Sacd

[emaidel]

Several years back (actually, almost 4) I purchased my first, and still only, SACD player. I was delighted with the improvement in sound the SACD layer had over the CD layer, and couldn't understand the almost universal disinterest in the audio community for the format.

There is another site dedicated exclusively to the discussion of the format, and releases made in it - sa-cd.net - that just celebrated its 10 year anniversary. That says quite a lot about a "dying," and "best left forgotten" format, I'd say.

Still, I rarely ever see mention of SACD's on audioreview's pages, almost as if the format simply doesn't exist. There's no doubt the vast majority of SACD releases are classical, but to ignore such a sonically superior format seems somewhat counter-productive for an audio-based website, such as this.

Just a thought...

[Feanor]

Several years back (actually, almost 4) I purchased my first, and still only, SACD player. I was delighted with the improvement in sound the SACD layer had over the CD layer, and couldn't understand the almost universal disinterest in the audio community for the format.

There is another site dedicated exclusively to the discussion of the format, and releases made in it - sa-cd.net - that just celebrated its 10 year anniversary. That says quite a lot about a "dying," and "best left forgotten" format, I'd say.

Still, I rarely ever see mention of SACD's on audioreview's pages, almost as if the format simply doesn't exist. There's no doubt the vast majority of SACD releases are classical, but to ignore such a sonically superior format seems somewhat counter-productive for an audio-based website, such as this.

Just a thought...
The relative failure of SACD is due to two (2) causes, IMHO.


Poor early marketing decisions by Sony, e.g. first the SACD disc were non-hybrid and the first players were very expensive
The continued audiophile obsession with vinyl and bias against digital going back to the early days of CD.


Today the general disinterest has a lot to do with the limited choice of music on SACD. There is a good choice from the Classical genre and some Jazz but these genres don't much appeal to the great unwashed, consequently SACD doesn't get much buzz.

[recoveryone]

Feanor, hit the nail on the head. You have to look at what type of music is being purchased in mass. Also the format war did not help either DVD-A vs SACD, the general public is growing weary and leary of dualing formats not wanting to get burn if the one they choose dies off:
DVD vs Dvix
DVD-HD vs Blu Ray
DVD-A vs SACD

Nothing wrong with dual formats but the industry quickly take sides and drop support for the other. Also with the music industry, free/peer sharing D/L music was just to good to pass up compared to a higher price album. If SACD was to replace CD's all together like DVD did VHS then it could be the best thing in home audio since slice bread. Cost would have come down and wide support for all genres would drive sales and the players would still be highly sought after, replacing standard CD players.

I only have a couple of SACD's and DVD-A, just for the reasons above. I still held on to one of my Pionner DV-45A players just incase I am able to pick up some good deals on music I like. Hmmm, Now if SACD would have dipped into the remastered game on older albums across all gernres it would make a killing IMHO, second to teenagers, the babyboom culture buys more music from their past then any other group combined.
I

[emaidel]

The failure for SACD to take hold as expected 10 years ago has been discussed numerous times here, and that wasn't the purpose of my post this morning. The fact is the format, while hardly "thriving," is still very much alive, but gets virtually no notice here. Surely ALL members of audioreview.com don't dislike classical music!

Insofar as remasters, Mobile Fildelity has done a spectacular job on some older Eric Clapton and Doobie Brothers discs, amongst other artists, to SACD that are astounding.

And, while DVD-Audio flopped, SACD remains. I just think it deserves more attention here than it gets.

[Feanor]

The failure for SACD to take hold as expected 10 years ago has been discussed numerous times here, and that wasn't the purpose of my post this morning. The fact is the format, while hardly "thriving," is still very much alive, but gets virtually no notice here. Surely ALL members of audioreview.com don't dislike classical music!
...
And, while DVD-Audio flopped, SACD remains. I just think it deserves more attention here than it gets.
Maybe not, but whenever I've tried to discuss classical albums, say in Rave Recordings, response has been very poor.

[recoveryone]

not that I have done any research on the members of this board, but Jazz seems to be the one genre that most have some level of interest. I only have a few Classical albums and two are from a family member that was nominated for a grammy in 2011 (Eliesha Nelson) the others where promotional gifts. I have tried to sit back and listen, but all I see in my mind is those classic bugs bunny cartoons with the classical music playing in the background.

