Another sign SACD is dying

First off I must commend everyone on this thread for making an often very controversial topic enjoyable and useful.

Tvad, somehow I do think you and I are not communicating. It appears to be partly on each of our interpretations of what we are reading. This is always the danger of these threads; it’s easy to misunderstand and therefore not communicate.

On my side, I here you questioning the logic of the SACD releases to date. I agree, I do not understand it either (but I will add a thought on that later). Then I challenged you that they are releasing recordings based on quality of the recording, and you disagreed. You later discussed the marketing is not for the 35+ year old market. Now I’m confused. In my mind the SACD marketing is to those people who are looking for the best digital sound available. This most likely would be people who could afford high end audio equipment, thus the 35+ year old market. This might also be a market that is more likely to enjoy the well recorded classical and jazz of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. So in my mind this is an explanation for the choices they make.

Again I’m going to make the point that using SACD to release the poorly recorded mass market music of the ’70-present would be illogical in that this playback method would only highlight the flaws of the original recording (master tapes) The only way to improve these recordings is to filter and roll off the problem areas. This would be unacceptable to those looking for the best digital playback possible. So I am confused by your responses.

I then hear you discussing downloading via broad band satellite being some sort of answer. To who???

I made the point that the mass market, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are going to destroy the music industry. I should have been clearer with my thought. This will destroy the high quality, hi-rez audio market. Here’s my logic. The original DAC tapes made from either analog source or DSD digital format is the best digital copy available. (First generation) Every time this signal is sent through something, the chance of lessening the quality exists. How good is the clocking in the manufacturing? How is the signal sent to a satellite or uploaded to the internet. What clocking is used? Every generation of digital reproduction will alter the original. It will always be something less, in that it is not logical that we could add to this digital source. We can only degrade this, not improve it.

The mass market and I believe your idea of satellite will only degrade the original recording. If you are using today’s technology to play back this degraded signal you are using equipment developed for computers and now home video. I am not aware of a digital source that would match the quality of our high end audio gear. If it’s on the internet, it’s run through Billy’s or Stevey”s software. I do not believe this is a good thing. If you’re using satellite transponders, and expecting the receiver to match the equipment the high end audio user has, I do not believe it.

What you are discussing is the very downside I am discussing. I do not believe this method of music transfer is anything but a step backward, and inherently flawed. If filtering the jitter created by lesser clocking equipment is a solution acceptable to you, then fine. I would guess those who strive for the best possible stereo playback would not find this an acceptable solution. So here we are, I believe SACD is a better format to reproduce the audio signal for my stereo. You believe the mass market uploading to the internet or satellite is better. We are talking about apples and oranges and my expectation for audio reproduction must be quite different than yours.

Now I completely agree the internet and satellite is the method of the future. I see that as a negative, and you seem to see it as a positive. If that is true, I respectfully disagree, and fully support your ambition to find high quality mass market software. I hope your right, but today I do not believe you are. Instead, I am discussing a completely different animal. I am looking to support the non-mass market labels that believe in quality of recording first and quality of delivery first. These labels have endorsed SACD and I applaud them. These may also be the labels that keep the high end audio business alive, and I support them. Today they are releasing some of the best of a massive library of well recorded music. It is clearly marketed to the older, well healed audiophiles. Makes sense, that was the purpose of a new format, at least for the smaller quality labels.

Sony’s motivation was something completely different. They hoped to keep there monopoly on royalties they had enjoyed for 25 years with CD’s. SACD was there attempt, and I agree they failed big time. It does not however mean the formats future is dead, quite the contrary. From SACD came DSD recording techniques. This format is becoming the recording and storage of original materiel standard. The step from DSD to SACD disks is nothing. The technology is in DSD and I think that is here to stay. In fact this is one possible logic behind the releases to date. There is a large attempt by the audio industry to preserve the original master tapes on file. Many of the oldest ones are deteriorating as are old film (video). In the audio world DSD is the process being used to re-master the original master tapes. So the stuff being re-mastered today is much of the “great” performances stored in the vault and re-mastered before they are lost forever. SACD is a bi-product of that. Same can be said for film/video. DVD-V is the bi-product. In the video industry they are digitally reworking (adding pixels) to make a brighter more vivid presentation. This is a very dangerous practice, and for our cherished audio, I would like this practice to remain in video only. I want what was recorded, not what some computer geek believes it “should” have sounded like.

At any rate, the music industry will take mass market to the computer and satellite industry. We will learn to accept rolled off, heavily filtered and compressed audio for our ipods and mp3 players. Out audio will come from space, collected my our dishes and decoded by less than perfect equipment. This is the mass market, and why I claimed that CD will die. There will be no need, and because of this prediction I agree with your comments. It’s the high-end/ Audiophile market I was addressing, and for them, those who believe in the best, SACD remains a format beyond CD.

JD

JD, what I wrote about the 35+ age demographic is:

The reality is, the 35+ age demographic is not the target for mass market entertainment providers, and therefore lovers of jazz/classical recorded music are an afterthought of the music industry Big Boys.

