SACDs

[Kane Knight]

Yeah, the new Supder Audio format for Compact Discs.

Anyone have/heard any?

I've got a couple I'm eyeing, but none I've purchased yet, so I'm wondering if they're worth the hype.

[The Destroyer]

I'm assuming they just give increased audio quality or something?

And no doubt increased cost...

[Kane Knight]

I'm assuming they just give increased audio quality or something?

And no doubt increased cost...

Supposedly. many of the discs are hybrids, which can be played in CD players or SACD/DVD players in 5.1 surround.

Improved quality is supposed to be one of their perks, but you need an SACD or DVD player to hear the diff.

Increased cost? That I'm not sure on. The Rolling Stones SACDs are about normal price, as is The Who: Tommy. Well, it's normal for a 2CD set (24-30 bucks US)

[Kane Knight]

I'm sure if they catch on, though, they'll prolly end up with a premium price.

[el fregadero]

<font color=teal>I have Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon. Sounds good, don't know how much is the SACD though.</font>

[Kane Knight]

The other thing that turned my head was the concept of a normal CD with 5.1 on it.

70 minutes is the point at which you have to start worrying about compression issues.

The longest records can be compressed down to a little over 80 minutes (WWE Anthology currently holds the record, formerly held by Mission of Burma). Problem is, you start to suffer some fidelity issues.

well, Dark Side of the Moon and Tommy are not short by any means, so odds are pretty good that the extra channels aren't at some normal compression rate.

This leaves me to wonder: how the FU</>CK do they compress it into 5 track audio and still have it playable on a CD player?