Talk:Super Audio CD/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dominant audio format of choice?

"As of March 2009, there are in excess of 5,000 SACD titles on the market.[1] By contrast, the total number of titles available in all other competing hi-rez formats combined (DVD-Audio, Blu-ray and downloads), total in the low hundreds. Accordingly, SACD has emerged as, overwhelmingly, the dominant hi-rez audio format."

In order to prove that SACD is the dominant hi-rez audio format one has to prove that consumers actually purchase more of SACDs than any other audio format. The total number of titles released have no relevance on how dominant the format is. Neither SACD nor DVD-Audio has made any headway on CD sales, and the CD industry is itself being attritioned by legal and illegal music downloading, so whether SACD can eventually supplant CDs as the carrier of choice is a matter to be seen. 220.255.7.166 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

--> The total number of titles released have no relevance on how dominant the format is.

Do you make this stuff up yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.10.128 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the sales figures from the supplied RIAA reference and rewrote the DVD-Audio paragraph. Both formats had roughly equivalent sales in 2007—both were at .2 million units that year. We need sales figures from 2008 now. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well - you shouldn't have.
The RIAA famously count all hybrid SACD sales as CD sales - not as SACD sales. This has been well discussed in this forum, and even on this discussion page. Please read the background details before posting false and misleading information onto wiki. I would also suggest your desires to propogate DVD-Audio would be better suited to the Wiki entry for DVD-Audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wozwoz (talk)
You must be mistaking me for someone else. I don't have a dog in this race. What I used to rewrite the section was the reference provided. If the reference is not correct then supply one that is. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about classic CDs and surround sound

The article incorrectly states that original CD-Audio (those that conform to RedBook) do not support any surround sound. This is not true; the RedBook audio format supports both 2 and 6 channel audio streams; 6 channel streams were never utilized. (it would cut normal CDs to about 23 minutes and would require a reader to read the disk at a speed of at least 3x.) Segin (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget Matrix-encoded surround sound. Samboy (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing some more research it was only four channels and it was never actually implemented. However, yes, matrix encoded surround sound has been done with a lot of CD releases, so we might have to revise this line. Samboy (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, to clarify things, I made the relevant line the less ambiguous title "Discrete surround" (in order to eliminate the many matrix-surround CDs out there) and added a link to our 4-channel CD page with the note "Never implemented". Samboy (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary lists of artists

This article is too heavy with long lists of artists who have released SACD recordings. Let's take this material out to form List of artists who have released on Super Audio CD, or just take it out for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the list of artists is outta there. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay - it is back. Please refrain from vandalising useful content on wiki. It would be a pity if wiki need to further restrict your editing privileges. The content section is very helpful for people interested in the medium.
Vandals don't offer to discuss changes before making them. I have a valid complaint about the excessive list of artists. You say the list of artists is helpful for people interested in the medium, I say it is too much detail. At WP:EMBED, discussion revolves around what is appropriate, but no example directly applicable to this situation is given. We need to use common sense instead. The list of artist's names should either be taken out and made its own list article or it should be turned into prose-style text with informative content. I will tag those paragraphs with the appropriate template calling for a prose-style rewrite. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
After placing maintenance templates on two paragraphs that either need to be rewritten in prose style per WP:EMBED or taken out and put into a new article, User talk:129.78.64.103 came in and deleted the maintenance tags without correcting them. I replaced them. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Now User:Wozwoz moves in to take out the two tags, without first participating in discussion here, saying "Tag removed: The tag itself is actually inconsistent with WP:EMBED which specifically allows for short lists in the 'appropriate use' section. See also: WP:COMMON." The part I see applicable in WP:EMBED is
which tells me that a long string of artist names, names that stand alone and don't have detail and clarification, are best put into their own article. The defense about short lists falls away with such a giant list. The guide does not give a specific example that looks exactly like what we have here, so we use common sense. Going to WP:COMMON, we find
I take that phrase to mean that, if something looks wrong to me, I should work to remove or change it until it looks right. The list of artists looks wrong to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to summarise:

1. The Wiki SACD page has contained a summary of well-known artists for several years.
2. Binksternet then popped into the forum for the first-time and willy-nilly deleted it.
3. After this attempt at vandalism was undone, [User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] added public prose tags to the effect that: the summary of artists was a Wiki list, and should instead be prose.
There are at least four problems with this assertion:

First, it is highly confused. The existing text is already in prose blocks (in particular, the popular artist section) , rather than as explicit Wiki list form. So why add a prose tag?

Second, the summary of famous artists is precisely that - a summary of famous artists, not an exhaustive listing of anything.

Third, the WP:EMBED page specifically sets out at the very top IN LARGE TABLED TYPE that common sense should prevail. Wiki WP:EMBED itself refers one to WP:COMMON as the overriding principle (not me).The page is not a rule book, nor is it intended as a set of rules; it provides a guideline.

Fourth, those very guidelines at WP:EMBED specifically set out under the Appropriate Use section: "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles."

The page looks fine, not only to me, but to the legions of wiki contributors over the years. So why try to vandalise it with unhelpful tags that are inconsistent with Wiki's own guidelines? It might be more useful to find some other cause de jour. Wozwoz (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]

Having a section of text exist in an article for a long time is not a defense. No text here is sacred from being "mercilessly edited". Me being relatively new to the article is no attack. Everyone gets to edit on WP. Take a look at WP:Old dogs and new tricks and take a deep breath.
The guideline authors who specified "short lists" probably weren't thinking of a Content section with some 130 links to artists and albums. Do you call that short? I don't.
My first glance at that section made me think "somebody is trying to impress the reader with volume", probably for the purpose of puffing out the chest and impressing the observer. The actual result is likely to be the opposite: the reader may think instead "these people are so insecure that they need to list all these artists and albums". They may wonder why SACD makes this list when CD doesn't, and other high resolution formats don't. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This too-long list has recently been lengthened even further. It's too much!! Whatever it was trying to say is lost in the noise of too many links to too many artists. I'm taking the whole section out, again, because it is becoming clear to me that the issue of how many titles and artists there are on SACD is being pushed too far in the direction of promotion. The issue of how much of the total market share SACD claims is not being addressed. I am preventing a lopsided presentation by trimming this flabby section away. Here's to a leaner and meaner article, with better focus for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly

I took out two instances of the word 'overwhelmingly', in relation to SACD being the dominant market force in the high resolution market. I felt that the word in the unreferenced sentences was not supported by article text. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As there is 10 to 20 times more hi-rez content on SACD than on all the other formats combined, what word would you feel would be more appropriate than overwhelmingly? Exponentially? Vastly? Incomparably? ...
Content differences (quantity of titles) can accurately be described as "an order of magnitude higher". Sales figures, though, what are they? Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
According to PC Magazine, neither format took off.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the term 'hi-rez'

I replaced each instance of the term 'hi-rez' with 'high resolution'. Comments? Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the 'hi-rez' term has been changed to 'high resolution'. I think there needs to be a consensus before the newer term is utilized. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How to represent DVD-Audio

I changed the DVD-Audio paragraph from this:

...to this:

