Definitive formats for all Titles ?

[proufo]

I wonder how many SACDs are just upsamples from the 16-44 files.

Are there opinions on SQ improvements going from PCM (any figures) to SACD or DSD files?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I wonder how many SACDs are just upmixes from the 16-44 files.

Are there opinions on SQ improvements going from PCM (any figures) to SACD or DSD files?

I fully believe that SACDs are created from hi res files. As for SACDs created from 'strictly' DSD Recordings ...... another issue altogether as even a lot of the Classical Labels [like BIS and Chandos] record in PCM and then do DSD conversions for SACD release.

I do know of at least 2 Analogue Production Stereo SACDs [Nils Lofgren LIVE and Cowboy Junkies: Trinity Sessions] which were created from early PCM 16/44.1 recordings but will state that they do sound better than their RBCD counterparts.

And US reissue company, Mobile Fidelity, in recent years has upgraded their SACD mastering chain by performing QUAD [DSD256] SACD transfers from analogue recordings....as has SONY Japan.

 

[bluelightning]

Are there opinions on SQ improvements going from PCM (any figures) to SACD or DSD files?

Simply going from PCM to DSD will gain you absolutely nothing, with the exception of some ultrasonic noise from the DSD encoding process. No new information is added, hence no reason to believe it will improve anything. If anything it will actually degrade the signal some ( whether it is audible is a different matter).

 

[4-earredwonder]

Simply going from PCM to DSD will gain you absolutely nothing, with the exception of some ultrasonic noise from the DSD encoding process. No new information is added, hence no reason to believe it will improve anything. If anything it will actually degrade the signal some ( whether it is audible is a different matter).

I'm a PCM man, myself, but very doubtful the Classical labels who record almost exclusively in PCM would release their masters onto SACD if there was, indeed, a degradation of the signal. I would prefer, of course, that PCM digital recordings would remain in the PCM digital domain as the PCM DXD Recordings from classical label 2L sound magnificent in PURE BD~A.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I wonder how many SACDs are just upmixes from the 16-44 files.

Depends on your repertoire interests.

Are there opinions on SQ improvements going from PCM (any figures) to SACD or DSD files?

Many. IMHO, there are none.

 

[bluelightning]

I'm a PCM man, myself, but very doubtful the Classical labels who record almost exclusively in PCM would release their masters onto SACD if there was, indeed, a degradation of the signal. I would prefer, of course, that PCM digital recordings would remain in the PCM digital domain as the PCM DXD Recordings from classical label 2L sound magnificent in PURE BD~A.

Can't really speak to the motivations of the Classical labels. I did mention that the degradation may not necessarily be audible. Typically the ultrasonic noise (so long as it does not alias back in) is filtered out at multiple points in the signal chain and even then is unlikely to be audible.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Can't really speak to the motivations of the Classical labels. I did mention that the degradation may not necessarily be audible. Typically the ultrasonic noise (so long as it does not alias back in) is filtered out at multiple points in the signal chain and even then is unlikely to be audible.

There will always be the PCM and DSD zealots who hold on steadfastly to their convictions. And ironically, a lot of the high end audiophile labels are still recording 30 ips analogue. And compressed RBCDs continue to be pressed from hi res masters and people continue to listen to their music on low res formats. Too bad everyone couldn't agree on a unified format but that's the way of the world.

Chalk it up to those ponderous format wars in which everyone loses something in the end!

 

[fredblue]

this is such a positive thread! here we are celebrating the survival of an oft-proclaimed 'dead format'! SACD is the music disc format that will not die!!

it would be a shame to get sidetracked just now with "PCM this"/"DSD that" etc.. are we going to let such a thing happen in a lovely positive celebratory thread?
well i'd rather we didn't please.. because i literally cannot believe SACD's still going - in the era of streaming that is quite remarkable!
it felt like it was on life support when i signed up here like 10 years ago and so i for one am super happy new SACDs are being released in 2019 and i'm grateful to every label in every country releasing every SACD across every genre who hasn't given up on it -- and most of all to those who issue new SACDs with Surround sound!!! hooray for you hi-res heroes and three cheers for the discs of the living dead!!!

