Super Audio CDs Rolling Your Way 505
donutello writes "Slate is running an article about the Rolling Stones Remastered series discs having two layers: CD and SACD. The article contains some interesting information about how Sony is sneakily distributing SACD players without the buyers noticing it. This FAQ provides some information about SACDs. Don't expect to be able to play or reproduce these on your computer anytime soon. The SACD format contains a physical watermark on the disc. SACD players will only play discs with valid watermarks. Music watermarks had two opponents: The audiophiles who didn't like their music distorted and people who didn't like the watermarks preventing copying of the music. With the physical watermarks, they have found a way to appease the former while still stopping the latter thus causing a break in the ranks of the opposition."
i dont hear any screams... (Score:2, Interesting)
sorry but cd's work jsut fine and i dont see this catching on as a replacement for old cd's
Re:i dont hear any screams... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i dont hear any screams... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony has a low-end SACD 5-disc changer for something like $150, if you don't need an on-board decoder (i.e., you have a receiver that has 5.1 inputs).
DVD-A has the supreme advantage of sounding better than CD even if you don't have a DVD-A player. Every DVD-A I've bought will play (if not the full 96kHz/192kHz tracks) in a regular DVD-ROM device.
Re:i dont hear any screams... (Score:2, Informative)
Many people now own 5.1 speaker systems for home theatre or computer games and would like more than stereo sound. Also, the quantization noise of the Redbook standard is audible on a good stereo and audiophiles have been pushing for higher-resolution digital recordings for years. A quick search of Stereophile [stereophile.com] gives about 100 articles hosted on that site alone. Whatever you think about audiophiles (and some of their beliefs are rather dubious to say the least), they represent a significant group of wealthy people who are willing to spend a lot of money on music.
Innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Innovation (Score:2)
Re:Innovation (Score:2)
Making Blu-Ray players might be a problem if nobody makes any Blu-Ray-ROM drives. Have you ever opened up a cheap DVD player? The cheap ones have IDE drives inside.
Mac Hall attacks! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mac Hall attacks! (Score:2)
oh yeah? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they make drivers that prevent that, then the
Sony = Lick me where I pee. (Score:2, Informative)
Celine be damned, the software that comes with the new Sony PCs, and their mp3 'solution' on the the minidisk player. ect, ect. Whatever. I haven't been buying Sony's overpriced crap-tronics, or their over-hyped and under-talented CDs and I won't be in the future.
The giant will never fall unless *everyone* throws stones.
Independent recording? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Independent recording? (Score:5, Informative)
Keep your unimpaired CD players, people.
Re:Independent recording? (Score:2)
Most people who have access to SACD players probably have what it needs to play almost all of the above formats anyways.
If your contents are good, they won't care.
Get a grip (Score:3, Interesting)
"Anti-counterfeiting Amendments of 2002 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit trafficking in an "illicit authentication feature." Defines that term to mean an authentication feature that: (1) without the authorization of the respective copyright owner, has been tampered with or altered so as to facilitate the reproduction or distribution of a phono-record, a copy of a computer program, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging, in violation of the rights of the copyright owner; (2) is genuine, but has been distributed, or is intended for distribution, without the authorization of the respective copyright owner; or (3) appears to be genuine but is not."
That is a piece of crap legislation but it does NOT prevent anyone from independently producing information in any format they desire and and distributing it by any method they wish. Noone has even attempted to suggest that this could be prevented because it would be such a clear and undeniable violation of the First Amendment. Okay, Some will say yeah, but they'll use this to make non-protected formats illegal. Not according to the language of that bill: They still can't make Ogg, say, illegal: just tools designed to strip DRM-processed files to open formats, or distributing copyrighted files that have been stripped of their DRM information.
And this is the other side of the coin. Just as any artist has the right to release their information any way they want (due to free speech and their copyrights on original works), the publishing giants have the right to release their garbage in any screwed up format they want - and the idea that the constitution in any way shape or form gives you some "fair use" right to do anything you want with that information may be the way it "should" be but it ain't the way it IS. If you read the fair use provisions in copyright law (I wonder how many
By all means, fight the power, yeah yeah yeah - watch how you vote, write a letter to your reps. You might even consider unclenching that "omigod if I don't vote for corporate-sponsored candidate X the horror of candidate Y, that ultraliberal tax-n-spend gun-hating tree-hugging/super-conservative religious right corporate-pandering gun-crazy wacko (choose one) in office" knee jerk reaction. You might even ask yourself how likely it is that their are only two possible approaches to solving the world's problems - and that the "side" you have picked of the two options you've been given is the one right, true, correct side, and all them other dips is just crazy stupid deluded fools with no sense. You might wonder what would happen if a whole lot of us started voting for people who don't get their political positions by constantly begging corporations and wealthy individuals for support.
But remember their is another (not mutually exclusive) alternative, which is simply to not support the publishing industry's products and to instead seek out artists that do not artificially impair the versatility of their product or encumber it with information and costly extra production steps that have no other purpose than to remind you that they think of you as a thief first, a customer second.
Think about it.
Re:Independent recording? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right. You will be able to create the work. But how will get it to listeners? If most of the players out there will only play licensed formats?
Imagine if today you were only able to disribute your work on 78RPM vinyl records? Who would take them?
It's not at all clear that new devices will remain compatible with old formats, because any device that can play unlicenced works, can play pirated works (I can record the sound coming from the speaker, with some loss of quality).
So, you can imagine a future where you are not even allowed to own a recording device (this happened in the past - you could not own a copy machine in the Soviet Union).
Re:Independent recording? (Score:2)
That being said, the quality of the standard CD format is more than enough for home recording, I would think.
CDs have license fees already (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, right now the SACD recording process is probably pretty expensive, and there are only 2 machines in the world that can stamp out the hybrid SACD/CD discs, but it won't stay that way. Sony and Phillips must make it cheap to produce SACDs or else it will go the way of mini-disks.
Frankly, I think this is the "right" way for Sony to try and improve security on the music. Its not a law. Its not a digital water mark or cactus crap that reduces the music fidelity. The format offers something extra, but doesn't allow you to copy it. I don't see any difference between this and DVD-pre-deCSS. All the people who buy DVDs but don't copy them will see this as pretty much the same kind of thing. Yes, we won't have the technological means to make a our fair use backup, but I can't backup my LP's either.
If the artists get together and quit the record labels, cutting out the middle men, and start selling ogg vorbis tracks, well that would be really cool, but if the record companies are going to control music distribution, then they might as well give us better sound. I don't see technological measures to stop fair use as being more morally wrong than file sharing.
