PS3 to support SACD playback

[chechenepiphany]

http://www.superaudio-cd.com/news/newsitem.php?id=76

There you have it. For those of you who aren't rabid audiophiles, SACD stands for super audio cd, and is a proprietary technology developed by sony and philips. An SACD is an audio disc with a sampling rate of about 2,882,400Hz. The average cd sports a slightly less robust sampling rate of 44,100Hz. This means an sacd has a sampling rate about 65 times that of an ordinary cd. Oh, and unless its a dual layer "hybrid" disc, they wont even register in your normal player, and even then only as a normal disc. So don't go buying them unless you have a special player. If you feel like looking in to it, go to best buy or circuit city and check out one of their rigs.

Kinda cool.

[Zeal]

This is a niche format that has no major support.

[Dirty Harry]

First they cut a feature and now they add a new one which seems to have more functionality than the previous router.


Zeal:
Thats roughly what they said when the compact disc came into exsistance. So i wouldnt knock it untill it knocks itself.

[serion]

I'm certain that at some point the speakers become a limiting factor in output quality, but how well can the human ear differentiate between and ordinary CD and one of these? I know there's bragging rights and all, but really, at some point improvements in quality fail to matter. Innovations like this seem groundbreaking, but I think they are completely pointless.

[Savok]

Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon on SACD is like a new album.

[Red Cloak]

I would pay $600 for this feature. Oh wait nm, I'll get a X360 and stream it since it's a media center.

:rolleyes: BlueRay :rolleyes:

[Deadend]

Vinyl please, k thnx bye.

If you really love the good sounds, you use Records, and a super high end player.

It sounds better.

Although I guess this is a good start, Sony supporting their own propritary formats on their flagship product.

[Klade]

Heh there is no "at some point" on speaker limitations. Those crapy speakers you bought for 60$.. I got news for ya, they suck. If you want to hear even a decent quality ogg or mp3 the way its meant to be heard, then you need to drop some cash. Is there a great deal of difference between this and an Audio dvd?

[Heretic Machine]

Watch me twirl my finger... I know some people just love the slightest improvment in sound quality, but honestly, it doesn't matter to me. The only decent set of speakers I own are for my PC, so this SACD stuff would just be coming through the TV.

Besides that, I only use music coming out of a hard-drive, either my iPod or my PC. If I buy a CD, I rip it immediatly before even listening to it. For me, actually having my music on seperate media is a thing of the past.

[Klade]

Vinyl please, k thnx bye.

If you really love the good sounds, you use Records, and a super high end player.

It sounds better.

Although I guess this is a good start, Sony supporting their own propritary formats on their flagship product.

Ummm no.. Even the best record player slowly destroys the record. It might sound good the first time but every time after that your at a lesser quality level. Reel to reel electronic tape is the only known means of preserving audio at the same level forever.. (excepting harddrives) Even CD's fall apart after a time.

[Leaving Hope]

Can someone who has experience with SACD and DVD-Audio make a comparison for us? I'm interested in hearing who prefers what format, and why.

I'm surprised (then again, not really) that the recording industry hasn't tried harder to push SACD and DVD-Audio into the mainstream, now that CD piracy is so rampant. Both formats have copy protection, unlike most CDs; and, both SACD and DVD-Audio files are pretty large, making piracy more difficult for those with slower connections.

I'm all for better audio. Give us the 5.1+ tracks. Bring on the enhanced discs that have music videos and promo material. I will gladly buy the Pink Floyd box set (again) if it comes in 5.1 audio, with concert videos, photos, and more. But instead of using innovative technology to provide us with the content we want, the record companies are spending their time and resources suing people while wondering why so many people are downloading the latest Coldplay album off the Interweb.

As for SACD in PS3, I think it's a smart idea. In the end, they're increasing their SACD player base, and that could lead to more disc sales.

[Reanimated]

I'm yawning here.