 

[bluelightning]

Well quite frankly , personally I would much rather see SACD & DSD die. I find Blurays are a much better medium. They do not have the pitfalls of either SACD or DVDA. That being said I will consume my music in whatever form it is available.

 

[HDave]

Well quite frankly , personally I would much rather see SACD & DSD die. I find Blurays are a much better medium. They do not have the pitfalls of either SACD or DVDA. That being said I will consume my music in whatever form it is available.

I also will buy any format for the music I want, prefer BR Audio 1st, DVD-Audio/DTS 2nd and Sacd last.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Well quite frankly , personally I would much rather see SACD & DSD die. I find Blurays are a much better medium. They do not have the pitfalls of either SACD or DVDA. That being said I will consume my music in whatever form it is available.

I also will buy any format for the music I want, prefer BR Audio 1st, DVD-Audio/DTS 2nd and Sacd last.

Why do you guys prefer BluRays? Is it the video?
My preference is for downloads (DSD or PCM) and I buy discs only to rip them. As a result, my preference order is the reverse of yours due to considerations of ripping ease and resolution.
P.S.: What are the "pitfalls" of SACD or DVD-A?

 

[hirez]

SACDvsDVDA Ho Hum again

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I'm split on this issue. I'm thrilled with what Dutton-Vocalion is doing with SACD and have been very hopeful that Sony Japan would keep up with all the re-issues as to their 7" style discs (Jeff Beck, Miles Davis etc.) Also, it's much easier ripping my SACD discs now than Blu-ray is. I also prefer what Blu-ray offers as to data space on disc that can bring along very Hi-Res music as well as more graphics and the potential for Atmos.

I've always loved the menus and graphics on some of the DVD-As like Donald Fagen's "The Nightfly" on the song Green Flower Street with the steaming cup of tea. But again Blu-ray should be able to do so much more if the producers would just make the artistic effort to include such things. The technology is there, but who has the vision to carry it forward (and without the need to burden us consumers with mega box sets, throwing everything but the kitchen sink in just to pad the numbers.) Ultimately it will be on-line download or streaming that overtakes this debate; however there too, I'm old fashioned and prefer buying and holding the physical disc in my hands, but even then you've got disc data rot to consider (I've also never seen that issue in any of my SACDs.) The bottom line for me right now is that if they want to keep re-releasing the old Quads in the SACD format I'll continue to purchase them; whatever gets me the content.

 

[bluelightning]

Why do you guys prefer BluRays? Is it the video?
My preference is for downloads (DSD or PCM) and I buy discs only to rip them. As a result, my preference order is the reverse of yours due to considerations of ripping ease and resolution.
P.S.: What are the "pitfalls" of SACD or DVD-A?

Reasons I prefer Blurays
1) Universality - content can be enjoyed in native format by a much wider audience without special equipment.
2) Possibility of Video/ space for extras.e.g Steven Wilson remixes/Kraftwerk etc.
3) Ease of ripping/playback in native form on variety of media players . No need for obsolete/hacked players for ripping like SACD. In case of DVDA, I know no media players which allow playback in native format.

Why I am preferring (as of now, and hopefully will change) physical media ?
For the record, like you I typically rip the media to my server as well and in an ideal world would prefer the downloads.

1) Retention of value/resale- If I dont like the content I can easily sell it off.
2) potential collectible value
3) The times I have looked at downloads, the downloads actually cost more than the media. This to me is unacceptable. The differential increases further once you factor in used media etc.Only cases where I will consider a download are where it is the only available form or the download prices are no greater than 80% of the physical media and include all content.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Reasons I prefer Blurays
1) Universality - content can be enjoyed in native format by a much wider audience without special equipment.
2) Possibility of Video/ space for extras.e.g Steven Wilson remixes/Kraftwerk etc.
3) Ease of ripping/playback in native form on variety of media players . No need for obsolete/hacked players for ripping like SACD. In case of DVDA, I know no media players which allow playback in native format.

1) Does not affect me.
2) Does not affect me.
3) It is much easier, imho, to rip SACDs and CDs with reasonable automatic retrieval of metadata than it is to do so with DVD-A or BD.

