I Wish SACD & DSD Would Go Away

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Eclectic

Senior Member
QQ Supporter
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
220
Location
West San Jose
Sony Japan recently purchased Merging Technologies Horus/Pyramix systems, capable of Stereo and Surround Sound recording and transfers up to DSD256, for several of their studios.
So it is likely that we will be seeing more DSD128 and DSD256 recordings and transfers from Sony Japan in the future.

Oh goody. Only kidding. I really wish DSD would just go away. The minor resurgence of the SACD format, in particular, is just annoying. Bits are bits. LPCM is the de facto standard for encoding audio, for good technical reasons. Blu-ray is the de facto standard for prerecorded high bandwidth video and audio (though it's far from perfect, and physical media are on their way out).

Curmudgeonly yours,

Eclectic
 
Oh goody. Only kidding. I really wish DSD would just go away. The minor resurgence of the SACD format, in particular, is just annoying. Bits are bits. LPCM is the de facto standard for encoding audio, for good technical reasons. Blu-ray is the de facto standard for prerecorded high bandwidth video and audio (though it's far from perfect, and physical media are on their way out).

Curmudgeonly yours,

Eclectic

Amusing indeed.
The good news is that DSD is alive and well. And unlikely to "go away". :)
 
I wish DSD would go away too!

No one ever complained about the fidelity of 24/96 PCM. Probably because it is exactly the same level of insane fidelity and headroom.

Formats aren't analogous to mastering quality. There are mastering jobs that suck and those that don't. There are mixes that suck or not. There are mixes that suck that are saved by someone in mastering. There are great mixes ruined in mastering by someone that sucks. But these format containers (DSD or PCM) carry the same weight if someone wants to put a well done master into them. Or a sucky one.

Making a different digital "language" that works just as well as the original one and making disc drives that spin backwards was Sony trying to be greedy with proprietary bs.

The comparisons made in the brochure were always against CD (16/44.1 low res PCM), not full res PCM. Well, I like oranges better than apples too!
 
Amusing indeed.
The good news is that DSD is alive and well. And unlikely to "go away". :)

Alive, yes; well, no. It's a niche encoding that owns a small share of a niche market (audiophile and multichannel audio recordings). It is undergoing a minor resurgence. But it's essentially unused on mainstream physical media (DVD, Blu-ray, CD), streaming, and downloads. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in five years' time, it were as dead as the DVD-A format is today. On the other hand, I never would have predicted the vinyl resurgence (and I think it's ridiculous too) so who knows? Chacun à son goût, I guess.

P.S. To those of you who don't know me IRL, I'm not really a meanie, even if I may seem like one on this thread.
 
Alive, yes; well, no. It's a niche encoding that owns a small share of a niche market (audiophile and multichannel audio recordings). It is undergoing a minor resurgence. But it's essentially unused on mainstream physical media (DVD, Blu-ray, CD), streaming, and downloads. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in five years' time, it were as dead as the DVD-A format is today.
Technical issues and preferences aside, a significant difference between the two is the large number of classical recordings in DSD which still continue to increase with new releases.
 
Any lossless format that can and does deliver surround content to my ears through my Oppo is welcome in my house!

I agree 100%, just as in the Quad days each system had it strengths and weaknesses, it would be hard to pick one over the other. I currently favour Blu-ray just because the disc can hold so much! One advantage of SACD however is that the discs are usually hybrid, containing a CD layer for compatibility. An awful lot of discs were still being released by the Japanese while the format was almost dead elsewhere, so a lot of titles to choose from both stereo and surround. I don't know if DSD really has any sonic advantage over PCM, both sound good to me.
 
I agree 100%, just as in the Quad days each system had it strengths and weaknesses, it would be hard to pick one over the other. I currently favour Blu-ray just because the disc can hold so much! One advantage of SACD however is that the discs are usually hybrid, containing a CD layer for compatibility. An awful lot of discs were still being released by the Japanese while the format was almost dead elsewhere, so a lot of titles to choose from both stereo and surround. I don't know if DSD really has any sonic advantage over PCM, both sound good to me.

