Anti-SACD Digital Can Suck Really Badly Super Hate Mega Post!

[User211]

How's that for a title?

Anyway, there are hardly any visible marks on my Beck Sea Change SACD, yet my player won't read it anymore. At all. Zero. Zilsch. All other SACDs - fine!

This is what happens when the information is so tightly packed a minor blemish in the wrong place can only prevent the discs from working.

Same applies to Blu Ray discs I expect.

There we go. Rant over. And I am going to have to buy it again it's such a good disk...

Please no analogue versus digital points here - just pointing out a significant problem with SACDs - a CD will take much more bashing and still be playable.

 

[Tube60]

Please no analogue versus digital points here - just pointing out a significant problem with SACDs - a CD will take much more bashing and still be playable.

Hey that's not fair! Analog has it's points, has it's points, has it's points.... and digital has it's dit dit dit dit dit SCREEEEEEE!!!!!! HISSSSSSSSSS!!!!!.... *DISC ERROR* :ROFL:
I have Celtic Woman's Celtic Woman CD from 2004. It has some live tracks that'll make your hair stand up! Anyway, my Sony CD/R refuses to recognise it. It won't even compile the playlist. Yet my Blu-Ray player and all the other CD / optical devices I own, and I've tried it on friend's systems as well, will play it with no problems at all. CDs can get goofy too. And I'm REALLY careful with my BD discs. There's a lot of data encoded into a very small space, so yeah, it won't take much to compromise the data!

 

[timm]

I haven't found that to be the case - actually. I haven't had any issues with any sacd - and really don't have any troubles with cd either. What kind of sacd player do you have? From reading online - seems to me that some players have had issues...but that isn't necessarily an issue with the physical disc. Just my 2 pennies worth....

 

[audiolover[UK]]

i know where this rant is coming from........Bristol...:ROFL:....no seriously, i had a marantz sa17, nice player, it played multichannel/stereo sacd when it could be bothered, it started playing up on some depeche mode sacd's, took it to a local chap who advised it needed a new transport, which is a sony so im told, got it back and was ok for a few months then started to be very picky again. up shot of it was.....ITS GONE
also lent a rolling stones sacd to a mate of mine with a SCD-XA9000ES and it decided it didnt like the disc, or rolling stones and promptly put a scratch all around it rendering it as a coaster , i do like the sacd sound, SMOOOOTH, but what with a limited catalogue, mainly classic i decided to give up on the format.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Justin,

For what its worth, I have been purchasing numerous SACD's (up to about 30 at this point) and have had an issue with only one.

GG

 

[DTB300]

Please no analogue versus digital points here - just pointing out a significant problem with SACDs - a CD will take much more bashing and still be playable.

And where is information that supports this claim? Or is it just your opinion???

It is a known fact that some players have more of a problem with Hybrids compared to two channel SACD's.

Also this could be a sign of things to come in the future with your player. Getting the laser sled rails cleaned and lubed would be something to consider if you experience more issues. Don't get talked into a new laser assembly until you get it cleaned.

To stay away from your "no analog vs digital" posts. What about the super audiophile 200g LP you have taken care of, do not see any issues what so ever, did all your chants, voodoo on the LP, but then a click or pop appears out of nowhere?

As the old saying goes...poop happens, even with the best of care.

 

[Craig]

I also have the Beck, Sea Change SACD and often have problems with this particular one. An excellent recording though and also pretty darn good on the redbook version. By the way, the redbook version always activated the HDCD light when I used to play it on my Cary CD player even thought there is no indication of it on the CD cover or liner notes.

 

[taylode]

How's that for a title?

Anyway, there are hardly any visible marks on my Beck Sea Change SACD, yet my player won't read it anymore. At all. Zero. Zilsch. All other SACDs - fine!

This is what happens when the information is so tightly packed a minor blemish in the wrong place can only prevent the discs from working.

Same applies to Blu Ray discs I expect.

There we go. Rant over. And I am going to have to buy it again it's such a good disk...

Please no analogue versus digital points here - just pointing out a significant problem with SACDs - a CD will take much more bashing and still be playable.

You can always switch to XRCD. IMHO, sounds better than SACD and plays in "all" players; however, it costs more and there are fewer titles unless you are really fond of Japanese music.

 

[amey01]

Sounds like a problem with the disc rather than a scratch. Don't doubt yourself. I look after my discs, but I've seen some pretty damaged SACDs in audio shops and they still play fine. Will your player play the redbook layer from the same disc?

 

[User211]

Gordon - it's the first SACD I have had problems with too.

Adam - don't doubt myself? Not sure what you mean there...

Anyway, the disc has been fine for years. What happens is this - put the disc in the player, and it spits it out again. It doesn't know what it is, I believe.

