SACD - Dying already?

In many respects...marketing, distribution, and even sonics...Sacd has been a major disappointment(or at least the discs I have purchased),,,many of the established artists have not been remastered in years and were never recorded in true DSD(and recorded poorly to begin with ...Hello Stones...and to be blunt...I feel as if SOny is playing a "Smoke and Mirrors" game that has more to do with copyright protection than improved hi-fidelity///at any rate...there will be other hi-rez formats that stand a better chance of longevity.....

I agree with Phasecorrect as regards Sony's purpose. I can't imagine they would spend a penny on audiophile wants and desires but did create a scheme to keep the copyright money rolling in. Remember, the coypright on redbook CD ended 2-3 years ago and Sony stopped getting a cut on every CD sold.

I, too, agree with the Rolling Stones SACD catalog. It is the best sounding CD transfer I've heard which is saying nothing since the original discs were unlistenable. The new hybrids are barely acceptable and it's possible the original tapes suck. The Dylan catalog could have been done just as well by high res. redbook. Not a reason at all buy into SACD.

By the way, I borrowed another SACD player ($1,500.00 Sony) over the weekend and found it's reproduction a little 'phasey', a bit diffuse. High frequencies sounded somewhat like plastic, kind of like the old Acoustat speakers (which I owned and otherwise loved, except for their power hungry nature).

We who love classical music and have enjoyed the fruits of both remastered analog recordings, say from Pentatone and RCA Living Stereo don't find there to be any disappointment with the sonics of SACD.

In the classical market, I find the trouble is probably with a lack of interest on the part of record reviewers who (this is Grammophone) will review the redbook layer of an hybrid SACD and mention that its an SACD. They don't apparently even have the gear to listen to SACD in stereo much less in multi-channel. Stereophile has about two classical reviews per issue and never have they reviewed an SACD in that section. There is something called Music in the Round devoted to multi-channel but that is not even a monthly feature. Absolute Sound does much better with several SACDs reviewed by their classical reviewer each month. But with this kind of inattention from the magazines, how is the public to become aware of the wonderful sound now available from multi-channel SACDs? .... And I am here to tell you it is truly amazing! My home setup sounds like I am in a concert hall when I play good recordings which means anything by Telarc, PentaTone, Harmonia Mundi, Hyperion, Tudor, and several others that should but don't come to mind immediately.

Zeisels -- you;ve actually got a very good point! The lack of interest isn't due to lack of sound quality.
But then how many indirect sales reps (i.e. reviewers, etc) have a goodish multichannel (or 2 channel) for that matter...

SACD and DVDA have obvious potential for sonic superiority over CD which, unfortunately is not always realized when discs are mastered. But this sonic improvement, vs a well made CD, will not be obvious unless the playback system is good, if not "high end".

The feature that SACD and DVD offer which is obvious to everyone is multichannel. No only is multichannel given little attention by the press, but it is also subject to a great deal of negative talk by audiophiles who think that their stereo systems are the ultimate. Well, let me tell you that we old guys thought that our monophonic systems were the greatest, and there was a lot of stupid resistance to stereo when it was new. Sure there are some ridiculously mastered multichannel disks. But there are also many good ones.

The future of SACD and DVDA depends on multichannel. There is one big market, autos, where surround speakers, the big stumbling block, already are standard equipment. That's good. If you want SACD to survive don't trash multichannel even if you personally intend to stick with stereo.
.