24/192K and DVD-A and SACD--The Future

[Saint Johnny B]

I'd like people to talk about the future. About things like where are we going with standards, formats, and sound quality. Is theft protection an issue? Or should we just forget about it? Will DVD-A vs. SACD be another betamax vs. VHS war where the best technology may have lost the war? Will there even be a war here? Should we invest in 24/192 technology now, or wait for improvements to be made and prices to come down? Will the car audio market or the home theatre market be driving the technology to such a point that consumers will be demanding super high-quality audio from the engineering and sound recording community? Who seems to be the most innovative software company that repsonds best to the continious advances being made by the hardware? Given that we are seeing vast changes, there are many issues that can be discussed that I have not even raised, but you can do that here. So folks, let your predictions, opinions, and experiences flow. You could also share what you'd like to see now or in the future. I don't ask for everyone to agree with one another, but I do ask the people who want to disagree with someone else to try to be respectful of others views and to at least be civil to one another. OK? Now let's have a lively discussion about the future.

[Anderton]

The future of recording will be more about access than fidelity. People would rather hear what they want to hear RIGHT NOW than anything else. DVD-A vs SACD? I don't see either breaking through. I think we're stuck with audio tracks on DVD for the next step beyond CDs. Software theft: It is killing music software companies. Not "It's going to," but IT IS. The only way music software will survive is if it's tolerated as an R&D arm by a big company that is making money at something else. And as I see it, "parasite," not "pirate," is the correct word. A parasite lives off the host, but eventually kills it, thus killing itself.

[Alndln]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Is theft protection an issue? Or should we just forget about it? [/b][/quote]That's probably the biggest thing on the plate here because like Craig says,it's already damaging and probably inhibiting future developements more that we can ever calculate.The only way out that I can see is more and more systems tied to hardware like Digi/Radar/Mackie ect.,but also maybe a new OS for DAW that runs on current consumer technology hardware,but with specific hardware dependencies.That would also probably mean the end of Demo's & updates by download with the exception of companies churning out stuff for the average consumer.That also means the trend going back to the pro studio rather than the home studio.The cutting edge will go back to the pro studios out of neccessity unless someone figures another way out,or the majority will just lag on with outdated software.This affects DVD-A and everything else to come.Stay tuned.

[Saint Johnny B]

Craig Why don't you see DVD-A or SACD catching on? And if you had to choose one over the other which would it be, DVD-A or SACD? And when you say theft is killing the music software companies, are you talking about computer sofware cos. or are you talking about the big record labels?

[Rog]

Originally posted by Johnny B: "Is theft protection an issue? Or should we just forget about it?" I don't think 13 year olds with cracked copies of Cubase are a threat to the industry. In a way, this kind of piracy is a good thing, as long as they grow up and buy a copy when they turn pro :) What pisses me off is professionals using cracks. Some hoops you have to jump through with copy protection make using cracks understandable though ... as long as you've bought a copy. "Will DVD-A vs. SACD be another betamax vs. VHS war where the best technology may have lost the war? Will there even be a war here?" I don't think so. Both are pretty niche markets, especially SACD. There is still no way to make your own SACDs without a huge investment so I can't see it taking off in numbers. It's quite easy to deal in PCM of higher quality though. The software and hardware exists to record 192 kHz without breaking the bank and DVD burners are coming down in price. Additionally, I've heard mixed reviews of SACD's quality and also the format makes editing and processing a real hassle ... unless you convert to PCM, which kinda defeats the point of having SACD in the first place. "Should we invest in 24/192 technology now, or wait for improvements to be made and prices to come down?" What's the weakest link in your studio? I'm betting that it's something other than the sample rate you're using. That's where you spend your money. Bit depth is more important though. "Will the car audio market or the home theatre market be driving the technology to such a point that consumers will be demanding super high-quality audio from the engineering and sound recording community?" Neither. Why bother with a good system in your car? Home theatre stuff is usually pretty cheap and nasty unless you spend a fortune. I think there will always be two markets ... audiophiles and everybody else. "Who seems to be the most innovative software company that repsonds best to the continious advances being made by the hardware?" Tough question! If we're talking CPU cycles then everyone is a winner. Also, most DAWs now can deal with higher sample rates and increased bit depth. Nuendo will do 384kHz/32 bit float, I'm sure other DAWs can do similar. I don't think the future lies with technology as the be all and end all. The future will be about how people are going to use it, how well they're going to use it, what they're going to use it for and, very importantly, how they're going to distribute their work. In theory, some kid in his bedroom could make something to rival [i]Revolver[/i] or [i]Pet Sounds[/i] The technology is there. That this hasn't happened yet indicates that it's not the technology, it's the talent that's lacking.