[Kyle Jones]

Nice to see this getting more support. It'll mainstream eventually, just needs time. I'm thinking it'll take about as long or longer than HDTV to hit all the channels for SACD to start replacing CDs.

[chechenepiphany]

Can someone who has experience with SACD and DVD-Audio make a comparison for us? I'm interested in hearing who prefers what format, and why.
I'd love to. SACD pretty much sounds like the master tapes. It is more or less impossible to tell the difference between a remastered sacd and the record. DVD A is a disc with about twice the sampling rate of a cd. If anything, DVD A is a niche media. And, yes, the SACD version of Dark side of the moon kicks ass.

[Savok]

I'm all for better audio. Give us the 5.1+ tracks. Bring on the enhanced discs that have music videos and promo material. I will gladly buy the Pink Floyd box set (again) if it comes in 5.1 audio, with concert videos, photos, and more.

Dude, just grab Pulse, sure there's no Roger Waters but these days it's probably a good thing.

As for comparing formats, what I've heard both they were on different setups with different albums sadly. I do know Emerson, Lake and Palmer's Brain Salad Surgery sounded like shit on DVD Audio though.

[chechenepiphany]

This is a niche format that has no major support.
Right, because a tiny company called Sony is just waiting to make this the next 8-track.

[Dirty Harry]

I'd love to. SACD pretty much sounds like the master tapes. It is more or less impossible to tell the difference between a remastered sacd and the record. DVD A is a disc with about twice the sampling rate of a cd. If anything, DVD A is a niche media. And, yes, the SACD version of Dark side of the moon kicks ass.
Does it make you past out from all the audio awesomeness?

[51|RandoM]

SACD is a great format, I've had a denon dvd player that handles SACD for awhile, I'd like to see it catch on a bit more.

Thing about it is, though, regardless of the quality of the audio reproduction, or the original material, if somebody makes a shitty mix, it is still a shitty mix. Most of the multitrack stuff(beyond stereo) I've listened to has sounded like absolute crap. The one outstanding exception is the previously mentioned DSotM, which is great multichannel.

I can play both formats, and have discs of both type. I by and far prefer SACD.

This might be a great boost for the format, if it happens, and a wise move on Sony's part, after all, they co-created SACD with Phillips.

[51|RandoM]

One other factoid-

For the LP fan, SACD is as close as you're going to get in the consumer digital realm. The DSD recording format is a 1 bit stream sampled at 2.8224-MHz.

[Heretic Machine]

Right, because a tiny company called Sony is just waiting to make this the next 8-track.

Beta tapes, beta tapes, beta tapes for everyone.

EDIT: Come to think of it... I could of just as easily said UMD... Sony sucks at making formats.

[Leaving Hope]

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'll check out SACD. I have Paradigm Monitor speakers that need some decent material.

[51|RandoM]

Beta tapes, beta tapes, beta tapes for everyone.

EDIT: Come to think of it... I could of just as easily said UMD... Sony sucks at making formats.

When you use beta as an argument, you need to use it in comparison with things like Aureal vs. Creative Labs. It is another case in which the technically superior product did not survive. Beta was superior to VHS and A3D was superior to EAX. Beta was a great format, in fact, Betacam, which is derived from it, is used by pretty much every tv studio in the world, and is still evolving.

The great DVD-A vs. SACD war is not yet decided. This may be a turning point though.

Your problem with UMD is that it doesn't work in any of your other devices, and as such doesn't have any library beyond that created for the PSP I'm guessing. Guess what? Any new format has that issue.

I guess you're saying that any new format sucks, right?

Fact of the matter is, no existing format would work within the size limitations other than minidisc, or something very much like it. It had to be optical for the information density required(can't be carts like a gameboy or a ds), and it couldn't be current optical disk formats because none of them would both fit in a PSP and have robust DRM.

They could've went with a digital distribution model of some type, but that would have further reduced their market, and introduced even greater problems in terms of DRM.