Why? Well, correct me if I am wrong, but there is a small mark right at the inside of the disc - where the data starts. This, I believe, contains the indexing information etc. Couldn't be a worse place for a mark. Not being able to read this renders the disc completely useless.

DTB300 - it's pretty obvious to my mind that high density discs will be more easily subject to problematical playback. Conversely, what proof do you have that this is not the case first? Then I'll just explain why I think it's the case... deal?

 

[amey01]

Adam - don't doubt myself? Not sure what you mean there...

I mean don't think it's YOU putting the scratch there when it is probably a problem with the disc itself - not what you've done to it. My opinion anyway.

 

[MiTT]

For what it's worth, I played my LP version of it today and it sounded awesome.

 

[DTB300]

DTB300 - it's pretty obvious to my mind that high density discs will be more easily subject to problematical playback. Conversely, what proof do you have that this is not the case first? Then I'll just explain why I think it's the case... deal?

With many people playing SACD and Redbook, if the SACD format/density was the problem, then it would be a problem across the format. This is not reported either by end users, the technical people, or the reviewers out there. So the technical design of the physical SACD is not the culprit for the issues you are having.

Most people that have problems with some discs, Redbook or SACD, have it from a certain disc and most are in agreement (end users, technical people, and reviewers) that is was a with a certain pressing or release. There have even been some labels that have sent out new versions to people with reported problems. Just go out and read, read, read for the proof you are looking for.

Like I stated before Hybrids can cause most issues with some model players. Get in touch with Teresa from Positive Feedback and she will explain all the problems she had with Hybrids and the certain player she had. I believe since she has change players (now runs a Yamaha) this is not the case any more.

To just put out some garbage theory like this and then try to push the "not a digital or analog war" is really looking for trouble.

I guess since it is pretty obvious to you, maybe you should get in contact with Sony and help them fix it :devil:

 

[User211]

DTB300 - why are you always so difficult?

All I have said is that the disc is marked and it won't play any more - the disc is damaged - so it isn't surprising!

Anyway, suggesting that reading an SACD isn't more of a challenge than an ordinary CD is just plain idiotic. If this stuff wasn't difficult, we'd have had high resolution formats much earlier than we have had.

Furthermore, the higher data density and dual layer aspects also present beam focus issues that require greater tolerance than a standard CD.

It therefore follows that disc scuffing is far more likely to have a marked effect on tracking. Granted the beam should be focused below the sratches, but light refraction due to the scratches will cause problems.

Let's go silly easy on it - read a newspaper with normal sized print. Then place a gauze representing disc marks in the way of your vision. The gauze is such that you can still see the print well enough to read it. Now, reduce the size of the print by a factor of say 5, with no other changes i.e. gauze still in place in the same position. Reading the print would now be a damn site harder, if not impossible.

You seem to be suggesting that I am saying the format is at fault. I am not. But I am DEFINATELY saying it is more prone to error due to disc marks/scratches.

Additonally, I have CDs that are in pretty terrible condition that play just fine (although I suspect the error correction is working hard). The blemish on said SACD is pretty insignificant by comparision, but it is on a critical part of the disc. I believe if it was elsewhere, the disc would be playable. As it is, and with such a small mark, I am quite frankly p!ssed that it doesn't.

But that's just the way it goes...

 

[DTB300]

DTB300 - why are you always so difficult?

Difficult? You bring up a point with just a few words and a theory with no backing other than a ONE DISC experience. You title your post: "Anti-SACD Digital Can Suck Really Badly Super Hate Mega Post!". Okay so you now hate SACD due to one disc failing. I come back and challenge it, and I am difficult. Ummm...ok There is enough bad information floating around that we all have to wade through and try to determine what is right and wrong.

BTW, sorry the disc failed. Nothing worse than a favorite LP or disc you listen to all of a sudden having problems.

All I have said is that the disc is marked and it won't play any more - the disc is damaged - so it isn't surprising!

You said: "Anyway, there are hardly any visible marks on my Beck Sea Change SACD, yet my player won't read it anymore. At all. Zero. Zilsch. All other SACDs - fine!" Hardly any visible marks makes one think there is nothing really there to make it not play or cause the issue.

Anyway, suggesting that reading an SACD isn't more of a challenge than an ordinary CD is just plain idiotic. If this stuff wasn't difficult, we'd have had high resolution formats much earlier than we have had.

It is not the READING which is the problem, and the processing power is there to handle it and the ability to use the two lasers.

The biggest issue with CD that almost all agree with is the 16/44 recording/sampling format. SACD came out and introduced a better way for more data to be written and READ. DVD-A came out too introducing another recording/reading way to get better sound - and died. Not getting into the digital/analog war here. I am just showing that different recording, sampling, etc. formats have come out and reading them is not an issue.

