Do I have time to research more titles to add to my SACD collection? Or are titles being discontinued quickly? If they do discontinue SACD, that would mean no more studio-recorded music in surround sound! If this is the case, it would be a real shame after thousands of dollars many of us have spent on just equipment alone specificly for SACD playback! Also, with the ease of HDMI 1.2A and higher, you'd think the industry might reconsider the decision to do away with this format. P.S. I can hardly find anything that interests me on DVD-A!

It depends on what music you like. If classical, you're likely OK as there seems to be a lot of new classical releases still coming out on SACD. Check out the recent additions at http://www.sa-cd.net/recent & you'll see it's mostly classical.

Mobile Fidelity (MoFi) also seems to be regularly putting out new SACDs - lots of Classic Rock type stuff - while very well recorded they're also pricey and many are 2 channel.

Lots of stuff is already out of print in SACD so if you're into Dylan or the Stones you should likely hustle and find what you can now. www.sa-cd.net will give you a good idea what's out there and when you drill down to the album gives you a pricing cross section which is a good indicator of what's tough to find & what's relatively plentiful still...

My guess is delaying will likely cost you more later on a lot of SACDs...

My advice....

When and if you see a SACD you like to own, get it because it is most likely the only pressing they'll ever make.

My advice....

When and if you see a SACD you like to own, get it because it is most likely the only pressing they'll ever make.

Yup! Unless you want to pay premium price for a copy.

Slightly OT but the advice applies to DVD-A also. I bought ELP's Brain Salad Surgery from Amazon for about $20. I see now a vendor has it on ebay for $116!

I guess the short answer to this question is yes. How soon? Nobody know for sure. There's not a whole lot of new titles being released except for classical music but I don't think one genre can keep the format afloat much longer. Add the huge capacity of Blu-ray and its ability to play lossless audio to the equation and SACD will not stand a chance of suviving.

I forget the title, but Amazon sells a BD/SACD music two-disc set of a string orchestra. I don't know what kind of playback equipment he/she used, but a reviewer claims that the BD edition sounds better. Also, it seems as though unlike SACD and DVD-AUDIO requiring a special player, the hi-res stream will play in any BD player. If all this is true, then I wish all the studios would get a move-on and start converting the studio masters to 7.1 hi-res remixes! Currently, PCM, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Digital TrueHD, and DTSHD Master Audio are the types of audio streams found on Blu-ray discs. What if they up the sampling rate of DSD to a rate that would fill an entire Blu-ray disc? Because of DSD's high-quality sonic nature, could that blow every type of digital audio stream way out of the water? Just a thought.

The Blu-Ray in question is Divertimenti from the 2L label. It is exceptional, and comes with a companion SACD in the package. You can make your own comparisons.

Lee

..What if they up the sampling rate of DSD to a rate that would fill an entire Blu-ray disc? Because of DSD's high-quality sonic nature, could that blow every type of digital audio stream way out of the water? Just a thought.

It is difficult to see how a DSD version no matter what the bitrate, could sound better than a properly engineered lossless audio version of a recording, where TrueHD, DTS HD Master or PCM. Assuming the original mixed down tracks were 24/96 or 24/192 from the multitrack masters, then that same audio stream would be encoded to the disc for consumer playback. Re-encoding to DSD increases one level of conversion and potential subsequent audio artifacts.

I am not aware of any recording studio (I could be wrong) that actually records natively in DSD.

I am not aware of any recording studio (I could be wrong) that actually records natively in DSD.

Not sure if I am understanding the above statement....how else do we get direct-to-DSD recordings on SACD?

It is difficult to see how a DSD version no matter what the bitrate, could sound better than a properly engineered lossless audio version of a recording, where TrueHD, DTS HD Master or PCM. Assuming the original mixed down tracks were 24/96 or 24/192 from the multitrack masters, then that same audio stream would be encoded to the disc for consumer playback. Re-encoding to DSD increases one level of conversion and potential subsequent audio artifacts.

I am not aware of any recording studio (I could be wrong) that actually records natively in DSD.

