not remastered old digital stuff (Telarc is guilty of that.) Second, Sony and Phillips should make low-cost DSD mastering equipment available to labels like RR and Mapleshade. Mapleshade, while lacking the big name entertainment talent, produces knock-em-dead sonics and sells its products for about one third the cost of SACDs. With DSD it's hard to imagine what they could do. And most of their reasonably priced catalog is captured on state-of the-art, two-track analog (not an oxymoron) masters. Meanwhile, Stereophile just produced a wonderful sounding, dirt cheap cycle of Beethoven piano sonatas. It is inexcusable for them not to have recorded direct to DSD masters.
The cost to you of equipping players like this for DSD would be less than a week's time of your lawyer corps that you mention in your post, yet it could quickly double or triple the number of high-quality titles available. If you think, as you say you do, that the road to mass market riches runs through the high-end community, then for God's sake, don't let yourselves lose your way as you pass through. The cost of these two suggestions is epsilon to Sony and Phillips. The benefit could be a jump start to the format.
I love Sam Tellig like a brother (never met him in person), but I have to disagree with him on this one: I desperately want to see SACD succeed. A life-like, musical, digital source has been the Holy Grail for 'philes like me since the horrors of "perfect sound forever" struck us in the early eighties. (No, I'm not damning you for starting it, and Red Book sounds a lot better now than it did then.) You guys hold the key. I hope you pull out the stops and press on all fronts to make SACD a success!
Thanks for caring.
Best!
Tim
On the SACD samplers, that sounds like a good idea. While the Chesky, Red Rose and FIM samplers can be purchased, the ones from Telarc, DMP and Philips (Jerry Goldsmith multichannel/stereo movie themes) are only available with a player.At CES, if you sat in on the Mark Levinson SACD demo, their sampler was handed out. That's a nice way to give people an incentive to more seriously consider an SACD player purchase - eventually further investment in the format. For music fans who don't attend trade shows, being able to also buy the Telarc, DMP and Philips SACD samplers would be good.
On Multichannel SACD, since we have quite a few more titles in Stereo SACD than exist on DVD-A, Multichannel is the only area where DVD-A can claim an "edge". So I'm hopeful that after the Tubular Bells SACD from Virgin Music appears on Monday Feb 5, Sony Music and others will get some titles out there. (The "sneak preview" of the James Taylor album in Multichannel DSD at CES was a nice sample of what may be coming in that department.) Multichannel SACD discs will have both stereo and multichannel tracks on them, so everyone wins there.
As for native DSD recordings, sure that would be the ideal. But in building a new format, in the beginning you're going to need a mix of compelling catalog titles and new material. So I think the approach of Telarc and others to provide both is the way to go.
"While the Chesky, Red Rose and FIM samplers can be purchased, the ones from Telarc, DMP and Philips (Jerry Goldsmith multichannel/stereo movie themes) are only available with a player."Not true. The DMP is available from www.superaudio-cd.com among many other places.
Thanks - I stand corrected on the DMP Sampler.
(with one profound and eternal exception!)Every serious audiophile here will benefit greatly from the long term success of SACD, even those who are unsure of its potential at the moment.
There is one recurring theme on this board which we hope that we hope that Sony/Phillips "get."
There are some fundamental flaws in the overall marketing strategy for SACD. Manufacturers, PLEASE hear us! We need many more titles without compromising SACD quality. The price of the discs MUST be competitive with CD's. (This could have an overnight fix!!) Some mass market type players are needed for John Q. Public to play the software. It might not be possible to succeed without catching the DVD wave with combination players. If Sony/Phillips insist on cornering the market through licensing fees or profit margins on DSD equipment, failure is on the horizon.
These comments are offered in sincerity, not in the spirit of criticism. We are part of a team with you and we want to succeed together. There are many knowledgable people on this board. PLEASE find a way for their input to reach decision making levels (PEOPLE) in SONY/Phillips.
nt
If all of the hardware parts except for the encryption chips are already available from other sources besides Sony to build SACD players you have to wonder why other high end manufacturers are so slow to get products on the market. Are they afraid of format failure or are they undergoing a long process of R&D to make better players?Any thoughts, Paul.
.
