Is SACD dead?

[Claude D D]

Also, in your experience with the 400, what did you find as far as sounstage depth? I've heard some people say it was average in this respect. When I listened to it, I was not able to compare it to another amp.

I found the depth and size of the soundstage quite satisfying.Very good considering the price.The Krell KCT/FPB400cx combo we have in the store is much better in all regards,as well it should be considering the price difference.For the money I have found the KAV400xi to be a remarkable performer.The Krell likes to be warm to perform it's best.In the store we rarely turn ours off.Soundstage and depth is also very dependant on speaker placement.So don't rule that out on the set up you heard. :T

[joeywang]

not at all

i bought a denon Dvd player which came with sacd . it did not sound better than my hdcd playback . in my opition , it really depends on which cd you choosed .

[csuzor]

An interesting news, Sonic Studio Takes Over Philips ProTech DSD & SACD Products

Philips has never really been successful as a marketing and sales company (much better in R&D), so this move can only help to promote SACD, and is a clear sign that a company like Sonic Studio, who previously only had DVD-Audio hirez capable tools, needs to support SACD with their customer base.

http://www.sonicstudio.com/products/dsdfo.html

[will1066]

Niche format at best from now on.

[RebelMan]

For all of you (lingering) non-DualDisc believers, I just read a report published by the RIAA that states sales of SACD was down 18% for the first half of 2005 and DVD-A (saddly) a staggering 64%. DualDisc on the other hand single handedly out sold SACD and DVD-A COMBINED (7 MILLION vs 300K + 100K)! As I have said before and will say again DVD-A incarnate (ala DualDisk) WILL live on. So long SACD. :lol:

I have forseen it! 8)

[csuzor]

Rebelman, careful about those numbers.

Mostly they don't include online sales, and I dont know many SACD fans who buy their discs in suburban shops, the selection is too small. In addition, how many dualdiscs actually have a hirez layer, or how many discs make up those total sales? (I suspect very few for both questions). Most dualdiscs have a dolby digital compressed track... Even Dolby recognise this is low quality, and have announced a high-def format http://www.dolby.com/promo/HD/trueHD.html . Finally, dualdiscs are mostly pop music, with added video, not hi-rez music, and not much high quality either (by quality I mean acoustic instruments and voices without electronic "enhancements"). Publishers of sacd and dvd-a are primarily concerned about getting high quality, otherwise they wouldn't bother and just release a CD. Most publishers of dualdiscs are concerned about mass market sales, and include videos or low-rez mch tracks to attract them. Occasionally there are high quality dvd-a tracks on dualdiscs, and I welcome that.

Lastly, those are US numbers, where publishers don't bring their SACD versions to the market, but the SACD versions, and many discs released only in SACD, are available elsewhere around the world. Wouldn't you, the consumer, want to have a choice, rather than let mass marketing determine what you can buy?

If in the future I can actually buy some high qual dualdiscs, I will, but in the meantime I am enjoying high qual sacd. What are you listening to now?

[RebelMan]

Rebelman, careful about those numbers. ... What are you listening to now?

I know the numbers need some qualifying, but had I been diplomatic about it, the message probably would have fallen on deaf ears.

True, the numbers are primarily limited to domestic sales, whether this includes online sales or not is irrelevant. If it mattered to the RIAA then they would account for them and if it didn’t then it becomes a moot point.

I, like so many others, buy music based on what the artist produces not what it is produced on. If the music I like to listen to isn’t available on a particular format then guess what? The studio makes no sale and is forced to find other ways to sell their product. That medium is becoming less prevelant on hi-res formats like SACD and DVD-A and more prevalent on DualDisc, which is the point.

I agree that DualDisc is not, in its current manifestation, produced with any real hi-res effort, even though it is capable of it. This is unfortunate and the primary reason why I haven’t made heavy investments in the format. But this situation is not unlike the DVD format before it. DVD was specified to support high quality sound tracks too, but few if any studios included that feature… until now. Have you notice how many DVD’s are being re-released touting improvements in audio and video? When market conditions dictate, I would expect the same sequence of events to occur with DualDisc.

I see DualDisc succeeding in a (future) market place where CD’s simply cannot. The other number I didn’t disclose was the 5% drop in over all sales for the first half of 2005. CD’s are doomed for extinction for no other reason than music download sites, like iTunes. If “lossless” download sites were more common place (and carried my music) then I would part take in that hoopla as well.

I believe DualDisc is the long term solution to this problem. Some people may argue that the fallout from the Blu-ray and HD-DVD debacle will ultimately decide what the market for hi-res music is going to be. I am not disputing that possibility. That, however, will be a long way off. In the mean time the link from CD’s to whatever new hi-def format we are faced with will be bridged with DualDisc (a.k.a. DVD-A incarnate).

Eventually, DualDisc will cater more to other music genre’s as well. Like you, I initially found my music preferences not readily available on DualDisc either. Six months later and the momentum that has been building is becoming far more evident. There are more Smooth Jazz titles being released under DualDisc now than their ever was for DVD-A and I think that is telling.

[DifferentLee]

I just read a report published by the RIAA that states sales of SACD was down 18% for the first half of 2005 and DVD-A (saddly) a staggering 64%.

This has been discussed before. RIAA does not get the full SACD sales numbers since the boutiques are online retailers and most of them don't report the sales. DualDisc also enjoys an advantage of being prominently displayed during its recent launch and sometimes being single inventory of big artist albums. In a shootout with a level playing field SACD would win since audiophiles would also buy it. Some audiophiles are buying DVDA but not as many have players as the SACD audience.

