SACD is NOT dead. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : SACD is NOT dead.



emaidel
04-04-2009, 04:45 AM
While the SACD medium is hardly thriving, it is by no means dead, as readers of many posts here at audioreview.com often imply. It's highly unlikely that SACD will ever attain the status Sony and Phillips originally had for the format, but to all but completely dismiss the format is doing the readers of this website a disservice. Specifically, referring to SACD as a "fad that came and went," or one to be "blown off," as some have done, is just plain wrong.

As of this morning, sa_cd.net, a dedicated website to fans of the medium, lists 5785 available titles. While that's a drop in the bucket compared to titles available on other formats, it at least indicates that the format is still around. It's probably fair to say that well over 5,500 of those 5785 titles are classical, and that, understandably, limits the appeal of the medium, as not everyone is as enamored of the classics as I, and other fans of SACD are. Still, to ignore SACD as a flash in the pan is unfair.

There appear to be two divergent schools of thought here: one is those who favor vinyl and analog sound, and includes members willing to spend huge sums of money on turntables, tonearms, moving coil cartridges and step-up transformers. While I'm not critical of those in this group, I simply disagree with their approach.

The other group consists of those willing to spend large sums of money on outboard DAC's to improve the sound of their CD players. While there's nothing wrong with doing that either, it would seem to me that money might be better spent on a quality SACD player that both improves the sound of existing CD's, and plays SACD's as well. Onkyo has a 2-channel "audiophile-grade" SACD player in the works, and Luxman has one as well, but for a pretty steep price of close to $5,000, each of which would fit into this category.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons SACD's failed to dominate the market, and I've even thought of a few of my own, but after living with an SACD player now for just over a year, I am more and more convinced of the medium's sonic superiority over all others, especially PCM recording on CD's. While I'll wholeheartedly agree that the CD layer of a hybrid disc, when played on a $3,700 CD player will outperform the SACD layer when played on a $400SACD player, such a comparison is simply unfair, considering the huge price and performance disparity between the two units.

My SACD player is the Marantz SA-8001. While certainly not the finest such player available, it did receive a Stereophile Class-A recommendation, and in their review, the folks at Stereophile found that when using the unit as a stand alone CD player, or in conjunction with a highly rated DAC (The Benchmark Audio unit), they couldn't hear a difference between the two.

That said, it's fair to state that the level of performance from the 8001 (and, one would hope, the 8003, though there have been dissenting opinions on that unit posted here) would provide equal playing fields, and fine performance, for both CD playback, and SACD playback; That said, whenver comparing the CD layer to the SACD layer of the 50 or so discs I now own, the SACD layer always noticeably outperforms the CD layer. The differences? Far more "air" around instruments; a sweeter, smoother top end; deeper and more solid bass; a deeper and more delineated soundstage. In short, the SACD layer sounds more lifelike.

Perhaps that quality is why the medium so favors the classics, and symphony orchestras. Much popular music (and this is by no means a criticism) simply doesn't exist outside of a recording studio's various recording sessions in which each instrumental line is added to previously recorded ones. Actually, I watched in total amazement once as a business associate of mine sat down at his keyboard, and completely composed a piece of music with piano, drums, bass, guitar and brass - all from his keyboard!

Popular artists don't use (or need) the costly microphones required to pick up the far wider frequency response range of a large orchestra either. While the SACD layer of my copy of Eric Clapton's "Slowhand" sounds better than the CD layer, the difference is small, but the difference between those layers on a well recorded orchestral piece is enormous.

Several recording labels still quite enthusiastically support the SACD medium, despite its much higher cost of mastering and recording. Chandos, Pentatone, Ondine and BIS are now releasing most of their efforts in the SACD format, with Pentatone and BIS doing so exclusively. Clearly, recording engineers at those companies hear something they believe in.

No matter how much one spends on an outboard DAC, the one element that can never be changed is the sampling rate of 44.1KHZ. That is a constant, and is the PCM recording standard for CD's. I don't question for a minute that a better DAC will noticeably improve the sound of a CD player, but it can't possibly hope to ever compete with the 2.8 million times per second sampling rate of an SACD. An SACD has 64 times the digital information a CD has, and that's not something anyone can dispute.

I wouldn't even be bothering to write all of this stuff, if it weren't for the fact that so many of the SACD's I've purchased recently sound as good as they do. All of the Minnesota Orchestra's recordings, with Osmo Vanska at the helm, of all 9 Beethoven Symphonies on BIS are masterpieces in every sense of the word: sterling artistic interpretations of all these glorious works, and recorded sound quality that's simply second to none.

Several Ondine recordings have just about knocked my socks off. With Christoph Eschenbach at the helm, the Philadelphia Orchestra's recordings of Tchaikovsky's 6th (the "Pathetique") and the ever-popular Saint Saens' Third (The "Organ" Symphony) have provided the greatest sonic glories I've yet heard from my system.

Out of the 50 or so discs I have, only five are of popular music. Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon," along with The Who's "Tommy" are vastly improved as SACD's, but I can only listen to those discs just so many times. I'd glady purchase additional rock and popular SACD's if they were available, but they're just not. Still, later this month, Mobile Fidelity is releasing a newly digitally-remastered SACD of The Doobie Brothers', "Toulouse Street." I can hardly wait!

