SACD - What happened?

[FreaqyFrequency]

Man, some things confuse me.

Two days ago, I went to a friend's house, and his brother had just acquired an SACD player. First thing he popped in was Kind of Blue (a man after my own heart ) and my initial thought was skepticism: "Come on, CD already sounds so good; much better than the 192kbps mp3s people stuff on their iPods these days), but my reaction? You don't have to listen closely to notice the details, it sounds more lively, and it draws up the emotions in you even more than the CD. It's difficult to put into words.

So, I do some research when I get home. This thing was introduced to the market in 1999.

What?

1999, folks. That's how long this technology has been around, and a number artists have been recording on it since. So while everyone is going wild about Blu-Ray which was introduced in 07, mp3s are now the standard for portable music. What have we done?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

[ugly_bassplayer]

SACD players where really expensive & only a limited number of albums where converted to the SACD format.

[FreaqyFrequency]

The same is true for BD, and yet there are people flocking to that faster on average than people did when DVDs were first out. So clearly, there are still people willing to shell out for quality, but the question remains: why is SACD virtually dead?

[onlyclave]

The licensing fees for SACD are pretty steep. Sony wants $20,000 right up front to have the discussion on licensing DSD DA converters and other proprietary technologies.

The other problem is people don't understand why they should buy the same record again at a higher price when most people don't understand how to listen to high fidelity music anyway, hence the popularity of the ipod.

SACD is as close as you can get to analog vinyl reproduction, but just like DVD-A it was a solution to a problem that people didn't want.

[ugly_bassplayer]

Advertising.
The BluRay was well marketed, SACD, not so much.
Not to mention that the SACD is a niche market for audiophiles.
I also think the whole HD thing is WAY overhyped.
IMO

[FreaqyFrequency]

Originally Posted by onlyclave

Sony wants $20,000 right up front to have the discussion on licensing DSD DA converters and other proprietary technologies.

Yowza.

Originally Posted by onlyclave

The other problem is people don't understand why they should buy the same record again at a higher price when most people don't understand how to listen to high fidelity music anyway, hence the popularity of the ipod.

It's true. People can spot a better picture in no time, but don't have the ears to hear music or any audio for that matter in a better format. I was glad to see some resistance to the steadily degrading audio standard when that petition for a less compressed version of Death Magnetic got so many signatures (not that I'm a fan of Metallica), but that was barely a pebble in the pond, it seems.

[Poor Tom]

probably because most of us have never heard of SACD

[FreaqyFrequency]

Originally Posted by ugly_bassplayer

Advertising.

Loathe as I am to say it, bingo.

[LaklandBass]

SACD was great. But sony didnt feel like letting anybody know this. They also decided that jazz and classical are so great that nothing else should be put on SACD. I wish they wouldve pushed it more.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by FreaqyFrequency

The same is true for BD, and yet there are people flocking to that faster on average than people did when DVDs were first out. So clearly, there are still people willing to shell out for quality, but the question remains: why is SACD virtually dead?

the notion that more is better....ask an ipod user and the first thing he'll tell you is how many songs he can load.....not how you can hear all the nuance in a piece of music....

mtv with it's emphasis on visuals gets credit too,movies that play snippets of great songs between the car wrecks and gunfire......how many people do you know that consider listening to music a worthy activity on it's own instead of as background noise for doing something else....

[ugly_bassplayer]

I worked in a huge record store when the SACD thing came about & even people with alot of $$$ passed on the SACD players.
As mentionned, before, a very limited choice of albums where available, IMO was a really bad move.

Like I said, bad marketing.

[bassbrad]

One of the reasons SACD died is because DVD-CD offers the same performance and there is much more hardware out there that will work. DVD-Cd is pretty rare but well worth picking up when they pop up. I have Kind of Blue and a couple of the Steely Dan Cds.

