Listening to SACD with headphones

[Raab Himself]

Hi,

I'm hoping someone with experience with SACDs can offer me some advice.

I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade of
SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come across
mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding the
listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a surround-sound
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.

Waste of time and money?

Thanks,
Rob

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Raab Himself
Hi,
I'm hoping someone with experience with SACDs can offer me some advice.
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade of
SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come across
mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding the
listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a surround-sound
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.
Waste of time and money?

No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

I would, however, recommend you audition some SACD's - using your particular
headphones - first.

Steve

[Stephen Worth]

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

There is a difference between the sound of most SACDs and the regular
CD release, but that is due to better mastering.

See ya
Steve

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio
resolution is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by
any means, it is usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I'll be happy to be present when the winner collects!

Post by Stephen Worth
There is a difference between the sound of most SACDs and the regular
CD release, but that is due to better mastering.

[Weird Halfman]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Stephen Worth
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I'll be happy to be present when the winner collects!

Aren't you more a Krispy Kreme man?

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"Weird Halfman" <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:1132365933.499857.116130

Post by Weird Halfman

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Stephen Worth
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I'll be happy to be present when the winner collects!

Aren't you more a Krispy Kreme man?

Nope, gave those up a long time ago, and have been losing weight!

[n***@comcast.net]

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer. A much better bet would be
to record the analog output of the SACD layer onto a CDR, and compare that
with the SACD. This test will establish that the SACD recording cannot be
audibly distinguished from a CD (if that is indeed the case!)

Norm Strong

Norm Strong

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer. A much better bet would be
to record the analog output of the SACD layer onto a CDR, and compare that
with the SACD. This test will establish that the SACD recording cannot be
audibly distinguished from a CD (if that is indeed the case!)

It's most probably me, but I don't get that as something doesn't sound
right. Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen to
anyway? The "master" layer, itself, having this SACD information can't be
recorded onto a CD-R. Wouldn't you then be just comparing any CD to a CD-R
made from the (same) analog output. That's be done over and over.

[n***@comcast.net]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer. A much better bet would
be to record the analog output of the SACD layer onto a CDR, and compare
that with the SACD. This test will establish that the SACD recording
cannot be audibly distinguished from a CD (if that is indeed the case!)

It's most probably me, but I don't get that as something doesn't sound
right. Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen
to anyway? The "master" layer, itself, having this SACD information can't
be recorded onto a CD-R. Wouldn't you then be just comparing any CD to a
CD-R made from the (same) analog output. That's be done over and over.

Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First off,
you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the analog
output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer. As I
mentioned, there is no reason to believe that the manufacturer made any
attempt at all to duplicate the SACD performance on the CD layer. Indeed,
there is clear evidence that they frequently don't. The CD layer is often
seriously compressed--even overmodulated to the point of clipping. (Let's
not go into the reasoning behind this practice. :-)

So if you want to compare the quality of an SACD with that of a well made
CD, you're going to have to make the CDR yourself--from the stereo analog
output of the SACD player. The resulting CD will thus have an additional
a/d, d/a conversion wrt the SACD output. This should make it even easier to
tell the difference, so failure to pass this test sort of settles the issue!

Norm Strong

[santiago538]

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer. A much better bet would
be to record the analog output of the SACD layer onto a CDR, and compare
that with the SACD. This test will establish that the SACD recording
cannot be audibly distinguished from a CD (if that is indeed the case!)

It's most probably me, but I don't get that as something doesn't sound
right. Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen
to anyway? The "master" layer, itself, having this SACD information can't
be recorded onto a CD-R. Wouldn't you then be just comparing any CD to a
CD-R made from the (same) analog output. That's be done over and over.

Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First off,
you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the analog
output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer. As I
mentioned, there is no reason to believe that the manufacturer made any
attempt at all to duplicate the SACD performance on the CD layer. Indeed,
there is clear evidence that they frequently don't. The CD layer is often
seriously compressed--even overmodulated to the point of clipping. (Let's
not go into the reasoning behind this practice. :-)
So if you want to compare the quality of an SACD with that of a well made
CD, you're going to have to make the CDR yourself--from the stereo analog
output of the SACD player. The resulting CD will thus have an additional
a/d, d/a conversion wrt the SACD output. This should make it even easier to
tell the difference, so failure to pass this test sort of settles the issue!
Norm Strong

It is impossible to read the digital data of the SACD layer?

[Steven de Mena]

Post by santiago538

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Steven de Mena
No. Witness the existence of two-channel SACD players. The audio resolution
is higher with SACD and though not a dramatic difference by any means, it is
usually noticeable.

