[IanS 01]

My current system is Monitor Audio MA300's and Denon AVC-A1 D amp. I love the amp, the DAC's are so good it even makes a PS3 as a transport sound ok on CD. Speakers may need replacing though, bit old now.

I have recently bought from Superfi a Sony SCDX-501ES CD/SACD player. Seems ok, good sound. Not as much as a difference as I was expecting but definitely an improvement. However, I think it's doubtful to get massive jumps in sound difference?

It won't do DVD-A though. Admittedly I don't have any DVD'A's yet (but could) and only 2 SACD's (guess - Dark Side and Brothers in Arms) but do love those.

Can anyone recommend a good player please please that also does DVD-A but is great with CDs (the majority of my collection) and does SACD? Or shall I just buy a great standalone CD player and live with the compromises of a universal DVD player? If so I may take the Sony back. Any thoughts this weekend would be great as I only have until Tuesday to decide about taking the Sony back.

Thanks all,

Ian

[Cable Monkey]

How big do you consider the compromises of a Universal player. My mates Denon DVD A11 doesn't compromise much at all. I have a DVD2900 which while being cheap as chips now has much potential for improving if you are that way inclined. The alternative is to spend some major cash on something from the likes of Esoteric.

[BlueWizard]

First keep in mind that DVD-A is a dead format. SACD won as the standard high quality CD Music format. To the best of my knowledge they will never produce any more DVD-A', and I think the ones they did produce have been withdrawn from the market.

So, the only real option is CD, SACD, high-def audio computer files, and we may see something emerge in BluRay at some point in time.

I think there are many brands of Universal Players out there, from the basic reasonably price to the premium expensive systems. Which brings us to the most important point, how much money do you have to spend?

The Cambridge Audio DVD99 is pretty reasonably priced, and supports DVD-V, DVD-A, SACD, CD, DiVX, -

Specs -

DVD99 HDMI DVD-Audio SACD Player

Price -

CAMBRIDGE AUDIO DVD99-SIL-GRD at Richer Sounds - HI-FI Separates, Home Cinema, Speakers, MP3 DVD Portables, Plasma LCD, etc.

Really incredibly cheap at only £100, whether it will do the job for you, I can't say.

I'm sure other will reply with more expensive universal players.

But again, to my original point, I don't think you need to give any thought to DVD-A, it is completely off the market now; to the best of my knowledge.

EDITED:
Apparently, there are two models of the Cambridge DVD/DVD-A/SACD player, the DVD99 FR for £99, and the DVD99 for £149. They both seem to do the same thing, so I'm not sure why the different prices.

Steve/bluewizard

[Mark.Yudkin]

Why not stick to what you have? SACD won the day for very good reasons (DVD-A was a silly format, being a video format derivative rather than an audio one) and you already have SACD replay equipment. Almost all DVD-A releases have been reissued as SACDs, or are now only available on the pre-owned market. As you say, you don't own any DVD-A's, and you have no reason to buy into the format, any more that you'd buy HD DVD's.

[IanS 01]

Thanks all.

Out of interest (and I'm sure you know more about it than me) why do you think dvd-a is dead? A look on Amazon and Play admittedly shows a lot more SACD's but most of them are Classical, there is a lot of dvd-a's too and more of them seem to be more mainstream Any thoughts?

Are new albums coming out more in SACD now? It seems pretty rare too, except for classic album reissues and special editions.

Thanks.

[Cable Monkey]

Ian, they all prescribe to the format war premise of winners and losers. DVD-A was crippled because it was tied into DVD players where SQ was often a secondary consideration, both in execution and accompanying hardware. Dual Disc came too late in the day to change anything. SACD almost messed up because it was originally launched as a stand alone format, but Sony soon realised most people were not going to abandon CD in favour of it so the hybrid format was born. Neither format 'won', both lost out to the incumbent champion, CD and SACD is already being phased out in favour of blu ray audio by Sony. Very little new music is being released on SACD (mostly classical) and nothing on DVD-A as far as I know, so what you see is all you are likely to get. I suppose you have to decide for yourself if a universal option is worth pursuing. Anything available on SACD, DVD-A or the real high definition format, vinyl will always be available on CD.

[IanS 01]

Originally Posted by Cable Monkey

Ian, they all prescribe to the format war premise of winners and losers. DVD-A was crippled because it was tied into DVD players where SQ was often a secondary consideration, both in execution and accompanying hardware. Dual Disc came too late in the day to change anything. SACD almost messed up because it was originally launched as a stand alone format, but Sony soon realised most people were not going to abandon CD in favour of it so the hybrid format was born. Neither format 'won', both lost out to the incumbent champion, CD and SACD is already being phased out in favour of blu ray audio by Sony. Very little new music is being released on SACD (mostly classical) and nothing on DVD-A as far as I know, so what you see is all you are likely to get. I suppose you have to decide for yourself if a universal option is worth pursuing. Anything available on SACD, DVD-A or the real high definition format, vinyl will always be available on CD.