If DualDisc was truly hirez then I could stand it even with PCM's problems. But I do believe we run the danger of a world where DualDisc takes over or becomes the dominant hirez format and we get a lot of non-hirez 24/48 rubbish. That's a real danger.

I do believe that Blu-Ray will be a huge factor in the future of music. Hopefully we will get 24/192 in all channels which is closer to DSD quality.

[RebelMan]

In a shootout with a level playing field SACD would win since audiophiles would also buy it. Some audiophiles are buying DVDA but not as many have players as the SACD audience.

I can't say that I disagree. But lets face it, SACD had it's chance in the sun. Now is the time for DualDisc.

If DualDisc was truly hirez then I could stand it even with PCM's problems. But I do believe we run the danger of a world where DualDisc takes over or becomes the dominant hirez format and we get a lot of non-hirez 24/48 rubbish. That's a real danger.

On the contrary, it could actually be a blessing. Remember, DualDisc can do hi-res. What better way to promote a health and marketable product than to say... "New and Improved DualDisc in HI-RES Format." Give it some time and I think you will see. Right now DualDisc needs tangibles for the buyer to want it. Think about it from a non-audiophile point of view... "Gee I get my CD and all the DVD "extras" I am so accustomed to for about the same price! Man what a bargin!". One of the big hits with DVD's are all of the extras people get with them. Why not use the same recipe for success when marketing CD's? The studios see this as something that will offer the silver disk format a competitive edge over downloadable mp3's. This objective is clearly working.

[DifferentLee]

Now is the time for DualDisc.

I don't see the logic here. Why not build off the SACD fanbase of audiophiles but do a better job with software releases and marketing?

Many people are rightfully skeptical of DualDisc. Why should we trust the big labels that they will support yet another format when their track record is so poor?

Why are audiophile labels not embracing DualDisc if it's so great?

Think about it from a non-audiophile point of view... "Gee I get my CD and all the DVD "extras" I am so accustomed to for about the same price! Man what a bargin!".

Here's the deal...I see the value proposition for the non-audiophile but I don't see much of one for the audiophile. There has been a lot of 24/48 releases which really angers audiophiles who want hirez sound quality.

[RebelMan]

I don't see the logic here. Why not build off the SACD fanbase of audiophiles but do a better job with software releases and marketing?

They already tried that during the last 5+ years. Are you familiar with the concept of "opportunity cost"? Don't forget this industry is a business first and foremost.

Many people are rightfully skeptical of DualDisc. Why should we trust the big labels that they will support yet another format when their track record is so poor?

The numbers of DualDisc's that have sold doesn't appear to support your hypothesis. Is their track record really poor? I think not. The other hi-res concepts just didn't catch on for the mainstream. That happens sometimes. However, companies that refuse to embrace other technologies usually get left behind.

Remember Word Perfect and Lotus 123? They OWNED their respective markets until Windows came along. I knew then that their decision not to support Windows early on would cost them dearly, and so it did! I could go on and on about companies that made similar costly mistakes.

Why are audiophile labels not embracing DualDisc if it's so great?

What constitutes an "audiophile" label? That seems very narrow minded to me.

Here's the deal...I see the value proposition for the non-audiophile but I don't see much of one for the audiophile. There has been a lot of 24/48 releases which really angers audiophiles who want hirez sound quality.

Where were you when DVD's first hit the seen? Where you an early adopter or waiting to see? I took a leap of faith and jumped right in from the start. Why? Because it offered better AV for the audio and video enthusiast. I remember browsing the isles of Block Buster annoyed that they didn't carry much, if anything, of the new format. I even complained to the store manager about how short sighted I thought it was not too! It simply had to do with economics. So while there existed a better format for watching movies, it need the masses to make it successful! Now we all enjoy DVD's!!!

[Blazar]

For most consumers to hear a difference in any "hi-res" format there would have to be a significant "upgrade" in the average person's amplification and speakers. I can see digital switching (class D) ushering in a revolution of super-cheap but high signal/noise and low THD amps. Speakers however have not had a dramatic revolution in price / quality that I'm aware of.

Even a significant chunk of "audiophiles" don't even have a properly treated room to discern much of the differences in resolution. You can't hope to hear subtleties if you have an excess of reflected sounds for example.

I don't envision any HUGE changes occuring in the general perception of audio reproduction but there is certainly more awareness that there is such thing as an "audiophile". The "HI-RES" formats need to largely be sold in some ingenious marketing scheme that convinces people they need this new format whether or not they can actually hear a difference. Can they be convinced that re-purchasing their entire music collection will make their lives better ?.... assuming that the music they like is actually available?

I personally would make an effort to buy a player and some discs except NOTHING I listen to is on the format. I have no interest in playing the audiophile game of buying "reference" CD's and whatnot just for the sake of reproduction demonstrations.

[csuzor]

Blazar, many listeners with average quality audio systems hear the advantage of sacd to cd, the advantage apparently becomes more difficult to hear with high-end cd players, because typical cd players are far from optimum. No one can argue about the potential advantages of multi-channel music, even if some will argue they prefer stereo. No one will every repurchase their music collection on a new format, only their favorite albums if they are available in a format that they perceive is better. Can you hear the advantage of hi-rez audio (any format)? Is there really nothing available for you in sacd or dvd-a? I am sorry for you. Do you listen to all your music through a htpc? wow.

