I don't understand this (SACD/DSD and computers)

According to the linked page, this software has the ability to play DSD-recorded files, and this computer has the chipset. So how far are we from being able to play SACD's on computers? Just the format of the disks themselves, right?

I mean, I know that if you are a professional authoring house, you can get the right computer with the right software and hardware, but that's in the 5- and 6-digit price range. Then you can record as well as play, but I'm just talking consumer playback of SACD's on the computer.

And it's good to know that I was right in that a self-contained laptop/notebook computer would be the first...for the obvious reasons...

 

As far as we've always been.

Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

There are no computers that can play SACD physical discs, not even professional authoring systems. What the authoring systems can do is play SACD disc images, basically the formatted data that is cut on to the glass master (except there's an extra encryption stage at glass mastering!). The disc image is sent to the pressing plant to make discs, and so at authoring you want the capability of being able to check that the disc will behave correctly before you start cutting glass.

There is no physical reason why you can't make a PC with the ability to read and play SACDs, it is just politics. SACD was developed to be music-industry-friendly with regard to copying/piracy. By keeping SACD drives out of PCs, you have already gone a large way to preventing cloning.

 

I mean, just the drivers. SACD drives are the same physically as DVD drives, only they read a different format -- sort of like FAT vs. NTFS.

Regarding the politics -- yeah, that's a whole 'nother hurdle. I just meant technically, as that is all I care about. As far as politics -- once Sony "sees" the light, they'll bring that hurdle down, until then, it might as well be the Berlin Wall.

 

Oh. I thought...looks...you're right, the Merging machine makes tape, not disk. But what about the Sadie system? Can't tell from the literature.

 

Not sure of that. DVD-A is the same as DVD with differing "formatting" I guess you might say... but SACD iirc is not physically the same as a DVD or CD. A DVD-A can be read on a PC, and ripped/converted I'm sure, not SACD. There aren't CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD combo computer drives by intention... amazingly, even scarily successful intention.

 

SACD drives are NOT the same as DVD drives. SACD allows for a higher maximum data rate off disc than DVD, so you need a 2x speed DVD drive for SACD. In order to be able to read SACD you need a special decoding circuit only available from Philips or Sony that can unscramble the pit-signal processing (PSP) that is used on all SACDs, and which makes SACDs unreadable by standard DVD drives.

The political wall is in place by all the majors, you can't just blame Sony.

 

It's the same. All the SACD authoring systems currently make cutting masters on AIT tape. A proposal for making cutting masters on Blu-Ray has been prepared, but it's questionable whether all facilties will move over to Blu-Ray in the short-term.

 

Maybe SACD was Sony/Philips' way of making right after having invented the easiest to copy (1:1) non-protected music format: the CD. What I do not understand is why, with all the strong copy protection that SACDs have, has this format not been embraced by all the majors and promoted to the max in order to have it substitute CD in due course (while also providing potentially higher resolution and better sound).

 

Black Elk, excuse my ignorance, but what does AIT stand for?

 

That, my friend, is the $64 million question!

 

Sony's Advanced Intelligent Tape - a high density computer tape format. For more information, check here:

http://www.aittape.com/

 

Black Elk, thanks for the info and the link.

 

Yeah, "echo", thanks for setting me straight.

 

My guess is because they realized that selling their songs on itunes is a lot cheaper since they don't have the expensive SACD mastering costs or packaging and pricier delivery costs associated with physical formats. So, instead of moving a step forward in sound quality, we've taken a big step back!

 

I'm not sure I agree with the first sentence - but I agree with the last. I thought the fact that SACDs could not be copied was just so bloody convincing, that, after all their complaining about wholesale piracy from Eastern Europe, Asia and South America, that they'd jump on SACD. As the Elk says - $64,000 question.

 

Well, they're not as easily copied as CDs but they're certainly copyable. A recording of an SACD through the analog output would be perfectly acceptable to most on this forum and would be a big step up in quality for itunes kiddies.