Why haven't audiophiles enthusiastically endorsed the SACD?

[StevenSurprenant]

Many years ago there were only mono recordings and as a kid it sounded pretty good to me. Then stereo came along, along with console stereos. It sounded pretty amazing, but back then we never spoke about soundstage, depth, or imagining because it didn't exist. Back in those days, stereo claim to fame was making one voice come from the left speaker while having another voice coming from the right speaker. Pretty cool, or so we thought at that time. Not every recording was made that way, but it seemed that most that were not, sounded like a good mono system with two speakers rather than the stereo sound that we hear today with its separation and sound staging. Then along came Quad, with four distinct channels. Recording engineers again started putting different instruments in each speaker like they did when stereo first came out. It was pretty impressive, but also very distracting. However, I think the big issue then was that people were not willing to put speakers all over their house, Hmmm... That state of mind still exists today!

I'm sure that I'm not going to mention all the formats from this point on...

Back in the 80's I switched over to CD'c, not by choice, rather because you couldn't buy records any more. At that point in time, records, at least to me, were hands down better than any CD. In the 90's I bought a HDCD DAC and one demo HDCD CD. Two of the cuts on this disk were very impressive and sounded better than any CD I had on hand. The other demo songs were about the same as regular CD's. One of the problems was to find CD's in the HDCD format. It was nearly impossible and the prices were too high. I finally sold that DAC and moved on.

I also need to mention what happened earlier. During the 60's and 70's, tape players were proliferating. There was the 8-track that we all know and love, reel to reel recorders, and many different versions of cassette players. The cassette finally settled on the version that we can still get today. The reel to reel, 8-tracks, and records all died out. Some day soon the cassette will also cease to exist. By the way, I also remember a record player made for cars. Skipped a lot, but it actually worked.

Then along comes DVD-A and SACD. The engineers again started putting instruments all over the room. Don't they ever learn? First off, the cost is still to high for the disks and secondly, they are made for multi channel systems. Most people who are serious about music have a dedicated two channel system that sounds much better than their surround system. There would be a net loss in sound quality to play music on their surround system compared to their stereo. I suppose that if you only have a surround system, then DVD-A and SACD would sound better than CD's in comparison on that system.

The best sound that I have heard, all systems and formats included, was on a 2-channel stereo using CD's. However, not all systems sound good enough to bring out the full capabilities of a red book CD. There in lies the problem and the reason why different formats keep getting created.

As we all know, the CD's life span is nearing it's end as solid state (ipod, mp3, music servers) become the new firmware of the next generation. As for the format, it's anyone's guess. Do we improve the hardware so that the full capability of the CD can be realized, or do we modify the format to enhance the sound of lesser systems?

I've been down this road too many times and and refuse to invest any more money in a new format that is going to disappear in a few years. Nor, do I want to pay a premium for these formats, knowing full well that they will be collecting dust when the powers that be, decide that they have a newer and better format.

Besides, like I mentioned above, with the right equipment choices and good audio engineering, the red book CD's can be truely awsome.

As for vinyl records...

I love these things and while I've never had a record sound harsh and glaring like many CD's I own, the best sound I've heard was from a well recorded CD.

[emaidel]

Then along comes DVD-A and SACD. The engineers again started putting instruments all over the room. Don't they ever learn? First off, the cost is still to high for the disks and secondly, they are made for multi channel systems. Most people who are serious about music have a dedicated two channel system that sounds much better than their surround system.

I agree that the multi-channel capability of SACD's is more hurtful than helpful in making these discs attractive to most audiophiles (as I said in my initial post on this thread), but the primary purpose behind an SACD isn't to surround listeners with "instruments all over the room," but rather, to offer better quality sound. More importantly, almost every SACD made today is a hybrid disc that will play back in 2-channel stereo without any loss of fidelity.

One of Telarc's engineers once sent me a very long, and highly technical, email outlining the entire "digital scheme" behind the DSD system for recording music, and explained that the SACD as the only medium capable of capturing all that DSD does. A sine wave is far smoother with the DSD process, and its dynamic range is extraordinary - 120db. While the frequency response of 0-100,000HZ is impressive, I have yet to understand the benefit of recording material so far beyond the capabiliites of human hearing.

I didn't even consider SACD's until I wrote to Jack Renner (former founder/president/chief recording engineer for Telarc) and asked whether I'd benefit from the improved sound of an SACD on a 2-channel system, and he very enthusiastically said that I would. The "proof of the pudding" is in the DSD-remastered Telarc discs originally recorded via the Soundstream digital tape recorder.

The Soundstream system sampled music at a rate of 50KHZ, and when converted to the 44.1KHZ rate for standard CD playback, there was always a loss in quality. The DSD recording system, and the SACD playback medium are now capable of reproducing those Soundstream recordings as they were orignally meant to sound, and they are all exclusivly 2-channel discs. The CD layer on all of such discs that I've purchased so far (about 8) sounds a good deal better than the "redbook" CD of the same music, but the SACD layer on those discs is afar and away the best of all.

SACD's typically sell for from $3 to $5 more than their CD counterparts (not that much in my book), and at the moment, all Telarc SACD's are selling for $13.98 apiece. That's a pretty good deal as far as I'm concerned!

[mlsstl]

Keep in mind that audiophiles, as a subgroup of buyers, don't have the capability to make a new format a sales hit. The numbers needed for volume sales simply aren't there.

Think of Betamax vs VHS. There was never a contest that Betamax had better video quality but VHS won the race.

One can also point out that even Redbook CD (and the LP format before that) rarely use all of their sonic potential. What is 120 dB of dynamic range worth when the loudness/compression war is in full swing? A CD beats the dynamic range of a LP by 20 dB but many CDs released these days intentionally have less dynamic range than your garden variety LP of 30 or 40 years ago.

Your average teenager is needed to make a format a hit. That is why CD sales are down and lossy download sales are up. It is a pretty tough sale to argue the need for SACD when regular CD sales are down and sales figures for an even worse sound quality format are up.

[Kevio]

A sine wave is far smoother with the DSD process, and its dynamic range is extraordinary - 120db. While the frequency response of 0-100,000HZ is impressive, I have yet to understand the benefit of recording material so far beyond the capabiliites of human hearing.

Same here. I'm convinced that the principal improvement in the sound from SACD comes from the additional care taken in making and mastering the recordings.

Keep in mind that audiophiles, as a subgroup of buyers, don't have the capability to make a new format a sales hit. The numbers needed for volume sales simply aren't there.

True. Also add to this the fact that audiophiles tend to be freethinkers and don't generally act as a cohesive consumer demographic.

[Auricauricle]

This forum's got me wondering if there's a dark side too all of this: Namely, is there such a thing as way too much detail?

With Blue-Ray, the ability to resolve even the most minute fragment of visual nuance is spectactular to be sure, but not realistic. We may see the various pimples and hairs growing upon the person we stand before, but we don't observe them. Similarly, as we listen to music, few of us are truly aware or attendant to the various groans and squeaks that accompany the performance. True, it is present, but they are soon ignored in favor of the composition as a whole. In short, do such devices truly present an over all more complete "picture" or are they so filled with chock-a-nlock detail that we lose out on the overall composition?

The previous post refers to a blog that is much more verbose, if you wanna sift through a deeper look into mah thought thinking modus operandi (ahem.....).

[Feanor]

This forum's got me wondering if there's a dark side too all of this: Namely, is there such a thing as way too much detail?

....

(For the sake of arguement), I say there is no such thing as too much genuine detail, that is, resolution. Real resolution manifest itself as transparency, especially as "air" or "space" around the instruments and vocalists, and also (e.g.) the ability to make out more words on multi-voice choral works.

There is such a thing as "etch", that is, sharp-edged, apparent but not authentic detail. I think that largely comes from distortion at higher frequencies caused by inferior design or components. Of course, it is exagerated by recordings balanced for too much to the upper-mid and high frequency.

[Auricauricle]

Interesting distinction, Fean, and I shall ponder upon it fer awhile....

I guess that I am concerned that folks will become so attentive to the gee-whiz special effects of these contraptions that these will assume prominence over the material they are supposed to enhance.

To exemplify this point in my "essay", I describe one's observation of an explosion. As our attention turns to the event, the various sonic characteristics, including tibre, echo, subsonics, etc., likewise unfolds. In real life, we don't appraise the explosion so vividly--unnless we are recording engineers--but apprehend the sonic Gestalt. Similarly, when looking at something, unless we are visual technicians who specialize in such, we generally don't attend to the various textures, and shades of hue, etc., but to the overall image.

I wonder (at the risk of being redundundant), then, if these devices obscure things. I am certain that one become immune to this vividness, much as one's nose soon becomes accoustomed to the smell of noxious substances. To this end, maybe they indeed wind up serving their purposes very well. So, should there be a break-in period (Honeymoon Phase)? Will even these improvements spur the need to upgrade yet again?

[mlsstl]

Right now I'm listening to an old Chess Records recording of Little Milton singing the Willie Dixon tune "I Can't Quit You Baby" which was recorded in the late 1950s. The recording has zero refinement compared to modern material, but it has a raw immediacy that is better suited than a clinical recording.

I think it is entirely possible for an "audiophile" to get caught up in the sound instead of the music. We certainly see plenty of examples of that in the various audio forums.

Just think of all the fancy audiophile recordings made over the years that, when it comes to the music itself, one is being polite at best to call the performance mediocre. In fact, there are a few of the Sheffield recordings where I cringe - like that insipid electric guitar in their version of Jelly Roll Morton's King Porter Stomp.

Sheesh. Give me a real version on a 78 any day of the week.