The reason I did this was that "seems to have stagnated" was very imprecise. Saying that sales peaked three to four years ago achieves the same end but is an accurate statement. I also formatted the link better. This helpful (I thought) little edit was reverted by 58.173.10.128 with an edit summary of "DVD-Audio sales figures belong on the DVD-Audio page. Maybe Binksternet could take his propaganda there". I find it interesting to note that both versions include comments about DVD-Audio sales. I propose we keep my more accurate version. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

www.sa-cd.net used as a reference

I deleted http://www.sa-cd.net used to support the statement "As of May 2009, the number of titles released on SACD is approximately 20 times larger than available in any other high-resolution format." The reference does not say anything like this; it simply has a numerical tally of available SACD titles, with no indication how the number of titles was derived or how many titles other formats have in comparison. I put a fact tag up instead. A better reference is needed, or the sentence adjusted to match the reference. One possible solution would be to say how many titles there are on www.sa-cd.net as of (today's date). Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You were right to remove it -- such a statement would probably be a synthesis. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet

A preview of the history page shows relentless undoing by user Binksternet. Most of the edits appear to have little to do with SACD. He appears to be using the page as some kind of launch-pad for DVD-Audio?? Or be involved in some kind of edit war placing bizarre prose comments that are clearly inappropriate. I have issued him with a warning. Looking at his talk page, he appears to have a history of this conduct ... willy nilly changing long-established content without discussion or following proper guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarnabyBlue (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your account just appeared, and its only actions have been in response to my changes. I believe you are a sock puppet account. I don't need to defend my actions to you, but I will explain to others that my actions here are solely to prevent this page from becoming to rah-rah promotional, and to prevent it from making claims unsupported by references. I have no dog in this hunt. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion from an uninvolved editor

As an uninvolved editor just passing through, this article appears to go out of its way to put a positive spin on SACD. According to PC Magazine, "SACD and DVD-Audio are two high-resolution audio formats that were designed for better sound than CDs, but never took off. Instead of embracing sound quality superior to CDs, users chose the convenience of MP3 players". The Guardian basically calls both formats failures: "A confusing array of CD and DVD audio formats has failed to take off in a market that doesn't care about sound and is increasingly downloading anyway."[3] CNET reports that "SACD was praised by audiophiles, but fizzled in the market. Sony Records no longer releases new SACD titles, but the format continues to have the support of audiophile labels."[4] This article glosses over the failure of SACD in the marketplace and gives undue weight to the number of SACD titles. For example, the summary ommits SACD's lack of success and instead states that "the number of titles released on SACD is approximately 20 times larger than available in any other high-resolution format". How is that even important enough to be in the summary? The sections on Market and Content have similar issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. To me, it looks like some editors who have an interest in the success of SACD are using this page to downplay its current tepid market strength and emphasize its position relative to a slightly older format which is also doing poorly. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as classical music goes, it actually HAS been modestly successful, it simply was never propagated into major labels or less audiophile-heavy genres (though Sony DOES still release titles from time to time). And unlike what some people believe, it's far from dead -- those labels do continue to release discs and have been at a steady stream (DVD-A on the other hand pretty much died a quick death and really only trickled out releases relatively speaking). As said before, the RIAA sale numbers put an unfortunate spin on things, and really should not be trusted (I linked above to forum posts as to why. Ovbiously the forum posts can't be used in the article, though) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
How is that even important enough to be in the summary?
I appreciate that you are an uninvolved editor. Nonetheless, your comments appear to rather miss the point. SACD is not a mass format. It is, today, a high-resolution (hi-rez) format, analagous to Blu-Ray as a high-resolution video format. Blu-ray only has about 5% of the video market ... a similar ratio to SACD's share of the classical market. Why not pop over to the Blu-ray page and call it a complete failure? I think that would be both misleading and inappropriate. In fact, I understand there are only about 1 or 2 thousand Blu-Ray titles on the market. Why not call Apple a complete failure because Mac market share is only 5 to 10%? Oh - I almost forgot - that's exactly what your reputable source, PC Magazine - not even a hi-fi magazine - said about Apple for about 20 years. Uninvolved?
In today's world, if you are interested in hi-rez audio content, then SACD dominates the market place. Almost everything that is available on DVD-Audio and hi-rez downloads is also available on SACD, ... and only a tiny tiny fraction of the SACD release content has been made available in other formats. All the formats offer hi-rez sound ... and assuming one would prefer to avoid disputes about quality differences between hi-rez formats (which are not entirely helpful in my view) ... what else is important other than content? Wozwoz (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)]
Sales. Percent of market is an important gauge of success. This article is completely devoid of references that would help the reader gauge market share. Instead, promotion-oriented editors beat repeatedly on the one drum that they have, the number of titles. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting text under "Classical"

I deleted some text under the Classical section, but much of it was restored. Here are the problems I found within that section:

  • "hi-resolution." Should be 'high-resolution'.
  • "...classical canon..." Why a red link?
  • "...providing the closest thing to the original studio analog master tapes that has ever been released." Are any of these recordings also available on other high-resolution formats? If so, this sentence is not true. The various high-resolution formats can't be separated from one another in listening tests.
  • "Despite relatively wide consumer availability to SACD players..." Relative to what? Which consumers? This is unsourced.
  • "...Universal adopted a downmarket marketing strategy..." This is unsourced.
  • "...mega-sales..." This term would not have a hyphen if it existed as a noun. It does not exist in standard English, though; it should be replaced.
  • "...long tails of the market..." This term needs to be explained, clarified or replaced.
  • "...cater for..." Should be 'cater to'...
  • "...over 440 labels<ref>[http://www.sa-cd.net]</ref>..." This reference does not say how many labels there are. Out it goes.
  • "...giving the classical marketplace a dynamic and youthful energy..." Colorful writing more appropriate for popular media, not the encyclopedia.
  • "...probably unprecedented since the launch of the CD itself." Conjecture.
  • "...major league orchestras / groups..." What? There are no major leagues in classical music. No need for the slash when a word will do.
  • "...Chicago Symphony Orchestra's highly regarded and multi-award winning new Chicago Resound label provides full support..." Unsourced.
  • "...as does the London Symphony Orchestra's 'LSO Live' label <ref>http://lso.co.uk/buyrecordings/</ref>" The reference doesn't support this statement.

Some of this stuff is fixable, some not. When I deleted the inutile and unsourced material last time, there was no worthy paragraph left. This section needs a thorough rewriting or deleting. It certainly needs a reliable source which actually says what is being put into the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just fix it already. Geeze. SO I made a couple mistakes in my new text, but most of it was the old one. I'm sorry I displeased you, oh wise one. -_- ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I started fixing it earlier, before posting here. I took a look at the results and realized there wasn't a whole lot left. But hey, in the spirit of the wiki, I'll correct some things and fact tag some unfixable stuff. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, SA-CD.net DOES have a list of labels (in the drop down box), just no good way of getting a number without manually counting. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have made it a bit less top heavy, by creating a Baroque section. A jazz section would be very helpful too. If anyone has some ideas or specialist knowledge in that field, that would be most helpful. [[[User:Wozwoz|Wozwoz]] (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]

The mass of your recent reversions have destroyed much of the work being done to improve this page. You restored many of the mistakes and problems discussed here, and your new Baroque paragraph which listed 12 artists is just the kernel of another expanding problem. You also added a reference to RIAA 2008 report which is a damaged-beyond-repair link, and you added a review of Dark Side of the Moon which doesn't support your assertion that 800,000 were sold. I removed those bad refs and the statements which were supposedly supported by them. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops! The High Fidelity Review does say 800,000. I'm putting that into the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - lots of ooops by you. Almost all your above comments turn out to be unsubstantiated onanism . The RIAA 2008 link works perfectly (try a different browser if you are still having problems), the SACD.net reference to the number of labels supporting SACD was completely correct (you just didn't look - as Melodia noted - and I have now provided a within page link to same, your quotation of RIAA data misleading at best, and false at worst, and the rest of your mass deletions are little more than a fake cover for Wikipedia:Vandalism. Wozwoz (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)]

"...providing the closest thing to the original studio analog master tapes that has ever been released." Are any of these recordings also available on other high-resolution formats?

