2. digital
  3. 1024581968

SACD finally taking-off? non-classical listeners

It looks like SACD might finally lift-off this fall with the Rolling Stones releases. The engineer claims the SACD revisions sound 40% better than the standard on these hybrids.(Ice Magazine)
Meanwhile, there are some interesting releases on DVD-A that are too interesting to forego; Fleetwood Mac "Rumours", and "Crowded House". Both redbook versions of these discs are non-listenable with good equipment.
What is the answer for a "2-Channel Person" who wants great sound without the "snap, crackle, and pop" of the LP?
Is there confidence that both of these formats will exist in two years?
Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?

Please advise,
CB
cbucki

Showing 5 responses by bomarc

bomarc
501 posts
 
Newton: I seem to recall some early concerns about the quality of adhesives used in CDs or something, but that was a long time ago. I've got CDs that old or older, and they're fine. Old news, my friend.

As for SACD, it will not "arrive" until Britney's *next* album appears simultaneously on CD and SACD. Don't hold your breath.
bomarc
501 posts
 
I think it's very unlikely that the record companies will be able to use hybrid SACDs to raise prices on people buying just for the CD. I presume they're charging as much as they can get for those CDs now. If people were willing to pay more, they'd already be paying more.

I also agree with Sean Taylor: What makes a big difference is recording and mastering. (In fact, I suspect they account for many of the reported differences between CD and SACD.) If you really want to improve what you hear, patronize the companies that do good recording and mastering. And expect to pay for quality.
bomarc
501 posts
 
With all due respect to those who see this as a modern-day version of the Hatfields and the McCoys, some of us do rest in the middle. I happen to like the sound of vinyl, and listen to plenty of it. But I don't need to make myself feel good by spouting a lot of bogus technical reasons why vinyl is superior to CD. I'm quite aware of all the real reasons why CDs are more accurate than vinyl can ever hope to be. But I still like to listen to vinyl.
bomarc
501 posts
 
Albert: A very revealing anecdote about the Walton tape. Many audiophiles want to blame the technology for the quality of the software we can buy. But too often it's the mastering work that gets in the way. I'd bet the human element would have done just as much damage in the analogue age, however.
bomarc
501 posts
 
Lngbruno: XRCD is not a "format," it's just a marketing term for a very good mastering process involving a little bit of technology and a lot of care. Given that there are few audiophiles out there, it would never pay the majors to spend the extra time/money to do better mastering. So you'll just have to enjoy XRCDs when you can find them.

As for your other concern, even if a label has gone under, somebody owns that music. Rest assured, if they decide there's a market for it on a new format, they'll bring it out. (But don't expect SACD or DVD-A to solve the mastering problem.)
More to discover