I think it's a fair statement to say that most listeners of popular music today, particularly rock, listen to it on an i-pod, and either don't own a stereo system, and don't care about owning one. That's a disturbing trend none of us can do very much about.

Still for those of us who adore the classics, and want the very best method of listening to these masterpieces that have endured for hundreds of years, we have the SACD to continue to provide us with better and better sounding recordings of some of our favorite pieces.

Will the SACD ultimately become exclusive only to classical music? Perhaps, as it certainly seems headed that way. And, with the emergence of such labels as Pentatone and BIS manufacturing exclusively SACD's of such music, maybe there's enough of us still out there to keep this medium alive and kicking. I sure hope so!

audio amateur
04-04-2009, 04:57 AM
Sure it ain't dead. Doesn't mean it's alive:D

Kevio
04-04-2009, 05:48 AM
Out of the 50 or so discs I have, only five are of popular music. Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon," along with The Who's "Tommy" are vastly improved as SACD's, but I can only listen to those discs just so many times. I'd glady purchase additional rock and popular SACD's if they were available, but they're just not. Still, later this month, Mobile Fidelity is releasing a newly digitally-remastered SACD of The Doobie Brothers', "Toulouse Street." I can hardly wait!There are probably marketing reasons also, but the technical reason they're not available is because the quality of the recording equipment used to produce these old diddys was well below that of the SACD format. All you'd get with SACD is ability to better hear imperfections (noise, distortion) in the original recordings.

Auricauricle
04-04-2009, 08:16 AM
SACD might not be dead (yet), but without having much info about the market and the dictates of taste among the masses, I would say that the medium is still very niche oriented. I don't reckon many folks listen to music the same way you do, em. Yours' is a highly developed sensibility, that has been cultivated over many hours of very keen listening and analysis. As you said, the ubiquitous i-pod seems to have cornered the market, and the wide-spread availability of SACD's may have suffered as a result. Your mention of high-quality recording artists, including Chandos, BIS, Arkiv and Harmonia Mundi, e.g., is further indication of SACD's appeal to a select audience, who have the convenience or interest in applying their interests in the fashion that you are accoustomed. Until folks' interest in music listening is encouraged to develop to such an acuity, SACD will continue to limp alongside their mediocre, yet much more affordable, cousins.

Feanor
04-04-2009, 09:39 AM
While the SACD medium is hardly thriving, it is by no means dead, as readers of many posts here at audioreview.com often imply. ...

I really hope SACD survives. What I really like about SACD is the multichannel capability, and in this regard Blu-ray is presently the only challenger. And I'd wager that dedicated, hi-rez music Blu-ray will always be as rare as SACDs.

As for the SACD sound improvement, I really don't hear it on my equipment and with my ears. I grant that SACD recordings typically sound better that standard CDs, but for me the CD layers of the former are generally indistiguishable from the (stereo) SACD layers, so it's the recording effort, not the medium that is making the difference in my case. But I don't mean to imply the emaidel is imagining the differences he hears; I know I have limited hearing ability, particularly at higher frequencies.

I'm disposed to SACD also because I'm a classical music listener. Take note that fewer that 3400 of the almost 5800 SACDs are classical according to SA-CD.net, which is still a strong majority.

If SACD sales do totaly evaporate it will be because audiophiles, not the general public, have rejected the medium. In the audiophile context one might suppose it is invalid to say that SACD may failed because people are content with less fidelity. You might suppose that until you consider that there are still more audiophile LP sales that SACD. Vinyl is laughably inferior to CD much less SACD except it happens to degrade the sound in a euphonic manner.

Auricauricle
04-04-2009, 10:01 AM
Confession time: My comments about the SACD are, unfortunately, not informed by experience: in fact, I will come clean at this point and confess that, many of my comments regarding things au courant are informed by listening to a system whose technology is somewhat dated. Saying that, I do like what I am listening to, and have devoted quite a lot of time and effort into my listening that I think I can make informed statements about opinions of the "Informed but Impecunious Consumer".

As such a consumer, I think that the sound of my system is quite good: The resolution of material produced by my modest DVD/CD player is quite accurate: drums play with sharp, acerbic snap; wind instruments are reproduced with nice, reedy and airy applomb and vocals are liquid and warm. I have little doubt that SACD's would pull out even more of these wonderful charcteristics, but the enormity of the expenditure of the hardware and the discs is beyond my capacity. My happiness with what I have reinforces my lack of motivation.

Not that I am unwilling to improve upon a good thing, however. I am looking for a nice DAC, thinking that such would make a noticeable improvement that wouldn't break the bank and allow me to play my discs with great zeal. I realise that I will be constrained to play only those discs that are limited by their fidelity, but what I don't know won't bother me.

If there's anything I think the SACD market does, and will hopefull continue to, is encourage those who are interested in music and its reproduction--both performers and recording engineers--to continue the production of recordings of high fidelity. Great music deserves to be performed and recoded in way that respects the composer's devotion in its creation. SACD manufacturers like BIS et al. are committed to that Ideal, and while their market directly benefits an elite clientele, indirectly the raised standard benefits us all....

elapsed
04-04-2009, 10:11 AM
Talking about kicking a dead horse, you may as well have just quoted yourself from December;)

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=28968

cheers,
elapsed

Auricauricle
04-04-2009, 10:23 AM
Geeze, man! I didn't realise my words were so memorable!