I agree with what you said that if the original source was recorded at PCM 192 24 or PCM 96 24, it wouldn't do any good to record it at a higher sampling rate or in a different format. However, what about recordings whose studio masters are on multi-track analog tape? Wouldn't the sonic quality of analog-to-DSD conversions of those recordings top all other forms of analog-to-digital conversion if the DSD format has been enhanced to the point where it fills an entire Blu-ray disc?

Not sure if I am understanding the above statement....how else do we get direct-to-DSD recordings on SACD?

I said I could be wrong. So there are studios that have equipment that records natively in DSD versus PCM which is more usual?

Even so I would guess the bulk of existing digital recordings out there are multichannel PCM so it would make sense to release them in the same format?

I agree with what you said that if the original source was recorded at 192 or 96 KHz, 24 bit, it wouldn't do any good to record it at a higher sampling rate or in a different format. However, what about recordings whose studio masters are on multi-track analog tape? Wouldn't the sonic quality of analog-to-DSD conversions of those recordings top all other forms of analog-to-digital conversion if the DSD format has been enhanced to the point where it fills an entire Blu-ray disc?

Then we get into the realm of whether not standard digital sampling techniques currently in use are inferior to the 1 bit DSD sampling techniques. This is way out of my area of knowledge and it seems that the jury is out on that anyway.

A quick check on wikipedia reveals links to a bunch of highly technical papers arguing for and against the merits of the 1 bit DSD digitization method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

I have no idea - I just listen to the audio and enjoy, irrespective of the internal format so I enjoy SACD, DVD-A, Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD Master

I agree with what you said that if the original source was recorded at 192 or 96 KHz, 24 bit, it wouldn't do any good to record it at a higher sampling rate or in a different format. However, what about recordings whose studio masters are on multi-track analog tape? Wouldn't the sonic quality of analog-to-DSD conversions of those recordings top all other forms of analog-to-digital conversion if the DSD format has been enhanced to the point where it fills an entire Blu-ray disc?

An entire disc? That would be excessive for sure. It would certainly be nice to have DSD 128 since from what I understand it was the original inception of DSD. They ended up going with DSD 64 so they could fit stereo and multichannel on one disc, so it was a compromise. Going to DSD 128 would eliminate the need to start attenuating frequencies above 50khz and it would allow a full 120 dB of dynamic range out to 40khz instead of 20khz with DSD 64. These are only theoretical benefits - I'm not sure they would even be audible.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer DXD or 352.8khz/24bit PCM because it's easier to edit with and the sampling rate is so high that no filtering is needed to attenuate frequencies above the Nyquist limit. Again, I'm not sure though if this has any audible benefit, and 352.8khz converted to 176.4khz or 192khz has been reported to be transparent.

An entire disc? That would be excessive for sure. It would certainly be nice to have DSD 128 since from what I understand it was the original inception of DSD. They ended up going with DSD 64 so they could fit stereo and multichannel on one disc, so it was a compromise. Going to DSD 128 would eliminate the need to start attenuating frequencies above 50khz and it would allow a full 120 dB of dynamic range out to 40khz instead of 20khz with DSD 64. These are only theoretical benefits - I'm not sure they would even be audible.

If it were up to me, I'd prefer DXD or 352.8khz/24bit PCM because it's easier to edit with and the sampling rate is so high that no filtering is needed to attenuate frequencies above the Nyquist limit. Again, I'm not sure though if this has any audible benefit, and 352.8khz converted to 176.4khz or 192khz has been reported to be transparent.

However, now with Blu-ray discs, wouldn't DSD128 be possible? Also, it is true that the human ear will more than likely not pick up those higher frequencies, but couldn't having playback equipment capable of reproducing those frequencies result in reproducing the natural overtones that we can hear?

However, now with Blu-ray discs, wouldn't DSD128 be possible?

Yes, there is plenty of room for it. There is even plenty of room for DSD 256 or 352.8khz/24bit PCM.

Also, it is true that the human ear will more than likely not pick up those higher frequencies, but couldn't having playback equipment capable of reproducing those frequencies result in reproducing the natural overtones that we can hear?

