more major players jumping on the sacd bandwagon

thank you for all the responses thus far. here's another query based upon them: is it REALLY necessary to have all-in-one machines that play dvd-a, particularly if sacd machines are "backward compatible" to redbook cd's? put another way: why does it matter that lots of folks are replacing their vhs players with dvd players if they are not apparently replacing them for their redbook cd players. too? -kelly

Sample MP3 at higher than 128kbps and the sound is not bad. I consider myself to be an audiophile but I also keep an open mind to good technology. Are you saying MP3 is crap because this is what you've read or have you seriously played with MP3 and experimented beyond the typical default settings with various encoders?

Kelly, your point is too logical. The fact is that SACD machines I've heard playing standard "redbook" cd's sound better than there standard counterpart at the same cost. Add to that that you can play CD-R, DVD video and it seems to me you have a good reason to buy one. The added bonus is SACD, but even if you never played a single SACD disk on it, the flexability of multiple format and added sound quality is worth the upgrade. I feel that those who are resisting the SACD format are falling into two groups. One that comprises those who resist any change and the larger being those who don't understand the benifits even when SACD is taken out of the equation. For those who continue to use the software as the reason to resist, please try to remember the beginings of cassette tapes and cd's. Yes the same tales of failure were spoken then. Five years from now we'll pull up this and other threads and simply shake our heads in dis-belief. This is and will happen, Sony will not lose the billions in cd royalty without a major fight.

Hi abecollins,

I am not against technology. In fact I very much like it.

I have listened to, although not extensively Mp3 recordings of “good” quality. I was able to listen:

a) Through my own DAC and
b) In a recording studio environment through professional equipment.

In both cases all said recordings had a noise floor that I personally found unacceptable. I also felt that the sound was edgy and in less dynamic. This was in direct comparison to CD’s of the same recording(s) through my CDP/DAC and through the system in the recording studio. I am certain that higher bit rates could improve this, but the rest of the recording/playback chain must be of similar (better) quality to take advantage. - You ARE right! …And it’s all probably just a matter of time.

I am lucky to have a friend with a recording studio. Occasionally my friend indulges me in component and cable tests. He has also allowed me to listen to recordings his studio has made via digital tape - at substantially higher bit rates than the end recordings we (the general public) normally get to listen to. At this level the difference in sound is quite appreciably improved over CD or SACD.

My friend’s studio works with various recording artists and does quite a bit of postproduction work on movie soundtracks. In addition to “average” music recordings the studio authors DVD’s, Dolby 7.1, THX & HDCD encoded recordings. The studio also produces Mp3 recordings.

From what I have heard (and what I understand) the quality of the various disc formats currently offered is below the capabilities of current readily available technology. …Certainly I would say that our systems could sound much better if recordings of higher bit/sampling rate (and players) were commercially available. Were this technology available via a medium such as Mp3 (which is both highly portable and relatively difficult to damage - unlike easily scratched CD’s/DVD’s) I would sign up tomorrow. …Only problem is that THIS is not available.

It is my opinion that the companies that CAN bring this quality of audio to us are more concerned with developing “theft-proof” encryption rather than improving the sound of our music. …Moreover… that a format offering truly better resolution will not be offered until a sure-fire method for protecting this better quality is in place. …The obvious concern being that IF higher quality were available it could not be protected from would be “Pirates” who would duplicate and exchange this intellectual property.

If this is so we are in for a LONG wait!

Lastly, I have heard folks argue that SACD sounds better than 24/96. …I can attest that 24/96 can sound great - as good as, if not better than SACD IMO. …But… as with all recordings it’s where it all starts that’s important. …No silk purses from sow ears!

Cornfedboy
Of course it's not necessary to have all-in-one machines, although it would be convenient and more marketable.

The point regarding VCR vs. DVD is that people perceive a need for this "new" product. By the by SACD is still relatively unknown, as is the improvment in sound.

I guess for me there's no question that the sound of SACD players/software is better. ...But the questions that trouble me are WHY and HOW? ...As others have stated it may have more to do with the hardware than the software. If not... why then would the sound of redbook CD's played on these players also improve?

Lastly… WHY should anyone here believe that SACD will be any more popular/successful than XRCD, HDCD, Mobile Fidelity or the likes of any of the current high end recording companies?

For years MoFi and others have offered better sound - at a price. ...And in general these companies JUST survive; or as MoFi did they go under. Yes… Sony is BIG and won't go under, but why would you expect the buying public to understand, appreciate, want and pay for the differences that Sony/SACD offers? The Gen-pop haven’t evolved THAT much. …Suddenly become more digital-conscious…? Maybe this time round they'll wake up and appreciate it? NOT! Obviously I’m cynical. …It just seems like an awful lot to expect.

SACD might be successful but unlike VHS vs. Beta - Sony's gotta play ball

as an aside, I own recordings made in the various formats I have listed and appreciate them all to verying degrees.