SACD and DVD-A vs. CD: Too Early? (by Rudy)
I've been watching the debates regarding the new high-resolution formats (SACD and DVD-Audio) vs. CD. In my opinion, it's still a mess. Here are my own thoughts and observations:
1. Technically, SACD is very slightly superior sounding to DVD-A. SACD uses Sony's DSD (Direct Stream Digital), which is a 1-bit system. What it does is encode the audio by recording the difference between adjacent samples, vs. PCM (pulse code modulated) which assigns a fixed numerical value to each sample. DVD-Audio still uses PCM, but can use higher sampling rates (up to 192kHz, vs. 44.1kHz for CD) and resolution (24 bit vs. 16 bit). To some listeners, they sound just about the same; to the majority of the buying public, there's no difference between these and standard CD. Bottom line: the new formats are better....but only for those who can hear the difference. And that's a small minority of listeners today.
2. This is turning into a format war on the order of VHS vs. Beta. Consumer uncertainty is going to keep sales down--nobody wants to be stuck with the loser. There are a few players out there which will play both formats (Pioneer Elite's DV-45A and DV-47Ai will do all disc formats, including DVD video), but until these become more widespread, consumers will have to choose between either format. If combination players become the standard, there will be no need to choose, and both formats could co-exist.
3. Retail has no idea what to do with these new-fangled discs. Best Buy has relegated their SACD section to a separate area of the store, next to the home theater hardware. And it's no consolation that their selection is terrible, and their sales staff is fed the standard Best Buy corporate "training" about the product--the sales staff is clueless about hybrids. Until retailers get a clue, the public certainly won't be well informed.
4. Prices for some SACD/DVD-A titles are too high also. Until they're on par with CD, they're not going to get many nibbles. Granted, CD was expensive when it first came out (my first three were, I think, either $19.99 or $24.99 each). But if the manufacturers want this to "go mainstream", prices will have to fall, especially since they're already forcing this on us to replace the CD.
5. The companies making the discs need to get on the "hybrid" bandwagon. A hybrid disc has two layers--a standard layer that will play in a CD player, and an SACD or DVD-A layer that these players will recognize. It's a good idea, because you can play your disc in high resolution at home, and toss it into the portable or car player and play the standard CD layer everywhere else. I've already vowed to avoid any disc that is not a hybrid.
This last point, in fact, prompted my opinion piece here today. Shame on Universal for releasing the new Police SACD remasters in non-hybrid versions! They can make up any excuse they want, but what it boils down to is this: anyone wanting a new high-resolution version of these latest remasterings will buy the SACD. If they want the same remastered version to play elsewhere, they would have to purchase the same reissues on CD. Universal sees two sales here, not one. The technology for hybrid already exists, and many new releases are hybrid titles now. In fact, one of the Police compilations is a hybrid. Why just that one, and not all of them? Corporate greed? Hybrids of these will be available as imports for a limited time. If I jump on these discs, that's where my money will go...overseas, again.
There's no excuse to make non-hybrid discs anymore. The capacity at the pressing plants might not yet be at that point, but it's apparently close, due to the increasing number of new hybrid releases. Let's just hope this Police SACD fiasco is an aberration, and not the new practice at Universal.
Posted on Mar 7, 2003 at 12:03 am by Rudy.
|
