Why SACD,DVD-A are already DEAD


I think it's time to really look at this issue as it stands today,in a clear rational way that takes into account the varied market forces which are the true determinates for any new formats sucess or failure.
SACD IS ALREADY DEAD PERIOD!
Why you ask?Well for the following reasons:
1.It's been about 2-3 years since the introduction of SACD and look at position it's in, in terms of SOFTWARE AVAILIBILITY and MASS MARKET AWARENESS.
Take the pathetic lack of titles,not only that, but look at the artists that are chosen as SACD releases,Yo Yo Ma,Kind of Blue,(for the upteenth time)Muddy Waters etc,etc.This is no reflection on the artists but only on their limted MASS MARKET APPEAL.Who was the marketing genius who decided to re-issue this material to captivate and generate a MASS INTEREST to this new format.You need a MASS MARKET BASE for any medium to succeed.
2.As has been stated before in other forums(stereophile for one) why would the average person shell out $25 HARD EARNED DOLLARS for one of these titles?Why?What are the advantages to the average listerner.it COSTS more,it's an artist in a speciality genre comparatively speaking(jazz,blues,classical vs. pop,rock,techno)it offers no physical advantage in terms of storage,packaging,and not only that it requires a NEW player!
If you wanted to consciously destroy this new format you could'nt have done a better job than Sony has already done.
3.Given the current state of the music industry ,their major concern right now is to halt the proliferation of the MP3.What major label is going to go out and spends tons of $ on P&A(publicity,advertising)and also re-tooling their cd manufacturing plants to output SACD'S as efficently as CD'S?Right now their is NO MASS MARKET AWARENESS of SACD,it's a fact ,we live in the hermetically sealed world of the audiophile culture.Most people don't even know about HDCD,GOLD CD'S,MOBILE FIDELITY DISC'S!
Look at the history of the 8 track tape,dat,mini disc,beta and you will see that SACD is right on track for a quick burial.
3.In order to suceed you need a medium that offers a clear cut advantage over the existing technology.Other than some sonic advantages(even that's not a slam dunk as many would suppose)What does the average person get besides A HIGHER PRICED CD?
5.For those of you who have purchased these players
thinking that if the SACD revolution doesn't occur then at least I have a player that does cd's better than most players,well you're probably right in that it will out perform an AVERAGE player.But think about it ,Sony is making a player to maximize their new format NOT the CD.There will be some compromise on the cd playback chain, As the price of the SACD player drops so will the manufacturers concern with producing great sounding cd playback.Parts,build quailty will most definetly suffer.
DVD-A IS ALREADY DEAD PERIOD!
Why you ask?Well for the following reasons:
1.Again it's basically MARKET AWARENESS,SOFTWARE AVAILIBILTY AND THE COST OF THE DVD.
2.Why would the AVERAGE person buy a dvd-a disc for $25 and ignore theCHEAPER CD VERSION!.Well if that person owns a terrific sounding surround set-up then sure that person will most probably buy one,but that person doesn't represent the mass market.Sure DVD video has had tremendous growth but it's the video (movies)that'sdriving the market not the ability to play music.My theory is that dvd -a won't take off for basically the same reasons that SACD won't.MASS MARKET AWARENESS,COST OF DISC,COST OF CREATING A SURROUND SETUP FOR MUSIC,COST OF GETTING A DVD-A PLAYER.Since dvd is already in place as an excellent video playback medium,I think the cost of the disc will be a major hurdle for the average person.Watermarking will be the hump for the audiophile,besides the fact that the proper engineeering of these surround disc's will be crucial to audiophile acceptance of this format.Idon't think either of these issues will be resolved in the near future,or even at all.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO NOW?
1.The current technology for cd players and cd engineering has progressed significantly in the past 3 years.My advise is to buy a good high end cd player right now!There are plenty to chose from ,be prepared to spend $3-$6 grand,but also be prepared to hear your cd's sound GREAT not good but really ,really GREAT!
Let's face it life is short ,the players are out there, start listening and buy one(no I'm not a manufacturer or salesperson)and start enjoying the hundreds or thousands of cd's you already own.
To all those vinylphiles,I think you face similiar problems.limted software,mass market REJECTION.and old technology which needs a significant $ expenditure for great sound,not to mention the care and maintance required to keep these puppies sounding tick and pop free. I think of vinylphiles as one would think of vintage car hobbists,it's cool if you don't mind the fuss(I doI think the old maxim that lp's sound better than cd's is becoming meaningless.good lp on good system =good sound. good cd on good system= good sound.Ironically I think vinyl will prevail over sacd and dvd-a,it's a small club but it has a history behind it that will guarantee it's longevity.
So IMO cd's and vinyl for quite some time ,both require some cash outlay for a really good playback but it's the NOW and that NOW will be around for at least the next 10 years.
joeavid
Interesting that a few people have noticed listener fatigue with SACDs. This is pure speculation on my part, but it is possible that SACDs are being mastered with a little extra "sizzle" of the kind that can get to you after awhile. Maybe to make the comparison with CD more dramatic (wouldn't be the first time), or maybe for no particular reason at all. ("Hey, does this sound better to you? Let's do it.")