Just popped over to the site Mobile Fidelity, and it just prove my case. Limited stock, very high prices, and with no demand from the comsumer level that will always be the case. two R&B disk and only four Jazz and the one for Miles Davis wasn't even Kinda Blue (the staple of Jazz).

[blackraven]

I have a POS SACD player but the fact of the matter is that 2ch SACD sounds better than standard CD. Even the CD layer on hybrid SACD's sounds much better most of the time compared to a standard CD of the same title. The mastering process is much better. In most instances I will search for a hybrid SACD version of the music that I am interested in even if I have no intention of playing it in my SACD player. I am willing to spend the $30 on an SACD just to get the better sound quality, just as I spend the extra cash on XRCD's, ECM, Telarc and Blue Coast music because of how well mastered and recorded the music is.

The issue's of SACD failing to go main stream are still the same- Cost of the SACD's, limited titles especially in main stream music, the cost of a decent SACD player and now digital music.

[E-Stat]

Several years back (actually, almost 4) I purchased my first, and still only, SACD player. I was delighted with the improvement in sound the SACD layer had over the CD layer, and couldn't understand the almost universal disinterest in the audio community for the format.
I'll share the reasons why I never adopted the format. The first reason has to do with timing. I had already upgraded my CD player to an exceptional $3k model in 2001. Unlike many audiophiles, I have never been one who constantly upgrades gear based on whims. I have long term relationships with mine. In the vintage system, I have a forty year old turntable, and thirty year old amplifier and speakers. Even in the main system, the preamp and power amp are more than ten years old and the speakers are about seven. The speakers that preceded those I owned for over twenty years. So, I was in no mood to throw out a new component because of a new format.

The main reason has to do with a sparsely supported format. Unlike the CD which was universally adopted by the record labels for both new content and old releases as well, the offerings were spotty. I listen to some classical, but that is not the sole genre. After reading your post, I went to the sa-cd.net website and viewed the "latest" pop content. What I found was Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. And 70s era Yes albums. I enjoy movie soundtracks for which there is virtually zero content.

When I recently retired my 2001 Gamut CD-1, I seriously considered buying an EMM Labs CDSA player (the XDS1 I've heard at an audio reviewer's home was out of my budget). I have about half a dozen multi layer SACDs (mostly Telarc) and would possibly like to purchase some old releases. Mind you, the vast majority of new music has never been and will never be released on SACD. While I'm a boomer, I really do understand the lure of the iTunes generation. Why would you want to buy music on a shiny disk that must be played on a single disk player for each "song" that has to be physically transported from system to system? Apparently, SONY has no understanding whatsoever of the many benefits of server based storage. You put the music in a single place and access it - instantly from multiple sources.

What I purchased instead was a server based solution and multiple players capable of 24/192 resolution via instant access from my iPhone. The Millennial Generation that drives the music industry will never adopt the arbitrary and forced limitations of either SACD or Blu Ray music.

And I will enjoy music across all my systems including lossless content on an iPhone using Shure SE535 IEMs. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe not, but whenever I've tried to discuss classical albums, say in Rave Recordings, response has been very poor.

I would like to add several more very poor's to your statement. Don't even mention classical or jazz in surround, or the crickets chirping would be deafening.

[Woochifer]

I think SACD has already sailed on. There are still some organizations such as the SF Symphony and London Symphony Orchestra that regularly release CD/SACD hybrids as part of their normal inventory. You order one of the LSO or SFS' CD releases, the SACD layer comes with it.

And therein lies one of the primary reasons for SACD's demise -- none of the major labels standardized their new releases in that format. Even though the hybrid format allows for a single inventory release, no one, not even Sony, stepped up to the plate and made a major push to get SACDs out by the millions as part of their normal release schedule.

IMO, SACD needed to get out there as a mainstream format. With so many multichannel audio systems that came along with the rapid success of the DVD format, SACD had a chance with the mainstream market to piggyback on that growth curve. But, the labels could never figure out if they wanted to keep it as a niche audiophile format (Sony and Universal's early releases were all two-channel single layer SACDs) or as a value-added feature that would get added onto regular CDs for mainstream consumers.