Thank you.
Let me just say thank you as many others have already said on this thread. It's nice to have an insider's viewpoint/insight.Let me adress all other Asylum Members with the following comment: let's not overwhelm this guy with questions (especially trivial types). Let's just be glad he monitors this website and let's be polite. Otherwise we might encourage him to not 'report out' any illuminating information on our loved dsd/sacd technology. We are being heard let's be happy with that.
.
.
Sony/Philips have done a thurough job of protecting the SACD content in several ways. Frankly, I can't figure out how WG-4 would reject that roboust copy protection schemes in favour of SMDI on technical basis.What are Sony/Philips plans for SACD duplicators. You need to address this issue sooner or later. We have the fair use law in US. Consumers have the right to copy the source for personal use and archival.
$5K duplicators would not fly. If the upcomming DVD-R can duplicate DVD-As (which is bound to happen in the second gen. players), that would give a valid reason to masses to favour DVD-A instead.
And, what about the prices? Are there any plans to bring down the prices to an affordable level for common consumer?
Adi
Adi, copying DVDs is exactly what content owners don't want you to do and they are forcing consumer electronics companies to develop systems that will block your attempts to do so.
It may not be illegal to use equipment in your home to make copies for you own personal use, but there is no law that requires equipment manufacturers to provide equipment that allows you to do this. If you don't like it, buy the equipment that does allow you to make copies (most likely labelled as "professional" and more expensive.)This situation is already happening. Notice how you can buy CD-Rs in two flavors these days? Data or Music. What's the difference? Music CD-Rs have some bits already set that identify them as Music discs. Otherwise, they are identical. They cost more due to a special tax that is distributed to a group of major content owners because they assume that some of those discs are being used for illegal purposes. So everyone who buys music discs pays the price for illegal copying. And new CD Players will not play CD-Rs that don't have the Music bits set. Does this sound familiar to DAT tapes and SCMS?
Watermarking and encryption are going to be used (already are actually) being used in a similar way.The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is being used to kill off all competition that doesn't "play by the rules" not to mention legitimate research into encryption research. Check out the following link:
http://cryptome.org/jg-wwwcp.htm
Personally, I find the situation as it is developing troubling but there really is no reason why a company shouldn't be allowed to create elaborate protection schemes like this. If consumers don't like it, they won't buy it and it will go away. Record companies are betting that consumers are so in need of Britney and John, Paul, George and Ringo (not to mention Titanic) that they will put up with the protection schemes. Will they? We'll see.
Thanks for the post Andrew. Overall, I am satisfied with the choices for titles released thus far--some are among my absolute favorites and there is a good hit-to-miss ratio. Anything that can be done to speed the software rollout would be greatly appreciated by current adopters and anything that can be done to speed the hardware rollout--ditto for future adopters. Hope you folks at Sony and Phillips keep this in mind--I'm sure you do. Keep visiting the hi res highway!
Glad to know the corporate ears are listening.
What ever became of Philips Living Baroque.
It is some of the best vinyl I own,
(and elegant packaging as well)
******7. SACD is for the elite audiophile market onlyThis is something that has been said most everywhere since Day One. As you all know, both Philips and Sony dominate the specialist hi-fi market with all their cost-no-object designs! :-)
To put the matter straight, all that we have said is that we would launch SACD through the high-end market first,and work quickly (not quickly enough for some!) to push the technology into all areas of the audio market. Let's be clear about one thing: Philips and Sony are "mass market" companies. That is where we earn our slice of the audio pie.*******
Well, SACD certainly offers big sonic improvements over CD's, and of course Sony/Philips would LIKE to push it into "all areas of the market," but it seems to me that the audiophile group--who will act as *active* early adopters to drive initial sales--is only big enough to get you so far, even if a substantial percentage of these audiophiles pick up an SACD player very soon. After that, one must--as you say--penetrate the mass market, and to do this you need titles with mass-market appeal. What kind of music moves the big units? Pop/rock/alternative, etc. While I'm sure it all *can* sound a lot better on SACD (I have only heard a few SACD's), the fact is that even with redbook CD, the format itself is not the limiting factor in these genres. Why? Because the recording/mixing/mastering often SUCKS. Huge amounts of sloppy compression, up and down the recording/mixing/mastering line, lots of EQ, re-EQ, EQ again, the whole "loudness race" and all that, lots of digital "loops", etc. etc.