[Saint Johnny B]

As to the car issue, a lot of folks spend a lot of time in their car during commutes and like a good sound system and good recordings to listen to. Some of these aftermarket custom installed car sound systems cost thousands of dollars and can produce not only high db but also some reasonable freq. response. I'm not sure what the sales dollar figures are for that market segment, but I would guess they are substantial. I believe these facts support the idea that people are willing to shell out large dollars for great sounding systems. Thus, some of the original questions on formats. I dunno about the equipment not aiding the process to produce outstanding classic recording such as those from the Beach Boys and the Beatles. It seems to me that there have been some really golden moments where the equipment loomed large in both its sound quality and ease of use to create a sound that is immortalized in these masterpieces. Since we are in the digital age, it seems to me that the key to really high quality sound, which actually rivals or surpasses analogue in its sound quality and modeled behavior, is nailing the A-to-D and D-to-A process. Once that conversion process is really right, the rest should fall into place. I'd like to hear from those who agree and disagree, since this is an open discussion. :)

[doug osborne]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]...as I see it, "parasite," not "pirate," is the correct word. A parasite lives off the host, but eventually kills it, thus killing itself.[/b][/quote]Craig, thanks for making that distinction and proper definition :thu: Industry figures show that there are about 2 million SACD capable players out there, and 2 million DVD-Audio capable players. No surround title has sold more than 20,000 until Dark Side of the Moon; DSOTM and the Stones SACDs probably don't count because you would be hard pressed to even know that the Stones titles were anything but a remastered CD reissue. Security is certainly on Sony's mind. Since they largely own SACD Content, Distribution, and Replication, they and Philips stand much to gain by selling music on spinning optical discs. DVD has been such an unqualified success, DVD-A's compatibility with DVD-Video players give it the edge in my mind. No matter what lies were told to James Guthrie, DVD-A and SACD deliver hi-rez audio just fine. The planned CD layer added to DVD-A (in development, but not yet working) could push DVD-A ahead for good. Do we need hi-rez audio and surround audio? There has always been an audiophile format/mass market format (78 vs. radio in the '30s, for example), and there probably always will be, until scalable digital distribution obviates the need for multiple platforms. Audiophile formats have always driven the development of newer, better mass market technology (the transition of AM to FM music broadcast, for example). Surround for music is certainly a new experience, but what can be bad about reproducing an infinite variety of acoustical spaces and creative surround treatments in your living room? Surround music may succeed based on the fact that there is such a large (50 million or so, according to Dolby) installed base of surround-capable home audio systems. Cars are ideal environments, and DSP can push surround-like experiences through two channel systems such as headphones and boomboxes.

[Alndln]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]As to the car issue, a lot of folks spend a lot of time in their car during commutes and like a good sound system and good recordings to listen to. [/b][/quote]Lots of folks get into car accidents as well when being distracted.I'd love to see a current survey of how many people listen to the news/traffic reports in their car while being stuck in traffic(the norm these day's)as opposed to listening to music.

[Saint Johnny B]

Doug Pardon my ignorance, but who is James Guthrie? And what are the nature of the lies that were told to him? You seem to be making a great case that DVD-A could win out over SACD. I see that there are some boxes out there that claim to play both formats equally well. I wonder if there is any agreement on which format is really better, or which one with some more innovative improvements will prove to be the best sounding of the two. Will we soon be going beyond 24/192? After all the 64-bit word length operating systems for PCs and Apples are just around the corner. OK folks, share your opinions and thoughts. :)

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Doug Pardon my ignorance, but who is James Guthrie? And what are the nature of the lies that were told to him? You seem to be making a great case that DVD-A could win out over SACD. I see that there are some boxes out there that claim to play both formats equally well. I wonder if there is any agreement on which format is really better, or which one with some more innovative improvements will prove to be the best sounding of the two. Will we soon be going beyond 24/192? After all the 64-bit word length operating systems for PCs and Apples are just around the corner. OK folks, share your opinions and thoughts. :) [/b][/quote]There have been many DVD-A vs. SACD debates on these forums, some have been many pages long and have pretty much done the topic to death. If you haven't read them, do a search. I agree that the converters are where future improvements might lie. At the moment it's hard to argue that it's just the sample rate that is important. Some converters can sound better at 48 kHz than 96 kHz; it's a complex issue.