SACD is compelling simply because of the many great releases that have come out in that format. For me, the SFS Mahler series alone justified purchasing a SACD player -- the performances and recordings are that good, and the multichannel tracks take me into Davies Symphony Hall in a way that the two-channel tracks simply cannot. It's just too bad that the format had so many limitations imposed on it and was never given a realistic chance to succeed.

Yes, SACD releases still come out, and whenever the SFS issues a new release, I'm all over it. But, the format only lives on because it has a dedicated (but small) following. It now come full circle back into a niche format, as many of the new releases coming out (via import from Japan and selling for $30+) are now back to the single layer two-channel SACDs that will not play on a regular CD player.

For now, any future chance of high resolution music has been transferred over to Blu-ray and lossless downloads. But, even here, a lot of the restrictions that held SACD back remain in place.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The Millennial Generation that drives the music industry will never adopt the arbitrary and forced limitations of either SACD or Blu Ray music.

While I agree with you on SACD, I profoundly disagree with you on Bluray music. First, the Millennial generation does not drive the music industry, they drive a portion of it. Secondly, a lot of Millennial already own a Bluray player and a hometheater(HTIB usually), so if they use it for movies, they could quite easily use if for music as well. I have seen at least two survey's in the last couple of years that showed that Millennial's really enjoy concert video's on the Bluray format. That video format seems to be well supported with pop, hip hop, R&B, and other popular genre's. My kids and their friends watch concert videos all of the time when they were home, and seem to be repeating that pattern now that they have their own places. It is not about the format, it is about the content is what I get from them.

The real problem for Millennial's is there is no pop, rap, hip hop, or any other popular music they like supported on Bluray disc(music only, no video). If the record companies did support those genre's, the interest in Bluray music would be there IMO. SACD is a different story. There is no way to support visuals, and the Millennial's really like video along with their music(hello youtube).

[E-Stat]

While I agree with you on SACD, I profoundly disagree with you on Bluray music. First, the Millennial generation does not drive the music industry, they drive a portion of it. Secondly, a lot of Millennial already own a Bluray player and a hometheater(HTIB usually), so if they use it for movies, they could quite easily use if for music as well.
Best of luck to anyone banking on that!


Millennial's really like video along with their music(hello youtube).
Right. All content centrally computer based via streaming. Accessible from their smartphone. The concept of Youtube on tens of thousands of individual shiny disks is pretty funny!

[blackraven]

I have to agree with E-Stat. Computer based streaming, smart phones and Youtube are what the Millennial's generation want. Plus why would you want to put rap, hip hop and most of the poorly recorded main stream music on SACD.

[E-Stat]

Computer based streaming, smart phones and Youtube are what the Millennial's generation want.
That's what RIAA data (http://76.74.24.142/FA8A2072-6BF8-D44D-B9C8-CE5F55BBC050.pdf) shows. As for physical media based music videos, that amounted to 2.6% of the music market in 2011 (vs. 2.1% for vinyl)!

Trend? Physical music video revenue fell from the year before - while it increased for vinyl.

[markw]

First off, Joe Sixpack really isn't all that concerned with the audible difference between redbook CD's and SACD's. CD's were light-years ahead of vinyl as far as sound and convenience goes and he was happy as a clam at high tide with them. Unlike going from vinyl to CD, Joe saw no great rewards in upgrading from CD to SACD.

1) SACD required a dual inventory at first.

2) They were offered at a higher price.

3) They required a separate player and "special" connections for multi-channel.

4) The offerings were limited. They still are.

With the advent of dual-layer CD/SACD's, # 1, and part of #2 were answered. Gotta love RCA Living Stereo for re-releasing it's catalog in 3.0 at reasonable prices.

When universal players became reasonable and available , # 3 became a non-issue but time was running out. If my Denon 1940-CI didn't have SACD, neither would I.

# 4 still remains.

As it stands,it might hover around the periphery for a few years, or as long as the hardware is thrown in wit DVD/Blu-Ray players but the possibility of it ever becoming more than it is is long gone. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Right. All content centrally computer based via streaming. Accessible from their smartphone. The concept of Youtube on tens of thousands of individual shiny disks is pretty funny!

This applies to music, but I have not seen this with concert videos or movies.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's what RIAA data (http://76.74.24.142/FA8A2072-6BF8-D44D-B9C8-CE5F55BBC050.pdf) shows. As for physical media based music videos, that amounted to 2.6% of the music market in 2011 (vs. 2.1% for vinyl)!