Chalk up another "agree 100%". I'm thrilled that we have so many great 5.1 and quad mixes, regardless of format.
 
Some of my very favorite recordings are on SACD. Not sure I'll ever get in to the DSD download thing.
Maybe if more popular multichannel titles are released and the price is right.

Do I wish all of my favorite multichannel were on bluray? Sure. I'm just grateful for the music I get to enjoy in this short life though.
 
The tipping point is the DA converters. Save very high end amps and speakers, the DAC is the big ticket item and the one directly responsible for the fidelity of the whole system. (Specifically the analog circuitry and output stage in the DAC) If you want an audiophile system and need at least 6 channels for surround, a higher end DAC with at least 6 outputs starts around $1000. A higher end consumer surround receiver with comparable quality DACs is at least $1200.

So now because Sony decided to make a proprietary system that literally uses a different language for the digital encoding, if I want to listen to DSD natively on the same quality DAC, I have to start over as it were an invest another $1000. Now because DSD to PCM conversion is still in the realm of virtually lossless HD quality (and you get better results converting and playing on high end PCM converters than you would playing natively on consumer grade DSD converters) it makes more sense to invest in PCM DACs and convert any DSD program.

None of this is any good! The choice is to either duplicate expensive equipment for no good reason or have to convert music I purchased to a more standard format. This kind of thing needs to stop.

On the one hand, ANY surround releases in ANY format are to be celebrated and encouraged! But this is just idiotic and greedy and puts quality gear even more out of reach for people in the long run. (Like deciding to compromise and paying $2000 for a surround receiver with both types of DAC for example. Except each of them are now half of what you could have had if you invested in only one.) That's where the resistance and annoyance comes from. Reinventing the very same quality wheel for absolutely no reason. It makes me sad every time I see a desirable release in only DSD. The release still deserves celebration obviously but it's hard to support this.

Then have fun trying to explain this to the average listener! I wonder how many people have a surround receiver with standard PCM converters that listen to their SACDs being format converted on the fly as they listen? You thought you were listening to something higher quality but you're actually getting a lesser experience. Heck, just trying to explain mastering to the average listener is impossible. Even some musicians. They'll still insist their crushed (slammed loud and eq hyped bright) CD's sound better because no one ever told them how to run their volume control. You can even take the same file (right in front of them) and slam one copy through a limiter to raise it a couple db louder (again right in front of them) and now they insist whatever you did made the louder one unique and better sounding. Pull the fader down to match the volumes and make them A/B again to drive that point home and now you get the 12 volt stare. Frustrating stuff when we're literally living in the golden age of audio where everything should be happiness and light.
 
I have asserted on MANY occasions that we live in a PCM world. 99.9% of all physical media is PCM [and yes, in all fairness, analogue recording has made a resurgence as a darling of the pop/rock community]. Hollywood and cable TV/Networks all record PCM for their fare.

There has been so much red ink spilled about the pros and cons for both formats [PCM vs. DSD] that no wonder 99.99% of all potential listeners have NO idea which end is up.

As we, the listener, have NO choice when purchasing physical hi res discs but do have the luxury of selecting PCM/DSD when downloading music, it all comes down to the music itself.

I agree with a lot of QQ posters that the DSD fare is very selective [mostly classical, smallish esoteric labels releasing jazz, occasional pop mostly from 'non~mainstream' artists]. It's usually very audiophile in nature which I suppose is its main selling point, usually well performed and might appeal to listeners with 'esoteric' tastes in music.

But, IMO, DSD will always remain a VERY niche format, much like surround and whether to ponder the merits of PCM/DSD at this juncture in time is really a very moot point.

And to throw another 'confusing' wrench in the audio machine......Meridian's MQA is currently being embraced by both software and hardware manufacturers* and like Dolby of olde will require encode/decode software for proper playback....and it exists strictly in the PCM domain.