Nope. They are on SACD. Not released on downloads, not released on DVD-Audio. It would be more polite to check the facts before deleting in future. Thanks. This is really the same issue about the dominance of content on SACD.

One new problem that was introduced in the recent addition by Wozwoz was that the link http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F730-65A0-C0F5871C369D.pdf does not appear to work. I get the message that it is damaged and can't be repaired.
Other, older problems re-introduced include
  • the non-standard terms "hi-rez" and "hi-resolution"
  • taking out the comma in 5,500 to make 5500
  • all caps in the word "AND"
  • an unsubstantiated claim to forward compatibility
  • unsubstantiated and unclear sentence "This compatibility/nesting of both the past and the future is considered to be a major advantage of the SACD format."
  • excessive lists of artists
  • deletion of fact tags, without fixing the problem indicated
  • unexplained or clarified phrase "downmarket marketing strategy"
  • unexplained or clarified phrase "high-end long tails of the market"
I put the new reference for 440+ labels into the article, and formatted the reference. Thanks, Wozwoz for that link. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I've checked the link from Safari and Mozilla - works perfectly. Try a different browser. 2. hi-rez is not non-standard, anymore than iPod is non-standard, or wiki is non-standard. 3. The rest of your comments border on trollism. Forward and backward compatibility ? You seriously don't understand? lol. For things you don't understand, or browser problems, ... I am not sure that the discussion page is the appropriate forum. Google is your friend. Wozwoz (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

taking out the comma in 5,500 to make 5500 -- that's pefectly fine actually, but changing it is pointless. I think WP:ENGVAR would apply in this case. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank YOU! That is very good news to me because four digits in a row has long been a standard in engineering, and I was very frustrated with Wikipedia's old rule of "Commas are used to break the sequence every three places left of the decimal point..." With the new WP:MOSNUM rule of "In large numbers (i.e., in numbers greater than or equal to 10,000), commas are generally used to break the sequence every three places left of the decimal point...", I'm going back to all the engineering subjects I keep tabs on so that I can implement the change. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Please keep your comments constructive and impersonal, Wozwoz; calling a fellow editor a troll and a vandal is unacceptable (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for the relevant policies). Since the recent blocking of a couple of disruptive accounts I'm keeping this article under fairly close scrutiny; editors that can't abide by our editing policies will be shown the door. EyeSerenetalk 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup - civility is certainly the way to go. Please note that I did not call my fellow editor a vandal, nor a troll. My statement is far less: (i) that some of that editor's "comments border on trollism"; (ii) that the same editor has adopted a pattern of editing that publicly claims to add x, y and z (all reasonable things) ... but then, at the same time, he deletes 20% of the Wiki page without making even reference to same in his edits. Under WP:Vandalism, this is described as 'sneaky vandalism'. There has also been an issue with 'abuse of tags', again described at WP:Vandalism. A quick browse of the editor's talk page shows that he has done a lot of good work on wiki, and also that this is not the first subject area where these problems have occurred. I have carefully added back in the comments he has stated he was adding, but without deleting 20% of the page. I would also hope, having regard to the warm and friendly interchange between yourself and that editor on his talk page, that it will be possible to maintain an impartial handling of this matter. Cheers and thanks, Wozwoz :) Wozwoz (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That amounts to the same thing, and doesn't help to foster the collegiate atmosphere we strive for. Policies tend to be interpreted according to the spirit rather than the letter - and of course that goes for all editors (including those I've had a single conversation with). The reason I checked the article was because this edit caught my eye; you appeared to be removing a source that, on the face of it, doesn't look like advertising. I'm also concerned that you would undertake such a large revision to the article whilst content discussion is underway here on the talk-page, and especially one that reintroduced/removed controversial items under discussion. Frankly, this is disruptive behaviour, and will get you blocked if it reoccurs. EyeSerenetalk 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And in fact has (just noticed the logs). Please take the advice above to heart should you return; subsequent blocks will be longer. EyeSerenetalk 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
EyeSerene, you missed when he called Bink a wanker - but he gets points for style. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD sales ref needed

This sentence was added about DVD-Audio: "Subsequently, sales have fallen below 2001 levels, and the RIAA no longer report DVD-Audio sales at all." A friend of mine printed the reference PDF out for me, and I can see it proves only the second part of the sentence, in that the RIAA 2008 year-end report declines to list DVD-Audio sales as it had in previous years. The reference does not support the phrase "Subsequently, sales have fallen below 2001 levels..." Can we get a reference to support this statement? Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Difficulties with sales figures

I'd like to see some sales and marketing figures brought into the article, but there are multiple problems with the available sources. RIAA reported SACD sales separately only for single-layer discs, not hybrid discs that can be played on normal CD players. RIAA figures only cover 84% of the US market,[5] leaving 16% of US unaccounted for, and 100% of the large Europe and Asia markets. RIAA figures giving the percent of market share in the USA are said to have a 95% confidence level, with ±2.5% accuracy. Here's what we have to work with:

  • 2003 non-hybrid SACD sales in 84% USA: 1.3M units, $26.3M.
  • 2004 non-hybrid SACD sales in 84% USA: 0.8M units, $16.6M.
  • 2005 non-hybrid SACD sales in 84% USA: 0.5M units, $10.0M.
  • 2006 non-hybrid SACD sales in 84% USA: 0.3M units, $5.5M.
  • 2007 non-hybrid SACD sales in 84% USA: 0.2M units, $3.6M.
  • 2008 (no longer tracked separately from CD)
  • 2003 percent of consumer market, in dollars, not units. SACD 0.5%
  • 2004 percent of consumer market, in dollars, not units. SACD 0.8%
  • 2005 percent of consumer market, in dollars, not units. SACD 1.2%
  • 2006 percent of consumer market, in dollars, not units. SACD 0.0%
  • 2007 percent of consumer market, in dollars, not units. SACD 0.6%

Where are the Asian numbers? Where are European figures? Anything recent? Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List of SACD artists

I just calved off the non-prose list of artists to List of SACD artists. Anybody who has experience editing a list, please head over there to add categories and whatever else is necessary to make a good list. Now that that material is gone, the remaining artist prose is glaringly lacking in the classical department. A few sentences need to be cooked up about classical artists. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We should delete the "Market forces" section

OK, guys, we need to delete the Market forces section unless the claims in this section are supported by WP:N-worthy references. There's a lot of claims here that just aren't backed up like "SACD has gained significant momentum within certain genres. SACD is strong within classical, jazz and acoustic music, genres that appeal to the audiophile or high fidelity community". That's nice, but what evidence do you have to back up this claim?