(Then again, I use 'em enough! Thanks fer the nudge!)

emaidel
04-04-2009, 01:04 PM
Geeze, man! I didn't realise my words were so memorable!

(Then again, I use 'em enough! Thanks fer the nudge!)

I believe that "nudge" was meant for me, and not you Aa. My older post asked why audiophiles didn't endorse the SACD, and this post, while it contains much of the same material, goes a bit further, as so many posts on audioreview since then have repeatedly dismissed the SACD as a "fad that came and went," etc., etc. There is no dedicated forum for SACD, and whenever it's mentioned here, it's mentioned with derision and condemnation for the most part.

I remain a committted supporter of the SACD format, and will try my best to inform as many people as I can about how good I believe it to be. If I repeat myself in the process, then I apologize for doing so. Still, I don't believe I'm "kicking a dead horse."

Auricauricle
04-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Mebbe, but please refer to a post I made into my "blog" in 29 Dec.

I hope my comments aren't taken as derisive; on the contrary, I regard the SACD phenomenon with wary scepticism. If and when I am financially able, I may well take "the next step"; in the meantime, I hope to find ways of maximizing the most of what I have. My system plays rather well, and I have a number of fine recordings made by many of the manufacturers you mentioned. The quality of those recordings are a notch or two above the mainstream, and I enjoy them very, very much, indeed....

BTW: If "kicking a horse" is a way to encourage learned, intelligent discourse, I say, kick on!

elapsed
04-04-2009, 02:13 PM
I have my reasons for not owning SACD (which have been discussed ad nauseam), but these are valid only in the context of my own system, musical taste, and budget. I respect the capabilities of the format, and I don't think it will be disappearing soon as it has a very specific niche market, but for all intensive purposes the format is dead in the mainstream. For instance I'm sure there is even an active market of people buying and selling Nakamichi tape decks, however this format too is dead.

But honestly, everyone is welcome to listen and enjoy the musical medium of their choice. Many people think I'm nuts for my own choice of system, but it brings me great pleasure so it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks

cheers,
elapsed

elapsed
04-04-2009, 02:46 PM
Actually a quick search on Google turns up a resurgence of cassette decks, some odd pop culture / 80's nostalgia I would imagine. Give the legendary Nakamichi CR-7E a listen, I'm sure it could hold its own against your Marantz 8001 ;)

Kidding aside, it's important to note that resolution does not equal musicality. I would argue that this is among the primary reasons that SACD and DVD-Audio were not accepted in the audiophile community by and large, as their turntables and CD players outperformed these higher resolution formats in the context of their existing systems (other reasons being the war between two formats, high cost, minimal difference between CD and SACD, newer music mediums, etc). Next CD will die in favour of iPod's and streaming music servers with lossless audio (which by the way had the ability to far outperform SACD), and at that point I'm sure some of you will call me a chump for endorsing CD and having spent the money I did on CD Player, power supply and interconnect.

cheers,
elapsed

Auricauricle
04-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Way I see it, folks were very, very happy with regular CD....Why fool with a good thing? Used, very good players are all over the market, and cheap. I'll let the die hards fight over the scraps. I just want good music and don't wanna spend a pile getting there....

02audionoob
04-04-2009, 08:44 PM
Actually a quick search on Google turns up a resurgence of cassette decks, some odd pop culture / 80's nostalgia I would imagine.
I have a Sony cassette deck that listed for over $700 in the mid-90s. Took it along with two turntables I was buying from a craigslist seller. I've found I can make a tape that sounds as good as vinyl...not that there's any point to it. I have it for I suppose the aforementioned nostalgia.

As for the topic at hand, this audiophile hobby is a bit small in the scheme of things. The number of people interested in the level of sound quality that the high-rez formats can provide is small. I don't think I personally know more than one person interested in high- or even mid-level audio...unless there's something I'm missing. But it seems like everyone I know enjoys music.

emaidel
04-05-2009, 03:45 AM
I've lived through many an audiophile "revolution" in my 64 years on this planet. I remember those who eschewed long playing albums, believing their lacquer 78's sounded better. Then, there were those who believed monophonic sound was intrinsically better than stereo, and that spending all that extra money for another speaker and amplifier wasn't worth the effort.

Once stereophonic sound became standard, record companies developed superior methods of recording, some of which weren't anything close to "superior." RCA's "Dynagroove" was a perfect example, with purposely built-in distortion that was supposed to be corrected by incorrect tonearm geometry fell flat on its face. RCA's "Dynaflex" records were super-thin, and supposedly less prone to warpage, yet they warped far more than any standard LP.

"Click and Pop" eliminators came and went. dbx may have had a good idea with the dynamic range expander, but the pumping and breathing factor was never completely eliminated, dbx's proprietary "Impact Recovery" circuitry was a novel idea too, but had only limited appeal, and when over applied (much like expansion) sounded truly horrible.

