Another sign SACD is dying

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

I think the strangest thing in this debate that most of us are actually not that far apart on the fundamental issues.

My belief is that those who have gotten most out of SACD are those who've been lucky enough to have serious money to spend on a player/DAC (not exclusively of course).

Then I see a split between audio fans who are more focused on the quality of recordings/specialist labels(SACD) and those who are more interested in hearing a wide range of music(nearly always plain old vanilla CD).

By and large I only see these two "groups" continuing to be passionate about the format.
I'm only guessing here but I would bet that over 70% who have tried SACD and even DVDA have bailed out for various reasons or have players(universal/DVDA/SACD) as back up and lie pretty much unused.
Is this a crazy guess?

What I don't see is the supporters of SACD making as big an argument as much as they used to that the format will thrive and replace Redbook.
Am I wrong?

Ozz, Where can I but the True Stereo CD you memtion in your post? Hush