Re:Could Be (Score:3, Informative)
What's changed over the years is that people have been able to cheaply and easily produce in higher quality formats. Instead of accepting my friend's band will only ever release on tape, I know they'll be able to cut CDs to demo, and produce a whole album, probably with a better recording studio than was available 20 years ago (for any money - and that studio can now be built cheap, apart from the physical environment) at a price so cheap they can sell CDs at their gigs for NZD$10 a pop.
That's very empowering for the artists, just as the existence of cheaps CGI has allowed small moviemakers to make an indie film (like The Irrefutable Truth About Demons [imdb.com]) that isn't another Go Fish [imdb.com] or Clerks.
Combine that with a ability to easily and cheaply distribute high quality information (compared to traditional distribution mechanisms) and you've got a real threat to the existing regime - because the likes of Sony Entertainment and 20th Century Fox are big because they have distribution networks stitched up, and get a slice of every pie. Even if you're independent, if you want your art to be available to anyone other than a small slice of the potenetial audience, you'll have to deal with the distribution arm and fork over your money.
Forget piracy - what scares MPAA and RIAA members is that their cosy little oligopily is threatened by the potential for the re-emergence of the old small-to-medium studios like Elektra who could eat their lunch. And that, incidentally is why all the laws this mob lobby for specify minimum damages for IP theft - if I (or they) steal the IP of a small indie, you can't claim squat. If I steal a copy of crap bands or the Season 7 Buffy, I get hammered.
Don't worry! (Score:3, Funny)
Stop fair use! Innovate!.
Re:Don't worry! (Score:2)
Now you all know why I've said that Sony is more evil than MS. Nobody ever believes me. Sony is downright RUTHLESS. MS is just arrogant. It's kinda like comparing Khan and Dr. Evil.
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Funny)
Sony is evil.... OOOH PS3!! SHINY!!!! MUST BUY!!!!
Do we really have the right to stop buying...? (Score:3, Interesting)
The music industry is an oligopoly. A handful of players control the market. I'm not really concerned about Sony's offering, per se. But if AOL/TimeWarner, et. al. start using the same technology, there isn't really much chance that "some other" company will come along and seize the opportunity, because there are no other companies.
Plus, if an artist is under Sony distribution, the only alternative means of distribution is P2P, which is under increasing attack both legal and technological, from the RIAA.
This ain't a free market, boyo.
two-layer media (Score:3, Interesting)
My undestanding of SACD is that it does not have a watermark but rather some encoding scheme which prevents it from being decoded. This is DVD-A which has a watermark.
Both formats may be marginally better than CD (there are mix opinions on this matter). Seems like that the properly mastered CD sounds just fine. Rolling Stones recordings certainly need new remastering, incidently I got rid of my CD Rolling Stones because coudln't stand the sound ('brittle highs'), but once again, that was not a CD limitation per se, but very bad mastering. Even so, I'm not going to jump into the SACD bandwagon because both SACD and DVD-A are mostly a gimmick and its real purpose is to introduce a built-in copy protection you can't defeat.
Re:two-layer media (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the crap that's pumped out of the music industry is recorded like the shite it is, mixed and mastered with the care it truly deserves (ie. none), and pressed onto cheap-ass CDs with aluminum so thin that it has peephole throughout.
SACD is just a complete waste of potential quality on crap like that. There's absolutely no reason to press Britnay Bimbo Spears to the SACD format. It will make no quality difference whatsoever. It's like feeding a fine filet mignon to pigs.
The only reason to use SACD for such crap is the anti-piracy measures. Which, as we all know, will probably be enough to thwart your average teeniebopper. Won't do S.F.A. against the big-time, big-money pirates in Asia, LA, NY, etc.: they'll simply grab pure digital audio direct of the bus of some hacked-up player, and rip that to press.
My only question is this: why are the media conglomerates so focused on the little fish, and ignoring the big fish? What are they gaining by inconvienencing Joe Noone?
SONY, LAWMAKERS: THINK!!! (Score:5, Funny)
sure you can't go digital to digital, but a couple good 24/96 digital to analog converters will make your copy sound nearly exact (if not completely exact)... if *1* person has the technology to copy the sound professionally (with no loss) into a digital medium, then everyone might as well have it, because the second that 1 person distributes the file, it is out there for everyone. (this includes they guy that works at the cd press shop and has access to the masters)
YOU CAN'T COPY-PROTECT MUSIC.
YOU CAN'T COPY-PROTECT VIDEO.
YOU CAN'T COPY-PROTECT CowboyNeal
Re:SONY, LAWMAKERS: THINK!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah yes... but if your SACD player doesn't play anything but original SACD's (no SACD-R), then you won't be able to play your copy as an SACD. Sure, you'll be able to burn it to CD... but you won't want that "harsh" CD sound any more, you will be hooked on SACD.
I'm not saying it will work, but that's the plan.
-Renard
Sure, you can... (Score:4, Funny)
Cut his balls off.
This would be analogous to a "digital" copy protection scheme, as if they cloned him, with the current state of biotech, they'd end up with an inferior, short-lived copy, AFTER 80 failed attempts to get anything to live in the first place.
Of course, his +5 Geekfield probably also has a side effect of repelling all nubile females, so you probably don't have to worry anyway. Though Cmd Taco overcame this limitation...
(No ill will truly meant towards Cowboy Neal, it was a joke that had to be made.)
Agreed... more so, your point's allready proved (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that most mp3s found are in 128kb, a bit rate that quite frankly is *not* CD quality and not as good as the orginal, already puts the lie to the "perfect copy" myth. (that is to say pirates can get perfect copies of the orginal)
Not to drag the DMCA into this, but this is one of the most distressing things about its anti copyright circumvention clauses. Those who pirate rarely, if ever, copy a media perfectly. (Anyone who's seen an internet movie can atest to that.) They don't need to so long as their copy is "good enough".
In practice the only thing the DMCA clause amounts to is a soap box for the RIAA and the MPAA to stand on.
SACD, mp3, and more (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of buying something to listen to on your iPod, or in your car, or on your computer that is SACD makes no sense. You're going to have hardware that is holding you back far more than the qualify of the medium. Unless you're listening on a computer with a really nice DAC and some Grado RS1 headphones, you can probably stick to CD audio or mp3's and notice not much difference. However, if you are listening on a real stereo with decent speakers, then listening to a well made SACD compared to a CD will blow you away.
If I want to make a backup copy of my music, I can buy a copy on CD since I'm not going to be able to make a copy of a SACD myself anytime soon. To me, the compromise of incredibly high quality sound, that does beat the high end vinyl I've listened to, and having copy protection that doesn't interfere with that sound quality is a tradeoff I'm alright with. If you're mad over not being able to rip them for mp3's, then you should just buy the CD.