For example, I can say that the 40gb Sony PS3 doesn't support SACD, but for this claim to be included in a Wikipedia article, I need a reliable source to back up my assertion. Samboy (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just cleaned up this section and have removed original research that is unreferenced. If you want to restore this section, please explain to us why this article should have unreferenced content that violates WP:NOR. Samboy (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I like what you did except that you left a single unreferenced sentence to replace Market forces. I removed that sentence and the heading. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You didn't clean up anything, you massacred a large chunk of content claiming OR when it's not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read the following links: WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. To summarize: On the Wikipedia, when an article is controversial, it doesn't matter if you think something is obvious. If an editor wants to put something in the Wikipedia, he needs to support it with references.
For example, is there a reference to back up the claim SACD has gained significant momentum within certain genres. SACD is strong within classical, jazz and acoustic music, genres that appeal to the audiophile or high fidelity community? Until someone finds a WP:RS to back this claim up, this claim does not belong in the article. Ditto with the other stuff I have removed (there are a number of significant obstacles to be overcome before high-quality downloads can threaten the market position of SACD; this is original research. Is there an article to back this up?). For information to be in this article, it needs to be backed up with information from notable, reliable sources. That's Wikipedia policy. A Wikipedia entry isn't my personal opinion, it isn't your personal opinion. It's based on information that comes from external sources. Samboy (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some links to back up the "SACD was a failure in the marketplace"

I think it's fair to add content to this Wikipedia article (indeed, I think a line to this extent should be added to the lead) that SACD is, by and large, a failure in the marketplace. I posted a lot of references supporting this over two years ago; I will post two of the most notable references again:

I have established notability for the sources for the above two articles which mention SACD's failure. We have articles from reliable, notable sources showing SACD's failure. Is there any reason we shouldn't have a note of SACD's (relative) failure in the article?

If I don't get a reply to this stating why SACD isn't a failure (using reliable sources and not performing original research), I will add content in this article stating SACD's inability to gain significant traction in a day or so. Samboy (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. I simply added "SACD was not accepted by the mainstream market." to the lead and backed it up with references. Samboy (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone questions me adding this line to the lead, The user "A quest for knowledge" has three more reliable references supporting this assertion higher up the the talk page. I added references from audiophile magazines; more mainstream references (C|net, etc.) saying the same thing are available. Samboy (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added two more references backing up this statement. I don't think anyone is going to contest it at this point. The one person who has recently contented these statements on this talk page objected because the sources provided were not from audiophile sources; I have added two mentions of SACD failure from audiophile sources which answers this objection. As an aisde, the editor with this objection was blocked twice for disruptive editing of this article and has not edited in the Wikipedia since their last block. Samboy (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more research

While SACD proponents are no longer actively editing here, I am working with some of them off-Wiki to keep this article balanced http://sa-cd.net/showthread/37650/. As an aside, my own research shows a few SACD releases done in 2009; clicking through these titles shows all of 2 SACD releases on Amazon in May of 2009 ("Schumann: Symphonic Studies & Piano Sona" and "Jazz Delights"). It isn't entirely dead. Samboy (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm stopped trying to work with the SACD online community; I get accused of being a troll there when I ask for references. I don't have time to deal with those kinds of people. Samboy (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Jaded after less than 18 hours! They must be insecure about their future or they'd be very open with data and refs. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your support!
You know, I used to be like that when I was a Linux-on-the-desktop zealot. Very emotional and very easily given to anger when anyone challenged the idea we would soon have the year of the Linux desktop, so I know how they feel. They're collectively in denial and react to the overwhelming evidence that SACD is dying with hostility. They are somewhere between the denial and anger stage of coming to terms with SACD going the way of quadraphonic; asking for solid data supporting the assertion SACD has a real future causes them to become angry at this point instead of accepting SACD's fate. Indeed, a pro-SACD Wikipedia editor reacted to my request for references on this page by deleting my comment on his talk page.
At this point, I have made a reasonable effort to get a NPOV view in this article by trying to get these people to come up with references they can't come up with.
I've actually been editing this page on and off for a couple of years and am really glad you are here (along with a couple of admins) with the voice of sanity; the only people who cared about this article in early 2007 were the pro-SACD faction who would not allow the obvious fact that SACD is dying to be placed in this article. Samboy (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well perhaps if you didn't assume bad faith rather than treat me like a newbie, I wouldn't have deleted the comment. And I'm all for a balenced article, and I'm not pro-SACD so much as you think (I don't even have a player), but you seem to want to hold to a standard far stricter than most articles hold to. The fact of the matter is that there's always been problems with sources for SACD info, because of lying, ignorance, and narrow view of the market. Instead of listening to that and at least considering the possibilty, you instead masacre the article even at spots that ARE sources. That's hardly NPOV. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Finally you're willing to have reasonable dialog. I apologize for not entirely following WP:AGF with you; I figured, when you deleted my comment, that you were not interested in real dialog and handled things by seeking discussion elsewhere (my failed attempt to work things out with the people over at SA-CD.net).
The reason I'm holding this article to a very high level of standard of WP:RS and WP:N for said reliable sources is because this is a controversial article. Wiki admins have had to perform no less than three blocks recently because of disruptive edits in this article. When an article is this controversial, with people letting their emotions run as high as they have here, the best way to keep the article neutral is to make it well-referenced. This keeps the article in conformance with WP:NPOV and, as mentioned above WP:RS.
I've made my POV very clear; I don't think SACD has a real future and between me and another editor, we've come up with four WP:RS sources backing up this assertion. I understand some SACD titles are still being made and that that there seems to be a cottage industry still making SACDs, not to mention a number of SACD players still in the marketplace. One goal I have is to have the article reflect that fact as much as possible.
I have spent a good deal of effort today getting rid of stuff that looks like WP:NOR (such as speculating why it is Blu-Ray got cracked much more quickly than SACD) and supporting stuff that doesn't look like WP:NOR with references. My goal is to have, within the next few days, an article where every statement in the article is backed up by a reliable source.
Looking at your history, I see one thing you do is rollback a lot of vandalism that happens in the Wikipedia, and I can see why you initially thought my edits are vandalism. As I told you on your talk page, it's not good enough to assert that I'm deleting stuff that belongs in this article. You need to back it up with references. Once you can back up what you're saying, it belongs here in this article.
In a perfect world, every Wikipedia article would be this well-referenced. Articles only get this well-referenced when editors give an article the attention it deserves. SACD is notable enough and the content controversial enough that this article is one of the articles that needs to be really well-referenced.
Samboy (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some more statements that need to be backed up

It is not uncommon for hybrid discs to carry the "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo to show that the disc is CDDA-compliant. Can we find a reference to back this up?