It's unlikely any speakers can reproduce much above about 40-50khz, so I don't know.

Yes, there is plenty of room for it. There is even plenty of room for DSD 256 or 352.8khz/24bit PCM.



It's unlikely any speakers can reproduce much above about 40-50khz, so I don't know.

I wasn't sure how much higher a DSD or PCM sampling rate would fit on a Blu-ray disc. That's beyond my expectations! Even if the speakers might not reproduce such frequencies, I don't think it would hurt anything to have the potential. Of course, now that the subject of higher sampling rates came up, I might delay my spring 2010 Blu-ray upgrade until we are sure the industry doesn't decide to add higher-sampling hardware and discs with higher-sampled audio on them. If there is one thing I hate, it's spending thousands of dollars, only to find out a new format is coming out even just a month after my huge investment!

Of course, now that the subject of higher sampling rates came up, I might delay my spring 2010 Blu-ray upgrade until we are sure the industry doesn't decide to add higher-sampling hardware and discs with higher-sampled audio on them. If there is one thing I hate, it's spending thousands of dollars, only to find out a new format is coming out even just a month after my huge investment!

Same here. I'm still using Panny BD-10.:(

I guess the short answer to this question is yes. How soon? Nobody know for sure. There's not a whole lot of new titles being released except for classical music but I don't think one genre can keep the format afloat much longer. Add the huge capacity of Blu-ray and its ability to play lossless audio to the equation and SACD will not stand a chance of suviving.

Blu-ray will not affect what is left of the SACD market much (classical) where the audience doesn't really care about the video part of music (except for opera buffs). Multi-channel FLAC downloads from the internet will make a good replacement for those who listen to classical music once there are mainstream, network capable receivers that can process it.

I wasn't sure how much higher a DSD or PCM sampling rate would fit on a Blu-ray disc. That's beyond my expectations! Even if the speakers might not reproduce such frequencies, I don't think it would hurt anything to have the potential. Of course, now that the subject of higher sampling rates came up, I might delay my spring 2010 Blu-ray upgrade until we are sure the industry doesn't decide to add higher-sampling hardware and discs with higher-sampled audio on them. If there is one thing I hate, it's spending thousands of dollars, only to find out a new format is coming out even just a month after my huge investment!

My dog is anxiously awaiting DSD or LPCM that can handle 40 to 50 khz! Woof! :rolleyes: While we are at it, how about TVs that go beyond the visible spectrum (in case I decide to watch things in infrared or something). We could call that heat vision, or how about ultraviolet too! wouldn't that be something!

Same here. I'm still using Panny BD-10.:(

I was thinking about beginning the Blu-ray journey during the spring of 2010, but after all this talk about possibilities, I have no target date to go BD until I'm sure the industry has reached a slowdown point as far as coming out with new formats which require special DAC hardware. Right now, I'll be happy that I have the most up-to-date hi-end SD equipment and collection.

I wasn't sure how much higher a DSD or PCM sampling rate would fit on a Blu-ray disc. That's beyond my expectations! Even if the speakers might not reproduce such frequencies, I don't think it would hurt anything to have the potential. Of course, now that the subject of higher sampling rates came up, I might delay my spring 2010 Blu-ray upgrade until we are sure the industry doesn't decide to add higher-sampling hardware and discs with higher-sampled audio on them.

I would say that is extremely unlikely to say the least, so I would not worry. 192khz/24bit is almost certainly going to be as high blu-ray audio will ever get.

Also, being that no equipment can even reproduce anything beyond 176.4khz/20bit, there is really no need for anything higher for a final delivery format.

Also, being that no equipment can even reproduce anything beyond 176.4khz/20bit, there is really no need for anything higher for a final delivery format.

And if you factor in the limits of human hearing that's much more than you will ever need.

176.4kHz is about three times more than you'll ever need. You only need to cover the upper limits of human hearing and leave some room for filtering. Excessive sample rates serve no purpose.

And 20bits cover the dynamic range (up to the threshold of pain) of the human ear in a completely silent environment.
But you'll obviously never need 120dB of dynamic range (or SNR) in a normal environment. 16 bits (for playback) is more than enough in all but a few extreme circumstances (like if your listening room is an anechoic chamber :)).