Rip the redbook layer of your SACD. Burn a CDR of it. Rack up the CD
copy alongside the SACD layer and balance the output levels. Do direct
A/B comparison. I bet ya a hot dog you can't tell the difference.

I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer. A much better bet would
be to record the analog output of the SACD layer onto a CDR, and compare
that with the SACD. This test will establish that the SACD recording
cannot be audibly distinguished from a CD (if that is indeed the case!)

It's most probably me, but I don't get that as something doesn't sound
right. Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen
to anyway? The "master" layer, itself, having this SACD information can't
be recorded onto a CD-R. Wouldn't you then be just comparing any CD to a
CD-R made from the (same) analog output. That's be done over and over.

Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First
off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the
analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD)
layer. As I mentioned, there is no reason to believe that the
manufacturer made any attempt at all to duplicate the SACD performance on
the CD layer. Indeed, there is clear evidence that they frequently
don't. The CD layer is often seriously compressed--even overmodulated to
the point of clipping. (Let's not go into the reasoning behind this
practice. :-)
So if you want to compare the quality of an SACD with that of a well made
CD, you're going to have to make the CDR yourself--from the stereo analog
output of the SACD player. The resulting CD will thus have an additional
a/d, d/a conversion wrt the SACD output. This should make it even easier
to tell the difference, so failure to pass this test sort of settles the
issue!
Norm Strong

It is impossible to read the digital data of the SACD layer?

Yes. Copy protected.

Steve

[Chel van Gennip]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by santiago538
It is impossible to read the digital data of the SACD layer?

Yes. Copy protected.

There are no PC SACD drives, as the format is not interesting enough to
create drives. So no direct copies.

[EM]

Post by Steven de Mena
Yes. Copy protected.

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Eltjo M.

[Bob Lombard]

2005 22:24:02

Post by Steven de Mena
Yes. Copy protected.

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Eltjo M.

Those instructions are way too logical and presented too
reasonably. This is newsgroups, Eltjo.

bl

[Steven de Mena]

Post by EM

Post by Steven de Mena
Yes. Copy protected.

http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Eltjo M.

Fuck you.

[EM]

Post by Steven de Mena
Fuck you.

Sir, you have very bad manners.

Eltjo M.

[Steven de Mena]

Post by EM

Post by Steven de Mena
Fuck you.

Sir, you have very bad manners.
Eltjo M.

I think it was an appropriate response to your un-necessary comment to me.

Steve

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by EM

Post by Steven de Mena
Fuck you.

Sir, you have very bad manners.
Eltjo M.

I think it was an appropriate response to your un-necessary comment to me.

Two cases of poor headphones :-)

[santiago538]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by santiago538
It is impossible to read the digital data of the SACD layer?

Yes. Copy protected.

Thanks!

I think that will actually end up hurting Sony.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by n***@comcast.net
Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First
off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the
analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer.

I'm thinking of recording the SACD's analog output using a CD-recorder. It
isn't ripping, (which of course you cannot do anyway), but it is the very
signal you would be listening to in the every set-up. So it should sound the
same, shouldn't it? If it sounds different than a red book layer, or a
standard CD, so what? It's got to be different.

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net
Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First
off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the
analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer.

I'm thinking of recording the SACD's analog output using a CD-recorder. It
isn't ripping, (which of course you cannot do anyway), but it is the very
signal you would be listening to in the every set-up. So it should sound
the same, shouldn't it? If it sounds different than a red book layer, or a
standard CD, so what? It's got to be different.

I would record to a hard drive at a high sampling rate - 96khz, 24 bit (or
higher). Using a CD recorder will down-sample it to 44.1 kHz, 16-bit.

Steve

[Stephen Worth]

Post by Steven de Mena
I would record to a hard drive at a high sampling rate - 96khz, 24 bit (or
higher). Using a CD recorder will down-sample it to 44.1 kHz, 16-bit.

Any difference is going to be from the quality of the capture
equipment, and not the bitrate.

See ya
Steve

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net
Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First
off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the
analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer.

I'm thinking of recording the SACD's analog output using a CD-recorder.
It isn't ripping, (which of course you cannot do anyway), but it is the
very signal you would be listening to in the every set-up. So it should
sound the same, shouldn't it? If it sounds different than a red book
layer, or a standard CD, so what? It's got to be different.