I don't care for any particular hi-rez format over another, as long as it is multi-channel and better than cd. No wav or wma or mp3 or dts or dd or any highly compressed formats please. I can't afford a cd or dvd player that sounds better than my sacd player now, but if someday music that I want to buy is available in another hirez mch disc format (24/96 on dualdisc or bluray or hdvd) then I would invest in a 2nd player. These formats may kill sacd, but not until they can convince audiophiles to invest with a reasonable hi-rez software inventory... and labels won't release hi-rez content until audiophiles are ready to buy... we could remain in this "chicken-n-egg" scenario a very long time with these new formats (dualdisc is there today), but sacd is already beyond that point.

[dortiz]

A lot of discussion yet those that are connected in the industry all know the plug has been pulled. Sorry it is what it is.
These are the same discussions that came out when Sony decided to stop making broadline plasmas.

[DifferentLee]

What constitutes an "audiophile" label? That seems very narrow minded to me.

I think we are looking thru two different lenses here. I would consider SACD a success if enough small, boutique labels (Chesky, Telarc, Channel, Pentatone) are able to profitably release more good music. We know that the major labels are not going to support this as a "cd replacement" but I do believe we have the equivalent of 2005's DCC or MoFi possible but across an even wider audience even if some may not like the selection in pop/rock.

For most consumers to hear a difference in any "hi-res" format there would have to be a significant "upgrade" in the average person's amplification and speakers.

I politely disagree. A decent low end SACD player on a modest system can yield sonic improvements. But I'm not sure it matters to SACD survival here. The audiophile niche is the market to go after and those folks do have better gear which yields even more noticeable improvement.

Even a significant chunk of "audiophiles" don't even have a properly treated room to discern much of the differences in resolution.

Even with a poor room, the benefit from higher sampling seems self-evident to me.

A lot of discussion yet those that are connected in the industry all know the plug has been pulled.

I work in the industry as a part-time recording engineer and I guess the heads of audiophile labels I know did not receive that memo. They are moving full speed ahead.

Why not keep hirez alive even if the world wants iTunes? Have both! License classic albums to the boutique labels and let Apple resell your hits catalog. Everyone wins.

[DifferentLee]

Where were you when DVD's first hit the seen? Where you an early adopter or waiting to see? I took a leap of faith and jumped right in from the start. Why? Because it offered better AV for the audio and video enthusiast.

I am not arguing the market launch of DVD here; that is a far different animal. For one, people can more readily see video quality differences than sound differences in a store. Second, there was no DVD format war, everyone supported it. Third, CD does not have the user convenience problems that VHS tape did. Different time, market and product features.

Regarding your comment to buy a player and lack of titles. Fine, vote with your wallet and don't buy in but for many classical and jazz and Pink Floyd fans among others, the format offers the closest thing to the master tapes.

[aud19]

Yeah I don't get the "what I listen to isn't available" argument...? I own DVD-A's from classic rock to classical, jazz, modern Metal, classic punk and even opera! I've also seen easy listening and pop discs like Britney Spears available. Now I realize that the selection is smaller than CD's but to say NOTHING is available in your genre is just silly IMO. If nothing you listen to is available from the combination of DVD-A and SACD, what the heck are you listening to 8O ....?

[RebelMan]

Yeah I don't get the "what I listen to isn't available" argument...?

I'm not certain if your reply was directed to me or not. Assuming it was you are looking at a macroscopic view of my point. I'm speaking in terms of artists, not genre's. I have seen a "sampling" from across the board but nothing substantial. A Dave Koz disc here or there doesn't cut it.

Furthermore, I said:

If the music I like to listen to isn’t available...

Which you took completely out of context.

Get it now? 8)

My appologies if I misread you.

[RebelMan]

I am not arguing the market launch of DVD here; that is a far different animal. For one, people can more readily see video quality differences than sound differences in a store. Second, there was no DVD format war, everyone supported it. Third, CD does not have the user convenience problems that VHS tape did. Different time, market and product features.

Not so different an animal, unless you are admitting that the new format never offered any compeling reason to change. Which comes back to why DualDisc will succeed, on a larger scale, where SACD attempted to but couldn't.

A format war didn't preclude SACD's demise. The everlasting battles taking place in the gaming community proves this. Both Sony and Microsoft are thriving in a highly competive and largely successful marketplace. As well as the ISV's! Although, support for a single format probably would have made for a more conducive adoption.

So you think purchasing another media player and replacing an entire library of tapes, not to mention the lack of recording options at that time, was convienient? At least an SACD player was backwards compatible!

Regarding your comment to buy a player and lack of titles. Fine, vote with your wallet and don't buy in but for many classical and jazz and Pink Floyd fans among others, the format offers the closest thing to the master tapes.

I don't disagree. DualDisc is just an another, perhaps easier, path to the same place my friend.

[aud19]

I'm not certain if your reply was directed to me or not. Assuming it was you are looking at a macroscopic view of my point. I'm speaking in terms of artists, not genre's. I have seen a "sampling" from across the board but nothing substantial. A Dave Koz disc here or there doesn't cut it.

Furthermore, I said:Which you took completely out of context.

Get it now? 8)

My appologies if I misread you.

I wasn't really speaking directly to you. I hear that as a common "complaint", albiet an unwarranted one IMO, all over the forum

[DifferentLee]

Not so different an animal, unless you are admitting that the new format never offered any compeling reason to change. Which comes back to why DualDisc will succeed, on a larger scale, where SACD attempted to but couldn't.

