The appeal to consumers was supposed to be better and more lifelike sound quality. The appeal to music companies was supposed to be a new digital format that consumers couldn't Napster-ize or cheaply copy so it could be sent across the Internet to all their friends.

But instead, two newish audio media formats, DVD-Audio and SACD (short for "super audio compact disc"), seem to be stuck at the starting gate. Rather than replacing the enormously successful CD, these two formats are starting to look like two Next Big Things that may never find a place in tomorrow's all-digital, relentlessly networked living room.

The lack of enthusiasm adds yet another chapter to the hit-or-miss nature of digital innovation, and, experts said, a cautionary lesson in what happens when companies try to impose new restrictions on a product where once there were few or none at all.

Both of these shiny, palm-sized discs look just like standard audio compact discs but contain about six times as much digital information, delivering a sonic picture so detailed their backers brag you could practically hear Mick Jagger strut his stuff across the stage.

Complete Story

Unfortunately, the majority of consumers do not appreciate this "sonic picture" enough to make the leap.

In fact, the music industry has peaked out from an audio perspective. They may find new, higher-volume storage methods, but digital recording processes now surpass most humans' ability to tell the difference.

Call me old-fashioned, but what's wrong with the current CD? It works for me...

"They may find new, higher-volume storage methods, but digital recording processes now surpass most humans' ability to tell the difference."

MP3 is basically indistinguishable (sp?) from CD when recorded at 160k or more. At 128 I can tell a slight difference, but when using a good encoder I don't notice much.

DVD video is highly compressed, but most people won't even notice it because of the high resolution. If you have a high resolution video it will compress further (smaller file size for the same quality) than if you took a lower resolution video and compressed it. Why am I saying this? No point really.

But I would like to relate it to audio quality and CDs. The MP3 format is based on the CD / computer format which is 16-bit 44khz (although 24-bit 96khz is on the move). CDs are pretty much at the high ceiling of human hearing, but there is a very very slight lack of clarity that a new format would bring. If mp3's were related to a higer resolution format we could perhaps compress them further than we can now. Also we could get them to be CD quality or even better.

My ears have changed enough fom listening to loud music, playing loud music and living in the city that mp3 quality is good enough for me. I would assume that it is good enough for most folks as well. That being said, I doubt that most folks need anything better than mp3's anymore.

There will always be a few "audiophiles" that will demand only the finest quality file even if a lot of is beyond the human ears range. The most important aspect I feel is that we have bought every method of delivery shoved down our throats by the industry - how many times are you going to buy the same recording just to keep up with the technology? Personally I have bought almost every album I have had in almost every format going back to 8 track.

Counting the LP, casstte, and now CD, you are talking 4 or more methods of supply. I feel that any way I can replace music for free is my "right" to reserve.

Yeah, I know it is wrong, but so having to buy the same thing over and over. And this is the attitude that the industry is forced to deal with. Mob rules in this case.

there is noting wrong with the cd, except it's hard to keep a good anti-ripping technology on it

it's a simple matter of consumer demand and marketing. MP3's were marketed first and people got used to the quality. The higher quality apeals to the music buffs and musicians who are trained through years of experience and work to tell the difference.

Beta was a much better quality unit than VHS but VHS won out due to marketing

So true Compmore,

But at the same time; It's a bit silly to argue over which lossy compression codec is the best. Every single one of them lose something from the original waveform. And as I've said for sometime now, mp3's get a bad rap due to people using codecs and software with the wrong settings and populating it on major p2p networks as well as irc and even some older ftp servers. With the right settings codec and software, an mp3 can really shine.

As with any compression scheme, quality will vary depending on the settings; the exact implementation of the codec, etc.

If you want the cd quality copy of the material, then keep the original wav file you ripped.

Regards,
Raid/HHI

I believe that the main reason they want a new format is so you have to buy all new players and rebuy your damn cd collection at a higher price for little improvment. Screw that. A high quality recording on a cd is pretty damn close to the real thing.