I would record to a hard drive at a high sampling rate - 96khz, 24 bit (or
higher). Using a CD recorder will down-sample it to 44.1 kHz, 16-bit.

True enough, but by recording the analog output signal of a SACD via a
stand-alone CD recorder, you are "intercepting" the signal being sent to
your amplification device(s), aren't you?

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net
Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear. First
off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is the
analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook (CD) layer.

I'm thinking of recording the SACD's analog output using a CD-recorder.
It isn't ripping, (which of course you cannot do anyway), but it is the
very signal you would be listening to in the every set-up. So it should
sound the same, shouldn't it? If it sounds different than a red book
layer, or a standard CD, so what? It's got to be different.

I would record to a hard drive at a high sampling rate - 96khz, 24 bit
(or higher). Using a CD recorder will down-sample it to 44.1 kHz,
16-bit.

True enough, but by recording the analog output signal of a SACD via a
stand-alone CD recorder, you are "intercepting" the signal being sent to
your amplification device(s), aren't you?

Yes, it is just that the standalone CD recorder has much lower specs than
the "intercepted" signal.

Steve

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by n***@comcast.net
Upon re-reading this thread, I may not have been entirely clear.
First off, you can't "rip" the SACD layer; the only thing available is
the analog output. So if you rip anything, it must be the redbook
(CD) layer.

I'm thinking of recording the SACD's analog output using a CD-recorder.
It isn't ripping, (which of course you cannot do anyway), but it is the
very signal you would be listening to in the every set-up. So it should
sound the same, shouldn't it? If it sounds different than a red book
layer, or a standard CD, so what? It's got to be different.

I would record to a hard drive at a high sampling rate - 96khz, 24 bit
(or higher). Using a CD recorder will down-sample it to 44.1 kHz,
16-bit.

True enough, but by recording the analog output signal of a SACD via a
stand-alone CD recorder, you are "intercepting" the signal being sent to
your amplification device(s), aren't you?

Yes, it is just that the standalone CD recorder has much lower specs than
the "intercepted" signal.

True, but I don't believe the spec difference is audible, but I can't say,
my ears are 70 year old and somewhat "abused". Folks with better hearing
seemingly always report that the signal recorded from a phono preamp using a
stand-alone CD recorder sounds identical to its vinyl source. (Some of the
semi-professional Marantz and Hhb burners have good specs.)

[Stephen Worth]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen to
anyway?

The issue isn't the quality of the format or layer... it's that they
might put different mixes on different parts of the SACD.

See ya
Steve

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Stephen Worth

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Isn't it the analog output of the SACD layer they I/we/most listen to
anyway?

The issue isn't the quality of the format or layer... it's that they
might put different mixes on different parts of the SACD.

Certainly, (and that's what I said).

[Stephen Worth]

Post by n***@comcast.net
I strongly advise you to withdraw that offer. The CD layer is not
necessarily the same master as the SACD layer.

I used the Jarvi Pentatone SACD for my test, and it was the same.
But ypur test would be interesting too. I'm sure the results would be
identical to what I found.

See ya
Steve

[Chel van Gennip]

Post by Raab Himself
Waste of time and money?

If you look at RIAA statistics, with a drop of almost 50% in SACD sales
last year, now only 800k units or 0.1% of total market volume, it is not
likely SACD will survive long.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME02/Trends_and_shifts_Contents.html

Discussion if a 2 channel SACD is audible better than a CD has not been
very conclusive. I think it would be a waste of money.

[Kirk McElhearn]

Post by Chel van Gennip

Post by Raab Himself
Waste of time and money?

If you look at RIAA statistics, with a drop of almost 50% in SACD sales
last year, now only 800k units or 0.1% of total market volume, it is not
likely SACD will survive long.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME02/Trends_and_shifts_Contents.html

I've heard from people in the industry that it will be abandoned,
together with another format - is it DVD-A or something?

Kirk

[Handel8]

That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD. If SACD were to
die, I would have thought that DVD-A would take over as it would work
with many consumers' theater sound systems.

Alan Prichard

[Steve Molino]

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD.

And Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and a number of other
labels. People have been predicting the demise of SACD since it first
arrived.

[Kirk McElhearn]

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD.

And Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and a number of other
labels. People have been predicting the demise of SACD since it first
arrived.

Well, I have heard that one fairly major label will stop producing
them... I think it's a fair sign. The majors will keep on doing so to be
able to lose money and blame their troubles on piracy.... ;-)

Kirk

[Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio]

Post by Kirk McElhearn

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD.

And Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and a number of other
labels. People have been predicting the demise of SACD since it first
arrived.

Well, I have heard that one fairly major label will stop producing
them... I think it's a fair sign. The majors will keep on doing so to be
able to lose money and blame their troubles on piracy.... ;-)

I'm told the following: for the smaller independents the price of
production is still too high - the desire to move into SACD is there but
until the additional cost comes down towards the 10% mark, rather than
50-100%, it's a non-starter as budgets are already too stretched.

Sounds to me like a chicken and egg situation - a drop in prices is only
likely to come about if SACD could secure a much bigger market share,
which it won't until more record companies can afford to produce SACDs.

A buoyant classical music market and larger record companies with deep
pockets prepared to invest for the long term is probably what's required
- alas these conditions are not currently met.

Judging by a conversation I had with a UK hi-fi dealer some years ago
now I'm a little surprised SACD's lasted this long, but then that's only
one market of many...

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
I'm told the following: for the smaller independents the price of
production is still too high - the desire to move into SACD is there but
until the additional cost comes down towards the 10% mark, rather
than 50-100%, it's a non-starter as budgets are already too stretched.

But dual-layer hybrid SACDs _have_ to cost about twice as much as a plain
CD -- there are two layers to master and to press -- and then they have to
be glued together. There's no way SACDs will every approach the cost a CD.
Unless someone can figure a way to press both layers on a single piece of
plastic.

[Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio
I'm told the following: for the smaller independents the price of
production is still too high - the desire to move into SACD is there but
until the additional cost comes down towards the 10% mark, rather
than 50-100%, it's a non-starter as budgets are already too stretched.

But dual-layer hybrid SACDs _have_ to cost about twice as much as a plain
CD -- there are two layers to master and to press -- and then they have to
be glued together. There's no way SACDs will every approach the cost a CD.
Unless someone can figure a way to press both layers on a single piece of
plastic.

In which case I fear most smaller labels will never be able to afford to
go the way of SACD - the majority of them that I've spoken to appear to
be hanging on by the skin of their teeth as it is.

[Weird Halfman]

but how much does a doubling of manufacturing cost add to the eventual
retail price? there's no need for a corresponding rise in distribution
and marketing costs, unless sales drop greatly.

[William Sommerwerck]

But how much does a doubling of manufacturing cost
add to the eventual retail price? There's no need for a
corresponding rise in distribution and marketing costs,
unless sales drop greatly.

The total amortized manufacturing cost -- including, I believe, the cost of
physically creating the glass master and stamper -- is about $1. And that
includes the jewel case and a simple insert.

The SACD layer no doubt costs a bit more than the CD layer, and then there's
the cost of gluing the two disks, and the slightly more expensive SACD case.
So the manufacturing cost of a hybrid SACD would seem to be about $2.

If record companies were willing to eat the difference (which, don't forget,
does not include the amortized cost of SACD recorders and editing
equipment), they could issue single-inventory hybrid recordings for no more
than a regular SACD. Unfortunately, most companies produce both a regular CD
and a hybrid SACD, which makes it almost impossible to hold down the cost of
the SACD. And, of course, most companies want to profit from new
technologies, so they jack up the price.

Kudos to RCA for pricing their Living Stereo SACDs reasonably, and brickbats
to Philips for gouging on the Living Presence reissues.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

But how much does a doubling of manufacturing cost add to the eventual
retail price? There's no need for a corresponding rise in distribution
and marketing costs, unless sales drop greatly.

The total amortized manufacturing cost -- including, I believe, the cost
of physically creating the glass master and stamper -- is about $1. And
that includes the jewel case and a simple insert.
The SACD layer no doubt costs a bit more than the CD layer, and then
there's the cost of gluing the two disks, and the slightly more
expensive SACD case. So the manufacturing cost of a hybrid SACD would
seem to be about $2.
If record companies were willing to eat the difference (which, don't
forget, does not include the amortized cost of SACD recorders and
editing equipment), they could issue single-inventory hybrid recordings
for no more than a regular SACD. Unfortunately, most companies produce
both a regular CD and a hybrid SACD, which makes it almost impossible to
hold down the cost of the SACD. And, of course, most companies want to
profit from new technologies, so they jack up the price.
Kudos to RCA for pricing their Living Stereo SACDs reasonably, and
brickbats to Philips for gouging on the Living Presence reissues.

And, from me, a two-by-four with a couple of rusty nails banged through it
to Chandos, for their pricing. I did ultimately buy their Corigliano
Symphony #2, but every time I consider buying another Chandos CD I shall
hesitate, as I had done after Erato issued an important Shostakovich
premiere on a 34-minute disk at full price.