*Meridian, NAD, CARY audio, Mytek, etc.

MQA explained: http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/what-is-mqa-meridian-s-digital-audio-format-explained-2932975
 
Let's face it, DSD and SACD were both invented just so Sony could have their very own format like Beta video. Except this would be impossible to crack (so they thought).

It was never about a better sounding or more convent or less costly format.

And yes by golly, they got their very own Beta of the digital formats.... did they not.

I've always gotten better and more transparent sounding playback from DVD-A at 24/96 than I have with DSD. I guess I haven't spent enough cash to get it right yet.
 
Let's face it, DSD and SACD were both invented just so Sony could have their very own format like Beta video. Except this would be impossible to crack (so they thought).

It was never about a better sounding or more convent or less costly format.

And yes by golly, they got their very own Beta of the digital formats.... did they not.

I've always gotten better and more transparent sounding playback from DVD-A at 24/96 than I have with DSD. I guess I haven't spent enough cash to get it right yet.

I recall a few years ago when James Guthrie 'premiered' his SACD 5.1 remix of Wish You Were Here, a $43K specially modified Playback Design SACD player with two outboard Playback Design DAC units was employed for the demonstration. Kal Rubinson [Stereophile Magazine] inquired whether the unit was available for a review in his Music In The Round column and was told NO.....it was a one off for the PF Demo.

What kind of gelt does one have to spend for Audiophile nirvana because, IMO, had that unit been available for sale, I would've beg, borrowed and stealed to have that state of the art unit in my main system.

Unfortunately, MOST QQers have Universal Players and as good as they are [and IMO, they ARE with limits], we'll never achieve perfection in both PCM/DSD playback .... but then again, The $43K Playback Design apparatus is NOT capable of playing DVD/DVD~A/BD~A/V which most of our Universal Players can and quite well at that and for $250, The new SONY X~800 UHD 4K player will play them ALL [including 4K] for probably WAY LESS than the cost of a single cable connecting the Playback Design unit to its outboard DACs!!!!!!!!

What Price GLORY? Don't ASK!
 
I recall a few years ago when James Guthrie 'premiered' his SACD 5.1 remix of Wish You Were Here, a $43K specially modified Playback Design SACD player with two outboard Playback Design DAC units was employed for the demonstration. Kal Rubinson [Stereophile Magazine] inquired whether the unit was available for a review in his Music In The Round column and was told NO.....it was a one off for the PF Demo.
Ouch! I remember that. However, just recently, I was able to enjoy a PD multichannel system with their server, USB interface and a trio of DACs. https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-86-playback-designs-audioquest

Who needs discs?
 
My collection is mostly SACD, and I listen to DSD downloads as well...and I still kind of agree. But I agree in a retrospective sense, as in "I wish Sony/Philips and the DVD Consortium had realized that there was no point having a format war when there's barely a market for an audiophile format period." Nowadays playing DSD is just part of the audio game, and most equipment plays all formats.

Although we tend to think of SACD and DSD as being driven by audiophile considerations, it really had much more with the term of a patent - 20 years. The patents on CDs had nourished Sony and Philips for 20 years, but were about to come to an end (see here, along with hilariously dated comments: https://www.myce.com/news/Philips-hard-hit-by-CD-patent-expiry___-1122/). So Sony and Philips developed a new more advanced system for digital audio, to be protected by patent another 20 years. Sony had already started archiving its catalog using DSD (so the choice of DSD wasn't totally arbitrary and has audio benefits), so they settled on DSD as the format of choice, with multichannel added at the insistence of Philips. The format was heavily copy protected as well, being designed to take full advantage of laws recently passed around the world making it illegal to bypass copy protection, even if the copying would otherwise be allowed, and a crime to distribute devices to defeat copy protection. I had a conversation with a lawyer who helped develop SACD for Sony who was a bit surprised I listened to them - he thought it was just a way to leverage the new laws.