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:2, Interesting)
If I want to make a backup copy of my music, I can buy a copy on CD since I'm not going to be able to make a copy of a SACD myself anytime soon.
SACDs supposedly play in regular CD players as a regular CD, and are only 'fully featured' in SACD players.
How long will it be I wonder before you can't buy a 'regular' CD?
If the only way to purchase a digital copy (can you even buy cassettes any more?) of an artist's work is on SACD, and to most consumers it's the same difference, I would venture not long.
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:2)
The other thing is, the SACD player won't play non-watermarked CDs? So if I want to play music by my friend Dave [ampcast.com], I can't? To hell with that. Why would I buy such a restrictive player, when everything else on the market says "plays CDR & MP3!"
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:5, Informative)
Ripping (Score:2)
Another good (technical) play by Sony.
But, who are we really kidding? Someone will find a way to copy them before too long.
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to make a backup copy of my music, I can buy a copy on CD since I'm not going to be able to make a copy of a SACD myself anytime soon.
Ya know, I though that same thing too.... initially. See, the problem is what happens when the day arrives that the only format available in drives and media is SACD? Can't make archival exact copies of your own media. Can't get a replacement for the disc if gets scratched. So much for Fair Use.
And that's my problem with it. Call me kooky but I'm wary of companies that try the "Oooh.. look over there, SHINY!" distraction tactic while they take away my money/rights/stuff. Sony has lots of practice in that particular area.
Amoeba
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you caught on to what I'm saying.
The point that was made is what happens if SACD becomes the only format available. What if you still care about your fair use rights?
My point is that people will turn to illegal copies. And once they begin to do that on a regular basis - once the illegal copy is providing them something they want that the legitimate product can not... those same people will no longer bother buying a legitimate copy.
The difference between that possible future and today is that todays media, the CD, is still a (more or less) fully capable product. It still tends to be of greater quality with the added bonus of a nice printed CD, cover, lyrics, artwork, etc. And again - if I buy a legitimate CD, I can still use it to make a copy for the car or burn MP3s for my home jukebox or portible player.
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? Until I see a few double blind ABX tests comparing a SACD with a CD mastered from the same source, I'm going to have to consider it all marketing. "Ooh! This format can store *four times* more sound than the human ear can discern, where a CD can just produce a little more than anyone can possibly hear!"
Bleah.
Audiophile BS (Score:5, Funny)
I came up with one for Sony's SACD:
"It felt like I had crawled into a warm and inviting sonic womb, where my fair use rights were gone."
Re:Audiophile BS (Score:3, Informative)
As I see it, the only way to effectively compare SACD with CD (let alone DVD Audio) is to take an analog master and convert it to digital for the three formats using today's latest technology, all from the same analog source deck, preferably without any subsequent equalization or other processing tricks. For all we know, some of these SACDs sound so great because somebody in the studio is twiddling a lot of knobs to sweeten their sound . .
Oh, and for the record, apparently not all SACD's sound so sweet, either. Just briefly checking Amazon.com for example, I found a couple of reviews of the SACD of Kind of Blue, the famous Miles Davis record, which suggested that the 1992 Sony remaster on plain vanilla CD sounded better (or at least as good). I'm sure there are probably other examples.
"2.8MHz sampling rate" (Score:2)
That's 2.8MHz at 1-bit precision. See, sound is encoded on a SACD kind of based on density. The greater the amplitude, the greater the density of the on bits. This way, the audio can be rudimentarily decoded by passing the 2.8MHz stream through a 22kHz (or 30kHz if you want to annoy your dog as well as your neighbors) or so low-pass filter. You can convert that 2.8MHz 1-bit stream into a 192kHz/24-bit stream, or a 96kHz/32-bit stream, or whatever you want, because the sound information is still there. I'm not sure exactly how they convert an analog stream into a 2.8MHz stream of 1-bit data, because I'm getting my information from the super audio CD official website. (...like they'd give away crucial information to their competitors before all the patents are approved...) I'm sure it's just an engineering problem.
Vinyl "Fidelity" (Score:5, Informative)
>a poor format. Crappy error-correction, only 16-bit precision
>(20 is optimal), and a relatively low sampling rate are all
>problems. Guess why audiophiles mostly listen to vinyl.
Amazing how much you can get wrong in three little sentences. CDs are a fantastic audio delivery format when compared to their predecessors. CD error protection is fairly bulletproof - witness the ability of most quality (and many cheap) players to track even severely scratched discs, while inaudibly correcting for any read errors the optics can't get past. Try doing that with a scratched analog LP or jammed tape. CD's 44.1 kHz sampling rate meanwhile is adequate to reproduce the full 20 Hz - 20 kHz range of human hearing, and then some (this article [columbia.edu] explains how the oddball 44.1 kHz became the standard).
As for "audiophiles", I don't know how you'd possibly go about defining an audiophile these days, now that many low end consumer multichannel receivers and surround speaker systems boast specs that demolish those possessed by high-end, $1000+ pieces of equipment just a decade ago. I do know there are plenty of self-identified audiophiles out there who won't touch vinyl with a 10 foot pole. Given the format's numerous limitations, I can't say I blame them:
* Loud tics and pops caused by stray dust and wear, resulting in a *negative* signal to noise ratio - i.e. the noise can become louder than the music! (with N'Stynk, I suppose this would be a blessing in disguise . . . or simply redundant.)
* Rumbling caused by the turntable's motor and the friction of the stylus as it passes through the groove
* Wow and flutter, caused by speed irregularities in the turntable's drive system and by any imperfections in the geometry of the disc
* Phase irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization and the subsequent need for the preamp to de-equalize the signal
* Frequency response irregularities caused by the RIAA equalization / de-equalization process
* The inability to reproduce loud bass accurately (the cutter making the wax master would pop out of its groove if it tried to reproduce the kind of bass CDs can handle effortlessly)
* The tendency for the turntable, platter and even the disc to function as microphones, picking up room reverberations and - particularly - the sound being produced by the speakers, smearing and distorting the audio in numerous ways
* Cartridge / tonearm misalignments, causing inaccurate stylus pickup, accelerated record wear, or both.
