Depressing DVD-A/SACD article by Ken Kessler

[Ge Someone]

Sigh, I get a bit depressed by the article "To SACD or not to SACD? That is the Question, by Ken Kessler" which you can find here in the September 20 newsletter of Audiophile and is also copied (without a link to the source) on Surroundablog

Sniff
To compensate I have to quote from an interview with Steven Wilson from Porcupine Tree..

Does music in surround have a future?
I think it’s got a future, absolutely....I was thinking about this just the other day: It often comes down to just one record. In the 1970s, Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon came along, and people really wanted to hear that on a good stereo system. In the ’80s, it was Dire Straits’ Brothers in Arms that did it for the CD as a format. And here in the 21st century, we’re the ones who are pushing the envelope.

 

[solaris]

With this many surround systems already in homes, for home theater. there is no way surround music will ever go away. Just because the marketing guys can't figure it out yet, does not mean it's dead. Has anybody seen any evedence of a real M/C promotion, NO! But we all know what an Ipod add looks like. I still remeber the Sammy Davis Jr Quad adds on TV. HAS ANYBODY EVER SEEN A SACD OR DVD-AUDIO ADD ON TV. Just one last thing, is Sammy listening to stereo or quad in heaven.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Halo Surround ;-)

Kal

 

[soundboy]

Just because some of us write for the audio press doesn't mean we're any better informed than anyone else ....

He's right about that.

I can't get a firm handle on this either, but to the best of my reckoning, between 1500 and 2000 SACD titles have been released so far.

I hope Ken knows about sa-cd.net and superaudio-cd.com (operated by Sony Europe). Both list over 3,100 SACD titles.

For Mr. Kessler, as of 9/13/2005, here's the breakdown of SACDs in terms of musical style....(based on the 3,263 SACD titles listed at sa-cd.net)

Blues.....62
Chanson Francaise.....46
Chinese pop.....103
Classical.....1,421
Classical - Chamber.....247
Classical - Crossover.....2
Classical - Instrumental.....200
Classical - Opera.....36
Classical - Orchestral.....642
Classical - Vocal.....221
Country.....27
Demo/Samplers.....67
Easy Listening.....23
Folk.....6
Independent.....4
Inspirational.....2
Japanese pop.....110
Jazz.....634
Jazz - Fusion.....53
Jazz - Vocal.....69
Latin.....11
New Age.....18
Pop/Rock.....379
Pop/Rock - Alternative.....11
Pop/Rock - Dance.....7
Pop/Rock - Electronic.....6
Pop/Rock - Hip Hop/Rap.....1
Pop/Rock - Reggae.....4
Soundtrack.....54
Spoken Word.....3
Traditional.....29
Unassigned.....110
Vocal.....118
World.....35

 

[soundboy]

HAS ANYBODY EVER SEEN A SACD OR DVD-AUDIO ADD ON TV.

Yes, for the Animals and Herman's Hermits SACD compilations.

 

[winopener]

Sony seems to back off the SACD? That's fine.
What i will do next?
Ask Columbia Special Project for the 14 Quad Santana Masters and do a 1000 copies limited run of DVD-A in a single multibox, sold by subscription.
Will be groovy? :banana:

 

[JonUrban]

The fact that the Elton John Anniversary Edition CD that came out last week (The one with the entire album done live by Elton on the second disc) did not include the already produced SACD means to me that UMG is done with the format. Too bad. That really sucks.

Sony has already bailed on their own format as well, snuggling up to DualDisc.

That being said, I can't figure out why Sony does not relent and release their DualDiscs with DVD-A sides? What's the problem. It seems that, whether we like it or now (and I know a lot of us don't), the DualDisc is the medium for surround at the present time.

It would not kill Sony to allow DVD-A on these DualDiscs. They seem to have given up on SACD, so what would that be hurting?

 

[TopTip]

The irony in this newsletter is that SACD partly came out because writers like Kessler, for years, said CD was no good, that it was harsh sounding, the bit rate was too low, etc. Because noone could ever prove that it was in fact so (or even theoretically come up with a basis for CD's deficien, the developers of SACD (and DVD-A) came up with this mishmash that provided both a wider frequency range (that only bats could hear) AND multichannel ability for those who are not bats. Public was completely caught off guard: everyone was more than happy with CD, in fact the majority was happy with a format that had 8% the bit rate of CD. I am not sure anyone really appreciated the multichannel angle.

 

[ssully]

DSD was developed by Sony ostensibly for archiving recordings...and not coincidentally, with an eye towards the expiration of patents on the Redbook format (which are owned by Philips and Sony). Not to mention that SACDs are copy protected.

Oh well, tough luck, Sony. SACDs and DVD-As are a flop, commercially. Back to the drawing board.

 

[winopener]

Will like to know what have to say the SACD advocates like Brian Moura and so on. A five-storey SACD player done for what? Just for classical music, since chart titles aren't coming anymore in SACD format?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Just for classical music, since chart titles aren't coming anymore in SACD format?