Equalizers were the rage thorughout the 70's and 80's, but it's hardly likely any audiophile today would even consider owning one.

The only really revolutionary item that lasted and prospered was the CD. Here was something altogether new, and which required the purchase of an all new component - a CD player - that took the industry by storm. One of the reasons for its success was that every manufacturer in the industry accepted the CD standard. Unlike the quadraphonic debacle, with competing, and incompatible systems confusing the hell out of consumers, there weren't differing methods of playing back a CD, but rather, there was just one thanks to what was known at the time as the "Compact Disc Group."

SACD certainly would have faired better if it didn't have the misfortune to be introduced along with DVD-A - again, two differing, and incompatible systems. Ultimately, SACD won out over DVD-A, but neither ever really took hold, much as Digital Audio Tape and Sony's Mini-disc didn't either.

This industry is loaded with "innovations." Some are nonsense, such as the Dynaflex records, but others, like the SACD, suffer from bad timing and poor industry support. I'm sure that if early SACD players sounded better than they did, and also did a decent job of playing standard CD's too, that the medium would have stood a better chance.

Still, as the title of this thread says, the medium isn't yet dead. There is a small group of supporters, including myself, who firmly believe in its merits and its superiority over redbook CD's. We aren't big enough to overcome the obstacles, but we're steadfast in our enthusiasm for this medium, and as most of us are lovers of the classics, we've rarely ever been able to listen to some of the music world's greatest treasures with such detail, depth and life.

That said, I'm still eagerly awaiting the arrival (April 21st) of the SACD of The Doobie Brothers' "Toulouse Street." I hope it sounds as good as I'm expecting it to! Now if only SACD's of Santana, The Eagles, Chicago, Enya, David Arkenstone, more Steely Dan recordings (there is one of "Gaucho" selling for astronomical prices), etc., etc., were to come along....

JoeE SP9
04-05-2009, 06:15 PM
I will continue to buy DVD-A, SACD's. They almost always sound better than CD's. Hell, I still buy LP's. The LP market may be larger than that for SACD!! I just love supporting dead formats. :hand:
Maybe I'll start looking for 78RPM recordings.:idea:

hifitommy
04-05-2009, 08:38 PM
to continue to release titles by purchasing some. hi rez players are readily available and not that expensive. my marantz 6001 ferinstance. and the redbook discs sound great on them even though there are some that say dvd players dont sound good.

my sony ns500v doesnt do dvda but rbcd sounds great on it.

as for software-dead can dance has quite a few available and if one checks sacd.net, he will find many new releases.

i dont hear porblems with reproduction on sacd, only the satisfying/relaxed presentation provided by the technology.

OzzieAudiophile
04-05-2009, 09:47 PM
Hi there.

One of the best SACDs I got was Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, which has three layers.

CD
SACD - 2 channel
SACD - 5/multichannel

If all future ones are done in all three, it would definately boost sales.

Another fanastic SACD is Dire Straights Brother in Arms 20th Anniversary Edition.
Mark Knopfler remixed it into 5.1 Surround himself. This edition is absolutely fantastic.

A Pink Floyed best seller is also on SACD. I purchased the Carpenters and that is also
fantastic.

There is a small selection, but look around and you'll find more than you realise.

Hear and compare both CD and SACD versions on a high end system, you will
definately hear the difference and you too can become a proud SACD advocate.

I'd gladly buy all of my favourites on SACD. They have many Crooners compilation
SACDs, go to the official site, and it will list where you can buy them.

Andrea Bocelli's - Andrea is absolutely devine. Definately worth a listen on SACD if
you're a Bocelli fan.

:2:

emaidel
04-06-2009, 04:01 AM
Hi there.

One of the best SACDs I got was Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, which has three layers.

CD
SACD - 2 channel
SACD - 5/multichannel

If all future ones are done in all three, it would definately boost sales.

:

Almost all "hybrid" SACD's have those three layers. The few exceptions are the remasterings of older RCA "Living Stereo" recordings, and the remastering of older Telarc recordings made on the Soundstream digital tape recorder.

BIS for example, has forsaken the manufacturing of CD-only versions of its recordings, offering only hybrid discs, and even at the price of standard, "redbook" CD's. It's a bold move on BIS's part, as they are firm believers in the SACD format, and whether or not it has worked to increase sales remains to be seen.

Three new SACD's of works performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Charles Levine are also offered only as hybrid discs.

hifitommy
04-06-2009, 05:06 AM
about why all or more discs arent released in hybrid form. michael bishop of telarc states that its too costly but 2L releases theirs all hybrid at regular prices. they even released one hybrid with a blu ray disc of the same program all for one price.

i believe that if sony had picked up the ball in the beginning, we would have widespread use of hybrid discs but that did not happen. still, we can get a fair amount of sacd product to our liking.

Feanor
04-06-2009, 05:24 AM
Almost all "hybrid" SACD's have those three layers. The few exceptions are the remasterings of older RCA "Living Stereo" recordings, and the remastering of older Telarc recordings made on the Soundstream digital tape recorder.