[Nessus]

5.1 mixes are one thing, but very few people will be able to descern the difference between a regular CD and an SACD.

Hell, most people can't tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 128 kbps and a CD.

With the exception of 5.1 mixes, it's mostly pointless.

[Heretic Machine]

The great DVD-A vs. SACD war is not yet decided. This may be a turning point though

I didn't say anything about DVD-Audio. It's just as stupid. Consumers are moving AWAY from physical formats, not towards new ones. This leaves these new formats as niche markets, nothing more.

[Paranoia]

Are there portable SACD/DVD-A players? Most people like to take their music they bought with them, which I think has more significant impact than having a 5.1 sound system.

[Dirty Harry]

My hats off to you random for understanding why sony does some of the things sony does.

[Dirty Harry]

Are there portable SACD/DVD-A players? Most people like to take their music they bought with them, which I think has more significant impact than having a 5.1 sound system.
I think you missing the point of this, in a cd player, quality isnt really an issue with high end mp3 players. Anyways you would not benifit from sacd because the headphones generally are never on the level of a real pair of speakers. Unless your interested in spending a 1000 bucks for a pair, i would just stick to home listening.

[Heretic Machine]

I think you missing the point of this, in a cd player, quality isnt really an issue with high end mp3 players. Anyways you would not benifit from sacd because the headphones generally are never on the level of a real pair of speakers. Unless your interested in spending a 1000 bucks for a pair, i would just stick to home listening.


Again proving that these are niche formats...

[Dirty Harry]

Again proving that these are niche formats...
I'm not sure about you but i come from a family that listens to alot of music. My father for example has over 500 rock recorcs, you know led zeplin, queen ect all of them. He enjoys when he has time to just sit down with friends jam on his guitar and listen to the music. So please don't think that no one would be interested in a superior sound.

[Heretic Machine]

I'm not sure about you but i come from a family that listens to alot of music. My father for example has over 500 rock recorcs, you know led zeplin, queen ect all of them. He enjoys when he has time to just sit down with friends jam on his guitar and listen to the music. So please don't think that no one would be interested in a superior sound.

If I thought that no one would be interseted, I would of said so. I said it was niche, meaning that only people who have 500 rock records and frequently sits down to "jam on his guitar" and list to music is going to be interested. The average consumer gains nothing from this, not only from the fact that they can't afford good enough stereo systems, but also because it's A.) A physical format, cutting out most of the young crowd, and B.) Not really portable, cutting out the largest portion of the music industry's market.

[Dirty Harry]

If I thought that no one would be interseted, I would of said so. I said it was niche, meaning that only people who have 500 rock records and frequently sits down to "jam on his guitar" and list to music is going to be interested. The average consumer gains nothing from this, not only from the fact that they can't afford good enough stereo systems, but also because it's A.) A physical format, cutting out most of the young crowd, and B.) Not really portable, cutting out the largest portion of the music industry's market.
You are right about the youth segment, this will certainly appeal to the adult population.

[thecrazyd]

It will apeal to a very small segment of the adult population. And no one wants the adult niche. It won't last.

[Heretic Machine]

You are right about the youth segment, this will certainly appeal to the adult population.

Maybe the post 35 demographic that won't hear about it, but even then many of those people are more interested in listening to this sort of stuff at or going to work. I believe the 12-34 age group is much more interested in digital formats like MP3. Just look at the sales of iPods to see this growing trend.

Most of them don't want to go from carrying around 20,000 songs, to carrying around -maybe- 10 in their player. That's if it were portable. Without portability, you are basically forcing people to buy two versions of their music, or at least pirate the music they do buy. It really just doesn't work for most people.

As I said, -some- people will enjoy this, but don't think it's going to replace MP3 or CD's.

[Dirty Harry]

It will apeal to a very small segment of the adult population. And no one wants the adult niche. It won't last.
yes the adult segment that have six figure wages. This is who will first go for this, true audiophiles.