A notable example [of a dual-layer SACD] is the "Multi-Ch" release of Toto IV. While this review points out that the multichannel version of Toto IV can't be played in a normal CD player, but doesn't talk about it being multi-layer. The sa-cd.net article doesn't mention it being dual-layer either (I don't feel sa-cd.net is a reliable source because of my unpleasant experience with them on their forum, see above), nor does the Amazon.com page.

I will tag these with {{fact}} and remove them in a few days if anyone can't back up these assertions. Samboy (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the listing at SA-CD.net (which is different than the review) says it's a single layer. Being an early Sony disc, especially with that cover art, it almost surely is. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Samboy (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another assertion: (for example, in 2005 Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH released Charles Rosen's performance of the Goldberg Variations as a hybrid SACD with 16-bit PCM and DSD 5.1 surround but no DSD stereo) I can't find a reference to the super audio version of this release anywhere. This is obviously a popular classical release and, indeed, it's available as a mp3 download and as a RBCD, but I can't find anything about the SACD release. Samboy (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A thought

My opinion of DSD: It's a digital representation of the internal state of a 1980s or 1990s A/D converter before applying the decimation filter. Now, I understand the appeal of removing the decimation stage, since it, in theory, removes distortion caused by that stage. However, once we remove the decimation stage, we are stuck representing what is, in the case of DSD, the internal state of an obsolete A/D converter.

If you go over to analog.com and check out their audio A/D converters, their high-end converters don't use 1-bit Sigma-Delta modulation; they use multi-bit Sigma-Delta modulation (ditto with Wolfson's ADCs). Page 243 of Data Conversion Handbook by Walter Allan Kester (of Analog Devices, inc) shows that the internal pre-decimation signal of Analog devices AD1871 is a 4-bit 6.144 Mhz signal (that's 64x 96khz, guys). To store this signal, uncompressed, requires 3,072,000 bytes per second per channel (stereo is two channels. Compare this to the 88,200 bytes per second 16/44.1 needs, the 352,800 bytes per second DSD needs, and the 576,000 bytes per second 24/192 needs.

OK, if we want this as 7.1 sound (8 channels) and put it uncompressed on a 50gb blu-ray disc (I don't know what the maximum capacity is, I will assume 50,000,000,000 bytes), we can store just over 30 minutes of music. Assuming we can find a lossless compression that gives us a 2/1 compression ratio, we can store about an hour of music. Multiply the playing time by four if you only want stereo.

So, yeah, one could make the argument that DSD is too far low of a bandwidth. Of course, while interesting, all of this is against WP:NOR and doesn't belong in the article. What does belong in the article (and, indeed, is there) is a double-blind study where people couldn't tell DSD from 16/44.1. That same 50gb Blue-Ray disc will store well over 19 hours of 16/44.1 8-channel uncompressed audio.

If that's not enough for you, we can use a form of lossy compression that survives rigorous double-blind tests; I would say mp3 is usually transparent by 256kbps, which is 32,000 bytes per second for a stereo signal this page claims mp3 is transparent by 160kbps or 20,000 bytes per second for stereo LAME's documentation says you will almost never be able to ABX a 256k mp3. At 32,000 bytes per second (256k mp3), we can fit 18 days of audio on that blu-ray disc. At a sound quality that will almost never be distinguishable from the internal rate of an AD1871, we can store 18 days in the same space that storing it using the full AD1871 rate only allows us to store two hours of stereo audio.

OK, enough of my original research. Just an interesting train of thought. Samboy (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Puresuperaudio [dot] blogspot.com and other external links

An ip tried to add the link puresuperaudio [dot] blogspot.com New SACD software and hardware" but this change was reverted by a bot. Personally, I have no issue including this link (nor linking to sa-cd.net in the external links section); while I don't agree with the content there ("Stereophile magazine anti-SACD tactics exposed again!" is one recent headline), I feel letting people link to external sources here allows readers of this page to get a better sense of SACD's fans and online community. Samboy (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The blog was here before, I think Binksternet removed it. I don't believe it satisfies WP:EL since it's just "some blog", it being pro-SACD has nothing to do with it. SA-CD.net, on the other hand, satisfies WP:EL probably more than 98% of all other non-official ELs on Wikipedia right now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As as for the changes I reverted -- first off, a ref for an EL? Seriously? But more importanly, standard practice puts refs above ELs -- I'm pretty sure a bot would have changed that back if I didn't. Not quite sure where the page on that is, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Samboy (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the puresuperaudio site and find it informative, it's an external link so I don't see any problem with it being added on wikipedia sacd article's external links. You deleted the link because you don't agree with some articles, what fascist countries are you from?

please bring back all external links to the previous state.

PS Whom can I report to wikipedia fascism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, please. There is no fascism here. There is only an issue with an external link which consensus has decided we shouldn't add because of WP:EL. If you read what I said above, I said "a bot removed the link" (a computer program looked at the link and decided, based on its heuristics, that the link was a spam link and removed it), and wondered whether it should be added again, noting that while I disagree with its content, it has information relevant to the article. A couple of other editors decided not to do it, so I conceded the point and decided it would be best to not have the external link.
Wikipedia is a place where, when people disagree on something, they talk it out and come to an agreement to support stuff in Wikipedia articles. Samboy (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that there's no fascism on wikipedia, when I can't even make an informative adding to website's SACD article, I know very good the SACD topic as I listen to SACD for almost 10 years. I want to contribute to this "open" website but some vandals keep removing my work!

And still no one wants to help me where I could report this scandalous behavior! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by our Polish dynamic IP 83.24.*

OK, since our polish IP (83.24) was unable to remove the fact that SACD was not accepted by the mainstream market, he has instead opted to add some original research and unreferenced data to the lead. In more detail:

the SACD format is currently used where higher resolution and fidelity are necessary, see specialist classical labels (Channel Classics, Pentatone, Chandos, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Alia Vox, Dacapo, London Symphony Orchestra, Exton, Harmonia Mundi, Chicago Symphony Orchestra etc) and audiophile/specialist record labels (Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity, Groove Note, Opus 3 etc)

OK, our Polish IP doesn't support the assertion that "higher resolution and fidelity are necessary". Indeed, we have reliable studies on this page pointing out that you can't hear the difference between regular CD audio and SACD audio, and no reliable sources pointing out you can hear the difference.

The list of manufacturers supporting the SACD format includes brands such as Accuphase, Pioneer, Sony, Wadia, Luxman, Mark Levinson, Krell, Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Marantz, McIntosh, EMM Labs, Ayre, Korg.

To put this in the lead violates WP:UNDUE; we already have referenced assertions that a subset of this above list makes SA-CD players further down in the article.

Others think that downloadable files will be only a niche subsegment of high resolution audio dominant format Super Audio CD, one of the biggest on-line stores selling lossless files, HDGiants, filed for bankruptcy on may 18, 2009 http://www.twice.com/article/CA6661607.html?nid=2402&

That's not what the reference article actually says. I have better reflected what the reference says and removed WP:NOR-violating speculation from our Polish IP:

however, one company that sold lossless audio, HDGiants, filed for bankruptcy on May 18, 2009

Another day, another removal of unreferenced assertions.

Samboy (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, our Polish IP is making controversial changes which, since they are not willing to discuss and justify here, Binksternet and myself are just, at this point, reverting. Are we going to have to semi-protect this page?