[Brick Top]

First of all...SACD is not dead. There is still a strong market for it.....but like all products that are made for audiophiles....it's a niche market. Unfortunately....the market really leaned towards classical recordings(no offence classical lovers), a fair amount of Jazz....but very few rock genre type pressings. I love a great sounding classical piece every now and again....but it's not my main source of musical interest.

I think vinyl coming back as strong as it has, has also hurt SACD. People have rediscovered the quality of a vinyl recording....and even audiophiles only have so much disposable income to spread around for their hobby.

I am still happy I have a player capable of playing SACD, DVD-A and regular CD's. SACD is still my favorite digital format for sound quality though. Sara K's Hell or High Water being absolutely the closest example of Sonic bliss. The germans really got the mastering right on this one.

Cheers,
BT

[Brick Top]

Originally Posted by bassbrad

One of the reasons SACD died is because DVD-CD offers the same performance and there is much more hardware out there that will work. DVD-Cd is pretty rare but well worth picking up when they pop up. I have Kind of Blue and a couple of the Steely Dan Cds.

What is DVD-CD? Do you mean DVD-A? DVD-A would be the only audio DVD format that comes close to SACD in quality....and it died a long time ago.

Those multi channel audio DVD discs that came out quite a few years ago were interesting( and short lived)...but not in the same league as SACD or DVD-A as far as sound quality.

Cheers,
BT

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by bassbrad

One of the reasons SACD died is because DVD-CD offers the same performance and there is much more hardware out there that will work. DVD-Cd is pretty rare but well worth picking up when they pop up. I have Kind of Blue and a couple of the Steely Dan Cds.

dvd audio is more inclined to create an artificial listening site,often on the stage in the middle of a group,and audiophiles seem to prefer the audience listening position with the rear channels as ambience....

i have all those dylan and 90% of the stones sacd's and a bunch of others....they are still alive and hopefully the format will last.....

[Philbiker]

SACD is surviving as a niche audiophile format. There are inexpensive players. I got an inexpensive SONY player when the format was fairly new, I have a handful of SACDs including "Kind Of Blue" and they sound terrific. There's no mass market for this kind of thing.

[Brick Top]

Originally Posted by Philbiker

There's no mass market for this kind of thing.

There never will be either. The masses don't care too much about quality. If people are willing to shell out money to download MP3's....that tells you everything right there.

Cheers,
BT

[adammazza]

Originally Posted by Brick Top

There never will be either. The masses don't care too much about quality. If people are willing to shell out money to download MP3's....that tells you everything right there.

Cheers,
BT

+1 people don't sit down and listen to music anymore. I have a SACD/DVD-A player and really enjoy it.

I think part of the problem was also that they pushed the whole surround format thing too much and it's gimicky, especially with DVD-A. But there are some great stereo SACD recordings out there, and Kind Of Blue is great because they make really nice use of the center channel.

Adam

[elros]

I think SACD hasn't taken off because too few people takes the time to seriously listen to music. Most consumers use music for background listening and to create a mood. Which mean that quality isn't the first priority. And surround sound isn't much of an advantage either, when the listener is over at the kitchen sink cooking food, for exampl.
So the SACD releases are mostly of the sort that listeners really devote time to listen to, where DSD and surround sound is appreciated.
And, as mentioned, SACD isn't dead, not at all. But it has become a niche for those that appreciate its qualities.

Personally though, I think it will be replaced gradually by Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray can deliver similar sound quality, and it is a format which is becoming very well established with the consumers. At least here in Norway, last year there was sold more Blu-Ray players than DVD players..
SACD still has the advantage of backwards compatability though: most SACD releases are of the Hybrid type, that can play also in a regular CD player.

I'm enjoying music from CDs, SACDs, and Blu-Ray through my OPPO BDP-83. A good investment IMO.

[adammazza]

Originally Posted by elros

I'm enjoying music from CDs, SACDs, and Blu-Ray through my OPPO BDP-83. A good investment IMO.

I have a Oppo 981HD that I use. Oppo makes great players. I've been thinking about upgrading to thr BDP-83SE