I'm not sure I see that DualDisc is any different in this regard...is video a real compelling reason to change? How do you bring audiophiles along if you offer 24/48 most of the time?

DualDisc is just an another, perhaps easier, path to the same place my friend.

???? But title selection is even more limited at this point versus that of SACD.

[aud19]

I'm not sure I see that DualDisc is any different in this regard...is video a real compelling reason to change? How do you bring audiophiles along if you offer 24/48 most of the time?

I have to agree there. Why not have the added features AND a true high-res track? Reel them in with the features and get them hooked on the better SQ :B

[chrispy35]

Both Sony and Microsoft are thriving in a highly competive and largely successful marketplace.

MS has lost over $4B on XBOX so far. Not exactly thriving.

Chris P.

[RebelMan]

MS has lost over $4B on XBOX so far. Not exactly thriving.

Chris P.

I guess that depends on your point of view. The point of this discussion relates to the success and/or failure of formats, namely SACD and DualDisc. By definition thiving means "to make steady progress". Let me remind you that your reference begins with these words... "The Xbox game console is hot," It it weren't thriving how would you describe the author's deliberate use of the word "hot"? I rest my case.

[RebelMan]

I'm not sure I see that DualDisc is any different in this regard...is video a real compelling reason to change? How do you bring audiophiles along if you offer 24/48 most of the time?



???? But title selection is even more limited at this point versus that of SACD.

The record prducers have a target audience. That audience demographic is intrested in videos and downloadable music. So yes DualDisc does have something to offer, its audience. Eventually, I hope and believe, DualDisc will embrass hi-res to capture the rest of the market, a.k.a, audiophiles. If the format succeeds there is no reason not make it better. History is doomed to repeat itself. VHS tapes improved, CD's improved, DVD's improved, Dolby Surround improved, DTS improved, the list goes on. The studios weren't obligated to improve them they just did. One would argue their intent enabled them to re-sell the same titles. I think we all reaped from that decision, regardless of the intent. The next logical stop is with DualDisc followed by HD-DVD or Blu-ray, then HOS, and so on...

DualDisc in its infancy has already outpaced sales of SACD. Given a few more years I think the selection of titles will be satisfactory.

[Shane Martin]

???? But title selection is even more limited at this point versus that of SACD.

SACD's are now nonexistent at my local stores. Dual Disc has replaced them all. Both Best Buys used to carry alot of sacds... now ZERO. I want SACD to survive but it's going to be yet another Sony niche product failure.

[csuzor]

Yep. 3 "pop/rock" dualdisc available in france, 270 dualdisc available as expensive imports. 966 "pop/rock" sacd available in france. "pop/rock" is defined as "everything except classical". Couldn't find any classical dualdisc.

The dualdisc available here are CD quality + a video. I'm excited.

And I love being part of the mass market. I just need to get an ipod and start paying $0.99 for each mp3 song I like, then buy a wireless transfer system to connect the ipod to my hi-fi system.

Yeah.

[RebelMan]

The dualdisc available here are CD quality + a video. I'm excited.

And I love being part of the mass market. I just need to get an ipod and start paying $0.99 for each mp3 song I like, then buy a wireless transfer system to connect the ipod to my hi-fi system.

Yeah.

LOL, I get it. And some day you may too... an iPod that is. You shouldn't knock it before you try it. Ripped CD's into "lossless" format stored on my iPod and piped into my hi-fi system works great for casual listening.

Please don't misunderstand, I want hi-res music titles too. At this stage, I believe the DualDisc format has the best potential of making it more accessible.

[Jack Keck]

As much as I enjoy the few hi-rez discs I have, I have found that I love my mmp-3 player (not an IPod). I use it for when I'm on my treadmill so I don't disturb anyone. I have 247 songs on it, all but a few between 5 and 8 minutes long and recorded as WMA files at 64 kbs. Not the best fidelity, but great for timing a workout in a dimly lit room. I don't have to look at the display until about 6 songs have played.. Great audio quality? No, but perfect for its intended use. So don't knock mp-3 players.

[Bob]

Is SACD dead?

Absolutely not, just irrelevant.

[EastCoaster]

When the format wars are all over, I look forward to eventually buying something better than CD. . . .

When will the format wars ever be over........ Never, ever, ever, ever... there's always something better just around the bend...

[EastCoaster]

When will the format wars ever be over........ Never, ever, ever, ever... there's always something better just around the bend...

Interested to hear if anyone has an update on the format wars? Who is dead, dying, re-birthing, etc.?

[alebonau]

this is some interesting comment by ken kessler in the streophile newsletter

not sure if anyone has commented on it

http://www.stereophile.com/images/ne.../905Bstph.html

To SACD or not to SACD? That is the Question, by Ken Kessler

London, Tokyo, Portland (Maine), and Points Global: Just because some of us write for the audio press doesn't mean we're any better informed than anyone else when it comes to the truth about the single biggest format screwup since Betamax.

I am utterly mystified by the current state of SACD and DVD-Audio, especially since Sony has all but disowned the former and no one talks about the latter. DVD-A is looking less and less like a dodo that might someday be revived, Jurassic Park style, from DNA, and more like a unicorn or chimera. Does anyone any longer give even a hoot about DVD-A, a format whose launch was mishandled so comprehensively and sublimely that its virtues have been utterly forgotten? But SACD . . . well, whether you think it sounds better or worse than DVD-A doesn't matter at this stage. At least it's got a substantial catalog of recordings for consumers to sample.