Semi-protection is an issue because another IP also made some edits, but their contributions were positive (they made the table near the top have a normal font color instead of being brown), which I restored after reverting the Polish IP's changes.

It would be nice if the MediaWiki software allowed us to not allow anyone in the 83.24 "class B" to edit this one article, but I think semi-protect is the only possible option.

This time, the Polish IP did add a single reference to support one of their assertions:

The SACD format is currently used where higher resolution and fidelity offered by Direct Stream Digital technology are necessary, see specialist classical labels (Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi, Pentatone, Chandos, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Alia Vox, Dacapo, Exton, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, London Symphony Orchestra etc) http://www.classicstoday.com/

However, this isn't a correct reference. This is a lazy man's reference; the web site is only a catalog of classical titles with a single mention of SACD on the page ("SACD Reviews"). "Classics Today" has no discussion about how necessary the higher resolution of DSD is, no links to double blind studies showing people able to hear the difference between SACD and RBCD (What the SACD community calls normal CDs like what we have had since the 80s), and doesn't discuss what percentage of releases by each label are in SACD format (looking at a couple of releases there, one was available as a SACD, the other was not)

The IP felt that the fact that this web page does point to some releases in SACD format establishes a need to have something with more resolution than RBCD, using the edit summary "if there was no need established the format wouldn't be adopted by these record labels" to revert Bink's revert. However, this violates WP:NOR; all the IP has established from external sources is that some labels still sell SACDs (already established further down in the article), nothing more.

This IP has not added any information we don't already have further down in the article and is violating WP:UNDUE by trying to have a disproportionate amount of space in the lead discuss the small cottage industry that still supports SACD.

At this point, it is getting really difficult to WP:AGF with this Polish IP. They are adding the same unreferenced or poorly referenced stuff to the lead over and over again without discussion here. I will just revert this IP's changes on the spot until they are willing to come up with reasonable references, stop adding unreferenced controversial stuff to the lead, and start being willing to justify their edits here. Samboy (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And they reverted again. At this point, it's an administrative issue if they continue their disruptive editing. Samboy (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
And again. I have reported their behavior on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#83.24.123.224_reported_by_Samboy_.28Result:_.29 Samboy (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, the page has been semi-protected for three weeks. If you're an IP, bring up your suggestions here and we will listen to them. Samboy (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


so please change the text to the following (is it now OK?):

Introduced in 1999, SACD was not accepted by the mainstream market. The SACD format was accepted and is currently supported by specialist classical labels (Channel Classics, Pentatone, Chandos, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Alia Vox, Dacapo, London Symphony Orchestra, Exton, Harmonia Mundi, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, RCA Red Seal etc) audiophile/specialist record labels (Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity, Groove Note, Opus 3 etc) and manufacturers (Denon, Marantz, Accuphase, dCS, EMM Labs, Yamaha, Teac, Tascam, Sony, Korg, Luxman, Mark Levinson, Arcam, McIntosh, Pioneer etc.)

PS Whom can I report to this constant removing of this informative adding? Does anybody know? thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk • contribs)

1) The edit war has been reported. This is why you're currently not allowed to edit the article, since you were unwilling to discuss things with us until we made you unable to edit the article.
2) To handle edit wars, please talk to the people you disagree with to come up with a consensus that makes all parties reasonably happy. I'm glad to see you finally engaging in conversation with us.
Wikipedia rules to follow: WP:R it doesn't matter what you think, you need to find reliable third-party sources to back up your claims. WP:NPA Don't insult me or call me names if you disagree with me. Good manners is enforced here on the Wikipedia.
That in mind, we need to find references to back up the assertion that specialist classical labels make SACD discs, like this reference or this reference. I think four or five references like this would be good enough to have "SACD was not accepted by the mainstream market referenced mentioned in this article also mentioned in this article and mentioned in this article, however some labels still release new SACD recordings as backed up by this reference and this reference". This works best if you can find pages where we can see some small specialist (usually classical) label making SACDs.
I have added references of companies who made SACD players to the article, such as Denon, Marantz, etc, but a laundry list of companies that make SACDs will be too long for the lead (see WP:UNDUE).
So, yeah, start searching on the web for companies still making SACD recordings; ideally, try to find an article from this year where people talk about how, while the major labels aren't really supporting SACD, a lot of small classical labels still make SACD recordings. Wikipedia isn't your opinion, it isn't my opinion, it's based on what reliable sources have to say about the subject. Samboy (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)



So, yeah, start searching on the web for companies still making SACD recordings;

Ive already added them in the following text:

Introduced in 1999, SACD was not accepted by the mainstream market. The SACD format was accepted and is currently supported by specialist classical labels (Channel Classics, Pentatone, Chandos, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Alia Vox, Dacapo, London Symphony Orchestra, Exton, Harmonia Mundi, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, RCA Red Seal etc) audiophile/specialist record labels (Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity, Groove Note, Opus 3 etc) and manufacturers (Denon, Marantz, Accuphase, dCS, EMM Labs, Yamaha, Teac, Tascam, Sony, Korg, Luxman, Mark Levinson, Arcam, McIntosh, Pioneer etc.)

PS again is there anybody that could tell me an e-mail address to report a scandalous behavior on Wikipedia website? please this is very important - who knows if these people aren't destroying any more articles on wiki.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't add links. Please read WP:R. That is a link; click on the link. Also, WP:NPA; be civil on the talk page. Please become more familiar with Wikipedia policy; I have already reported the behavior here and the result is that IPs aren't able to edit the article.
As long as you don't follow Wikipedia policy, people here will not take you seriously here and your edits will continue to be reverted and people will continue to put measures in place to block you from editing articles until you calm down, stop attacking other editors, start finding references, and start listening to what we have to say. Samboy (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


OK I can add more than 50 links, no problem,

but some vandals blocked me from contributing to the SACD article.

I currently want to report the fact to the Wikipedia authorities but unfortunately I don't see anywhere the appropriate link to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't vandals that blocked you (and all IPs), it was the authorities that blocked you from editing the article. Samboy (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How's that possible? you said there's no fascism on Wikipedia and now I'm being informed that wikipedia authorities have blocked me from making an informative adding to the wikipedia SACD article, they should block people who add curse words or destroy the articles, not a person who wants to contribute with his almost 10 years experience with the subject matter being discussed in the article.

Whom can I report this to? I still can't add the links to the article to back the sentence up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.142.73 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are rules on Wikipedia, but I don't see fascism in action here at all. Contributing to an article from ten years of personal experience is not what we want. That is called original research, which is described and deprecated here: WP:NOR. What we need are expert statements brought to this article; statements published in reliable sources. Additionally, exhaustive lists of labels and artists don't add anything of substance to the article, they just make it hard to read. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But how can you judge without any experience and knowledge that the article you are quoting is reliable? it's not possible... just look what someone said about DSD being 20bit 96kHz - this is completely not true, and this lie managed to be published in wikipedia SACD article! this is really scandalous editing!

and I still can't add any links! this is scandal pure and simple!