[Heretic Machine]

yes the adult segment that have six figure wages. This is who will first go for this, true audiophiles.

...Six figure wages? That's a pretty tiny segment of the population there, buddy. Now let's give you the benefit of the day, and pretend that you said people who make between 40-80 thousand dollars a year. Even then, they aren't going to be buying the new Britney Spears album. They are not the target audience for most of the music industry's money.

[Syrinx]

...Six figure wages? That's a pretty tiny segment of the population there, buddy. Now let's give you the benefit of the day, and pretend that you said people who make between 40-80 thousand dollars a year. Even then, they aren't going to be buying the new Britney Spears album. They are not the target audience for most of the music industry's money.

The new Britney Spears album isn't the target for SACD or DVD-A either. Also, these formats weren't created to replaced CD or mp3 (huh? not sure where this came from in the first place).

[Heretic Machine]

The new Britney Spears album isn't the target for SACD or DVD-A either. Also, these formats weren't created to replaced CD or mp3 (huh? not sure where this came from in the first place).

Because people started saying that it wasn't a niche format, and as you just said, it is. This is not for the main stream, it has a very limited audience. Making this a pretty useless feature to include in the PS3.

[Savok]

Actually this is the first thing that's gotten me halfway interested in the PS3.

[51|RandoM]

With hybrid disks and SACD-capable hardware reaching reasonable pricing, there is no reason for SACD to not replace CD as the primary physical medium for music distribution.

The hybrid disk makes transition easy for everybody.

Looks like a win for everybody, to me.

The record industry gets a clearly superior(in terms of audio reproduction)product to lure in audiophiles and anybody not comfortable with digital distribution.

Those same audiophiles, who prefer to listen to cd-quality or better whenever it is a practical option can do so. I rip stuff to 192/vbr for my ipods, but only use those when I can't listen to the original source material at home. I guess that makes me one of those people who want SACD or something like it to replace CD. I don't have more than $10k in my setup, so I don't think I really count as an 'audiophile' anyways. I don't have $1000 interconnects, or custom sound isolation cones, or any of that bizarre stuff, lol.

Those who can't/won't buy a new cd player any time in the near future will still be able to purchase media that works in their players, in the form of the hybrid disc.

[Adam Blue]

How about just going DVD. Couldn't that support a better audio sampling rate? I'm not too familiar with the tech, but I've been buying DVD albums for the 5.1.

[Cyrano]

I read some of the classical record review magazines. Some of the reviews say SACDs sound much better, and some say they're not much better than regular CDs. It depends on the particular recording. You need a surround sound setup with good speakers to hear the difference, too. You would need to be into classical music and really care about sound quality (and be in the marked for a videogame system) for this to matter for the PS3. Strangely enough, I'm all those things.

[51|RandoM]

How about just going DVD. Couldn't that support a better audio sampling rate? I'm not too familiar with the tech, but I've been buying DVD albums for the 5.1.

DVD-A and SACD are technically DVD disc, just with a different encoding for the audio.

[Savok]

Pink Floyd is classical now? I win the bet!

[Cyrano]

Sure, I'd include them. Especially with some weed.

[Chiggs]

Actually this is the first thing that's gotten me halfway interested in the PS3.


So Blu-Ray, one hell of a processor and GPU, dual HDMI ports, along with the shitload of games that will assuredly follow, didn't get you excited? But SACD support suddenly did?

Okay...

[51|RandoM]

I read some of the classical record review magazines. Some of the reviews say SACDs sound much better, and some say they're not much better than regular CDs. It depends on the particular recording. You need a surround sound setup with good speakers to hear the difference, too. You would need to be into classical music and really care about sound quality (and be in the marked for a videogame system) for this to matter for the PS3. Strangely enough, I'm all those things.