Personally, I've only rarely been able to hear the difference between a CD and a 160k MP3, and that was under unusual conditions. The difference wasn't all that great either...something I could have easily missed had I not been actively listening for it. CD quality is good enough for me; I'll pass on these newer, restriction-friendly formats, thank you. No Denial of Rights Mechanism for me.

Like RaidHHI said, if you want the top quality possible, keep the waveform from the CD. Or you could use a lossless compression scheme as well. You won't get dramatic compression ratios like with MP3 and if you're like me, the difference probably won't be noticeable, but none of the waveform will get hacked off. I've started ripping a lot of my classical CD's to FLAC...hard drives aren't that expensive per gig.

On my PC, I have the new 7.1 Audigy card. There is separate software required to play back DVD Audio, plus there is a dearth of titles to choose from.

I was checking out Best Buy's selection & could only find 2 discs (the last 2 Steely Dan albums) that I'd pay for (if I didn't have the CDs already). I also noticed DVD-Audio wasn't any more expensive than CDs either.

Here's why I think SACD and DVD audio are failing: Two albums I've seen on either SACD or DVD Audio for $25 each: Pink Floyd "Dark Side Of The Moon" and Boston's debut album. I can buy the "traditional CD" versions of them for $11.99 and $8.99 respectively. Putting aside that it's RIAA material, why would I want to spend hundreds of dollars on new equipment to play the SACD version of Boston's album which cost's me $25 when I already have a traditional CD of that album that sounds just fine to me and the only sound improvement is beyond my range of hearing anyway? I think DVD audio has more of a chance of being accepted because, as I understand it, it is playable on any standard DVD player (no need for the majority of us to buy new equipment), but still, there's no way in hell I'm paying $25 just because it now comes in higher resolution and Dolby 5.1 Surround mix. Quite frankly, I've listened to Dark Side Of The Moon for all these years in the traditional stereo format the ORIGINAL MASTERS were recorded in, why would I want to pay $25 for it again just because somebody has decided that I really need to hear the NEW REMIXED VERSION in Dolby 5.1 after some 20+ years of listening to the original 2 channel mix??? And finally, it's my understanding that the two formats are not compatible and SACD is a format proprietary to Sony (thus Boston on SACD and Pink Floyd on DVD Audio). I highly doubt Sony is going to license their content to DVD Audio to compete against their own SACD, nor is any other label going to license their content to SACD and give Sony a slice of their pie. I'll stick with traditional CD's. At least I don't need a separate player for each music label I buy music from.

Been through this several times already (vinyl >>> CD). I'm satisfied with my (non corrupted) CD's.

SACD ? No thank you

"I've listened to Dark Side Of The Moon for all these years in the traditional stereo format the ORIGINAL MASTERS were recorded in"

Dark Side was also originally released in quad with the band's involvement. The mix was done by Alan Parsons. Some of these new 5.1 mixes are actually made from the original quad mixes done back in the 70's, but DSOTM is not one of them - it's a new mix done by James Guthrie I think.

Btw, you can get the Dark Side 5.1 for 13.29 including shipping at deepdiscountcd.com if you want. Also, when Floyd toured behind Dark Side they had a surround sound speaker system. I wish I had seen that. : )

"Unfortunately, the majority of consumers do not appreciate this "sonic picture" enough to make the leap."

Actually, the majority of consumers are tired of shelling out money to purchase the SAME music over and over again. LP's, Reel-to-reel, 8-Tracks, Cassettes, CD's, MiniDiscs, DAT tapes now all this additional DVD-Audio, SACD crap. No wonder consumers don't want anything new. Where's the discounts for upgrading to the newer technologies? What discounts?? They don't exist???

Besides, why would we want to start using something that limits how we can use it? Just because it's rated the best and some audiofile geek neighbor will be able to tell the difference? I don't think I'm gonna shell out thousands of dollars for this!!! Even if I CAN tell the difference.

Looks like I'll be buying the White Album again.

Not!!!

LOL

Sometimes I feel that I might be hearing the difference between mp3 and CD(Techno)... but the difference that I MIGHT. keyword might be hearing is so small that it is not something that I would worry about buying in CD or in SACD etc. I also won't even bother with those proprietary formats because they limit what you could do and I still won't hear the difference that well.

basically, F*** you RIAA. I choose not to buy or download your music, you paranoid old men.

