Another sign SACD is dying

"Sinner matic, Sony did not build SACD to use it for a little while and then to pull it."

Nrchy, when are you going to learn to think about what I write before you respond with glib comments? First of all archiving would not be done in the redbook format it would be done in the PCM 24/96 format, but DSD is more robust than PCM should there be slight deterioration to the masters. Thus it is a much better solution, Sony only owns a third of the worlds music, I think preservation of that investment is more important than launching a new incompatible High performance format. Sony is not that stupid.

Funny as SACD is dispearring you would argue with me about its longevity, especially when you see all the Sony artist are qued up on DVD-A. Which will transfer to bluray just fine. Bluray improves the video, the audio is still 24/96-192

The pro recording world is 24/96 or better right now and what is holding up the train is Copy Protection, whether its blu ray or DVD-A they are going nowhere until this issue is settled. The fact that the DSD datastream was incompatible with all the PCM recorders made the SACD copy proof for awhile.

Finally Compatibility, the format is incompatible with everything, so only a select group of people could be counted on to pursue this red herring.....audiophiles.

Sony thanks you for your support,

It's an interesting post mortum.

My take is that we've all had 20 years to optimize our Redbook hardware and get it sounding pretty good. Then along comes SACD with the promise of better sound quality, so we go out and plop down $1000 on a new SACD player and expect it to compete with our $5000 Redbook rigs (substitute whatever numbers are appropriate).

For those of us with multi-format players, I can't imagine anyone not liking SACD better than CD on the same player.

In most cases we've either expected too much from the format or we haven't given it a fair chance.
With redbook I think the main issue is that recording/mixing/mastering techniques produce very inconsistant results. In this digital age, if one recording can sound excellent then it ought to be the 'rule' and not the exception. Listen to Patricia Barber - Modern Cool as an example of good redbook quality. If it was the norm for other CD's to playback with the same level of performance, I don't think there'd be a need for a 'higher-res' format.

The mistake seems to be that the industry has not addressed the root cause of the problem. If you put crap on a CD your system will playback crap. Likewise with SACD or any other format. It all starts in the studio, or wherever the artists are.

>>2 channel audio is dead<<

Uh oh. Best Buy strikes again.

For a dead format I continue to see more and more SACD Hybrid releases every day. It will however continue to be limited to the smaller labels producing high quality releases of specialized musical venues.

Cinner I thought about what you said which was why I responded with a glib comment.

I'm not sure our difference in regard to this matter is as great as in other matters. I am simply saying that Sony must have believed that SACD as a consumer format had a fighting chance. I agree that Sony was looking for the best possible means of archiving their vast library of music. But if it were you, wouldn't you also hope that the incompatable format would be a commercial success.

There continue to be new SACDs available for the music lover. I bought several of the new Living Stereo releases a few weeks ago. Tschaikowski's 6th Symphony, Sherazade, and a Gershwin release all sounded very good. At the $12 price point, they were well worth the cost.

Post mortum eh? If it's dead (I will concede life support) that's just because people who claim to be music lovers let a better sounding format die.

Where is the controversy?