So in short theres little point in my buying an SACD plater, may as well use the money on a decent stand alone CD player and wait for blu-ray audio? That what you are saying mate? I might as well take the Sony back then? It was £200 (half price from £400)

I know nothing of blu ray audio (I have a PS3 for a blu ray player). Sounds similar to DVD-A, ie linked to a video format?

[Mark.Yudkin]

SACD is doing quite well in classical, where CD prices are higher to meet the recording and licensing costs - SACD hybrids are sold at CD prices and thus obtain a market share even when the purchaser is only buying "a CD". In the more budget-minded music segments, SACD's additional recording, mastering and manufacturing costs appear to form a greater portion of the total costs, thus leading to a differentiated price strategy. As a result, in a market in which heavily compressed MP3 is good enough, and where paying for music is disliked, SACD sales need to appeal to audiophiles, and there aren't enough of these to make it a paying proposition.

Bluray audio (precise term: Bluray Profile 3.0) is a use of the Bluray media for 8 channel surround sound in a player with full audio processing but with no video processing / output. The main technical advantage over SACD is the extension from 6 to 8 channel sound. The big disadvantage is CD incompatibility, so it may well be doomed to repeat DVD-A's failure as a pure audio media - and for the same reasons. As an A/V media for opera and ballet, Bluray (using LPCM or dts hd ma) is doing quite well. Your PS3 can play bluray audio disks.

[CJROSS]

Have to disagree here chaps with some views on DVD-A, yes whilst a PITA to navigate menus and requiring a TV to select some audio options. I feel it is the best ever digital high resolution format I have heard, it knocks/knocked SACD into a cocked hat in my system in both stereo and multichannel mode. Bit of a shame really as it to me was/is the only medium to get close to some of vinyl’s strengths over other digital mediums.

Anyway a moot point as it & SACD are effectively dead formats.

I go and read about the Oppo BDP-83 on the Blu-Ray forum. That is what you should buy IMHO.

[BlueWizard]

Straying slightly from the central subject. While DVD-A might have been good, it is a twisted and winding path to acceptance for any new standard. Consider Betamax and VHS, Betamax was clearly better, but the makers of Betamax played the game wrong and lost.

The same with DVD-A and SACD, DVD-A walked a thin and sharp edge, and they slipped. So, SACD won.

But really SACD didn't win because Sony is also playing its cards wrong. They are still, after all this time, trying to extract that price premium from early adopters. The problem is that 'early adopters' are adopting.

If Sony refined the manufacturing, and lowered the price of player, make players backward compatible with standard CDs, lowered the price of the SACD disk, and put more effort into getting more music release on SACD, they might have a chance. But in business, he who hesitates is lost, and Sony hesitated.

As to your current SACD player, seems like you got a great bargain on it, you might as well keep it and be happy. SACD's are still being produce. Sony is still promoting the format, though poorly in my opinion.

I think the one thing that is killing SACD is the same thing that is killing CD, people are buying files in electronic format for playback on portable devices. It is kind of sad really that kids today have rarely heard what good music on a good stereo sounds like. Because it is all they have ever heard, they actually think iTunes and MP3's sound good. They are, metaphorically, listening to AM radio when FM potential is available to them.

The next thing is that the audio quality of BluRay is so good that sooner or later some one is going to realize that this is the perfect format for high quality audio. In fact, I check a random site recently and there were almost 700 BluRay audio discs available.

But again, that brings up the problems that we had with DVD-A, which is that you need your TV on to listen to the music.

Another problem I have with BluRay is that the discs hold too much data. Consequently the makers feel the need to fill the disc. Which means rather than giving you the absolute best quality stereo audio possible, they insist on given me surround sound music, and video. Which in turn encounters two problems, I don't have surround sound, and I find the video distracting. Myself, as I've already said, simply want the best stereo quality possible in this format.

But I think non-physical formats are going to win the day in the end. Eventually, CD players are going to come with hard drives and Internet connections, USB, Firewire, network, and your stereo is going to be able to play any audio file in any format from the Internet, from your computer over a network, from its own internal hard drive, or from a memory device like a USB stick.

In this case, if I want a CD or an SACD or a BluRay, I will simply record it myself. This is the one thing that the music industry is having trouble wrapping its head around. If there is no physical format for them to sell, why do we need them? Answer: we don't.