Is no one from the authorities reading this? Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.115.91 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

just look what someone said about DSD being 20bit 96kHz That sounds about right; DSD is 1-bit 2822400Hz, which gives one an audio performance of about 20/96. Modern converters have rates around 4-bit 6144000Hz before decimation is applied (this is the pre-decimation rate of the Analog Devices AD1871, and that's a 24/96 converter). You really need a higher pre-decimation sample rate and bit depth than what DSD uses before you get the equivalent performance as 24/192 PCM. Samboy (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Theoretical limit of 20-bit audio is 120 dB of dynamic range. Since the DSD stream yields 120dB dynamic range within 20Hz-20kHz, we can ignore any greater bit depth than 20. A bit depth of 24 is wasted effort in a listening application. 96kHz sampling rate gives a Nyquist high frequency limit of 48kHz. Given the increasingly poor noise performance of DSD above 20kHz, a sampling rate higher than 96k would be wasted. The higher frequencies would be competing with the noise. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. DSD is an internal representation of a late 1980s Sigma-Delta conversion process; storing audio as a DSD stream only gives us the equivalent audio performance of a long-since obsolete converter. Of course, this is all academic; studies comparing 16/44.1 with higher-resolution audio formats have shown that people can not hear the difference between 16/44.1 and higher-resolution formats. Note: Yes, there was that German study that showed people being able to hear the difference, but a different DAC was used for the 16/44.1 audio than for the high resolution audio, so this can be attributed to people not liking that particular DAC. People have claimed to be able to barely hear the difference using double-blind software, but even here they claim they can barely hear the difference, stop being able to hear the difference when their ears have even the slightest listening fatique, and the issue can very well be problems with the down-sampling process. Samboy (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DSD uses 64x greater sampling rate than CD (44,1kHz) in every second of captured music and it doesn't apply decimation process to it. The data rate per channel for DSD recording is 2822400bits/sec while for PCM 24/96 it's 2300000bits/sec

so although it's hard to compare those systems (one system applies decimation other not, so it's not about simple comparison of sampling rates or bits used) there's one study available which proves people couldn't hear the difference between DSD and 24bit/176,4 so DSD is certainly not equal to 20bit/96kHz.

There's terrible editing on SACD wikipedia article and it NEEDS TO BE REPORTED to Wikipedia authorities ASAP.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.115.91 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two studies linked to in the article; one that shows people can't hear the difference between DSD and 24/176.4, and another that shows people can't hear the difference between 16/44.1 and higher resolution formats. Do you have any links to scientific studies showing people being able to hear the difference between DSD and 16/44.1, or the difference between DSD and high-resolution PCM?
If you wish to talk about our editing behavior here to "the authorities", go to WP:AN/I. But, let me warn you: I have already reported your behavior and that's why you can't edit this article. Before reporting the going-ons in this talk page, please become familiar with Wikipedia policy; your current behavior shows an ignorance of Wikipedia policy (WP:R, WP:N, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc.) and administrators will not be sympathetic to your complaints until you demonstrate better familiarity with Wikipedia's policies. Samboy (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


I've just checked the main article, the false assumption about 20bit 96kHz is still not corrected, DSD which got higher data rate than 24bit/96kHz and doesn't apply decimation process to recorded analog wave is comparted to decimated to 20bit 96kHz recording.

How's that possible that such information is still in publicly available article?

I simply can't believe it!

Wikipedia authorities must do something about it! if anybody knows the procedures already please report it to the top ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.115.91 (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to edit the page again so badly, why don't you just create an account? Samboy (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Say, 83, Nobody is going to start a higher review procedure on your behalf when you yourself haven't been slighted or libeled, and when the article is being edited as carefully as possible by neutral editors.
Regarding DSD vs. PCM 20-bit 96kHz, you ignore the rising noise levels above 20kHz. You ignore listening test results. Decimation vs. non-decimation is just a processing style; the real telling of what is better is contained in the results, not in the process. Your emphasis on decimation is like arguing between front-, mid-, or rear-engined racing cars. Each has its strength, but the race results are the most conclusive argument. The editors who have been working on this article lately have been focusing on results. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, based on the references, coparing DSD to 20/96 is perfectly reasonable. The wording in the article is "would place DSD in some aspects comparable to a PCM format that has a bit depth of 20 bits and a sampling frequency of 96 kHz", which is a reasonable way to reword the relevant part of the referenced article, which states "Bottom line, SACD recordings can achieve a high-frequency response of 50kHz and a dynamic audio range of 120dB" (which is eqivalent to 20/100, or 20/96).
You've been making assertions and accusations about information in this page backed up by references not being correct, but haven't come up with a reasonable refernece to back your complaints up. Samboy (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the frequencies above 20kHz are inaudible, the most important part of high resolution non-decimated sound is 20-22000Hz audible range which sound very analog and very resolving due to 2822400 samples taken during each second.

the information about 20bit/96kHz should be removed ASAP, why the Authorities remain silent about this scandalous lie?

no one writes about PCM24/96 that it's really 20bit/96kHz because 144db of 24bit are not needed, the system uses 24bit/96kHz and produces data rate of ~2300000 per second, and DSD produces 2822400! people can't distinguish it from 24bit/176,4 and the Wikipedia article still lies about 20bit/96kHz.

Today Boston Symphony Orchestra, London Symphony Orchestra, Mariinsky chose to record in DSD as their prefered choice for most realistic and true to analog recording http://www.mariinskylabel.com/page/13/FAQs, and here on wikipedia some vandals destroy the article with claims that DSD is equal to 20bit 96kHz

I repeat - this is SCANDAL! and appropriate actions should be considered by the top authorities of the Wikipedia website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.115.91 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added your reference to the article. Do you have other references? Samboy (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the main definition of the SACD and seen the incomplete information about Pioneer SACD players, another scandal, it's clear that people who continue to destroy the Wikipedia article in clear bright day! don't know much about the subject matter being discussed, if they didn't remove the link to puresuperaudio.blogspot.com or checked any audio news during last week they would know about the new Pioneer sacd players released this month, also new onkyo sacd player, new marantz sacd player, also about many many record labels releasing SACDs.

why the authorities remain silent and block a person who wants to contribute to the website? what kind of policies are here in place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.115.91 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening to us. Do not attack other editors, it is against Wikipedia policy. Find references to back you your statments. And, oh, while you're at it, please read WP:EXPERT. I will, from now on, ignore your talk page comments; you so far have been unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy and appear to have no interest in learning Wikipedia policy. Samboy (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Bit depths beyond 20 bits are only useful on the front of audio mixing and processing. 24 bits is fantastic for recording studios and digital audio editors because of the need for greater resolution before math algorithms are applied to the signal, but for consumer listening, only 20 bits is needed. 120 dB of dynamic range is right around the limit of most electronic playback equipment; 20 bits gives a theoretical 120 dB of dynamic range. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

83.24.115.91

I hope you don't mind me posting here - your IP address seems to change from time to time so I wanted to be sure you got this note. It might help you to understand that you have already been already talking to Wikipedia's 'authorities'. Our authorities are our editors (that is, Samboy and Binksternet in this discussion... and you too), and editors decide between themselves what does or doesn't belong in an article. We have a whole load of policies and guidelines to help with this (such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:3RR, WP:BRD, WP:UNDUE etc), and yet more policies and guidelines to help editors discuss things in a polite and respectful way (like WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL). Breaches of these policies end up with administrators becoming involved, and it was an administrator that locked the article page because you were edit-warring on it.