Or so one would believe. I can't get a firm handle on this either, but to the best of my reckoning, between 1500 and 2000 SACD titles have been released so far. (Chad Kassem, Josh Bizar, and the rest of you in the software sales side: please send the correct number to the usual address.) But try finding them if you don't use mail-order. Judged by the yardstick of retail support, SACD doesn't seem much healthier than DVD-A.

Okay, okay—so traditional stores matter less and less, thanks to the Internet. But the way I see it, bricks-and-mortar's attitude toward SACD and DVD-A is a total and conclusive indictment. When the majors—Virgin, Best Buy, Circuit City, HMV, Borders, et al—either hide their stocks in the end racks or don't even bother to give them their own section, well, do the math. As for asking staff about titles, don't bother. Inquire about SACDs and they'll think you mean "essays on CDs," … la "audio books" for the visually impaired. Ask for DVD-As and they think you're suggesting they have a rare strain of a sexually transmitted disease.

Time to fess up: Absolutely and positively, no one outside the microcosm we call "the audiophile community" cares about these formats. Which is a pity. I adore what I've heard on SACD, especially some of the archive treasures from Audio Fidelity and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, while DVD-A has about as much of my attention as jai alai scores or commedia dell'arte. I relish each new SACD release, and actually enjoy wiring up the new players that arrive for review.

Despite my love for SACD, I was recently berated for always writing about it in so melancholy a tone, as if I'm propounding a self-fulfilling prophecy and thus "sabotaging its future." Of course, my possibly too-pessimistic view may be unfounded, but in my experience, any new digital format that, as of 2005, is outsold by vinyl LPs is in deep doo-doo.

Despite this, SACD is still being supported on the hardware end. Companies continue to release extreme-high-end machines. TEAC/Esoteric, for example, has launched a five-chassis state-of-the-art player, consisting of the P-01 transport, outboard power supply, two mono D-01 D/A converters, and the G-0s Master Clock Generator. Unlike some other purist machines, this one will access surround sound from multichannel titles, but it's clear that Esoteric has made no compromises.

I first caught a whiff of the Esoteric's greatness at the Consumer Electronics Show in January. But when I heard it in Tokyo a few months back, listening to standard, two-channel "Red Book" CDs through Krell Evolution electronics and Krell LAT-1000 speakers, I was dazzled. The Esoteric rig left nothing out, and ensured its future-proof status by including every type of connection known to man bar TosLink, including IEEE1394 (FireWire) digital input and output, conventional RCA, and XLR balanced. The Master Clock Generator was the icing on the cake—a real behemoth of a jitter-killer. Even with some vintage CDs—referring to both the ages of the discs and the even older original recordings—the sound was breathtaking.

Conversely, Musical Fidelity, that champion of the two-channel SACD, has just announced a new two-chassis player, an "affordable" derivative of its kW model. It's CD-only. As is its practice, MF has added some cool features: the kW DM25 transport and DAC connect to each other by mono left-and-right XLR connectors at 96kHz (the DAC will accept TosLink optical and RCA coaxial from other digital sources), and the user has a choice of—get this—solid-state or tube outputs from the DAC. It looks like another smash hit for Musical Fidelity. But I was puzzled by the change of philosophy. Was Musical Fidelity abandoning SACD? Then I read the sheet that accompanied the product description: "Why a CD player when SACD and DVD-A are available? Well, for all intents and purposes, DVD-A is dead—while SACD still has only a thousand or fifteen hundred titles, most of them re-issues of old analog tapes. And these discs are very expensive. So, thanks a lot. However, there are over 2½ million CD titles available, in every form of music you could imagine, and all at intelligent prices. For us, this means that CD is the only logical medium."

All of the above is rendered less depressing when you acknowledge that, unlike with most other failed formats, we are not left with unusable hardware—every SACD and DVD-A player also plays CDs, while DVD-A players and universals also play regular DVD-Video discs. But that's small comfort to those who tasted the new formats, fell in love, then realized that they have the same future as 78s and 8-tracks. Whatever your take, Esoteric's take, Musical Fidelity's take, or any others' takes (and while I hate to quote or paraphrase an arch anti-Semite), it is certainly time, in Voltaire's words, to êcrasez l'infame (crush the vile thing). No, make that plural: SACD and DVD-Audio have wasted enough of our time.

its pretty clear his thought on the matter time to put both dvda and sacd out of their missery.

I for one am yet to experience a trully high end sacd or dvda player - theyre too expensive to considering buying given the paltry amount of material around to play on them. Can easily say though in every comparison I've been part of any universal player(denon 2900/3910 etc) playing these formats is beaten very in every department when the cd only version of the same disc is played even on a relatively modest cd setup.

[ThomasW]

I can't get a firm handle on this either, but to the best of my reckoning, between 1500 and 2000 SACD titles have been released so far.

Poor Ken, he's never been a rocket scientist, but he should be able to count..... :roll:

There have been 3604 SACD titles released, with 3215 currently available for purchase.

I bought 10 new SACDs last week... :T

[Chris D]

I'd have to count, but I think I own about 40 titles between DVD-A and SACD. I just bought Alison Krauss Live.

Unfortunately, I too think that both formats will die shortly. And so that means I'll have to hang on to my hardware to be able to play my catalog.

