Thread: DualDisc killing SACD?

Posts: 69
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Post by monotone March 10, 2005 (41 of 69)
zeus said:

This is for UMG in the US only. They released their backlog of 2004 titles in January. The first US releases aren't until April ... some are available for pre-order now. There's been a fair bit of activity by Universal in Europe.

I hope it's all true... really disappointing that Beck's new release will not be on SACD... instead on DVD-A & DualDisc. And hopefully Bjork's back catalog will be out on SACD eventually.

Post by zem06 March 11, 2005 (42 of 69)
sound_labs said:


First SACD has stalled hard. The number of titles coming out per month is a joke. The titles are a joke. It's one old fart title after the next, classical or something Jazz. Dual disc to the mainstream consumer has much more value than say SACD.

I couldn't disagree with you more. 2004, while lacking high-profile reissue campaigns such as those for Bob Dylan and the Stones, saw a healthy mixture of new artists such as Keane and Snow Patrol, the return of Mission of Burma (never thought I'd see them on SACD!), and the ongoing adventures of Bjork. The fact that artists as diverse as Elton John, Trent Reznor, and Justin Hayward have become involved in the conversion of their back catalogue to SACD shows that they recognize the format's superiority. I can only hope that more artists use their clout to push the SACD release schedule along. I also think that the lack of single-inventory, or simultaneous hybrid SACD releases has prevented SACD from really taking off.

Post by digital genius March 14, 2005 (43 of 69)
Don't kill off the SACD just yet... check out www.cs2cd.com




:)

Post by DrZhivago March 14, 2005 (44 of 69)
digital genius said:

Don't kill off the SACD just yet... check out www.cs2cd.com




:)

Wow, is this for real?

:):)

Post by mandel March 15, 2005 (45 of 69)
Sweet!
Not quite sure how it works but from some googleing seems one of them discs could contain a CD stereo mix, a DTS 5.1 mix, an SACD stereo mix and an SACD multichannel mix. Now that would give DVD-A a run for its money :D

Post by dbfarr63 March 18, 2005 (46 of 69)
zeus said:

The number of titles has been steady at around 80 per month for at least a year, so I don't know where you come up with this "stalled hard" stuff. Whether they're titles you personally want to buy is another matter. There's nothing to stop you buying DualDisc instead or as well if the titles interest you more. But it would be a mistake to think that your preferences are universal and govern the future of the format.

I hope you are right. I have all three formats, sacd, dvd-audio and I just bought a dualdisc. For mine, the sacd, leave them all for dead for sound quality with the multichannel layer. Why sacd was produced with stereo only amazes me. It is no better than cd quality and is not worth the money. There is so much good music out there and the sacd multichannel format breathes fresh air into the older titles and gives the new titles a chance to really impress the listener. I am so disappointed to pick up an sacd title (rolling stones, peter gabriel simple minds, bob dylan to name a few and find that it is only a stereo sacd. It really lets the format down. To really become a force in this technological war, the sacd MUST be in multichannel, other wise it will suffer the same fate as the beta format with video tape. At least, most DVD audio titles are in 5.1 surround, however, I think sacd has a superor sound quality than dvd audio at this stage. Dualdisc has the added advantage of video content. The sound quality is not as good as sacd or dvd audio, but if you are trying gain an advantage in this war and not so anal about the sound quality, I think the dualdisc could make some in roads depending on the titles that are released. For mine, I will always support the sacd format, simply for the quality of the product and hopefully, the multichannel titles that are released.

Post by mcchuk March 18, 2005 (47 of 69)
dbfarr63 said:

I hope you are right. I have all three formats, sacd, dvd-audio and I just bought a dualdisc. For mine, the sacd, leave them all for dead for sound quality with the multichannel layer. Why sacd was produced with stereo only amazes me. It is no better than cd quality and is not worth the money. There is so much good music out there and the sacd multichannel format breathes fresh air into the older titles and gives the new titles a chance to really impress the listener. I am so disappointed to pick up an sacd title (rolling stones, peter gabriel simple minds, bob dylan to name a few and find that it is only a stereo sacd. It really lets the format down. To really become a force in this technological war, the sacd MUST be in multichannel, other wise it will suffer the same fate as the beta format with video tape. At least, most DVD audio titles are in 5.1 surround, however, I think sacd has a superor sound quality than dvd audio at this stage. Dualdisc has the added advantage of video content. The sound quality is not as good as sacd or dvd audio, but if you are trying gain an advantage in this war and not so anal about the sound quality, I think the dualdisc could make some in roads depending on the titles that are released. For mine, I will always support the sacd format, simply for the quality of the product and hopefully, the multichannel titles that are released.

There are many different levels of quality when it comes down to SACD players. I recently sold my Philips 963SA SACD player and bought the Yamaha S-1500. There was a noticeable difference in SACD playback detail imaging. The Yamaha S-1500 which is a universal player interesting enough played the SACD better than the Philips dedicated SACD player.
Now I enjoy listening to Stereo SACD nearly as much as multi-channel. A good player makes all the difference. The difference between DVD-Audio and SACD is not even close. I find myself listening to to SACD far more than DVD Audio simply because the difference in quality is that noticeable.

Post by vonwegen March 19, 2005 (48 of 69)
flyingdutchman said:

Well, gee, I guess Elton John doesn't count nor all the other releases in the last half of 2004. 2005 is just beginning and people want to throw in the towel.

Uh, dude... Elton John has NEVER been on Sony, and likely never will be.

Post by vonwegen March 19, 2005 (49 of 69)
zeus said:

There's been a fair bit of activity by Universal in Europe.

Do you have the web address for UMG Europe? I tried googling for it but found nothing.

Post by gfresh March 19, 2005 (50 of 69)
dbfarr63 said:

I hope you are right. I have all three formats, sacd, dvd-audio and I just bought a dualdisc. For mine, the sacd, leave them all for dead for sound quality with the multichannel layer. Why sacd was produced with stereo only amazes me. It is no better than cd quality and is not worth the money. There is so much good music out there and the sacd multichannel format breathes fresh air into the older titles and gives the new titles a chance to really impress the listener. I am so disappointed to pick up an sacd title (rolling stones, peter gabriel simple minds, bob dylan to name a few and find that it is only a stereo sacd. It really lets the format down. To really become a force in this technological war, the sacd MUST be in multichannel, other wise it will suffer the same fate as the beta format with video tape. At least, most DVD audio titles are in 5.1 surround, however, I think sacd has a superor sound quality than dvd audio at this stage. Dualdisc has the added advantage of video content. The sound quality is not as good as sacd or dvd audio, but if you are trying gain an advantage in this war and not so anal about the sound quality, I think the dualdisc could make some in roads depending on the titles that are released. For mine, I will always support the sacd format, simply for the quality of the product and hopefully, the multichannel titles that are released.

I strongly disagree. I think Stereo SACDS sound MUCH better than multichannel ones. Multichannel SACD mixes sound muddy and smeary, and alot of the time I prefer DVD-A because of greater clarity. I assume this is because of DST data compression. Perhaps you only listen to SACDs where the stereo layer is taken from the 16/44 cd master. To me a good stereo SACD like the Mobile Fidelity ones, sounds much better.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Closed