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.

1. Poor early marketing decisions by Sony, e.g. first the SACD disc were non-hybrid and the first players were very expensive
2. 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.

[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.

[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. ;-)

[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.