2. digital
  3. 1068906354

SACD my thoughts at this time.....................

I have been on other threads accused of being consistantly negative on SACD as a format.
I'll put my full thoughts on the format here so those members with differing views can express their issues with my opinions.
Hopefully it can be archived and new posters can be directed to this thread.
I also don't claim to know all the answers so others can offer more information or contradictory evidence.

It's long been my contention SACD will probably survive as a niche Audiophille format.
I do not see it breaking into the mainstream nor do I see a time when the majority of releases make it onto SACD.
Of course I could be totally wrong and this is guesswork at this stage in the game.

Also as a music nut with an interest in audio replay I do not rule out further down the line owning a main replay machine that gives me SACD capability to go along with my higher end Redbook capability at this stage.

I'll break my points into main headings.

1.SOFTWARE QUALITY AND LACK OF NEW RELEASES/NEW MUSIC.
Clearly the number of SACD's available are increasing but is it enough?
Sales have risen also.
My opinion is that the large rise in sales is related directly to the large reissue sets of Dylan,The Stones,The Police and the mega-selling DSOTM by Pink Floyd.
These hybrid releases will tie in strongly with my argument on my second and sixth headings.
But the success of these releases lies in their ability to be played in most CD players.
Even pro-SACD members do seem at times to be worried by the quality of some SACD remasters or releases.
A major boo boo in trying to break the format.
Most importantly for me also is the close to complete lack of releases that are new and indeed non-Audiophile related.
Surely another boo boo.
The movement on software in general terms has been too slow.
Whilst no doubt some will cite CD quality and early problems however SACD does not offer the new intial convienance over vinyl CD did.

2.CHEAP MACHINE SYNDROME.
I bought my DVPSN900 on the reviews stating that it was a good audio machine as well which highlighted SACD superiority over Redbook.
It is but the difference between the Redbook and SACD replay is not noticeable to my ears nor others who have heard it.
Surely this is catastrophic for the format?
A dip in the water buying machines such as these will leave potential SACD progressive adopters unimpressed.
Sony has clearly introduced many cheaper SACD players over the last few years.

3.AVAILABILITY OF PLAYERS.
This one will sound daft to most Americans but when I was considering a higher end SACD machine to hear,there was nothing in my price range available in Glasgow,a major city in the UK and probably the biggest hi-fi city outside of London.
None of the big Audio stockists in the city have had much success in selling players.
I wouldn't doubt in a lot of European cities this is similar.
I've also not heard a single UK dealer rave about the format,maybe for the same reasons,my local dealer constantly turns down SCD-1's for trade in because he's had difficulty moving them.
American Audiophiles maybe don't realise that their market is a lot more vibrant despite the economic gloom.
Seems here in the UK after the intial burst of SACD there is a large gap in the availability market which hasn't been filled.

4.NEW PLAYERS
Outside the elite world of the likes of Emm Labs etc it seems the new players have been indifferent.
Doesn't the mediocre reviews/feedback of such big boys as Linn and Krell not bring another problem.
This month's Hi-fi+ reviews the new Classe Omega (£12K!)and describes it's Redbook playback as mediocre.
Shouldn't we by this stage seeing the technology drift down and be wowed by the new players?
Will the new Sony make a difference?
5.OTHER FORMATS
Clearly another big issue is the likes of DVDA.
With new generations adopting different types of software,is there any place for SACD?
Even the humble CD seems to have a reasonable future at this stage purely as the dominant format to buy new music on.
Of course it too is under threat but does anybody really think SACD will bypass CD?
6.HYBRID DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.
Imagine you are reasonably interested in sonic reproduction but have a moderate to low-end system and you've just bought a newly remastered SACD hybrid of some classic.
If you notice a big jump in the CD quality will that intrigue you on SACD quality or will you think I'm not going to spend x$ on a new SACD player when I'm getting benefits where I am.
If you read a bit about it you might consider those who have heard the differences on older recordings to be very slight.
SACD worth the investment?