30dB of stereo separation, vs. CD's 70+dB of separation
* A theoretical maximum of 60dB of dynamic range for virgin vinyl of the highest quality (and only at certain frequencies - obviously, not in the low bass) vs. around 90dB of dynamic range from even the cheapest CD players, across the entire spectrum
* In practice, roughly 40dB of usable dynamic range across the majority of the spectrum
* A relatively flat frequency response from only around 60 Hz to 15 kHz, with severe rolloffs beyond those limits
* The need for mastering engineers to severely compress and re-equalize the signal in order to steer clear of the format's limitations relative to CD, which requires no such distortion-educing compensation
* Pitch and frequency errors caused by the speed difference between the cutter used to produce the wax master and your turntable
* The tendency of the media itself to wear out as its played, and to be damaged during routine handling with audible results
CDs are based on 25 year old technology now. Newer formats - such as DVD Audio - offer even more impressive specifications (and multichannel audio capabilities), but the difference between them and the Compact Disc is nothing like the quantum leap in fidelity the CD represents vs. the vinyl LP. Vinyl was obsolete for at least a decade before the CD rolled along, and it was probably only confusion in the marketplace regarding the various tape formats (the 8-track, Philips' compact cassette, open reel) that allowed it to survive as long as it did.
Re:Vinyl "Fidelity" (Score:5, Interesting)
>EVERY "vinyl is better" fanatic should read this.
Thanks! Glad you found it to be of some use.
Actually, I can think of several reasons for preferring the "sound" of vinyl, but none of them have to do with its superior *fidelity*:
* The dynamic range is compressed, sometimes pretty severely at certain frequencies. This can make it easier to hear certain soft details that might be obscure on a CD, particularly if your hearing isn't perfect (and most Americans have pretty poor hearing, due to all the loud noises we're exposed to during our lifetimes, particularly amplified music). For example, I've heard vinyl lovers say they've been able to hear the air conditioning in a concert hall from a quality, virgin vinyl pressing on a high-end turntable. While such feats are possible with CDs (if you crank the volume during a quiet passage - CD's 90dB dynamic range makes it possible to hear all sorts of otherwise inaudible background noise if you crank the volume high enough), it's simply impossible with vinyl's 60dB of dynamic range (max) unless the material was compressed before being mastered. (Well, I suppose if the concert hall had an amazingly noisy air conditioning system . . .
* The music is typically heavily equalized by the mastering engineer. Not only do these guys compensate for the limits of the vinyl format (for example, eliminating any loud low bass that could pop the mastering cutter right out of its groove - not to mention your poor stylus), they frequently "sweeten" the sound to suit their own tastes.
* The high end hiss, high-frequency clicks and pops and high-frequency harmonics generated by the stylus and pickup as they vibrate enhance the perceived high-midrange and treble response. While the hiss and clicks can be annoying when the music is soft, when it's loud the music pretty well drowns them out as distinct entities, and your ear perceives them as part of the high-end of the music. Harmonics also increase as the music grows louder, further enhancing the apparent high-end. I suspect this accounts for why many vinyl enthusiasts say CDs sound "flat" to them. They do!
You can demonstrate this effect for yourself - generate or record some white noise extending out to at least 20kHz, then filter everything below about 5000 Hz by around 20dB. Finally, mix this in with some audio recorded off of CD (make it a CD that you own, in order to avoid the wrath of the RIAA!). Experiment with the levels until you find you can no longer hear the hiss as a distinct component of the overall sound during the louder passages of the song. Finally, compare the original to the "hissy" version. You'll find that the original sounds dull in comparison, with a flat high end. This is one of the reasons why audio cassettes sounded so flat when you used Dolby noise reduction. People thought the Dolby killed the high frequency response of the tapes. While Dolby did dull the high end a little bit, that wasn't responsible for most of the perceived reduction. All that hiss on cassettes made it sound like there was more high frequency signal recorded on the tape than was actually present, and when that noise was squashed, the sound was very dull compared to a cassette without noise reduction. Of course, the loud hiss was so annoying in the softer passages, most people were willing to put up with the perceived high frequency reduction in trade for effective hiss mitigation.
Unfortunately for certain overly-enthusiastic vinyl lovers, CDs sound more like the original master tapes than vinyl, and that's the true meaning of fidelity. Folks may prefer the sound of a low-fidelity medium for any number of reasons, and that's their business. But trying to pass off a medium with inherently poor fidelity as somehow superior to a higher-fidelity medium is just wrong.
Re:Vinyl "Fidelity" (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I have no doubt it is - for reasons I cited in my posts. This has nothing to do with the fidelity offered by the vinyl LP format however, which is absolute rubbish compared to the Compact Disc's. The LP is 1940's technology, so this is hardly surprising.
>This is due to digital nature of CDs. The waveform produced from a CD
>is interpolated from data per unit of time. This is not as precise as the
>waveform produced from a vinyl record which doesn't require D/A interpolation.
What you've just said makes absolutely no sense. CDs record samples of sound over 44 thousand times *per-second*. The human ear has no way to discern the difference between audio sampled at such a high rate and a "continuous" analog waveform. Numerous A/B tests have been conducted, and participants have been consistently shown to be unable to tell the difference between an analog master tape and a well-made digital copy. Many of the earliest A/D and D/A converters were plagued with conversion issues and other performance limitations twenty years ago, but those have all been resolved now for well over a decade.
Arguing that the resulting analog waveform produced by a CD player's D/A converters is not as "precise" as the analog waveform produced from a vinyl record is laughable. The signal being recorded on the vinyl has already been subjected to processing not required for transcription onto CD, including at least two equalization passes (one to compensate for vinyl's physical limitations regarding low bass and other frequency response issues, and another to make it conform to the standardized RIAA equalization curve) and dynamic range compression (in order to compensate for vinyl's limited dynamic range relative to the studio master tapes and CD, not to mention all the noise discs typically accumulate as they're used, plus the noise generated by the turntable and stylus). The equalization and compression alone cause all sorts of phase issues, plus harmonic distortion, and they compromise the flatness of the overall frequency response. On top of that, throw in the physical imperfection of the disc itself, wow and flutter and speed irregularities both for the cutter and for your turntable, plus turntable, platter and disc resonance effects and any electrical hum being picked up by your cartridge and phono preamp . . . well, it's plain to see the waveform coming off even the best turntable is going to be a heck of a lot less precise than the waveform coming off a well-made CD. You may prefer the sound of the LP for whatever reason, but there's no way on earth you can back up the assertion that it's more "precise".
>Also, while the ear hears pitch from roughly 20Hz to 20kHz, the ear perceives
>sound of much higher frequencies, not as pitch, but as directional encoding.
Again, this simply isn't true. Young children can hear out to 20kHz, and occasionally even beyond (I think the observed limit is around 22-24kHz - CDs top out at a theoretical maximum of 22kHz, but due to the nature of PCM encoding at 44.1kHz, filters have to be put into place to limit high-frequency sound much beyond 20kHz), but it's vital to note that even then, the sensitivity of our ears to sound at 20kHz is extraordinarily low. In other words, a sound at 20kHz would have to be phenomenally loud for us to hear it compared to a sound at, say, 5,000Hz, where our hearing is much, much more sensitive. Few musical instruments produce loud sounds at or above 20kHz as a result - at least, not intentionally. There could be harmonics at frequencies in excess of 20kHz (for example, perhaps cymbals produce such harmonics), but by their very nature, those harmonics are going to be soft in relation to the rest of the signal - and again, most adults don't stand a snowball's chance of hearing them anyhow, even if they were deafeningly loud, which they're not.
