Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47
  1. #1
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003

    SACD is NOT dead.

    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!

  2. #2
    Forum Regular audio amateur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,523
    Sure it ain't dead. Doesn't mean it's alive

  3. #3
    Forum Regular Kevio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    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.

  4. #4
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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.

  5. #5
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Said it before; will say it again

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    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.

  6. #6
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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....
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  7. #7
    Forum Regular elapsed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    542
    Talking about kicking a dead horse, you may as well have just quoted yourself from December

    Why haven't audiophiles enthusiastically endorsed the SACD?

    cheers,
    elapsed
    Fidelity Acoustics RFM-2 speakers
    Naim CD5x cd player
    Naim NAC 122x pre-amp
    Naim NAP 150x poweramp
    Naim FlatCap-2x power supply
    Naim Stageline N phono stage
    Naim NACA5 speaker cabling
    Naim Hi-Line interconnect
    Chord Crimson interconnects
    Rega Planar 3 turntable
    Goldring 1042 cartridge
    Squeezebox 3
    Oppo DV-983H dvd player
    Harmony 890 remote
    Quadraspire Q4 shelving
    Wiremold L10320 power strip

    System Picture #1 | System Picture #2 | System Design

  8. #8
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    Geeze, man! I didn't realise my words were so memorable!

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

  9. #9
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
    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."

  10. #10
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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!

  11. #11
    Forum Regular elapsed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    542
    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
    Fidelity Acoustics RFM-2 speakers
    Naim CD5x cd player
    Naim NAC 122x pre-amp
    Naim NAP 150x poweramp
    Naim FlatCap-2x power supply
    Naim Stageline N phono stage
    Naim NACA5 speaker cabling
    Naim Hi-Line interconnect
    Chord Crimson interconnects
    Rega Planar 3 turntable
    Goldring 1042 cartridge
    Squeezebox 3
    Oppo DV-983H dvd player
    Harmony 890 remote
    Quadraspire Q4 shelving
    Wiremold L10320 power strip

    System Picture #1 | System Picture #2 | System Design

  12. #12
    Forum Regular elapsed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    542
    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
    Fidelity Acoustics RFM-2 speakers
    Naim CD5x cd player
    Naim NAC 122x pre-amp
    Naim NAP 150x poweramp
    Naim FlatCap-2x power supply
    Naim Stageline N phono stage
    Naim NACA5 speaker cabling
    Naim Hi-Line interconnect
    Chord Crimson interconnects
    Rega Planar 3 turntable
    Goldring 1042 cartridge
    Squeezebox 3
    Oppo DV-983H dvd player
    Harmony 890 remote
    Quadraspire Q4 shelving
    Wiremold L10320 power strip

    System Picture #1 | System Picture #2 | System Design

  13. #13
    Sure, sure... Auricauricle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Yonder
    Posts
    2,886
    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....
    "The great tragedy of science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."--T. Huxley

  14. #14
    Retro Modernist 02audionoob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by elapsed
    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.

  15. #15
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    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....

  16. #16
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    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.
    Maybe I'll start looking for 78RPM recordings.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  17. #17
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    i for one will continue to encourage hi rez labels

    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.
    ...regards...tr

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    198

    SACD is getting there, slowly

    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.

    Current System :

    Xindak XA8800MNE Mono Block Power Amplifier
    Cambridge Audio 840E Pre Amplifier
    Cambridge Audio 840C CD Player and DAC
    Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MK-II
    Pioneer DVR-640H (250 GB HDD)
    Foxtel Digital
    Samsung LCD 40in LA40M81BDX
    Sony PS 3 (source - CD/SACD/DVD/Blu-Ray)
    XLO Interconnects & speaker cables
    Sonos Wireless Music System

    Upgrade Path :

    1. Power regulation system

  19. #19
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by OzzieAudiophile
    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.

  20. #20
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    there seems to be some conjecture

    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.
    ...regards...tr

  21. #21
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Good sign

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    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.

  22. #22
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    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.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8

    SACD - labels moving to hybrids - dropping older CD parallel releases

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    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

  24. #24
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Ok: I'm better informed

    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    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.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8

    CD as an audiophile entity is over ...

    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/c...&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...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/...tegoryId=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.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •