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
jadem6's avatar
jadem6
1,074 posts
 
Welcome to the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY web page. Please come in and believe the state of audio has reached it's peak!

SACD is the first advancement in digitial in 20 years, why do so many want to hold on to the past?
seandtaylor99
1,262 posts
 
Jadem .. perhaps you're missing the point. I don't think that we want to hold on to the past, so much as we're suspicious of the future. In my previous post I explained that 99% of the population will not have a resolving stereo system to hear the details between red book and SACD. Then someone else made the very good point that this might all be about record companies trying to make more money.

But one thing is for sure (IMHO) ... once the marketing execs get hold of SACD then it will no longer be about better audio quality ... it will be about hype and profit.

Better audio quality has its foundations in the recording studio from the mike to the mixing and finally the mastering. We don't need SACD to know how badly this is done for the majority of popular music albums ... redbook already demonstrates it clearly enough.

Finally I think if the record companies use SACD as an excuse to double the price of CDs then that will be the final nail in the coffin of the music industry. What we need now is $5 CDs, not $20 SACDs.
ohlala
1,251 posts
 
"Is the purchase of a dual SACD/DVD-A player foolish, or the only answer?"

I don't think so. Someday the SACD catalog may be large enough to invest in an SACD player, but even with the Stones it is too puny for me. The current SACD players are not as good as some of the CD players at the same price, and with such a limited number of (uninteresting) releases SACD is not worth the compromise. That's just me, though. I'm going to wait, and listen to my Stones on London/Decca.
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.
tweekerman
473 posts
 
I agree with Maraka, all i want to do is upgrade my cd player, but not SACD and have to buy a new classical collection. I agree with Sean don't temp me with the new toy for the worlds wealthy, bring cd prices to around $10, ($5 is too low), AND more importantly re-release some great classical recordings. For some very strange unknown reason Sony will not release Bruno Walter , Columbia S.O. recordings of Mozart's last 6 symphonies???? That's weird! There are a few more great recordings i'm waiting years to see avaliable. SACD...it's all about the money.
More to discover