Was SACD a great idea doomed to failure by sheer bloody stupidity?

[twelvebears]

I case you can't guess, this thread is prompted by my recent near miss (and only a miss due to Peter) with buying Depeche Mode SACDs, or more accurately SACDs that were actually being sold as CDs when they were actually both.

What this experience has proved to me is the following:

a) SACD is a great format which, to me at least, definitely sounds better that standard CD

b) It's ability to co-exist with 'normal' CD data on the same disc makes compatibility a non-issue. Let's face it, Amazon are currently selling CD + DVD 'Special Editions' to people who are happily using them on normal CD players with probably no idea that they are also SACDs

c) The whole failure of SACD was down to the fact that initially record companies tried 'milking' us Audiophiles for extra cash and charge more for SACDs and new players, rather doing what can clearly be done (as shown by the afore mentioned Mute/Depeche Mode saga), which is to bring it in alongside the mainstream CD for minimal extra cost, but with the lure of better sound quality if people chose to buy an SACD machine later to 'unleash' the hidden potential of these new dual-purpose discs.

d) The final straw is that if both Amazon AND Mute's own bloody website don't correctly identify albums which are actually CD/SACDs, what sodding chance do the rest of us have?!!!

I suppose my final, overriding disappointment is the feeling that if things had been handled differently, rather than facing the march of the degradation of sound quality from MP3, with CD seen as the 'old fashioned' format which people think is on its way out (even though it's actually the 'hi-res' format in comparison), we could have been in a situation where SACD sat alongside CD, with enough tech-sexy appeal for the marking bods to get people buying.

Oh what the hell, I'm just a whinging git who wishes things were different. Let's face it, whether something new lives or dies really comes down to whether most people can see the point. Digital mobiles took off because they were generally better that analogue ones, DVD thrived because it is better than VCR, CD's worked because to MOST people, they were smaller, more convenient, tougher and sounded better. HD TV/video makes SD viewing look like your glasses need replacing....

Unfortunately for MOST people there really isn't a difference between CD and SACD that's worth ANY extra cost or hassle....

[Rowemeister]

Hear Hear

It is a shame the way things are going. Too many people have poor 'LO-FI' and MP3 sounds like cd on those systems. The compression is barely noticed and people are happy buying crap. It ruins it for everyone else.

MP3 for me was a fine replacement for cd / minidisc when out jogging etc but there really is no excuse anymore with the size of the hard drives fitted to used MP3.

Brent

[Spectral Morn]

The main problem is that "the latest and best high res digital" came at the wrong time. Mp3, phones and Computer audio were happening or starting to happen as was gaming and home cinema, and this distracted or simply made SACD irrelevant to the majority.

The other problem was that the main bulk of electronics companies did not want the Philips/Sony axis once again getting the upper hand..so they came up with DVDA. Both systems are very good and imho/e better than CD. Problem was a format war didn't really happen, but any momentum for better sound was lost and diluted, by there being two systems. SACD won by default as DVDA faded away.

I agree that this was a missed opportunity, for better sound quality, but that in its self, for the majority is of no interest, so SACD will ultimately fade away. I for one have about 100 titles and a very good machine to listen to them on (Marantz SA7)and I buy SACDs when ever I see them, which is less often now. Last ones were the Genesis reissues and the Dead Can Dance reissues all excellent. Sadly the last batch of Genesis albums are only CDs, interest obviously lost in SACD by the record label...I can but dream of Seconds Out on SACD

Enjoy.


Regards D S D L

[DSJR]

SA-CD "worked" because some old stuff could be re-mastered and eq'd. Colloms himself found this on some of the earlier issues anyway.

later classical SA-CD's sounded good because they were recorded and mastered more carefully, nothing more.

The best CD players sound better than the best SA-CD players according to a company that made both types of player and recorded and mastered the music too.

SA-CD apparently has better resolution in the bass, where it's not needed and far less in the treble regions where it is. The amount of noisy sh*t above 20KHz is significantly more as well.

