Another sign SACD is dying

Could someone explain why it costs so much more to produce a SACD than a Redbook CD? That has always been for me the killer. No one who is not an 'audiophile' is going to pay the difference to get an SACD when they don't have the listening skills or the playback equipment to make the expenditure worthwhile. As for SACD's for audiophiles - remasters of old classic performances dragged out again and again in every new format available. At the risk of sounding cynical, I've been underwhelmed.

What makes it even worse, I think Nrchy is right - 2 channel audio is dead. And, IMHO, for the average multi-channel HT/Music system set up in the average home listening room with a modest audio system the distinction between DVD-A, SACD, and Redbook will be lost.

My conclusion is to just buy the music you really want to hear and enjoy, in whatever format, while you can. I've seen very little going on in the recording industry which makes me optomistic, just a lot of noise. :-(

I was not going to respond because I didn't think there was anything else left to say, but after reading what has been posted lately I think there is more worthwhile discussion to be had...

Sinnermatic systems, Ampex sold out! It sucks but the good ol' US of A could have made a killing on video, but we sent all the money to Japan instead.

Sinner matic, Sony did not build SACD to use it for a little while and then to pull it. It may work very well to archive old tapes that are not holding up that well. Something needed to be done to preserve this music and Sony admitted that redbook is not the answer. The format is too flawed to archive old, great music. The format may have been developed to archive with, but I'm sure Sony hoped it would be a commercial success too. Redbook was forced upon an unsuspecting public, had Sony done the same with SACD who know what might have happened!?!

Ben, my experience is different than yours. I have not encountered a situation where the SACD did not better redbook. I have maybe 40 SACDs and this has not been an issue. I agree that there are not a lot of titles, but if people had bought the portion of what was available that they enjoyed, it would be good motivation to make more.

Eldartford, if you're not covered with it, then not enough mud has been flung! Who is flinging mud anyway? You should change your user name to: Ihateeverythingeveryoneelsesays.

Newbee most SACDs are the same or cheaper (in my little town) as their redbook counterparts. I don't think the issue is the cost of pressing (for lack of a better term) SACDs, but the fact that the gear for making redbook recordings is not the same as SACD. The additional gear costs money to the studio, and again along the chain. Prices for SACDs are not a deterent to buying the product, for me anyway.

Nrchy,

It's good to hear a positive perspective.

I think the people that are posting that stereo is dead are reading to many home theater magazines. Stereo has been dead for over 10 years. You need to seperate audiophiles from the typical consumer. They don't sell records at record stores anymore. Yet new titles and remastered titles are still coming out. New TTs are selling and advances are being made for audiophiles only. Most people don't even realize they make records anymore.

If you are asking some 16 year old part time commissioned worker about the future of high end audio, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I never thought SACD would be the be all end all formats, but for the time being, you can get players that play SACD and do a heck of a great job on Redbook too.

I still enjoy LPs the best and I like Redbook. SACD is a step above redbook on pure digital recordings (beware of some SACD titles that don't sound any better than redbook).

Let's save the doom and gloom cries for a REAL indicator that the SACD format is going to die.

Rob

"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.