SACD vs DVD-A (Business/Marketing reason)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

From a recording engineer side SACD was a success. It was the only format that sounded like analog, but had none of its drawbacks.

From a marketing side, it was a failure because of paranoia. Both sides went to great lengths to copy protect and control their product. DVD-A was a failure in that area as its encryption was broken before it could come to market. Neither one could easily be integrated easily into any system. 6 analog outputs was to cumbersome to hookup, the bass management was too crude, and for SACD required the conversion to PCM to happen. This defeated the whole purpose of the SACD format.

You also have to take into account that nobody sits down, turns off the lights, and LISTENS to music anymore. Neither Sony or Warner took into consideration consumers listening habits. They based all of their market research on the CD platform which is portable, transfereable, and easily manipulated to each consumer taste(playlists)

I think DVD-A is cooked, however I do think that Sony will include SACD in their BlueRay format, so I don't think SACD life is quite over yet if this format succeeds(thought I doubt it will).

[RGA]

Phyrro.

Yes CD was targeted briefly as high enders but not not high end audiophiles -- there is a difference. Most products hit market high priced and then fall like a stone. People with money overpay for the technology first because they have a need to be first (Type A personality syndrome). They buy into the NEW revolutionary LOL technology of perfect sound forever. I'm sure Sony and Phillips were hoping to conver Audiophiles but really we're probably 1% or less of the population so I doubt they really care.

I know some Audiophiles fall into both caring about music and need to have it first camps but they went back to vinyl...which is why despite the fact that vinyl is supposedly dead it hangs in there.

The laserdisc was only expensive because Pioneer who championed it so strong was not supported by many other companies -- and none of the big ones in any serious way -- same for the video manufacturers. Plus I don't think the CD makers were thrilled to see LP sized discs which would have people thinking LP.

I believe i purchased my first player in 1988 it was a six pack Pioneer for $299.00. it took a while to come doewn but so did DVD with player all over $700 and now as little as $39.00 -- I saw one at $18.99 on sale.

SACD was $5k and now it's a toss in on $150.00 DVD players. I don;t see any Linn or other True High end makers supporting it because most of them think it sounds like crap. I also agree with your list. If you have a multi-channel system already it might be a good thing -- but if you use a receiver as your main source of amplification then IMO it doesn;t matter if you're using SACD -- it's going to be hampered by the receiver too much for me to want to buy in. The two channel audiophiles are less likely to go in -- but as I say the recording re-mastering i've heard on a few might be worthwhile to me but with the terrible selection and not much increase in the 5 years+ the format has been out is not impressing me. CD in 7 years took over all outlets from LP and had every single title ion the format. A&B sound the second biggest chain for music in BC maybe has 40 SACD titles and Future Shop owned by Best Buy has ZERO. with a small rack of DVD-A. DVD-A was supposed to be the DEAD technology and yet it's winning here -- probably because it says DVD. Actually Linn does have SACD capaility tossed in on its new players apparently. But no dedicated units.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

. I don;t see any Linn or other True High end makers supporting it because most of them think it sounds like crap. . Actually Linn does have SACD capaility tossed in on its new players apparently. But no dedicated units.

RGA,
Sometimes you really surprise me. Bel Canto offers a $8900 universal player

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/...belcanto.shtml

Linn also offers one

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0402/10.sacd.shtml

Esoteric offers one

http://www.teac.com/esoteric/NewEsoteric/X-01.html

Simaudio has one for $7200

http://www.hometheatermag.com/dvdplayers/705simaudio/

I could on and on. You comments on the sound quality of SACD and DVD-A are way off mark.

[RGA]

Thanks for the correction.

I don't consider many of those high end just expensive and the Linn was not listed on their web-site that I could find an actual dedicated SACD player. I didn't think I made any off the mark sound quality assessments( I have just read a number of high end makers not being impressed with the sound. It is an opinion regardless if one doesn't like them then one doesn't. Most of the ones I've heard were not the least bit impressive and a few I've heard are quite good. But the player doing both formats may not have had an up to snuff cd player portion or the recording of the cd part was done poorly for all I know. I'd like a few more opportunities to hear some well set-up SACD systems but since no one carries them and the few place who do run receivers or solid state amplification through a slime line design home theater and fashion created loudspeaker it appears my wait to hear one will extend to January when i go to the CES (if I have student loan money left).