There are far more important factors than format when it comes to sound quality.

I said I could be wrong. So there are studios that have equipment that records natively in DSD versus PCM which is more usual?

Even so I would guess the bulk of existing digital recordings out there are multichannel PCM so it would make sense to release them in the same format?

According to wikipedia I think the answer is yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital
"Some professional audio recorders can record in DSD format. Transferring this signal to a recordable DVD disc with the appropriate tools will render a DSD Disc. Such discs can be played on certain PCs (this may require a DSD plug-in) and on PlayStation 3. Moreover, Sony has released a new SACD-player (autumn 2008), the SCD-XA5400ES, which supports the DSD-disc format. Only so-called DSF format is supported. DSF is a stereo-only, simplified form of DFF, the format used for SACD mastering and 5.1-channel downloads."

Also http://www.korg.com/product.aspx?pd=289

It doesn't explain how come this is in the real world though...

My understanding that the ability to play DSD discs on a PC is pretty rare since while the discs are DVD based, they are encoded in a manner that a regular DVD drive cannot read. It can only read the red book CD layer. This was to discourage pirating.

I can play SACD's on either my PS3 or in a DVD-A/SACD player.

As for how they are made, well they can be made from any source, digital (DSD or PCM) or analogue - it's the final mastering process that creates the DSD title

My understanding that the ability to play DSD discs on a PC is pretty rare since while the discs are DVD based, they are encoded in a manner that a regular DVD drive cannot read. It can only read the red book CD layer. This was to discourage pirating.

I can play SACD's on either my PS3 or in a DVD-A/SACD player.

As for how they are made, well they can be made from any source, digital (DSD or PCM) or analogue - it's the final mastering process that creates the DSD title

I think you've missed the point. It's questionable if there's any advantage encoding a disc to some sort of super DSD if your source is PCM 192khz/24bit or whatever. You might as well just encode to PCM 192khz/24bit. (Personally I question whether you even need 192khz but anyway I digress)

Sorry edit seems to be broken

Also wanted to say... In other words ignoring for a minute the argument about whether DSD is better then PCM, if it is, you're not actually going to gain anything when your source is PCM unless perhaps you do very extensive processing (although even then...).

I remember reading about this years ago so I decided to dig up the article

SACD II (http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=19363192)
Does anyone else remember this ? Note the date at the bottom of the article

I think you've missed the point. It's questionable if there's any advantage encoding a disc to some sort of super DSD if your source is PCM 192khz/24bit or whatever. You might as well just encode to PCM 192khz/24bit. (Personally I question whether you even need 192khz but anyway I digress)


I think you misread what I said. The point I was making was, if the original source is PCM then there is little point (apart from commercial drivers) to issue a title in DSD. But of course technical matters often take second place to commercial considerations and Sony, the developer/supporter of SACD wouldn't release their catalogue as DVD-A.

Now if the original recording is on a DSD based system, it could make sense to issue the title as a SACD to avoid one more layer of conversion.

For analogue sources, I would say the jury is out. Is the 48/96/192Khz sampling 24 bit PCM methodology and the resultant brickwall filtering required better or worse than than umpteen times oversampling that DSD uses and therefore less severe filtering process?

Don't know, don't care. Just wish there were more MCH releases, irrespective of the format

I remember reading about this years ago so I decided to dig up the article

SACD II (http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=19363192)
Does anyone else remember this ? Note the date at the bottom of the article

Video content on SACD is available on certain titles....such as Ray Charles' "Genuius Loves Company"

And if you factor in the limits of human hearing that's much more than you will ever need.

Theoretically 176.4khz/20bit takes us beyond what any equipment can reproduce, which is where I was coming from. 88.2khz doesn't quite do it because there are speakers with frequency responses up to 50khz and little above. 16 bits doesn't quite do it either as a lot of equipment can do a little more than 16 bits but almost always less than 20.

There are far more important factors than format when it comes to sound quality.

Definitely.