should be SACD or not SACD

"malcolm" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:09:30 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"malcolm" wrote in message
. ..
should be SACD or not SACD

let's save that for DVD Audio or not DVD Audio

Having tried DVD-Audio my experience is that any difference between it
and a CD is very small - nothing like that between, say, cassettes and
CDs. (I'm trying to avoid the v word. ;-)

The only substantive difference is multi-channel. Since I listen
largely to classical music this is unimportant to me.

I really can't see SACD or DVD-Audio catching-on. What advantage does
it provide to the record-buying public with their 'music
centres'/stacking units? It is not helped by having two incompatible
formats.


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK

"Chris Isbell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:09:30 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"malcolm" wrote in message
. ..
should be SACD or not SACD

let's save that for DVD Audio or not DVD Audio

Having tried DVD-Audio my experience is that any difference between it
and a CD is very small - nothing like that between, say, cassettes and
CDs. (I'm trying to avoid the v word. ;-)

The only substantive difference is multi-channel. Since I listen
largely to classical music this is unimportant to me.

I really can't see SACD or DVD-Audio catching-on. What advantage does
it provide to the record-buying public with their 'music
centres'/stacking units? It is not helped by having two incompatible
formats.

I can't either. The public must be getting fed up with yet another
format war and these formats will only have a hope in hell with the mass
market if hybrid CD/DVD/SACD/DVD-A players become the norm. Given the
publics love of DVD I don't think pre-recorded SACD has a hope. Sony
should have learnt from MD and DCC that it takes more than a single
company to promote a format and make it a success.

SACD seems to the Sony equivalent of IBM trying to regain control of the
PC market by introducing the PS/2, MCA architecture and OS/2. From
Sony's POV SACD was designed in an attempt to sell more hardware and
regain control of the software business by introducing DRM functions
such as watermarking. I don't know anyone with an SACD player and I've
never seen an SACD disc - by comparison even DAB is a rip roaring, hot
cake selling success.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:

The only substantive difference is multi-channel. Since I listen largely
to classical music this is unimportant to me.

In principle multi-channel might be superb for enhancing imaging and adding
the hall acoustic to the experience. However in practice I can't say I have
any real interest in acquiring either DVD-Audio or SACD.

I really can't see SACD or DVD-Audio catching-on. What advantage does it
provide to the record-buying public with their 'music centres'/stacking
units? It is not helped by having two incompatible formats.

I would agree. Particularly in the context that, for me, DVD-V adds a great
deal to some musical performances. Just been enjoying the Gheorghiu 'Tosca'
DVD-V and found it superb simply in stereo+video. My own suspicion is that
people will tend to prefer DVD-V to bothering with either DVD-A or SACD.
This may mean that the other formats survive simply on the basis that DVD-V
players may 'come with the bonus of playing them' so people will get this
ability even if they didn't really want it! :-)

Above said, I am one of those luddites who is fairly happy with CD. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

more from the 'Chris Isbell school' of uk.rec.audio-ism:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:06:25 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I would agree. Particularly in the context that, for me, DVD-V adds a
great deal to some musical performances. Just been enjoying the
Gheorghiu 'Tosca' DVD-V and found it superb simply in stereo+video.

Slightly off topic:

I must admit to rather enjoying[1] the English Consort performance of
Bach's Christmas Oratorio. This has a PCM stereo soundtrack in
addition to two Dolby Digital versions. Interestingly, the PCM
soundtrack is at 48kHz rather than the 44.1kHz CD standard. Whilst
this is reasonable, it did surprise me a little. Is this normal for
DVD recordings? (The sample rate that is, not my surprise :-)

Hmm... not sure about how normal 48khz recordings are, but I wonder if this
means the player upsamples 44.1khz to 48khz for normal CDs.

This was the recording I used to test if surround sound made any
material difference to classical music - partly because it was
recorded in a church which should have provided a good ambient
acoustic. (My system comprised Qual ESL 57s at the front and Quad 11Ls
at the rear with two separate stereo amplifiers.)

Yes, I sometimes wish that church music - organs especially - could be
enjoyed in a non-religious way. Fantastic instruments.

[1] English reserve and understatement. ;-)




--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

I don't know, but I suspect it is up to the DAC/player to decide how
to treat the different sampling rates. No idea what the meridian I use
does, I have assumed it just adjusted its internal clock and ran
everything in scale with the input rate. However for all I know the
oversampling is altered. Works up to 48 kHz, but I have forgotten to
lower limit at present.

I ask because a lot of high-ish end soundcards and cheap dacs and DVD
players seem to upsample mp3/CD audio to a 'native' 48Hz. I don't know what
this does to the sound, but 48/44 isn't a particuarly simple ratio. I'm
guessing the sound will be slightly smoothed, but maybe the sample rates
are high enough for it to be unimportant anyway.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

Jim H wrote:

I don't know, but I suspect it is up to the DAC/player to decide how
to treat the different sampling rates. No idea what the meridian I use
does, I have assumed it just adjusted its internal clock and ran
everything in scale with the input rate. However for all I know the
oversampling is altered. Works up to 48 kHz, but I have forgotten to
lower limit at present.

I ask because a lot of high-ish end soundcards and cheap dacs and DVD
players seem to upsample mp3/CD audio to a 'native' 48Hz. I don't know what
this does to the sound, but 48/44 isn't a particuarly simple ratio. I'm
guessing the sound will be slightly smoothed, but maybe the sample rates
are high enough for it to be unimportant anyway.

I wouldn't say a lot of cards do this - just a couple of very well known
ones from Creative Labs. Anyone seriously using a soundcard should steer
well clear of these cards.

48kHz is the standard sample rate used in the video industry and is the
normal rate for DVD audio soundtracks.

Cheers.

James.