Fine with me.

Kal

 

[solaris]

Yes, for the Animals and Herman's Hermits SACD compilations.

No not add for software but for the hardware, like an Ipod add. The Sammy Davis Jr add was for Quad hardware.
And it's sad the only software adds are for stereo titles

 

[Eggplant]

AND multichannel ability for those who are not bats

roflmao

What most makes me want to stab someone is Ken's line referring to Musical Fidelity as the "champion" of 2.0 SACD. Champion? Oh how they love the 2.0. They do SO LOVE the 2.0!

That would be because . . . see . . . because . . . they don't have to do a F&CKING THING BUT PRESS DISCS and deposit checks.

Multitrack masters need a label:

*****WARNING*****
ACTUAL WORK REQUIRED to produce anything from this tape.

 

[bmoura]

roflmao

What most makes me want to stab someone is Ken's line referring to Musical Fidelity as the "champion" of 2.0 SACD. Champion? Oh how they love the 2.0. They do SO LOVE the 2.0!

Well, I get the impression that Ken has been more of a 2.0 fan than a Surround fan from the start.

I can remember one of the early hi rez surround demos for the press at CES where he complained that he could hear the faint sound of a guitar in one of the Surround Channels.

Just shocking!

 

[TopTip]

roflmao

What most makes me want to stab someone is Ken's line referring to Musical Fidelity as the "champion" of 2.0 SACD. Champion? Oh how they love the 2.0. They do SO LOVE the 2.0!

That would be because . . . see . . . because . . . they don't have to do a F&CKING THING BUT PRESS DISCS and deposit checks.

Multitrack masters need a label:

*****WARNING*****
ACTUAL WORK REQUIRED to produce anything from this tape.

Hi-Fi press has buried itself in some sort of a slow death/living death catacomb, where anything invented since 1975 is basically unwellcome.

This includes the CD, multichannel, computer/digital audio, sub-satellite systems...That leaves little to write about except rehash the old (tube amps, ever more expensive record players ($25K+, to play what exactly?)) with additions of absurdities like $500 power cables.

But the current "push" in the "cutting" edge 'zines is...MONO! There are, believe or not, half a dozen new mono phono cartridge offerings! Every new issue (which I still buy slavishly, with some nostalgia for the 70s) comes with tidings of the return of mono (and of course, of tubes, vinyl, triodes..).

Maybe in another 50 years quad too may benefit from a reincarnation.

 

[bmoura]

Hi-Fi press has buried itself in some sort of a slow death/living death catacomb, where anything invented since 1975 is basically unwellcome.

This includes the CD, multichannel, computer/digital audio, sub-satellite systems...That leaves little to write about except rehash the old (tube amps, ever more expensive record players ($25K+, to play what exactly?)) with additions of absurdities like $500 power cables.

But the current "push" in the "cutting" edge 'zines is...MONO! There are, believe or not, half a dozen new mono phono cartridge offerings! Every new issue (which I still buy slavishly, with some nostalgia for the 70s) comes with tidings of the return of mono (and of course, of tubes, vinyl, triodes..).

Maybe in another 50 years quad too may benefit from a reincarnation.

Well, I wouldn't paint all of the Hi-Fi press in that light. Certainly Stereophile's Kal Rubinson (who participates here on QQ) writes about Surround Sound and Hi Rez Audio in his column in Stereophile Magazine.

As for Mono, well it does have its fans. Who could forget Phil Spector's "Back to Mono" campaign a few years back?

 

[EMB]

Phil's Back To Mono BS started back in 1970, with the reissue of A CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR YOU, which he retitled and repackaged as PHIL SPECTOR'S GREATEST HITS. With typical inconsistency and temerity, in 1975, under his Warner-Spector imprint, with the same cover, the album turned from mono to stereo(!). And of course it was reissued in the UK in stereo, and the US a few more times, and even a single on Collectables is stereo.

Mono is fine, but we can't do much with it for 5.1....

ED

 

[TopTip]

Phil's Back To Mono BS started back in 1970, with the reissue of A CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR YOU, which he retitled and repackaged as PHIL SPECTOR'S GREATEST HITS. With typical inconsistency and temerity, in 1975, under his Warner-Spector imprint, with the same cover, the album turned from mono to stereo(!). And of course it was reissued in the UK in stereo, and the US a few more times, and even a single on Collectables is stereo.

Mono is fine, but we can't do much with it for 5.1....

ED

By the look of it he might be hiding the other 5 channels in his hairdo:

http://www.stereogum.com/img/spector.jpg

 

[EMB]

If he wears that 'do in front of the jury, good chance he'll be convicted outta hand, that's pretty....outrageous!

ED

 

[Audi A3]

By the look of it he might be hiding the other 5 channels in his hairdo:

http://www.stereogum.com/img/spector.jpg

LOL