Trend? Physical music video revenue fell from the year before - while it increased for vinyl.

Perhaps this is because vinyl costs more. The cost of authoring discs has fallen dramatically, and we see that cost saving being passed on to the consumer.

[E-Stat]

This applies to music, but...
Isn't music the focus of the post? I seriously doubt that any major label will ever use SACD or BR as their format for music releases. That is pretty much the domain of small niche companies like 2L.

[E-Stat]

Perhaps this is because vinyl costs more. The cost of authoring discs has fallen dramatically, and we see that cost saving being passed on to the consumer.
If you review the data, you'll observe that the drop was 15% for both revenue AND units. Fewer sales independent of cost.

If your point is that music videos are cheaper (I don't see any evidence to that by looking on Amazon), then the public certainly hasn't responded by purchasing any more of them.

[Feanor]

Isn't music the focus of the post? I seriously doubt that any major label will ever use SACD or BR as their format for music releases. That is pretty much the domain of small niche companies like 2L.
Sadly that's the way it looks to me too.

Blu-ray can equal or surpass the sound quality of SACD, but where's the software -- for either of them?

Let's just look a Classical for a start. Amazon lists 302,872 items under Classical CDs; they list 4992 SACDs and a grand total of 132 (!!) classified as Blu-ray audio. There are a total of 337 Blu-rays classified Classical, most being video performance or opera. (Opera on Blu-ray is great, BTW.)

[E-Stat]

Sadly that's the way it looks to me too.
I may have to surrender my audiophile card because I don't find it sad at all. It's now been four months since I stopped using a disk player and transitioned to server based music for both music systems. One central library with instant access in either place. iPhone based remote control. I'm not going back...


Let's just look a Classical for a start. Amazon lists 302,872 items under Classical CDs; they list 4992 SACDs and a grand total of 132 (!!) classified as Blu-ray audio. There are a total of 337 Blu-rays classified Classical, most being video performance or opera. (Opera on Blu-ray is great, BTW.)
And that's the sweet spot!

As for me, I'm part of the 97% who don't buy music videos. I purchased one BR concert to try out the concept and have watched it maybe three times. I was never one who enjoyed "live" rock/pop concerts. My interest has always been in the sound, not the choreography, light show or pyrotechnics. Fini.

I'm not an opera fan either so that offers no allure for me. My wet dream is to be able to buy all my music via hi-rez downloads like HD Tracks.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't music the focus of the post? I seriously doubt that any major label will ever use SACD or BR as their format for music releases. That is pretty much the domain of small niche companies like 2L.

Funny, I have concert video titles from Universal, Warner music, and Sony Entertainment. To me, it does not matter with who releases content, as long as it is good I am in.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you review the data, you'll observe that the drop was 15% for both revenue AND units. Fewer sales independent of cost.

If your point is that music videos are cheaper (I don't see any evidence to that by looking on Amazon), then the public certainly hasn't responded by purchasing any more of them.

The RIAA does not release data on Bluray disc. So you are basing your information on partial source material. According to my NDP source, concert video from all genres is selling pretty darn well at this point.

[E-Stat]

Funny, I have concert video titles from Universal, Warner music, and Sony Entertainment. To me, it does not matter with who releases content, as long as it is good I am in.
Who's talking about concert videos?

[E-Stat]

The RIAA does not release data on Bluray disc. So you are basing your information on partial source material. According to my NDP source, concert video from all genres is selling pretty darn well at this point.
That is a statement in itself. Not even considerable enough to be on their radar!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That is a statement in itself. Not even considerable enough to be on their radar!

No simpleton, that is not true at all. It is just the RIAA data is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. Ralph, anytime you can just surf the net and pull down data, it is almost always incomplete on inaccurate.

If you want accurate complete data, you have to pay for it.

I have said this to you before, but it just does not penetrate your thick head. If you start off with inaccurate data, any conclusions you come up with based on that data is wrong PERIOD.

I am done with this. I said in 2013 I was going to not engage with the half cocked.

[E-Stat]

No simpleton, that is not true at all. It is just the RIAA data is incomplete, and therefore inaccurate.
By all means, do enlighten us as to the (in)significance of Blu Ray music content. I'm not referring to recycled "live" concerts. Can you name three artists available on such?