One thing to remember about cross-media comparisons: mastering matters a lot. All it takes is a little EQ to make two otherwise identical recordings sound dramatically different. A good thing to keep in mind when evaluating new formats.
Pardon me while I go burn a "best of" Fabulous T-Birds CD-R. The recordings are mediocre at best but the MUSIC IS GREAT. I have many obsessions, but SACD and DVD-A are not among them-- at least for now. Cheers. Craig
Obviously, it would be easy to agree with the majority of your comments on SACD/DVD-A but just as easy to disagree. To take the opposing viewpoint: I love SACD. Here's why. Five years ago, if I could have had an audiophile dream, I would have imagined a brand new format, with improved sampling rate and resolution. You know, CD done right, like it should have been done in the first place. Of course, that would have only been a dream, unapproachable, never to happen. To think that this has happened at all is amazing. Now, as we speak, you can actually buy a "Class A rated" SACD player for $550 (on ebay) and have hundreds of software titles sitting down at Best Buy for easy convenience. It's incredible. It's an audiophile blessing! It's an acceptable digital format. CD is the bare minimum. Its 44.1 kHz sampling rate is a dead giveaway that the ability of the human ear/brain was not valued highly enough. It's just enough sampling rate to cover up to 20 kHz. As for resolution and dynamic range, 16 bit is approximately 65,000 amplitude possibilities. Give the human ear/brain more credit than that. Especially when you're talking about a seasoned audiophile.

Okay, maybe Sony is blowing the SACD marketing, and maybe it is going to die out. That would be terrible. But, its not dead yet. Right now it is still pushing forward. It appears to be better suited as an audiophile format rather than a mass market format. If audiophiles take this advancement in technology and adopt the "gloom and doom" approach, nothing will ever happen for us. We will be the ungrateful ones who spit on the new formats.

1. Concerning the artists that are chosen as SACD releases: Many of the artists who have SACD titles may have low mass market appeal but also have high audiophile market appeal. That is another reason for audiophiles to embrace this format. If all that was available on SACD was driven by the top 40 Billboard rankings, we'd really be in a mess. I probably don't need NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, and Britney Spears on SACD. There may be little to gain from them. For great music with many layers of information hidden in it, SACD can reveal musical detail unattainable by CD, no matter how good the CD players get. Remember, they will still be 16 (or 20) bit, 44.1 kHz. Upsample as you may, you will always be limited by the world length (16 or 20 bit ) and sampling rates of CD. Upsampling is a wonderful and glorified example of interpolation. On the other end of the spectrum, MP3 is another example of interpolation. Upsampling for CDs is becoming more common. The fact that CDs can benefit from it just shows that their original world length is not adequate. I PREFER real resolution, not interpolated resolution. Yes, I'll take my CDs upsampled please, because they need it but I would rather have something that already has an adequate word length.

2. First of all, for the sake of arguing about price, it sounds much worse to say that SACDs cost $25 than to take a look around and realize the truth is that they are $16.99 for Stereo and $18.99 for Multi-Channel/Stereo at Best Buy. $16.99 is only about $3 more than a CD. I'm willing to pay that much for the sonic improvements being offered. We pay alot more than that for an MFSL, DCC, or other re-mastered version of a CD. And I must say that the players don't really cost that much more either. Of course, they will get cheaper, but right now you can get a DVD/CD/SACD Multi-Channel player for $199. That is affordable. And, as I said earlier, you can get a "Class A rated" SACD Multi-channel player for $550 on ebay. I have one, and I believe it deserves its Class A rating for both SACD and rebook CD.

3. Much of the music industry is embracing SACD. Software titles are available and more are on their way. They are putting some time and effort into SACD. Just because they are busy fighting MP3 doesn't mean they're not doing other things. They are offering quality over quantity. 99% of the time, a pound of gold is worth more than 100 pounds of dirt.

4. SACD offers a clear cut advantage: measurable and perceivable increase in dynamic range, resolution, and frequency response. What does the average person get? They get what I just mentioned, they just can't appreciate those qualities. But audiophiles can ! Maybe we should embrace SACD and tell people that it is better than CD instead of assuming it is going to die out soon.

5. There is no reason to think there will be compromises on the CD playback chain as SACD players become more affordable. As always, time brings better technology. CD will get better in SACD players, not worse.

My recommendation: Embrace SACD and enjoy the benefits it has to offer. I hope this response is taken for what it is, just food for thought. There are always many angles at which to look at something. Somehow, mine is always right. Bufus.
Good Post Bufus!Which player did you get?Sacd owners buy more and they will release more.SACD's sound as good as MFSL Gold cd's[cheaper too] and sound better so far to me.I'm happy with my $200 Sony SACD/DVD player.When more titles are released I will upgrade my SACD player or have it modded which will sound even better.Roger Waters,Byrds,Carol King SACD vs Redbook=No contest.Santana Abraxes,B,S&Tears vs MFSL=SACD has the edge.Can't compare but Tchaikovsky 1812 is incredible. System is all tube including surrounds,dac,preamp,amps maybe why I don't get fatigued listening.By the way R.Waters SACD 5.1 Analog sounds better than 5.1 Dolby digital DVD,Much Fuller sounding.I hope all the format's get better thus more to choose from.Enjoy the Music!
I warm to Bob's positive attitude. But, can we get the plethoric disography available on the cheapo (and poor-sounding IMO) cd medium on sacd -- *with* sonic advantage? Advantage, that is, commensurate with the investment that we will have to make? (I mean, the average music collection on this site runs in the thousands... we speak mostly of gear, but the underlying factor is satisfactory reproduction of MUSIC).
As Bob notes, just food for thought; SACD *did* sound good to my ears -- but how can I get Furtwangler (Hooker, Davis, etc) on DSD mode?