CD vs. SACD vs. DVD-A

[ethebubbeth]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

I have not thought about that. Give me a minute and I will try to rip some audio from my SACD via my Plextor Premieum CD-RW drive.


Be back in a few.

It's not going to work, doofus. If it does, it's because you're ripping the redbook CD layer.

Damnit, that made me LOL at work.

 

[Pepsi90919]

CDs sound awesome when they are mastered properly. which isn't often.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.

no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.

as i said, overkill, but giving the consumer the option to rip/downsample etc would have helped either of those products launch and perhaps win status as default music format. you can't build a format based on a single very limited use of being able to play it in your home theater room but they had opened it up and given it the usefulness of cd, it would have had a much higher chance of success. it doesn't matter if your car cd player can't take advantage of the full quality of cd for instance, as many older/cheaper cars players certainly cannot, all it has to do is be compatible.

as for the "audiophile" arguement. 2 decades ago cd was "audiophile" too, but atleast it wasn't crippled by drm. sure they didn't know what was to come, but was a fortunate outcome for all. with these new formats the door has been slammed do you understand that? you may buy hybrid discs all you want but ripping cd from it years even years down the line when you may have benifited from being able to rip the full format just kills the value. do you think anyone thought you could rip full music collections into a device the size of a pack of cards back when cd's first came out? of course not. but the door was not slammed on such potential use, and thats what matters.

and why do they not release more pop titles? you have it backwards, they killed their market into the niche one it has become and they sell to that because of their failure. not because they consciously decided to marginalize their new format don't be silly

Consumers have had the right, if only in their own mind, to rip CD. What don't you understand? SACD/DVD-A was meant for a specific audience, not the general population. Of course it can only be played in a multi-speaker environment...that's what it's meant for!

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.

no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.

as i said, overkill, but giving the consumer the option to rip/downsample etc would have helped either of those products launch and perhaps win status as default music format. you can't build a format based on a single very limited use of being able to play it in your home theater room but they had opened it up and given it the usefulness of cd, it would have had a much higher chance of success. it doesn't matter if your car cd player can't take advantage of the full quality of cd for instance, as many older/cheaper cars players certainly cannot, all it has to do is be compatible.

as for the "audiophile" arguement. 2 decades ago cd was "audiophile" too, but atleast it wasn't crippled by drm. sure they didn't know what was to come, but was a fortunate outcome for all. with these new formats the door has been slammed do you understand that? you may buy hybrid discs all you want but ripping cd from it years even years down the line when you may have benifited from being able to rip the full format just kills the value. do you think anyone thought you could rip full music collections into a device the size of a pack of cards back when cd's first came out? of course not. but the door was not slammed on such potential use, and thats what matters.

and why do they not release more pop titles? you have it backwards, they killed their market into the niche one it has become and they sell to that because of their failure. not because they consciously decided to marginalize their new format don't be silly

Consumers have had the right, if only in their own mind, to rip CD. What don't you understand? SACD/DVD-A was meant for a specific audience, not the general population. Of course it can only be played in a multi-speaker environment...that's what it's meant for!

i don't buy into surround sound for music. the idea is to capture the sound of a live show. the band isn't playing behind me.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
CDs sound awesome when they are mastered properly. which isn't often.

I kind of agree, a lot of formats can sound amazing or insanely bad depending on how well they're made and mastered. (If those are the right terms)

Basically, it's like that thing photographer's say - a good camera in an idiot's hand can be worth less than something below average in the hands of someone who really cares about what he's doing

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
i don't buy into surround sound for music. the idea is to capture the sound of a live show. the band isn't playing behind me.

Some people like the effects it adds though, it's a little different from what they normally hear - namely a lot of Pink Floyd stuff, that's what I hear demoing it a lot anyway.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
depends whether he's into digital music. those newer formats are drm'd nonsense, and people want to rip stuff for their portables, be able to play the disc in the car and anywhere else they want easy, sacd/dvda kills all that. so either u gotta double buy music or just be screwed. i consider both formats dead...audio betamax's..so probably best not to spend on them

DVD-A and SACD aren't nonsense. I can't comment on the DRM comment, but I don't think that is an accurate statement.