You don't need a surround system for SACD. Yes, there are multichannel tracks beyond 2 channel, but that doesn't mean 2 channel isn't good too. I've got a bunch of SACD and DVD-A discs, the only one I ever listen to the surround mix is DSotM. Most of the surround mixes just sound retarded to me. If you're at a concert in an optimal listening position, it isn't like you've got a woodwind section behind you, the strings somewhere off to the right front, and then a grand piano revolving around your head---yes, I've heard some crazy multichannel mixes. I'm not some old fuddy-duddy vinyl guy who remembers when we went hifi and can't let go, I love 5.1 and 7.1(DTS ES Discrete titles are insane, shame there are so few)for movies, but they just don't make much sense to me for music. Listen to the multichannel DVD-A version of Metallica's Black album if you want to hear a mix that should've never seen the light of day.

Your gear also doesn't have to be all that expensive to notice the difference. Get yourself a pair of midrange sennheiser headphones, a decent headphone amp, and a sacd or dvd-a player. Anybody not tone deaf will be able to tell the difference between SACD and mp3/aac, and most people will be able to tell the difference between SACD and CD. You can get all of that for less than $500. You can skip the headphone amp and go even cheaper. I've got Martin Logan speakers, Denon amplification/source, and still prefer listening to music with Sennheiser HD 520 headphones. I like them so much, have used them so much, I'm on my 5th headphone cord(they're socketed and cheaply replaceable). The padding on the earcups is finally starting to wear out, but I think I can get replacements for those too, maybe just retire the set and get a new one I suppose. Like most new formats, it started out wicked expensive, but the costs have come way down. Hifi equipment in general has come way down, when comparing quality to cost of ownership, as well.

As I stated before, a good mix will sound better on SACD than anything else currently available, while a bad mix sounds crappy on everything. Right now, the early adopters will buy just about anything in the format, just to have a library, so a lot of crappy mixes are being sold that wouldn't be otherwise.

[51|RandoM]

So Blu-Ray, one hell of a processor and GPU, dual HDMI ports, along with the shitload of games that will assuredly follow, didn't get you excited? But SACD support suddenly did?

Okay...

Makes sense to me.

Blu-ray is almost meaningless for a console, are bigger games better games? Not that I can tell. Lol, remember when CD started out? The only games that needed the space were really bad games made almost entirely of FMV, they sucked. From my point of view, the only thing Blu-Ray will do for me is save me ONE disc swap for any game that wouldn't fit on one DVD. Kind of hard for me to get excited about, honestly. I suppose if the transfer rate is orders of magnitude better than that of a cd(I don't think it is, but enlighten me if I'm wrong)we'll have quicker loading times...but then again, if they use the expanded capacity, we'll just have more to load, canceling out the gain.

Good processor? Eh, all of the next gen consoles will have good processors and GPUs. That is pretty much a given. Which console was the best this generation? The one with the least horsepower. Curious, eh?

Dual HDMI ports? This one really has me scratching my head. Is this for the 2 or 3 games that might have dual screen support, or is this for the people who want to play on their tv sometimes, or the projector other times? Either way you cut this, it affects very few people, and of those few, I'd expect many of them to have HDMI switching in their AV receiver by the time they have a ps3.

The games to follow, now that would be exciting if we had any real inkling of how they'll play.

SACD, on the other hand, well people have wanted to try that for awhile, but have been put off by the price of buying an SACD capable player to replace their perfectly functioning cd/dvd player. Now they'll be able to get it as part of the game console too and suddenly the cost is hidden. Probably not exciting to too many people, by I can certainly see it being exciting to some.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

Just a quick comment...most people I know don't have anywhere near $10k in their sound/stereo system. Heck, the average Joe-Schmoe who has a PS2 doesn't have anywhere near the set-up it would take to make a SACD disk (by the way it has been presented here) sound anywhere near what it is capable of. The average teen doesn't have it nor does the average adult. The majority who will buy a PS3 won't have this kind of setup either. Those with the kind of scratch to create this kind of setup, probably won't be using their PS3 as a SACD disk player.