[Dave Cook]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
And, from me, a two-by-four with a couple of rusty nails banged through it
to Chandos, for their pricing.

$11.88 at alldirect.com.

Dave Cook

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Dave Cook

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
And, from me, a two-by-four with a couple of rusty nails banged through
it to Chandos, for their pricing.

$11.88 at alldirect.com.

BZZZZT! Wrong one; the one at alldirect.com is Storgårds/HelsinkiPO on
Ondine, which I bought for less than that, namely $8.10 at Record Surplus
(undoubtedly $9.00 minus 10%). The Chandos is with Yuli Turovsky/I Musici di
Montréal, and nobody, but NOBODY had it for a delivered price of under $20.

[Dave Cook]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Dave Cook
$11.88 at alldirect.com.

BZZZZT!

No, I meant for Chandos in general, though it's true that their search
engine doesn't seem to be coughing up the Corigliano Symphony 2 on Chandos.

Dave Cook

[Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio]

But how much does a doubling of manufacturing cost
add to the eventual retail price? There's no need for a
corresponding rise in distribution and marketing costs,
unless sales drop greatly.

I suspect there's a whole lot more to it than merely manufacturing,
though it's not something I've personally investigated. For example, if
you're going to do the medium justice there's the (pretty high)
investment in recording and editing gear. For the average small record
company this is a major outlay. Companies like Naxos thrive on the
ability to go out and record on location cheaply and well and then edit
on off-the-shelf software. DSD is a whole new ball-game - and an
investment which has yet to prove its worth for the smaller operation...

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Kirk McElhearn

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD.

And Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and a number of other
labels. People have been predicting the demise of SACD since it first
arrived.

Well, I have heard that one fairly major label will stop producing
them... I think it's a fair sign. The majors will keep on doing so to be
able to lose money and blame their troubles on piracy.... ;-)

2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B with
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B with
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B

with

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

Isn't Sony still making classical single layer 2 CH SACDs? Discs such as
these avoid the piracy issue.

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B

with

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

Isn't Sony still making classical single layer 2 CH SACDs? Discs such as
these avoid the piracy issue.

I thought those all came out a couple of years ago (all those Szell ones,
etc.) Are they actually still releasing any classical SACD's? I hope so.

Steve

[Thornhill]

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B

with

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

Isn't Sony still making classical single layer 2 CH SACDs? Discs such as
these avoid the piracy issue.

I thought those all came out a couple of years ago (all those Szell ones,
etc.) Are they actually still releasing any classical SACD's? I hope so.
Steve

Sony stopped releasing non-hybrids like 3 years ago. They've slowly
begun releasing SACDs again; all are hybrids.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Thornhill

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B

with

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps
SACD
is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

Isn't Sony still making classical single layer 2 CH SACDs? Discs such as
these avoid the piracy issue.

I thought those all came out a couple of years ago (all those Szell ones,
etc.) Are they actually still releasing any classical SACD's? I hope so.
Steve

Sony stopped releasing non-hybrids like 3 years ago. They've slowly
begun releasing SACDs again; all are hybrids.

Is that really the case? towerrecords.com classical search, do Sony and the
SACD format. Of the 79 discs many appear to be single layer 2 CH SACDs.

[Thornhill]

Those are all their early SACD releases.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:03:55 -0500, "Norman M. Schwartz"

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
2 CH SACD can't be copied, at least not using my internal TDK 40/12/48B

with

Post by Norman M. Schwartz
Nero 5.5.10.54, nor possibly anything else at present (?). Perhaps SACD is
the way to go to avoid piracy.

But the CD layer of a hybrid disk _can_ be pirated.

Isn't Sony still making classical single layer 2 CH SACDs?

Only the ones they originally made that way. None since.

Kal

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD.

And Mercury Living Presence, RCA Living Stereo, and a number of other
labels. People have been predicting the demise of SACD since it first
arrived.

The statistics in the previous post showing the dramatic decline in SACD
sales are pretty hard to refute.

Steve

[Steve Molino]

Post by Steven de Mena
The statistics in the previous post showing the dramatic decline in SACD
sales are pretty hard to refute.

Perhaps, but dammit I want it to succeed! LOL

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD. If SACD were to
die, I would have thought that DVD-A would take over as it would work
with many consumers' theater sound systems.

There are less players out there that support DVD-Audio, so I disagree with
that thought. (SACD's will also work with consumers' [home] theater sound
systems).

