How we gonna play our discs in the next future?!

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
From what I remember, the whole choice for using DSD on the SACD was to allow for cheaper DACs to be implemented into consumer players, as 24-bit 96-kHz DACs were expensive at the time SACD development started...but by the time SACD launched the price difference was negligible.
I believe the whole DSD drive was to lock down the disc's from being copied, etc.
CD ripping was already easy and rampant, but even to this day the ripping of SACDs is a very convoluted process
with dedicated hardware and software required to do so.
IMHO the myth of any superior sound quality over even plain Redbook 16/44.1 was spread into and by the High End cult to boy it's sales. The only real advantage the SACD discs allowed was the data density to support discreet multich over the CD's encode & compressed DTS-CD option.
As a 50+ year multich enthusiast I was never move pleased and excited to first see the DVD options appear on the scene, and then praise be the BluRay discs.
Optical media may be on the decline but I don't believe it will completely disappear as long as there are enough SOTA music and movie lovers like us still around to support it.
 
That's true...but then I take a look over at the cassette realm, where there really isn't a new cassette deck with any sort of Dolby Noise Reduction...which is used on a LOT of cassette tapes.
While true, once you have the optical drive that can read the discs the rest is just software. There's no special physical hardware needed to support CD->UHD as long as the drive can read the bits.
 
Just curious, do the stories that pop up now and then about Sony converting the Columbia analog tape archive they acquired in the big merger in 1988 to DSD as purely an archival format ring true? See for example the Dr. AIX columns such as https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3779. Clearly DSD was not intended at that time as a consumer format, nevertheless it was chosen about a decade later for SACDs.

I had a long career at a particle physics (“high energy physics”) laboratory where hundreds of petabytes of data (many thousands of petabytes by now) from both our lab and the CERN CMS experiment were written to tape, not disc, and we were under regulatory obligations to preserve those data and products derived from them. That meant that about every 3 to 5 years, every tape had to be read from an old format, and written to whatever was the chosen new format, ensuring that no bits were changed. From 8mm helical scan, to Storage Technology “Redwood”, “Eagle”, and “Beagle”, through DLT, and then all the LTO generations. Not my main responsibility, but data integrity and preservation of the ability to interpret those data were nevertheless part of life. Thank goodness for virtualization and the ability to preserve old operating systems and programs.

For my own multichannel and stereo archives, every physical disc is ripped to an image format (ISO for DVD, BluRay, SACD, compressed wav for CD) on the first or nearly first access. Those files get written to copy-on-write filesystems that can detect and correct single bit errors on any read (I use ZFS, BTRFS would suffice). Every filesystem gets backed up regularly. The ISO and wav formats are well documented and will always be readable as new computer hardware becomes available. The PCM formats, or PCM derived from DSD, will always be playable. Unfortunately the proprietary formats written to some of those ISO images (Atmos in TrueHD, Auro-3D, DTS:x) are vulnerable to loss of the knowledge of how to interpret and render them.

For Atmos, on a Mac using Loopback or Blackhole, the built-in Atmos renderer, and Audacity, a 7.1.4 render of any E-AC3-JOC file that streams on that platform can be recorded. Sadly it’s just a digital render, not the preservation of the Atmos object information. Likewise renders can be recorded of Atmos in TrueHD if the DRP is available. A Realiser A16 with the Dante 16-channel digital interface should be able to do the equivalent with DTS:x, Atmos, and Auro-3D, but I don’t have the funds to try that, and frankly the renders are not sufficient.
 
Last edited:
PS Audio, through their physical media group Octave Records, is releasing a handful of stereo only SACDs. They also make a player that’s too expensive. Dutton is also releasing a handful of SACDs in MCH formats. I don’t know of anyone else, but that’s an admission of ignorance more than anything else.

I believe I understand die-hards hanging on to what they know. And I’ll undoubtedly continue to support them as I’m able.
It's not hanging onto a technology. It's needing a way to play the recordings we spent our hard-earned money on.

They want you to buy the same recording again (and pay the same royalties twice) to be able to play it.
 
It's not hanging onto a technology. It's needing a way to play the recordings we spent our hard-earned money on.

They want you to buy the same recording again (and pay the same royalties twice) to be able to play it.
I was referring to new releases. I’m glad I can play so many different types of discs. My Oppo 105 is awesome. But I’m sure its finite, and if it dies before I do, I’d be surprised if it doesn’t take multiple machines to replace that functionality, all because of a handful of disc-makers still using a format that was (apparently) deliberately built to thwart accessibility (ripping and editing).
 
It's not hanging onto a technology. It's needing a way to play the recordings we spent our hard-earned money on.
But that is exactly what it is! You have to hang on to the old technology (equipement) to play those vintage recordings. You don't expect anyone to market a new Edison Cylinder Player do you?
They want you to buy the same recording again (and pay the same royalties twice) to be able to play it.
If you are happy with the original vinyl LP you are not forced to buy the CD or SACD or Blu-ray! Many of us purchase the same recording in multiple formats because we want the best possible sound. Technology has to advance. If I was happy with a crappy pre-recorded cassette of a performance I would be under no obligation to upgrade. And once again all those shiny discs can be played seamlessly on the same player or ripped to (a modern) hard drive.
 