But, I digress...this feature going in to the PS3 is just as meaningless as the ones that have been trimmed from the PS3 to the average consumer. Joe Smith hasn't even heard of a SACD disk. How many of you had heard of a SACD disk before this thread? How many of those who had, have friends who have heard of SACD disks...or better yet have one?

Nuff said I think. The PS3 will win on brand name...unfortunate but true. The little extras will just be a way for PS3 to boost any of its other divisions or profit from its R&D expenditures.

As I said before...the PS3 is a sure bet for Sony...so it will pack all of its proprietary media and technology in it. The system and games will make profits by the bucketloads for Sony. The "Cell Chip", Blu-Ray, SACD...these will all help to make Sony money in gaining exposure and acceptance for their other products. Don't think for a minute that you will not be able to play UMDs via the PS3. A connection between the PS3 and the PSP is inevitable. They will sell a few more PSPs and UMDs that way.

Hell, the PSP is making Sony money off of the UMDs which more companies are pledging support for...not to mention the idiots that think you have to buy a Sony memory stick instead of the cheaper SanDisk models. Sony is smart and making money from their videgame console that the average gamer isn't even conscious of.

I bet Sony makes a PS3/PSP tie in with their downloadable movie database that is coming out.

[Savok]

Not everyone has room for two TVs in their room.

Plus not even Sony can fuck the ability to play what's pretty much a supercharged CD.

More I read this thread, more I think that ELP album was just a fucking awful mix.

[KDups]

My dad got a SACD player a year or two ago. He's an audio guy, tons of records and CDs, great set of speakers and audio equipment. He sat me down and played the same CD back-to-back, the first being a regular CD, the second an SACD. I couldn't tell you which one was which. Even he said it was relatively hard to tell the difference, he just bought it because it was new.

In the end this is a nice "free" feature to get in a system I was already planning on buying. Just like the DVD player in the original PS2, but not quite as nice.

[Morratut]

Irrelevant. Nice free add on but then again CD quality and a decent rate for my MP3's is good enough for me :)

I agree with Perigon that physical formats are old news. Digital is the mainstream and i can't see that ever changing.

[Paranoia]

Would a true audiophille settle for PS3 for playback?

[Goronmon]

Which console was the best this generation? The one with the least horsepower. Curious, eh?
Most popular != Best

I own all three consoles and the PS2 is the one I have played the least for the past 4-6 months. If it was for GT4 it would be just collecting dust.

Anyways, I think the point was that for piece of hardware thats pretty much solely for playing games, having the deal sealer be SACD doesn't really make sense.

Just a quick comment...most people I know don't have anywhere near $10k in their sound/stereo system. Heck, the average Joe-Schmoe who has a PS2 doesn't have anywhere near the set-up it would take to make a SACD disk (by the way it has been presented here) sound anywhere near what it is capable of. The average teen doesn't have it nor does the average adult. The majority who will buy a PS3 won't have this kind of setup either. Those with the kind of scratch to create this kind of setup, probably won't be using their PS3 as a SACD disk player.

Of course most don't spend $10k, thats an obscene amount of money, but what about $1k-$3k? That will still get you a solid surround-sound solution that many people will be more than satisfied with. With SACD it allows you to enjoy your music in the same way you enjoy movies.

Would a true audiophille settle for PS3 for playback?
One with multiple hobbies and not a lot of cash. Its possible to be an audiophile without having to buy the super-expensive technology as soon as it is released. I know I have wanted SACD for a while, but the library (IMO) just isn't there and buying a standalone player just for that doesn't fit into my slim budget at this point.

[Savok]

My setup cost about $3kUS, not that much really and it's damn nice... except the amp, man I hate that amp.

[Babbster]

I know I have wanted SACD for a while, but the library (IMO) just isn't there and buying a standalone player just for that doesn't fit into my slim budget at this point.