Steve

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Handel8
That's strange, because I see more and more classical cds, particularly
by Harmonia Mundi and others, coming out in SACD. If SACD were to
die, I would have thought that DVD-A would take over as it would work
with many consumers' theater sound systems.

But -- AFAIK -- DVD-A isn't selling as well as SACD. It's more likely that
DVD-A will fail on its own, or both systems will disappear. SACD being
replaced by DVD-A is highly, highly, unlikely.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Kirk McElhearn

Post by Chel van Gennip

Post by Raab Himself
Waste of time and money?

If you look at RIAA statistics, with a drop of almost 50% in SACD sales
last year, now only 800k units or 0.1% of total market volume, it is
not likely SACD will survive long.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME02/Trends_and_shifts_Contents.
html

I've heard from people in the industry that it will be abandoned,
together with another format - is it DVD-A or something?

They are required by the Law of the Universe to abandon it, since I have
recently bought an SACD player. (But since I paid only $26 for it, plus
$20 shipping, and it also plays DVDs and CDs and whatever else, I'm not
really upset.)

[Simon Roberts]

Post by Raab Himself
Hi,
I'm hoping someone with experience with SACDs can offer me some advice.
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade of
SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come across
mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding the
listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a surround-sound
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.
Waste of time and money?

Depends on what you listen to and your sensitivity to/appreciation of fairly
small differences in sound (I do most of my serious listening via headphones too
and don't have a surround-sound set-up). Differences between the CD and SACD
layers of a hybrid which was recorded for SACD usually strike me as pretty
subtle. Reissue hybrids often sound better than their CD predecessors because
they've been remastered better than before; but you can appreciate *that*
difference via the CD layer and thus don't need a SACD player unless two
separate remasterings were involved. Of course, depending on what CD player you
currently use, it could be that if you bought a SACD player you would, if
nothing else, end up with a better CD player; so to that extent it wouldn't be a
waste of money regardless of what you think of SACDs....

Simon

[Stephen Worth]

Post by Raab Himself
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade of
SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come across
mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding the
listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a surround-sound
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.
Waste of time and money?

I did extensive testing of my SACD player compared to a mid-range
Yamaha CD player, and I couldn't tell any difference at all in 2
channel mode. There were differences, but they were all due to remixing
and remastering.

5:1 sound is incredible. That's where the value of the SACD format
lies. With headphones, it would be a waste.

See ya
Steve

[Thornhill]

First, don't let people's predictions of SACDs demise scare you off.
People have been making these predictions since 2001. Sales for SACD
are soft because increasingly, virtually all SACD releases are
classical. The average classical release sells a few thousand units; a
release that sells 10K units is considered a huge hit. So a drop of a
dozen pop SACD releases can have a significant affect on total SACD
sales. While the major labels have been slow to back SACD, most of the
'major' independent labels back the format and almost all the
self-produced labels by orchestras (LSO, SFS, RCO, Philly) issue SACDs.
Even Sony, who has been MIA in the last few years has begun releasing
SACDs again.

The best thing for you to do is take your headphones to hardware stores
and listen for yourself.

Post by Raab Himself
Hi,
I'm hoping someone with experience with SACDs can offer me some advice.
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade of
SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come across
mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding the
listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a surround-sound
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.
Waste of time and money?
Thanks,
Rob

[Chel van Gennip]

Post by Thornhill
While the major labels have been slow to back SACD, most of the
'major' independent labels back the format and almost all the
self-produced labels by orchestras (LSO, SFS, RCO, Philly) issue SACDs.

Still with a total sales of 800k and dropping, I don't see this line of
technology survive. The SACD uses different recording techniques,
different editting, different hardware etc. This volume is insuficient to
support the technologu in the long term. 80-800 productions selling
1000-10,000 items won't do it.

[Thornhill]

Post by Chel van Gennip
Still with a total sales of 800k and dropping, I don't see this line of
technology survive.

The drop could be explained by the lack of pop releases.

Post by Chel van Gennip
The SACD uses different recording techniques,
different editting, different hardware etc. This volume is insuficient to
support the technologu in the long term. 80-800 productions selling
1000-10,000 items won't do it.

Actually, many SACDs are recorded in hi-rez PCM and then only converted
to DSD during the final stages of production. There's been a lot of
debate about pure DSD recordings vs. PCM to DSD with no clear
consensus, though the best sounding SACDs (Channel Classics, Telarc and
PentaTone) tend to be pure DSD.