I have a bootleg of Pink Floyd's DSOTM quad on a DTS CD. Interesting mix (Some sounds there that are not in the 2 channel mix too).

Most folks don't want to pay out for new equipment all over again for little gain in audio. Sure it's OK for movies. But for music only I don't think it's going to happen. Remember how popular DAT and digital audio cassette was.

To hear the difference between a well encoded MP3 and a CD you need good audio equipment. Most people have average to cheap audio equipment and cannot tell the difference (You also need trained ears).

I hope it dies a death as it appears it already is.

DVD players do not play back DVD Audio.

CD and mp3/ogg are good enough for me! Unless you could come up with a digital format that makes files significantly smaller than mp3 (or ogg) there is no point. I like ogg because it is non proprietary, but mp3 is king.

Even the best "ears" really don't hear much better than at CD quality. These super formats and even surround sound are best suited for special purpose applications and not for general music listening.

2 ears, 2 speakers, nuff said.

Shmoo

"They may find new, higher-volume storage methods, but digital recording processes now surpass most humans' ability to tell the difference."

Correct. Too bad I'm not among them. oh!:

I have much larger range of hearing when it comes sub or hyper sonic sound.

Yet I rip cds at 96k MP3Pro. Why? It's fast, sounds ok, small in size and MP3Pro is not a format that is widely spoofed on p2p networks. (Ex. Fake or faulty MP3s)

It's good enough for me.

2 ears...2 speakers....that's like saying current TV is good enough and that larger screens and high def are useless.

look, frequency range does not determine quality...music sampled at 44.1 pcm will not sound as smooth/warm as muisc sampled at 192 or the 1.whatever mhz SACD is..it's all about trying to get closer to analog sound to produce something that's nicer to our ears...it doesn't matter if your hearing stops at 12khz.

the fact that CD's sound "good enough" is because they do a real good job at tricking your ears, just as mp3's do. I hate mp3, it's an inferior format compared to what's on the market...but it's "marketed" to hell, just like VHS was when it was against beta.

and comon, do your ears really only hear left/right...hell no, your ears were designed to hear 360, whcih is why listening to speakers have a differnet effect than headphones....5.1 music just makes sense, it sounds better to your ears...

seriously, it's the "2 ears 2 speakers" and the "people can't hear above CD" that bothers me...get educated, if you're gonna blast a format...then dammit learn every technical aspect behind it.

it vinyl was portable, I'd use it over CD's.

Hey Deadman,

Which DSOTM bootleg do you have, the aucutal quad mix or the SACD, cuz, there's two copies floating around, and the SACD version sounds a lot cleaner than the quad.

"Counting the LP, casstte, and now CD, you are talking 4 or more methods of supply. I feel that any way I can replace music for free is my "right" to reserve."
Damn right I have the same colection 8-tracks afew but every LP I own is also on Cassette and CD how much more do they expect the consumer to buy? I actully prefer my LP's on a good turntable and nice infinity speakers over the CDs but its so ez to program a shitload of CDs in a changer to play a cool mix!

The problem is that everyone has one and no one wants 2.

"look, frequency range does not determine quality...music sampled at 44.1 pcm will not sound as smooth/warm as muisc sampled at 192 or the 1.whatever mhz SACD is..it's all about trying to get closer to analog sound to produce something that's nicer to our ears...it doesn't matter if your hearing stops at 12khz."

From my experience, that is what I am talking about when I say "slight lack of clarity." It doesn't make much difference at all to our ears, although there is a very slight difference in tone. But if warmth is the only issue we have with CDs, why not just buy a tube amp for the D/A conversion? That would warm it up.

Personally, I think that one more format should be introduced and standardized (with much thought regarding expandibility and channels). We're going to need the quality as speakers get better. But it gets to a point where audio clarity requires $1000 studio monitors to hear, and if that's the case, we really don't need it.

Hell, even an upgrade price for previous versions would be better than the what they do now with music. Make it like purchasing software.