So, forget DVD-A, that race is over, and DVD-A lost. Keep your SACD player, there is a chance that Sony will get its act together and get the format rolling. Plus, you can still enjoy all the SACD's you have. And, if Sony can get SACD to catch on, it might replace the CD, and we might have recordable SACD systems to record our computer audio files onto.


Just a little ranting and raving.

Steve/bluewizard

[IanS 01]

And a very interesting and enjoyable rant n rave it was too Steve.

Which site did you see all the blu ray audio disks on? I can't find any at all.

Blu ray audio is going to be like DVD-A though, in that we are going to need an expensive player to get the most out of it. I doubt my PS3 will be considered to output an audiophile sound.

[BlueWizard]

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies, Players, Recorders, Media and Software

Select 'Movies' -

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies and Reviews

On the left side list, select 'Music' -

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies and Releases - Music

Oddly though, on the movies page, it implies 662 items available "Music (662)", but when you make that selection, and go to the Music page, it says "Music (281 titles).

Though keep in mind that the Music BluRay is a new concept.

Steve/bluewizard

[Mark.Yudkin]

I feel it is the best ever digital high resolution format I have heard, it knocks/knocked SACD into a cocked hat in my system in both stereo and multichannel mode.

For a comparative DSD / PCM (24bit/176,4kHz) listening study using scientifically valid conditions and metholodogy, see "Hörvergleich DSD und PCM" von Dominik Blech und Min-Chi Yang.

[IanS 01]

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies, Players, Recorders, Media and Software

Select 'Movies' -

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies and Reviews

On the left side list, select 'Music' -

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies and Releases - Music

Oddly though, on the movies page, it implies 662 items available "Music (662)", but when you make that selection, and go to the Music page, it says "Music (281 titles).

Though keep in mind that the Music BluRay is a new concept.

Steve/bluewizard

Ok, now I'm REALLY confused. That isn't blu-rasy music like dvd-a music, i.e. where you can get an actual album remastered into HD audio, that is just concerts including the footage etc? I thought you meant you can now get a classic or modern album, say Dark Side or Bat Out of Hell or something, or a new album on blu-ray purely as an increased bit-rate audio disc.

[Mark.Yudkin]

There are bluray audio disks (the correct terminology is Profile 3.0). Whether the format will take off or not is a matter for speculation; I for one will not be buying any for the same reason I didn't and won't buy DVD-A: they cannot be played on legacy CD players.

Example dts hd ma 7.1 audio disks: Vivaldi: The Four Seasons, Concertos for Double Orchestra - Acoustic Reality Experience 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio Disc Blu-Ray: Amazon.co.uk: DVD or Rachmaninov: Piano Concertos Nos. 2&3 - Acoustic Reality Experience 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio Disc Blu-ray: Amazon.co.uk: DVD. There are a few other classical releases, they are almost exclusively of the "popular" classics category. Only SACD has more "specialist" releases - only SACD is established in the classical market.

Needless to say, the most popular disks remain those that also have a visual element, such as Verdi: La Traviata [Blu-ray] [2007]: Amazon.co.uk: Verdi, Gheorghiu, Vargas, Frontali, Maazel: DVD or Rameau: Zoroastre [Blu-ray] [2006]: Amazon.co.uk: Pierre Audi: DVD. These I will buy, since the visual element is a significant aspect. Specialist releases are available in this bluray segment; perhaps my attitude is more representative than I may think.

Interestingly, recent Opus Arte releases are now using PCM rather than one of the compressed formats.

BTW, here's a release with mulitple formats, permitting side-by-side comparison: Divertimenti - Trondheim Solistene [Hybrid SACD] [Includes Blu-Ray Disc]: Grazyna Bacewicz, Bela Bartok, Terje Bjorklund, Benjamin Britten, Trondheim Soloists: Amazon.co.uk: Music.

[My use of classical music for examples is a reflection of my music interests, I am totally ignorant of the popular music market].

[Bibby_83]

Hi,
I think when I last had a trawl through the SACD listings a few classic albums were missing. For one example, Fleetwood Mac's Rumours was DVD-A only, Steely Dan have a few SACDs but DVD-A also appears in their back catalogue (Everything Must Go, their newest). Apparently Dan and Peter Frampton are on SACD now though.

SACD News: Steely Dan and Peter Frampton Surround SACDs Released [HFR]

I'm not sure if I will get a SACD player since I only own one myself (Sam Cooke : Portrait of a Legend). Since I mostly listen to Classic Rock, Soul, Rhythm and Blues and some Jazz I think the SACD format is somewhat lean. The good news is that it is often a dual format so a standard CD player can benefit from the better recordings, such as my Sam Cooke CD which is of smashing quality. It's just a shame there are no Otis Redding or James Brown recordings. Michael McDonald's motown album is covered though, along with a Marvin Gaye or two. I probably should have waited to get the SACD of What's Going On...