I wonder, if Best Buy and others will have clearance sales of the formats in the future. Well, we can hope.

[Burke Strickland]

If SACD finally does "die", then it would probably be a good idea to copy any "SACD-only" discs that are unavailable on CD to CD-R, obviously, having to "down convert", which won't be quite the same, but still better than losing access to the material when our last SACD and universal players also "die".

Rather than a "clearance" sale, I'd prefer a "continuing" sale of SACD and DVD-Audio. One reason the two formats didn't catch on has been the fairly hefty price premium for most titles. In the "best of all possible worlds", the price for SACD or DVD-Audio would be the same as, or lower than, CD with continued availablity and expanding selection.


Burke

[Burke Strickland]

Although most of the major labels may have given up on SACD, the smaller labels specializing in classical music are still embracing it, with a substantial proportion of their new releases (and quite a few catalog re-issues) coming out in that format. SACDs I have purchased recently came from:

• AliaVox,
• audite,
• Linn,
• LSO Live,
• Mercury Living Presence (via BMG Direct Marketing),
• Naxos,
• PentaTone classics, and
• Telarc.

The classical labels are also the ones who "got it right:", issuing multilayer discs so that they play on CD players as well as SACD and universal players, using the resoluton and spatial qualities of the medium to re-create the performance with more detail and ambient cues helping to create the sensation that "you are there" than is possible with Redbook CD, no matter how well reproduced.

Burke

[EastCoaster]

In the "best of all possible worlds", the price for SACD or DVD-Audio would be the same as, or lower than, CD with continued availablity and expanding selection.


Burke

Amen... I love SACD and want it to stick around... All the format wars are squeezing my wallet... Just when I tie up one loose end, another end comes loose... ops:

[csuzor]

It's unfortunate that some audiophiles still continue to claim that CD sounds as good or better than sacd or dvd-a. That is killing the market.

It's like saying that ntsc or pal video looks better than 720p or 1080i... no-one would say that, of course, but if the film is more interesting or if the camera and lights are used in a better way, you may prefer a SD film over a HD film... or if you watch the HD film on a poor quality projector or screen, or [god-forbid] on SD gear, you'll probably find SD looks better!

Finally, do you prefer watching movies in stereo? stretching that argument to music may upset some, but when it's done well, surround music is great.

If you have made the effort to find the right gear (not a universal do-it-all player) to playback sacd, there are plenty of albums that take advantage of the format, if you like that music, and let you hear the increase in musical fidelity. Until an alternative HD audio disk comes along (dualdisc is still failing as a replacement), those who care will keep sacd alive as a niche.

[starshaped]

"You need a mess of help to stand alone"

I have read thread and articles on these sorts of forums for a couple of years know and they never fail to amuse me. So here's my take on things...

DVD-A & SACD.. are they dead? depends on your definition...you can still purchase vinyl records brand new, (for example) but most would say generally that its a dead format in as much as the music stores are not full of racks and racks of vinyl at a competitive price point, just niche offerings.

For me DVD-A & SCAD are therefore dead.

I have been looking to update my hi-fi system and wondering which to go such is the myriad of options available in a market of audio and visual that is changing not gradually over 20-30 years as in the past but literally every 2-3 years.

I contemplated looking at a mid range dvd/cd player and then whether it was worth including DVD-A the answer was no.

I don’t buy my music to fit my format I buy it because I love music and I want that recording. My music taste ranges from The Beatles to Mozart and includes well know mainstream acts like U2, Blur and Oasis. I could find no titles for any of those three (aside from one sacd for oasis!) therefore this situation is hopeless the two formats have become a niche probably even more so then vinyl which at least lasted 30-40 years as a primary source!

Some will say..ah but there are loads of titles if you look...Yes but I don’t buy music like that, its like people that buy clothes just because they are in the sale...I buy a shirt because I want that shirt, great if I can find it cheaper or it just happens to be in the sale.

These formats are even deader then vinyl. In the UK the Artic Monkeys are red hot..can I get the album on DVD-A/SACD ? nope! vinyl? yes!

So why are these formats dead?

I believe there a several reasons.

Over the last 20 years there have been two major changes in audio and visual software.hardware. I am talking about CD and DVD.

So why so successful? Well in terms of CD, record decks are big and clumsy and the record themselves are big and of course they scratch, tapes of course were hissy and also got chewed up afar a while. CD offered a neater more convenient format with more consistent sound. Therefore there was an aesthetic and practical element to its success, married to a better sound.

That’s why it is and was and still is a dominant format. In my own experience as much as I love my michell record deck, its been a pain in the ass getting it to synchronise with my other components and inconsistent, my CD player on the other hand I just plonked down and its given me over 10 years of pleasure.

In terms of Audiovisual the difference is even bigger.

Who can forget the big clumsy VHS machines with the large tapes and of course the shaky film quality and screen noise and flicker and the
Unpractability of rewinding/fast forwarding etc.

I remember DVD when it first came out and marvelled at the clear pictures as I still do now.

Again success was down to the aesthetic/practical values of the product married to increased quality of the pictures and sound.

The old formats were so old fashioned in both audio and visual that cd & dvds were a run away success.

But remember that even vinyl/tape lasted 30-40 years and CD has lasted 20 years..the point I am making is that the consumer cycle does not extent to new formats every 2 or three years!

It might have been a different story if there was one global consumer body that gave a license for just one format to succeed, but of course there are always two formats and two sides which dissipates and dilutes the effectiveness of the marketing and improved solution.