BIS for example, has forsaken the manufacturing of CD-only versions of its recordings, offering only hybrid discs, and even at the price of standard, "redbook" CD's. It's a bold move on BIS's part, as they are firm believers in the SACD format, and whether or not it has worked to increase sales remains to be seen.

Three new SACD's of works performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Charles Levine are also offered only as hybrid discs.

It's a good sign that some are issuing only hybrid SACDs vs. CDs. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case for all CD production, unless perhaps it has to do with the perception that SACD must necessarily to have a multi-channel layer. The M/C supposed requirement will raise production costs.

Although I like multi-channel, I would definitely still prefer to have SACD stereo only rather than no SACD at all. It is difficult to believe that the cost to press a physical SACD today is significantly more than that of a CD.

emaidel
04-06-2009, 10:14 AM
It's a good sign that some are issuing only hybrid SACDs vs. CDs. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case for all CD production, unless perhaps it has to do with the perception that SACD must necessarily to have a multi-channel layer. The M/C supposed requirement will raise production costs.

Although I like multi-channel, I would definitely still prefer to have SACD stereo only rather than no SACD at all. It is difficult to believe that the cost to press a physical SACD today is significantly more than that of a CD.

A good friend of mine is a Grammy Award-winning audio engineer for the work he did on the Teldec lable for the "St. Matthew's Passion." He also runs a professional recording studio, but does all his work at 96KHZ instead of using the DSD medium because the studio can't afford the far more expensive DSD recording devices. He then has to "dumb down," to use his own expression, his 96KHZ efforts to the 44.1KHZ CD standard, as the studio is unable to afford the necessary equiment to manufacture SACD's either. So, there is a cost incurred in the manufacturing of stereo-only SACD's, and not just multi-channel.

contrapunctus
04-06-2009, 10:18 AM
BIS for example, has forsaken the manufacturing of CD-only versions of its recordings, offering only hybrid discs, and even at the price of standard, "redbook" CD's. ...

Three new SACD's of works performed by the Boston Symphony Orchestra under the baton of Charles Levine are also offered only as hybrid discs.

Yes - there seems to be a definite trend towards releasing content only as hybrid SACDs (no separate CD-only version). This makes good business sense from a marketing and distribution view: One copy for everyone. Works everywhere. On everything. Sexy superjewel boxes. Hi-quality appearance. Forward and backward compatible. Simple.

Some other recent examples include:
* The brand new Kuijken Bach cantata series (SACD hybrids only)
* Lara St. John's new Arcalagon label
* New Harmonia Mundi SACD releases

Feanor
04-06-2009, 10:24 AM
A good friend of mine is a Grammy Award-winning audio engineer for the work he did on the Teldec lable for the "St. Matthew's Passion." He also runs a professional recording studio, but does all his work at 96KHZ instead of using the DSD medium because the studio can't afford the far more expensive DSD recording devices. He then has to "dumb down," to use his own expression, his 96KHZ efforts to the 44.1KHZ CD standard, as the studio is unable to afford the necessary equiment to manufacture SACD's either. So, there is a cost incurred in the manufacturing of stereo-only SACD's, and not just multi-channel.

Thanks, that's a good clarification. Of course, I wasn't so much talking about the studios who don't have DSD equipment, as about those who do, but choose not to go to produce hybrid SACDs.

Specifically I mentioned the cost of pressing discs. Given the SACD is not physically more sophisticated than DVD, I'd guess any cost differential would related to licencing, not the physical process.

contrapunctus
04-07-2009, 11:40 AM
The whole CD player market has suddenly changed. Finding an entry-level standalone CD player these days is very difficult. It's gone. Everything is iTunes, or mini-juke boxes, or universal DVD players etc.

Any **standalone** CD player is now considered to be audiophile. And, if you actually check out what is happening in the standalone CD player market, it is very very surprising ...

* Yamaha: Yamaha only has 1 standalone CD player left on the market. They have replaced their line-up with 2 SACD players, both released in the last year.

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/separate/cdchanger.html?CTID=5002100&CNTYP=PRODUCT

* Marantz: have just replaced their CD line-up with SACD players, notably the new mid-range SA7003 and SA8003 models.

http://www.marantz.com/new/index.cfm?fuseaction=Products.ProdCat&cont=eu&bus=hf&type=cd&series=comp

Almost the entire line-up is SACD.

* Pop over to Sony: 3 SACD machines, and only 1 CD player left in stock:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=27926


It's all changing. The mass market is going iTunes, convenience model. The audiophile market is going hi-rez. And the kings of audiophilia no longer even sell CD players ... all moving to SACD:

* Krell no longer sell any CD player ... they've moved to SACD.
* Mark Levinson no longer sell a CD player - replaced with their brand new SACD 512.