So if pop/rock/alternative producers don't even fully utilize the fidelity available to them with red book CD, what is SACD going to do for them? I won't even talk about how 70% of pop/rock/alternative stuff gets played on something other than a decent "home stereo."
Maybe SACD will take firm hold in classical and jazz. People should know that a classical CD that sells 10,000 units is rare, and is considered a hit. I am not sure but I think jazz is roughly the same. If you sell even 2,000 - 3,000 units of a classical CD, you've done "OK." I can see SACD's selling somewhat more units per title at the same or slightly higher price level, due to the acknowledged sonic superiority, but people would have to want to turn their *entire* classical and jazz collections over to SACD--as many did going from LP to CD--for it to really reach big numbers, I would think.
CD's were a godsend for the masses who love their Pop/rock/alternative music, with its increased convenience and all that. I think Sam Tellig has a lot of good points in his recent article (which I know has been much discussed...guess I should read all the pertinent posts to see just how I wil be shot down here!! .. lol).
It would be nice if the mass market moved to a better sounding format (SACD) and the engineers and producers realy utilized its capabilities..!! I guess I'm just not that optimistic.
Still, if SACD can really make inroads in classical, jazz, world music, whatever else, then all the better. It would still help a lot of people get much improved sound and a better musical experience. Whether or not it can ever truly go mass-market the way the CD did, I am not sure....
Mike
p.s. In spite of my criticism, I join the other folks in thanking you for your very informative post.....!
nt
and thanks for your infomative post.What are Philips/Sony's plans regarding department store DVD players with SACD capabilities?
for your authoritative, informative and candid post. I'm sure that many here look forward to the prospect of future posts from you!Obviously, most audiophiles here have a primary interest in high resolution source material. Experiences with different SACD's vary in the quality department. Is there any move afoot to develop an industry standard for source identification for each SACD specifying whether analog tapes, PCM or pure DSD was used in recording/mastering?
: 0)
I can't reflect how much I appreciated your letter. I can express only my most sincere gratitude to you and your friends for creating this wonderful technology allowing me the fullest (non-live) music experience. No questions, nothing, just God bless you and do your job....
Simon Vinitski Ph.D.
Is your job ....ultimately... the coolest, most fun audio job out there.... or what??
I am guessing many people would love to trade places with you!
Thanks for your post!Mike
Well said Demery, and thanks for the info. Would like to hear more about #4 and production techniques.
Thank you for all the great information! It answers many questions I've had regarding issues raised in this forum.BTW, my name is Scot, and I've posted a few times but neglected to introduce myself to the forum. I'm interested in high rez formats only as a consumer and music lover. I am still on the fence.
That said, one question I have that perhaps Demery or someone else could answer is:
What issues/limitations are associated with the creation of a universal player? I.e., is it possible to create such an animal at a reasonable ( <$2000) price?
Just reading many of the past month's discussions, it seems to me that a lot of angst arises out of concern for future software support. When hardware is so expensive, and only supports a single format, "buying-in" to a format could be a risky proposition. Why not alleviate some of those issues by creating hardware that will support all current formats? It seems like this would speed adoption by "fence-sitters" like me who are perhaps not the earliest adopters. I'm asking this because as far as I know, neither Phillips or Sony has plans for DVD-A players, and I'm curious if this is a technical or marketing issue. One (beaten) metaphor.....would betamax have lost-out if consumers could have played VHS and Beta in the same player?
Thanks!
-Scot
One issue that I heard raised at CES by player makers is that SACD drives are different than other drives because of the need to support the visual watermark. So you end up paying a premium for these drives vs. a more standard drive. (Our expert from Philips can probably weigh in on this one.)Seems to me that the issue may take care of itself in the long term as SACD player sales increase and the drive cost becomes lower as volume discounts and prices become available.
bmoura wrote:> > One issue that I heard raised at CES by player makers is that SACD drives are different than other drives because of the need to support the visual watermark. So you end up paying a premium for these drives vs. a more standard drive. (Our expert from Philips can probably weigh in on this one.) < <
As I understand it, the drive itself is standard DVD, as all physical parameters of SACD are based on DVD-V physical parameters. Where SACD differs is in copy-protection. Yes, an extra decoding chip is needed in the drive, but it is needed for invisible watermark determination -- which is present (along with other protection mechanisms) on all SACDs.