Feanor did a pretty good job already.

[markw]

Someow, I thought we were discussing SACD's, an audio format, not a video format.

I musta fell asleep.

[E-Stat]

Someow, I thought we were discussing SACD's, an audio format, not a video format.

I musta fell asleep.
No, you're quite awake. Most of us were discussing an audio format. :)

[Feanor]

Well downloads are OK with me though I'd like a multi-channel option. But there again where is the software? There are (for example) only 500-700 classical albums at HDtracks.com, (and they're only stereo).

[noddin0ff]

Maybe not, but whenever I've tried to discuss classical albums, say in Rave Recordings, response has been very poor.


I would like to add several more very poor's to your statement. Don't even mention classical or jazz in surround, or the crickets chirping would be deafening.

Honestly, the response is poor for the majority of RR postings. But, that doesn't mean they're not appreciated. There's a wide wide world of sound and not everyone has something interesting to say on any specific post (I know you two old timers know this). Don't make excuses to not share your enthusiasm in RR... and be polite. ;-)

[noddin0ff]

Multi-channel audio doesn't fit with my lifestyle. There's only 2-channels in my headphones. When I'm at home I listen while I do stuff so I'm never in the 5-channel sweet spot long enough. If I had time to sit, I'd be all over it...AND I'd listen to more classical.

But then there's still the problem with SACD format distribution and access. Sony screwed up with SACD in my not-at-all-informed-by-information opinion. They tried to use superior format to draw people to the Sony brand. But who wants to adopt a whole new format that you can only play on a few players? I didn't and I didn't like the mid-level Sony players at the time. Plus, there's no way to make SACD portable. Hybrid SACDs were and are great. If they had been priced competitively and if Sony would've completely switched to Hybrid only releases, I think we'd all be buying SACDs now, regardless of channel number.

[Feanor]

Honestly, the response is poor for the majority of RR postings. But, that doesn't mean they're not appreciated. There's a wide wide world of sound and not everyone has something interesting to say on any specific post (I know you two old timers know this). Don't make excuses to not share your enthusiasm in RR... and be polite. ;-)
Was I being impolite? Geez, I hope not. Or are the facts rude?

The fact is that I don't have to shout down the RR well on the subject of classical recordings; I can and do go to classical music forums.

[noddin0ff]

Was I being impolite? Geez, I hope not. Or are the facts rude?

The fact is that I don't have to shout down the RR well on the subject of classical recordings; I can and do go to classical music forums.

I wish you would shout down the RR well. I enjoy your posts.

[Feanor]

I wish you would shout down the RR well. I enjoy your posts.
So stay tuned and I'll begin to pass on a few classical recommendations. I have quite a few that I can recommend based on composition, performance, and sound quality.

[Woochifer]

As it stands,it might hover around the periphery for a few years, or as long as the hardware is thrown in wit DVD/Blu-Ray players but the possibility of it ever becoming more than it is is long gone. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.

With a very specific segment of the buying public, SACD has shown surprising staying power. It's definitely not something that will ever hit it off with mainstream consumers, or find broad support with the major music labels. It helps that the format has continued hardware support from credible manufacturers such as Oppo, Denon, and Marantz; while some quality-focused music labels also continue to release SACDs.

For those of us even with a modest SACD collection, it's not yet an orphaned format because replacement SACD players are still readily available and I can still buy new releases in the format. But, that's coming from the perspective of someone who's already invested in the format. For a newbie, unless you're already buying a Blu-ray or high end CD player with SACD support, it's probably no longer worth getting into SACD as a standalone pursuit. That is, unless you got a specific title or series that you must have in the SACD format.

Yesterday I was at Fry's Electronics, and they still have a standalone section for SACDs. I saw a couple of CD/SACD copies of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon selling for $15. A remnant from that brief moment when Sony made a bid for SACD's mainstream acceptance -- when they reportedly paid $500k for the 5.1 production work on DSOTM, and dropped the price for SACD changers to around $200.

[E-Stat]

...when they reportedly paid $500k for the 5.1 production work on DSOTM
And eventually figured out that the majority of the buying public couldn't care less.

Just like the "latest" pop releases (http://sa-cd.net/recent)on sa-cd.net of Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra. :)