Worse, vinyl doesn't stand a snowball's chance of reproducing such ultrasonic information with any kind of accuracy. The format was never designed to record high frequency signals - engineers have enough trouble squeezing 60Hz - 15,000Hz out of them reliably, let alone with any kind of fidelity when compared to CDs. I have no doubt that LPs produce a fair amount of ultrasonic signal, but again, most of that is going to be unintentional - clicks and pops, surface noise, electrical noise, and harmonic distortion generated by the stylus and cartridge as they vibrate. Any "real" ultrasonic information on the record would be swamped by all the fake ultrasonic garbage. You also seem to be assuming that the master tapes contain such ultrasonic information. They don't. The usable frequency response of even the best analog tape decks used historically for studio recording typically topped out at around 25kHz. Beyond that the levels fall off so rapidly as to be useless, and even there, the levels are going to be pretty low (assuming the deck doesn't employ filtering beyond around 22kHz to eliminate unwanted ultrasonic noise that can impinge on the bias signal).
Of course, this assumes the microphones could even pick up such ultrasonics to begin with, which of course they can't. 99.9% of the microphones used over the past 60 years to record audio in the studio or concert hall are lucky to have a usable frequency response out to as far as 20kHz - most begin a pretty severe rolloff at 15kHz, and by 20kHz only a handful manage to maintain a flat response, with performance dropping off rapidly thereafter. Anything they're picking up beyond 20kHz is going to be so faint as to be inaudible once it passes through the gauntlet of noise and distortion inherent in the vinyl format. Here's a sales listing [digitalvillage.co.uk] for the legendary Neumann U87, a mic that's been the studio standard for vocal recording since the '60s - the Beatles used this mic, and singers & engineers continue to choose this mic over all others even to this day. Its frequency response tops out at 20kHz. So much for recording ultrasonics. And the instrument probably most likely to produce ultrasonics - the cymbal - is typically recorded using a mic like the Shure SM57, which has been a standard for recording percussion since its introduction over thirty years ago. Its frequency response tops out at a measly 15kHz. What ultrasonics?
Of course, it's all utterly inconsequential compared to the trashing of the original waveform caused by all of vinyl's other numerous limitations, including the damage done in the crucial 50Hz-5,000Hz range where human hearing and perception is so much more sensitive, and accuracy therefore so much more important.
>In summation, the superior S/N ratio, channel separation, and decreased
>vulnerablity to reproduction errors of CD's are not as important as the
>superior timbre and staging provided by vinyl.
In summation, you're clearly uninformed from a technical standpoint. If you prefer the "sound" of vinyl, that's your business. But don't try to cloak your preference in technobabble you clearly don't begin to understand.
Re:Vinyl "Fidelity" (Score:4, Interesting)
My own stereo system is very modest, though. I'm far more interested in bang for the buck, and am far too cheap to blow more than $500 on any single piece of equipment (I'd have to win the lottery first). I've seen so-called audiophiles spend thousands on crap I wouldn't donate to the Salvation Army. Ultimately, it's about the music for me - not the technology. And I have no need to show off with my money, unlike a lot of rich idiots out there who must have 2" peckers.
My knowledge isn't so impressive - I know just enough to find more detailed information on the Internet (a legacy of my business intelligence background I suppose - dig through the database for more relevant information). For example, I knew the microphone the Beatles used is still in heavy use today for vocal recording, but couldn't remember its name. Once I tracked its name down, it was easy to get the specs on it, and confirm a couple of hunches I had, based on my past experience shopping for a microphone - namely, that mics with anything like a usable frequency response out to 20kHz are rare as hen's teeth and hellishly expensive, and that the most commonly-used studio mics are physically incapable of recording the vinyl-fanatics' much-cited "ultrasonic information".
The Internet can be a great tool for debunking junk science, marketing spin and urban myths, if you're willing to expend a little effort. Unfortunately, it can also be a great tool for spreading them, with little effort . . .
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:2)
Re:SACD, mp3, and more (Score:4, Informative)
What you can't rip is the enhanced audio stream (on the DVD layer), but as someone else pointed out earlier you really wouldn't want to anyway if all you're doing is compressing down to mp3.
Not that bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds great... (Score:2)
Basicly, don't tell these guys too soon or you ruin it all...
No real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops! Another brilliant copy protection scheme bypassed.
Not so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's take an Onkyo 989 receiver as example. It can decode PCM, DTS, and Dolby Digital, none of which an SACD uses. The DSD format that it is recorded in was specifically designed to skirt the tinny sound of PCM audio. Of course, there was the added benefit of "thwarting" "pirates". SACDs and DVD-Audio disc players output their music audio in analog, predecoded. That way, there's no issue for the receiver to understand it. Really the only way to handle it would be to acquire a pre-decoder as people did in the early days of the 5.1 era, and patch it in over a DB-25 connection.
So we'd run into a bit of a chicken and egg issue. If I don't have a receiver that can decode a DSD signal, I would have no reason to buy china-brand SACD player. If there's no market for people looking for such a player, then china-brand isn't going to squander its measley per-unit profits on a processor to output such a signal. You'd also be dealing with a market ("audiophiles") which would take one look at China-brand and pass on by to the $1,000 SACD player. The non-audiophile public might buy it, but they'd buy them for the same reason they buy china-brand nowadays: price, not the unique features.
I don't doubt it might happen, but it would have to be a long ways off. The audio world has already established that it's willing to pay large amount of money for patch cables to sustain analog signals. There would need to be a more serious desire in the audiophile world to make them dump existing equipment in order to accommodate the digital output of the new format.
There is a diagram of (Score:5, Informative)
how it works here [philips.com]
Meant to stop mass piracy operations...? (Score:3, Insightful)
SACD players can play your normal CDs just fine, there is no forced upgrade inherent in the technology, and there is backwards compatibility using the hybrid disks with a CD stereo audio layer.
Real issues are the lack of a standard digital output on current SACD players - there is a proprietary one which will presumably connect to DACs that also implement the proprietary interface and will not provide a raw digital bitstream.
As I buy all my music (well, most of it) I am not too worried. And as everybody has said, you can record it once it is a sound wave at the very worst.
If you want to make your own music, record it on a CD - you aren't in a worse position than before...
Now the real issue is what will happen once SACD has taken over... will new players suddenly stop supporting CDs, forcing music upgrades? ...