Also its just one shiny disc for another, there are no aesthetic or practical reasons for a new format, and improved sound as we know in the mp3 market is not a strong enough reason for millions to change and update their software and hardware on mass like they did with records and tape.

As for the HD dvd and blu-ray debate well, I would save your breath and energy, neither will work!

Most people are thrilled to bits with normal DVDvideo, which combined with a really good CRT, LCD and plasma give breathtaking pictures and sound, miles a head of vhs in a more compact and convenient and user friendly format, This format has only recent been going since 1997 and yet they are still ignoring the consumer buying cycle and launching another format war of these two new technologies. Most people including me are frankly tired of yet another format war, have they not learnt the lessons of the dvd-a & SACD saga?

Why will people buy BLU-RAY or HD DVD? is it more practical? Answer - No

Its hardly like going from VHS to DVD!

Are people generally not happy with DVD software and hardware? Answer -No

Its just one shiny disc for another, meaning new hardware and increased software costs for the new titles as well as dupilcation.

Most people i would guess would like to see DVD stay around for as long as possible so that the price of dvd movies come down! We dont another new format with diluted choice and expense.

Even for people like myself who are more savvy about the quality of the sound, these options just confuse and end up with consumer buying procastination as we dont want to update our system for another dead duck of a format.

We live in a unique time were the audio/visual advances are moving at frightening speed, too fast to synchronise with an established consumer buying trend.

As an aside the sound quality is down to three unique variables..the quality of the recording, the equipment and the room acoustics, get them all right and CD and DVD can sound magical and satisfying.

My advice stop bickering over formats and enjoy the music. You may love to be referred to an audiophile (i hope no one ever calls me that!) and may look down on the average man on the street that thinks his cheap surround sound cinema system from his local Currys is the business, but at least heand his family are enjoying the experience of the film and music, without consciously dissecting and analysing it, sometimes igorance is bliss!

Have a nice day!

[Alaric]

Not sure I buy the logic...

I have read thread and articles on these sorts of forums for a couple of years know and they never fail to amuse me. So here's my take on things...

DVD-A & SACD.. are they dead? depends on your definition...you can still purchase vinyl records brand new, (for example) but most would say generally that its a dead format in as much as the music stores are not full of racks and racks of vinyl at a competitive price point, just niche offerings.

For me DVD-A & SCAD are therefore dead.

I have been looking to update my hi-fi system and wondering which to go such is the myriad of options available in a market of audio and visual that is changing not gradually over 20-30 years as in the past but literally every 2-3 years.

I contemplated looking at a mid range dvd/cd player and then whether it was worth including DVD-A the answer was no.

I don’t buy my music to fit my format I buy it because I love music and I want that recording. My music taste ranges from The Beatles to Mozart and includes well know mainstream acts like U2, Blur and Oasis. I could find no titles for any of those three (aside from one sacd for oasis!) therefore this situation is hopeless the two formats have become a niche probably even more so then vinyl which at least lasted 30-40 years as a primary source!

Some will say..ah but there are loads of titles if you look...Yes but I don’t buy music like that, its like people that buy clothes just because they are in the sale...I buy a shirt because I want that shirt, great if I can find it cheaper or it just happens to be in the sale.

These formats are even deader then vinyl. In the UK the Artic Monkeys are red hot..can I get the album on DVD-A/SACD ? nope! vinyl? yes!

So why are these formats dead?

I believe there a several reasons.

Over the last 20 years there have been two major changes in audio and visual software.hardware. I am talking about CD and DVD.

So why so successful? Well in terms of CD, record decks are big and clumsy and the record themselves are big and of course they scratch, tapes of course were hissy and also got chewed up afar a while. CD offered a neater more convenient format with more consistent sound. Therefore there was an aesthetic and practical element to its success, married to a better sound.

That’s why it is and was and still is a dominant format. In my own experience as much as I love my michell record deck, its been a pain in the ass getting it to synchronise with my other components and inconsistent, my CD player on the other hand I just plonked down and its given me over 10 years of pleasure.

In terms of Audiovisual the difference is even bigger.

Who can forget the big clumsy VHS machines with the large tapes and of course the shaky film quality and screen noise and flicker and the
Unpractability of rewinding/fast forwarding etc.

I remember DVD when it first came out and marvelled at the clear pictures as I still do now.

Again success was down to the aesthetic/practical values of the product married to increased quality of the pictures and sound.

The old formats were so old fashioned in both audio and visual that cd & dvds were a run away success.

But remember that even vinyl/tape lasted 30-40 years and CD has lasted 20 years..the point I am making is that the consumer cycle does not extent to new formats every 2 or three years!

It might have been a different story if there was one global consumer body that gave a license for just one format to succeed, but of course there are always two formats and two sides which dissipates and dilutes the effectiveness of the marketing and improved solution.

Also its just one shiny disc for another, there are no aesthetic or practical reasons for a new format, and improved sound as we know in the mp3 market is not a strong enough reason for millions to change and update their software and hardware on mass like they did with records and tape.

As for the HD dvd and blu-ray debate well, I would save your breath and energy, neither will work!

Most people are thrilled to bits with normal DVDvideo, which combined with a really good CRT, LCD and plasma give breathtaking pictures and sound, miles a head of vhs in a more compact and convenient and user friendly format, This format has only recent been going since 1997 and yet they are still ignoring the consumer buying cycle and launching another format war of these two new technologies. Most people including me are frankly tired of yet another format war, have they not learnt the lessons of the dvd-a & SACD saga?