But that is exactly what it is! You have to hang on to the old technology (equipement) to play those vintage recordings. You don't expect anyone to market a new Edison Cylinder Player do you?
Agreed. I don't get the complaining about some conspiracy against the consumers wallet when in the majority of cases it's the consumer that demanded the better technology (sound). I've been very happy to pay for my fav recordings each time we progressed from 78/45s, to LP, to CD, to multich etc etc etc.
If I didn't want it, I wouldn't have bought it. :LB
 
But that is exactly what it is! You have to hang on to the old technology (equipement) to play those vintage recordings. You don't expect anyone to market a new Edison Cylinder Player do you?

If you are happy with the original vinyl LP you are not forced to buy the CD or SACD or Blu-ray! Many of us purchase the same recording in multiple formats because we want the best possible sound. Technology has to advance. If I was happy with a crappy pre-recorded cassette of a performance I would be under no obligation to upgrade. And once again all those shiny discs can be played seamlessly on the same player or ripped to (a modern) hard drive.
The only reason I have copies of albums in multiple formats is so I can play them in the car or elsewhere without needing a turntable.

Note that I have a lot of phonograph records that were never re-released on CD. I still want to play them.
 
The only reason I have copies of albums in multiple formats is so I can play them in the car or elsewhere without needing a turntable.

Note that I have a lot of phonograph records that were never re-released on CD. I still want to play them.
I agree fully with those reasons but most of us want the best possible sound in addition. That "best" is very often found on the original vinyl, especially in cases where the digital release is mutilated by brickwall mastering. Other times, as with the Hi-rez Blu-ray (Quadios)
or the SACDs (Dutton Vocalion) are miles above the rest! I don't mind paying more and paying again (and again) if it is for better sound.

I've even purchased multiple copies (versions) of the same vinyl album and/or the same CD in search of the best sound.
 
Last edited:
I bought a copy of DSOTM when it first came out. Then I bought a quad release. Then I bought a half-speed mastered LP. Then I boight a CD. Then I bought a digital surround release. I can play any of them.

Nobody forced me into any of those purchases. I always wanted the best sound I could get.

But my point about SACD is that there really never was a reason for it to be a consumer format. Yes, it usually sounds excellent, but with DVDs and Blurays in PCM, it’s overly redundant, and doesn’t serve a very wide customer base.
 
But my point about SACD is that there really never was a reason for it to be a consumer format. Yes, it usually sounds excellent, but with DVDs and Blurays in PCM, it’s overly redundant, and doesn’t serve a very wide customer base.
How redundant? SACD came out first. It advanced the art well beyond what most people could ever care about. SACD as far as I know has right from inception been popular in Japan. Being backward compatible with CD by making them dual layer is icing on the cake. Being dual layer compatible with CD gives them a wider customer base! DVD-A, DVDV and Blu-ray don't have that same compatibility. Instead we get multi-disc sets full of needless CDs when one disc would do!
 
How redundant? SACD came out first. It advanced the art well beyond what most people could ever care about. SACD as far as I know has right from inception been popular in Japan. Being backward compatible with CD by making them dual layer is icing on the cake. Being dual layer compatible with CD gives them a wider customer base! DVD-A, DVDV and Blu-ray don't have that same compatibility. Instead we get multi-disc sets full of needless CDs when one disc would do!
Totally redundant. And I’m not in Japan. And if you need a second layer to be “compatible,” then if that second layer isn’t there, it’s not compatible.
 
Totally redundant. And I’m not in Japan. And if you need a second layer to be “compatible,” then if that second layer isn’t there, it’s not compatible.
That second layer is almost always there, not always on those very early releases! So much is available on those Japanese SACDs and don''t forget about those from DV!

Two other advantages are that it is an audio only format and that it can not be easily edited so we get much better "purer" transfers! They are all shinny silver discs that can play in the same "universal player"!
 
That second layer is almost always there, not always on those very early releases! So much is available on those Japanese SACDs and don''t forget about those from DV!

Two other advantages are that it is an audio only format and that it can not be easily edited so we get much better "purer" transfers! They are all shinny silver discs that can play in the same "universal player"!
Again, I'm not complaining about content. Just that there's no good reason for it to be around any more.
 
Again, I'm not complaining about content. Just that there's no good reason for it to be around any more.
There is no good reason for it not to be, other than that sales of physical discs of all types has become such a niche market. I know of nobody other than myself and those people here who would purchase a Blu-ray audio disc for instance. I would even have trouble finding a CD for sale at any local retailer!
 
How redundant? SACD came out first.
Came out first...wasn't developed first. Sony was initially on board for DVD-Audio (which was set to launch with CSS protection with DVD-Video in 1996) before negotiations broke down over backwards compatibility and other related factors (royalties being one of them).
 
There is no good reason for it not to be, other than that sales of physical discs of all types has become such a niche market. I know of nobody other than myself and those people here who would purchase a Blu-ray audio disc for instance. I would even have trouble finding a CD for sale at any local retailer!
The reason for it not to be is that there are equally good formats available, and SACD players are getting scarcer and scarcer.

If you can't find a CD at a store, try finding a SACD, even at a used media store.
 
Back
Top