There are players out there - clearly not the highest end - that will do DVD/MP3/CD/SACD/DVD-A for less than $150. One example is the Pioneer DV588AS (hit google for those "rock-bottom prices" :)) which also does WMA and DivX. Again, this isn't going to be top of the line (with things like multiple high-resolution audio DACs), but it's sure a good starting point in terms of opening up the ole options.

I was considering picking one of these up a few months ago but it's hard to make that call when there are two HDTVs in the house and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are "right around the corner." Presumably, somebody is going to be marketing multiformat devices that include at least one of the HD formats and that will probably be a better deal for me.

After the debacle that was the [pitiful] quality of PS2 and, to a lesser extent, Xbox movie playback (though PS2 did improve after firmware upgrades - really sucky for a consumer electronics company AND for a console), I have no intention of relying on a console for movie playback , no matter what optical drives they have inside.

[normyk]

Stupid question:
All of the SACD players I have seen so far (and I'm not saying I've seen every player out there) require you to use the 5.1 discrete out to get SACD (don't recall what you get if you go with optical but the SACD decoder outputs discrete). Will the PS3 have discrete audio out? If so how many channels? I'd love to see the PS3 support 7.1 dts along with blu-ray dvds.

On a side note, wasn't this in the original spec for the PS3? I've been excited about it for a while and was disappointed that the 360 didn't have it. I can't believe I just imagined it.

[MosBen]

I slogged through all the comments and nothing I've read has lead me to believe there's any reason for me to be interested in SACD, at least not for a long time. A good 5.1 mix would be cool, if I had 5.1 speakers that is, but otherwise my music sounds pretty good to me. Unless someone can tell me that the difference is going to be like going from VHS to DVD or SDTV to HDTV, I'm just not interested.

[themulf]

My dad is a huge music collector, thousands of records and CD's, so I gues you could call him part of the nich market. When he first got it I made fun of him, mostly because he already has thousands of cd's. But it does sound awsome on his bose sound system. This is probaly a cheap and easy feature to add, and couldnt hurt to push peoples low standards up a tad. I havnt tryed to rip one to see how it would sound as a mp3/ogg/shorten/wav, as I rather listen to it on an mp3 player.

[Orz]

This surely will be the greatest video game console feature since the Sega CD and TG-16 supported the legendary, venerable CD+G format.

[51|RandoM]

Irrelevant. Nice free add on but then again CD quality and a decent rate for my MP3's is good enough for me :)

I agree with Perigon that physical formats are old news. Digital is the mainstream and i can't see that ever changing.

Digital distribution isn't even close to mainstream, sorry. Growing quickly? Yes, Mainstream? No. :)

[Scull]

Can someone who has experience with SACD and DVD-Audio make a comparison for us? I'm interested in hearing who prefers what format, and why.

I'm surprised (then again, not really) that the recording industry hasn't tried harder to push SACD and DVD-Audio into the mainstream, now that CD piracy is so rampant. Both formats have copy protection, unlike most CDs; and, both SACD and DVD-Audio files are pretty large, making piracy more difficult for those with slower connections.

I'm all for better audio. Give us the 5.1+ tracks. Bring on the enhanced discs that have music videos and promo material. I will gladly buy the Pink Floyd box set (again) if it comes in 5.1 audio, with concert videos, photos, and more. But instead of using innovative technology to provide us with the content we want, the record companies are spending their time and resources suing people while wondering why so many people are downloading the latest Coldplay album off the Interweb.

As for SACD in PS3, I think it's a smart idea. In the end, they're increasing their SACD player base, and that could lead to more disc sales.

SACD and DVD-A are pretty similar in sound quality, unless you are listening to them on a mid-range system or better, then I have to give the nod to SACD. Both of the formats support 5.1 audio, which is really nice, but SACD has a better sampling rate than DVD-A, however the average listener will never notice, while the audiophile set will be happier with SACD.