Re:Meant to stop mass piracy operations...? (Score:3, Informative)
For now. It's not being forced upon us, it's being snuck in quietly.
there is backwards compatibility using the hybrid disks with a CD stereo audio layer.
For now. You need a carrot on the end of that stick.
If you want to make your own music, record it on a CD - you aren't in a worse position than before..
For now. God forbid the content-cartels have *any* competition. Or do you think it's just a coincidence that along with our Fair Use rights the big media companies are pushing to restrict even our ability to produce content without them getting a slice of the action?
Now the real issue is what will happen once SACD has taken over... will new players suddenly stop supporting CDs, forcing music upgrades? ...
You really think this won't happen? I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this is what they will push for.
Call me a cynic but I can't be the only one that sees where this all can lead.
Re:Meant to stop mass piracy operations...? (Score:2)
I'm not sure how it could. If Napster has taught us anything, its that people have needs that the RIAA is unwiling to provide. Since SACD works backwards from those needs (i.e. doesn't work in a computer) I think SACD will become, at best, a niche product. I can understand it's attraction to audiophiles, but we're not talking about the same kind of startling difference between VHS and DVD.
They need to release something with MORE features, not less. If they were smart, they'd start selling MP3 versions of music on read-only Compact Flash cards. Better yet, sell MP3 encoded music on 2.5" CD-ROMS. They're smaller, and you can easily copy to PC so that you can listen on your laptop or at the office. The players for them would be much smaller as well, thus it FEELS like a more advanced technology.
That's the type of thing that can revolutionize the market, not perceptually minor upgrades to an existing technology that's been around for 20 years.
(I apologize if that didn't make sense, I'm in a bit of a hurry...)
Algorithm to convert SACD to PCM (Score:3, Informative)
'Course, converting SA/CD data to PCM can probably be done with a pretty lightweight algorithm
DSD comes as a stream of sequential 0's and 1's, which are meant to be sent directly to a lowpass filter. Here's the algorithm, assuming you have a decrypted DSD stream:
Note to "defeat the purpose" trolls: I marked several steps as optional.
Way back when... (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the "Don't expect to be able to play or reproduce these on your computer anytime soon" bit, does anyone honestly believe that? And how fast was the last so called unbreakable copy protection cracked? Riiiigggt. It's DATA. 1's and 0's? Here's a clue:
Q. Can I play SACDs in my CD player and/or DVD player?
A. The CD-compatible layer of hybrid SACDs can be played in all CD players and some DVD players. Single and dual layer discs can be played in a SACD player only.
Subtext: My CDROM can read it, they're screwed.
Q. What's the difference between single layer, dual layer and hybrid SACDs?
A. A single layer disc contains the DSD high resolution signal only. This may include both a stereo and multichannel signal. A dual layer disc contains two high resolution layers for nearly twice the length of music. Both single and dual layer SACDs can be played in a SACD player only. A hybrid disc contains a sandwich of a CD-compatible layer and a single high resolution layer for optimum playback in both CD and SACD players. Sometimes hybrid SACDs are incorrectly referred to as dual layer.
Subtext: So either way, I'm getting a high quality signal, just the dual layer can store more stuff ala DVD and can be only read by SACD players. I assume all discs are slated to be dual layer, market penetration providing, but then all resteraunts are suppose to be Taco Bell too.
Personally, and I'm sure bunch o' people agree with me-- I don't want another disk-like product. I want it digitally. No skipping, take it where I want, total flexibility. But then, the recording industry isn't about your flexibility. It's about their pockets and your cash in it.
Re:Way back when... (Score:2)
There is a good chance that hybrid discs will be quite rare. It will probably be cheaper to product separate CD and SACD versions and will give manufacturers a chance of selling the same album twice as people upgrade to SACD.
Uh, no... (Score:2)
Copy protection only digital (Score:2, Redundant)
Favorite line (Score:3, Interesting)
Some useful info I read on 44.1kHz here [jthz.com].
Oh yeah, down with Sony!Re:Favorite line (Score:2)
3 x 245 x 60 Hz = 44100 Hz
I suppose the web-page cited means 3 samples (mono) per line of video.
This all makes sense. The total number of bits per second for stereo is 44100 * 16bits * 2 = 1,411,200 bits per second. A simple PCM scheme could be used since the 1.4112 million on/off's per second fits in the 4.2MHz bandwidth of video.
Re:Favorite line (Score:2, Funny)
That was before large groups of humans were mutated and suddenly could hear higher frequencies.
Sources claim that the mutations were caused by widespread to toxic levels of FAS (false authority syndrome) and tons of bullshit audio freaks who are so insecure about their penis size that they feel compelled to spend thousands on audio equipment to show off.
What about digital outs? (Score:2)
magic marker (Score:2, Funny)
clearly, they will be illegal soon.
-- p
The Truth on SACD (Score:3, Informative)
1) Essentially it's a brand new technology. It doesn't use PCM that everything now uses (including DVD-A). It uses a formula called DSD ( Direct Stream Digital ). It's designed to give a direct representation of the orginal analogue signal using a one bit protocol. It tries very hard to avoid the decimation artifacts that are part of the PCM process.
2)1) It has a sampling rate far in excess of standard cd's.
64* 44100 = 2.8224Mhz/s
3) SACD isn't like DVD-A in that you HAVE to have a DVD-A player to play back the audio, It is a dual layer format that has standard red book audio on one layer and the SACD audio on another layer. (It also has multi-channel capability ). To play the SACD part though you do have to have a player capable of reading the DSD info stored on the disk.
Yes, I know this sounds like a Sony Ad, it is the way that audio needs to go, as far as quality goes. CD's are really bad in comparison. If you can't hear the difference between SACD and red book, then your ears need checking.
As far the copying issue goes...If it can be listened to..it can be copied in some way.
How is this going to stop copying? (Score:2)
The Napster users of the world are, for the most part, satisfied with the sound of
Sony's assumption seems to be that restricting the copying of the SACD layer will accomplish something.
But if people are satisfied with the sound of
Re:How is this going to stop copying? (Score:2)
SWEET! (Score:2)
Pretty clever.... (Score:5, Informative)
First off, this is not a new concept. Manufactuers in another industry (AC induction motor speed control) came across this same idea over 10 years ago. Except they call it PWM (pulse width modulation). Anyway, to control the speed of an AC motor the frequency of power applied needs to be varied from the baseline of 60Hz (50 Hz in many other areas of the world). These manufacturers were concerned with 2 things: 1) An accurate reproduction of a sine wave, 2) maximum efficiency (since inefficiency generates heat).