CD as an audiophile concept is finished. Hi-rez is the future.

hifitommy
04-07-2009, 12:34 PM
it is likely the upsampling. if you want to up the rbcd sound, try a dac, there seem to be lots of those becoming available, with usb ports as well.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MHCD25.2

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BYBCD1%20%20%20%2017BLK

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MFA1CD

its funny though, i just went to audioadvisor.com and found a BUNCH of CDPs at differing prices. are you sure you hunted well enough?

elapsed
04-07-2009, 01:17 PM
Naim CD555 was released in 2006 (arguably the best CD player ever built), Naim CD5i-2 was released in 2007, Naim HDX was released in 2008, NaimUniti will be released 2009. There are 8 CD players now in Naim's lineup, and not one SACD player. And they all sound better than any Yamaha, Marantz or Sony SACD player. ;)

cheers,
elapsed

Feanor
04-07-2009, 05:02 PM
... There are 8 CD players now in Naim's lineup, and not one SACD player. And they all sound better than any Yamaha, Marantz or Sony SACD player. ;)

cheers,
elapsed

Sez you! elapsed. On the subject of Naim, you're beginning to sound like RGA on the subject of Audio Note. (You can't both be right :ciappa: )

My days of buying CDPs is over. If my current player dies, (as it is, it's an SACD), I'll buy either another SACD or make do with my computer and DAC.

elapsed
04-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Sez you! elapsed. On the subject of Naim, you're beginning to sound like RGA on the subject of Audio Note. (You can't both be right :ciappa: )

My days of buying CDPs is over. If my current player dies, (as it is, it's an SACD), I'll buy either another SACD or make do with my computer and DAC.
That's the best part, with audio we can both be right! Truth be told, I've never heard a tube system. But if I had a bigger room to work with I could just have easily been happy with a pair of Maggies or Martin Logan's and some big huge poweramps (as opposed to my comparably small 50wpc system), at which time I likely would have purchased an SACD player. But it so happened that I heard my system and loved the sound. But I still know that my present CD player trounces my Oppo SACD player.

Anyways we both enjoy our systems for our own reasons, that's really all that matters, but it's fun to discuss regardless

cheers,
elapsed

bubslewis
04-07-2009, 05:33 PM
I purchased a SONY sacd player about a year and a half ago. Thus far I currently own a total of one (1) sacd,"Tommy" by The Who. That's opposed to about 200 regular cd's

Occasionally I'll search thru the SACD lists (can't quite recall the website right now), but I find that to be quite cumbersome and tiring after 15 or 20 minutes. I like most types of music, but what I don't have is experience in most types of music. For example, I am probably able to recognize a reasonable amount of the most famous classical pieces, but a bit less able to figure out who did them. Was that Beethoven's 9th or 8th? Was that Wagner or Liszt?

I won't buy many SACDs ( or regular ones for that matter) that I am not, at least, somewhat familiar with. Unfortunately, the sacd selection outside of classical is quite minimal. Therefore I currently own a total of one (1) sacd..................

hifitommy
04-07-2009, 06:09 PM
is easy enough but far outnumbered by rbcd. sacd.net is a great resource for titles but you may have to search around for fair pricing. fry's has them in store and quite a few are by familiar artists, some even familiar albums in reissue.

i just try to get one once in a while and they build up. the sound approaches good vinyl quality which makes then worth seeking. the net is more fruitful than actual stores.

here is a quick search i just did on towerrecords.com:

http://www.tower.com/tower_search/search_1.cfm?keywords=sacd

i just searched SACD.

already i see titles that i want. i may just go there after i finish this post. keep in mind i still buy new and used vinyl.

Feanor
04-07-2009, 06:27 PM
...
Occasionally I'll search thru the SACD lists (can't quite recall the website right now), but I find that to be quite cumbersome and tiring after 15 or 20 minutes. I like most types of music, but what I don't have is experience in most types of music. For example, I am probably able to recognize a reasonable amount of the most famous classical pieces, but a bit less able to figure out who did them. Was that Beethoven's 9th or 8th? Was that Wagner or Liszt?

I won't buy many SACDs ( or regular ones for that matter) that I am not, at least, somewhat familiar with. Unfortunately, the sacd selection outside of classical is quite minimal. Therefore I currently own a total of one (1) sacd..................

I have well over 600 classical digital recordings, the vast majority CDs, a few downloads mostly FLAC, and at least a couple of dozen SACDs although I haven't counted them.

Despite being a classical listner 95%, I don't seek out SACDs in particular. If there is a good SACD version of a work I want, or if a highly reviewed recording that happens to be SACD, then I will definite buy it at reasonable premium in preference to the CD version.

If you don't care for classical, your loss; if you do, go to ArkivMusic's SACD section (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/AlbumGroup?album_group=4). I know emaidel agrees that this is the most convenient way to shop for the format. From the main page you can drill down by Composer, Conductor, Ensemble, Label, etc.

Kevio
04-08-2009, 06:02 AM
I thought the main benefit of SACD was the care taken in making the recordings. They know, as a SACD customer, you expect good sound quality. Record companies take extra care in production to make sure it sounds good. In short, it's not so much about the delivery technology as it is abut the recording technology and production expertise that goes into SACD releases.

Feanor
04-08-2009, 06:52 AM
I thought the main benefit of SACD was the care taken in making the recordings. They know, as a SACD customer, you expect good sound quality. Record companies take extra care in production to make sure it sounds good. In short, it's not so much about the delivery technology as it is abut the recording technology and production expertise that goes into SACD releases.

Yes, that and multi-channel.