Clearly classical labels are not losing money over SACD; why else would
they be so supportive? Also keep in mind that Laser Disc survived for
like 15 years despite its incredibly small market share which had no
hope of ever growing because of the extremely high price of software.

Sony's PlayStation will have SACD playback; that could help spark new
interest from the pop market in SACD.

[Steven de Mena]

Post by Thornhill

Post by Chel van Gennip
Still with a total sales of 800k and dropping, I don't see this line of
technology survive.

The drop could be explained by the lack of pop releases.

Post by Chel van Gennip
The SACD uses different recording techniques,
different editting, different hardware etc. This volume is insuficient to
support the technologu in the long term. 80-800 productions selling
1000-10,000 items won't do it.

Actually, many SACDs are recorded in hi-rez PCM and then only converted
to DSD during the final stages of production. There's been a lot of
debate about pure DSD recordings vs. PCM to DSD with no clear
consensus, though the best sounding SACDs (Channel Classics, Telarc and
PentaTone) tend to be pure DSD.
Clearly classical labels are not losing money over SACD; why else would
they be so supportive?

Because they are hoping it will catch on and that discerning classical
consumers will re-buy all their CD's in SACD format? (which will not
happen, IMHO).

Steve



Also keep in mind that Laser Disc survived for

Post by Thornhill
like 15 years despite its incredibly small market share which had no
hope of ever growing because of the extremely high price of software.
Sony's PlayStation will have SACD playback; that could help spark new
interest from the pop market in SACD.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:06:04 -0800, "Steven de Mena"

Post by Steven de Mena

Post by Thornhill
Clearly classical labels are not losing money over SACD; why else would
they be so supportive?

Because they are hoping it will catch on and that discerning classical
consumers will re-buy all their CD's in SACD format? (which will not
happen, IMHO).

I think there's a little synergy here. Classical, by itself, is a
small market. The audiophile market, too, is small. If, for the
incremental cost of an SACD over a CD, the manufacturer can add the
second market to the first, it may make economic sense.

OTOH, adding the small audiophile market to the huge mainstream
pop/rock market may be inconsequential.

Kal

[Thornhill]

Post by Kalman Rubinson
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:06:04 -0800, "Steven de Mena"

Post by Steven de Mena
Because they are hoping it will catch on and that discerning classical
consumers will re-buy all their CD's in SACD format? (which will not
happen, IMHO).

Most SACDs are no releases, though the Living Stereo SACDs have been
selling very well.

Post by Kalman Rubinson
I think there's a little synergy here. Classical, by itself, is a
small market. The audiophile market, too, is small. If, for the
incremental cost of an SACD over a CD, the manufacturer can add the
second market to the first, it may make economic sense.

That's exactly it. Both are niche markets. The majority of audiophiles
are classical listeners. The added production costs of SACDs is
included into the MSRP -- you'll notice that most SACDs cost a few
dollars more than their CD counterparts -- so it's not like labels are
eating the cost of releasing SACDs instead of CDs. They've past it on
to consumers who seem to have no problem paying it.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Thornhill
That's exactly it. Both are niche markets. The majority of audiophiles
are classical listeners. The added production costs of SACDs is
included into the MSRP -- you'll notice that most SACDs cost a few
dollars more than their CD counterparts -- so it's not like labels are
eating the cost of releasing SACDs instead of CDs. They've past it on
to consumers who seem to have no problem paying it.

Debatable. The Living Stereo releases, at $12, are selling well because
they're a bargain. The Living Presense releases apparently aren't selling as
well, because they're ripoff-priced at $18.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"Thornhill" <***@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:1132183686.325870.318540

Post by Thornhill
Sony's PlayStation will have SACD playback; that could help spark new
interest from the pop market in SACD.

Unless, of course, Sony is found to have done something incredibly stupid
and evil, giving them very bad publicity just before the start of the
Christmas shopping season, inspiring a boycott of their products.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"Thornhill" <***@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:1132169773.565156.190640

Post by Thornhill
First, don't let people's predictions of SACDs demise scare you off.
People have been making these predictions since 2001. Sales for SACD are
soft because increasingly, virtually all SACD releases are classical.

That doesn't fit with what I see on the endcap at Fry's. Maybe a fifth of
the SACD product there, as opposed to a fraction of a percent of the CDs,
which is a big difference, but it sure doesn't look like "virtually all."