Both formats are high resolution audio of their CD counterparts or original programming. They aren't meant to replace CDs, but to give listeners a better quality, more accurate version of what was originally recorded.

no, both were meant to replace cd, you can bet that was their goal. the prospect of reselling massive amounts of music for people rebuilding their libraries in these formats would make any executive slobber. they just restricted the formats so much that they became impractical, and over priced, frankly most people think cd's are already overpriced, let alone what you'd have to pay for those formats. because they restricted ripping hd audio there was no push for computers/portable players/cars and any audio electronics to support higher quality output, even if its overkill, it would be certainly be marketable.

Your theory doesn't make any sense, because the vast majority of music listeners find CDs to be the pinnacle of audio quality as it is. In fact, most people can't discern a 128 Kbps MP3 from a CD track, at least not enough to care one way or the other.

SACD and DVD-A are audiophile formats that require sophisticated equipment and a sophisticated listener in order to reap their benefits. If studios wanted them to go mainstream, there would be a lot more pop titles released.

as i said, overkill, but giving the consumer the option to rip/downsample etc would have helped either of those products launch and perhaps win status as default music format. you can't build a format based on a single very limited use of being able to play it in your home theater room but they had opened it up and given it the usefulness of cd, it would have had a much higher chance of success. it doesn't matter if your car cd player can't take advantage of the full quality of cd for instance, as many older/cheaper cars players certainly cannot, all it has to do is be compatible.

as for the "audiophile" arguement. 2 decades ago cd was "audiophile" too, but atleast it wasn't crippled by drm. sure they didn't know what was to come, but was a fortunate outcome for all. with these new formats the door has been slammed do you understand that? you may buy hybrid discs all you want but ripping cd from it years even years down the line when you may have benifited from being able to rip the full format just kills the value. do you think anyone thought you could rip full music collections into a device the size of a pack of cards back when cd's first came out? of course not. but the door was not slammed on such potential use, and thats what matters.

and why do they not release more pop titles? you have it backwards, they killed their market into the niche one it has become and they sell to that because of their failure. not because they consciously decided to marginalize their new format don't be silly

Consumers have had the right, if only in their own mind, to rip CD. What don't you understand? SACD/DVD-A was meant for a specific audience, not the general population. Of course it can only be played in a multi-speaker environment...that's what it's meant for!

i don't buy into surround sound for music. the idea is to capture the sound of a live show. the band isn't playing behind me.

...but what if you were sitting on stage with them? Or in the recording space?

Stereo is so...last century! :thumbsup:

Seriously, though, surround music is just a entirely different experience.

 

[FlashG]

Seriously, though, surround music is just a entirely different experience.[/quote]You are so right. One of the reasons that I bought my TL was for the DVD-A player and I wasn't disappointed. I have a Sinatra at the Sands with Count Basie DVD-A that is so realistic that you can almost feel his drink spilling on your table cloth. Don't get me wrong I like well done contemporary music as well. It's just that this recording is so remarkable.

I also own only 10 to 12 DVD-A vs 100 CD?s

 

[ethebubbeth]

Originally posted by: FlashG
Seriously, though, surround music is just a entirely different experience.

You are so right. One of the reasons that I bought my TL was for the DVD-A player and I wasn't disappointed. I have a Sinatra at the Sands with Count Basie DVD-A that is so realistic that you can almost feel his drink spilling on your table cloth. Don't get me wrong I like well done contemporary music as well. It's just that this recording is so remarkable.

I also own only 10 to 12 DVD-A vs 100 CD?s[/quote]


Exactly. Who cares about higher resolution/frequency range for stereo recordings (snake oil, anyone?). The entire point for me is the surround capabilities of the format. Fragile by Yes is an entirely different album when you open it up to five discrete channels. Not every album experiences such a drastic change in atmosphere when being remixed for surround, it really depends upon the source material.

 

[CptObvious]

I don't consider myself a true audiophile, but as a casual home recording hobbyist, I can definitely notice the degradation in dynamic range between a 24-bit/192kHz source and the dithered 16-bit/44.1kHz version. I think people are so used to hearing their music so compressed that it sounds natural to them.