The way PWM (and SACD) works is that the output to the motor (or speaker) can only be ON or OFF. THat's right, it's "true" digital. Each sample interval (2.8 MHz) only holds one piece of info, ON or OFF. So how does this produce good quality analog waveforms? Well, motors (and speakers) are largely inductors and electrically speaking, current cannot instantly change in an inductor. So, when an ON pulse is sent, the voltage immediately spikes, but the nominal current only rises a slight amount in the period that the pulse was in the on state for. If the next period interval has a 0 coded (OFF), then the nominal current will decrease a bit. Thus, by sending pulses in this fashion, it is possible to "steer" the current and output to the motor (or speaker).
It may sound like a crude joke, but believe me, on an oscilloscope this method (PWM or SACD) is much superior to the older methods used. Yes, the motor guys used to do it the way current CDs are too, but they paid a huge efficiency penalty and the results were not as good to boot.
If your an audiophile type of guy, look up Class D amplifiers, which use a similar technique to improve efficiency.
The only drawback that occurred with motor control is that these Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) cause a characteristic motor whine that is the carrier (or sampling) frequency. This was quite obvious in the first drives which could only muster about 1kHz. However, improvements in the switching transistors have raised this to 12kHz and higher. So, the audible whine is disappearing. Don't worry about whine with SACD. It would occur at 2.8MHz, and I doubt if you could hear that!
Overall, I'd say this has potential (if only from a technical point of view) because it does not need any D/A convertors or filters and only uses switching transistors in the output, which are much easier to keep matched.
There's a bit more at http://www.avguide.com/newsletter/AVg_051502/howt
Greg
PWM isn't new at *all*... (Score:2, Informative)
On the other hand, the No. 1 ESS, a full-sized central office switch introducted not long afterward, was a computer-controlled analog switch, using reed relays to do the actual switching.
Re:Pretty clever.... (Score:2)
SACD, the new 8-Track tape! (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
"Often compared to vinyl" (Score:5, Funny)
But just wait until next year, when they unleash UACD (Ultra Audio CD). The rich [tick] emotional [tick] impact of [tick] THIS format [tick] is often [tick] compared to [tick] a 78-RPM [tick] shellac pressing [tick] shellac pressing [tick] shellac pressing [tick] shellac pressing [tick] shellac pressing.
However, even the 78 is subject to electronic processes which distort the sound.
The best process of all would be one in which the actual soundwaves create the recording through direct action, without the intermediary of any transducers of electronics whatsoever.
So I wouldn't buy UACD.
No sir, I'm wait for the MACD (Mega Audio CD) that's waiting in the wings, with sound that's often compared to an acoustically recorded Edison Amberol cylinder.
one simple mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:one simple mistake (Score:3, Funny)
This is about PROPERTY people! (Score:3, Flamebait)
Computers, and electronic devices in general, are increasingly an important way in which we interact with the world around us. They are increasingly our eyes, ears, and voice in this digital age, and they should work for us, their owners, not an amoral corporation determined to milk our culture for profit.
This is not to say that I disagree with people, or groups of people, working for profit, but I do disagree with the government tipping the balance in their favor at the expense of those who they are supposed to represent.
You wouldn't tolerate a Cop sitting in your home guarding, not you, not even the rest of society, but some faceless corporation who doesn't care about anything but their own profit - so why tolerate a Cop in your computer or CD player?
Ew. (Score:2, Insightful)
Still it doesn't sound like it will stop you from ripping the CDs, as much as making it harder for you to extract the extra information... why would you want 5.1 on your earphones anyways?
Unfortunately, hearing that because Sony is on a promotional drive to sneakly setting up to take over the market worries me. It seems in some ways, one crazy copy protection scheme is to keep the technology changing so quickly that the tools and hardware remain out of reach of the consumer.
But, if that's the case, doesn't that stifle creativity? Fledgling musicians, artists will be compelled to use the lastest media and may not be able to distribute their work and make any profit to continue. I remember considering buying some music of a great little indie group a couple of years ago and didn't bother since they only had cassettes and those were 20$.
Sony "sneakily" distributing it? (Score:2)
A little humor (Score:2, Funny)
Is there a big difference? (Score:2)
bah, humbug (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not as bad as IBM using pallidium secretly (Score:3, Offtopic)
Well according to the July edition of CPU magazine, [computerpoweruser.com](sorry its not online) IBM secretly implemented palidome drm chips implementating Microsoft/intel's trustworthy computing called tcpa [ibm.com] in almost every desktop sold! Andhere are the [ibm.com]crippled laptops, and here are [ibm.com] the crippled servers. Infact the system is so locked down with each component trusting one another that if you replace the floppy drive for example the system will not run! Remember the motherboard and the eide card both trust the floppy drive with the right encyption sequence in it. Readit and weep.
Oh and yes I submited this to Rob and he did not post it here. Grrr. I encourage everyone reading this to submit it as a story because this is x100 times as worse as what sony is doing.
It's not secret and they run Linux fine (Score:4, Informative)
Now, this is not to say that TCPA does not have some unsettling implications. For now, TCPA-enabled machines can boot "trusted" or "untrusted" OSes. What worries me is what might happens years in the future, when TCPA or its moral equivalent is in just about every machine and "trusted" OSes are the exception, not the rule, on mainstream users' PCs (should that ever come to pass). At that point, I'll start getting worried about the possibility that manufacturers might turn off the ability to boot an untrusted OS.
There is a limit to what the human ear can hear. (Score:3, Interesting)
Whose ears are actually good enough to listen to 24-bit audio and tell the difference between that and 16-bit anyway? I have often heard it said that analogue transmission of audio is far worse than digital. I don't entirely agree with that, but supposing it's true - surely the cables between SACD player and amplifier, amplifier and speakers are going to withdraw a lot of the benefits of the more accurate signal?
Yes, we can only hear about 20-bit accuracy. The point of the additional accuracy is, therefore, questionable. The difference in quality it will make is miniscule. The LSB on 16-bit audio represents a variation of 0.0015% in the output signal. The LSB on 24-bit audio represents a variation of 0.000006% of the output signal. Can you hear that final bit? Does it make all the difference? Er, no.
Those who say that the MP3 format is too lossy for them might be interested to know that audiophiles can't actually hear the difference between 256kbps MP3 and the original CD recording [belgacom.net]. Those who think they need still more quality should perhaps check out the MAD plugin [mars.org] which has the ability to decode mp3s to 24-bit, recreating bits that weren't even there in order to improve quality.
As regards introducing watermarks as a kind of copy protection - well, that's just reducing the quality of the audio, which defeats the point of what you were trying to achieve in the first place.
Re:What kind of CD (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not happy about the watermarking, and won't buy them at first, but I think it has a good chance of catching on, since the transition path is virtually transparent, and costs nearly identical.