IMO, SACD music is being released as you say primarily to the 35+ demographic (actually,I'd up this to 45+), but based on market demand by this age group, not based on recording quality.

Again I’m going to make the point that using SACD to release the poorly recorded mass market music of the ’70-present would be illogical in that this playback method would only highlight the flaws of the original recording (master tapes) The only way to improve these recordings is to filter and roll off the problem areas. This would be unacceptable to those looking for the best digital playback possible.

It might be illogical, I agree, but more importantly, there is no market demand for rock/pop releases. Maybe there's no demand because the end users realize there is no sonic benefit, or maybe there is no market demand because the Big Boys consider rock/pop listeners as a demographic that doesn't care about Hi Rez music for any number of reasons. The point is there is no market demand. The reasons for the lack of market demand for SACD rock/pop releases certainly include your theory of poor recording quality.

I then hear you discussing downloading via broad band satellite being some sort of answer. To who???

To lovers of Hi Rez audio who in time will be left behind when the shiny silver discs are no longer manufactured. I offer brodband delivery as a cost effective option for distributors to meet the demand of the small Hi Rez audiophile market. It's a suggestion. Not a reality at present.

Every generation of digital reproduction will alter the original. It will always be something less, in that it is not logical that we could add to this digital source.

This is incorrect. All the major broadcast networks make digital duplicates of their shows that are exactly the same from generation to generation. In fact, they are referred to as clones. They have been doing this for ten years or more.

I cannot effectively argue for or against signal degradation via satellite upload or download because I do not have the technical expertise, and I assume neither do you. However, I could ask one of my best friends who heads the QC department for the NBC Network and deals with this issue on a daily basis. My guess is he would tell me there is no signal degradation in the process, and that any signal degradation occurs as local stations send the signal over inferior or outdated equipment. I suspect that Sirius sends their signal directly to the satellite, and from there the signal is sent directly to the end user, thereby eliminating links in the chain. That's the benefit of satellite distribution over cable distribution. Fewer parts, as it were...

I am not aware of a digital source that would match the quality of our high end audio gear.

At this point in time, neither do I. But given satellite boxes are distributing HDTV signals into our homes, it seems to me the technology exists today to distriibute Hi Rez music via satellite. The problem lies in music content and distribution in a Hi Rez format. Again, I believe this is due to a failure of content providers/distributors to recognize the potential, if small, market for this content.

You believe the mass market uploading to the internet or satellite is better.

I never said I thought mass market end users uploading to the internet was a solution to Hi Rez music distribution, or to any music distribution. What I suggested was that music production companies and distribution companies...Chesky at al...might consider satellite and broadband (cable not DSL) as a future method for distributing Hi Rez format music. I never suggested that the currrent iteration of the internet or computers were the solution. In fact, I believe they are not the solution today.

We are talking about apples and oranges and my expectation for audio reproduction must be quite different than yours.

If you re-read my statements and digest my explanations offered in this post, I hope you will see we are not talking to different points.

As far as what is available today, I agree that the state of the art is SACD or DVD-A. However, in time...a very short time...silver disc production will atrophy as more efficient and low-cost alternatives present themselves. And, as CD production atrophies, so will the production of Super Audio Compact Discs. I don't believe the small audiophile Hi Rez market has the buying power to sway the production companies. The best you can hope for is a delay in the inevitable.

Tvad, good points all. I have nothing left to discuss other than the topic of this thread. The only dispute I have is a clone is not a clone. Digital reproduction is completely reliant on clocking, and the fact that clocking is not a perfect science, every copy be nature is altered.

The very fact that vinyl is available to a fraction of the audiophile community, which is in turn a fraction of the music industry, tells me there will be a digital equivalent to vinyl. I propose this will be SACD, due in part to the fact that much of the master tape library is being re-mastered into the DSD format. It seems logical that the audiophiles will want that information made available as purely as possible, thus SACD.

I just have a hard time seeing Chesky, Mapleshade and the like settling for degradation of the original.

JD, the difference between our points of view is that you appear to be trying to desperately hold on to this year’s state-of-the-art music reproduction format, and I am looking forward at the possibilities for the next state-of-the-art music reproduction format, in the belief that what is state-of-the-art today will shortly be yesterday’s news. The writing has been on the wall for several years as more and more music has been delivered over the internet.

Regarding the vinyl-analog/SACD-digital debate, in my opinion vinyl will survive as an analog delivery method, whereas SACD/CD will either disappear entirely or be relegated to a miniscule digital delivery method.

You wrote:

Digital reproduction is completely reliant on clocking, and the fact that clocking is not a perfect science, every copy be nature is altered.

I would propose by your own definition, even the production of each silver disc is subject to clocking anomalies, since discs are manufactured in batches on multiple CD burners, each of which is subject to clocking issues...as you suggest. Therefore, Chesky, Mapleshade and the like are already settling for degradation of the original.

Anyway, it seems we're picking at the gnat's ass here, and the little bugger just won't stay still long enough to get a firm grip on the sucker...

This explains my entire point. Small labels, XRCD and other high quality sources are not bulk produced. That's the who;e point.

Oh well, we clearly are on different wave lengths, but I commend you for not getting frustrated.