Reference - The Super Audio CD | SA-CD | SACD Reference

[dan1979]

Interesting big about 'new' CD formats that play on existing players. I had never heard of them till I saw this today;

What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision - Blogs

[Mr_Orange]

That is interesting. I wonder if other studios will follow suit and adopt one of these formats.

The CD is dead. Long live the CD .

[Mark.Yudkin]

Interesting big about 'new' CD formats that play on existing players

It's not a new format, it's a manufacturing / materials technique to improve the optical / mechanical aspects of a red book CD.

[Mr_Orange]

Mark, he did write 'new' in inverted commas. No need to be quite such a pedant!

[BlueWizard]

Well, we have veered slightly off topic, but to some extent I agree with Mark. They have done nothing to improve the actual fidelity of the music it self. They have merely improved the read quality of the medium. Without knowing how many errors typically occur in the read back of a CD, it is hard to say how big a difference this improved medium quality is going to make.

In my mind, this really isn't an improvement, if it brings the standard of the medium up to where it should have always been.

I still think Sony could do a better job promoting SACD as a replacement for generic CDs. But as I said before, they are almost too late. The quality of dowload files is increasing, and it is not tied to some ridged standard. If they make a new and better computer file, all you need is a new Codec to play it.

When physical medium music gains that level of flexibility, then it will take months rather than years or decades for a new standard to become adopted.

What we need to do is treat CD, DVD, and BluRay as data discs, that way the standard only decides the nature of the format, not the nature of the content. With in a given data format, we should be free to push it to its limits in terms of sound quality. If the players were easily upgradeable to new file formats, when new technology came along, we could adapt very quickly.

The problem is, Sony and similar format designers want to control and profit from all aspects of a particular format. New media players are going to have to be as flexible and adaptable as a computer, if they hope to survive. Which means that for all intent and purpose, new media players are going to have to be computers.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bluewizard

[Bibby_83]

Hi,

Originally Posted by BlueWizard

Well, we have veered slightly off topic, but to some extent I agree with Mark. They have done nothing to improve the actual fidelity of the music it self. They have merely improved the read quality of the medium. Without knowing how many errors typically occur in the read back of a CD, it is hard to say how big a difference this improved medium quality is going to make.

...In my mind, this really isn't an improvement, if it brings the standard of the medium up to where it should have always been.

Steve/bluewizard

I think that's about right Steve, my first thoughts on that subject were that I thought they have tried to improve the quality of CD production from the early days, although I might be thinking of mechanisms (before my time really).

SACD might well have a future as the hybrid format but I don't think the market is big enough for multiple formats, unless they retain a particular audience.

[Mark.Yudkin]

I thought they have tried to improve the quality of CD production from the early days

They did indeed. CDs were initially targeted at audio, where occasional error interpolation was tolerable. When CDs became a data media, error interpolation was no longer an option, and CD manufacturing was forced to lower tolerances. A data CD does not have any feature, function, or storage devoted to error reduction.

[Mark.Yudkin]

What we need to do is treat CD, DVD, and BluRay as data discs, that way the standard only decides the nature of the format, not the nature of the content. With in a given data format, we should be free to push it to its limits in terms of sound quality. If the players were easily upgradeable to new file formats, when new technology came along, we could adapt very quickly.

This is a terrible idea. Actually, it's worse than that.

The world is full of (old) standards that "leave things out" and the the result is universally catastrophic. Only a precise standard can ensure compatibility amongst heterogenous suppliers. The fact than all red-book CDs can be played on all CD players (unless broken) illustrates the benefit. Even optional features (index points, CD Text) need to be properly defined. Impedance mismatching with MC cartridges is a good example of the problems that arose from specificational inadequacy.

Allowing disks to contain unspecified content merely means that the normal consumer will never be able to know what source will play on what system.

See Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an introduction to the concept of standards.

[BlueWizard]

The standard is for the medium, not the content.

As an example, look at a computer data CD. Yes, the format of the disc is a standard for the operating system, but I can put any content I want on the disc - MPEG, MP3, ACC, FLAC, WAV, JPG, GIF, WMV, RM, whatever, and the computer doesn't care. It will display or play whatever it finds as long as it has the proper CODEC for it.

I think media players are going to have to follow this lead. They can use internally whatever format and operating system they want, as long as it can play whatever data format I throw at it.