I have no idea whether this is retro-fittable to all DVD drives, nor do I know what the cost of the IC is.
> > Seems to me that the issue may take care of itself in the long term as SACD player sales increase and the drive cost becomes lower as volume discounts and prices become available. < <
Correct. The higher the volumes, the lower the unit prices.
Cheers, Demery (Philips Electronics)
Interesting. So it's a chip that's needed, not a different drive.Perhaps that's why the vendor said they were watching to see if any of the SACD vendors would use the SACD visual watermark. They hinted that if none of the SACD vendors use the visual watermarking, then a standard DVD drive can be used.
> > As I understand it, the drive itself is standard DVD, as all physical parameters of SACD are based on DVD-V physical parameters. Where SACD differs is in copy-protection. Yes, an extra decoding chip is needed in the drive, but it is needed for invisible watermark determination -- which is present (along with other protection mechanisms) on all SACDs.I have no idea whether this is retro-fittable to all DVD drives, nor do I know what the cost of the IC is. < <
Thanks for your very illuminating post! I was wondering if you could answer a software-related question for me, one that has been puzzling me for a while. Since Philips was one of the co-inventors of the SACD format, why are there no SACD releases on the Philips label? (Philips Classics, specifically.) I realize that the electronics and music divisions are probably separate entities, but you'd think...... I posed this question on the Universal Classics forum (the parent company of Philips, Deutsche Grammophon, and Decca) and all I got was the response to the effect of "there are no plans to release our recordings in SACD". (DG will be releasing at least one of their recordings on DVD-A later this year, I believe, but that's another gripe.)Thanks,
Russell
Philips no longer owns the Philips records label. Universal Classics owns it.
Yeah--I suppose I should have realized it. :-) Still would be nice to see (hear) some SACDs from Philips, though, especially their recordings from the mid/late 70's. (I'm thinking mainly of the wonderful Concertgebouw recordings.)Thanks,
Russell
Who knows? Maybe having some of the Philips staff/execs working at Universal Music will get Universal to take a listen to SACD and more seriously consider some SACD releases.
an extremely informative (dare I say "definitive?") and balanced post that clarifies (and, in some cases, demystifies) a number of issues, at least for this reader. It's a pleasure to have you here.--Jim
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate your post. As a former early sacd adopter, I've been debating jumping back in, but will wait until the musical choices satisfy me again. I just don't see how other high end manufacturers are going to take the gamble to develop and release sacd compatible components until there is a sufficient quantity of musical choices from all genres. I'd even like to ask your opinion for the number of total sacd's available by year end '01? Do you think it will exceed 300 titles?Lastly, your reply to point 9 (speed of releases) is a bit underwhelming. You made the comment that cd did not happen overnight, as you are well aware, cd appeared to have a lot more competitive advantages over the other choices at its introduction. It would seem to me, that since sacd has less perceived advantages over the alternatives at its introduction, that the powers that be would attack the market much differently. I fail to see how sacd could enjoy the longevity that cd did without an intital big push. Since your point 7 addressed the fact that your intention is not to service just a small niche audiophile mkt, I'd say you better get moving and quickly. Finally, that comment about the lawyers slowing things down, uuugghhh. Every deal I've ever worked on where someone mentions attorney disclaimers and possible delays, my wallet suddenly finds a way to tighten up as nothing scares me more. Obviously those of us at this site have little bearing on the funding of a project as massive as this, but we must still vote with our pocketbooks and thus influence the business in some way however minor. Good luck and please keep posting as I sure want to read the words from soemone who may actually have some influence with how this thing settles out.
"the number of total sacd's available by year end '01? Do you think it will exceed 300 titles?"Including Japanese SACD releases there are already over 250 titles available, and quite a few ('Tubular Bells' for instance) to be released this month. 300 titles should be achieved well before summer.
thank you for the information and updates.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