[Scull]

My dad is a huge music collector, thousands of records and CD's, so I gues you could call him part of the nich market. When he first got it I made fun of him, mostly because he already has thousands of cd's. But it does sound awsome on his bose sound system. This is probaly a cheap and easy feature to add, and couldnt hurt to push peoples low standards up a tad. I havnt tryed to rip one to see how it would sound as a mp3/ogg/shorten/wav, as I rather listen to it on an mp3 player.

You can't rip it. That's part of the appeal of the SACD format. You need a player and decoder specifically for playback, and Sony/Phillips isn't likely to liscense the technology to SACD-ROM makers, so it isn't likely to make its way into the PC anytime soon.

[Savok]

You can rip the hybrids though.

[mister_slim]

You can't rip it. That's part of the appeal of the SACD format. You need a player and decoder specifically for playback, and Sony/Phillips isn't likely to liscense the technology to SACD-ROM makers, so it isn't likely to make its way into the PC anytime soon.
That's my primary problem with the format. I have some nice headphones and alright speakers, but I'm no longer interested in hauling disks around. Actually, almost all of my cds are in Maine right now.

Also, the quality of audio is really not a concern to most of the market. Most people are using a cheap boombox or car stereo to listened to overcompressed crap on the radio, and these people are not going to notice the difference. Half of pop music sounds horrible on a nice system because it's mixed for shoddy equipment.

[chechenepiphany]

SACD and DVD-A are pretty similar in sound quality, unless you are listening to them on a mid-range system or better, then I have to give the nod to SACD. Both of the formats support 5.1 audio, which is really nice, but SACD has a better sampling rate than DVD-A, however the average listener will never notice, while the audiophile set will be happier with SACD.
Are you joking? Similar? I think not. SACD's have a 7 digit sampling rate. DVD A is something like 92,000. DVD A has barely twice the integrity of a CD, while SACD is about 60 times more dense. And who's to say an integrated SACD function won't bring better sound to the console in games, too? And by the way, I have a very nice SACD setup that checks in at under 800USD.

[Hewie]

Shit, I rock my vinyl more than cd/mp3s.

[Tyrant]

And who's to say an integrated SACD function won't bring better sound to the console in games, too?

???
How about the guy who figures none of the next generation games won't be stored on some bizarre SA/VCD dealie?

If I'm not making sense, that's ok, because I'm having trouble figuring the logic behind what you just said.

[Savok]

Half of pop music sounds horrible on a nice system because it's mixed for shoddy equipment.
That's why intelligent people don't listen to pop music.

And Tyrant, I think he means that if Sony is going have audio output worthy of SACD, then there's no sort of bottleneck to awesome audio, sky's the limit.

[Darkman]

You know adding SACD onto the PS3 is pretty much a no brainer for Sony. Its not that difficult to do, and it expands the base of machines that can actually play back their SACD's.

As far as people not being able to tell the difference, I think that is sometimes true. Not all people's hearing is the same, nor is everyone's musical interests the same. So someone who thinks that mp3's are just awesome sounding and can't tell the difference well thats great for them. But there are other people that think mp3's sound awful under any condition. Personal preference.

From a personal note, when I was younger I never bought VHS tapes because I always thought they looked horrible, instead I saved a bit more money and had Laserdics. You remeber those? People said that movies on a disc would never sell, and it was a passing fad. If it wasn't for Laserdisc's we might not have DVD's today. So the same with SACD. Maybe it won't catch on and be hughly succesful but it might lead to a new High bit-rate decoder for digitial media, instead of the loosey compression we have today with mp3.

[mister_slim]

That's why intelligent people don't listen to pop music.

Are you denigrating my intelligence?

[Savok]

Only if you listen to pop music. And by listen I don't mean hear, we all have to put up with dreaful ads and media amounting to aural poison.