If you haven't heard a good m/c SACD played on a decent, properly set up m/c system, you are missing something. It delivers a simulation of reality that stereo simply cannot.

zuben80r
04-08-2009, 09:09 AM
Wow, Elmer Fudd's!! You've chased more 'wabbits' than I can shake a stick at! Anywho, here's my two cents: No one has mentioned Nine Inch Nails' "The Downward Spiral: Deluxe Edition" Holy Carp! I don't believe in Reznor's message, but I can't deny his aural engineering. That album has been waiting for a medium like SACD!
Also, I'm not to worried about the loss of this great medium or one similar to it with memory becoming so cheap and accessible. 1 Terabite for around $100?!?! No one knew what that was 5 years ago! I've seen that (correct me if I'm wrong) TDK has released a multi-layer 200GB capacity Blu-ray disc. That is a lot of content! Hmm...what can we do with all of that space? I dunno. Maybe fill it with hi-rez audio whether it be DSD, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD. And, hey, there's plenty of room for video and all kinds of weird stuff. Mind you, we're barely through the first stages of this Hi-def change. Hi-rez video demands hi-rez audio and that's where the format becomes marketable. No one can deny a change they see when they move from a DVD player hooked up with a 'dinky link' to a Blu-Ray player with some simple component cables. Video sells, and I hope the audio follows suit.

nightflier
04-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Despite being a classical listner 95%, I don't seek out SACDs in particular. If there is a good SACD version of a work I want, or if a highly reviewed recording that happens to be SACD, then I will definite buy it at reasonable premium in preference to the CD version.

Well one thing that I'm a stickler about is that it is a hybrid & multichannel disk. Since there is no difference in price between a non-hybrid, a stereo, or an SACD that has both, then I don't see why I would spend the money on anything less. I don't know how many times I've wanted to play a non-hybrid SACD on one of my other players and couldn't. For me, SACD's biggest draw, way back when it was introduced, was the multichannel capacity. For orchestral music, this is a huge benefit since most of that type of music should evoke a sense of awe and a concert-like feel. I think of it this way, the best rock SACDs are the ones of live concerts. I was listening to Roger Waters last weekend, and the sense of being there, in the audience, just doesn't sound as enveloping in stereo.

As far as the format dying, I agree that it will never completely die out, but with the much publicized Sony divorce, I can't say I haven't seen any writing on walls. Here's another sad fact: trying to find a good multichannel SACD player these days isn't so easy either. I like the players that Marantz and NAD have, but why so many models with just 2 channels? If I'm going to spend upwards of $2K on a player it sure as hell better have multichannel output. I have on loan from a dealer a Faroudja processor/player that I've been listening to for the past few months (I wanted to see what all the hoopla was about on the video side). Well, aside from fantastic video, the SACD sounds fantastic too, way better than my Sony. So now that I have an idea of what's possible, I'm looking for a decent SACD player with XLR outs and multichannel. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears.

Zuben,

Here's a thought: with 200Gb on tap, why doesn't someone come out with a truly hybrid disk for music. Throw every format on it, everything from DTS-MA to SACD to RBCD to FLAC. After all, it's still the same recording the consumer is paying for, so I don't see why that would be so far fetched. We should have the right to have our music in any format we want. Any company that will save us the trouble of converting these on a computer (which engenders more format cracking, IMO), deserves my hard-earned dollar.

emaidel
04-08-2009, 11:28 AM
I thought the main benefit of SACD was the care taken in making the recordings. They know, as a SACD customer, you expect good sound quality. Record companies take extra care in production to make sure it sounds good. In short, it's not so much about the delivery technology as it is abut the recording technology and production expertise that goes into SACD releases.


I disagree entirely. In the making of many Telarc CD's, once the DSD medium became available, the same level of care went into the production of those discs as was utilized in most of the older PCM-mastered discs, but it was the DSD medium that made the difference, as the microphones and mike preamps were all the same in many instances. Then, as the SACD became available, it was only logical to use that format for a DSD mastered recording, as the SACD is the only medium capable of handling the extremely wide frequency response and dynamic range of the DSD masters.

Another example would be that the same level of care goes into both the SACD and CD layers of a hybrid disc, but the SACD layer always sounds better, and in some cases, much better.

hifitommy
04-08-2009, 05:26 PM
when i was handily critcized for embracing sacd here on AR. kinda like my adherence to vinyl which has paid off handily. and its not like i dont have RBCDs. i have plenty, just bought some more including jon hassell's 'leukocyte'. highly recommeded btw.

its rewarding to see others benefiting from the superior sound of sacd. i have even gotten a player that will do dvda and have a couple of those as well although is seems that dvda has nearly died. PLEASE correct me if i am wrong and hip me to where new product is to be gotten for reasonable.

one of these days i'll get crazy and buy some more amp channels to go with my pre pro. i now have a center ch that should do nicely.

atomicAdam
04-08-2009, 08:13 PM
just found out my free toshiba DVD player will play SACDs - have to buy a copy of dead can dance toward the within too hear what i can hear.

