This seems like deja vu...!
Remember the era of the BETA vs. VHS war...? |
SACD was a stop gap profit scheme for Sony, they milked audiophiles and technophiles who bought unneccesary equipment and have incompatible software.
DVD-A is the future format, always was and always will be. CD is already had its day and if you ask any manufacturer how hard it is to get a CD transport these days you would know. Luckily DVD transports are compatible with CD's!
Sony is a four letter word for a reason, and yet another exploitation of the buying public buy Sony with a technology which was dead end from the day it was released.
Until you have a compatible standard digital output on any of these new technologies they technically don't exist, so DVD-A really does not exist yet. Its in mid birth.
Oh! and by the way, the improvement in the formats had nothing to do with expanding bits, but expanding channels.
Its likely the thought of a spinning disc and all its problems will be laughable concept ten years from now. |
The catalogs of the audiophile centric record/disc sellers I get seem to point in the direction that SACD is gaining some traction with the smaller audiophile labels. A good thing, I think, as a grassroots movement that turns out music that is looked to by audiophiles will keep at least a trickle of things coming for us.
Whatever happened to Sony and some others I have heard converting their CD stamping facilities to hybrid CD/SACD processing?
On the sad note, I noticed in Stereophile that Sony Music went to a conference with the intention of throwing their support behind DVD-A. If I were the head of Sony, my head honcho at Sony Music would be called into the office and read the riot act (including the proviso that a bloodletting would result the next time I heard even an inkling of such a thing). |
I used to think this was premature, such as suggesting that vinyl was dead which now is flurishing, but the latest universal players make redbook so go that I no longer really care. However, I have been buying a fortune in new sacds which would suggest that it might not replace cds but still can fulfill my needs. |
Mmmm but isn't there a big problem with the availablity of music?
Surely the point is to hear ALL music in it's best reproduced state rather than being left with what niche labels can deliver?
Or maybe it doesn't. |
Does 200 gram 45 rpm vinyl appeal to the current mass market? No?! Well then, by this same measure, it must be a dead format as well.
Music is like wine, buy what YOU like, regardless of what the reviewers or market trends have to say. |
I think that Sony's embrace of DualDisc was the clear message for me that they are moving on. Too bad. I think SACD is a fantastic format and there are around 3000 titles available which would more than double my cd collection if I bought them all. So I'm just gonna keep scooping them up until they disappear.
Did anyone else ever wonder why a company the size of Sony never, to my knowledge, advertised SACD? The only thing resembling an ad for SACD was the explanation of the format that you get inside any SACD made by Sony/Philips. That's bright! They should have advertised to people who didn't know about the format, don't you think? Most people I know have never heard of SACD, unless I told them about it.
Cheers. |
I think some mistakes are being made in the above statements.
One has to accept that many people interested in Audio didn't find the sonic differences in SACD. Yes,maybe some of our systems aren't revealing enough,maybe some of the discs didn't do the format justice.
But this is not just the average Joe this is people INTERESTED in audio.
Failure to capture them has been more of a problem.
Anyone can make their own value judgement but my $800 SACD/DVD through my $3000 amp into my $3000 speakers left many a listener baffled as to what the advantage SACD gave over CD on the same Sony machine.
Play a normal Redbook on my $3000 CD player and it was no contest.
I said it at the time and got laughed at-you couldn't even find a SACD player in the same price range as my Ayre CX-7 to even try and adopt the format here in the UK's third biggest city and arguably 2nd biggest hi-fi city.
DVD's success was down to an instant improvement in replay and met mass acceptance-now if SACD could have made even a smidgen of that impact it might have survived too.
It didn't pass the basic test because Sony didn't make sure the early discs revealed it's superiority.
Nobody would turn their nose up at superior sound if it was realistic to enjoy it.
And for those of us more interested in the music than the reproduction then SACD never got out the starting blocks. |
There were all kinds of them @ CES with several companies selling them. |
Maybe they will start developing compelling transports, DACS and cables for redbook |
Sony is a lousy company. They are only interested in selling throw-away electronics for the massess. Anyone who is surprised that they dissatisfy the true enthusiast should only look to the last several decades of their marketing. They are like that fabled crow who sees his reflection in the stream and ends up dropping everything in his beak because he wanted what the other bird had.