[hmurchison]

You guys have seemed to miss Andertons most important point. Consumers WILL value ACCESS over quality. Even a 400 CD changer or a shelf of CDs cannot keep up with the speed and ease of setting up a playlist of Digital Files. Speakers are far too expensive, at least the ones that can accurately do justice to high rez formats. consumers value the $399 5.1 speaker system over $3999. Neither DVDA or SACD will win. The most popular and requested playback is the Universal Player that plays CDs, DVD,DVDA and SACD. Why limit yourself if you don't have to? In the next Decade Consumers will move beyond "physical" discs to downloadable files. Compression technology will get better and it will be inevitable. You will simply download the Digital File..add it to your library at home...your HD based car changer(phatnoise.com and others) and your portable Digital Player. Who has the time or space to want DVDA or SACD. They will forever remain a niche for those who have High End systems and prefer critical listeneing...those people, a niche themselves.

[Science]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Doug Pardon my ignorance, but who is James Guthrie? And what are the nature of the lies that were told to him? [/b][/quote]Maybe this is what he was refering to: http://www.audaud.com/audaud/APR03/newsApr9.html

[Anderton]

<> Computer software companies, specifically smaller companies like Native Instruments, who have to do huge amounts of R&D for what is a niche market. There are few enough potential buyers of software to support that level of R&D, let alone having those numbers diminished by parasites. I don't buy the argument that the kid with a cracked copy of Cubase SX isn't a problem. That kid should buy Cubasis. I can't afford a fancy car, so I buy a car I can afford. Software should work the same way. But I agree totally that pros who don't buy software are a serious problem. If ANYONE should support software companies, it should be those who depend on the tools those companies produce!!

[Anderton]

[[In the next Decade Consumers will move beyond "physical" discs to downloadable files. Compression technology will get better and it will be inevitable. You will simply download the Digital File..add it to your library at home...your HD based car changer(phatnoise.com and others) and your portable Digital Player. ]] YES! YES! My point exactly. About "song stealing" vs "software stealing"...I think there are two different issues here. The music software companies are, by and large, giving people what they want but not getting paid in return. This sucks. With music, the record companies are, by and large, NOT giving people what they want -- I don't mean the content or music, but the fact that people CLEARLY want to be able to download songs. The argument used to be "yeah, but only if they can get it for free." Apple has proven that people ARE willing to pay for music, BUT THEY WON'T PAY IF YOU DON'T MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THEM. There is so much great music that you simply can't get from the labels, and the only way to find it is online. This will change. Apple's iTunes thing is just the first salvo, and one of SEVERAL distribution models that will co-exist.

[Alndln]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] But I agree totally that pros who don't buy software are a serious problem. If ANYONE should support software companies, it should be those who depend on the tools those companies produce!![/b][/quote]I don't have any figures on this,but I would guess most pro's do buy their tools(software)and if anything use cracked copies to avoid copy protection.My guess is that the problem lies in the fact that all this software is aimed toward the home studio where most of the stealing is probably taking place,and where the biggest potential market is.Software is cheap these day's,and there are only so many pro's(studio's) to support such a market.That's my guess anyway.

[Saint Johnny B]

Craig Many years ago, I used to sell computers and software so I am very sympathetic to the loss of revenue caused by theft for the companies doing all the hard work creating application software. It's wrong to steal, it's illegal, and it's immoral. I especially feel for the smaller companies. But I also feel the same thing for the musicans who work hard to create music and then people steal the music by way of the net, and the musicians don't get what little royalites the record companies accountants and lawyers don't cheat the musicians out of. I sense that the universal player will be the winner in the market. And if it does become a "download only" market, I still have concerns about what happens to the musicians and about the formats. When I originally posed the question of theft protection by way of formats, it was related to the theft of the music, which appears to be massive, I did not realize that the computer software was also being stolen on quite the same massive level, but future formats may help with that as well. And even if it becomes a download market, there will still be format and sound quality issues. And 64-bit operating systems are just around the corner, what will that mean for sound quality and formats? Thoughts?