pixelthis
04-08-2009, 10:57 PM
SACD IS dead.
I love the format, have several SACDs, but in an age where CD is dying, SACD
hardly stands a chance.
Yeah, it sounds great, tell that to all of the cheap MP3 downloaders.
But thats not the worst of it, SACDS "niche" is high quality audio, and that is surpassed
by Blu ray.
NO you cant play blu in your car, neither can you play sacd in your car.
But BLU sound is superb, blows the doors off of SACD.
Not to mention that SACD is based on a disc with limited capacity compared to BLU.
Its only a matter of time before someone comes out with a music format based on a higher capacity disc, which will almost always beat a lower capacity one.
There just isnt a market for SACD, not a large one anyway.
So if you are a fan, better run out and buy as many as you can afford, before it goes the way of DVDA, and other dinosaurs.
Only a matter of time, really.
And that is sad, because SACD is a simple, uncomplicated, elegant way of listening
to music.
But it is not CD ver2.
Thats an IPOD:1:

Poultrygeist
05-07-2009, 04:51 AM
You can get SACD on the cheap with the highly regarded Sony CE595 player. The great reviews prompted me to pick one up at BB for $150 but the reburbed ones on Sonystyle have been priced at well under $100. With a well recorded SACD disc this machine is equal to my MHZS F66 tube player on redbook. No doubt the dedicated 595 would trump most universal players including the Oppo.

I'd rather buy the SACD-hybrid discs as the redbook layers are much better than what you get on the regular cd versions.

As fine as Blu-ray audio is for HT it will never supplant two channel for guys like me who don't care for music played behind their back. Any musician will tell you they have the worst seat in the house.

pixelthis
05-07-2009, 09:15 PM
You can get SACD on the cheap with the highly regarded Sony CE595 player. The great reviews prompted me to pick one up at BB for $150 but the reburbed ones on Sonystyle have been priced at well under $100. With a well recorded SACD disc this machine is equal to my MHZS F66 tube player on redbook. No doubt the dedicated 595 would trump most universal players including the Oppo.

I'd rather buy the SACD-hybrid discs as the redbook layers are much better than what you get on the regular cd versions.

As fine as Blu-ray audio is for HT it will never supplant two channel for guys like me who don't care for music played behind their back. Any musician will tell you they have the worst seat in the house.

WHO says Blu has to be multichannel?
As a matter of fact I have heard several BLU concert discs, and all are two channel.
AND bLU PROBABLY will "supplant " the high quality niche eventually, it has more capacity, and the sound is scary good, and thats with video concerts.
A dedicated Blu two channel format would be amazing.:1:

audio amateur
05-08-2009, 02:30 AM
I'm personally very curious to know where Compact Disc is going... It's been around for some 20 years and is still going strong even though downloads do represent a big share in the market. What will be of it in 10 years? Are stores going to close? Is every thing going to be stream/download based? Are we actually ever going to OWN the music?

Kevio
05-08-2009, 04:02 PM
When you download from Amazon, EMusic and even iTunes now that they've given DRM the boot, you get the same ownership rights as you got when buying a CD. The fact that you own a physical disc does not mean your use of if it unrestricted - you own a copy, not the copyright.

So yeah, we're clearly headed for a downloadable musical existence. In my opinion, there's just no way physical media can compete in terms of cost, selection or convenience. CD is going the way of the LP. It's going down but there will be a niche market for people who enjoy the tactile experience.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is whether we're going to continue to pay for tracks/albums individually or whether subscription models will prevail. There are all kinds of subscription and download models being tried at the moment. Will one model win out or are we going to be stuck with a huge selection of music with a huge selection of ways to listen to it?

pixelthis
05-10-2009, 07:51 PM
When you download from Amazon, EMusic and even iTunes now that they've given DRM the boot, you get the same ownership rights as you got when buying a CD. The fact that you own a physical disc does not mean your use of if it unrestricted - you own a copy, not the copyright.

So yeah, we're clearly headed for a downloadable musical existence. In my opinion, there's just no way physical media can compete in terms of cost, selection or convenience. CD is going the way of the LP. It's going down but there will be a niche market for people who enjoy the tactile experience.

As far as I'm concerned, the question is whether we're going to continue to pay for tracks/albums individually or whether subscription models will prevail. There are all kinds of subscription and download models being tried at the moment. Will one model win out or are we going to be stuck with a huge selection of music with a huge selection of ways to listen to it?


hdtracks.com doesnt have DRM, and all of their stuff is highq , although a bit limited.:1:

pixelthis
05-10-2009, 08:00 PM
I'm personally very curious to know where Compact Disc is going... It's been around for some 20 years and is still going strong even though downloads do represent a big share in the market. What will be of it in 10 years? Are stores going to close? Is every thing going to be stream/download based? Are we actually ever going to OWN the music?

The compact disc is going nowhere.
When I got my first computer a single CD-ROM could hold the entire 265 meg HD backup,
a 650 meg disc was hugh.
Nowadays the new "netbooks" don't even have optical drives, just card readers, but a
single SD card holds several gigs.
A CD is increasingly looking like a 2.5 meg floppy.
CD sales are sliding off of a cliff.
As for SACD, IF YOU LIKE IT GET AS MANY AS YOU CAN.
AND HURRY.:1:

O'Shag
05-15-2009, 03:48 PM
(The) SACD is Dead! Long Live (the) SACD!