It therefore follows that disc scuffing is far more likely to have a marked effect on tracking. Granted the beam should be focused below the sratches, but light refraction due to the scratches will cause problems.

That is obvious. YEAH we agree on something LOL :devil:

You seem to be suggesting that I am saying the format is at fault. I am not. But I am DEFINATELY saying it is more prone to error due to disc marks/scratches.

You did state: "This is what happens when the information is so tightly packed" So you are hinting the format is at fault. But then a DVD which has even MORE data is the same size disc would be even more susceptible to problems?

Additonally, I have CDs that are in pretty terrible condition that play just fine (although I suspect the error correction is working hard).

Error correction is working harder than most of us know in a player. There was an article I once read on it, but for the life of me I cannot find it.

But that's just the way it goes...

Agree and it is out worst problem - the degradation of our preferred format no matter how well we take care of it - digital, vinyl, or tape.

 

[User211]

Difficult? You bring up a point with just a few words and a theory with no backing other than a ONE DISC experience. You title your post: "Anti-SACD Digital Can Suck Really Badly Super Hate Mega Post!". Okay so you now hate SACD due to one disc failing. I come back and challenge it, and I am difficult. Ummm...ok There is enough bad information floating around that we all have to wade through and try to determine what is right and wrong..

Did you not detect an element of humour in that title? I would have hoped so, but evidently not. But that "difficult" assertion is based on many of your other posts. Otherwise, why would I use the word "always"? Don't worry about it, though, I am always up for a challenge. Otherwise, what is the point of bothering to discuss things?

Bad assertion - I do NOT hate SACD at all. I think it's an excellent digital format.

You said: "Anyway, there are hardly any visible marks on my Beck Sea Change SACD, yet my player won't read it anymore. At all. Zero. Zilsch. All other SACDs - fine!" Hardly any visible marks makes one think there is nothing really there to make it not play or cause the issue.

Bad quote - I specifically said it was due to the mark - go back and re-read..

It is not the READING which is the problem, and the processing power is there to handle it and the ability to use the two lasers.

Badly written I am assuming. I guess you are digging at processing power. Well, the sampling rate is only 2.8224 MHz. Computers have been operating in the GHz region for many, many years. This is not the issue. The issue was an optical storage media capable of holding that much information. As it turns out, SACD uses DVD-5 and 9 formats.

The biggest issue with CD that almost all agree with is the 16/44 recording/sampling format. SACD came out and introduced a better way for more data to be written and READ. DVD-A came out too introducing another recording/reading way to get better sound - and died. Not getting into the digital/analog war here. I am just showing that different recording, sampling, etc. formats have come out and reading them is not an issue.

SACD never came out with a better way to write data. Or read it. DVD did that for it. SACD is just a digital format and as such could live in any digital storage medium with the capacity - but for the watermarking and other measures that makes it hard to copy.

You did state: "This is what happens when the information is so tightly packed" So you are hinting the format is at fault. But then a DVD which has even MORE data is the same size disc would be even more susceptible to problems?

1) Surely you realised when DVDs came out that they were far more susceptible to failure? I had loads of rental disks that caused no end of problems, sometimes with very minimal markings. I have owned many different players over the years and the conclusion is always the same - DVDs will take less of a beating tham a CD before they give up - much less.

2) As hinted at, per layer, SACD and DVD capacity is the same. It is unusual for an SACD to contain two DVD resolution layers, as CD compatability is lost.

So sorry, DTB, where precisely is the bad information coming from?

 

[RichTeer]

Did you not detect an element of humour in that title? I would have hoped so, but evidently not. But that "difficult" assertion is based on many of your other posts. Otherwise, why would I use the word "always"? Don't worry about it, though, I am always up for a challenge. Otherwise, what is the point of bothering to discuss things?

Justin, one thing I've learned since moving here 10 years ago is that a lot of our North American friends have trouble understanding our British humour. C'est la vie...

 

[Bernard]

On the reliability of CDs

Justin, there was a brand new, virgin, CD that I bought, made by Chesky, no less, that would play through the first two tracks on my CAL, then start skipping. I took it back to the store where I bought it (my ML dealer). It played through fine on his system, but he exchanged it for me, twice, as none of them would play on my CAL. As a test I copied the CD on my computer, and played it on my CAL; it played fine. The original CD played okay in my car and plays okay too in my PrimaLuna.

I have also had CDs that played okay for a while then suddenly started skipping. I want to back up some of my vinyl on CD, but can't really trust the medium.

 

[tonepub]

Might be your player starting to give up the ghost...

I guess before I got so worked up I'd see if it plays on any other players and try one of the "disc repair" solutions first. After all, you have nothing to lose at this point? Or you can send me the disc. I'll bet it plays on my Wadia.

 

[TomDac]

"I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me".
- Beck