This stuff has been around now for a number of years and has tanked. Quality or not - the masses don't ccare and two channel auduiophiles don't care or were not impressed by auditions to jump on it in any kind of tangible way. I still don't see too many "dedicated' SACD players - I see none. The guy considering spending 7k on a high end NAME cd player which also happens to have SACD still doesn't make it clear to me they're buying SACD FOR SACD. Maybe they want a great cd player with SACD to try it out -- but then if it were a success there may actually be titles.

[JSE]

Who will win? Neither. They are both essentially dead. Except for maybe SACD as Sir. T mentioned maybe being included in Blue Ray. But SACD and DVD-A as we know them are dying fast. I give each format another year or so before the official plug is pulled.

Just look at the shevles at Best Buy or Circuit City or any music store. The selection is disappearing. I have not really seen many new releases. Some but not many.

Also, DVD-A and SACD are not convenient like CD or MP3. You can really only play them on a compatible player in your home. You can't play them in your car, you can't burn a copy for your car or download it to your iPod and 99.99% of the buying public out there don't have compatible players and have not idea what DVD-A and SACD are. Quality aside, MP3 and CD are just better easier to use formats for the masses. Again sound quality aside, DVD-A and SACD just got caught in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenario. They built a better mouse trap but just made it too complicated and too hard to use for the masses.


Oh and Sir T. I seem to remember you "jumping my arse" a couple of years ago when I said DVD-A and SACD would never make it. You thought I was crazy. I would just like to take this opportunity to say......

I TOLD YOU SO! Ha!


JSE

[sam9]

If they die, it will be from th manufacturers'i own lack of good sense. DVD-As often/usually need a monitor to navigate - comparred to CD's this is distinctly non-user friendly. Sony won't allow digital output of SACDs and refuses to build a universal player under their own name.

Only SACD sufferes from lack of copatible players. Nearly any home with a TV has a DVD player. DVD-A have DD5.1 and/or DTS tracks as well.

I have found it very hard(impossible, actually) to tell any difference between the DVD-A track and the alterate DD-5.1/DTS tracks. In fact after, doing some listening, I decided not to bother buying a DVD-A player because the results were just as good (very good) listening to the alternate tracks. My impesssion is the DVD-A industry plays down the DD-5.1 alternate track (presumably to encourage salles of new machines) to the extent that many people are unaware they already have playback capability in their DVD player. This certainly can't help media sales. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Before, SACD and DVD-A appeared there were DTS CD. These were (are if you can find one) very good although usually, except when the producers were having trouble with the aesthetic issues of multi-track presentation. (Much like early stereo LP, ans early CD issues had problems because the nuances of the new process were not yet understood well.) DTS CD were 24 bits with a high sample rate and played on existing equipment. They were a logical, cost effective way to get higher resolution and multichannels, but DTS the company wasn't up to the marketing task. The BS about "lossey compression" hurt them in the audiophile world desopite IMO it haveing no detrimental effect (except in some mind). Too bad. If they could have been as clever as Dolby in cassette days and got everybody to licence and use a common technology, we wouldn't be faced with the possibledeath hi-def multi-track music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have found it very hard(impossible, actually) to tell any difference between the DVD-A track and the alterate DD-5.1/DTS tracks. In fact after, doing some listening, I decided not to bother buying a DVD-A player because the results were just as good (very good) listening to the alternate tracks. My impesssion is the DVD-A industry plays down the DD-5.1 alternate track (presumably to encourage salles of new machines) to the extent that many people are unaware they already have playback capability in their DVD player. This certainly can't help media sales. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

.

