What is the real purpose of four channel sound?

[par4ken]

They gave up and stayed with PCM digital when they moved on to bluray.

We are still getting SACD releases from Sony Japan!

 

[audiomaster]

Yes, but they are "directional ears" and can locate sounds in any direction. Hooked to the ultimate multi channel decoder, the BRAIN!

We all know what 4ch is for...auditory BLISS! Occasionally overidden by financial pain and frustration.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Sony likes to try making competing formats to try to corner the market. The SACD (DSD) was simply a different digital code for the same end result. SACD is every bit the same quality as HD PCM. No more, no less. The ADC and DAC now needs to be a different design for the different data format. I think this failed because it wasn't just an attack on consumers but also the recording industry. At the time when AD and DA converters were still very expensive gear, Sony told recording studios to replace those units with DSD converters and change over to DSD. No new features or improved sound, just changing the digital language to try to obsolete their competition. Would need new DAW software too! They tried to pretend they didn't know about HD PCM and tried to compare everything to 16 bit CD on their brochures. Then they got busted degrading some of the CD audio on their releases to make the DSD program sound better next to it.

They gave up and stayed with PCM digital when they moved on to bluray.

They actually had a clear better format back with Beta over VHS. They were so aggressive with their style of pushing it and competing that consumers turned away because of that.

Anyway, we can transcode DSD to PCM now virtually losslessly with free software so it's a moot point. Annoying to have the rogue format floating around all the same.

DSD is NOT lossless in the same way as PCM, which is why DSD -> PCM is considered LOSSY. DSD does not have an even distribution of resolution, it has infinitely more resolution in the lower frequencies than the higher frequencies. This is why some people compare it to analog sound. Because it is ACTING like analog sound, with an imperfect high end.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

We are still getting SACD releases from Sony Japan!

Most SACDs are created from PCM masters, and a lot of the "DSD" ones have a PCM intermediary step. DSD has it's advantages, but when the signal chain isn't pure, which is 90% of the time, it's inferior to 24/96 PCM.

 

[jimfisheye]

I do feel the need to defend DSD and say again that it delivers the same fidelity and resolution for audio as HD PCM. I can make snarky comments about their marketing and competing style but they really did deliver an equally HD format there.

The claims of superior performance or more "analog like" vs PCM are pure bs though. People were comparing DSD to 16 bit CD masters and kind of disingenuously with those comments. Trying to pretend HD PCM didn't exist or something.

The transcode is akin to working with 32 bit floating point. You have to frame that back to 24 bit fixed to listen to it. Both "containers" can hold the very same quality audio.

Anyway, buying AD and DA converters all over again in DSD format was a tall order! And of course the multidisc players came on the scene right away so the savy consumer could shop carefully and keep access to both formats. The hit was going to be on studios to convert to DSD and Sony finally read the room there!

Oh, and Protools would have had to write a DSD version of the DAW to support it. All the movie houses and big studios with $$$$$$$ of Digi/Avid gear would have had to buy DSD versions of all that. Think about the places that have 100 channels of AD inputs. No new features or improved fidelity. Just a pure format change that requires replacing some of the most expansive equipment.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I do feel the need to defend DSD and say again that it delivers the same fidelity and resolution for audio as HD PCM. I can make snarky comments about their marketing and competing style but they really did deliver an equally HD format there.

I should clarify that when I say DSD from PCM sources is inferior to 24/96, it isn't THAT much. But, it is there.
Pure DSD has unparalleled realism in the bass (largely again due to the uneven distribution of resolution like I had stated).

 

[jimfisheye]

I should clarify that when I say DSD from PCM sources is inferior to 24/96, it isn't THAT much. But, it is there.
Pure DSD has unparalleled realism in the bass (largely again due to the uneven distribution of resolution like I had stated).

Strongly disagree. PCM has no such shortcoming either. You're hearing the quality (or lack thereof) of the mix and mastering delivery of it in either format precisely as it sounded on the mastering desk.

Both of these formats are robust to the extreme too! You can do damage and most consumers would be none the wiser. Not just the ones that can't tell they're listening to mp3 either. And no, not just the ones that don't seem to mind the shrill volume war hash either! (Some of which could be put to a wire recorder with no further damage. Some of the masterings out there make discussions on format quality beyond silly!)

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I

Strongly disagree. PCM has no such shortcoming either. You're hearing the quality (or lack thereof) of the mix and mastering delivery of it in either format precisely as it sounded on the mastering desk.

Both of these formats are robust to the extreme too! You can do damage and most consumers would be none the wiser. Not just the ones that can't tell they're listening to mp3 either. And no, not just the ones that don't seem to mind the shrill volume war hash either! (Some of which could be put to a wire recorder with no further damage. Some of the masterings out there make discussions on format quality beyond silly!)

I am NOT saying PCM is bad. I am saying DSD sourced from PCM serves no purpose. Pure PCM is good, and pure DSD is good. Mixing and matching is when troubles arise.

 

[Electric Moo]

SACD is the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century, I could make a feature-length film about it. Just the perfect storm of bad things to kill it.

They should have called it "SAD CD"

*groan*

 

[jaybird100]

In partial defense of Sony, they backed Beta until the end, professionally anyway. They gave in at the consumer level for a few years but then the DVD came out.

Mini-disc was rather pointless once ipod's came out.

The Elcaset was really a non starter. I could never see the need for it. If you want convenience use regular cassettes, if you want higher quality use reel tape.

SACD was supported for many years even when sales of SACD's were down, have they totally stopped supporting it now on all models?

My real ***** would be with them stopping support for SQ Quadraphonic, had they hung on they could've produced Tate decode

Sony still has SACD capability on some blu-ray players, but they're not supporting the format with software here in the US.

 

[Owen Smith]

Beta gained acceptance in the professional market.

The only thing professional Betacam shared with Betamax is the word "Beta" in the name and being made by Sony. They were totally different formats.

 

[Owen Smith]

In partial defense of Sony, they backed Beta until the end, professionally anyway. They gave in at the consumer level for a few years but then the DVD came out.

However Sony still sold Betamax tapes for a very long time, so they were good about supporting people that bought the machines.

 

[par4ken]

The only thing professional Betacam shared with Betamax is the word "Beta" in the name and being made by Sony. They were totally different formats.

I know that we are straying away off course but this link explains the differences between Betas.

Betamax Vs. Betacam Videotape Comparison Guide

 

[barfle]

I worked at a CCTV company through most of the 1990s, and they were still using Betamax until around 96 or so. Larger head drum than VHS, so higher head-to-tape speed so marginally higher horizontal resolution, with the sacrifice of number of pictures on a tape.

 

[Tribby2001]