Post by Thornhill
The average classical release sells a few thousand units; a release that
sells 10K units is considered a huge hit. So a drop of a dozen pop SACD
releases can have a significant affect on total SACD sales. While the
major labels have been slow to back SACD, most of the 'major' independent
labels back the format and almost all the self-produced labels by
orchestras (LSO, SFS, RCO, Philly) issue SACDs. Even Sony, who has been
MIA in the last few years has begun releasing SACDs again.
The best thing for you to do is take your headphones to hardware stores
and listen for yourself.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:37:10 GMT, "Matthew B. Tepper"

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
That doesn't fit with what I see on the endcap at Fry's. Maybe a fifth of
the SACD product there, as opposed to a fraction of a percent of the CDs,
which is a big difference, but it sure doesn't look like "virtually all."

Do you really think that Fry's (or any B&M retailer) has stock that
reflects availability as opposed to sales potential? Take a look at
www.sa-cd.net to get an idea of the distribution of content on SACD.

Kal

[Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio]

Post by Thornhill
Sales for SACD
are soft because increasingly, virtually all SACD releases are
classical.

In which case it's doomed. The market is too small to be sustainable. CD
only started to gain a foothold with the likes of Dire Straits'
"Brothers In Arms", just a "The Matrix" was what you showed your shiny
new DVD player off with a few years ago. Forego the mass market and
you've lost the game I'm afraid... :-(

[Thornhill]

Post by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio

Post by Thornhill
Sales for SACD
are soft because increasingly, virtually all SACD releases are
classical.

In which case it's doomed. The market is too small to be sustainable. CD
only started to gain a foothold with the likes of Dire Straits'
"Brothers In Arms", just a "The Matrix" was what you showed your shiny
new DVD player off with a few years ago. Forego the mass market and
you've lost the game I'm afraid... :-(

Why does it need mass market support to survive? LaserDisc was around
for nearly 20 years despite its incredibly small market share which
never grew due to the high cost of software. The only reason it died
was because of DVD. It lasted because its supporters stuck with it year
after year, ready to by the newest releases. If SACD can develop the
same kind of consumer loyalty, labels will remain confident enough in
the market place, no matter how small it is, to keep releasing SACDs.

[Vaneyes]

First, don't let people's predictions of SACDs demise scare you off....

Confusing RIAA figures for the SACD crowd--

http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread/9182/9182

DVD-A outselling SACD!?!?

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5176.cfm

SACD Gold & Silver--

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=17610285

Flop comments--

http://www.tnt-audio.com/edcorner/may05.html

Regards

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Raab Himself
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade
of SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come
across mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding
the listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a

surround-sound

Post by Raab Himself
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.

SACD can be stereo or surround. Most SACDs have both stereo and multi-ch
tracks, but some SACDs are stereo-only. (I've never seen a multi-ch-only
SACD.)

You can play SACDs on stereo or surround systems -- your choice.

AFAIK, no one has ever made successful surround headphones. (I'm not talking
about those with processors; I mean ones that take four inputs and "display"
them correctly.)

I think SACD generally "sounds better" than CD (less hard, less mechanically
colored), but not everyone agrees. Whether you hear any difference depends
on your headphones. If you're listening with dynamic headphones -- even good
ones -- it's unlikely you'd hear a significant difference.

[Allen]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
<snip> -- your choice.

Post by William Sommerwerck
AFAIK, no one has ever made successful surround headphones. (I'm not talking
about those with processors; I mean ones that take four inputs and "display"
them correctly.)

I shudder to think about how they might achieve the center channel.
Allen

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Raab Himself

Post by Raab Himself
I'm mainly a headphone listener. Would I benefit from the audio upgrade
of SACD if I were to get a SACD player, or does the improvement come
across mainly when listening with room speakers (presumably surrounding
the listener)? I expect that the hookup is supposed to be to a

surround-sound

Post by Raab Himself
system and not a standard receiver, but I'd be using the latter.

SACD can be stereo or surround. Most SACDs have both stereo and multi-ch
tracks, but some SACDs are stereo-only. (I've never seen a multi-ch-only
SACD.)

Both Stereo SACD and MC (SACD)?

Post by Raab Himself
You can play SACDs on stereo or surround systems -- your choice.

Sure, all you need is something that plays SACDs

Post by Raab Himself
I think SACD generally "sounds better" than CD (less hard, less mechanically
colored), but not everyone agrees. Whether you hear any difference depends
on your headphones. If you're listening with dynamic headphones -- even good
ones -- it's unlikely you'd hear a significant difference.

I'm happy to still be able to hear the music, any format.