[Saint Johnny B]

On the above link re: Dark Side of Moon, it reads like some of the speakers were talking about some technical details without fully understanding what they were talking about. Too bad, that is such a common and human trait. I've done that myself, but I've been lucky and been treated pretty well by the press. I think they were having some difficulty in trying to say that they felt that their SACD was superior sounding and did not have quite the right ammunition to shootdown their competition. Even if SACD does not, in fact, sound superior to most people, *IF* it provides better theft protection, that in and of itself, may justfy using SACD. Do we have more thoughts, opinions, explanations, agreements, or disagreements? We are, after all, talking about the future. :)

[Curve Dominant]

The future is DVD/DVD-A. Entire albums will come with videos for every song. Duel-layer: You can watch it on your DVD player, and play it as audio in your car/CD Walkman/boombox/whatever. Or download it on your computer, point-of-sale, and watch/listen on the computer...burn it to any or all of the above. The audio-only format is going to die. People like to watch. If you have a band, team up with a cinematographer. Do it, now. DVD is hot.

[oudplayer]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: And even if it becomes a download market, there will still be format and sound quality issues. [/quote]You mean, like Apple and AAC? They're getting some heat for the sound of their downloads, which doesn't really rival 192kbps mp3s. [quote] And 64-bit operating systems are just around the corner, what will that mean for sound quality and formats? [/quote]A 64-bit OS doesn't immediately make much difference in the amount of number-crunching that computers can handle.. there are a lot of articles on this issue floatin' about currently since Apple is rumoured to be announcing a 64-bit system any month now. 64-bit certainly doesn't ever give you twice as much speed, and in poorly designed systems, can even slow the system down. The biggest immediately noticeable speed improvements for Apple computers would be in speeding up the PCI buss and offering on-board support for Ultra-ATA 133 and 150 and more Firewire 800 interfaces -- also, going to better, faster memory not usable by current processors. I have software that runs on Mac OS 8.1 that will record at 32 bit, but there aren't currently any cards to support this, years later... If I was less exhausted from the day's work I would look up and post the links to the 32 vs. 64 bit articles. Maybe tomorrow if noone else has got to them yet. +++++ And now for my less-technobabbly personal rant: As has been said in other threads in other parts of this, and other, forums, a lot of people's opinions are highly biased by the amount of money people spent on the latest technology. Obviously, if you're trying to push a 96-track 24 bit 192khz facility, there is some aspect to this substantial equipment investment that you will justify, both to your peers (fellow engineers), your family (who just put up with yet another mortgage on the house), and your clients (who wonder why they shouldn't go to the home studio down the street that charges $10 an hour). My own personal investment is less than this, but I get work from a set of clientelle for whom these numbers isn't meaningful. It's not a value judgment at all -- I've found a niche that works and seems to have less connection to trends and more towards a certain work environment. Others have the niche of catering to the early-adopters, and charge much more, but take a much higher risk by the sheer finances of quickly-obscelescing technology. Obscelescence, though is perhaps a psychological state -- 100,000 Jamaican dub records were made with 2-4 track tape machines, through funky rebuilt mixing consoles, and the outboard effects selection consisted mainly of spring reverbs and a Roland Space Echo. No sony sampling reverbs, no 960Ls, no distressors, no GML eqs, you get the picture. Lee Perry dub plates are currently amongst the most sought-after recording artifacts ever, fetching 1000s of dollars. They don't sound better now than they did then, do they? Not even if they're rendered into 24 bit 192khz digital. I'm not sure what the point to this was. Some will only be happy listening in 24/192 surround sound on their Martin Logan timeframes (or whatever the current overpriced non-linear speaker rage is -- did I just date myself?), and claim that they can hear the difference in the 80-90khz range by superior converters. The majority of the listening audience, honestly, is perfectly happy with FM radio and intermittently working MP3s at 128kbps. The fact that Napster was so popular is testament to the populist non-concern with audio standards. With that in mind, I think there will be simultaneously, as long as the technology industry can pull it off and maximize their profits, several to many standards. After all, vinyl never left -- it became a specialty market. People still release 78s, believe it or not (the Cheap Suit Serenaders put out a few in the 90s, and some of my friends in Greece are recording their rebetika band through a horn and releasing 78s). Some artifacts didn't stand the test of time well -- remember the gold-plated CDs? Quadraphonic? Finally, I don't think that physical media will become obsolete, for the simple reason that physical products are so fetishized. People tape TV shows they know will repeat again, [i]so they can have the tape[/i]. Even worse, autographed CDs, original Japanese releases -- all these things fill the collecting mentality. Until capitalism and property ownership has become archaic and we're all living in the "new" system, it's all about the physical commodity, baby.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] I don't buy the argument that the kid with a cracked copy of Cubase SX isn't a problem. That kid should buy Cubasis. I can't afford a fancy car, so I buy a car I can afford. Software should work the same way. But I agree totally that pros who don't buy software are a serious problem. If ANYONE should support software companies, it should be those who depend on the tools those companies produce!![/b][/quote]I don't agree but it's largely irrelevant. Kids will rip off software, it's a fact of life ... until software companies get together and combat it. I'd like to see some thirteen year old try to run a Bombfactory TDM plug on a cracked copy of Cubase ;) I'd gladly give up a PCI slot or USB bandwidth for a device which is actually integral to the running of a DAW or plugin. Dongles are a complete waste of everybody's time. Other protection schemes punish those that bought the software. It's crazy. Just as you can't run TDM stuff without the hardware, there should be a generic product which you need to buy to run VST plugs and instruments, Cooledit, ACID, Nuendo, etc. Until the companies get together and do something like this I don't really have too much sympathy for them.