1) Retention of value/resale- If I dont like the content I can easily sell it off.
2) potential collectible value
3) The times I have looked at downloads, the downloads actually cost more than the media. This to me is unacceptable. The differential increases further once you factor in used media etc.Only cases where I will consider a download are where it is the only available form or the download prices are no greater than 80% of the physical media and include all content.

1) Does not affect me.
2) Does not affect me.
3) Since I rip everything, the labor savings and immediacy is worth the cost.

 

[bluelightning]

1) Does not affect me.
2) Does not affect me.
3) It is much easier, imho, to rip SACDs and CDs with reasonable automatic retrieval of metadata than it is to do so with DVD-A or BD.

1) Does not affect me.
2) Does not affect me.
3) Since I rip everything, the labor savings and immediacy is worth the cost.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Why do you guys prefer BluRays? Is it the video?
My preference is for downloads (DSD or PCM) and I buy discs only to rip them. As a result, my preference order is the reverse of yours due to considerations of ripping ease and resolution.
P.S.: What are the "pitfalls" of SACD or DVD-A?

The fact is I can bring a blueray or DVD to pretty much any friend or relatives house and play it on their equipment in HR. I can't do that with SACD or DVD-A at all. Other than me, there is no one in my circle that has a player that can read them.

 

[4-earredwonder]

this is such a positive thread! here we are celebrating the survival of an oft-proclaimed 'dead format'! SACD is the music disc format that will not die!!

it would be a shame to get sidetracked just now with "PCM this"/"DSD that" etc.. are we going to let such a thing happen in a lovely positive celebratory thread?
well i'd rather we didn't please.. because i literally cannot believe SACD's still going - in the era of streaming that is quite remarkable!
it felt like it was on life support when i signed up here like 10 years ago and so i for one am super happy new SACDs are being released in 2019 and i'm grateful to every label in every country releasing every SACD across every genre who hasn't given up on it -- and most of all to those who issue new SACDs with Surround sound!!! hooray for you hi-res heroes and three cheers for the discs of the living dead!!!

Adam, NO ONE is going to take away your [and MINE] Hi Res SACDs, BD~As, etc. It's an unwritten constitutional right........IMO, it's nothing more than a friendly discussion and if PCM vs. DSD [BORING] creeps into the conversation, think of it as retro psychobabble.

I will only add if SONY [and that's a BIG IF] continued releasing HYBRID SACDs with occasional mch layers in addition to HI RES Stereo layers and didn't pull the plug when they did ........ MOST albums could conceivably have been released in that format and in time, the cost of replicating SACDs would've been on par with RBCD. At least we wouldn't have to deal with 16/44.1 RBCDs to this day.

Until all physical disc formats are forever vanquished [HORRORS], I have no doubt artists and record labels will continue to revisit their past and present catalogues and release in Hi Res Multichannel.

As far as I'm concerned ..... SACD, the occasional DVD~A and BD~A can peacefully co~exist and with refinements in DACS, players, etc. as well as mastering chains, can and will sound better than EVER!

 

[fredblue]

Adam, NO ONE is going to take away your [and MINE] Hi Res SACDs, BD~As, etc. It's an unwritten constitutional right........IMO, it's nothing more than a friendly discussion and if PCM vs. DSD [BORING] creeps into the conversation, think of it as retro psychobabble.

I will only add if SONY [and that's a BIG IF] continued releasing HYBRID SACDs with occasional mch layers in addition to HI RES Stereo layers and didn't pull the plug when they did ........ MOST albums could conceivably have been released in that format and in time, the cost of replicating SACDs would've been on par with RBCD. At least we wouldn't have to deal with 16/44.1 RBCDs to this day.

Until all physical disc formats are forever vanquished [HORRORS], I have no doubt artists and record labels will continue to revisit their past and present catalogues and release in Hi Res Multichannel.

As far as I'm concerned ..... SACD, the occasional DVD~A and BD~A can peacefully co~exist and with the refinements of DACS, players, etc. as well as mastering chains, can and will sound better than EVER!

yeah its boring and its fucking negative, i've just about had it.

 

[4-earredwonder]

yeah its boring and its fucking negative, i've just about had it.

Have a drink ........ on ME!