No, let me tell you how I really feel. Why they think we need a new and improved Walkman or Clio every 3 months is beyond me. Their prices are outrageous, and you are buying into a host of incompatibilities and end-user parts problems.
Look to their music division when they had some of the best orchestras under their label, and you could see that they ruined that as well. In addition, their recordings from the golden-age of classical music are among the worst and the noisiest in the industry.
I bought a VAIO notebook from them about 2 years ago. I paid a little over $2000. The screen was crushed on a trip, so it is essentially unusable. A replacement screen is $800! A double-life battery is $500! A powercord is $150! If you lose their little proprietary connector so that it can plug into a projector, I couldn't even imagine what that would cost. I recently bought a dell notebook. Now I'm not going to say the quality or support of dell is better than sony, but at least it is 1/2 the price.
Rob |
Not to create a big spark B-U-T:
If you don't hear the high-rez difference with the SACD of Orff or Beck "Sea Change" then you really should sell-off your system or atleast get speakers that go up to 35KHz. I only test to 16KHz but there still is a HUGE difference.
I know this doesn't change SACD's death but atleast get a good listen before it goes. (p.s. I only have a 963SA too). |
Sony has several divisions. the Music division seems to be giving up on SACD to some degree. The hardware division seems to be still embracing it. It will survive, even if only as a niche product from smaller labels (Which is fine, that's where the best music often is anyway). There's over 2500 different SACD's available so no real shortage of music per se. It clearly is a superior format over Redbook. Anyone who can't hear a difference just doesn't have a system that is resovling enough. ;-) |
An alleged dead format as in vinyl, last year sold more than SACD and DVD-A combined. We as Audiophiles kill our own formats. When CD first came out they sounded like crap and most of the Audiophiles were dumping turntables for pennies on the dollar. Twenty years later, some of them are re-purchasing analogue front ends. With todays technology state of the art will last months not years. Wait the Sonys of this world out, and don't jump on their ever changing format flavor of the month bandwagon and maybe some loyalty to the Audiophile community will be generated. Those of you that have invested in SACD or DVD-A, very shortly you will be able to purchase top of the line used SACD hardware for pennies. |
The bottom line is the vast majority of people don't really care enough about sound quality to embrace something like SACD. Think about it. Where do most people listen to music? In their cars! SACD is superior to conventional CD, but I suspect less than 5% of the population has equipment good enough to appreciate the difference.
Sony should also be blamed for the way they marketed SACD. In the early days of the format most of what they did was reissue titles that already existed on CD, in many cases LP as well. SACD has the capacity where Sony could have combined two titles one on disc, for a one disc price. Instead they release Walter's Brahms Symphony #4 all by itself and charged $20 for it. Why didn't they put the third symphony on the disc as well? Why didn't they offer bargin pricing to get the format going? They sure weren't having to pay big licensing fees! The Mercury classical CD issues got it right. They added more music, in most cases, and didn't limit themselves to the exact same form as the original records. Why should they, CD has about thirty minutes more capacity. Mercury used it to their advantage and charged a low price. Sony could have filled up the entire disc with music and charge $12.99. Instead they chose to gouge the early converters. |
I think SACD might remain a niche supported by the small labels that put out good jazz and classical music recordings. As a popular format it will not likely last.
After owning the Exemplar 2900 I questioned whether SACD was necessary given how good redbook CD sound was on the Exemplar 2900. |
The catalogs of the audiophile centric record/disc sellers I get seem to point in the direction that SACD is gaining some traction with the smaller audiophile labels. A good thing, I think, as a grassroots movement that turns out music that is looked to by audiophiles will keep at least a trickle of things coming for us.
Whatever happened to Sony and some others I have heard converting their CD stamping facilities to hybrid CD/SACD processing?
On the sad note, I noticed in Stereophile that Sony Music went to a conference with the intention of throwing their support behind DVD-A. Someone at Sony intervened at the last moment, and the music divsion backed off. If I were the head of Sony, my head honcho at Sony Music would be called into the office and read the riot act (including the proviso that a bloodletting would result the next time I heard even an inkling of such a thing). |
That's the tragedy really-technically it should have delivered with time to develop the format.However the whole approach seemed so flawed it just makes you wonder why it wasn't launched or supported in the right manner as it must have taken time,money and effort to develop. |
Musical Fidelity came out with a very expensive SACD player, only recently, does it mean they have no clue what is going on in the market? I wonder! |
I think that someone will manufacture SACDs instead of Sony just 4 U audiophools:-) |
I read an article the other day that Sony had pretty much abandoned the ship. It just never took off and I couldn't see it ever being more than a niche product for audiophiles (which account for how much of the market and what do the rest care?)