Wow, this is a heavy statement. I can easily tell a DVD-A 5.1 track from a DD 5.1, especially sense I know exactly what to listen for. Dolby Digital is not a music codec, and that is apparent before DVD-A. Dolby Digital sounds hard, has a digital glaze that is very audible, lacks air and openess, and doesn't handle the timbre of acoustical musical instruments very well. IMO there is far less difference between Dts and DVD-A, than DD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh and Sir T. I seem to remember you "jumping my arse" a couple of years ago when I said DVD-A and SACD would never make it. You thought I was crazy. I would just like to take this opportunity to say......

I TOLD YOU SO! Ha!


JSE

JSE! You just wait until I git a hold of you........I'm gonna.....I'm gonna...oooo I'm gonna tell you that you were half right. SACD is not quite dead, and I do not think it will die. I think it will be the audio side of BluRay. DVD-A is dead IMO, and I never thought it would survive. As you know I was never a supporter of DVD-A because to these ears it still sounds like digital audio. I was hoping the SACD would take off, but it didn't happen. I thought Sony would agressively push this format, and they did not.

So JSE, you can stand on the edge of the barn and crow, but you only get half as long to crow. LOL

[JSE]

JSE! You just wait until I git a hold of you........I'm gonna.....I'm gonna...oooo I'm gonna tell you that you were half right. SACD is not quite dead, and I do not think it will die. I think it will be the audio side of BluRay. DVD-A is dead IMO, and I never thought it would survive. As you know I was never a supporter of DVD-A because to these ears it still sounds like digital audio. I was hoping the SACD would take off, but it didn't happen. I thought Sony would agressively push this format, and they did not.

So JSE, you can stand on the edge of the barn and crow, but you only get half as long to crow. LOL

I can live with that. Do you think Blue Ray will have the same acceptance problems as SACD and DVD-A?

JSE

[RGA]

Who will win? Neither. They are both essentially dead. Except for maybe SACD as Sir. T mentioned maybe being included in Blue Ray. But SACD and DVD-A as we know them are dying fast. I give each format another year or so before the official plug is pulled.

Just look at the shevles at Best Buy or Circuit City or any music store. The selection is disappearing. I have not really seen many new releases. Some but not many.

JSE

The masses won't support because the masses are not audiophiles -- see MP3 as proof. The support convenience over sound quality CD over Vinyl. Though CD got much better over the years.

SACD has not even been taken well by audiophiles -- most audiophiles are TWO channel folks -- SACD is a multi-channel format to actually be appreciably noticeably better. Too many of the SACD releases SUCK donkey balls. For something to be sold as superior you need to make it better consistantly. Looking at the reviews in one of the big Brit magazines on SACD reviews of albums and seeing a steady diet of 3/5 ratings for sound quality while the vinyls are getting 5/5 or worse reviewing a cd or SACD and saying it sounds good blah blah blah - but if you an find a good shape Vinyl of it you're better off is not helpful. Even if the reviewer is WRONG the point is that also isn't helping people get on board.

[topspeed]

SACD has not even been taken well by audiophiles -- most audiophiles are TWO channel folks -- SACD is a multi-channel format to actually be appreciably noticeably better. Too many of the SACD releases SUCK donkey balls. For something to be sold as superior you need to make it better consistantly.

SACD has multi-layers; CD, SACD 2.1, and SACD multi. Therefore, SACD can be enjoyed by 2 channel folks (such as yours truly) as well as in multi.

I just got my universal player and only have 2 SACD's, so naturally I can't say if they all sound like vomit. However, I did buy John Mayer's Heavier Things on SACD for the sole purpose of comparing in to my rbcd version (which, along with Room for Squares, is an exceptional recording by anyone's standard). I can definitely hear a difference between the SACD and RBCD versions. The kick drum, for example, has a much fuller, weightier sound to it. While I try to avoid audiophile terminology, it really does have more air around it. IOW, it sounds more like a real kick drum. I will say, that I don't like the multi-channel at all as I find the surrounds to be too overbearing, but this may be because I haven't completely dialed it in yet (still waiting for my DVE disc). My opinion may change after calibration is complete.