[doug osborne]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Doug Pardon my ignorance, but who is James Guthrie? And what are the nature of the lies that were told to him? You seem to be making a great case that DVD-A could win out over SACD. I see that there are some boxes out there that claim to play both formats equally well. I wonder if there is any agreement on which format is really better, or which one with some more innovative improvements will prove to be the best sounding of the two. Will we soon be going beyond 24/192? After all the 64-bit word length operating systems for PCs and Apples are just around the corner. OK folks, share your opinions and thoughts. :) [/b][/quote]James Guthrie mixed DSOTM in 5.1 for the SACD release (both the mix and the delivery medium are amazing IMO). The debate is over comments he made at the Sony-sponsored debut of the SACD releas, discussed here: http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/mlp_encode.asp This thread has split into three topics :p , but they are related. My earlier point that we have always had the high-quality/availability conflict (and that it has fueled development in this industry) still stands. I want to express the opinion that it is not downloadability, but availability, that consumers are demanding; always-on, wireless connection to every recorded work is the ultimate expression, with mp-3 or whatever download just a step toward that ideal. Study after study after study by the record industry has shown that their best customers for pre-recorded music are also the best customers for blank media. Any whining by the recording industry about downloading is based in stupidity or a lie (sorta like a certain political administration's claims about WMDs and terrorist activities in Iraq to drum up support for an unprovoked invasion...ooops that's another topic :p ;) ). I don't believe that the cracker-kidz have had a tremendous impact on the software companies; not many of them would have bought a $799 recording program, and most already have free versions of Cubasis or whatever that came with their hardware. The audio software companies are having no more troubles in this economy than many businesses in industries of this size in this economy. When I try to analyze the cost of bringing something like Logic or Acid to market, my head starts to spin. Code this complex gets sold for thousands of dollars in much bigger markets (like what Siebel sells).

[Saint Johnny B]

Any opinions on the actual sound quality of SACD and DVD-A?

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]The future of recording will be more about access than fidelity. People would rather hear what they want to hear RIGHT NOW than anything else.[/b][/quote]BINGO! Right on the money! [quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]Software theft: It is killing music software companies. Not "It's going to," but IT IS. [/b][/quote]File sharing IS NOT going away. You can invest in whatever technologies you want to try and stop it -it won't. File sharing exists and people are going to have to learn to make an ally of it or die by it. It's as simple as that. It seems like quick and simple ways of paying SOMETHING for the files you download -on the honor system- might be a step in the right direction. I think 900 numbers and PayPal are pretty quick easy ways to do this. A lot of people would probably be willing to offer up a buck or two for a downloaded song that they liked, or pay ten or twenty dollars for a hacked software app they downloaded. My philosophy? Give it to them at or near your cost, and give them an enticing deal if they upgrade to the full version. Many people won't pay a cent, but many people will. Every little bit helps.

[doug osborne]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Any opinions on the actual sound quality of SACD and DVD-A?[/b][/quote]They both deliver high-res audio wonderfully. Don't let anyone tell you different - anything beyond that answer is politics.

[Soundscape Studios.]

Let me tell you this guys, I was mastering an album with Alan Silverman, who is the mastering engineer at ARF! in NYC - a mutiple winning Grammy engineer. He had one of the first Sony SACD mastering recorders in the US - very high end. Anyway, he was naturally excited to show me an AB of an album he had done as 44.1 16 as well as SACD. Now, I tend to think that I have pretty sensitive ears - I can hear timing differences in 10ms increments, and have very good spectral perception (tested it at AES!) I could absolutely not hear much of a difference - and was not ashamed to say so. So, the increase in quality to me seems to be negligible enough to make me wonder if they can convince people that it is needed.

[Soundscape Studios.]

Oh, you gotta love that guy Craig AnderSon! Is that Craig's evil twin?

[Saint Johnny B]

Doug So do you see the future as the "Universal Player," that handles most, if not all, formats? Do you see the Discs themselves also containing files for all the players, in other words, the same disc will play on any available player? Since I'm ignorant as to the technical details, I don't even know if you could have both DVD-A and SACD on the same disc.

[Tedly Nightshade]

I think CD will be with us for a long, long, time to come. Even if the moneyed folks are grabbing up whatevers like whatever, there are millions of CD players littering the place and billions of CDs. 16/44.1 can be made to sound incredible. That so many CDs sound so crummy is due to other factors, factors that will apply to any and all future mediums. Human factors. One thing that will happen- some people will begin to realize how unhealthy and fatiguing crummy sound is, and will address noise pollution in their immediate environments to the extent that they can control it. Music therapy will become a much bigger thing, and some people will approach music from an angle other than commodity/convenience. Little shitty plastic computer speakers will be acknowledged for how little and shitty they are. If 70's blue jeans styles can make a comeback, so can nice wooden-looking sound systems. These things will be the exceptions, not the rules, but a lot of us live expressly for the exceptions. The CD thing is a fait accompli- all those CDs and players are already out there, someone will be listening to them. A lot of the world is too poor for DVD.

[Saint Johnny B]

I agree CD will still be here. Cassette and Vinyl are still here too. But by getting the market to accept the benefits of a new superior sounding format, the record companies have another opportunity to resell their catalogs. I have the same album on a 33 rpm, cassette, and CD, but I really like Electric Ladyland. I bought the same album 3 times. And, I will buy Electric Ladyland again in DVD-A or SACD when one of these formats hit critical mass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Volvo and some of the other auto makers already have surround systems as standard equipment. I also believe CD sales are falling, or at least on a downward trend, while the opposite is true for DVD. DVD is trending up, up, up. I'm not sure where SACD is in the market, but Pink Floyd has a strong cult-like following, so the release of their classic "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD could have spurred some sales. So where are we going with regard to the future recording standards and playback formats?

[oudplayer]

[quote]Originally posted by Doug Osborne: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Any opinions on the actual sound quality of SACD and DVD-A?[/b][/quote]They both deliver high-res audio wonderfully. Don't let anyone tell you different - anything beyond that answer is politics.[/b][/quote]Politics? You should read up on the technology of SACD. Some is discussed [url=http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005166]over here...[/url] , where we find out about the substantial potential for distortion that PCM encoded audio, even 16 bit 44.1khz, is not subject to. [quote](originally written by Nika) It [SACD] yields higher sampling frequencies and lower bit depth and higher distortion than common, everyday, off the shelf converters. [quote] At 2.8224 MHz it is comparable to 88.2 KHz PCM at 32 bit. [/quote]In no way is it. Have you looked at the specs on a 1 bit converter chip? What is the dynamic range of it in the range below 44.1KHz? It is much worse than a PCM converter at 44.1S/s. The dynamic range of SACD in the DC->44.1KHz range is only about 10 bits (broadband) or so. It is absolutely no better than PCM when it comes to dynamic range or bit depth. Not in any way. [/quote]And in a later post: [quote] DSD is based on delta sigma modulators which are a PCM system that only uses one bit to do its sampling, plus a feedback loop to feed back the noise. What you are describing is called a "delta modulator" which is a completely different type of device and has nothing to do with DSD. The biggest stumbling block to get over with DSD is to realize that it is precisely a PCM system that only uses 1 bit, much like if you used a PCM system at 44.1KS/s that only used one bit. [/quote]To paraphrase, SACD may not not all it's cracked up to be... There is a large financial motivation to create DSD technology, as the playback deck is cheaper to manufacture than even 16/44 digital ones, and the ability to re-release yet again the growing back-catalogue of albums means more product sales for the transnational corporations. But there's no proof yet that SACD even sounds as good as CD.