Of course the other members of the DVD Consortium had their own ideas, and the DVD-Audio format hewed much closer to the DVD-Video format and its patents. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if the industry of the late 1990s had seen the storm that was coming and recognized that the mass market wouldn't be all that interested in the competing formats they had devised, but hindsight is exactly that. I think if they had known they would never have bothered with SACD/DSD and just focused on the DVD-Audio standard, likely in hybridized form. Whether the market was interested in one audiophile format in the late 90s is open to debate, of course.
 
My collection is mostly SACD, and I listen to DSD downloads as well...and I still kind of agree. But I agree in a retrospective sense, as in "I wish Sony/Philips and the DVD Consortium had realized that there was no point having a format war when there's barely a market for an audiophile format period." Nowadays playing DSD is just part of the audio game, and most equipment plays all formats.

Although we tend to think of SACD and DSD as being driven by audiophile considerations, it really had much more with the term of a patent - 20 years. The patents on CDs had nourished Sony and Philips for 20 years, but were about to come to an end (see here, along with hilariously dated comments: https://www.myce.com/news/Philips-hard-hit-by-CD-patent-expiry___-1122/). So Sony and Philips developed a new more advanced system for digital audio, to be protected by patent another 20 years. Sony had already started archiving its catalog using DSD (so the choice of DSD wasn't totally arbitrary and has audio benefits), so they settled on DSD as the format of choice, with multichannel added at the insistence of Philips. The format was heavily copy protected as well, being designed to take full advantage of laws recently passed around the world making it illegal to bypass copy protection, even if the copying would otherwise be allowed, and a crime to distribute devices to defeat copy protection. I had a conversation with a lawyer who helped develop SACD for Sony who was a bit surprised I listened to them - he thought it was just a way to leverage the new laws.

Of course the other members of the DVD Consortium had their own ideas, and the DVD-Audio format hewed much closer to the DVD-Video format and its patents. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better if the industry of the late 1990s had seen the storm that was coming and recognized that the mass market wouldn't be all that interested in the competing formats they had devised, but hindsight is exactly that. I think if they had known they would never have bothered with SACD/DSD and just focused on the DVD-Audio standard, likely in hybridized form. Whether the market was interested in one audiophile format in the late 90s is open to debate, of course.

Great points, ubertrout.

But unfortunately, one never fully learns from the past that format wars only tend to obfuscate and in the end, chaos ensues.

That the video consortium FINALLY settled on BD~V after the silly HD~DVD fiasco should be a clear indication that a not so tech savvy public tends to shy away from hardware/software competitions and settles on low fi gizmos unless it's a bigger and better flatscreen TV, especially at outrageously 'cheap' prices with preposterous low fi soundbars as their audio source promising them 5.1 [or better] sonics from this simplistic source.

I do believe if the DVD~Audio consortium, wisely following the multi billion dollar success of DVD had somehow made it hybrid for music replication they could've singlehandedly triumphed over Sony/Philips SACD entry. But in hindsight, as we ALL know so well, the lack of A~list titles from both factions doomed both formats from the get go....and if one looks over the dismal list of UHD 4K titles being offered for sale [and MOST are 2K up conversions], it seems history IS repeating itself...and with NO 3D....another nail in its coffin! :yikes

And IF ONLY the powers that be put 'knowledgeable' Execs in charge of these launches [DVD~A/SACD and BD~A] who truly loved music and understood the machinations of the music industry inside/out, I know the outcome would've be different. Never hire a boy to do a MAN's JOB!
 
Both of the previous posts make valid points but do not clearly acknowledge that, in this real world, all such decisions are based on marketing and profit expectations and will never give more than lip-service to any audiophile considerations. To expect otherwise is unreasonable. What we do (speaking of our little niche of consumers, dealers and manufacturers) is to respond to those decisions by adapting what comes to market and optimizing it for our own goals. Our options are limited by those who do not share our goals.
 
Back
Top