At any rate, I do hear a difference with SACD, especially in the highs and with more palpable voices. Cymbals actually take on a real shimmer. Of course, there are some crappy ones too.
I buy on line. Maybe my local Best Buy will follow Sean's but right now---not much(nor with DVD-A.) I would think it depends on the area. Unfortunately, this area is not known for audiophiles. I would say you could count all of the true blue ones on 2 hands! This is more of a boom - boom in the car and boom box region. Best Buy sells their systems by the truck load and most think they have reached the pinnacle of sound (including my brother, who, after listening to my system, says it is crazy to invest that much money even if the sound is much better. His Sony system is GOOD enough and he only paid $400 for the complete thing!) Of course, I informed him that it's crazy to drive a Lexus when a Camry will suffice!
I do believe SACD has/had some real possibilities. To bad we'll probably never see it. |
Ya, SACD sucks! Everyone send me your crappy SACD discs. I'd be willing to take them off your hands for ten cents on the dollar; you pay shipping costs... ;-) |
It may be dead in light of the lack of new titles being released. But if you have built up a decent library, sacd surely can live in your home. |
It's hard to disagree with what has been written.
It also no longer seems to earn the same level of debate that it once did.
I suspect it may still survive as a niche Audiophile corner of the market.
The reality I often stated for myself seems to be true;SACD simply does not exhibit the sonic differences to attract potential converts to the format.
It failed to convince me for a variety of reasons and I don't think Sony helped themselves their marketing strategy seemed seriously flawed and quite a few discs just didn't deliver.
Of course others have found different but their impassioned stances on the format seemed to have faded to silence. |
never came to life for me....quality redbook CDs sound excellent in a quality CD transport and DAC anyway...never felt the need |
I for one am glad if this is true. I believe it's possible to extract enough music info from a well-recorded redbook cd so that most any sonic difference is negligible at best.
-IMO |
I've seen more SACD's at my local Best Buy's within the last several weeks than i have ever seen in the past. Some of them are even current releases from popular artists, not just re-issues of past recordings from has-been's. I typically check the SACD bin's every week or so, so i found this to be good news for folks that enjoy and buy SACD's. Having said that, it probably is a dead format, but that doesn't mean that you can't take advantage of higher quality recordings while you can get them. Sean
> |
never was alive it never even achieved a 1% sales penetration |
|
I recall reading an article that suggested that both DVD-A and SACD essentially were dead. While both formats have deep pockets backing them, there does not appear to be enough buyers to make either format commercially viable. As the article pointed out, it is tough to ask someone to spend $20 for a SACD when the same disc is available at half the cost in a more readily accessible format. Given the troubles of the music industry, it would seem prudent for the major labels to try to increase sales volume. Sadly, in today's environment, that translates into MP3 downloads and ring tones (WTF)! |
What local store are you talking about? They still have a decent section at Best Buy - and I would assume Tower Records.
I wonder if with Blue Ray coming up Sony has new plans for hirez music?
If it dies, Sony only has itself to blame with its' moronic licensing practices. Sony should have made a point of licensing SACD to every upper end DVD or CD player manufacturer at a healthy per unit price, thus making SACD the audiophile standard at the least.
Instead the charge a lump sum of over $60K just to use the technology - effectively leaving many hi end boutique makers out of the running for SACD units.
Sony seems to be masters of inventing standards, and then doing everything possible to make sure they're not widely adopted. They should send Sony execs to school at Microsoft - who makes mediocre standards, but knows better than anybody how to make them universal through intelligent licensing. |
Sure looks like it. Have you seen how cheap Sony is selling some own SACDs on their site? Sad, becuase this playback format, and the associated recording and storage mechanisms held a lot of promise. Oh well. Blu-Ray anyone? I suspect that as massive (by today's standards) storage capacities become more prevalent, and lossless compression techniques continue to evolve, we will not be doomed to MP3. |
Sad if true. DVD-A seems to suck in stereo. |