7.REDBOOK QUALITY ON SACD PLAYER.
Is this an issue?
I think this is key where Audiophiles are concerned.
Will a $3k SACD machine match a Redbook only player in Redbook replay.
It was this issue which ultimately led me away from trying to kill two birds with one stone.
A problem for me here in here the UK but what about in America where the overall selection is better?

8.COMBINATION EFFECT
It's my contention that SACD has too many different issues and unknowns at this stage to make anyone think that it's future is certain.
I'm sure I will hear a lot about Sony's investment and their copyright worries but will that matter if the format does not sell or grow sales?

Let's here your views-those who await further developments before investing in SACD,those who have early adopted and got out of the format and those who love it,embrace and believe it has a long future.
ben_campbell
unsound
7,329 posts
 
That SACCD and DVDA has not taken the world by storm might be an indication of many things, some of which have alraedy been discussed here. Perhaps, its failure to take the public market place by storm, might be a good thing. Within the next couple of years the DVD format is due for a major storage upgrade to allow for HD. Perhaps this impending technology might offer a vehicle for the kind of improvement in sound that SACD and DVDA promised and has yet to impress the pubic market place with. Perhaps a quick and sudden death to both these commercialy disappointing improvement offerings might actually be a good thing. On the other hand it might discourage manufacturers from catering to high end audiophiles in the future. Albert Porter has previously sugggested that perhaps the 5 gig DVD RAM format might offer the best audio format. Maybe we need to demand even more/better?
ears
341 posts
 
I have been able to hear the sonic improvement of sacd over cd on 7 different players.
I have had in my system, a Sony 9000 stock and later whith Modwright signature mods.
A phillips 963sa stock and whith mods, A sony 777, Phillips sacd 1000 and Denon 5900.

The only two of these players to do justice to both sacd and redbook are the two modded players.
I do not get the connection on how poor redbook performance has anything to do whith sacd, as it is the designer of the player who is responsible for the redbook playback.

As far as some recordings not sounding as improved as some expect, again this is the fault of the recording and can be heard whith any format so again, where is the connection whith sacd.

It seems that some are nit picking to be making such comparisons that are not sacd specific, just trying to make up b.s. to justify there lack of appreciation for an obviously superior format.
Or maybe they feel left out because they can't audition a certain player or find much sacd software in there area.

If I am wrong, then lets hear about the different models you have had in your systym besides an el cheapo player.
Not players you heard elsewhere but rather have had in your system for at least two weeks or more.

As far as dvd-a, anyone who thinks this format is going anywhere had better think again.
Joe average doesan't even no that he may have dvd-a on his new dvd player and could care less about dvd-a, even if he did.
Audiophools by a large margin prefer sacd, and anyone who has been involved in hi rez from the beggining can't argue that fact.
If one has to go, it will be dvd-a, but I hope they both stick around as dvd-a is superior to redbook on most material but not all on both the 500.00 Denon 1600 and the 5900 that I have had in my systym.

Again I base my opinion on lots of experience whith several players and sacd and dvd-a releases from the 70's, 80's and current releases, not just sonically bad recordings from the 60's or old dead guys.

If you anti sacd or dvd-a format people are so happy whith your "Perfect sound Forever" format, then why don't you go enjoy it and leave the hi rez to those of us that can hear the difference and are more likely to support new formats and buy the music?

One last opinion...multi channel for the most part = gimmick in either hi rez format whith few exceptions.
tonyp54
130 posts
 
I think it's interesting that Cornfedboy's thread about coping in an age of uncertainty is still topical after almost 3 years now. There's no question that all things being equal, SACD is superior to redbook. The issue is SACD vs DVD-A, not vs. redbook. Until that's resolved, I'm content to limit most of my CD purchases to the better labels like xrcd, chesky, acoustic disc, mapleshade, telarc etc. where the differences are not as great, and still have more to choose from than both of the hi-res formats combined.

