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; its 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 Im 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 50s and 60s. So in my mind this is an explanation for the choices they make.
Again Im 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. Heres 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 todays 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 its on the internet, its run through Billys or Steveys software. I do not believe this is a good thing. If youre 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.
Sonys motivation was something completely different. They hoped to keep there monopoly on royalties they had enjoyed for 25 years with CDs. 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. Its the high-end/ Audiophile market I was addressing, and for them, those who believe in the best, SACD remains a format beyond CD.
JD
