SACD : why ?

If this discussion were about the differences between two CD players, we'd all join our preferred camps and cheer for the unit we thought sounded best. While the SACD format can theoretically provide for a higher resolution output, we are still talking about the differences between two pieces of digital audio equipment. I've had the same experience as Badwisdom the few times I've auditioned SACD players. Both times they were Sony players and both times I preferred the sound of the CD, not because of resolution but simply because of the sound (the CD players happened to be ones I liked quite a bit). I'd have to believe when other manufacturers produce SACD units, they’ll apply their own audio signatures to the sound and the comparisons will be somewhat more balanced.

SACD and Redbook are just formats and can theoretically produce comparable results. In practice, SACD should have a significant advantage, but in the end its up to the manufacturer to take advantage of this and produce a better sounding unit. I’m sure that Sony does with their audio line, but for many folks theirs is simply not the preferred sound. The enjoyment that many people get from their SACD players needs to be put into this context, and not attributed to the format alone.

Cheers,
Ken

badwisdom: a couple of thoughts after reading your later posts. (1) the decision as to whether sacd "makes it" is largely political, dictated by those who control software production; fact is, more software companies are jumping aboard the sacd bandwagon everyday, tho that moving platform is also a moving target in light of all the multi-channel alternatives available. (2) i've listened extensively to the accuphase 100/101 combo, too. it's such a good redbook player that i have a hard time perceiving the superiority of sacd as well, except on titles mastered to sacd (i.e., NOT reissued discs). -kelly

I agree with the others that said the survival of SACD will come down to the availability of music. As it stands now SACD seems to be a purely "audiophile" format. And, as much as I hope it will survive, there has got to be a reason that we haven't seen SACDs of the reference standard recordings of all musical genres. Was there too little of an improvement in sound? None at all?

If either of the two new formats has any hope of becoming the standard it is DVD-A, yet I do not believe it will. I think there is room for CD, SACD, and DVD-A. Hopefully, the next video DVD player I buy will play audio DVDs as well. If not, I'm fine with my SCD-1 for both cds and sacds, but that is because I like 2-channel music.

Someone in a previous post put it nicely. The differance between SACD and CD is "subtle yet profound". I think Badwisdom should give it another listen. As mentioned, SACD players need alot of break-in. I swear my 9000es improved up until around a thousand hours.

I always think of Betamax vs. VHS when I hear a discussion about formats. The FACT is that Betamax was better in nearly everyway, yet due to marketing, software availability and other factors we all bought VHS machines (or else lived to regret it). Formats succeed or fail for very complex reasons and relative merit is only one of them. I personally am skeptical of SACD for the many good reasons stated above; however there is a formidable pressure on the record companies to find a new format because sales of new material are not enough for the current size of the record industry. They have counted on people rebuying records as they wore out and then buying the same recordings on CD. Especially classical recordings are suffering (how many complete Beethoven Symphony cycles can one man buy - even if every conductor who has ever lived wants to put one out). The growing used CD market makes things even worse for them since a far higher portion of CDs are well preserved than was true for LPs. Its impossible to know what will happen, but I guaranty that the sound quality of SACDs and Player will not decide the issue alone. And I have not even mentioned downloads..