There's nothing at all wrong with the red book standard, it's the implentation at the mastering stage and CD manufacture that seems to be the problem.

Finally, none of this will matter in a few years when computers and huge storage take over the role of a CD player and the rest of us continue to enjoy our LP's..

[Stratmangler]

It's ironic that there has been a resurgence in interest in DVD-Audio driven by the rise in computer audio, as DVD-Audio can be ripped to HDD.

This in turn has kick started a market for 24/96 downloads - ok the market is not huge 'cos Joe Public usually doesn't give a rat's arse about sound quality, but the market is there nontheless.
And because the content is distributed on the internet it is relatively easy to obtain.

SACD is still a step too far for computers - any discs that have rippable content are hybrid discs with CD layers, so all you can get off them is 16/44.1 content.
More's the pity !!!

Chris

[Haselsh1]

In my personal opinion, SACD was doomed to failure the moment Sony withdrew it's massive subsidisation of the format at the recording and mastering stages. Sony no longer help out anyone wanting to produce their music on SACD and so only old dinosaurs like Peter Gabriel seem to want to do it.
Is it better than CD...? I'd say it is merely different. Does that make it better...? I don't know. Technically it is better.

[Spectral Morn]

SA-CD "worked" because some old stuff could be re-mastered and eq'd. Colloms himself found this on some of the earlier issues anyway.

later classical SA-CD's sounded good because they were recorded and mastered more carefully, nothing more.

The best CD players sound better than the best SA-CD players according to a company that made both types of player and recorded and mastered the music too.

SA-CD apparently has better resolution in the bass, where it's not needed and far less in the treble regions where it is. The amount of noisy sh*t above 20KHz is significantly more as well.

There's nothing at all wrong with the red book standard, it's the implentation at the mastering stage and CD manufacture that seems to be the problem.

Finally, none of this will matter in a few years when computers and huge storage take over the role of a CD player and the rest of us continue to enjoy our LP's..

Who claimed that ? Not my findings at all...SACD played back on a good to great SACD player beats CD almost every time. My Marantz SA7 playing SACDs eats my Moon Andromeda playing the same CD. Now playing a CD, its the other way round. The Marantz is destroyed by the Moon Andromeda. I have yet to hear any SACD player better a dedicated CD player playing CDs (not heard the latest Wadias..I suspect they are fantastic on both). The SACD format sounds fantastic to my ears (and others)...DVD Audio did too (I have a Toshiba SD900-E and Pioneer 868-AVI for playing DVD Audio, also my MSB Link Dac decodes DVDA too. The Toshiba is fabulous imho on DVDA crap on CD except HDCDs, which it can decode).

I have owned 3 SACD players...Sony SCD777, Marantz SA11 and the Marantz SA7.

I suggest Dave you go listen to some SACD players playing SACDs and then compare similarly priced dedicated CD players playing the same CDs and then write what you just just have...I am pretty sure you won't. SACD will be better every time by a huge margin, or if the disc is less well mastered, then only slightly better; but still better. Those are my findings..9 out of 10 times.


Regards D S D L

[Rare Bird]

HDCD was far superior to SACD but o no the market saw money in SACD for obvious reasons bollox to sound quality eh

[Spectral Morn]

HDCD was far superior to SACD but o no the market saw money in SACD for obvious reasons bollox to sound quality eh

Hi Andre

HDCD is very good, not quite as good imho as SACD or DVDA, but offers much better sound than red book CD. I love listening to King Crimson on HDCD via my MSB link Dac.


Regards D S D L

[Stratmangler]

it's interesting to note that The Beatles USB stick contains not only MP3 files of all of The Beatles releases, but also 24/44.1 FLAC files of the same.

These FLAC files are the highest quality digital format of The Beatles work currently available.

And when you rip HDCD with dbPoweramp you end up with 24/44.1 files.

We'll have to wait for the next round of EMI's process of cash from wallet extraction before we get to hear The Beatles at any higher resolution.

Chris