One thing I know is that the quality of the original recording is still the key. That's probably why there are mixed reviews. A well recorded cd played on a top notch player will sound as good or better than a poorly recorded hi-res disc.

No one can predict with certainity which format will win out. SACD got the early start, but Sony's marketing strategy has been terrible. The reason they don't emphasize SACD on the label is probably because they don't want to dicourage sales from people who think they are just buying new release cds. The DVD-A camp on the other hand has been equally inept. They do however have the upper hand in professional recording circles. As was pointed out before in this forum, there is absolutey no mention of sacd anywhere other than among audiophiles, not enough of a market to sustain Sony's dream of replacing CD with SACD.

Only time will tell and I'll wait until the times are a little less uncertain.
treyhoss
287 posts
 
Richard made a point that I very much agree with. The fact that the majority of SACD's now produced are hybrid discs, this makes the format backward compatable. I think many people who are buying hybrid discs and don't have an SACD player are probably asking themselves; "How much better will it sound if I did have an SACD player?" As for the labeling of the SACD, it is hard to determine from the cover or sleeve if it is an SACD disc (but can be found somewhere on the cover). For the "unaware" who buy hybrid discs and don't own SACD players, it becomes evident once the little Sony SACD brochure slips out after they open the jewel case. This *may* prompt them to buy a player or at least take their disc down to a hi-fi place to listen over an SACD system. Also, people who are buying DVD players are probably getting SACD, DVD-A (or both) playback capabilities. All of a sudden some non-audiophile buys Pink Floyd's DSOM (in hybrid form) and for Christmas next month gets a new $350 Sony DVD player that also plays SACD. Once that person hooks up their new present to their $300 receiver, they now have an SACD player and at least one piece of software to play it on (not including the SACD promo disc that comes with the player)! I truly feel it will be that SACD technology and *capability* will "creep" into living rooms over the coming years. Will it catch on? Will people notice? I hope so. I will say, Sony gets the nod for having a better marketing and packaging strategy than DVD-A IMO. We are really only 3 years into the launch of this format and I have noticed that the more recent SACD releases are sounding superior to the ones I bought last year. I also know that CD's I bought in 1985 didn't sound as good as the ones I bought in 1995 - and on the same player! I too have a ton more CD's than SACD's but I also agree with another poster above and that is that I have bought maybe 1 or 2 redbook CD's over the last year but have purchased about 10 SACD's over the same period of time. I do hear a difference between the two formats, sometimes a huge difference sometimes a subtle one but a difference none the less. -Tony
vedric
46 posts
 
Good thoughts from everyone here. I enjoyed the read.

Without extreme cooperation from the record industry SACD will never take over the mainstream. The vast majority of mainstream playback systems are incapable of resolving the difference. Just adding a SACD machine into a low-fi system isn't enough. Without a clear advantage over CD the mainstream will not spend more $ on SACD. Just look at MP3 with its clear advantages over CD. MP3 plays well enough in low-fi systems and uses very little storage space. The mainstream perception of MP3 is equal sound quality to CD and increased storage capacity.

Back to audiophile land. Even comparing the CD layer to the SACD layer of Hybrids can be misleading. Each layer was done on different equipment and mastered seperately. To further complicate this is the playback capabilities of the machine used to compare each layer. Without spending the huge money for a dCS or Meitner system we are left comparing apples to oranges. Obviously comparing SACD to CD on a single unit like an SCD-1 is not fair to CD.

I am purchasing Hybrids however. This is blind faith based on what ive read from people that have had the chance to compare both formats on high end equipment. Ive been pleased with the redbook layer of many Hybrids. The SACD layer is simply icing on the cake. When the time is right and my system improves, I will buy into SACD. Already I see enough SACD titles available to justify purchasing a player.

Vedric
More to discover