Content disputes, such as the one you've been having here, are settled not by administrators (we aren't permitted to judge content in that way) but by talk-page discussion with the article editors. The problem you've been having is that you've been adding content that other editors have decided doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia operates by consensus (and if you read none of the other links, please read that one!). As has already been pointed out to you, the way to persuade other editors is by producing reliable sources that back up your edits, and by following Wikipedia policy. You must also accept that sometimes you won't be successful - while we all appreciate it can be frustrating, we expect all editors to accept that they won't always get things their way and to back down with as much good grace as possible when consensus is against them.

I hope this helps. If you find yourself getting too involved in this dispute, it might be best to find something else to edit for a while; continued disruption may lead to you being prevented from editing at all. EyeSerenetalk 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, ok you can block me forever, I give up, you won. All I wanted to say is that in my humble opinion (I know that it may be against the rules) it's not fair to block a person that tried to correct inadequacies in the SACD article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.153.236 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as you take the time to learn and follow the rules here and respect what is acceptable in the Wikipedia culture, you are welcome to edit. It's not about winning or losing; it's about working together to make a better encyclopedia. See WP:NAM. The rules we have in place exist so there are guidelines to resolve disagreements like the one we were in. And, yes, I am trying to be objective in the article, including adding a bit in the lead about how SACD still is alive and well in a niche market, and the reference you added to the talk page about how one label feels SACD sounds a lot better than RBCD was also added to the article. I feel this article is a little better because of your contributions. When you become willing to respect us, we would love you to come back and make the Wikipedia an even better encyclopedia. Take care, Samboy (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts we need references for

I've added a few {{fact}} tags in the article and my current goal is to find references backing up the following statements in the article:

  • For example, in 2005 Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH released Charles Rosen's performance of the Goldberg Variations as a hybrid SACD with 16-bit PCM and DSD 5.1 surround but no DSD stereo

I tried to find a reference to the SACD version of this recording but couldn't find it; Google searches keep pointing me to non-SACD versions of this recording. Does anyone have a link to a SACD catalog entry or the sa-cd.net entry about this recording?

I've removed this line; if someone who wants it can find a reference for this, feel free to restore it. Samboy (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing some more digging around, as far as I can tell, this SACD was never made and does not exist. This is why reference checking is important. Samboy (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The correct designation for the surround part of an SACD is "multi-channel", and usually has either the label "SACD Surround" or its own "Multi-Ch" logo on the back cover

This looks like something that is "common knowledge" among SACD disc owners, and it may be difficult to find an article or essay backing this up. Maybe it would be best to remove it.

I've removed it. Again, if you want to restore this content, feel free to add a reference. Samboy (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • SACD machines can play all CDs and SACD discs; CD players can play SACD discs as audio CDs.

It should be fairly easy to find an article talking about hybrid SACDs from around the time the format came out and was being marketed. I don't like the word "all" here.

  • Conversely, if a conventional CD is placed into an SACD player, the laser will read the disc without difficulty since there is no high-resolution layer

This can probably be referenced by the same article we find for hybrid SACDs that we will find for the above statement. I don't like "without difficulty" here, I think "...read the disc as a CD since..." is more neutral-sounding.

I found a reference and replaced the fact ("citation needed") tags for these statements. The reference is a marketing brochure PDF, but has the relevant data. Samboy (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some players, such as the PlayStation 3 (not the 40GB version), do not send DSD over HDMI, but instead convert it to PCM.

This needs a reference and could probably be re-worded to be a little less awkward-sounding (such as "Some players, such as SACD-supporting Play Station 3s, do not send DSD over HDMI, but converts it to PCM")

I just removed this since we already have an entire section about the Sony PS3 and SACD. Summary: It used to support it, but no longer.
  • the dynamic range of the DSD audio begins to degrade above 20 kHz while the PCM does not

Since our 83 IP expressed dissatisfaction with this whole section above, I went over this and made sure the statement was completely backed up by references. While the reference does make a comparison that shows SACD to be rougly equivalent to 20/96, there's no statement there about how DSD degrades above 20khz. This marketing brochure for DXD has, in figure three, one possible noise level for DSD, which shows roughly 24-bit performance up past 20khz, followed by an increase in noise starting around 25khz.

The thing about DSD is that, since it uses noise shaping, the mastering engineer has some flexibility choosing what frequency response and noise level they want. If the mastering engineer wants a flat noise-free frequency response up to 40khz, for example, this will increase the noise level below 40khz; if the engineer is willing to have the noise start increasing at 25khz, this will result in less noise below 25khz.

Indeed, I wonder why the DSD standard doesn't have "low-pass cutoff", "low-pass slope", and "brickwall low-pass filter" values so SACD players would know which compromise between frequency response and noise the mastering engineer opted for.

OK, I've removed the bit about DSD losing quality after 20khz since we don't have a reference for this assertion; DSD being equivalent to 20/96 sounds right, is backed up by a referenced good source. Samboy (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this looks like a couple of days of research. Samboy (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've removed all {{fact}} tags from the article by either referencing the fact in question, or by removing the unreferenced fact. Samboy (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting blog about SACDs from 2005

http://www.webweavertech.com/ovidiu/weblog/archives/000396.html Interesting blog entry and reflects some of my personal opinions about SACD/DVD-Audio. Doesn't follow WP:EL so just a note I'll put here. Samboy (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed two sections

I have removed two sections describing competing audio formats (DVD-A and hi-rez downloads). This section read like a marketing brochure or a forum posting trying to explain why SACD is superior to all other hi-rez formats. I whittled it down to only referenced data, which made it a lot shorter. The section seemed unusual to have in the SACD article; the appropriate place to discuss DVD-A is in the DVD-Audio article and the appropriate place to discuss hi-rez music downloads is in the Music download article. Samboy (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fitting to discuss the marketplace that SACD finds itself in, which would include an elaboration about the technical and perceived differences between SACD and competing formats. The article hasn't ever had a section like that; it would have to be composed from scratch. It could incorporate the bit about "Sound quality of SACD vs CD". Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I think there's a lot of issues that caused SACD to not hit mainstream (and, IMHO, I think SACD is dying at this point). One is the perceived format war between SACD and DVD-Audio that was an issue in the early 2000s. But this was not a deal breaker; blu-ray had a format with with HD-DVD yet prevailed. The real deal breaker are:
  • CD was the hi-resolution audio that has a resolution and sound quality far superior to LP. There has not been a reliable double-blind study showing that people can even hear the difference between 16/44.1 and a higher resolution format; 16/44.1 is, as CDs were market in the 1980s, perfect sound forever.
  • Digital downloads and large-scale piracy made it very difficult for the record companies to sell any music on physical media, and impossible to introduce a successful new format on physical media.
To add content like this so it doesn't violate WP:NOR will be difficult; we will need to find articles and essays talking about the record companies' problems they are having in the 2000s. Samboy (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [6]
  2. ^ a b RIAA. 2007 Year-End Shipment Statistics. Retrieved on May 4, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Audio_CD/Archive_2&oldid=390226793"