Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d65kdm0q64@news3.newsguy.com...
> John P. Green <xyzzy35@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote in message
> > news:d5jgov0306i@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
> > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > >
> > > > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End
Society's
> > > > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
> > > > http
/www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon
> > >
> > > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
> > > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz
among
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > Espen
>
> > In classical music there are far more SACD than DVD-A recordings. The
> > problem with DVD-A is you never know exactly what you'll get - stereo?
> > surround sound? both?
>
> That particular problem has plagued SACD too. There's a whole passel
> of SACDs that are two-channel only. Another quetsion is with whether
> you'll get a CD layer or not. Sony didn't include them in most of its
> initial run of SACD; for some other releases, whether you got a hybrid
> disc depended on what country you bought the disc in.
>
But SACD's are clearly labeled, so you can decide on these things.
>
> > 96khz? 192 khz?
>
> Not that that has been shown to matter, really-- particularly for
> *playback*. In fact guys like Dan Lavry are convinced that 96 kHz
> is more than enough for the recording side of things.
>
You went to the show. Take a look at the impulse composite picture handed
out at the ISOmike demonstration. It shows analog, 44.1, 48, 96, 192, and
SACD. Only SACD esstentially duplicates the analog response. DVD-A at 192
is close, but with more pre-ringing and a lower pulse level. The remainder
were pretty abysmal. That's one reason why studios are rapidly moving to
192, now that firewire is here to make computer input simple.
> > It was utterly brain dead not to
> > lay down the law and come up with a standard that was actually a
> > standard. My own pet beef about DVD-A is that the damn things are
> > usually packaged in oversized cases that don't fit in my CD shelves.
> > Why, oh why, did they have to do *that*?
>
> Product differentiation. I agree, it's a nuisance..but it does at
> least allow for larger cover art than CD's pitiful standard.
>
A rationalization at best.
> > As for Sony not making SACDs any more, I have a number of SACD
> > recordings and none of them are from Sony. Sony rarely produces a
> > recording I'd want to buy. So SACD might well live on with or without
> > Sony. (Now if BIS and Hyperion stop making SACDs I'll start believing
> > in the medium's demise.)
>
> If the medium ends up a being supported only by the likes of Hyperion
> and BIS, that's hardly a sign of vitality.
>
Or Concord, or Telarc, or Channel Classics, or Phillips, or Pentatone.....
"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d65kdm0q64@news3.newsguy.com...
> John P. Green <xyzzy35@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote in message
> > news:d5jgov0306i@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > <info@enjoythemusic.com> wrote in message
> > > news:d5gm9f01icv@news3.newsguy.com...
> > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > >
> > > > We now have begun our show coverage of Germany's High End
Society's
> > > > Munich audiophile show. The report can be seen at
> > > > http
/www.enjoythemusic.com/munich2005/ and have Part 3 coming soon> > >
> > > Well, the consensus from the show is that SACD is a dead format for
> > > surround. This statement was projected by Ken Ishiwata from Marantz
among
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > Espen
>
> > In classical music there are far more SACD than DVD-A recordings. The
> > problem with DVD-A is you never know exactly what you'll get - stereo?
> > surround sound? both?
>
> That particular problem has plagued SACD too. There's a whole passel
> of SACDs that are two-channel only. Another quetsion is with whether
> you'll get a CD layer or not. Sony didn't include them in most of its
> initial run of SACD; for some other releases, whether you got a hybrid
> disc depended on what country you bought the disc in.
>
But SACD's are clearly labeled, so you can decide on these things.
>
> > 96khz? 192 khz?
>
> Not that that has been shown to matter, really-- particularly for
> *playback*. In fact guys like Dan Lavry are convinced that 96 kHz
> is more than enough for the recording side of things.
>
You went to the show. Take a look at the impulse composite picture handed
out at the ISOmike demonstration. It shows analog, 44.1, 48, 96, 192, and
SACD. Only SACD esstentially duplicates the analog response. DVD-A at 192
is close, but with more pre-ringing and a lower pulse level. The remainder
were pretty abysmal. That's one reason why studios are rapidly moving to
192, now that firewire is here to make computer input simple.
> > It was utterly brain dead not to
> > lay down the law and come up with a standard that was actually a
> > standard. My own pet beef about DVD-A is that the damn things are
> > usually packaged in oversized cases that don't fit in my CD shelves.
> > Why, oh why, did they have to do *that*?
>
> Product differentiation. I agree, it's a nuisance..but it does at
> least allow for larger cover art than CD's pitiful standard.
>
A rationalization at best.
> > As for Sony not making SACDs any more, I have a number of SACD
> > recordings and none of them are from Sony. Sony rarely produces a
> > recording I'd want to buy. So SACD might well live on with or without
> > Sony. (Now if BIS and Hyperion stop making SACDs I'll start believing
> > in the medium's demise.)
>
> If the medium ends up a being supported only by the likes of Hyperion
> and BIS, that's hardly a sign of vitality.
>
Or Concord, or Telarc, or Channel Classics, or Phillips, or Pentatone.....
Facebook
Twitter