Another sign SACD is dying

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?

Rooze you miss the main point,the vast vast majority of music (guessing 99%)is not available on SACD therefore it doesn't matter what happens in the studio.
Also a fair bit of SACD releases as you rightly point out were met with perhaps unreasonable expectation (and by that I mainly mean remasters)which is just the way of the world-super duper new format did not equal super duper differences for a lot of us.

To take a modern recording that is usually rated by audio fans-Sea Change by Beck how much better is that on SACD?
I'm serious I don't know but having a few weeks ago heard snippets of the Keane album on my neighbours new Linn Unidisk-I wasn't greatly impressed .

When music historians look back at the history of music how many releases are actually going to be artists found on specialised audiophile labels?
Certainly very little new music.

Something that befuddles me is that I have read various comments from people pertaining to the limited superiority if any of SACD over redbook. Now the irony is that some of these comments are made by people who are cryogenically treating (read tweak) their wall outlets trying to squeeze every bit of performance from their system that they can. Yet they will denounce a format that offers some improvement and in some instances vast improvement in the very sound quality that they are trying to improve. I don't get it!

Hi Ben,
I didn't really miss the point, it's been made already, and I agree with it, so didn't feel the need to restate it.
In some ways it's like the chicken and the egg scenario. I actually waited over 3 yrs before finally buying a Universal player, since there wasn't enough music around on the new formats (DVD-A included) to really interest me. It was only when PF's DSOTM came out that I decided to take the plunge. I bought a $1200 player and my intention was to wait and see how the software progressed, and if more titles that interest me became available, I would have taken the plunge and invested in a better player.
Now that scenario must have been predicted by Sony - people reluctant to spend serious money on hardware until sufficient software becomes available.....but the software didn't really materialize, so how could the hardware get a foothold?
It's a shame, but there you have it. I bought a $1200 player and I've bought some discs, so I gave it a try. But would I spend the extra cash on a player that does full justice to the potential of the medium, given the software issues?...nope.
I'm surprised the issue of multi-channel hasn't been discussed more in this thread. Don't some people believe that SACD was always intended as a MC format to compete with DVD? That's been an argument I've seen raised elsewhere....I'm not sure of the facts but it seems plausible to some.

Rooze