The audio quality of SACD is significantly better than traditional CDs, even on typical home audio systems.
The players still have analog outputs. I suspect mp3s ripped in real time will sound pretty decent.
Re:What kind of CD (Score:4, Insightful)
There are players than support both SACD and DVD-A, I guess those are okay, not that I'd touch a SACD. Sony does make SACD only players.
Here are some facts about Sony's SACD players. They don't have a digital output. So that $1500+ DAC that you have is going to do no good. Sony wants only analog coming out of their box. Sony says this will get you better quality, cause most recievers won't be able to decode the 96kHz/24-bit audio as well as their built in decoder. I think they are wrong. Just about anyone who is adopting the better than CD formats at this point will surely have a better quality DAC than what they put in the box.
I'm not sure about the region coding on SACDs, but I know for a fact that DVD-A don't have any sort of region coding on their audio only portion. They are like regular CDs. If they include a standard DVD session it can contain all the usual DVD codes, including regions, but the ones I've seen have been region free. Also the DVD-A players I've seen have had TOS-link and/or S/PDIF outs.
I have a full Sony setup at my house, but I'm not going to buy any more Sony gear. They are restricting content more and more, while other companies are freeing up more (see the majority of DVD players with region hacks, except Sony's). You can't trust a content provider to produce content players that let you use the content as you want.
Re:What kind of CD (Score:2)
Problems with DVD-A:
Copyprotection, uses a system called Content Protection for Pre-recorded Media (CPPM). It is a bit like CSS (they were going to use CSS-II until DeCSS was released). But the keys are 56-bit not 40. It also has a nasty feature that encrypted data can include a list of revoked keys. So if a manufacturer does something the media producers don't like they can disable their players from playing all new releases. The list of revoked keys is updated every 3 months. So if someone cracks CPPM they better find all the keys, to totally break the usefulness of this feature.
There is also watermarking included in the audio stream. It was designed to not be audible, yet can be detected in an analog output. I think if it can be detected by equipment is has to be doing something not natural to the content. That is what Sony was getting at with their physical watermarking system.
Oh well. I'll just have to be happy with my harddisk recordings of my friend's bands. They are high quality and not molested. Otherwise I'll wait for Harman Kardon to come out with a player, they seem to be looking out for the consumers.
Re:What kind of CD (Score:5, Informative)
Think of sending directions to a plotting device. One method (PCM) should say (0,0),(pi/2, 1), (pi, 0), (3pi/2, -1), (2pi, 0). The DSD way says up,down,down,up
There are a number of supposed benefits to recording using Direct Stream Digital, but it's difficult to edit without converting first to PCM.
Many DVD-Audio players limit the resolution of the S/PDIF output to 48 KHz.
The Sharp DX -SX1 SACD player has digital output (admttedly its proprietary, but so what? Most DACS can't decode PWM)...
Re:What kind of CD (Score:2)
I think the only benifits to DSD is the ease of converting to analog. It is harder to encode.
You are right about the limit of DVD-A players that have digital outs. I was also forgetting that 2 channel DVD-A can be as high as 192kHz/24-bit PCM. I don't have a DAC that will do that. I was mentioning Harman Kardon in another post. The have a straight DVD player that will output that high from the S/PDIF. I really want to see what they'll offer in a DVD-A/SACD player.
Digital output is on the way. (Score:2)
The SACD specification currently provides for digital output of the DSD data stream using a proprietary interface only. This enables players to use separated transports or specialized amplifiers which can decode DSD. Currently players from Sharp, Accuphase and dCS implement such an interface. At this time there is no open digital interface standard though a protocol is under consideration. Until receivers, pre-amplifiers etc. implement a corresponding interface, digital output is of no use however. Most players support digital output for CDs and the CD-compatible layer of hybrid SACDs.
So once a protocol is created I'm sure all the new players will support it. Also note that current players can still support digital output - it's just it'll use the CD data in place of the higher quality SACD data.
Personally, I really like the idea of an open standard. If it truely is open, someone will be able to take that digital data and convert it into MP3/AIFF/WAV directly. Very nice.
DVD-A v SACD (Score:2)
Re:You can use an external DAC (Score:2)
So are they saying 100kHz bandwidth meaning the carrier would have to be 200kHz? 120 dB is about 24-bit. 6 channels of full quality, is 200kHz*6, giving you 1200kHz == 1.2MHz.
Re:WTF? Standards anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
They will stamp both CD and SACD on the Rolling Stones CDs, since they play on both types of players. IF the format catches on, expect future releases to work on on SACD.
Re:WTF? Standards anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:haha (Score:2)
Not really...the discs have a physical watermark, so you could rip them with a sacd player (you can try to prevent ripping, but someone will always find away around it). The big thing is that you won't be able to burn SACDs because of the watermark. So, you'll be able to rip but not burn. Just get a portable ogg player whenever they get released (since vorbis supports an abitrary number of channels encoding those 5.1 streams should work, right?) or an mp3 player now. But then you'll lose the extra quality (mp3 can't use greater than 32-bits per sample, right? I have no idea). I really need to read more on what vorbis can do (it works for me now, so I don't have much of an urge to), but I bet it can (or will) be able to encode > 32-bits per sample (at least for input).
Re:haha (Score:2)
*shrug*
Market saturation (Score:3, Insightful)
The point? If the labels ever want a highly encrypted format to take hold at the consumer critical mass level, it's going to have to take a page from the gaming industry: Take your lumps profit-wise on the format until it becomes popular franchise. If they really wanted to take back the market, they'd make format "X" cheap. Cheap players, cheap music. Some benefits, sure, but the overriding factor here would be affordability while driving older CD formats up over time. Make several levels of the hardware; Your cheap $40 players all the way up to the premium stuff, but your going to have to eat the cost for a while to gain anybodies interest in buying it.
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Worse than hypocrisy... (Score:4, Insightful)
People here (and elsewhere) attack Microsoft for very good reasons: Microsoft is evil incorporate and puts its own interests far ahead of its users' needs (whether it be privacy, security, stability, etc) in a very heavy-handed and public way which makes for easy bashing. Many people also tend to be unfairly nasty towards them. Microsoft BOB, for example, got a very unjustified bad rap, as did the paper clip in Office and the jumping "search dog" in XP.
Is Sony any better or worse than MS? I don't know; I don't own any Sony stuff and I don't keep up on their practices. The new CD format thing sure does seem to suck, though, and judging from the ~50 comments I've read many people here agree it's a bad idea. They also appear to think that Sony aims to prevent fair use by adopting it. That sentiment would seem to be in opposition to your assessment of the Slashdot readers. So why all the harsh words?
You've come to the wrong place for unbiased opinions. You'd do better to complain about the weather.
-B