Now for removable media like BluRay, DVD-R/W, CD-R, etc..., that aspect must be universal. All BluRay players must be able to read data off all BluRay discs, but the data on that disc can be any format necessary, MP3, FLAC, whatever, and an intelligent player should be able to play it.

I frequently burn audio files to a CD-R using my computer, and play them in my home video DVD Player. And this is the only need I see in the future for physical media. If I want to play digital audio files through the BluRay player in my PS3, I should be able to burn them on my computer and play them. If I want CD's for my car, I should be able to burn my media files to CD and play them there.

Why lock to one physical standard, when all files originate as computer files with no physical presence? My point was that I should be able to burn my media files to whatever physical format I want, and uses them in any media player I have.

I don't need to buy them tied to one restrictive physical format, which is what the seller of music would prefer that I do. They want to control all aspects of it, but I am saying those days are gone.

I'm sure when they developed audio CD's they did everything they could to prevent people from pulling files off of there and copying them. How well has that worked? No very well at all.

When all files originate in a non-physical form, if I need physical form, that form is up to me and my equipment and my needs. It is not up the the 'record' companies that would like to control how, when, where, I use my media files.

Steve/bluewizard

[Mark.Yudkin]

I'm afraid you've missed the point completely. Allowing a CD, DVD, BD to have "any data format" means that nobody will be able to make any guarantees that any specific disk plays in any specific player.

Comparison with the computer model illustrates the point. Consider the the number of us working in the field trying to deal with the incompatibility questions. Consider the number of frustrated customers, let alone the non-computer savvy.

The current model is "plug and play". There is a complete guarantee that all media conforming to the specification will play in all players conforming to the specification - i.e. any CD player plays any CD, or one of the two is faulty.

Why do you think DVD-A failed? It didn't play in CD players, which outnumbered DVD players in the market. It didn't even play properly in DVD players (only the DVD-V compatibility layer played). Facit: DVD-A failed because it was designed to fail. It was a software format that wasn't supported by the hardware. Your model!

Your model translates to "let the buyer ensure compatibility - we guarantee nothing." As a means of killing off a format, it will succeed, as a business model, it's a model for immediate bankruptcy and annoyed customers. It is a model that can only fail, as failure (to play, to sell, to support, to work) is the prime - nay only - design criteria.

[IanS 01]

Errr, did I start this? lol

What is the general consensus on SACD? Do we think that new modern style releases wil be in SACD or has that boat sailed to Japan?

[Matt W]

Steve, you're conflating an argument about DRM and an argument about Standardisation and making a hash of both.

[BlueWizard]

Originally Posted by IanS 01

Errr, did I start this? lol

What is the general consensus on SACD? Do we think that new modern style releases wil be in SACD or has that boat sailed to Japan?

I think the jury is still out on SACD. Sony could still bring it to the market as the standard format for all music, but it is not going to be easy.

Right now, I think it is a niche market. Audiophile will prefer SACD, but until SACD players are standard in every home, which means that every common CD player also has to be able to play SACD, then they might stand a chance of replacing standard CDs.

Look how fast the common CD replaces the vinyl record album. It didn't take that long because, although it is debatable whether the music sounded better, the physical format was more compact, durable, and less prone to damage. And that as a massive and complete change in physical format, no turntable ever was or ever will be able to play CDs. That meant everybody has to buy new equipment.

So, the complete transition is possible, but, with non-physical music formats (computer files) gradually taking over, as some point, physical formats become irrelevant. The only physical format that matters is the format I choose to put my non-physical files onto.

Whether Sony can do make SACD the universal standard, or even if it wants to do this, I can't say for sure.

For now, depending on your music style, there are a lot of SACD's available.

Whether you want to plunge deeper into the format, only you can decide.

Steve/bluewizard

[Bibby_83]

I think on the Wikipedia article it mentioned there are around 5-6000 SACDs on the market and about 70% are Classical. The rest are mainly modern Jazz and Instrumentalists from that genre; the Blues section on SA-CD.net lists about 60 CDs. Rock at 466 CDs is divided roughly between old and newer artists but few are well represented. There isn't even much from the 70s, either from Paul Simon or Carly Simon. There's one Doobie Brothers album 'Toulouse Street' and only 'Lamb Lies Down on Broadway' by Genesis. The Rolling Stones are represented by the ABKCO re-releases but only up to the 60s, and a few compilations. A&M released the Carpenters Singles as a compilation along with 'Frampton Comes Alive' by Peter Frampton but that's out of 13 SACDs in total - the others being Sheryl Crow, Sting, The Police, John Hiatt and T-Rex.

I can't really see that I would have many of these in my record collection, even if I were to expand it to SACDs only (no dual/hybrid format).