Why will people buy BLU-RAY or HD DVD? is it more practical? Answer - No

Its hardly like going from VHS to DVD!

Are people generally not happy with DVD software and hardware? Answer -No

Its just one shiny disc for another, meaning new hardware and increased software costs for the new titles as well as dupilcation.

Most people i would guess would like to see DVD stay around for as long as possible so that the price of dvd movies come down! We dont another new format with diluted choice and expense.

Even for people like myself who are more savvy about the quality of the sound, these options just confuse and end up with consumer buying procastination as we dont want to update our system for another dead duck of a format.

We live in a unique time were the audio/visual advances are moving at frightening speed, too fast to synchronise with an established consumer buying trend.

As an aside the sound quality is down to three unique variables..the quality of the recording, the equipment and the room acoustics, get them all right and CD and DVD can sound magical and satisfying.

My advice stop bickering over formats and enjoy the music. You may love to be referred to an audiophile (i hope no one ever calls me that!) and may look down on the average man on the street that thinks his cheap surround sound cinema system from his local Currys is the business, but at least heand his family are enjoying the experience of the film and music, without consciously dissecting and analysing it, sometimes igorance is bliss!

Have a nice day!

I bought a SACD/CD player because (to my ears) SACD comes closest to vinyl. It's a wonderful (for the price) redbook player and gives me the SACD option when a title I want is available in that format. As for "mass-market" consumers not knowing any better-weren't we all there at one time? Just because John Doe is happy with his HTB for music doesn't mean he (or she) won't appreciate a better system. "Ignorance is bliss" was not intended to be a compliment...
I also don't think I agree with the perception of "bickering over formats". I never heard Diana Krall before joining this forum but now have another reference point with which to gauge my formats and equipment. The give and take over the finer points of music reproduction and sources is a wealth of information for those wanting the best SQ they can find/afford. We learn of new things to listen for and to , giving the participants a broader understanding of what new technologies really mean to the enthusiast.
Finally , just to be old , I love vinyl. My CD player purchase was a bow to current popular tech and music selection. When my MMF-5SE finally arrives I will go vinyl shopping -after a 20 year hiatus. As for the limited market/supply of quality recordings , it has always been so. I have some 20 year old albums that sound like crap and some 30 year old albums that just hammer digital reproduction. Source and production quality will likely be the biggest factors in what a SACD/CD/tape/(vinyl)album sounds like for the foreseeable future. Quality reproduction has always been a niche market , and since new technology is usually expensive , probably always will be. Besides , who here doesn't take pride in their exhaustive research , auditioning , and above-average knowledge used when assembling the system that makes the owner's heart sing with that special/favorite piece of music done just so
"Just Do It" may work for sneakers but it don't cut it when I'm looking for musical nirvana (or when listening to Nirvana :banana: )
I apologize for the rant/ramble. Just wanted to defend our obsession with finding the "perfect" combination of equip./format/artist/track and I , for one , can't afford to try everything on the market.That means I count on the "bickering" between those I've come to trust to fill in some of the blanks. :argue: Peace to all and CRANK IT UP ;b>

[Chris D]

I do wish that U2 would be released on high-res audio. I would kill for albums on DVD-A or SACD, and I think it would give some visibility to those formats (or other new formats) to release Joshua Tree in high-ress.

[aud19]

I do wish that U2 would be released on high-res audio. I would kill for albums on DVD-A or SACD, and I think it would give some visibility to those formats (or other new formats) to release Joshua Tree in high-ress.

Beatles library would be quite nice as well :yesnod:

[starshaped]

more from starshaped

Dont get me wrong.I am all for a new format, but you have to convince the masses.I would have loved nothing more then to have bought a good mid range dvd video/audio player, one piece of hardware playing superior video and music. Its the manufactures that have put the spanners in the works.

Consumers who by and large have been delighted with DVD video, may have associated DVD-A as being a natural progression and gone out and bought them if the marketing had been right. The masses would have been easier to convince to spend a little extra on a player that would do both, one player one format for movies one for music. That might just have worked.

But of course there always has to be a rival format! At thats what killed any chance of dvd audio working. Instead of all the corporates backing one horse they split into two camps and a formating war starts. And neither wins!

Otherwise we might have been in a position now where all the new releases were in dvd-A and at £ 8.99 can you imagine that?

I would have been able to keep my existing CD collection and then but new releases such as the Arctic Monkeys or the kaiser Chiefs on the new formats.

Well it could have happened, but instead of that two formats and diluted and confusing marketing and a mess!

The same will happen with HD DVD and blu-ray, two formats competing..answer no winner, when will they learn?

[SQconstable]

How interesting.. I just spent $94 at Best Buy (something I usually don't do) but it was for multi-channel albums. I was primarily looking for SACD. I found the best SACD to be Norah Jones "Come away with me" as well as Mariah Carey's No.1's (not multichannel, but very nice stereo). The DVD-A's I got yesterday weren't on par with them but that could have been attributed to mix methods.

I truly hope SACD doesn't die but I do realize that it's just another format for people like me that spend thousands on an audio room for the components and sound treatment. Not many other people care enough to change out the 16bit standard they're used to. I have converted many people throughout time though

What WE need to do is show the unknowing listeners out there what SACD is all about and I assure you that they will make an effort towards it. Then hopefully more demand for SACD will appear.