Although, there is nothing preventing the creation of the newest technology that will make mp3 go the same route of the Sony BetaMax. Doubtful though anytime soon.

i'm with scayf and fewerinhibit...

"Rock n Roll took its toll
So I've lost the highs and lows...
and so it goes"

Digital recordings regardless what rez theyre recording hurt my ears when u raise the volume. The distortion due to god-awful mastering is pretty bad. Thats what make vinyl records in a way so appealing because once u turn the volume..the vocals are in your face and the instruments surround u.

mp3s are fine..so are cds to the extent they are clear..inexpensive to produce and portable and everyone pretty much as a cd player.

Quite frankly the only difference i can hear with SACD or DVD-A's are classical music because of the unique production process it involves. The market share for this genre is bearly 8%..let alone those who love classical music will spends oodles of cash to buy a new player PLUS special speakers to get this clarity that's somewhat discernable. I like classic music since I also play the violin as well as rock music but there is NO way Im spending over a grand for a system that I cant even play without getting evicted..plus the overpriced SACD's.

SACD's and DVD-A's been out since 2000. Im serious for those who dont know and barely anyone knows of it or is interested in this technology. Guess what the hottest item is? Yup..MP3 PLAYERS! The major rats still dont get it. Tsk and theyre supposed to be marketing geniouses. HA! Go indies!! Support your indies!!

CDs meet or surpass the human frequency range.

Even though the "higher grade" formats do offer higher frequency response, it is relatively useless. What you get in addition is greater bit depth. This means that there are more perceptive levels of volume for each frequency.

Here is teh best article I've seen on the subject:
http://www.musiq.com/recording/digaudio/bitrates.html

All I can say is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" or put another way,"If it does the job,why change"(CD's).We simply don't need 480 odd minutes of audio on one easily damaged disc(the digital 'pits' etched/pressed on the surface of the disc are easily damaged!,not to mention the cost being much higher to pay for the increased royalties(more music).Plus you can burn over 18 albums on a conventional CD as MP3 files and play on a DVD player for a whole lot less!

The increase in quality does not balance out against the trouble to upgrade your listening equipment as well as losing the convenience of online music shopping/collecting.

Simply put, taking the convenience (and the price for active p2pers), there is no reason to convert to this new medium. None whatsoever. Most people are thrilled enough with the quality of their music as is. This isn't going from vcr to dvd after all.

Face it, the industry doesn't give a crap about quality. They are trying to destroy CD because it isn't copy-protected. If they copy-protect the CDs, people complain.

What they would like -- probably cannot achieve -- is to switch people over to new formats that have copy-protection integrated in the format from the beginning. i.e. AAC/WMA and SACD/DVD-A. So industry is moving toward lower quality, and higher quality at the same time.

As for me, I'll stick with CDs. Vinyl is a higher resolution medium, but with the problems of noise and fragility. SACD is also higher resolution -- never heard one, but ears I trust claim it can be about as good as vinyl. But I don't want to spend more money for a new disc-player.

It is nice to see other comments from people who recognize the greatness of analog. Most of the pop music schlock out there doesn't sound good in analog or digital, so MP3 is about good enough for that.

dewdude

If it is mixed correctly, 2 speakers can and do produce the 3-D auditory effect. If it is not mixed correctly, what's the point in having more than 2 speakers?

I didn't mean that CD format is the technical ultimate possible. It is about the best you can wish for in general purpose listening and marketing and mass distribution of a recording in digital format. There are higher resolutions and all, but leave those to audiophiles and for special purposes. Super DVD audio and etc. is a niche market.

My point, if you are talking digital, CD audio format (or equiv) is the practical best and no need to stick people with other DRM formats. CD's will (and should) stick around for a long long time in my opinion.

mp3/ogg are simply compressed data formats to make file sizes smaller so more songs can be stored. mp3 and ogg will be around for a while too.

All the other digital music formats are useless
to the general consumer and are being foisted on the consumer to control the consumer.

I would (and do) use vinyl too! But it is not viable anymore and that is sad.

Shmoo